[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

RE: Cordless phone interference and the law



For those who are interested. I've heard indirectly from the FCC. What
Riley Hollingsworth did was ask Ed Hare at ARRL to help me. I've included
his response with his permission.

>Hi, Steve,
>
>Riley Hollingsworth asked me if ARRL could provide any information on how
to
>do direction finding under the circumstances you describe.
>
>This is partly a Catch 22.  Telephone communications are protected from
>eavesdropping, so it would not be legal to listen to the phone
conversations
>and use that information to identify the source.  Of course, some
incidental
>listening may be inevitable; if your receiver is on FM, and you are
listening
>for amateur communications and this unlicensed signal comes on, it may take
a
>while for you to recognize that it is not an amateur signal, but rather
coming
>from an unlicensed user of amateur spectrum.  Under those circumstances, I
>can't imagine that you have done anything wrong, as long as the purpose of
>your listening is for legitimate amateur purposes, not to eavesdrop.
>
>The first question to ask yourself is whether the device is causing harmful
>interference.  In this context, it is defined as the repeated disruption of
>radio communications.  Merely hearing a signal in "our" bands is not
harmful
>interference. After all, how would we feel if our primary sharing partners
on
>30 meters or 70 cm said that hams had to get off the band because they
could
>sometimes hear us on "their" bands?  For harmful interference to occur,
IMHO,
>either the signal must be interfering with ongoing amateur operation or
>preventing such operation from happening.  Just as a couple of examples, if
>the satellite is in range and you are in QSO with another ham and this
strong
>signal comes on and stays on long enough to prevent your QSO from
continuing,
>that is, IMHO, harmful interference.  OTOH, if the satellite is not
overhead
>and you are not using that part of the band, but turn on your receiver and
>hear the unlicensed signal, that is not harmful interference, as defined by
>the rules.  If you were in QSO and an unlicensed signal transmits for a
second
>every few minutes, it would be a judgement call about whether it is harmful
>interference or not.
>
>There are three sets of responsibilities involved here -- yours, the
>unlicensed equipment manufacturer and the operator of the unlicensed
device --
>in all likelihood a neighbor.  Your responsibility is the easy part -- you
>need to ensure that your complaint, if any, is indeed based on actual
harmful
>interference.  If you are equipped to operate the satellite and this signal
is
>preventing that much of the time, I believe it to be harmful interference.
>The equipment manufacturer is required to meet the FCC
equipment-authorization
>requirements -- Certification for an intentional emitter.  On 2.4 GHz,
legally
>authorized equipment can use power levels that can be heard by sensitive
>amateur receivers for distances of up to several miles, even for
>non-spread-spectrum transmissions. It is quite likely that the phone is
legal
>and that the manufacturer has met its responsibilities.
>
>Under the rules, the operator of the device is responsible for doing so in
a
>way that does not cause harmful interference. Of course, this means that by
>whatever means, you will have to track him or her down.  Now, if you
>*incidentally* happen to recognize the voice as a neighbor when the signal
>first pops up on your band, you would not have to eavesdrop at all to
identify
>the source.  If not, however, and you really can't legally listen to the
>signal until you get a name or street address, you may have to use some
>direction finding techniques to identify the operator.  Fortunately,
getting
>good directivity on 2400 MHz is relatively easy, and you may be able to buy
or
>build a small Yagi and do some triangulation.  You may be able to use a
>receiver's S meter as a strength indicator to triangulate the signal with
the
>audio turned off. If you use SSB or narrow FM modes to detect the signal,
it
>may be so distorted as to be unintelligible and if you can't understand the
>words being spoken, you really are not eavesdropping to use the distorted
>audio as an easy means of determining relative field strength.
>
>Once you do find the operator, tread lightly. To your neighbor, they went
to
>the phone store and bought a product being legally sold on the open market
and
>for a total stranger to knock on the door and tell them that they are
>violating federal law by using the phone will be difficult for them to
accept.
>While you may ultimately have to approach a neighbor, put on your best
front
>and make the initial contact a positive one.  If you would find it helpful,
>ARRL can contact a neighbor by letter, although in some cases, a local
>approach is best.
>
>Let me know how I can help.
>
>73,



>>
>>
>> I heard from the FCC, specifically from Riley Hollingsworth and I'm
pretty
>> surprised at the response. Riley is going to research ways that I can DF
the
>> cordless phone interference without listening to the voice. I assume that
>> means that it's illegal to listen to cordless phone transmissions even if
>> they are in our amateur bands.
>> I don't know what else to say, I'm kind of baffled by this. I guess I'll
>> wait and see what he comes up with.
>> Steve .. AI7W

----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org



AMSAT Top AMSAT Home