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.
>
I agree, but it seems the FCC had to know this from the test results they obtained from the certification of these units that a) the output power may exceed the Part 15 levels, b) the units may be used in a manner still compliant to the Part 15 rules but in a different configuration (top of a pole versus inside a car). As far as 97% of the users not knowing, I agree the manual for these units only vaguely suggests about interference and turning off the unit if it does. I looked at the test results from my FCC certified FM modulator at the FCC website and it does go through the 'hoops' to get it certified, by the way it's tested on a 1.5 meter turntable with the recieve antenna 3 meters away... good reading for the technically inclined!
>
> > 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.
>
According to the article I posted above and elsewhere it is legal for the FCC to fine you for indeceny if your station or broadcast is turned into the FCC and license or not is really important to them.
> 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.
>
>
That reminds me of the person who had a television that somehow when he turned it on cause an emergency alert signal to happen on one of the higher frequencies and as such the FCC and NSA has pin pointed it to his house, they had the U.S. Marshalls, FCC agents and civilian officers to arrest him till they found out it was his television causing unwanted signals... they told him not to turn on the TV or face $10,000 a day fines... now he was not broadcasting and the TV is a part15 device but still they will fine you!
http://news.com.com/Cops+track+emergency+call+to+malfunctioning+TV/2100-1041_3-5415719.html
> > 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.
> >
I'll agree with you on this... funny because I operate Radio Control airplanes and on FM it has certain codes to prevent one frequency from reading another even if they are on the same frequency but the codes seperate the different codes so as the aircraft never to get an offending command. Seems like cordless phone manufacurers can take a hint!
> > 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.
>
This is intentional spying and is different than what we are discussing here, but you are correct it's difficult to comb one from another.
> > 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.
>
>
Which is why the FCC is getting it's rational for indicating they do not want indency at 'certain' times when the unsuspecting audience is hearing something that may be offensive, they are avocating anything against airing indecent or offensive material at later times which according to them is after 10PM through 6AM.
> > 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.
>
My point here is that as a Part15 device it must accept any interference including being able to hear another transmitter or incidental signal regardless of where it originates... so If my Part15 device is on Howard Stern's and you turn on your baby monitor I may hear your baby sounds or your baby might hear Howard Stern, but it's the issue that I won't sue because I hear baby cries, but I'm sure you'll sue me for the baby listening in on Stern!
I hope I worded that in a simple way?
> > 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?
>
I contacted a broadcast attorney and awaiting his answer to this question but if you read the above post on indecency and part15 broadcasters, perhaps it's a little clearer for everyone...
Good discussion...
Radiopilot
> > 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.
>
I agree, but it seems the FCC had to know this from the test results they obtained from the certification of these units that a) the output power may exceed the Part 15 levels, b) the units may be used in a manner still compliant to the Part 15 rules but in a different configuration (top of a pole versus inside a car). As far as 97% of the users not knowing, I agree the manual for these units only vaguely suggests about interference and turning off the unit if it does. I looked at the test results from my FCC certified FM modulator at the FCC website and it does go through the 'hoops' to get it certified, by the way it's tested on a 1.5 meter turntable with the recieve antenna 3 meters away... good reading for the technically inclined!
>
> > 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.
>
According to the article I posted above and elsewhere it is legal for the FCC to fine you for indeceny if your station or broadcast is turned into the FCC and license or not is really important to them.
> 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.
>
>
That reminds me of the person who had a television that somehow when he turned it on cause an emergency alert signal to happen on one of the higher frequencies and as such the FCC and NSA has pin pointed it to his house, they had the U.S. Marshalls, FCC agents and civilian officers to arrest him till they found out it was his television causing unwanted signals... they told him not to turn on the TV or face $10,000 a day fines... now he was not broadcasting and the TV is a part15 device but still they will fine you!
http://news.com.com/Cops+track+emergency+call+to+malfunctioning+TV/2100-1041_3-5415719.html
> > 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.
> >
I'll agree with you on this... funny because I operate Radio Control airplanes and on FM it has certain codes to prevent one frequency from reading another even if they are on the same frequency but the codes seperate the different codes so as the aircraft never to get an offending command. Seems like cordless phone manufacurers can take a hint!
> > 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.
>
This is intentional spying and is different than what we are discussing here, but you are correct it's difficult to comb one from another.
> > 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.
>
>
Which is why the FCC is getting it's rational for indicating they do not want indency at 'certain' times when the unsuspecting audience is hearing something that may be offensive, they are avocating anything against airing indecent or offensive material at later times which according to them is after 10PM through 6AM.
> > 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.
>
My point here is that as a Part15 device it must accept any interference including being able to hear another transmitter or incidental signal regardless of where it originates... so If my Part15 device is on Howard Stern's and you turn on your baby monitor I may hear your baby sounds or your baby might hear Howard Stern, but it's the issue that I won't sue because I hear baby cries, but I'm sure you'll sue me for the baby listening in on Stern!
I hope I worded that in a simple way?
> > 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?
>
I contacted a broadcast attorney and awaiting his answer to this question but if you read the above post on indecency and part15 broadcasters, perhaps it's a little clearer for everyone...
Good discussion...
Radiopilot