From: "Evidence Inc." <evidence@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 94 19:53:14 PDT
To: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl.cacs.usl.edu>
Subject: Re: The un-BBS
In-Reply-To: <199404252219.AA04044@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9404261926.A10986-0100000@netcom2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Mon, 25 Apr 1994, Phil G. Fraering wrote:

> Evidence, how did the cases the FCC brought turn out?
> 
I don't really remmeber.  I think they ended up settling-- the guy got a 
small fine in return for a guilty plea.  But, that is just a guess!


> If the network had used commercial radio licenses, how much more
> would it have cost them (per node; I have a vague idea of the
> size and power of a random Amateur Packet Radio node (in computer
> terms and cost))?
A lot more.  Commercial licenses are expensive, and the number of
frequencies available is smaller.  Also, commercial equipment is more
expensive.  Finally, if it were on commercial freq's, then Amateur Radio
Op's couldn't use it... What would be the point?

> 
> Would this have given them greater immunity in prosecution?
> 
Yes, the FCC reg's against commercial transmission only apply to amateur
radio.  If they had been using commercial freq's, it would not have
been illegal.



> (Hmm.. if you're passing it on, you're broadcasting it? Could
> encryption tech be used to "enhance" APRN to give sysops "plausible
> deniability?"
> 
No, the FCC interpretation was that Amateurs have an obligation 
to make sure that all transmissions from their stations conform
to the requirements of the FCC Part 97 rules.  Broadcasting encrypted
communcations on amateur radio is itself a violation of the rules.
That's right!! the government has already banned encryption.... on
Ham Radio.

Evidence Inc.
Evidence@Nowhere.Nil