Re: FCC Rule: Big brother watching?

Puckdropper (puckdropper@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
Impmon <impmon@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:im40k2d2oinko94g44hllr39pkv9odtmeu@xxxxxxx:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:39:59 GMT, "sjb" <sjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

2)this device must accept any interference received, including
interference that may cause undsired operation.

WTF!

Why would they insist that a device accept harmful/debilitating
interference?

That disclaimer has been on just about every electronic items for the
last couple decades. Never really bothered to figure out the warning
#2

It may be possible that some mad EE comes up with a way to solve the
interference problem his device is getting... by actively seeking out the
sources of the interference and doing something to them. Ok, Star Trek
TNG analogy aside, it's possible an active anti-interferance scheme could
mess with another device. It's a play nice type rule, as well as an
extension of rule 1.

Is the second bit really in Part 15? It may simply be there to inform
the consumer that they have to live with interference, and they put in
the line to counter the first bit. "This is legal according to that
first line, so why am I not protected by the same token?"

The intent is clear. People using transmitters are only responsible
for interference if they are using out of spec transmitters. Being nearby
so it can overload that audio amplifier is not a crime. (But a transmitter
that isn't "clean", ie putting out harmonics that land in the tv spectrum,
is the problem when the neighbor is getting bad tv reception as a result.)
Those without technical knowledge blame the transmitters, whether or
not they are the actual problem.

Part 15 even includes some things where the right to use the specific
radio frequencies is overriden by licensed users of those frequencies.
So those cheap 27MHz walkie talkies can't interfere with licensed users
(actually I gather there may no longer be a license requirement for
CB), but if a licensed user comes on the frequency, the Part 15 user
can't complain. They have to standby because they are a secondary
user of those frequencies.

Indeed, the disclaimer may be a general boilerplate that is used
for any time a Part 15 disclaimer is needed, so the fact
that one device actual receives radio signals (that wireless
keyboard using 27MHz) and another is merely interfered with (that
wired keyboard sends extra characters everytime Joe next door transmits)
isn't differentiated.

Michael

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FCC Rule: Big brother watching?
    ... Why would they insist that a device accept harmful/debilitating ... That disclaimer has been on just about every electronic items for the ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: FCC Rule: Big brother watching?
    ... interference that may cause undsired operation. ... That disclaimer has been on just about every electronic items for the ... it's possible an active anti-interferance scheme could ... It's a play nice type rule, ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: (AD)new locating device
    ... cost/time versus what people will eventually buy from the dealers. ... I don't wanna see pulsing interference shit from tracking ... The use of 2.4GHz for video telemetry is well established, ... We've had one situation of two video transmitters on the same ...
    (uk.tech.rocketry)
  • Re: Freeview aerial.
    ... likely to be suffering from co-channel interference from other ... how far do you think that UHF TV ... Being west north west of London, my aerial points straight through Crystal Palace towards Belgium, Holland and Germany - all having high-power transmitters of their own. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Analogue Switch Off
    ... transmitters might run at 4dB below current analogue levels. ... It suffers during 'lift' conditions ... It's just that putting them vertical should reduce any interference levels, which will only be temporary during 'lifts' etc. ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)