Posted on 06/26/2017 4:26:03 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
“That didn’t require FCC or govt intervention to figure out.”
How sure are you that there aren’t FCC limits on how much power my wireless transmitters can put out? My computer certainly has FCC written on it.
And this article seems to say it too:
http://wiki.robotz.com/index.php/FCC_Regulations_on_WiFi.
If no limit, I could put a linear on my laptop and use my home network at work (miles away). Of course so could anyone else, which is why it needs to be regulated.
“They [FCC] should only be involved in divvying up the airways and that is it.”
Why?
Not in the constitution. It is illegal for their to be a FCC!
Shut it down until it is written into the constitution.
>
“That didn’t require FCC or govt intervention to figure out.”
How sure are you that there aren’t FCC limits on how much power my wireless transmitters can put out? My computer certainly has FCC written on it.
And this article seems to say it too:
http://wiki.robotz.com/index.php/FCC_Regulations_on_WiFi.
>
Proves my point again. Yes, you are correct on the power ‘push’ limit...for the 2.GHz band. Don’t remember if on the 5GHz range though. Technology improves, options expand, issues resolve.
And, like most ‘law’, unenforceable. I ain’t seen any FCC/govt vehicle rolling up the street, testing the broadcast power of any WiFi signal.
Doesn’t mean a hill of beans too for those knowledgeable enough to roll-their-own firmware to bypass said restrictions.
The rest of the scenario still applies...diff channels, distances between.
See, everyone wants the best signal possible. People are more than capable of making that happen on their own. Aside from nefarious reasons, why would ANYONE want interference (nobody’s trying to watch the encrypted Skinamax channel anymore, right /s), so why would they do the same for TV/radio/WiFi/cell/etc.?? Don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly enjoy seeing/hearing static. :)
>
If no limit, I could put a linear on my laptop and use my home network at work (miles away). Of course so could anyone else, which is why it needs to be regulated.
>
You mean aside from physics? Even if you were using light based communication (laser), one still needs to worry about 1) Curvature of the Earth 2) obstacles 3) particle spread 4) weather 5) delay 6) orientation....Looks good on paper, but to implement?? Bah! (I’ve tried) /s
Still, say you COULD. What would others need to do to interfere in your setup? On/across your trajectory? Same transmission method(s)? Times of day? That still leaves a multitude of options for others to utilize, w/o issue.
Biz do this all the time. Find what/where is in use around, and find a route w/ the least interference. Might be same setup as the neighbor, but tweak ONE thing...Doesn’t mean they can’t be neighborly either and help each other.
All, not needing GOVT tentacles to accomplish.
Boy, talk about hijacking a thread :P
Everybody knows about liberal FAKE NEWS, even people on FB. It’s encouraging.
“And, like most ‘law’, unenforceable. I ain’t seen any FCC/govt vehicle rolling up the street, testing the broadcast power of any WiFi signal.”
That’s because very few people do it.
Read some of the cases of people getting caught jamming cell phone signals. They certainly do get their vans out for that.
Where pray tell, does the Constitution authorize the feds to do this? If the Constitution doesn't authorize it and the feds create the dept and its acts anyway, regardless of whether some consider it's a "good idea", the dept and acts are illegal, invalid, and acts of tyranny.
America is not under the rule of man and his whims. America is under the rule of law which is the Constitution. The #1 political problem in America today is the tyranny of the federal government. If we are to recover our Free Constitutional Republic, we MUST dismantle the 80% unconstitutional portion of the federal government and keep the Constitutional lid on it.
If you think that government control of the airways is a good idea (it's not, but to each his own), then get your state to do that or get enough states to make a constitutional amendment authorizing the feds to do that.
>
Read some of the cases of people getting caught jamming cell phone signals. They certainly do get their vans out for that.
>
Yes, because that’s out and out malfeasance. Else, no ‘issue’ occurs.
>
“And, like most ‘law’, unenforceable. I ain’t seen any FCC/govt vehicle rolling up the street, testing the broadcast power of any WiFi signal.”
That’s because very few people do it.
>
Yet to hear one way or another; not too many people volunteering “I broke the law” polls. Though, I have yet to know of anyone wishing to sit in the middle of the street, across the block, to get 1-bar of signal.
But, I’d bet more do it to ensure coverage than to ‘drown out’ others; but the ‘law’ makes no distinction between the two.
Don’t think (grand)mom/(grand)dad are doing many of these installation to begin, so chances it could be higher than we think.
>
Yes, and the STRONGEST, longest-lasting argument for abolishing the FCC is that the FCC is illegal and invalid because it is unconstitutional as is about 80% of today’s federal government.
>
Correct-a-mundo. Though, I’d put it up @ 95%’ish. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.