Thanks for the input guys!!!
I can assure you, I know better than to blatantly operate an illegal Radio Station when I know doing so, can hurt everyone who tries and goes beyond the usual to make sure they operate a clean, legal station.
One person can ruin it for all, by ignoring the simple rules that are imposed upon the hobby for a reason.
I do not agree with people running over powered transmitters for the sake of covering more ground without the proper authorization to do so. I will not condemn anyone, who owns a transmitter that is capable of a watt or more, as long as they know damned well, that if they chose to use such a device, that they have successfully turned it down to the absolute legal power limit or legal distance that is allowed by the federal laws that cover this hobby.
I present my case, for the purpose of giving you all an argument as to what can happen if people are mislead to believe what IS LEGAL, ISN'T LEGAL.
In other words, use my situation in your arguments as to what could happen if the FCC allows the common general public the right to harass, stalk or destroy your property because they feel they are doing their civic public duty and feel they have that right to do whatever they wish because they were given permission to do so by the Federal Government called the FCC.
Can't you see the heros out there trying to get a big name for themselves by saying "I'm a hero, I shut down a supposed PIRATE radio station"!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bruce.
When they break down the front door the most we can hope is that they don't toss a greande into the baby crib or shoot the dog.
It is against the law to defend yourself unless you have 5-years to spare and $100,000 for a sober defense attorney.
Meanwhile, 100 mW checked hourly. 3-meters measured daily.
... Any station; licensed, unlicensed, commercial, non-commercial, public safety, public service, etc. can have a situation develop resulting in non-compliance. This does not make them by definition a "Pirate". It only makes them the operator of a system which has a problem. There was no willfull intent for the situation to occur. ...
Are those who violate the law to be excused without legal reaction as long as they had no "willfull intent" to do so (assuming that lack of such intent ever can be proven)? That would be quite a slippery slope, would it not?
... such a statement simply reinforces the perception many have that you have an agenda to discredit our Part 15 activities. This goes beyond your simply providing "guidance" to prevent non-compliance.
Never have I discredited "Part 15 activities" that actually complied with Part 15.
In fact, I continually post information to help readers comply with Part 15 and avoid the risk of FCC actions, should they wish to do so.
But that choice is theirs.
Example of an offensive remark: "But that choice is theirs."
While true, that choice IS ours...
It is NOT a choice granted by you, therefore it's not your business to announce it to us.
It is NOT a choice granted by you, therefore it's not your business to announce it to us.
My post did not grant anything to anybody.
It pointed out a choice that might be considered by those deciding whether or not they want to comply with Part 15.
You have a choice whether to J-walk or not.
Wouldn't it be stupid of me to frequently remind you of that choice?
Even though any of us did not "intend" to J-walk but did so, would such lack of intention (even if provable) excuse us from whatever consequences that might follow?
Rich, your questions are always double entendre (read statements.) What you posesses as technical knowledge is always overshadowed by your condescending wit. I'm sure that you rejoice in the fact that I'm annoyed enough to respond to your quip.
Your questions are really veiled statements of condemnation. I've picked up on a pattern. When a good point is made, you are silent for at least a couple days until you can compose a retort which twists by taking things out of context and pushes the intended meaning into a negative light.
For instance: "Are those who violate the law to be excused without legal reaction as long as they had no "willfull intent" to do so (assuming that lack of such intent ever can be proven)? That would be quite a slippery slope, would it not?"
That question (read statement) is simply a way to make it seem I inferred the laws (read rules) do not apply, an attempt to discredit my character. You've taken two words out of context and placed them into an illegitiment thought.
"Poisoning the well" is in contempt of this sites policy. It would be a shame to have a knowledgeable person such as yourself censored or worse-banned from the site due to your boorish retorts. But then, it wouldn't be your first.
... For instance: "Are those who violate the law to be excused without legal reaction as long as they had no "willfull intent" to do so (assuming that lack of such intent ever can be proven)? That would be quite a slippery slope, would it not?"
That question (read statement) is simply a way to make it seem I inferred the laws (read rules) do not apply, an attempt to discredit my character. You've taken two words out of context and placed them into an illegitiment [sic] thought.
My post did not impugn your character, mram1500, just responded to the opinion you posted in Reply 39.
... "Poisoning the well" is in contempt of this sites policy. ...
And of what comprises "the well?"
Why don't you contact the site owner. He can likely explain this situation with you.
Thanks for pointing out my typo by the way to infer I'm also illiterate.
There's a huge difference between theoretical discussions here, and doing something with Part 15 broadcasting in the real world.
And it's not up to Rich to say what happens to an individual whose intention is to follow the FCC rules, but for whatever reason has a problem and is out of compliance.
From what I've seen, FCC inspectors, if things get that far, are almost always mindful of each particular situation. Most punishments get issued after multiple warnings, during which time the individual(s) involved continue to broadcast. There may be a few hard *ss inspectors, but you'll find that anywhere.
And let's face it, if your transmitter signal is hundreds or thousands of times stronger than it should be, it's not likely you're using a certified transmitter, or one anywhere close to being compliant (that goes for both FM & AM installations). There is also a close to 100% probability that you know that you are doing something wrong as well, just from the range you'd be getting - there's certainly been enough discussion about what reasonable ranges should be for legal installations, here and elsewhere.
All FCC inspectors have to do is to use common sense to know who are the pirates, and who are not.
Rich said, "And of what comprises "the well?""
Step over here. Yes, now stick your head in here. I'd like to show you what comprises the well.
It's not unusual for a radio engineer to be unfamiliar with concepts from other disciplines, in this case the field of Logic in Communication, where Fallacies are defined as "The Counterfeit of Argument".
May we contribute to continuing education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
"It's the bizarre idiots that act smart."
Rich,
Have you never gone one mile an hour over the speed limit on the downward side of a hill? No? NEVER?