1993-02-13 - Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions

Header Data

From: pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar)
To: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
Message Hash: 54cfcc14c8964e183a2e91b09630ab4849828889f1745759a5b92fb7c66a13b3
Message ID: <m0nNOo2-0000f6C@kumr.lns.com>
Reply To: <9302131102.AA09849@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-13 15:30:38 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 07:30:38 PST

Raw message

From: pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 07:30:38 PST
To: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphone Transmissions
In-Reply-To: <9302131102.AA09849@toad.com>
Message-ID: <m0nNOo2-0000f6C@kumr.lns.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


John Gilmore wrote:
> Please at least write a one-page letter in response to this
> proposed ruling.  The idiots in Congress decided that banning radios
> was preferable to allowing (or requiring) decent encryption in
> cellular phones.  Now the FCC is making rules to implement the
> Congressional ban.  They should hear from us, loud and clear,
> that this is completely backwards and wrong.
> 
> Your letter should reference Docket Number 93-1 and should clearly
> state the subject on which you are commenting.  *Then* comment...
> 
> 	John

   I should add, it needs to be formated properly or it will not be read
into the record and just tossed.   Some where around here I have an
example folks can use.  I will dig it up and post it in a day or so.

             Tim






Thread