...

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:49:40 -0800 From: Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net> Over a year ago I started a heated thread on the Telecom Regulation list,= "Basis of FCC jurisdiction," which posited that the Commerce Clause basis= for FCC authority might not hold for very low power and tens of GHz= transmissions. My argument, in short, was that if a transmission couldn't= reasonably be expected to be detectable (using common receiver technology)= across state lines then the FCC shouldn't have jurisdition.

Back in the Depression, the FDR-bullied Supremes ruled that a farmer feeding his own grain to his own hogs was affecting interstate commerce (in violation of federal regs on grain production), because he would otherwise have been buying grain that might have come from another state. Similarly, the federal drug laws contend that there's federal jurisdiction over all drugs, because it's not practical to determine whether a given bunch of drugs was locally produced or transported across state lines, and that there should therefore be a presumption that it was for determination of jurisdiction (even marijuana plants still in the ground; presumably if you were to ding them for that in court, they'd respond with the concept that growing your own dope to smoke by yourself is supplanting dope you might have otherwise bought from another state. Or they'd decide the local cops can confiscate your land instead.) At 11:40 PM 12/15/1997 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

So, are you considering such a broadcast? What I envision is a text-to-speech and/or a digital format.

You can get FM transmitters for about $30 at Fry's. Not very powerful, and probably less than a mile range, but it may have hack value, especially if there were lots of them. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

Back in the Depression, the FDR-bullied Supremes ruled that a farmer feeding his own grain to his own hogs was affecting interstate commerce (in violation of federal regs on grain production), because he would otherwise have been buying grain that might have come from another state. Similarly, the federal drug laws contend that there's federal jurisdiction over all drugs, because it's not practical to determine whether a given bunch of drugs was locally produced or transported across state lines, and that there should therefore be a presumption that it was for determination of jurisdiction (even marijuana plants still in the ground; presumably if you were to ding them for that in court, they'd respond with the concept that growing your own dope to smoke by yourself is supplanting dope you might have otherwise bought from another state. Or they'd decide the local cops can confiscate your land instead.)

I believe this is the type of systemic constitutional abuse, fostered by SC's expansive interpretations, which Jim Bell was attempting to address via AP.

At 11:40 PM 12/15/1997 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

...

So, are you considering such a broadcast? What I envision is a text-to-speech and/or a digital format.

You can get FM transmitters for about $30 at Fry's. Not very powerful, and probably less than a mile range, but it may have hack value, especially if there were lots of them.

These devices are low power, but must still meet FCC type approvals (e.g., Part 15). I'm talking about confronting the FCC on the legality of their jurisdiction over non-type approved, intrastate manufactured and utilized devices. --Steve PGP mail preferred, see http://www.pgp.com and http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html RSA fingerprint: FE90 1A95 9DEA 8D61 812E CCA9 A44A FBA9 RSA key: http://keys.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=0x55C78B0D --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | tel: (702) 658-2654 CEO | fax: (702) 658-2673 Lammar Laboratories | 7075 West Gowan Road | Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | Internet: schear@lvdi.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------