|
|
Post by part15engineer on Jul 27, 2017 14:47:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 15:45:12 GMT
There are 2 problem areas there.
Aiding & Abetting - It would be extremely difficult for anyone who does not own expensive test equipment to determine if a broadcaster is legal. Particularly on FM.
Elimination of Warnings - Continuing on from my previous statement, sometimes even an individual who is using Part 15 certified equipment does not realize that they may be operating illegally. Should they face the same penalties (without a warning) as those who openly flout the law?
I understand that those comments are really directed at broadcasters who are obviously and knowingly operating illegally, but the very real concern exists that legal Part 15 broadcasters will be lumped into the mix.
If a landlord faces penalties for 'aiding and abetting' illegal broadcasting, then they will be very reluctant to take the word of that Part 15 broadcaster that they are operating legally. Is it really up to a landlord to police the activities of a tenant, particularly when other laws specifically regulate landlord/tenant rights?
|
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Jul 27, 2017 18:08:27 GMT
There are 2 problem areas there. Aiding & Abetting - It would be extremely difficult for anyone who does not own expensive test equipment to determine if a broadcaster is legal. Particularly on FM. Elimination of Warnings - Continuing on from my previous statement, sometimes even an individual who is using Part 15 certified equipment does not realize that they may be operating illegally. Should they face the same penalties (without a warning) as those who openly flout the law? I understand that those comments are really directed at broadcasters who are obviously and knowingly operating illegally, but the very real concern exists that legal Part 15 broadcasters will be lumped into the mix. If a landlord faces penalties for 'aiding and abetting' illegal broadcasting, then they will be very reluctant to take the word of that Part 15 broadcaster that they are operating legally. Is it really up to a landlord to police the activities of a tenant, particularly when other laws specifically regulate landlord/tenant rights? I have to agree with this series of statements made by Davidc 150%! It is a scary situation to own anything part 15 related, because there are part 15 devices we use every day that we could be held liable for without giving it a thought. Routers and drone remote controllers are part 15 devices aren't they? Who knows if a drone controller is causing harmful interference, they transmit quite a distance from what I've been seeing based on videos I've seen on television news and on line sites such as Facebook and youtube. I realize drones are used on a short term basis, but there are remote devices such as routers, that transmit a constant signal and without a spectrum analyzer we have no idea if those devices effect any business or licensed broadcasters. Bruce. |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 28, 2017 16:09:42 GMT
Bruce, while I agree with the concerns of part 15 broadcasters being lumped in the mix, but the many part15 devices you refer to is not what the FCC is gearing up to eliminate (at least not in that article). What they are aiming for is specifically pirates in the broadcast bands, the only non- compliant part15 devices they might go after are those 'supposedly' operating under 15.219.. So if your signal is covering a substantial amount of range then it would be prudent to bring it closer to a more realistic compliance, at least till the storm blows over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 16:48:05 GMT
This all strikes me as being rather heavy handed. They potentially could come down hard on Part 15 operators, even those that want to comply with the rules, when they themselves have made it very difficult for said operators to determine if they are operating legally - both with the rules themselves as well as inconsistent enforcement.
The rules need to be cleaned up, and changed so that it is clear if someone is operating legally. This goes particularly for FM, where you now need expensive test equipment to really see if you are legal (while range is definely related to field strength, you can't always tell with range alone). Even on AM, there is the everlasting confusion swirling around what exactly is a ground, and what constitutes a ground lead - there have been instances where those supposedly operating unmodified certified AM transmitters in accordance with the rules have been issued a NOUO.
I believe that it needs to be black and white. If you use an unmodified certified transmitter, you are deemed to be legal. Certified FM transmitters are supposed to have fixed antennas already. As for AM, I think that there might be a possibility to convince the FCC to relax the antenna/ground lead rules for AM, which would eliminate 99% of the legal/illegal confusion right there.
Why make more work for yourself, particularly when you are already understaffed and underfunded, and the pirates are obviously winning?
|
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Jul 28, 2017 18:39:07 GMT
Bruce, while I agree with the concerns of part 15 broadcasters being lumped in the mix, but the many part15 devices you refer to is not what the FCC is gearing up to eliminate (at least not in that article). What they are aiming for is specifically pirates in the broadcast bands, the only non- compliant part15 devices they might go after are those 'supposedly' operating under 15.219.. So if your signal is covering a substantial amount of range then it would be prudent to bring it closer to a more realistic compliance, at least till the storm blows over. Agreed End80, I understand we are talking about part 15 transmitters for the purpose of broadcasting a radio service of some type, be it a around the house wireless music intercom. However, as we know, anything part 15 is clearly marked this device can not cause harmful interference. Part 95 has the same warning. I know my neighbor's laptop screws with my digital over the air television reception, when he clicks on links and does his Ebay listings, my outdoor television antenna which is located just above his living room, picks up stray emissions from his CPU. The smoke stack my antenna is mounted on is off centered in the building where his laptop area is right below my antenna location. Edited to add: Not to mention he uses his laptop on a wireless connection to his modem/router issued by his service provider rather than a wired connection. Either way, his laptop activity causes my digital over the air television channels to freeze frame or drop out completely until his laptop is finished processing whatever he has commanded it to do. Now if I was a nasty neighbor and not friends with him, I could file a complaint of interference against him. Not saying it would go anywhere, but hey, who knows. I realize we are talking about part 15 AM & FM transmitters here, but there are plenty of user devices that we use every day that emit an RF energy that are capable of causing harmful interference and getting a complaint issued against you. Most home consumers have no clue that this is even possible, because they have no clue how they work, they just plug them in and use them, without reading the manuals that might clearly state that their device can cause harmful interference to other services and is a violation of the FCC rules. Bruce. |
|
|
|
Post by End80 on Jul 29, 2017 6:05:32 GMT
..I know my neighbor's laptop screws with my digital over the air television reception, when he clicks on links and does his Ebay listings, my outdoor television antenna which is located just above his living room, picks up stray emissions from his CPU. The smoke stack my antenna is mounted on is off centered in the building where his laptop area is right below my antenna location. Edited to add: Not to mention he uses his laptop on a wireless connection to his modem/router issued by his service provider rather than a wired connection. Either way, his laptop activity causes my digital over the air television channels to freeze frame or drop out completely until his laptop is finished processing whatever he has commanded it to do... ..I realize we are talking about part 15 AM & FM transmitters here, but there are plenty of user devices that we use every day that emit an RF energy that are capable of causing harmful interference and getting a complaint issued against you. Most home consumers have no clue that this is even possible, because they have no clue how they work, they just plug them in and use them...
That so much reminded me of an ARRL article about part 15: [ www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-frequency-devices ], it's a really long page, buried down deep in the page it specifically addressed your situation.. Here are the primary excerpts, It has an interesting viewpoint IMO:
================================
"...the FCC requires that Part 15 devices be operated in such a way that they not cause harmful interference. The operator of the Part 15 device is responsible for correcting the interference or to stop using the device if so ordered by the FCC. This can create a very difficult situation...
..Interference from Part 15 devices can get pretty bad. While a single video game in a neighborhood may cause a local problem, some interference from other devices can be much more pervasive... imagine that your neighbor goes to a local retail store and buys a networking device. If that device has harmful interference, you have the unenviable task of going to your neighbor and trying to explain complex Part 15 regulations. What your neighbor will hear is that you are making the outrageous claim that a device he just bought at a local store is in violation of federal law. When you tell your neighbor that his brand-new device is causing interference to you, he or she may get a look of glee and say, "Aha! The tables have turned!" This is a diplomacy problem that will be hard to solve...
How is this sentiment being put into practice with the FCC? In an ideal world, hams who experience harmful interference from Part 15 devices could call the FCC and say, "Go forth and enforce." But FCC resources are very limited and the FCC simply cannot track down every emitter and then deal with the Part 15 operator.
The needs of Amateur Radio are unique, with hams routinely dealing with signal levels lower than most services consider acceptable. This would be an impossible task for the FCC to manage, and if they did, Amateur Radio might not like the line in the sand the FCC might draw with respect to signal levels. Instead, Amateur Radio gets the best of all worlds when the FCC relies on Amateur Radio to work with the Part 15 manufacturers and operators to voluntarily resolve harmful interference. As seen in much of this article, the ARRL has played a strong role in that process. Individual hams play a strong local role, too.
But hams can't do it alone. Without that FCC "big stick" being held in the background, some Part 15 manufacturers and operators will not understand the rules or the importance of following them. FCC information plays a key role in helping to encourage everyone to do the right thing. Right now, the FCC information on interference from devices regulated by Part 15 is pretty scant. The ARRL is working with the FCC to fix this, through Ed Hare's contact with the FCC Call Center staff..."
|
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jul 29, 2017 7:36:35 GMT
You guys are comparing apples to oranges here. The New York Pirates are usually using the kilowatt range of power. Most of these guys damn well know that they are over the limit because they're running thousands of Watts.
When operating too close to a licensed station they know that it could bleed that station over. Some of these guys don't really care. Those are the ones that will get nailed the ones that are really causing the issues. I don't even think they're going to worry too much about a flea powered pirate who doesn't really interfere with anything.
Too many things that I have read suggest this. It really depends on where it is that the Transmissions are being made from. Because if you're out there in the wilderness or close to it obviously you're no competition with the big boys. Therefore there will be little or no complaints.
Really it's all about the money and if you're in a big city the broadcasters will see you as a part of their competition and they're going to try to get rid of you anyway they can. But if you're out there in a rural area it's not worth the FCC's time nor the broadcasters time if you are indeed a very small micro broadcasting station running a very clean transmitter.
As far as AM vs FM there seems to be less Crackdown on AM then there has been on FM that has been known for a long time. However I think the passageways are about to be more even because we're seeing more and more leniency towards the smaller FM guys.
I've said what the solution is all along and it won't be long until they have to do that because just like in other countries such as Canada and New Zealand they are allowed more power in a New Zealand to have their own band within the FM band to broadcast as a hobby station. The United States has always tried to play Big Daddy when it comes to a lot of things such as file sharing and music licensing. It's not limited to FM and AM hobby broadcasting. They are trying to figure out ways to eliminate hobby broadcasters on the internet too. This has not worked for them and continues not to work for them in the end the people will win the end and soon there will have to be new laws that will be much more leaning it towards the hobbyist as well as better transmitter that will emit less interference. Let's hope that the brand new 1417 F chips are less prone to interference than the older 1415 F chips. We'll just have to see in the test to come in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Jul 29, 2017 8:43:53 GMT
You guys are comparing apples to oranges here. The New York Pirates are usually using the kilowatt range of power. Most of these guys damn well know that they are over the limit because they're running thousands of Watts. I highly doubt they are running that much power! Maybe 50, maybe 100, maybe 200, but I highly doubt they are running kilowatt transmitters. You also mentioned something about music in your post above. The RIAA has been doing a pretty good job removing sites that offer MP3 and ring tones of full songs for download, I know sites that were there one day, but gone the next. I know I had downloaded a torrent for a Phil Spector released Christmas song by the Ronettes called "Frosty the snowman" I had a commercially released CD but the music on it sucked, it was too bassy and distorted, so I tried a torrent. The download was worse than the commercial CD I had! A Total waste of time! Two days later I get an email from Comcast warning me that they got a complaint that I used a torrent to download a copyrighted work and another stunt like that and I'd lose my service!! It was a legit email and they included enough information in that email to convince me they had me red handed. Okay, I did not use a proxy, but I never intended to download a copyrighted song, I mean that song is from the 1950's and you would not think it would still hold a copyright after all these years. Moral of the story, my first attempt to download a song using a torrent and I got snagged the first time I tried it!! So, don't say the RIAA isn't cleaning house on piracy, because I am one example that got caught the very first time I tried it. Bruce. |
|
|
|
Post by mark on Jul 30, 2017 0:02:37 GMT
There are 2 problem areas there. Aiding & Abetting - It would be extremely difficult for anyone who does not own expensive test equipment to determine if a broadcaster is legal. Particularly on FM. Elimination of Warnings - Continuing on from my previous statement, sometimes even an individual who is using Part 15 certified equipment does not realize that they may be operating illegally. Should they face the same penalties (without a warning) as those who openly flout the law? I understand that those comments are really directed at broadcasters who are obviously and knowingly operating illegally, but the very real concern exists that legal Part 15 broadcasters will be lumped into the mix. If a landlord faces penalties for 'aiding and abetting' illegal broadcasting, then they will be very reluctant to take the word of that Part 15 broadcaster that they are operating legally. Is it really up to a landlord to police the activities of a tenant, particularly when other laws specifically regulate landlord/tenant rights? To add, most people think that ANY radio transmission is illegal.....they don't know about RSS-210 and BETS-1. A landlord could be ignorant and just say not allowed not knowing any better. Even in a building it's your home and you can't hold landlord's responsible when they themselves don't know a thing about any of this. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by MrBruce on Jul 30, 2017 4:26:52 GMT
If a landlord faces penalties for 'aiding and abetting' illegal broadcasting, then they will be very reluctant to take the word of that Part 15 broadcaster that they are operating legally. Is it really up to a landlord to police the activities of a tenant, particularly when other laws specifically regulate landlord/tenant rights? To add, most people think that ANY radio transmission is illegal.....they don't know about RSS-210 and BETS-1. A landlord could be ignorant and just say not allowed not knowing any better. Even in a building it's your home and you can't hold landlord's responsible when they themselves don't know a thing about any of this. Mark I can agree with that statement. The FCC can not expect every landowner (even if a notice is sent to every landlord on file) to know if their tenant is using a legal or an illegal transmitter unless they inspect every crevice of the dwelling, and they can't tell a wireless router from an FM or AM part 15 or part 73 transmitter. They are simply land owners who have enough to worry about with keeping the dwelling up to city codes. Only the transmitter owner should be approached, contacted and or found in violation of any rules! Period!! Bruce. |
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jul 30, 2017 5:36:55 GMT
I'm not saying the RIAA DON'T I'm saying THEY CANT.
Any tech-savvy file sharing buff knows the first thing you do is to use a VPN. Rather it's one of those free vpns or a paid one which is better. I can name a bunch of VPN Services right off the bat.
Torrent sites and free music sites Exist by the thousands. I know some that's been around for years and still are going. You just have to know a little bit about the darknet.
As for the FCC they're going to pound in a few heads make a big mess for a little while but most of the ones that they're going to get are the ones that are really causing the issues. It will start a frenzy for a while things will get kind of nasty for a bit but in the long run it will be what it is. The tech-savvy person will always win in the long run.
In the end I will definitely tell you that eventually someone will come to their senses and we will have that hobby Broadcasting Service similar to New Zealand. Until then we'll have a few folks who are not tech-savvy get on the hot seat while the bullies go on to play Daddy to the rest of everybody in the United States. That's the way this country has always ran.
After a period of time the bullies give up and some sense actually comes back to this country.
|
|
