-
Posts
-
Total posts : 45366MRAM 1500 wrote … Someone operating a non-compliant Part 15 device whether intentionally or unentintionally would be a “Pirate” as no license is required to operate.
Compliance with the applicable sections of Part 15 is required for all unlicensed intentional and unintentional radiating sources subject to FCC jurisdiction.
Those sources doing so are not pirate operations, by definition.
But wouldn’t the operators of such sources that are not in compliance with Part 15 logically be considered as “pirates,” to some degree?
Total posts : 45366Because of a faulty LED light bulb I am a 24% pirate.
Total posts : 45366Rich said: “Compliance with the applicable sections of Part 15 is required for all unlicensed intentional and unintentional radiating sources subject to FCC jurisdiction.
Those sources doing so are not pirate operations, by definition.
But wouldn’t the operators of such sources that are not in compliance with Part 15 logically be considered as “pirates,” to some degree?“
Yes, I would agree with you that operators of non-compliant intentional and/or unintentional radiators under Part 15 could be labeled “Pirate” operators. They could just as well be labeled bananas. But I don’t agree that only non-compliant Part 15 operators are “Pirate” operators. Any non-compliant operator, licensed or unlicensed, should be considered the same.
After all, it’s not germane to have a double standard for non-compliant operators of one type or another.
So yes, I agree with you that Carl is 24% “Pirate” for operating a non-compliant LED bulb. A “Pirate” is a “Pirate” for being non-compliant, licensed or not.
Aaaarrrggghhh….
Total posts : 45366Since, as Rich said, only operators of non-compliant Part 15 devices are labeled “Pirates”, the trick here would be don’t use a Part 15 device. Rather, use a Part 73 device since non-compliance is non-compliance regardless of the device.
Now I’m just being silly. Devices aren’t Part 15, rather they do or don’t comply with Part 15.
If one were to adjust a Part 73 system to a field strength per Part 15.209 would that make it a Part 15 device? Would that be a wolf in sheeps clothing? Would Carl be a “Pirate” operator for using a Part 73 transmitter without a license if it meets Part 15.209 emission standards?
It boggles the mind…
Total posts : 45366A certain website accused a now non member of this board of exactly that being a Pirate because he bought a part 73 transmitter and was about to lower the radiated power down to part 15 levels by using attinuation or coax that leaks just enough to be part 15 legal. According to him at that time it was 100% illegal. And when I placed a post here asking him that if you attinuate a part 73 transmitter to meet part 15 levels why then did he have issues with that member.
According to him he claims that you must only operate a certified or in case of a kit verified transmitter. This is bull as far as I can see but again he insists he is 100% correct on this statement. But when asked about that Radio camp transmitter that went 5 miles on FM you got an answer that it was legal because it was 250 uV/m from the property line.
But again NO CERTIIED part 15 transmitter I know goes anywhere near the range he was making that Radio camp transmitter go. So again there is some unclear postings about this through out the Internet.
Total posts : 45366The opening title of this thread is self canceling…
States to Enforce FCC Rules?
The FCC rules are Federal rules and not state statutes, giving states no authority.
To claim jurisdiction over electromagnetic activity the state would need to generate rules of their own.
Total posts : 45366
Total posts : 45366Therein lies the rub with Part 15 broadcasting, particularly for FM.
You have Federal rules. You have State rules in some instances. And then you apparently have made up rules, such as The Legacy pointed out. The latter can come from such dubious sources as Facebook, to supposedly reputable sites such as Hobbybroadcaster.
Is it any wonder that some get confused?
With regards to the topic of this thread, there appear to be arguments both ways for Federal and State enforcement. I wonder if any existing State rules have ever been challenged in court?
Total posts : 45366So, a legal Part 15 station is legal under Florida’s own laws as well. As stated:
(a) Make, or cause to be made, a radio transmission in this state unless the person obtains a license or an exemption from licensure from the Federal Communications Commission under 47 U.S.C. s. 301, or other applicable federal law or regulation
A legal Part 15 station, by definition HAS as “exemption from licensure” from the FCC. It’s right there in the FCC rules.
So, is our concern that the state of Florida has decided that they can persue illegal operators on their own? My bet would be they are not equipped to do so.
TIB
Total posts : 45366“So, is our concern that the state of Florida has decided that they can persue illegal operators on their own? My bet would be they are not equipped to do so.“
Are they legally entitled/permitted to do so by the U.S. Constitution, even if, while unlikely, State agents have the educational background, applicable experience, and calibrated test equipment needed to determine whether or not unlicensed AM/FM stations/operators are compliant with Part 15 — and therefore legal?
Total posts : 45366That’s the big question, isn’t it? It’s why I asked if a State law in this regard has ever been challenged in court.
Total posts : 45366
Total posts : 45366Thoughts on Florida busts…
The 88.3 station was over-powered, based on the claimed range of its signal, and was too close to 88.5, which was bad frequency planning.
The 99.1 apparantly stood out for alleged foul language and the children might have heard it.
One wonders if either station had made smarter decisions about a few things maybe they would still be broadcasting in peace.
Reckless operation by some makes it unlikely the FCC would ever open up a hobby privilege on either AM or FM.
We will always be ranked in the Interference Rules (part 15).
Total posts : 45366an FCC sanctioned “part 15 official observer” program might be good. we can assist local officials in tracking down and determining compliance of the operator. it can be paid / volunteer similar to the part 97 “O.O.” program but geared toward part 15. we can be self policing that would go a long way to showing the FCC how serious we are about compliance. maybe there can be an FCC O.O. program Certification process to certify Part 15 O.O.’s for understnading of rules and regs and some techical matters pertaining to our operations. i would gladly sign up for such a program myself to assist local law enforcement / FCC through the process. maybe we can train in the field with FCC inspectors to understand what they look for as far as compliance.
Total posts : 45366Part 15 hobbyists should not meddle in rule enforcement of other spectrum users.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
