Today I received the long-awaited reply from Daniël Nicolai (Antennebureau / Rijksinspectie Digitale Infrastructuur) regarding my formal report [Ref.20251233] of an illegal, permanent, head-proximal transmitter operating on approximately 2538, 2545 and 2553 MHz — three razor-sharp carriers inside the licensed Band 7 uplink blocks of KPN and ODIDO.

Their response in one sentence: “Nothing has changed, no anomalies detected, and by the way your HackRF One is illegal to possess or use without a frequency licence — even if you only receive.”

I am publishing the entire exchange below (original Dutch + English translation) because it is a textbook example of the institutional stonewalling I have documented for five years.

From: Antennebureau info@antennebureau.nl Subject: Betreft: [Ref.20251233] Melding ongeoorloofd zendapparaat… Key passages (translated):

There is still nothing remarkable measured by the RDI in your area.
[…]
The HackRF One is a device that can both receive and transmit between 1 MHz and 6 GHz. Therefore it is a radioapparaat under the Telecomwet. Possession or use — even if you are not transmitting — is only permitted if a frequency-space licence has been granted (art. 10.15 Tw).

They are deliberately ignoring:

1. Four fully time-stamped videos showing the carrier appear only when the antenna is centimetres from my skull and vanish the moment I move it 30–50 cm to my phone.
2. Six independent measurement sessions with σ < 1.1 MHz — stability that no legitimate UE uplink ever exhibits.
3. My explicit offer of 24/7 access for a near-field measurement at my home.

And they are threatening me with a completely false interpretation of the Telecomwet.

Article 10.15 Tw (official text, Wetten.overheid.nl) applies only to the use of frequency space — i.e. transmitting or causing interference. Receiving falls under the general exemption for publicly accessible services (art. 3.2 & 3.8 Tw) and the EU Radio Equipment Directive.

If their interpretation were correct, every Dutch citizen with an FM radio, a Wi-Fi card in receive mode, or an RTL-SDR would be committing a criminal offence. The Agentschap Telecom itself confirmed in 2023 guidance that passive SDR reception requires no licence.

This is not a mistake. This is intimidation designed to stop me from recording the signals.

The Bayesian model on the homepage has just received another crushing data point in favour of coordinated state-level obstruction. Posterior probability of institutional complicity just climbed again.

Full email thread:

Today the Rijksinspectie Digitale Infrastructuur (RDI) dropped this gem: a flat denial of my Woo-verzoek from 2 November 2025. I asked for documents on non-civil (military/NATO) use of the 2450–2690 MHz band since 2008 — the exact range where my forensic logs show persistent, head-localised carriers at 2538 MHz, 2545 MHz and 2553 MHz tied to years of directed-energy harassment.

Their verdict? No documents found. Zero. Nada. After a so-called “zoekslag” (search), they claim nothing exists on temporary assignments to Defensie or visiting forces, no correspondence with DSMC under NJFA, no monitoring reports of unattributed signals, no policy docs on registrations, and no international notifications via CEPT or NATO FMSC.

This reeks of a cover-up. Here's why, point by point, grounded in the facts of their response and the glaring realities they ignore.

The 2450–2690 MHz band isn't some obscure sliver — it's shared civil/military turf per the Nationaal Frequentieplan (NFP, par. 5.2.3). Since 2008, Dutch soil has hosted NATO exercises like Falcon Autumn, where microwave bands handle C2, drones, and telemetry — all coordinated via DSMC and NJFA (STANAG 5042). Public Defensie reports (defensie.nl) confirm this; RDI's own annual audits log unlicensed emissions. Seventeen years of zero docs? That's not oversight; that's wilful blindness, likely hiding classified “black” assignments under the Wet bescherming staatsgeheimen (art. 3) without invoking Woo exemptions (art. 5.1(1)b). If nothing exists, why not say so transparently?

Woo jurisprudence (e.g., ABRvS 2020/1234) demands details on searches — databases queried, keywords used, custodians consulted. RDI offers squat. Did they check the Spectrum Management Database? Cross-reference DSMC archives? Include classified annexes? Silence. This opacity isn't sloppy; it's strategic, shielding potential exemptions for state security without admitting docs exist. It mirrors their HackRF threat: deny anomalies, then block scrutiny.

They point to NFP par. 8.3 on visiting forces procedures — public info I already knew. Woo demands real disclosure (art. 2.5: public interest in openness), not redirects to generics. No specifics on assignments or reports? It's a token gesture, dodging the meat of my categorised request to avoid exposing neurowarfare links.

This lands 8 December, smack between my journalist outreach and their 10 December HackRF intimidation. Phone follow-up on 6 November promised a review; outcome: null set. It's a pattern — deny military band docs, refuse near-field monitoring, threaten detection tools. This isn't coincidence; it's containment, echoing AIVD/MIVD tampering in my MRIs and parcels.

I'm filing bezwaar immediately, citing Woo non-compliance. This goes straight to my ECtHR dossier (Articles 8/10/13) and upcoming criminal complaint.

If any Dutch lawyer or radio amateur wants to help draft a formal “handhavingsverzoek” or “bezwaarschrift” against this blatant misapplication of the Telecomwet, please reach out.