FC: More on radar detectors, FCC, and interference with gas pumps

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

Previous Politech message:

"Will radar detectors be regulated out of existence?"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03544.html

---

Cc: geoff_gariepy () hotmail com, declan () well com
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 23:32:17 -0400
From: Alan Dixon <n3hoe () juno com>

These guys are blowing this out of proportion.  The "bottom line" below is 
ludicrous.  This pending FCC proposal (ET Docket 01-278 [FCC 01-290]) seeks 
only to regulate radar detectors manufactured in the future.  Existing 
detectors would remain exempt from certification.  In fact, having radar 
detectors certificated in the future could possibly give manufacturers and 
consumers some leverage in court when fighting state and local bans on 
these devices.  Certification would provide clear evidence that such bans 
would definitely be contrary to federal objectives.  Also, many, though not 
all, state-of-the-art radar detectors have substantially reduced IF 
emissions to avoid detection by VG-2Ó devices.  (At least two alternative 
methods are used for this purpose, as well.)

A couple of questions remain.  One, it is difficult to believe that a 
pay-at-the-pump system can be defeated by a mere open carrier or swept 
carrier.  These VSAT systems obviously carry modulated data.  Additionally, 
for these retailers not to use some sort of encrypted key code to 
authenticate customers would be really stupid engineering.  So would 
failing to include any data correction scheme, at least 
FEC.  Please!  Additionally, unless the terrestrial VSAT antenna was 
mounted directly over a gas pump in question, the radar detector IF 
emissions at issue would likely be well outside of the satellite's beam 
aperture.  Hence, no interference.

Two, I presume that "direct-to-home" wireless Internet access in the Ka 
band are licensed services.  If they would turn out to be Part 15 services 
though, they would not be permitted to interfere with radar detectors.  In 
any event, it is unlikely that such transmitters, which are line-of-sight 
and above ground level, would interfere with radar detectors any more than 
do premise security systems, already.  In addition, direct-to-home 
transmitters must not interfere with licensed-by-rule police radar (47 CFR 
§90.103).  Oh.

Incidentally, in FCC nomenclature, an endorsement is a condition of added 
privileges on a licensee's authorization.  Therefore, I presume that what 
we meant to say is that ChevronTexaco Corporation has filed supporting 
comments with the FCC on new regulation that would apply to radar detectors.

Radar detectors may well be regulated out of existence?  No.  Not "may well 
be".  They will remain alive and well, and future manufacturing will most 
likely continue, with minor adjustments.

A new round of FCC regulation on radar detectors?  Again, no.  Not a whole 
"round" of regulation.  Clearly, we are looking at a single rule change.

Kind regards,

Alan Dixon
Contributing Editor - Popular Communications
Retired Senior Telecommunications Engineer
Former Member - TIA TR-45 AHAG Standards Committee,
wireless security and encryption
Former Republican candidate for appointment to
the Federal Communications Commission (1996)
<mailto:n3hoe () arrl net>n3hoe () arrl net

Above, USA copyright 2002, A. Dixon, Melbourne, FL.
Okay to distribute with this notice included.

---

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:47:22 -0500
To: declan () well com
From: Doug Bedell <dougb () metronet com>
Subject: Re: FC: Will radar detectors be regulated out of existence?
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020516225926.00a4d7a0 () mail well com>

Declan --
I just wrote a story about radar detectors for the Dallas Morning News. 
During my research, I questioned several experts about this very point.
According to them, only Cobra RF emissions were problematic. 
Supposedly  Cobra models using 12.2 GHz were the only radar detectors 
actually doing any interference. According to the people at 
radartest.com,  Cobra modified its configurations to eliminate the problem, 
and everyone's happy.
I'd like to know if that's not the case.
Best wishes,
-=drb

Copyright 2002 Warren Publishing, Inc.
SATELLITE WEEK
February 18, 2002, Monday
SECTION: THIS WEEK'S NEWS

LENGTH: 977 words

HEADLINE: SIA ASKS FCC TO TAKE SWIFT ACTION AGAINST RADAR DETECTORS

BODY:
Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA), in Feb. 13 letter to FCC, asked agency to 
"take swift action" to limit harmful interference it said radar detectors 
cause to many Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) satellite networks. 
Devices are operating in manner inconsistent with FCC rules and are 
imposing unacceptable financial burden on VSAT operators, SIA Pres. Richard 
Dalbello said: "This situation is intolerable."

Radar detectors are emitting power levels that are greatly in excess of 
norms established by FCC for unlicenced devices, SIA said. It said radar 
detector in automobile passing by or parked near VSAT terminal or other 
satellite earth station could "easily break the satellite communications 
link." Many SIA companies have independently identified devices as cause of 
interference, Dalbello said. Problem has been around since early 1990s, he 
said, but it gradually has gotten worse. Radar detectors have begun to 
encroach more seriously on VSAT bands since they changed their operational 
frequencies to adapt to changes in police radar guns, he said.  (RADAR) 
said its members would voluntarily limit radar detector Radio Assn. 
Defending Airwave Rights emissions over VSAT receive band at 11.7-12.2 GHz 
to Class B levels -- levels Commission has set for most unintentional 
radiators. RADAR said limitations would be applicable to units that were 
imported or domestically manufactured on or after June 1, 2003, making it 
unnecessary for Commission to establish rules to protect VSAT systems. 
Attorney Mitchell Lazarus, who represents RADAR, said members are 
"unilaterally and voluntarily" committed to complying with Class B levels 
"no matter what the FCC does." Once RADAR members are in compliance with 
Class B rules, controversy should end, Lazarus said: "We would be putting 
no more noise into their band than hundreds of other devices, like PCs or 
palm pilots." Radar detectors are unregulated because they're classified as 
unintentional radiators and FCC rules exempt receivers that tune only above 
960 MHz.

[...]
***********Doug Bedell************
"Seconds ahead when minutes count."
 972-857-6460 ... fax 972-857-6461
     mailto:dougb () metronet com







-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------