The statement: "includes all private, two-way, short-distance voice
communications service for personal
or business activities of the general public." obviously excludes LONG
DISTANCE FEDERALLY LISCENSED guys like us (I hope).
George AB2KC
----- Original Message -----
From: "KD8OK" <kd8ok@n-focus.com>
To: <TowerTalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: [TowerTalk] CB operator charged under new city law
> This may not have much to do with antennas, but it could be a concern for
> all hams in the future.
>
>
> CB operator charged under new city law
>
> By KRISTIN GORDON, kgordon@nncogannett.com
> The Eagle-Gazette Staff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
> Complaints from a group of neighbors experiencing interference on
household
> appliances from phones and TVs to baby monitors have resulted in a court
> case against a local citizens band radio operator.
>
> James A. Disbennet, 48, 427 Harrison Ave., is charged with operating a CB
> radio exceeding 4 watts, a first-degree misdemeanor, and two counts of
> operating a CB radio without certification, a fourth-degree misdemeanor.
> Disbennet, whose handle is "Sugar Bear," answered a summons in Fairfield
> County Municipal Court last Tuesday and was released on a recognizance
bond.
>
> In August 2002, Lancaster City Council was the first in the U.S. to pass
> such an ordinance, allowing the city to enforce rules set by the Federal
> Communication Commission regulating the strength of CB radios, said
> Assistant City Law Director Dave Trimmer.
>
> According to the ordinance, the definition of CB radio "includes all
> private, two-way, short-distance voice communications service for personal
> or business activities of the general public."
>
> In January, local residents began to log feedback problems they
experienced,
> Trimmer said. Noise was reported on Harrison, Fifth and Washington
avenues.
>
> One woman had problems almost every time she used her telephone. She said
it
> interfered with calls such as learning a family member was in the
hospital.
>
> Another woman heard interference over a baby monitor she keeps near her
> husband who suffered from a stroke. When she heard calls from a CB radio
> operator named "Sugar Bear" late at night, she would have to turn off the
> monitor so it wouldn't wake her husband.
>
> "Complainants must have a log of the interference for a minimum of four
> weeks and there has to be more than one complainant in order to file
> charges," Trimmer said.
>
> After a phone conversation with a woman on Harrison Avenue where he could
> hear interference himself, Trimmer went to the neighborhood to
investigate,
> he said. He talked to a few individuals, including Disbennet, who said he
> was a CB radio operator but did not possess an amplifier to exceed the
> lawful power output.
>
> "It's a hobby," Trimmer said. "Sometimes these hobbies get in the way of
the
> rights of the neighbors."
>
> On April 10, Tim Deitz, assistant superintendent of the city's Electrical,
> Communications and Signals Department, used a relative signal strength
meter
> in the 400 block of Harrison Avenue to determine where interference was
> coming from. The signals he received came from Disbennet's home, which had
a
> 40- to 50-foot antenna attached to it.
>
> A search warrant was performed the next day by Lancaster police, who
seized
> four pieces of CB radio equipment worth more than $1,000 from Disbennet's
> home.
>
> "We're obviously treading on new ground," said Scott Wood, Disbennet's
> attorney. "He's not been given any type of option to defend himself. This
is
> a big hobby for him, something he enjoys doing.
>
> "It has him concerned, of course -- he could be facing jail time."
>
> The maximum penalty for a first-degree misdemeanor is a $1,000 fine and
180
> days in jail.
>
> Wood also is concerned about the case, which he's just begun
investigating.
>
> "It's obviously a very interesting case -- this is the first ordinance of
> its kind in the country," he said. "But apparently, this ordinance was
> passed in August 2002 but was never published."
>
> According to the ordinance, No. 30-02, it was passed by council Aug. 26
and
> approved Aug. 28.
>
> The city started looking into the problem nearly two years earlier after
> neighbors on Talmadge Avenue started having problems, Trimmer said. The
city
> received a petition with 28 signatures and contacted the FCC repeatedly
> about the problem of enforcement.
>
> Originally published Wednesday, May 21, 2003
>
>
> *********************************************
> Michael Murphy - KD8OK
>
> mmurphy@n-focus.com
> kd8ok@n-focus.com
>
> *********************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|