INTERFERENCE

this means between part 15 users and licensed users only, not between 2 part 15 users.

"Therefore, by plain common sense, a part 15 operator has the same right to complain and report interference coming from careless operations as does any spectrum user."

I must now borrow the buzztt'er.

BUUUZZZZZTTTT!!!

You can complain, and you have a right to complain, but a complaint about your Part 15 device getting interference and expecting action taken by the FCC???

That will be quite a long wait.

Licensed radio spectrum users HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS, including all the rights over Part 15. If a licensed station happens to be causing a bit of in-band splatter or inter-mod that happens to pounce right on top of your favorite frequency...well the only action you can take and expect action is your own by changing frequencies.

Now if your Part 15 operation causes interference, you have to take action to stop it. And it is EXPECTED for you to take action immediately upon becoming aware of the interference issue, or face a pretty nasty NAL.

Part 15 has no power of influence when it comes to the rules or case over interference by a Part 15 device or interference received by the Part 15 device or operation.

Don't think that's very fair? Of course it isn't. But Part 15 is not fair right off the bat anyway. The ridiculous power levels, the insane antenna length restrictions, the senseless back and forth debate over "ground lead", should I go on?

There is only one way to change all that. Start writing your lawmakers sitting fat and pretty up on the hill, get signatures for a LARGE petition, and take the battle directly to legislation. If enough make a big enough stink...someone up there is gonna notice and potentially take action too.

RFB

Gentlemen, you miss the larger point.

Forget about part 15.

As members of the listening public we have a right to complain about interference on our radios. That is where some of the FCC's complaints come from - from the public.

Interference will certainly affect the licensed stations on your dial and there is the perfect grounds for complaint. Nothing needs to be said about your particular part 15 station, for the very reason that part 15 intentional radiator stations are not protected from interference per se, but if someone has the right to complain about you interfering with your part 15 device, you have the right to complain when someone else interferes with THEIR part 15 device, i.e., Christmas lights, electric fence or whatever.

We are members of the general public and we may complain along with anyone else. The rule is too narrow and needs to be put in better detail.

Carl, I really am not sure what your talking about, but it seems to be a question of how are interference between separate part15 devices supposed to be governed?

ie: Your laptop keeps losing connection to the internet, because the neighbors Christmas lights are interfering with your wireless router.. But since both devices are governed by part15, who is in the wrong? Do you have to accept a bad connection to the internet? - Or do the neighbors need to unplug their lights?

At least I think this is what you mean.

Maybe this will help..
The first thing that came to my mind was a book I read back in high school entitled "Catch 22".
A quote from that book says: ..."Catch-22 states that agents enforcing Catch-22 need not prove that Catch-22 actually contains whatever provision the accused violator is accused of violating..."

The rule is a contradiction.

It says (a) we cannot cause interference;

But it says (b) we must accept interference.

Therefore, whoever is doing interference (b) may cause interference.

So, if we are the (b) person, we may cause interference, and if they are the (a) person, they may not cause interference.

I don't really don't see the contradiction, but I may be missing the gist of what your trying to point out.

a) we cannot cause interference.
b) we must accept interference.
So part15 devices in essence must operate as if they don't exist.

I don't even comprehend how you conclude that "(b) may cause interference".. (a)&(b) aren't referring to two separate entities, it's simply stating that in relation to interference; part15 devices have no rights one way or the other

"It says (a) we cannot cause interference
But it says (b) we must accept interference.
So, if we are the (b) person, we may cause interference, and if they are the (a) person, they may not cause interference."

Being the (b) person doesn't mean person (b) is free to cause interference. Accepting and causing are two different things...refer to (a).

The interference that must be accepted can come from just about anything and not always or necessarily from someone operating a Part 15 device.

Our operations, and other unlicensed devices cannot cause interference, specifically to licensed radio services. There is no "right of way" to Part 15 at all, in of itself, or onto itself, or from licensed entities causing the undesired operation, or be it from natural noises and other man made devices causing noises or interference.

I think your seeing contradiction because of the assumption of being able to cause interference...the (b) person. If the (b) person adheres to what the (a) person is doing, then the (b) person has nothing to worry about in accepting interference from person (a)'s Part 15 use of the spectrum because person (a) is not the cause of person (b)'s interference they have to accept under the Part 15 rules. Person (b) will have to find out where that interference they must accept is coming from and change operations accordingly, or..what was that old saying in many a radio and tv owner's manuals...."re-orient the receiving antenna"!

But as noted before..Part 15 has no rights either way, no way and no how.

Sufferance....remember? 🙂

RFB

I'm confused... Where is this "assumption of being able to cause interference" coming from?

"Where is this "assumption of being able to cause interference" coming from?"

In Carl's post:

"So, if we are the (b) person, we may cause interference, and if they are the (a) person, they may not cause interference."

Either all of this is a trick question/post, or there is some serious confusion going on...to which I am not or saying is anyone else...but bottom line...Part 15 has no rights or push or shove over anything, or recourse in stopping interference that it must accept, desired or undesired no matter the source...natural noise, man made noise, licensed radio services, or from it's own self.

Those two specific parts found on the stickers on FCC certified units are pretty clear. I am not confused by them at all..but obviously there is confusion here with it for others.

So my solution, throw away the confusion because within those two little paragraphs..aren't anything to cause confusion. The confusion is coming from somewhere else.

Perhaps a simple matter of "reading too much into it". Confusion is often caused by one overfilling their cup. To make room for the right answer, one must empty the cup first of confusion.

RFB

Sort of like "what's a ground lead" vrs. "what's a ground"?

That was a very fascinating expression of contemplation RFB.

are you stoned?
(not meant as an insult.. I say it in jest 🙂

And MRAM; the ground is what we walk on, and the ground lead is.. ah.. ummmm.. it's.. ahhhhuumm.. what the transmitter wants to connect to ground with.

(sigh)

And Carl,
looking back at my response, I hope I didn't come across sounding condensing, because I didn't mean it that way. It's just that I don't comprehend how you determined that (b) was permitted to cause interference

Na, its the lack of having the first cup of coffee this early in the morning! 😉

But despite the lower number of working brain cells within my brain bucket due to years past habits of anything goes as long as it goes, I did learn something back then that sticks with me today...never try to find something in something that does not exist to begin with.

RFB

Gentleman, please endure me one more time because I know I have a point of logic and I guess I am not expressing it in a way that's being understood.

We all agree that (a) our part 15 device may not cause interference. No one wants to be the source of interference, so this is very sensible.

But (b), we must accept interference....

Think of this. The interference which "we must accept" is being generated by someone somewhere. Whoever they are, they are violating (a) may not cause interference. So if they do cause interference, we can complain about them.

After all, if we ourselves caused interference, some other person could complain about us. True? It's two-way street. But the rule as stated makes it a one-way street and is illogical.

I rest my case.

Well who is to say the interference is being purposely caused?

How is one to determine said interference we must accept is being purposely caused by another Part 15 user/device?

Assuming the interference being received and must accept is being caused by someone on purpose is the first mistake in finding out what exactly is causing the interference that we must accept.

Unfortunately no one can assure anyone that someone out there will not purposely cause interference. There is nothing preventing that from happening, rules or no rules. We just have to take it as it comes for what it is and what it states.

All of this is based on the assumption that someone out there operating under Part 15 is causing interference, knowing or not knowing. What does it matter other than in the case of someone purposely causing interference..to which if that was the case, then that person is MOST LIKELY NOT operating under Part 15 rules anyway!!

I think seeing too much in something that is not there is what this is leaning to.

As to the right to complain..heck anyone and everyone has the right to complain about whatever they want to complain about..even if that complaint is unjustified or unsupported. It is what makes the US such a great nation..our right to gripe no matter what.

RFB