| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
PROHIBIT THE USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO
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 |
"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 |
"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 |
"Dr.X" wrote:
I'm not a lawyer. :-) -Dr.X Geo's keeper is. (Nancy) -- Kerry voted for that, before he voted against it. |
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote
in message ... "Dr.X" wrote in : "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 Yes you are wrong,Local laws were passed giving them the right to enforce FCC laws this passage from the beginning answers your question. "AN ACT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO EQUIPMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ok, I'll wait and see. But it seems to me that's just RE-enforcment. A total and complete waste of time and money on the part of the state to make rules that are already on the books. There is no need for new laws when existing ones will do the job just fine. To me, if the fed says bank robbery is illegal, I see no reason for the local gov to make new laws to say the same thing since they already have the right to enforce it. I'm not saying that it's not going to pass. I'm sure there are pleanty of people in NC that will say, "Oh, make illegal radios ILLEGAL. Sure, I'm for that. Let's vote yes! on proposition bla-bla to make those terrible "UN-LAWFUL radios into ILLEGAL radios...". It could happen. But I still think it's still a waste of time. ok, I'm done. ;-) -Dr.X |
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. But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law. Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce it. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
... 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. But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law. Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce it. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR AH! maybe that's what I'm not getting. -Dr.X |
You're telling me state officials can't enforce federal law????
This just sounds to me that NC is cleaning up it's policy to mirror the feds policy on CB equipment. They've had the authority to seek/confiscate said equipment for as long as there has been federal legislation on CB equipment. I googled this and can't find a bill 257 from session 2003. Some of you can try if you wish and help me out..LOL http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...003&BillID=257 Don "Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... 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. But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law. Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce it. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
Okay, I got it. It's an AMENDED Law. Just like a said. They've ALWAYS had
the power to enforce this at ANY level. They've also always had the "law". This is simply adding to it(ratified). I found it he http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/html2003...0257.full.html Don "M-Tech" wrote in message ... You're telling me state officials can't enforce federal law???? This just sounds to me that NC is cleaning up it's policy to mirror the feds policy on CB equipment. They've had the authority to seek/confiscate said equipment for as long as there has been federal legislation on CB equipment. I googled this and can't find a bill 257 from session 2003. Some of you can try if you wish and help me out..LOL http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascript...003&BillID=257 Don "Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... 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. But local jusisdictions (state/county etc) can't enforce federal law. Having a local ordinance that mirrors the federal allows them to enforce it. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
M-Tech" wrote in message
... You're telling me state officials can't enforce federal law???? It may be that they can't enforce federal regulation (as opposed to law). IANAL. The FCC had a bulletin on this some time back which explained it in terms of making it possible for local authorities to enforce FCC regs. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate certain
area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain grants/aid/monies etc. But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level, taken from the federal level. Don "Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... M-Tech" wrote in message ... You're telling me state officials can't enforce federal law???? It may be that they can't enforce federal regulation (as opposed to law). IANAL. The FCC had a bulletin on this some time back which explained it in terms of making it possible for local authorities to enforce FCC regs. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
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 |
"M-Tech" wrote in message
... Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate certain area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain grants/aid/monies etc. But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level, taken from the federal level. Don Whatever they want to call it, it's still going to be a waste of time and money. Reading up on it, it appears it comes from some local (Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane maybe) charging a citizen using the FCC's rules. The offender was causing interference in the television and telephone of his neighbor. It was appealed and the defendant won. So Rosco asked Boss Hogg if they can get clarification of the law. Boss Hogg obliged and is now in the process of getting the clarification. Meanwhile, Uncle Jessie probably was just running a little heat so he and Daisy can talk to the Duke Boys while they were out jumpin' over hollers with The General Lee.... :-| -Dr.X |
"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. And you ARE a lawyer? I bow to your knowledge and experience, Perry Mason. -Dr.X |
You would think people would have the common courtesy NOT to operate a phone
or television within "X" distance from an illegal CB station :-) The LEAST the guy can do is move!! Don "Dr.X" wrote in message ... "M-Tech" wrote in message ... Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate certain area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain grants/aid/monies etc. But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level, taken from the federal level. Don Whatever they want to call it, it's still going to be a waste of time and money. Reading up on it, it appears it comes from some local (Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane maybe) charging a citizen using the FCC's rules. The offender was causing interference in the television and telephone of his neighbor. It was appealed and the defendant won. So Rosco asked Boss Hogg if they can get clarification of the law. Boss Hogg obliged and is now in the process of getting the clarification. Meanwhile, Uncle Jessie probably was just running a little heat so he and Daisy can talk to the Duke Boys while they were out jumpin' over hollers with The General Lee.... :-| -Dr.X |
You don't have to bow....what he said is exactly what YOU said.
He's obviously not a lawyer either:-) Don "Dr.X" wrote in message ... "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. And you ARE a lawyer? I bow to your knowledge and experience, Perry Mason. -Dr.X |
good one dr x!..lol
"Dr.X" wrote in message ... | "M-Tech" wrote in message | ... | Okay. That makes sense. For example, federal regulations mandate certain | area's conduct emissions testing on vehicles. But states do NOT have to | enforce it. However, if they do not, they lose certain grants/aid/monies | etc. | | But as far as this subject goes....this is NOT a new "law". It's simply | verbiage added to an existing law(ratified/amended) at the state level, | taken from the federal level. | | Don | | Whatever they want to call it, it's still going to be a waste of time and | money. Reading up on it, it appears it comes from some local (Sheriff Rosco | P. Coltrane maybe) charging a citizen using the FCC's rules. The offender | was causing interference in the television and telephone of his neighbor. It | was appealed and the defendant won. So Rosco asked Boss Hogg if they can get | clarification of the law. Boss Hogg obliged and is now in the process of | getting the clarification. | | Meanwhile, Uncle Jessie probably was just running a little heat so he and | Daisy can talk to the Duke Boys while they were out jumpin' over hollers | with The General Lee.... :-| | | -Dr.X | | |
"M-Tech" wrote in message
... You would think people would have the common courtesy NOT to operate a phone or television within "X" distance from an illegal CB station :-) The LEAST the guy can do is move!! Don Heh-heh...yeah, get the hell out of my neighborhood if you can't take the heat. ;-) What's up with that anyway? It seems that on the back of most consumer electronics there's a notice saying it must not cause interference and it must accept interference. What's it going to be? If my radio causes interference, is my neighbor supposed to just take it because the notice says so? And if that's the case, why should I as an op worry about it? I think it should read one way or the other, not both ways to accommodate the FCC. It should read something like "must not cause interference and if it gets interference you should load a shot gun and find the CB prick that's running 4kw to talk to the guy down the street" or something of that nature. -Dr.X (not emitting interferons to the best of my knowledge) |
"harvey" wrote in message
t... good one dr x!..lol Thanks Harvey.. yeah I get bored sometimes. :-) -Dr.X |
What's up with that anyway? It seems that on the back of most consumer electronics there's a notice saying it must not cause interference and it must accept interference. What's it going to be? If my radio causes interference, is my neighbor supposed to just take it because the notice says so? And if that's the case, why should I as an op worry about it? They do create a bit of an ambiguous situation. When two unlicenced devices interfere, it would appear that both are SOL. If a type-accepted CB device is interfering with a part 15 device, then as I understand it, the part 15 device is SOL. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
... What's up with that anyway? It seems that on the back of most consumer electronics there's a notice saying it must not cause interference and it must accept interference. What's it going to be? If my radio causes interference, is my neighbor supposed to just take it because the notice says so? And if that's the case, why should I as an op worry about it? They do create a bit of an ambiguous situation. When two unlicenced devices interfere, it would appear that both are SOL. If a type-accepted CB device is interfering with a part 15 device, then as I understand it, the part 15 device is SOL. But wouldn't the CB device op be required to make changes? He's the one causing the interferance. My memory of such things is quite dusty. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR I checked out your site. I liked the "no active linear" amplifier. Have you ever tried something similar to that to amplitude-modulate the collector of a mosfet rf amp? Just curious. It would be like digital audio except the audio amps would need to be at least about half the wattage of the rf amp. (that could get ugly. :-P ) -Dr.X |
"Dr.X" wrote in message ... "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 Research PL106-521 signed by Clinton in 2000. That is where these state and local laws are coming from. 73 J |
But wouldn't the CB device op be required to make changes? He's the one
causing the interferance. My memory of such things is quite dusty. The part 15 device is the bottom of the food chain. It is required to accept any and all interference, including that which may cause undesired operation. This assumes that the other device is either part 15, or unmodified CB, or commercial licenced radio (unmodified), or ham radio operating in-spec. If I read them right, a modded CB, or one with an amp, or a ham radio that was operating out of spec, would be given the burden of cleaning up the problem. If you're operating illegally, then you go below the part 15 devices. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
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 "Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... But wouldn't the CB device op be required to make changes? He's the one causing the interferance. My memory of such things is quite dusty. The part 15 device is the bottom of the food chain. It is required to accept any and all interference, including that which may cause undesired operation. This assumes that the other device is either part 15, or unmodified CB, or commercial licenced radio (unmodified), or ham radio operating in-spec. If I read them right, a modded CB, or one with an amp, or a ham radio that was operating out of spec, would be given the burden of cleaning up the problem. If you're operating illegally, then you go below the part 15 devices. -- KC6ETE Dave's Engineering Page, www.dvanhorn.org Microcontroller Consultant, specializing in Atmel AVR |
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:58:46 -0400, "Dr.X"
wrote: "Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... What's up with that anyway? It seems that on the back of most consumer electronics there's a notice saying it must not cause interference and it must accept interference. What's it going to be? If my radio causes interference, is my neighbor supposed to just take it because the notice says so? And if that's the case, why should I as an op worry about it? They do create a bit of an ambiguous situation. When two unlicenced devices interfere, it would appear that both are SOL. If a type-accepted CB device is interfering with a part 15 device, then as I understand it, the part 15 device is SOL. But wouldn't the CB device op be required to make changes? He's the one causing the interferance. My memory of such things is quite dusty. LEGALLY operated CB's are protected by FCC statute under the FCC rules, part 95, in much the same way Amateur operator operate under Part 97 rules. What this means is that a CB that is operating as type accepted equipment under part 95 is considered to be spectrally acceptable to any and all receivers, intentional and non-intentional. Part 15 devices are "low dog" devices. If they are interfered with by legally operating equipment, operating under ANY FCC rules, then it is up to the owner or the Part 15 device to resolve their interference problems. Conversely, if a part 15 device CAUSES interference to any other device, it is again up to the owner of the part 15 device to resolve any interference issues. Some caveats here... Illegally modified CB radios or CB's operating with external amplification are NO LONGER considered to be operating under the protection of FCC Rules part 95. They are considered to be unlicensed, and as such, ANY interference they cause to ANY device is considered to be the fault of the CB operator and they MAY be held liable. Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 |
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 made an effort. Possibly a token effort, but still an effort beyond what the law required. Then again, unlike you, I tend to operate legally, and therefore I have very few interference complaints and if I DID have any other complaints, would be 100% legal in telling the owner of the Part 15 device that they need to look at THEIR installation first, THEN come talk to me... Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 |
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:17:21 -0400, "Dr.X"
wrote: 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. And you ARE a lawyer? I bow to your knowledge and experience, Perry Mason. -Dr.X Cool! Thanks! Raymond Sirois KAXN-9546 SysOp: The Lost Chord BBS 607-733-5745 telnet://thelostchord.dns2go.com:6000 |
"KAXN-9546" wrote in message
... On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:58:46 -0400, "Dr.X" wrote: "Dave VanHorn" wrote in message ... What's up with that anyway? It seems that on the back of most consumer electronics there's a notice saying it must not cause interference and it must accept interference. What's it going to be? If my radio causes interference, is my neighbor supposed to just take it because the notice says so? And if that's the case, why should I as an op worry about it? They do create a bit of an ambiguous situation. When two unlicenced devices interfere, it would appear that both are SOL. If a type-accepted CB device is interfering with a part 15 device, then as I understand it, the part 15 device is SOL. But wouldn't the CB device op be required to make changes? He's the one causing the interferance. My memory of such things is quite dusty. LEGALLY operated CB's are protected by FCC statute under the FCC rules, part 95, in much the same way Amateur operator operate under Part 97 rules. What this means is that a CB that is operating as type accepted equipment under part 95 is considered to be spectrally acceptable to any and all receivers, intentional and non-intentional. Part 15 devices are "low dog" devices. If they are interfered with by legally operating equipment, operating under ANY FCC rules, then it is up to the owner or the Part 15 device to resolve their interference problems. Conversely, if a part 15 device CAUSES interference to any other device, it is again up to the owner of the part 15 device to resolve any interference issues. Some caveats here... Illegally modified CB radios or CB's operating with external amplification are NO LONGER considered to be operating under the protection of FCC Rules part 95. They are considered to be unlicensed, and as such, ANY interference they cause to ANY device is considered to be the fault of the CB operator and they MAY be held liable. I'd say it sucks to be a part 15 device. Thanks Raymond. -Dr.X |
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. |
"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 HA!..that frigging church pianne' doubles as a field strength meter! |
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 01:38 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com