[CWN-Summit] RE: CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 11, Issue 8

Harold Feld hfeld at mediaaccess.org
Tue Jul 5 13:15:59 CDT 2005


Jim is correct as a legal matter.  The status of jamming in unlicensed is 
not settled.  However, the combination of extension of the OTARD rule to 
unlicensed last year, and the invocation of Sec. 333 in the cell phone 
jamming ruling, are good precedent for protection of unlicensed as well as 
licensed networks from deliberate jamming.

Harold

At 02:28 PM 6/30/2005, Jim Snider wrote:
>In response to section 1 of Harold's spectrum update, I think the FCC's
>jamming rule can be read more than one way. It only specifically bans
>jamming in the cellular mobile phone bands.  That seems to leave open
>the question of jamming in the other bands.  It also appears to be
>confusing because it doesn't mention any exemptions to its rule.  For
>example, the president of the U.S. doesn't go anywhere without the
>ability to jam all frequencies.  Where is this exemption in the rules?
>
>I believe that the status of jamming is quite important to the
>unlicensed community because it is a form of unlicensed use of spectrum.
>Indeed, my guess is that, excluding the U.S., jamming might be the most
>widespread form of legal unlicensed use in the world today.
>
>--Jim
>
>
>J.H. Snider, Ph.D.
>Senior Research Fellow
>New America Foundation
>1630 Connecticut Ave., NW
>Washington, DC 20009
>Phone: 202/986-2700
>Fax: 202/986-3696
>Web: www.newamerica.net
>E-mail: snider at newamerica.net
>(Also see my new book on digital TV policy and politics
>www.spectrumpolicy.net)
>



More information about the CWN-Summit mailing list