Re: Radio Free Cypherpunks... (fwd)

[stewarts@ix.netcom.com]

>> 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