BABYL OPTIONS:
Version: 5
Labels:
Note: This is the header of an rmail file.
Note: If you are seeing it in rmail,
Note: it means the file has no messages in it.
0, unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave,rec.radio.info,alt.radio.scanner
From: whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h)
Subject: Uniden reply comments to FCC docket 93-01
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1993 12:03:19 MST
Followup-To: rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave,alt.radio.scanner
Here's a set of reply comments that make reference to some "interesting"
comments/requests by other spectrum users besides the cellular phone
providers. If anyone has any other replies on this docket, I'm sure
we'd all like to see what the industry response has been to the cellular
scan banner Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) of the FCC.
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of )
)
Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 to ) ET Docket No. 93-1
Prohibit Marketing of Radio Scanners )
Capable of Intercepting Cellular )
Telephone Conversations )
REPLY COMMENTS OF
UNIDEN AMERICA CORPORATION
INTRODUCTION
1. Uniden America Corporation (hereinafter "Uniden")
respectfully submits its reply comments to the above
captioned NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ("NPRM").
DISCUSSION
2. Uniden has read all comments contained in the
Commission's Record Image Processing System as of February
23, 1993. Although many commentors addressed whether or not
the proposed NPRM met the objectives of "increas[ing] the
privacy protection of cellular telephone users...", generally
most commentors supported the proposals of the Commission.
Some of the supporting commentors had some parochial
exceptions or inclusions, which we will address.
3. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems ("SBMS") in its comments
proposed that "the Commission should act now to include
in these amended rules proscription on scanners that tune
frequencies allocated to the Personal Communication Services
that will be effective as soon as that allocation is made."
In a similar proposal, Fleet Call, Inc. ("Fleet Call") stated
"the Commission should expand the applicability of its
proposals to prohibit scanners capable of tuning the
frequencies allocated to the SMR service." In the Telephone
Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act ("Act") Pub. L 102-556,
the scope is limited to the domestic cellular radio
telecommunications service. Uniden strongly objects to any
attempt to broaden the restrictions beyond those detailed in
the Act, itself. To do so could set a dangerous precedent by
restricting the reception of frequency ranges which have been
historically and widely accepted as our fundamental right to
monitor. In our comments, we did not address the merits of
the Act with regard to the congressional mandate to the
Commission. However, we believe that both SBMS and Fleet
Call are proposing that the Commission establish restrictions
well beyond the mandate of the Act. Uniden urges the
Commission not to act favorably on these requests.
4. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
("CTIA") has proposed a definition of "readily altered" which
is overly restrictive, burdensome, and not required to
accomplish the purposes of the Act. There is no way to make
an electronic device totally tamperproof with regards to
restricting the interception of cellular telephone
frequencies, or any other frequency. A case in point is the
cellular telephone itself. If a technically competent
individual wants to modify a device to listen to other
telephone calls, what unit would be better suited for this
purpose? Some of the early cellular telephones were even
able to monitor communications when programed by the actual
user. Therefore, in this area we continue to support the
NPRM as written in the belief that it strikes a balance and
reasonably accomplishes the requirements of the Act, without
overly restricting manufacturers in the production of
scanners for legitimate uses.
5. The Harris Corporation ("Harris") wishes an exemption to
the proposed restrictions because they manufacture a device
that purposefully intercepts cellular communications which is
"expressly designed for law enforcement and cellular security
uses." In their comments, Harris also offered additional
wording to the proposed Section 15.121 which details their
requested exemption. Uniden supports Harris in this endeavor
and joins them in making this request.
6. The comments of Grove Enterprises, Inc. imply that the
Commission has overstepped its authority by including
frequency converters in the scope of this proceeding. It
should be noted that frequency converters can be used with
certain scanners in order to extend the coverage to include
the cellular frequencies. Therefore, Uniden supports the
wording in the NPRM that states that "[t]o allow such
converters to be marketed would be inconsistent with the
intent of the Act." Moreover, in our comments, we requested
the Commission to require that frequency converters used with
scanners that tune in the 800 MHz to 900 MHz band be
authorized under the provisions of certification rather than
notification. The application for equipment authorization
for certification contains more demonstrable exhibits than
the simpler notification procedure.
CONCLUSION
7. Uniden reiterates its support of the Commission's
proposal. As stated in its comments, the only exception to
the NPRM as written is with the provisions for frequency
converters as mentioned above as well as in our origional
comment.
Respectfully submitted
/signature/
James R. Haynes
Chief Engineer
UNIDEN AMERICA CORPORATION
Engineering Services Office
8707 North by Northeast Blvd.
Fishers, Indiana 46038
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James R. Haynes, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "Reply
Comments" in Gen Docket No. 93-1 were mailed first-class, postage
prepaid, to the following on this 5th day of March 1993.
/signature/
Robert S. Foosaner
Counsel for Fleet Call, Inc. James J. Harrison, Jr.
601 W. 13th Street, N.W. Cellular Services Group, Inc
Suite 1110 South 2212 Old Court Road
Washington, D.C. 20005 Baltimore, Maryland 21208
Daniel Bart, Esq. James E. Arconati
GTE Service Corporation 1289 Schulte Hill
1850 M. Street, N.W. St. Louis, MO. 63083
Suite 1200
Washington, D.C. 20036 William C. Wells
1312 W. Wabash Avenue
Wayne Watts, Esq. Logansport, IN 46947-4233
Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc.
17330 Preston Road, Suite 100A Jeffrey Krauss
Dallas, Texas 75252 17 West Jefferson St.
Suite 106
Michael F. Altschul, Esq. Rockville, MD 20850
Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association Brian Morgan
1133 21st Street, N.W. 9501 Bainbrook Court
Washington, D.C. 20036 Cincinnati, OH 45249
Charles M. Wistar Richard J. Arsenault
PrivaFone Hopkins & Sutter
1122 Kenilworth Drive Counsel for Tandy Corp.
Suite 217 888 16th St., N.W.
Baltimore, Maryland 21204 Suite 700
Washinqton, D.C. 20006
Charles P. Featherstun
Counsel for BellSouth Cpl. Frank Carson #1482
1155 Peachtree St., N.W. P.O. Box 526
Suite 1800 Clinton, MD 20735
Atlanta, GA 30367-6000
John I. Stewart, Jr.
Bob Grove Crowell & Moring
P.O. Box 92 Counsel for Harris Corp.
Brasstown, N.C. 28902 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004