JoeyC
Senior Member
Thats a great one too!
Illinois State Rep Dan Brady introduces anti-rebroadcast legislation
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
- Status
Thats a great one too!
JoeyC
Senior Member
You are rambling and not making much sense and I am sorry you are unable to comprehend a simple example such as what I gave you. Perhaps if I simplified it even further you might get it?
Lets try.
I am watering MY garden with one of those sprinklers that attaches to the garden hose. My TRANSMITTER (sprinkler) is sending out RADIO WAVES (water spray) to the garden. There is a point distant from the TRANSMITTER that my RADIO WAVES (water spray) will go no further. This is outside my sprinklers (transmitters) coverage area. Beyond that point, if I want water, I will have to be creative.
BUT WAIT!
I REALLY want to water aunt Tillies garden across the street. She has access to no water on her side of the road, so I will GATHER UP some of MY water by collecting it in a bucket and I will carry it over to her garden and deposit it there. Now she has a nicely watered garden.
Without my REBROADCAST (rerouting of the water from MY sprinkler) she would have no pretty flowers.
There is a HUGE difference in how our gardens are watered. I watered my own via the sprinkler by opening the valve (turned on the power to my transmitter). For aunt Tillie to get water, I had to GO THE EXTRA MILE. This required some work on my part in that I had to collect and carry it across the street.
To REBROADCAST a radio transmission you must first receive it, THEN GO THE EXTRA MILE and SEND IT OUT AGAIN, via whatever the means.
This bill does not want you to SEND IT OUT AGAIN. It says NOTHING about receiving it in the first place.
Are you a reincarnation of a previously banned troll here?
They're everywhere it seems!
-----
To think it would be a crime for me to have a scanner in my carry-on. :roll:
When things like this are thought of ( by "brilliant" bureaucrats) they seem to be from a broad sword approach, rather than what should be a scalpel. Take for example the meaningless idea to encrypt fire communications. Why encrypt the whole enchilada? This bill is no diffrent in this regard. Why end all that the freedom of the airways has to ofter?
What's next, news and information? Think really hard about that...
Anyone live on the border of Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Michigan (in reference to a friggen boat), or Indiana? :lol:
Edit- Just thought of something. Maybe the great powers of IL are thinking for the future. Remember, this is a state where all the GITMO detainees will be housed. :lol:
Edit- Just thought of something. Maybe the great powers of IL are thinking for the future. Remember, this is a state where all the GITMO detainees will be housed. :lol:
Last edited:
crevatis
Member
Yeah, I wouldn't count on them opposing this. Why should people buy a $500 scanner with a steep learning curve and atrocious documentation (Uniden) if they can listen to the same thing for free on the internet?
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
The point is that you do not understand what you are protesting against. You have made that clear with your repeated postings of irrelevant dictionary quotes and your insistence on misusing the terminology.
You don't even make a clear - or relevant - statement about the Second Amendment and its interpretation. If you are advocating that interpretation be left to the courts, then what business do you have interpreting this Illinois bill?
K9JLR
Member
It's already been noted that live streams are readily accessible by a theoretically unlimited number of persons in the general public, most of whom will find the price tag of said receivers to be exorbitant and not worth the investment.
As has already been noted, persons listening to Internet rebroadcasts need to invest no money of their own into a receiver, nor do they need to undergo what would be defined as a rather cumbersome process to program the radio, to say the very least, to someone unfamiliar with these scanners. The iPhone and similar multimedia-enabled smartphone applications that have been previously mentioned add to these concerns. Following the laws of supply and demand, the price system always excludes some potential buyers who are unwilling or unable to pay the asking price for the scanners. Why would I purchase an expensive scanner when whatever I want to listen to is available, free of charge, from a static Internet stream? I can listen at home, at work, and on my smartphone without the tenacious programming headaches.
To add to all of those POSSIBILITIES, proposing some sort of legislation that specifically targeted the possession of scanners in the home would be preempted by federal law; targeting digital, mobile scanners wouldn't address the rebroadcast issue. Finally, targeting the possession of digital scanners by any venue would likely ignite fierce opposition from more organized, seemingly 'legitimate' users, e.g., the mass media, emergency management, other public safety agencies, etc.
Therefore, one can logically conclude why, most likely, the rebroadcasting of state police communications is specifically targeted by this bill. However, the only persons that can definitively tell us the ultimate reasoning behind the exact verbiage of this proposed legislation are not likely to be replying to threads on this forum, so this seemingly endless series of polemics distracts for discussing how to best address the concerns of the scanning community as a whole. My kudos to the CARMA group for providing a most exemplary example of how to contact your state representatives and make your opinions clear on this legislation.
As has already been noted, persons listening to Internet rebroadcasts need to invest no money of their own into a receiver, nor do they need to undergo what would be defined as a rather cumbersome process to program the radio, to say the very least, to someone unfamiliar with these scanners. The iPhone and similar multimedia-enabled smartphone applications that have been previously mentioned add to these concerns. Following the laws of supply and demand, the price system always excludes some potential buyers who are unwilling or unable to pay the asking price for the scanners. Why would I purchase an expensive scanner when whatever I want to listen to is available, free of charge, from a static Internet stream? I can listen at home, at work, and on my smartphone without the tenacious programming headaches.
To add to all of those POSSIBILITIES, proposing some sort of legislation that specifically targeted the possession of scanners in the home would be preempted by federal law; targeting digital, mobile scanners wouldn't address the rebroadcast issue. Finally, targeting the possession of digital scanners by any venue would likely ignite fierce opposition from more organized, seemingly 'legitimate' users, e.g., the mass media, emergency management, other public safety agencies, etc.
Therefore, one can logically conclude why, most likely, the rebroadcasting of state police communications is specifically targeted by this bill. However, the only persons that can definitively tell us the ultimate reasoning behind the exact verbiage of this proposed legislation are not likely to be replying to threads on this forum, so this seemingly endless series of polemics distracts for discussing how to best address the concerns of the scanning community as a whole. My kudos to the CARMA group for providing a most exemplary example of how to contact your state representatives and make your opinions clear on this legislation.
Last edited:
1. Maybe it is time to start an effort to gain an affirmative right to scan.
2. Anyone who listens to a Net scanner feed via a iPhone is easily identified / identifiable - right?
3. No Net scanner feed can decrypt traffic.
4. Most Net scanner feeds scan multiple agencies and channels.
5. Net scanner feeds can be shut off in a blink of an eye.
6. Providers of Net scanner feeds are also easily identifiable - per previous post.
Peter Sz
2. Anyone who listens to a Net scanner feed via a iPhone is easily identified / identifiable - right?
3. No Net scanner feed can decrypt traffic.
4. Most Net scanner feeds scan multiple agencies and channels.
5. Net scanner feeds can be shut off in a blink of an eye.
6. Providers of Net scanner feeds are also easily identifiable - per previous post.
Peter Sz
ILMRadioMan
Member
Have fun with that one Pete.
If that day were to come, look forward to much more active encryption.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but wouldn't this fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC? Not to say that IL can't try to pass this, but I would imagine it would get shot down in court pretty quickly if it passes in the first place.
ILMRadioMan
Member
It may, but its a grey area.
Much like the recent MRA dealings here: the owners cant stop people from picking it up with scanners as the waves travel the open air. However, rebroadcasting what you rx is a completely different issue all together.
If they wanted to, they could probably go to places like RR and request the system TG info be removed as well.
Just about their preferences.
I believe HB5154 has little to do with the scanning community. If the State of Illinois does not want the General Public to receive StarCom21 intelligible voice, encryption will be used. HB5154 has everything to do with controlling the origination and rebroadcast of StarCom21 voice and data communications being used by voice and data systems that are not Motorola branded or Motorola approved.
StarCom21 infrastructure is owned and operated by Motorola. Because Motorola is responsible for the performance of the system, it is Motorola’s position that system performance may be compromised if non Motorola hardware and software is allowed to be used with the system.
The purpose of the Bill is to “legally steer” StarCom21 public safety agency users to Motorola’s branded/approved products, e.g., Mobile/portable transceivers, mobile data computers, in-car video/audio recorders, fixed stations, point to point/mesh, communications consoles, CAD/RMS, etc., any StarCom21 Component that can originate or rebroadcast StarCom21 voice and data.
Motorola’s past Illinois public safety market dominance strategy has been to buy the profitable component(s) of a public funded project. Soon after SOI awarded Software Corporation of America the Illinois Wireless Information Network mobile (data-only) message switch and mobile client contract, Motorola purchased SCA. SOI awarded Verizon the contract for the cellular service and cellular network radio to transport IWIN data throughout the State. Motorola and Verizon are sole source IWIN suppliers. SOI awarded CDS Office Technologies the Panasonic Mobile Data Computer laptop contract. The SOI award to CDS placed CDS in the enviable position of being the “no bid required” IWIN Panasonic laptop and accessory provider. In addition CDS provides the laptop docking station and the Illinois Driver’s License (then Symbol Technologies – now Motorola) high density bar code scanner.
Motorola is striving to be the sole source vendor for all StarCom21 users. HB5154 will be the vehicle to get them to that point under law.
StarCom21 infrastructure is owned and operated by Motorola. Because Motorola is responsible for the performance of the system, it is Motorola’s position that system performance may be compromised if non Motorola hardware and software is allowed to be used with the system.
The purpose of the Bill is to “legally steer” StarCom21 public safety agency users to Motorola’s branded/approved products, e.g., Mobile/portable transceivers, mobile data computers, in-car video/audio recorders, fixed stations, point to point/mesh, communications consoles, CAD/RMS, etc., any StarCom21 Component that can originate or rebroadcast StarCom21 voice and data.
Motorola’s past Illinois public safety market dominance strategy has been to buy the profitable component(s) of a public funded project. Soon after SOI awarded Software Corporation of America the Illinois Wireless Information Network mobile (data-only) message switch and mobile client contract, Motorola purchased SCA. SOI awarded Verizon the contract for the cellular service and cellular network radio to transport IWIN data throughout the State. Motorola and Verizon are sole source IWIN suppliers. SOI awarded CDS Office Technologies the Panasonic Mobile Data Computer laptop contract. The SOI award to CDS placed CDS in the enviable position of being the “no bid required” IWIN Panasonic laptop and accessory provider. In addition CDS provides the laptop docking station and the Illinois Driver’s License (then Symbol Technologies – now Motorola) high density bar code scanner.
Motorola is striving to be the sole source vendor for all StarCom21 users. HB5154 will be the vehicle to get them to that point under law.
Based on Squad10's interpretation, it appears that Brady is trying to introduce legislation that would violate Federal anti-trust laws (of course, IL isn't exactly known for being a politically honest state-fighting for the number 1 spot with my state of MA).
The unfortunate part is the way the bill is worded, it's interpretation by law enforcement would include people that are rebroadcasting the system, as well as people listening to the system, since the word "Access" can be so broadly interpreted.
I am currently drafting a letter to Rep. Brady. I know I am not a resident, and I don't expect much response, but I have learned one thing about politicians/business executives and their response to the public. The more effort you put into contacting them, the better the chances of a response. In order of importance for responding, most look at it in this order: Lowest: email Second Lowest: phone call Middle: letter sent by US Mail, Second Highest: Face to face meeting, Highest: Face-to face meeting with a constituent/financial contributor. Since I won't be in Illinois, a face to face meeting will not be possible, but I am going to make it clear that I will be donating to his competition's campaign fund should he run for reelection or higher office.
The unfortunate part is the way the bill is worded, it's interpretation by law enforcement would include people that are rebroadcasting the system, as well as people listening to the system, since the word "Access" can be so broadly interpreted.
I am currently drafting a letter to Rep. Brady. I know I am not a resident, and I don't expect much response, but I have learned one thing about politicians/business executives and their response to the public. The more effort you put into contacting them, the better the chances of a response. In order of importance for responding, most look at it in this order: Lowest: email Second Lowest: phone call Middle: letter sent by US Mail, Second Highest: Face to face meeting, Highest: Face-to face meeting with a constituent/financial contributor. Since I won't be in Illinois, a face to face meeting will not be possible, but I am going to make it clear that I will be donating to his competition's campaign fund should he run for reelection or higher office.
AZScanner
Member
Heh. Well, there you go. Just use a Motorola Surfboard modem to pipe your feed to the internet and tell them to go stuff themselves.
-AZ
K9JLR
Member
I never looked at it in that regard, since I assumed that "access" meant to transmit on the system, but I believe it's a valid concern where broad legal contextual interpretations are concerned. Unless the final version, should it pass, contains specific language defining "access" as transmitting without authorization, other interpretations would be left to those enforcing (initially) and ultimately interpreting (courts) the law.
But you do? The point is that the language as proposed can and most probablly will have the broadest, convaluted of interpitations, as the second amendment has.
Sorry if my assesment of the proposed language somehow offends your sensibilities. But I thought being an American came with not only a guarantee, but an obligation to think and speak as one sees and belives? I guess I will move from the second amendment and return and re read the first, professor.
ILMRadioMan
Member
I think we have just crossed into the twilight zone
.I really think that is a stretch. Perhaps I am wrong, but the legal aspect of this (even with this law) would make it incredibly difficult to stand up against a lawsuit.
I think this has absolutely nothing to do with sole-sourcing radios.
I was taught in journalism, as well as in many orther classes.. KISS Keep It Simple Stupid! Here it is in pure KISS terminology. Recieving broadcast: Hearing it on your radio or scanner. Rebroadcasting: Taking your reciever and RETRANSMITTING the audio/data over another media. Be it over the phone, internet, or another radio. Thats it. This bill is attempting to stop/regulate the rebroadcast of the original broadcast. If done, it would mean that any REBROADCAST other than OFFICIALLY permitted would be illegal. As is worded it does not ban/regulate the original RECEPTION. Again this could change in committee.
The idea of starting a fund before the bill becomes law may have good intentions but is just not feasable. Use polite but firm wording in e-mails, letters, and or face to faces if your ever lucky enough to get one. If passed into law, then yes start an fund, get some heavy hitting backing, etc... This will make excellent case for all of us that rebroadcast vias the internet. If passed this WILL spread. So it is our best interest to follow it to its conclusion, and be prepared for court cases to set precident for not just United States interests, but worldwide. Adding to this, the FCC has promised to keep freedom for the internet, so this will also test that policy when it makes it to that level. And there in lies where the big guns such as the ACLU and others will be interested.
The idea of starting a fund before the bill becomes law may have good intentions but is just not feasable. Use polite but firm wording in e-mails, letters, and or face to faces if your ever lucky enough to get one. If passed into law, then yes start an fund, get some heavy hitting backing, etc... This will make excellent case for all of us that rebroadcast vias the internet. If passed this WILL spread. So it is our best interest to follow it to its conclusion, and be prepared for court cases to set precident for not just United States interests, but worldwide. Adding to this, the FCC has promised to keep freedom for the internet, so this will also test that policy when it makes it to that level. And there in lies where the big guns such as the ACLU and others will be interested.
Define access.....In the broadest interpretation, it means having a scanner capable of hearing the system....doesn't even have to have it programmed in, just be capable of receiving it, which means that you have access to the system. Whether or not you use it is irrelevant, the access still exists, so it does apply to people receiving the broadcast when broad interpretations of words are applied, as they often are by law enforcement and courts..
usswood
Member
How would ILL be able to enforce this across STATE Lines?? If a person was in IN, would they seek a Governors Warrant, or a Federal warrant??
Also I always hear bout Republicans and there ideas of smaller government and government intrusion into the lives of citizens and then Republicans try to pass laws like this...give me a break
Also I always hear bout Republicans and there ideas of smaller government and government intrusion into the lives of citizens and then Republicans try to pass laws like this...give me a break
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
