In , Duke Of Windsor
wrote:

snip
The FCC rules place the responsibility for correcting interference on the
device user, i.e. the Pittaways. This can put a ham operator into the
unenviable position of explaining to neighbors that the device they
bought violates federal law."


I don't think a device (or "mechanical contrivance", for Twisty's sake) has ever
been convicted of violating federal law. Not to say it can't happen (Azimov).

Part 15 devices are required to accept interference. At the same time, a ham is
required to operate "in accordance with good engineering and good amateur
practice", which I assume would include limiting the amount of annoyance caused
to the neighbors via RFI. After all, a ham ticket isn't a license to broadcast
interference, nor is it a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card if he does. The ham is not
allowed to "willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any
radio communication or signal", a rule which makes no distinction between
signals to or from Part 15 devices, or from any other type of device under any
part, including a broadcast transmitter. So if he is continuing to operate while
knowingly (and therefore 'willingly') causing interference to the neighbor's TV,
it is clearly the -ham- who is at fault, and those neighbors should be bitching
to the television stations who would set that ham straight in a damn hurry.

They may also have the right to file a civil complaint against him for causing a
private or public nuisance, which may be perfectly valid -regardless- of how
legal he is under Title 47.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote:

So if he is continuing to operate while
knowingly (and therefore 'willingly') causing interference to the neighbor's TV,
it is clearly the -ham- who is at fault,

Not so, if the ham's signal is clean, no harmonics, no spurious energy,
within the power limits, operating according to FCC rules, and the TV
cannot reject out of band rf energy, it is the fault of the TV, not the
ham and he is perfectly within his rights to keep operating. Same for
any CB operator. If your logic made any sense, then if I complained to
you that you driving your car by my house interfers with my afternoon
nap, then it is your fault. I can't get my nap because you now knowingly
(and therefore 'willingly') interfer with my nap (disturbing the peace),
so I should be able to have you stopped from driving by my house.
Oh, you say I should better insulate my house against noise? Like maybe
the TV owner should fix his crappy TV so it does not pick up unwanted
signals?

and those neighbors should be bitching
to the television stations who would set that ham straight in a damn hurry.

And the tv station can't do a single thing but complain to the FCC.

They may also have the right to file a civil complaint against him for causing a
private or public nuisance, which may be perfectly valid -regardless- of how
legal he is under Title 47.

Civil authority has no jurisdiction over an FCC licensed ham station.