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.

"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.

"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