There are some in the Part 15 world that, during the Christmas holidays, instead of spending time with family and friends, prefer to act as vigilantes.
They like to drive around and search for what they consider non compliant broadcasters, and spout the FCC rules. Apparently, however, they are unfamiliar with all of those rules.
Previously, we had a discussion here surrounding responsibilities if a Part 15 operator was using an FCC certified transmitter (i.e., one approved by an FCC accredited lab, and then accepted by the FCC with attached certification labels). Here is the appropriate section from the FCC rules:
2.909 Responsible party. (a) In the case of equipment that requires the issuance of a grant of certification, the party to whom that grant of certification is issued is responsible for the compliance of the equipment with the applicable standards. If the radio frequency equipment is modified by any party other than the grantee and that party is not working under the authorization of the grantee pursuant to § 2.929(b), the party performing the modification is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable administrative and technical provisions in this chapter.
I'll explain for the benefit of vigilantes everywhere. This states that if the FCC certifies a transmitter, then, if used as supplied with no modifications, the manufacturer is responsible for compliance. If modified, then, of course, the operator is responsible.
This Forum does not condone broadcasting outside FCC (and/or Industry Canada) regulations. But if the FCC is allowing potentially non compliant devices to be certified, that's on them (and eventually, the manufacturer). They need to, and should, clean up their act. It's not all that difficult. In the case of one dubious transmitter, the Retekess TR-508, which has been Part 15 certified, Industry Canada correctly certified it for RSS-123 licensed use only (@400 milliwatt output high power) and not RSS210 (which is equivalent to Part 15).
These vigilantes need to get a life, and then turn their attention to the FCC. Of course, that will never happen, as hassling individuals (who are attempting to be legal by using a certified transmitter) is much easier and won't get the spotlight turned on them.
The same individual has also gone on a rant against the "allegedly Part 15 compliant" Whole House 3 (he doesn't name it, but it's obvious what he's talking about). He ignores the fact that it has Part 15 certification, which at least is consistent with his previous rants. But he also conveniently ignores the fact that one of his featured members (he uses every excuse to showcase that member's jingle package) has frequently posted that he uses it for his radio station.
Now, you gotta at least be consistent. If you're going to condemn, condemn all what you feel are dubious transmitters, and their operators. Don't give someone a pass just because they're a member of your Forum. It makes a further mockery of your message.
@artisan-radio So this is a particular individual you are referring to, not just people in general that go around at Christmas looking for FCC violators?
Oh, the one at the other forum? Maybe he doesn't celebrate Christmas.
As for my bit on certified transmitters, to add to Artisan's post .. yes there are a couple of certified transmitters that questionably shouldn't have got a certification but it is not up to us the users to have equipment costing $$$$$$ and the know how to use it properly and not up to us the users to know about harmonics and field strength. Some of us do but this is not expected. If a transmitter has a certificate of approval that it passed the technical standards by a lab authorized by ISED or the FCC the user has a right to assume that the company went through the hoops and expense to get it approved and no one can be faulted for using a certified transmitter and assuming a certification makes it legal to use.
If I buy a car and it is certified to meet certain emission standards as per regulations it is not up to me the end user/driver to have to have any know how or equipment to check this myself. Or have to. That's what certification is for.
There is one certified transmitter I have posted about here that has harmonics way over the allowed max outside the band and I made a personal choice never to use it but that's just me. If it has a stamp of approval that's all anyone has to be concerned with.
Further to this discussion, here is a link to a reliable site, Rec Networks, that I would trust a lot more than Ranger Bill and company: Rec Networks.
They also mention that a Chinese transmitter, which appears overpowered, has received FCC certification. They recommend avoiding it, and I agree, but the fact of the matter is that the FCC did approve the certification, and it's still in the official FCC equipment certification database (I just checked).
If the FCC can't even get unlicensed FM broadcasting right, then it's no wonder there are so many operators who may be unknowingly non compliant with the rules. I don't include those who blatantly flout the rules in all this, using multiple watts of power.
Maybe that other Forum should be using their self-professed influence in the industry to approach the FCC and pressure them to clean up their certification act (including the outright banning of non certified devices) rather than physically and verbally going after end users.
@artisan-radio I second Rec Networks. They know without a doubt what they are talking about. Michi I think created Rec Networks and she knows the FCC stuff. I read/follow a lot of the things she writes about esp low power broadcasting etc.
I saw this on another forum by a poster and it read...
Why, because the users, as posters have pointed out, don't have the proper equipment or know how to check for field strength ourselves and a user goes by the labeling on the transmitter with a number that can be looked up and see the test results and the lab's approval. The user as the poster pointed out knows nothing ... exactly! We are all blind. So that's what we go by. The stamp of approval. If it is fraudulent and there's evidence of that why don't you contact your FCC office and bring this to their attention?
@mark Way back when, there were a number of posters on that Forum like the one you quoted. They all had ID's <First Name><Initial>. All of them seemed to exist only to ask dumb questions or make dumb comments. The 'experts' would then respond, and the initial poster would heap praise upon the responder and the site in general.
The thing is, these guys never seemed to learn anything. They never contributed any knowledge, not that I saw in any event, and always came back and asked the same questions over and over. It was all very suspicious. To the point that a few of us here questioned whether these were true users, or just golems - vehicles to allow others to direct the flow of comments in certain directions. Plus, to 'prove' that indeed the responders and the site in general was the greatest.
I don't know if that was really the case, but I find it odd that in the middle of more attacks on other sites and other people, one of these users pops up over there again. It will be interesting to see if any more show 'themselves'.