From: gregs@hotcity.COM (Greg Stramback)
Newsgroups: alt.radio.scanner
Subject: Re: Best of Transmissions......
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:17:51 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Nov11.144918.16851@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.uucp
(22501-sohl) writes:
>In article <1eP2TB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A.
Kennedy) 
>writes:
>>ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>>> They are coming up with better technology--and I can't wait to hear the
>>> whining when cellular goes digital.  (Followed by heavy business in
>>> descramblers, and the justification "they should have used a GOOD algorithm
i
>
>>> they'd wanted privacy...")
>>
>> The technology is "on the shelf" today, no imporvement needed. 
>>Just ask those who have tried to "break" the DES systems used by 
>>government agencies (like the FBI). The problem with this law is 
>>that it makes some older TVs, a lot of test equipment, and many 
>>scanners now in service technically illegal to use all because the 
>>cellular companies don't want to pay for secure technology but 
>>still want to "claim" security to their customers that isn't 
>>there. If a cellular company went totally encrypted tomorrow, few 
>>of the scanner owners would care, there is more than just cellular 
>>in those ranges.
>
>Minor correction here.  The new scanner manufacturing/importation
>ban does not make the ownership or use of any existing radio
>receiving equipment (current scanners with cellular, old TVs,
>test equipment, etc.) illegal, even on a purely "technical"
>basis.  The bottom line of the new law is that it prohibits
>the manufacturing and/or importation (after 1 year of enactment
>of the law) of a scanner that includes coverage of the cellular
>frequency band.
>
>The existing ECPA law (not the new manufacturing ban law) has for
>several years made it illegal to deliberately listen to cellular.
>
>Please don't misread this post as my being in favor of the new
>law.  I DID write my congressman and senators to request they
>oppose it.  
>
>So, bottom line here is that the new law in no way affects your
>ownership of a scanner with cellular coverage, the scanner is
>completely legal AND, you can sell it at any time and you will
>NOT be breaking any law (to the best of my knowledge.)
>
>Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Note - If email replying to me with an automatic addressing process
>bounces, manually address the resend using one of the addresses below.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
>Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
>201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com


well, out here in California, there is quite a bit of usage in the cellular
ranges that are supposed to be "blocked" by businesses and city / county /
state government agencies.  i still think it's ridiculous that we should have
to put up with devices that discontinue coverage in these areas, when most of
us (including me) could care less about what some yuppie with a cel phone is
talking about to his yuppie wife.  even by blocking out the cellular bands,
most of the lower price range scanners with the 800-900 coverage allow you to
hear most of the calls anyway because of quirks in the IF circuitry, which
usually makes nice image frequencies of the cellular calls.  They're basically
wasting their time trying to get this crap passed, and as far as i'm concerned,
they still lose since the modifications are so easy to do to most radios and
also because of the IF / intermod problems.  oh well, the next generation of
cel phones is supposed to be all digital anyway, so in a few years it won't
matter.