A Few Questions For Mr. Fry....

[WPHA]

This would depend on whether or not the agent was following the rules and guidelines of his/her employer (the FCC), as set out in the applicable Federal Codes given in 47 C.F.R. Part 15.

Your post suggests that such limits could/should be selectively enforced based on the perceived motives of an unlicensed operator when s/he does not meet the functional limitations required by Part 15.

Would you not agree that this is a slippery slope?

While it may be considered that, there is always the HUMAN element to consider. If the Agent was NOT there because of any complaints, (because there were none) and "just happened" across the unlicensed station, I think, under the parameters described above, would most likely be inclined to "give the operator a break"... at least, I would HOPE so, anyway!

How many here have ever been pulled over by a Police Officer for a traffic infraction... only to have him/her let you go with just a verbal warning? Chances are, you showed the Officer respect and a good attitude, as well as had a general air of being a reasonable and responsible adult. So, they used their DISCRETION in enforcing the law, and let you go. I would expect that an FCC Agent can also show this kind of discretion, when the situation would warrant.

 

[rfry]

... How many here have ever been pulled over by a Police Officer for a traffic infraction... only to have him/her let you go with just a verbal warning? Chances are, you showed the Officer respect and a good attitude, as well as had a general air of being a reasonable and responsible adult. So, they used their DISCRETION in enforcing the law, and let you go. I would expect that an FCC Agent can also show this kind of discretion, when the situation would warrant.

When the FCC issues a Part 15 "NOUO" to unlicensed operators, the FCC has in essence let them go as far as punitive and monetary consequences in that action.

But that does not mean that such unlicensed operators are free to continue their violations of Part 15 as a result of their misunderstanding of its requirements, and/or such noble intentions as "serving their community."

All those cited operators need to do is to respond to the NOUO as it requests -- which will require them to observe the limits for unlicensed operators set out in Part 15 (if they wish to avoid more serious sanctions).

A parallel in the case of the police stopping and giving verbal warnings to the drivers of vehicles observed to be violating a law -- this does not mean that such drivers have been given a pass to CONTINUE to violate that law.

 

[druidhillsradio]

This would depend on whether or not the agent was following the rules and guidelines of his/her employer (the FCC), as set out in the applicable Federal Codes given in 47 C.F.R. Part 15.

Your post suggests that such limits could/should be selectively enforced based on the perceived motives of an unlicensed operator when s/he does not meet the functional limitations required by Part 15.

Would you not agree that this is a slippery slope?

This kind of reminds me of a comment made by an FCC agent regarding operation on 1710 KHZ

 

[rfry]

This kind of reminds me of a comment made by an FCC agent regarding operation on 1710 KHZ

There can/will be no FCC issue with unlicensed operators in the U.S. using a carrier frequency of 1710 kHz as long as those operators observe the field strength limit applying to the use of that frequency given in FCC 15.223.

But those FCC field strength limits are much lower than allowed by an unlicensed operator using AM broadcast band carrier frequencies of 1700 kHz and below, that are functionally compliant under FCC 15.219.