Xref: utzoo rec.radio.amateur.misc:1122 rec.radio.shortwave:6570 rec.radio.amateur.policy:144 sci.electronics:18942
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!kb2ear!n2aam
From: n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org (Dave Marthouse N2AAM)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.amateur.policy,sci.electronics
Subject: INPORTANT! HAMS, SWLS, SCANNER LISTENERS PLEASE READ!!!!
Keywords: scanner ban public safety frequencies fcc NPRM
Message-ID: <3@kb2ear.ampr.org>
Date: 31 Mar 91 13:25:10 GMT
Followup-To: kb2ear!n2aam@princeton.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: KB2EAR Public Access UN*X, Kendall Park NJ
Lines: 174


 

I just downloaded the following off of the fcc echo on my local fidonet
bbs.  All amateurs, swls, and scanner listeners should take note of the
message below.  It may be a threat to scanner listening as we know it. 
this should be watched closely. 

 

 

Message #21
Date: 28 Mar 91 22:39:28
From: David Stark on 13/13, Backbone Coll of Mid Atlantic, Bensalem PA
To:   All
Subj: FCC May Ban Police/Fire/Medical Scanning

 * Forwarded from "WNY_SCAN"
 * Originally from Phillip Dampier
 * Originally dated 28 Mar 91 14:58:00
 
Note this little outrage I just received off the wires:
 
 
 
In a surprise move, the Federal Communications Commission has opened a
formal inquiry into the feasibility of banning scanner manufacturers
from selling scanners that can receive police, medical emergency, and
fire frequencies.  Citing interference in official public safety
operations by scanner wielding members of the public, all five FCC
commissioners have unanimously approved proposals that would make it
illegal to monitor any frequencies which contain public safety
transmissions. 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the FCC has required scanner
manufacturers to show due cause why they could not manufacture receivers
that would eliminate all public safety frequency allocations.  Many
scanner manufacturers are expected to state that the costs of modifying
existing radio designs would be prohibitively expensive to the consumer. 

The FCC noted that state and local laws which already ban mobile scanner
monitoring are just the first step aimed at protecting the health,
safety, and general welfare of citizens as well as public safety
officials. 

The Bush Administration has indicated it would support the introduction
of new laws making it a federal offense for any citizen to monitor
public safety frequencies unless they hold a special license certifying
their need to monitor such frequencies.  The new law could be a part of
the Bush Administration anti-crime legislative package to be introduced
during this session of Congress. 

Analysts say the move has been brought about in part because of high
publicity cases of illicit drug operations employing fulltime staffs to
monitor law enforcement frequencies to give them advance warning of
impending police action. 

Any legislation is likely to be introduced and supported primarily by
the Republican party.  Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) and Albert Gore,
Jr.  (D-TN) have asked the FCC for clarification of its proposed
rulemaking.  Both are concerned about possible first amendment
violations of citizens prevented from monitoring publicly funded
transmissions. 

Gore added that such restrictive laws are counter productive, noting
that many Neighborhood Watch programs based in his home state of
Tennessee utilize inexpensive scanner radios to monitor neighborhood
police activity. 

Manufacturers are required to respond by June 7th.  The FCC is expected
to make a quick decision on the matter in time to work with Congress to
introduce the necessary legislation during the summer. 

===============================================

Any comments from the Commission on this foolishness? Are ham operators
going to be exempt? Has the Commission lost its collective mind? How are
they going to enforce listening laws like this, with hundreds of
thousands of scanners already in the hands of the general public, when
they can't adequately enforce the existing laws regarding licensed
transmitters? Who is going to pay for this farce?

I also note that this supposed release has no NPRM or NOI number.  Is
there one, or is the FCC going to violate the Administrative Procedures
Act and its own policies (again) and just do what it thinks it can get
away with?

--- FD 1.99c
 * Origin: NF2G Online - Greece, NY (1:260/218)
 
Dave Marthouse

n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org
kb2ear!n2aam@princeton.EDU
kb2ear!n2aam@rutgers.EDU
fido: Dave Marthouse 1:107/323
Packet: n2aam @ w2emu-4.nj.usa.na