Sirus Satelite FM Modulater, (covers a Quarter mile)

[midwestclubber]

I tested in my dads car today, too see how far the signal would go from my Sirius xact receiver. This was set on 88.3, the cleanest frequency here. The signal didnt fade out out untill I was .3 miles away from my car with the Sirius Transmitter in it, thats a little over a quarter mile. I am really amazed that it managed to cover that much area. The signal was completely usable to anyone, around the entire Block as well, thats with a Good strong signal too, The fringe signal carried much farther than the block. I wonder just how powerfull those Sirius FM Modulaters really are?

 

[radiopilot]

> I tested in my dads car today, too see how far the signal
> would go from my Sirius xact receiver. This was set on
> 88.3, the cleanest frequency here. The signal didnt fade
> out out untill I was .3 miles away from my car with the
> Sirius Transmitter in it, thats a little over a quarter
> mile. I am really amazed that it managed to cover that much
> area. The signal was completely usable to anyone, around
> the entire Block as well, thats with a Good strong signal
> too, The fringe signal carried much farther than the block.
> I wonder just how powerfull those Sirius FM Modulaters
> really are?
>


I can't say how this could be with an 'FCC Certified' transmitter???

Here's the fix so that it's within the FCC part15 rules for FM... take aluminum foil and completely wrap the transmitter with double layers and THEN you may be within the 200 foot rule! Ha Ha.... LOL

Radiopilot

 

[midwestclubber]

> > I tested in my dads car today, too see how far the signal
> > would go from my Sirius xact receiver. This was set on
> > 88.3, the cleanest frequency here. The signal didnt fade
> > out out untill I was .3 miles away from my car with the
> > Sirius Transmitter in it, thats a little over a quarter
> > mile. I am really amazed that it managed to cover that
> much
> > area. The signal was completely usable to anyone, around
> > the entire Block as well, thats with a Good strong signal
> > too, The fringe signal carried much farther than the
> block.
> > I wonder just how powerfull those Sirius FM Modulaters
> > really are?
> >
>
>
> I can't say how this could be with an 'FCC Certified'
> transmitter???
>
> Here's the fix so that it's within the FCC part15 rules for
> FM... take aluminum foil and completely wrap the transmitter
> with double layers and THEN you may be within the 200 foot
> rule! Ha Ha.... LOL
>
> Radiopilot
>
I dont know how this is, Their is one direction where the signal is just killer, It has to be legal, their are no modifications. We also have 107.5 as an open frequency, and it barely leaves the property on that frequency.

 

[radiopilot]

> > > I tested in my dads car today, too see how far the
> signal
> > > would go from my Sirius xact receiver. This was set on
> > > 88.3, the cleanest frequency here. The signal didnt
> fade
> > > out out untill I was .3 miles away from my car with the
> > > Sirius Transmitter in it, thats a little over a quarter
> > > mile. I am really amazed that it managed to cover that
> > much
> > > area. The signal was completely usable to anyone,
> around
> > > the entire Block as well, thats with a Good strong
> signal
> > > too, The fringe signal carried much farther than the
> > block.
> > > I wonder just how powerfull those Sirius FM Modulaters
> > > really are?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I can't say how this could be with an 'FCC Certified'
> > transmitter???
> >
> > Here's the fix so that it's within the FCC part15 rules
> for
> > FM... take aluminum foil and completely wrap the
> transmitter
> > with double layers and THEN you may be within the 200 foot
>
> > rule! Ha Ha.... LOL
> >
> > Radiopilot
> >
> I dont know how this is, Their is one direction where the
> signal is just killer, It has to be legal, their are no
> modifications. We also have 107.5 as an open frequency, and
> it barely leaves the property on that frequency.
>


I looked up the specs for this reciever...

http://www.sirius.com/pdf/manuals/XTR7CK.pdf#search='xact%20sirius%20satellite%20receiver%20fcc%20id'

As far as the it goes it's FCC compliant and tested to be within the Part15 rules for FM transmitters... Seems that the FCC is going opposite of the 200 foot rule which to me seems ridiculus since a 250uv/3 meter signal could be heard for more than 1000-2000 feet depending on the antenna and height.

The above Sirius transmitter of course is almost at ground level and yet it appears to transmit well beyond the FCC specs for 250uv/3 meters????

I wonder what it'll do attached to a 1/2 wave dipole? You should try it out and give us a distance measurement and how well the signal sounds at 1 mile, 2 miles?

Radiopilot

 

[apco25]

> I tested in my dads car today, too see how far the signal
> would go from my Sirius xact receiver. This was set on
> 88.3, the cleanest frequency here. The signal didnt fade
> out out untill I was .3 miles away from my car with the
> Sirius Transmitter in it, thats a little over a quarter
> mile. I am really amazed that it managed to cover that much
> area. The signal was completely usable to anyone, around
> the entire Block as well, thats with a Good strong signal
> too, The fringe signal carried much farther than the block.
> I wonder just how powerfull those Sirius FM Modulaters
> really are?
>


If I pick up Howard Stern on 88.1 on my receiver......I'll sue you.

 

[midwestclubber]

> > I tested in my dads car today, too see how far the signal
> > would go from my Sirius xact receiver. This was set on
> > 88.3, the cleanest frequency here. The signal didnt fade
> > out out untill I was .3 miles away from my car with the
> > Sirius Transmitter in it, thats a little over a quarter
> > mile. I am really amazed that it managed to cover that
> much
> > area. The signal was completely usable to anyone, around
> > the entire Block as well, thats with a Good strong signal
> > too, The fringe signal carried much farther than the
> block.
> > I wonder just how powerfull those Sirius FM Modulaters
> > really are?
> >
>
>
> If I pick up Howard Stern on 88.1 on my receiver......I'll
> sue you.
>
LOL,,,I dont listen to Howard. You might here some Dance Music played on 88.3 if you live in my neighborhood.

 

[elevator_opratr]

I agree with you guys here that some of those built in Sirius, XM, or Ipod transmitters seem to operate "too" well. I have the XM Roady 2 which defaults to 88.3. I had to change the frequency manually because I was picking up so many other cars with units on 88.3, that my music was getting cut into about one in every 10 cars I passed. This one car I was following seemed to have a REALLY strong signal. I figured out what car it was coming from when I saw the Ipod unit sitting on their dash. They turned off from the road I was on and I still picked their signal about a quarter mile later, in the opposite direction.

 

[radiopilot]

> I agree with you guys here that some of those built in
> Sirius, XM, or Ipod transmitters seem to operate "too" well.
> I have the XM Roady 2 which defaults to 88.3. I had to
> change the frequency manually because I was picking up so
> many other cars with units on 88.3, that my music was
> getting cut into about one in every 10 cars I passed. This
> one car I was following seemed to have a REALLY strong
> signal. I figured out what car it was coming from when I saw
> the Ipod unit sitting on their dash. They turned off from
> the road I was on and I still picked their signal about a
> quarter mile later, in the opposite direction.
>


This is quite true... I have the XFT-40 FM modulator for my satellite signal for my car and if I use it the signal goes out 1/2 mile... this of course is an FCC certified unit 'FCC ID: RA6NFM-40T' for those wanting to check it out... Anyway I hooked this up to a dipole and the range was over a mile plus! Now how could the FCC not know this when they issued the certification for these units? Could it be that since the units are to be inside the car (farady cage) the signal is not supposed to be further than 30 feet more or less? Is the unit still usable if you place it 50 feet high and using it's existing antenna and get 1/2 mile plus? Good question indeed!

Radiopilot

 

[midwestclubber]

> > I agree with you guys here that some of those built in
> > Sirius, XM, or Ipod transmitters seem to operate "too"
> well.
> > I have the XM Roady 2 which defaults to 88.3. I had to
> > change the frequency manually because I was picking up so
> > many other cars with units on 88.3, that my music was
> > getting cut into about one in every 10 cars I passed. This
>
> > one car I was following seemed to have a REALLY strong
> > signal. I figured out what car it was coming from when I
> saw
> > the Ipod unit sitting on their dash. They turned off from
> > the road I was on and I still picked their signal about a
> > quarter mile later, in the opposite direction.
> >
>
>
> This is quite true... I have the XFT-40 FM modulator for my
> satellite signal for my car and if I use it the signal goes
> out 1/2 mile... this of course is an FCC certified unit 'FCC
> ID: RA6NFM-40T' for those wanting to check it out... Anyway
> I hooked this up to a dipole and the range was over a mile
> plus! Now how could the FCC not know this when they issued
> the certification for these units? Could it be that since
> the units are to be inside the car (farady cage) the signal
> is not supposed to be further than 30 feet more or less? Is
> the unit still usable if you place it 50 feet high and using
> it's existing antenna and get 1/2 mile plus? Good question
> indeed!
>
> Radiopilot
>
Im seriously concerned, that when Satelite radio, and Ipods become more and more popular, all these Modulators are going to create Kaos, with interference to each other. Too bad I cant find an fcc CERTIFIED Actual FM transmitter that is that powerful. I would put those modulators up against the 80 millowatt EDM transmitter. BTW, Even from inside the house, on the first floor, the signal still covers two blocks.... NO PROBLEM. I would think this could be a problem, with people picking up Howard Stern, or RAW UNcensored Rap on their radios, because their neighbor, or a nearbye car has a modulator.

 

[radiopilot]

> Im seriously concerned, that when Satelite radio, and Ipods
> become more and more popular, all these Modulators are going
> to create Kaos, with interference to each other. Too bad I
> cant find an fcc CERTIFIED Actual FM transmitter that is
> that powerful. I would put those modulators up against the
> 80 millowatt EDM transmitter. BTW, Even from inside the
> house, on the first floor, the signal still covers two
> blocks.... NO PROBLEM. I would think this could be a
> problem, with people picking up Howard Stern, or RAW
> UNcensored Rap on their radios, because their neighbor, or a
> nearbye car has a modulator.
>


I think the concern is unjustified as these transmitters are Part 15 devices and as such are subject to interference.

You are right, not one FCC certified FM transmitter out there can match these units in terms of power, anyway I use the Pico Macom PCFM and the output is at 75 ohms so it's very easy to transmit with a 1/2 dipole as that is the natural impedance for this type antenna so it's a perfect match, not to mention the 75 ohm cable is easy to get and inexpensive.

The best thing is not to re-transmit the obscene or rude material as I've already been alerted by email from the FCC that this material transmitted on a Part 15 device is illegal and subject to fines!

Take your chances for those doing it, of course in a car it's almost imposible to establish enough info to turn into the FCC for enforcement, but getting info on a home address and freq. and turning that info in to the FCC can be harder to shrug off.

I prefer to do the better thing and broadcast 'clean' audio, nothing less!

Radiopilot

 

[elevator_opratr]

> The best thing is not to re-transmit the obscene or rude
> material as I've already been alerted by email from the FCC
> that this material transmitted on a Part 15 device is
> illegal and subject to fines!
>
> Take your chances for those doing it, of course in a car
> it's almost imposible to establish enough info to turn into
> the FCC for enforcement, but getting info on a home address
> and freq. and turning that info in to the FCC can be harder
> to shrug off.
>
> I prefer to do the better thing and broadcast 'clean' audio,
> nothing less!

LOL! I never thought of it that way. You're not supposed to broadcast obscene material on a part-15 TX, yet we have a bunch of people innocently rebroadcasting Stern on their little Sirius transmitters. What's next? A warning in your Sirius users manual that if you're going to use the TX that you can only play clean music channels? LOL

 

[radiopilot]

Yeah! It's hilarious alright... but...

> LOL! I never thought of it that way. You're not supposed to
> broadcast obscene material on a part-15 TX, yet we have a
> bunch of people innocently rebroadcasting Stern on their
> little Sirius transmitters. What's next? A warning in your
> Sirius users manual that if you're going to use the TX that
> you can only play clean music channels? LOL
>


Yes, that is what I thought when I read the email from the FCC... They are VERY serious about this and if anyone wants to do it and get caught, it's actually worse than transmitting part15 at higher levels!

I agree with what you say about the warning bit on the manual or label if it came to that... I could imagine something like this:

"FCC Commissioner WARNING" - Broadcasting Indecent and Obscene content on this device may constitute grounds for fines and subject to other penalties as set forth in these Provisions:

It’s Against the Law

It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning, if a station airs obscene, indecent, or profane material. "


Now, that would be a hoot! But to dispell any rumors that it's laughable here is my letter to the FCC and it's response:


----- Original Message -----
From: ************
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:47 PM
Subject: Part15 Indecency question


Penny,

There was several questions regarding re-broadcasts of Sirius Satellite broadcasts featuring Howard Stern's repetoire on a Part15 FM transmitter meant to broadcast the signal through a stereo unit, but this also allows the FM broadcast to be heard in several other homes throughout the neighborhood... Is it legal to broadcast this and is it legal not to get fines for broadcasting this?

Can an actual person be fined for re-broadcasting indecent material through Part15 devices?

Thank you very much.

Concerned citizen.

And the FCC response:

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: <*********>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: PROBLEM01759020 - Part15 Indecency question?


> You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC.
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> If you know this to be happening, please file a complaint with us online at
> http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm
>
> Thank you for contacting the FCC Consumer Center.
>
> Rep Number : TSR41



So there you have it in black and white.... If you feel you'll get a different response try contacting them at the above FCC website.

Radiopilot
<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radiopilot on 01/19/06 06:46 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[elevator_opratr]

Re: Yeah! It's hilarious alright... but...

I guess it's a good thing I can't stand Stern and only use my part-15 XM TX to listen to jazz and easy listening.

 

[radio8z]

Re: Yeah! It's hilarious alright... but...

>
> Now, that would be a hoot! But to dispell any rumors that
> it's laughable here is my letter to the FCC and it's
> response:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ************
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:47 PM
> Subject: Part15 Indecency question
>
>
> Penny,
>
> There was several questions regarding re-broadcasts of
> Sirius Satellite broadcasts featuring Howard Stern's
> repetoire on a Part15 FM transmitter meant to broadcast the
> signal through a stereo unit, but this also allows the FM
> broadcast to be heard in several other homes throughout the
> neighborhood... Is it legal to broadcast this and is it
> legal not to get fines for broadcasting this?
>
> Can an actual person be fined for re-broadcasting indecent
> material through Part15 devices?
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Concerned citizen.
>
> And the FCC response:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [email protected]
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 11:15 AM
> Subject: PROBLEM01759020 - Part15 Indecency question?
>
>
> > You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry
> to the FCC.
> >
> > Dear Sir:
> >
> > If you know this to be happening, please file a complaint
> with us online at
> > http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/cib/fcc475.cfm
> >
> > Thank you for contacting the FCC Consumer Center.
> >
> > Rep Number : TSR41
>
>
>
> So there you have it in black and white.... If you feel
> you'll get a different response try contacting them at the
> above FCC website.
>
> Radiopilot
>


Hi Radiopilot

I don't think you got an answer to your question.

Try this link which I found searching title18 US code Chapter 71 section 1464: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/71/sections/section_1464.html

I also think it is not a good practice to be communicating with the FCC about all these "what ifs".

Neil<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by radio8z on 01/19/06 09:44 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[radiopilot]

Re: Yeah! It's hilarious alright... but...

> Hi Radiopilot
>
> I don't think you got an answer to your question.
>
> Try this link which I found searching title18 US code
> Chapter 71 section 1464:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco> de/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/71/sections/section_1464.html
>
>
> I also think it is not a good practice to be communicating
> with the FCC about all these "what ifs".
>
> Neil
>


Neil,

I believe you answered that with the above link.

The questions I posed to the FCC are not 'what if' questions, if not to get clarifications, and as such I've got nothing to fear in talking to the FCC, FBI, CIA or any other groups... the fear of 'awakening some sleeping giant' is just myths by the fear mongers... the FCC is not going to revise Part 15 for simple questions regarding the 'typical' use of devices under it's own rules... They are mostly very helpful in every communication I've dealt with, I think it's all perception, but I may be wrong... has anyone else dealt with the FCC, etc.?

Radiopilot

 

[rfry]

Re: Yeah! It's hilarious alright... but...

> I also think it is not a good practice to be communicating
> with the FCC about all these "what ifs".
____________

Maybe so. But some may prefer to "put a toe in the water," before diving in to a full commitment, and possible FCC actions.

Why not ask first?

//

 

[radio8z]

Re: Yeah! It's hilarious alright... but...

> > I also think it is not a good practice to be communicating
>
> > with the FCC about all these "what ifs".
> ____________
>
> Maybe so. But some may prefer to "put a toe in the water,"
> before diving in to a full commitment, and possible FCC
> actions.
>
> Why not ask first?
>
> //
>
We are all free to do what we want and face consequences. My experience with federal regulatory agencies has been such that I note that the answer you get can depend on whom you ask. I also note that, in my experience, the answers usually are the most restrictive interpretations of the regulations.

I have experience on both ends of federal regulatory bodies and have seen this before.

Ultimately, interpretation of law is decided in the courts. If one interprets an ambiguously or broadly written rule a certain way (such as part 15 AM grounds) and has been told by the FCC, in response to a query, that their reading is wrong, then what defense do you have?

Testing the waters can lead to narrow and shallow rivers.

Neil

 

[Russty]

What is he saying?

Basically, what Neil is saying, can be summed up in an old expression that I like to use, and frequently do: "It's better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission."

Honestly, I don't think that the FCC has a leg to stand on here. If you are using an FCC Certified Part 15 device that has not been modified, and is being used for its intended purpose, the consumer SHOULD have nothing to worry about. Now if it does turn out that these FCC certified Part 15 devices are really exceeding FCC specs for output, that would be a legal battle between the FCC and the radio manufacturers. The unaware consumer should not be held responsible for the innefectiveness of the FCC certification bureau and or the radio manufacturers.

Still, I have not heard of the FCC charging Part 15 operators or even Pirate Radio operators with airing of indecent materials. And what could they do about it? Revoke their UnLicense? Sure airing of indeceny and or obscenity is bad ettiquette, but I dont see how the average consumer could be held responsible for listening to Howard Stern through an FCC approved FM modulator. Pirate Operators are charged with unlicensed operation, regardless of what they air.

Here is another approach to this debate. If this was really true, that the FCC could fine you for listening to Howard Stern through an FCC Part 15 Certified device that has not been tampered with, then they could also fine you for conversations on cordless phones, family radios, wireless intercoms, etc. I really don't think the FCC wants to get involved with these day to day cases. Most people with Sirius or XM modulators don't go around hanging posters and handing out bumper stickers to their neighbors telling the world to tune to 88.1 or whatever to hear Howard stern for free on them. Even if there is someone weird enough to do that, I think the Sirius and XM officials would have more of a problem with that then the FCC would.

Wouldn't it be funny if someone got into trouble for ratting their neighbor out for listening to Stern on an unlicensed FCC approved part 15 device? Think of this, You are not supposed to use a scanner to listen to other peoples' private phone conversations. It is illegal to do that. Likewise, if you hear another household's cordless phone/wireless intercom/baby monitor signal coming through your own, you are supposed to change the channel, because listening in is considered invasion of privacy, which is certainly illegal. It could be argued, likely by a skilled Lawyer, that listening to someone else's iPod, XM/Sirius modulator without them knowing could be considered an invasion of privacy. Sure, maybe its a stretch, but we are talking about unlicensed FCC Certified Part 15 devices that are intended for Personal use. -Food for Thought.

 

[radiopilot]

Re: What is he saying?

> Basically, what Neil is saying, can be summed up in an old
> expression that I like to use, and frequently do: "It's
> better to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for
> permission."
>
> Honestly, I don't think that the FCC has a leg to stand on
> here. If you are using an FCC Certified Part 15 device that
> has not been modified, and is being used for its intended
> purpose, the consumer SHOULD have nothing to worry about.
> Now if it does turn out that these FCC certified Part 15
> devices are really exceeding FCC specs for output, that
> would be a legal battle between the FCC and the radio
> manufacturers. The unaware consumer should not be held
> responsible for the innefectiveness of the FCC certification
> bureau and or the radio manufacturers.
>

We are not talking about transmitter power being the issue here with part15.

> Still, I have not heard of the FCC charging Part 15
> operators or even Pirate Radio operators with airing of
> indecent materials. And what could they do about it?
> Revoke their UnLicense? Sure airing of indeceny and or
> obscenity is bad ettiquette, but I dont see how the average
> consumer could be held responsible for listening to Howard
> Stern through an FCC approved FM modulator. Pirate
> Operators are charged with unlicensed operation, regardless
> of what they air.
>

This is not true, airing anything indecent over the 'public boradcasting' airwaves 530-1705khz, and 88-108Mhz is illegal in the FCC's point of view!

> Here is another approach to this debate. If this was really
> true, that the FCC could fine you for listening to Howard
> Stern through an FCC Part 15 Certified device that has not
> been tampered with, then they could also fine you for
> conversations on cordless phones, family radios, wireless
> intercoms, etc. I really don't think the FCC wants to get
> involved with these day to day cases. Most people with
> Sirius or XM modulators don't go around hanging posters and
> handing out bumper stickers to their neighbors telling the
> world to tune to 88.1 or whatever to hear Howard stern for
> free on them. Even if there is someone weird enough to do
> that, I think the Sirius and XM officials would have more of
> a problem with that then the FCC would.
>

Wireless telephones, baby monitors, wireless intercoms are not on the public spectrum of the airwaves... they are either 27mhz, 900mhz, or some other non-broadcast airwave!

> Wouldn't it be funny if someone got into trouble for ratting
> their neighbor out for listening to Stern on an unlicensed
> FCC approved part 15 device? Think of this, You are not
> supposed to use a scanner to listen to other peoples'
> private phone conversations. It is illegal to do that.
> Likewise, if you hear another household's cordless
> phone/wireless intercom/baby monitor signal coming through
> your own, you are supposed to change the channel, because
> listening in is considered invasion of privacy, which is
> certainly illegal.

Not true, if you read the part15 rules, it says:

This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is
subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause
harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference
received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.


> It could be argued, likely by a skilled
> Lawyer, that listening to someone else's iPod, XM/Sirius
> modulator without them knowing could be considered an
> invasion of privacy. Sure, maybe its a stretch, but we are
> talking about unlicensed FCC Certified Part 15 devices that
> are intended for Personal use. -Food for Thought.



Not true as this is not invasion of privacy if it's broadcasted over the public airwaves (mentioned above)....

Anyone wishing to add to this, perhaps a broadcast lawyer on hand?

Radiopilot

 

[Russty]

Re: What is he saying?

> We are not talking about transmitter power being the issue
> here with part15.

Actually we are. I don't think you specifically mentioned it, but it had been mentioned elswhere in the thread. The question was; how can a part 15 compliant FM broadcast transmitter be able to transmit usable signal up to a quarter or even half a mile? Honestly, I don't think the average user of these devices even cares how far they go. I'd say that 97% of the people using them have no idea how far their signal can be heard. That is where the potential danger comes in.


> This is not true, airing anything indecent over the 'public
> boradcasting' airwaves 530-1705khz, and 88-108Mhz is illegal
> in the FCC's point of view!

Well it certainly is a license violation to air obscene material over a licensed over-air broadcast faciliy. I'm still not convinced this applies to unlicensed operations. If a pirate broadcaster is illegally broadcasting 100 watts, he/she faces the same potential penalties regardless of what they are broadcasting. OF course the careless P Operators are going to get busted quicker than the clean ones, because they are so much more blatantly violating the law. It really mekes them stand out as criminals. No respectable licensed broadcaster would do such a thing.

I know we are not talking about Pirates here though. We are discussing part 15. Once again, I think that if a consumer is using the products the way they were intended without making any modifications on the devices, they should not be subject to fines and or penalties. Especially if there are indeed no warnings posted anywhere within the packaging or manuals of these devices. The blame/penalties should be defaulted to the equipment supplier who wasn't responsible enough to warn the consumer of the potential problems.


> Wireless telephones, baby monitors, wireless intercoms are
> not on the public spectrum of the airwaves... they are
> either 27mhz, 900mhz, or some other non-broadcast airwave!

OK, This is true, Most cordless phones don't have a built in scan button. (Imagine if they did, and you could program your neighbor's cordless phones into yours as presets? Gee, I wonder what the Smiths are up to? Absolutely sick.) Honestly, I really prefer not to even think about what my neighbors are up to.

> > ...Think of this, You are not
> > supposed to use a scanner to listen to other peoples'
> > private phone conversations. It is illegal to do that.
> > Likewise, if you hear another household's cordless
> > phone/wireless intercom/baby monitor signal coming through
> > your own, you are supposed to change the channel, because
> > listening in is considered invasion of privacy, which is
> > certainly illegal.
>
> Not true, if you read the part15 rules, it says:
>
> This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules.
> Operation is
> subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may
> not cause
> harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any
> interference
> received, including interference that may cause undesired
> operation.


I was not talking about interference (hold that thought), but rather invasion of privacy. Every couple of years there is something on the news about people getting busted for spying on their neighbors by listening through cordless phones, etc. For that matter they also run the reports about people spying on each other with telescopes.

> Not true as this is not invasion of privacy if it's
> broadcasted over the public airwaves (mentioned above)....
> Anyone wishing to add to this, perhaps a broadcast lawyer on
> hand?

OK, I'll concede on this argument. I was really only being half serious on that argument. It was basically a far fetched "what if" kind of scenario. The only thing is that you never know in Today's world. I mean, we have people suing McDonalds because they became clinically obese. The scenario was really more intended to amuse more than anything.

Back to the subject of interference:

> Not true as this is not invasion of privacy if it's
> broadcasted over the public airwaves (mentioned above)....

Once again I'll concede. While Technically all of the airwaves are "Public" any time a wireless device is used the user needs to be aware that they may have someone listening. However, when you are using a device on the "Public Spectrum" be it the Broadcast Bands, or CB or Family Radios, You absolutely are opening yourself up for the world to hear. And I do agree that that does hold true whether you are transmitting a half mile or only a few feet. People need to be made aware, Regardless of whether their actions are legally punishable or not by the FCC, the fact still remains that there could be kids listening against their parent/guardians' wishes. That could ultimately lead to legal problems on a civil level.


> This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules.
> Operation is
> subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may
> not cause
> harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any
> interference
> received, including interference that may cause undesired
> operation.

I think by "Harmful interference" they are not referring to the content of the interference, but rather interference that has a negative affect on any licensed entity. (I may be wrong here, but that is my interpretation) The best example I can think of is that someone mentioned before, up the thread, that a local Non-Comm station was receiving complaints from their listeners that other peoples' Satellite Radio Modulators were interfering with their radio station, making the listeners unable to hear the entire broadcast. Someone also mentioned that a Satellite subscriber was actually bold and stupid enough to complain to a licensed station that their station was interfering with their satellite radio transmitter. That would be the example of accepting any interference that causes undesired operation.

> Anyone wishing to add to this, perhaps a broadcast lawyer on
> hand?
>
> Radiopilot

I must say, I am really enjoying the discourse here. This topic is relevant, and we are having an intelligent discussion about it. Further reflection on points I have made and other's counterpoints have helped me to see more clearly what a complicated issue this really is, and what the possible implications are. I too welcome anyone else's comments. Where are all the Lawyers when you need them?