never try to find something in something that does not exist to begin with.
Yeah, however there's another expression that says; 'Whatever you believe to be true, is.'
But, as quoted in another thread; "That depends what your definition of "is" is."
Har de har har.. I crack myself up!
Well digging deeper usually only ends in one thing..a much deeper hole to get out of.
Perhaps digging too deep into this issue is what the real problem is..now the hole is so deep, those who gladly took a dive into it are finding it difficult to find the answer which leads them to the surface.
RFB
RFB, you have allowed a type of interference that is "not on purpose."
When I had a video circuit I made generating a strong unintentional signal on TV channel 7 which wiped out that station for a block, it was "not on purpose." Does that mean I'm not responsible?
This subject has become an in depth study for me and has lead to this key question, which I hope someone can answer:
Are complaints made to the FCC available on a public database?
These would include complaints from licensed stations and from the general public.
If you do not know, I will call the FCC and ask them.
Ok wait a minute here. First we were seeing things from the (b) person being able to cause interference to person (a) who cant cause interference.....
..but now its "not on purpose"..which is what I thought...and I think others too..at the beginning.
First of all, if someone builds a device that generates RF energy, what do the rules say that builder must do in order to prevent such "not on purpose" interference?
Good engineering practices.
Then again...not all tinkers and dibble dabbers are going to know that...are they? Or will they?
Maybe so...maybe not. But either way...they are responsible for their device creating interference. This scenario is a LONG way difference from the direction the discussion was a few hours ago, about person (b) may cause interference to person (a) who cannot. The video circuit, or whatever it is I have causing the "not on purpose" interference would have to be resolved regardless if there is a complaint of interference or not.
Anyone building a device capable of RF emissions should be well enough educated to know their creation may cause potential interference..thus from the onset..the advice given by the FCC to use good engineering practices is key to preventing that "not on purpose" interference.
I'm not sure about any database within the FCC listing complaints from the general public. I would take a wild guess however that if there is one, it would be a pretty hefty database!
And I am not sure exactly what answer your looking for now. I mean there are only so many ways to say yes you have a right to complain about interference. But what exactly is the prospective your coming from then? That there are Part 15 device users out there purposely causing interference and there is nothing that can be done about it? Who is to say they are purposely causing, or not on purposely causing it?
I think the first answer you need to find is this...what exactly is causing said interference. Then once that source is found, it is easier to say it is not on purpose, or on purpose. Either way..under Part 15, interference may not be caused and interference being received is part of the deal to Part 15 unlicensed operation.
I guess I cant rip it apart far enough to dig out the answer your looking for.
I will rest now..tho I do not have a case. 😛
RFB
I know that I have discovered what Rich Powers called a "Catch 22," but the fish hook was taken so far from the boat that I'm throwing my fishing pole in the water and moving somewhere else. Watch for LPH#19.
But for fun here's another case to consider.
Downstairs from my audio recording studio an arc welder put his business. When he did arc welding the loud whining noise wiped out radio and came in on my reel-to-reel tape recorders. But he and I had our own solution. I scheduled my recording and duplicating and he scheduled his welding so that we had successful co-operative businesses.
But I could have complained to the FCC. At that time I wasn't a part 15 station, but my reel-to-reel decks were part 15 devices because they generated 150kHz bias frequencies. He was interfering with part 15 devices. But I wasn't prevented from complaining by (b) must accept interference.
Interference is the reception of an unwanted signal. Unwanted signals block licensed stations and that is grounds for complaint.
The FCC's own website says the public complains about interference to their stereos and telephones. Interference to my studio equipment was a legitimate ground, and the part 15 station operator also is a member of the public who can lodge a general complaint about interference.
Obviously the complaint wouldn't be particular to the part 15 AM transmitter, it would stand on more global rationale, i.e., disturbance of radio reception.
"he and I had our own solution. I scheduled my recording and duplicating and he scheduled his welding so that we had successful co-operative businesses."
This is how the FCC would prefer folks solve the issues..nice and peacefully and cooperatively.
Unfortunately it doesn't always work out that way...but it does sometimes.
It's too bad we cannot coordinate our radio enjoyment hours with mother nature and her amazing welding tool in the storm filled sky. Sure would help keep them un-expected pops and clicks out of the headphones!
To: FCC Office of Complaints
Subject: Mother Nature's interference
To whom it may concern;
I want to file a complaint against Mother Nature and the random interference caused by her welding machine in the sky. I know that the device I use to listen to my favorite radio stations is subject to the Part 15 rules which state that the device must accept interference which may cause undesired operation, but isn't there something that can be done to at least minimize Mother Nature's bad habit of welding at the prime time of skip reception?
Thank you.
RFB
Rather than contact the FCC I wrote to John Anderson, PhD, at diymedia.com and got a quick reply.
He says the FCC does not publish a detailed complaint database, but they do publish a quarterly summery of complaint categories
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/quarterly-reports-consumer-inquiries-and-complaints
Hey, it doesn't show any quarterly summery for 2011.. but it appears to be all just statistical info anyway.
I am curious why a Post Hole Digger would be familiar with FCC databases though..
Well according to the chart for the 4th quarter 2010, the "interference" category doesn't quite rank up there next to a few others reaching over 1000 in one month's period.
In fact for the whole year, and probably the same thereabouts for 2009 and earlier, the number of interference complaints are incredibly low compared to all the rest of the complaints.
Does this mean no one is purposely causing interference or not purposely causing interference or a lack of complaints and the numbers are not accurate?
I would take another wild guess and say the numbers are accurate..and also say that the year 2011 would be about on par with the previous 2 years...give or take a dozen for each month compared to its previous year's month.
Looks to me like interference is not as drastic as hinted to in all this, and is not so severe that there should be confusion involved with the two famous paragraphs on the compliance sticker.
What was that saying at the end of the tuna fish commercial?...."Sorry Charlie".
RFB
Two guys live next door to each other. They both build AMT-5000 High Efficiencies. They both go on 1680 on the X-band.
(a) may not cause interference
But they will both be interfering with each other. They will both be in violation of (a).
However, (b), they must accept any interference. Therefore they must tolerate each other's violation of (a) in order to comply with (b).
Rich Powers said Catch 22.
I call it Conundrum # 1
Maybe it's a stalemate.
In this example...it would turn into a conundrum if neither party gives to solving BOTH issues of (a) and (b).
If one or the other does not change their operation, and both continue to play the 100mW round exchange of EM fire across the fence...well neither of them would have any right to complain about the other since BOTH are in violation of (a), yet both are adhering to (b), but none of it stops either from filing a complaint against the other.
In this case then...who is at fault?
IMO..both...both for being stubborn mules and not doing something simple to solve both their problems. I say let them battle it out across the fence line and who knows, may turn into the next Hatfield and McCoy generational feud!
RFB
Carl, I am having a sneaking suspicion that perhaps your not talking rhetorically.. Might it be that someone actually is spitefully broadcasting on your frequency? -- And you just haven't come outright and told us so?
Is that what this is all about?
Maybe it's a stalemate.
IIt wouldn't be a stalemate. In a stalemate, no one wins and no one loses.. But if it were the case that someone is intentionally interfering with your signal as a means of putting it out of commission.. then they are in essence, succeeding in the attack..
That's not a stalemate, that's a serious threat of a checkmate.
You could always sidestep it with a change of frequency..
But I'm just full of assumptions here.
You know, I think I meant "checkmate."
So then, what's a "stalemate?" Does that mean your wife, uh, what I mean is, buh......
But, no, Rick Powers. Despite your deductive power, as it were, nobody is jamming my frequency. I wish they were. As far as I can tell there is no other part 15 activity anywhere within hundreds of miles.
I am trying to think without a box.
Aww darn! For a moment I thought there was a drama arising.. a prelude to the next episode of the LPH..
In This Episode:
The Mystery of Mysterious (b)'s Interference.
or
The Missing Referee of 15.19