[mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Aaron Kulkis]

Garry Stahl wrote:
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>>  Well, it's not quite intended like that. Don't forget the other part of that,
>> that it must not cause interference. The intent of the law is to limit power
>> levels so that the signals generated by the device as it operates don't
>> interfere with the operations of other, legally-more-important devices. They
>> may in fact be shielded, but the intent of the law is to make it so that if a
>> legally-more-important device interferes with a less-important one, tough beans.
>> They can't, say, detect the interference and boost their power levels (beyond
>> legal limits) to compensate.
>>   
> 
> Nor apparently sufficiently shield themselves from said interference.
> That is the part I wonder about.  It's not sufficient to not cause
> interference, which I think it should be, but you must allow
> interference.  So If I come up with Garry's Superior RF shielding, that
> keeps my device not only from interfering but from being interfered with
> I can't use it?
> 
> The wording of the rule is odd to say the least.

Come on..think like a power-hungry politician...especially a
mayor or governor, who "doesn't want 'trouble'."

The purpose of the FCC mandate is to allow the police to be
able to disable all consumer electronic devices within an
area ON COMMAND if it is the will of the mayor or governor
for them to do so.

Not just shutting down radios and TVs
Shutting down clocks, microwave oven, ... any electronic
device which people have come to rely on, and whose way
of life becomes disrupted if all of them were suddenly
shut down.

What's the first thing the police do in a "seige" situation --
cut off the electricity and water, and oftentimes they will
follow shortly with annoying noise-generators (crappy
music, recordings of animals dying violently, etc.).