Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California Message-ID: <10958@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 16 Aug 90 17:43:23 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 32 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 575, Message 6 of 11 John R. Covert writes: > The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device > enabling the user to intercept such communications. It provides for > penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison > with fines of up to $2,500. Wouldn't this be a little tough to enforce at a state level? You don't suppose they never heard of "mail order"? Besides, I thought all of this was under the auspices of the FCC, and that states and municipalities had no jurisdiction over the airwaves. And, once again, what about continuously tuned radios? By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it won't be long before interest wanes in these as well. > Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless > phone call is another cordless phone? True, but with the newer multi-channel, auto-select models, it is somewhat difficult. I have a Panasonic KX-T3900 and an AT&T 5500 that are frequently used simultaneously (the bases sit next to each other) and they never, ever experience mutual interference. It is most tricky to get one to "eavedrop" on the other. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !