[AMRadio] Ham Radio Question on the Clark Howard Show


Mark Bell bell at blazenet.net
Sun Jan 16 10:56:31 EST 2005


Jim --

The entire point of the following:

> "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject
to
> the following two conditions:
>
> 1.) This device may not cause harmful interference, and
> 2.) This device must accept any interference received, including
> interference that may cause undesired operation."

is to permit continued operation of an amateur station if it is interfering
with a part 15 device.

You, the amateur, do not have to cease operation (legally).

The opposite is not true if the part 15 device is interfering with an
amateur station.  They MUST cease operation of the device.   It is not up to
the amateur to call the manufacturer;  it is up to the device owner.

That's what the law states.  Ethically,  you'd have to handle that on a case
by case basis.   Would you want to shut down each time your neighbor turns
on his cheap $69 TV, or your neighbor uses his $29 el-cheapo wireless phone?
Probably not.   As I said, it depends upon the cirumstance,  your ethics,
how your neighbor gets along with you etc.

73 Mark K3MSB


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim candela" <jcandela at prodigy.net>
To: "Discussion of AM Radio" <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: [AMRadio] Ham Radio Question on the Clark Howard Show


>
>
> Hi Group,
>
>     The thread about telephone interference has about run it's course.
> Interestingly, another ham and I disagree on the topic. This revolves over
> whether we as licensed hams can legally transmit when we know we are
> interfering with a FCC Part 15 certified device. On my phone, it says the
> following:
>
> "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject
to
> the following two conditions:
>
> 1.) This device may not cause harmful interference, and
> 2.) This device must accept any interference received, including
> interference that may cause undesired operation."
>
> I try to separate the legal from the ethical as follows:
>
> "Very few if any Ham would knowingly do this. The complexity of RF
radiation
> is high, and the susceptibility of various home consumer electronics
varies
> widely. There is no way to know what will happen until you try."
>
> The other ham (KA7DCQ) says:
>
>
> "If I may interject a comment. We as licensed radio operators are not
> allowed to do anything that knowingly and I underscore knowingly will
cause
> harmful interference to other equipment."
>
>
> I didn't state it on the thread, but my take is similar to the above but
> would be reworded as follows:
>
> We as licensed radio operators are not allowed to do anything that
knowingly
> and I underscore knowingly will cause harmful interference to other
licensed
> services, and maybe NON Part15 FCC certified devices. If you have a Part
15
> device that is experiencing interference, call the manufacturer, or
contact
> the FCC. If you want my assistance, I'd be glad to help, however this is
not
> my problem; it is yours. Go to the FCC website, and download.....
>
> Who is correct???
>
>
> http://clarkhoward.com
>
> Click on message boards, then technology, and look for my call letters,
> wd5jko
>
> or:
>
>
>
http://clarkhoward.com/p/boards/ch/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=clarkhowardtechnol
> ogy&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5
>
> Regards,
> Jim Candela
> WD5JKO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Jim candela
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 7:48 PM
> To: Amradio at Mailman.Qth.Net
> Subject: [AMRadio] Ham Radio Question on the Clark Howard Show
>
>
>
>
> Hi Group,
>
>    Last week during the evening I was listening to the Clark Howard Show.
I
> like Clark because he tries to find ways to keep people from getting
ripped
> off. Anyway, a man called in, and stated that he was being interfered with
> by a ham radio operator who was coming through his telephone. The
> conversation went back and forth, and seemed to paint the ham as the
> problem, and they discussed ways of getting rid of him. No call letters
were
> mentioned, and it appeared that the man could understand the ham over the
> telephone. This implies that the ham was running AM. Was he a ham or maybe
a
> CB'er?
>
>     I signed up for Clark's message boards, and made a post under the
> category, "Technology". The thread has been interesting, and two other
hams
> have jumped in to help.
>
> I thought this group would be interested in this. Please let me know if my
> posts are or are not on target. Don't hesitate to jump in. Maybe someone
has
> some good links for what ham radio is all about, and the FCC's stand on
> interference.
>
> Regards,
> Jim Candela
> WD5JKO
>
> http://clarkhoward.com/p/boards/ch/wwwthreads.pl
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/2005
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 1/14/2005
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> AMRadio mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>




More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 22 Oct 2017.