Concerning _CORDLESSPHONES_, Bill Funk said to Troy H. Cheek in SCANRADIO:
 BF> To say that nobody mentioned it only says that you didn't notice it when
 BF> it was mentioned. It's like bank robbery: we don't continually say it's
 BF> illegal.
But bank robbery wasn't legal up until a year ago.
Not only didn't I noticed when it was mentioned as illegal, but I did notice 
when it was mentioned as legal.  In a _Nuts and Volts_ not too many months 
back, an article on cellular hacking stated that *in contrast* to cordless 
phones, listening to cellular was illegal.  That's the kind of thing I'm 
talking about.
 BF> Phone patches are using HAM frequencies, and are therefore legal to
 BF> monitor. Also CB. If the person making the patch is using a cordless or
 BF> cell phone, it's still legal, as the transmission being monitored is a 
HAM
 BF> transmission.
 TH>> What about baby monitors?  They use some cordless phone frequencies.
 BF>
 BF> What's so hard about this?
 BF> Is a baby monitor a cordless phone?
 BF> Why fixate on the frequency, when it's the fact that the call is on a
 BF> cordless or cell phone is the defining ractor?
Because in the previous paragraph you point out that the call being on a 
phone of whatever type is NOT the defining factor because listening to a 
phone call retransmitted on HAM frequencies is legal.  *That's* what's so 
hard about this. Not only are different people saying different things, but 
the sometimes people are saying contradictory things in a single message.  
That's what dragged me into this thread, more than any concern over legality.
In the last few weeks, I've been told two things:
1)   It's illegal to listen to cordless phone calls.
2)   It's illegal to listen to cordless phone frequencies.
I suspect the actual truth is this:
3)   It's illegal to listen to cordless phone calls on assigned cordless 
phone frequencies.
... And then Bill turned into Sailor Funk!
--- JetMail 0.99beta22
---------------