Well.. actualloy part 15 devices are a major interferance to the spectrum.. but it's not the broadcasters causing it, it's every other millions or billions of part 15 devices doing it
About Reply 15 - Carl Blare:
... Over in the thread on the Initiative our dogmatic fellow posted a half-assed propaganda peice intended to demonstrate that part 15 broadcasting pollutes the spectrum by generating interference. ...
Those who, after reading and fully understanding the comments and graphics in Reply 39 of the thread at http://www.part15.us/forum/part15-forums/general-discussion/part-15-fcc-petition-comment-thread could not logically/scientifically dismiss them so as to post or support the statements shown in the quote above.
... It remains undisclosed who (or whom) you actually represent. ...
I represent and support technical truth/technical education.
Who (whom), or what do you represent, Mr Blare?
The Dogma Guy asked; "Who (whom), or what do you represent, Mr Blare?"
Behold, Joseph McCarthy re-incarnate. (the questioner, not the target of question)
FWIW the FCC uses those same terms for anything and everything in the RF spectrum.
Remember, we are microcasters not broadcasters.
And way back when Planet DJ was sold in the Sears catalog it was called "mini Radio Station" and thus I do believe the FCC considers (some) part 15 FM and AM micro broadcasters as "Radio Stations".
The Bill of Rights (U.S.) allows "Freedom of Words" and there are no word bans written into the FCC rules.
Well, there are the famous dirty words... they're banned on the air but not in personal use.
Funny thing is the dirty words aren't banned on Part 15, but most Part 15 operators are polite and never transmit offensive words.
In strict language we are microcasters, but we can legally puff it up a little bit and become an "International Radio Station," antennas aimed toward the Falklands.
The first time my antagonist openly accused me on the world's largest public part 15 website of using call letters in violation of FCC rules for possibly being confused with a licensed station, I thought the matter was settled by my open admission:
1.) When giving on air identification I add the numeral "1". making my call sign KDX1, clearly distinct from any licensed station;
2.) The large majority of the time I broadcast no ID at all, since part 15 stations are not required to use an ID.
However, this much later, either through failed or selective memory, the antagonist has brought the same charge forward into the arena of public incrimination.
Putting people on the defensive so they are cowed into confessions or defenses is the antagonist's version of part 15 hobby, but I'm fortunate, really, to have only the one antagonist, and the poor fellow only seems to pick on me.
Anyway, I still use KDX1 or give no ID at all.
Am I free to go? Have some cookies and milk.
Technically KDX1 could be a licensed service and actual callsign, typically issued with booster stations. I seriously doubt you would ever have any problem however.
I received a backstage suggestion from a Masked Messenger advising me to change my avatar and website domain name to KDX1radio(dot)com to reflect "what you now say is your Pt15 call."
What I now say?
Neither my avatar nor my website are subject to FCC authority and host KDX Streaming Radio, also exempt, as well as KDX Demand Radio Stations 2 through 11.
It would have been technically accurate to think of that yourself.
Now where did that masked man go?
Earlier today I sent Mr Blare a private e-mail (see the first line thereof, below), thinking that he would prefer not to have those comments appear on a public forum.
But as he has seen fit to post his reply in public (only), it is only fair to the readers of that post to be able to read my "private" e-mail text to him which prompted that public reply.
See below.
___________________________
Private
Mr Blare RE:
Over in the thread on the Initiative our dogmatic fellow posted a half-assed propaganda peice intended to demonstrate that part 15 broadcasting pollutes the spectrum by generating iinterference. Perhaps a joke in the style of Scalia?
I'm fortunate, really, to have only the one antagonist, and the poor fellow only seems to pick on me.
Who is the antagonist, here? Do you expect me to let such an attack stand with no response to you?
I'll leave you alone if you leave me alone, and don't attack me when not comprehending the technical truths of my posts.
Anyway, I still use KDX1 or give no ID at all.
Possibly you should change your KDX Avatar on Pt15us, and your e-mail domain address to reflect what you now say is your Pt15 call?
Here's what I believe.
Posting on a public forum opens the door on receiving responses.
I frequently respond to postings and they to me.
But here's one poster who doesn't want to see my responses appear and so has worked to move them unto private e-mail where only he can see them.
Although I have never blocked or banned anyone from my private e-mail, that's not where I do foruming.
As a diplomat and part 15 ambassador, what I think is that we need a Treaty on the Border between Postings and Responses.
5:29 PM CST Mar. 3, 2016, FORUM TREATY
Henceforth my responses will be soft and slight, not so reflective of what I hear and that inclination which governs my response.
Others, including everyone, have a right to think what they think, say what they say, without encountering just criticism. It's just criticism.
Peace is Declared.
Praise BoB.
... Although I have never blocked or banned anyone from my private e-mail, that's not where I do foruming. ...
But is e-mail NOT the first, most logical and rational choice you would use to respond to an e-mail message you receive, especially if it is marked as PRIVATE, as mine was?
This exchange shows otherwise, and likely will not produce the results you hoped.
... Henceforth my responses will be soft and slight, not so reflective of what I hear and that inclination which governs my response. ...
No matter how soft and slight your posts henceforth, posts based on your less-reflective "hearing" and "inclination" will be much better received if such are based on provable science rather than your hearing and inclination.
Dear Rich:
I honored your Private tag by not disclosing the Masked Messenger. Yet the content of the message continued an ongoing public discussion, creating a tension between realms.
Possibly an attorney could have helped, but he was over at happy hour.
I agree that science should be provable, or wouldn't be science.
By the way, do you keep cats?
Mr Blare, your post in Reply 29 of this thread is absurd including:
I agree that science should be provable, or wouldn't be science.
So then, can you prove that science proves your posts in this thread?
By the way, do you keep cats?
NOTE: This "keep cats" text is the type of final statement used by Mr Blare in his posts to discredit the authors of the posts to which he responds.