Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb
From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard)
Newsgroups: net.dcom,net.video,net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Satellite viewing "freedoms"
Message-ID: <253@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 18:48:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccivax.253
Posted: Mon Sep 16 18:48:59 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:04:54 EDT
References: <763@vortex.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath net.dcom:1306 net.video:1522 net.ham-radio:3260

> I think there's rather a lot of misconception floating around regarding
> this issue.  Part of my work is in the satellite communications area
> so I track these issues pretty closely.
> 
> There have been a number of different legal events and laws regarding
> this area, and I'm not going to try specify them, but rather just
> explain the backround and outcome as I understand them.
> 
> ---
> 
> First of all, the oft-quoted old Communications Act doesn't really
> say you can listen/watch to whatever you want.  It essentially says you can
> receive "broadcast" signals so long as you don't divulge the contents nor 
> receive "benefit" from them.  Interpretations of this law have
> long held that intercepting point-to-point telephone microwave 
> transmissions can be construed as wiretapping, by the way.  I'm 
> simplifying to some extent regarding the Act, but you get the idea.

The real issue is the basic principles of the ORIGINAL Communications
Act, the primary Charter of the Federal Communications Commission.

The premise of the FCC was that the "ether" (electromagnetic spectrum)
was considered PUBLIC PROPERTY.  In effect, without proper regulation,
the entire spectrum would be on giant "CB" band.  EMI regulations,
Liscensing,...  are all means of protecting the integrety of the various
bandwdths of the spectrum.  In fact, the ONLY spectrum user with any
right to privacy at all is the Defence Department.  One 194? precedent
even challenged that.   Therefore, if a person/corporation wishes to
obtain a liscence and use "broadcast" media to transmit information,
they do so with the implicit understanding that they waive the right
to privacy (It is theoreticly legal to monitor a long distance call
if it is broadcast by satellite.  In fact, the only value of a
channel is the ability for people to recieve it.

Unfortunately, since about 1980, the FCC has all but abandoned the
original charter and principles on which it was based.  Various
rulings have attempted to make the taping, reproduction, and use
of signals recieved illegal.  Even though the precedents have been
set by rulings, the basic charter has been violated.  Even the
basic requirements of Commercial Stations to provide "Public Service"
are no longer valid.

If the FCC terminated all ham/CB liscences, and allowed all broadcast
stations to "Charge" for the priviledge of recieving their signal
(including AM/FM and all TV bands), the public would be outraged.
But because it affects only a select few at a time, the precedents
are being methodically set up to do exactly that.  Instead of needing
a liscence to "transmit", we will, in effect, need a liscence to
recieve.

Suppose the frequencies being used effected human health (X-Rays).
Do you suppose we would allow the Commercial station to DEMAND payment
for the priveledge of recieving these cancer causing rays?  Perhaps
the day will come when a "radio rebellion" will occurr, could you
imagine the effect of every ham/cb operater running their old ham
gear ad satelite frequencies for even 10 minutes?

When I got my first General Class liscence, the frequencies now
used for satellite and microwave transmissions were ham bands,
now they want to charge for the use of the reciever!