|
I look at it this way; If your cordless phone was making my garage door go up and down all night, I'd expect YOU to remedy that situation. Better re-read that part 15 notice that came with it. The sad fact is that a lot of these devices are made, with practically no effort to immunity. They lack even minimal shielding, have very poorly chosen 1st/2nd IF frequencies, with no image rejection, and rely on the most trivial encoding systems, all to save nickles. http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html#Scope "To help emphasize the secondary status of all devices operated under Part 15, the rules stipulate that the devices must not cause harmful interference to other radio services and must accept any interference caused by the legal operation of other radio services." -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
On 18 Sep 2004 06:12:49 GMT, Steveo
wrote: KAXN-9546 wrote: On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:39:40 -0400, "M-Tech" wrote: Modded or not, I *think* it's up to the radio operator NOT to interfere with his/her neighbors. I look at it this way; If your cordless phone was making my garage door go up and down all night, I'd expect YOU to remedy that situation. I had a situation once where I was broadcasting through a next door neighbors, well, let's just say a "type of piano you find in a church" because I can't think of how to word it without it coming out wrong:-) That was about 20 years ago when I was running 750 watts through stacked moonraker IV's. I tried installing filters every where I could plug one in but to no avail. So I stopped running the linear and all was well....it was just a cheap splatter box anyway. We moved and I sold everything. We actually just stopped in to see them a few months ago and she still has and plays that "type of piano you find in a church" :-) Don Well Don, in a Good Neighbor type of way, you would think that the owner/operator of the transmitting equipment would do "the right thing" and resolve the interference issue. I agree that the operator should take reasonable effort to do what they can. Example, a neighbor nearby complained that my Amateur gear (unamplified, no more than 70 watts to the antenna) was interfering with their TV. I put a low-pass filter on my antenna feedline and haven't heard a word from them since. Now granted, I'm operating under Part 97, and they are owners of Part 15 devices, but since they live two houses down, I figure maybe someone else might be hearing my SSB signal on their TV. Turns out later that they're using a satellite system and their internal wiring is point to point with SPEAKER WIRE! Trust me. If the low-pass filter didn't do the job, I'd have sent them packing and looking for other solutions. I've seen lo-pass and high-pass have -no effect- because of fundamentals and cheap home electronics. In the end you still have to deal with a ****ed of neighbor. .... and if they've Mickey Mouse'd their home theater installation.... THEIR problem, not mine... Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 |
"KAXN-9546" wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:55 -0500, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2003 HOUSE BILL 257 RATIFIED BILL AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO EQUIPMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. Article 15 of Chapter 62 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read: "§ 62-328. Unauthorized use of Citizens Band equipment. (a) As used in this section, 'Citizens Band radio equipment' means Citizens Band radio equipment authorized by the Federal Communications Commission. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and knowingly to use Citizens Band radio equipment not authorized by the Federal Communications Commission. Unauthorized Citizens Band radio equipment includes the use of power amplifiers or equipment prohibited under applicable federal regulations. (c) This section does not apply to any licensee that is exempted under the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 302a(f)(2). (d) Any person willfully and knowingly violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor." SECTION 2. This act becomes effective December 1, 2004, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. In the General Assembly read three times and ratified this the 28th day of June, 2004. _____________________________________ Beverly E. Perdue President of the Senate _____________________________________ Richard T. Morgan Speaker of the House of Representatives Sounds like a well thought-out bill. Let's just hope that the state of North Carolina can put some teeth in the enforcement end of it. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 LOL!!!! "Put some teeth in the enforcement" What a hoot. Landshark -- That does suck..sometimes you're the windshield..sometimes you're the bug. |
"KAXN-9546" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:27:49 -0400, "Dr.X" wrote: "itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... "Dr.X" wrote in : "itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2003 HOUSE BILL 257 RATIFIED BILL AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO EQUIPMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. The General Assembly ... Federal law trumps state law no matter what side the state law takes. Any normal judge would just say that a rule already exists to address the issue so state level action is a waste of time and taxpayers money. -Dr.X The FCC passed juridstiction over to local/state level for enforcement. they are well within thier rights. But doesn't that just mean enforcing existing federal regulations? I don't think local laws need to be passed for local enforcement of a federal law. I could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. :-) -Dr.X It's quite obvious that you are not a lawyer. States are free to pass any law that does not conflict with federal regulation. In this case, the state's law compliments the federal statute, and does not come in conflict with the federal law. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 Your a hoot Ray.............. In this cast all it's doing is putting into law the exact same FCC regulation, political double talk. Landshark -- Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you will help them become what they are capable of becoming. |
Research PL106-521 signed by Clinton in 2000. That is where these state
and local laws are coming from. 73 J K4KWH _ Going strictly on memory, didn't HR 2346 precede this? |
"Twistedhed" wrote in _ Going strictly on memory, didn't HR 2346 precede this? It was the Bill that was signed into law as PL-106-521. Same thing. |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:50:09 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote: "KAXN-9546" wrote in message The FCC passed juridstiction over to local/state level for enforcement. they are well within thier rights. But doesn't that just mean enforcing existing federal regulations? I don't think local laws need to be passed for local enforcement of a federal law. I could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. :-) -Dr.X It's quite obvious that you are not a lawyer. States are free to pass any law that does not conflict with federal regulation. In this case, the state's law compliments the federal statute, and does not come in conflict with the federal law. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 Your a hoot Ray.............. In this cast all it's doing is putting into law the exact same FCC regulation, political double talk. Landshark I never said they weren't. But in doing so, they established a clear, legal path to providing enforcement powers to a largely ignored federal statute. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 |
"KAXN-9546" wrote in message ... On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:50:09 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "KAXN-9546" wrote in message The FCC passed juridstiction over to local/state level for enforcement. they are well within thier rights. But doesn't that just mean enforcing existing federal regulations? I don't think local laws need to be passed for local enforcement of a federal law. I could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. :-) -Dr.X It's quite obvious that you are not a lawyer. States are free to pass any law that does not conflict with federal regulation. In this case, the state's law compliments the federal statute, and does not come in conflict with the federal law. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 Your a hoot Ray.............. In this cast all it's doing is putting into law the exact same FCC regulation, political double talk. Landshark I never said they weren't. But in doing so, they established a clear, legal path to providing enforcement powers to a largely ignored federal statute. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 Well, spitting on the sidewalk is against the law, but largely ignored. Copying videos, either DVD or tape is a federal law, when was the last time they raided your neighbor for that? Landshark -- Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you will help them become what they are capable of becoming. |
"I Am Not George" wrote in message m... "Landshark" wrote: "KAXN-9546" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:50:09 GMT, "Landshark" wrote: "KAXN-9546" wrote in message The FCC passed juridstiction over to local/state level for enforcement. they are well within thier rights. But doesn't that just mean enforcing existing federal regulations? I don't think local laws need to be passed for local enforcement of a federal law. I could be wrong. I'm not a lawyer. :-) -Dr.X It's quite obvious that you are not a lawyer. States are free to pass any law that does not conflict with federal regulation. In this case, the state's law compliments the federal statute, and does not come in conflict with the federal law. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 Your a hoot Ray.............. In this cast all it's doing is putting into law the exact same FCC regulation, political double talk. Landshark I never said they weren't. But in doing so, they established a clear, legal path to providing enforcement powers to a largely ignored federal statute. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 Well, spitting on the sidewalk is against the law, but largely ignored. Copying videos, either DVD or tape is a federal law, when was the last time they raided your neighbor for that? Landshark Why do keyclowns defend law breaking? see how land shark runs to uphold criminal behavior. There must be a deep seated reason for it. whats wrong with law breaking? doug and i are both felons |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com