It's clear that if you are the one with the Part 15 device, and someone else interferes with that device, because of the law you have to just suck it up because Part 15 devices aren't made to be "hardened" against interference to the same degree other devices under different parts of the law might be. But it's not commutative -- just because the Part 15 device "must accept" interference doesn't mean that owners of other devices under different parts of the law "must accept" interference FROM Part 15 devices. It's not a case of *modus ponens*, where if A implies B, then B implies A.
So if I have a case of a Part 15 device causing spurious signals on my HF station, then the Part 15 manufacturer should DEFINITELY be informed, since while they must accept interference from my HF station on their headphones, I do NOT have to accept interference on my HF station FROM their headphones. They have to keep their spurious radiation in bands operated by other services within the specifications. This is why there can be FCC enforcement procedures against grow lamp manufacturers and wall wart manufacturers because of interference in Amateur bands generated by those consumer devices. The attached FCC bulletin would seem to corroborate my understanding. So would this paragraph from the ARRL site on FCC Enforcement Actions specifically about Part 15 devices interfering with amateur operations: *"The FCC Part 15 regulations are clear that the manufacturers of unlicensed devices must meet the appropriate conducted - or radiated-emissions requirements and that the operators of those devices are responsible for resolving any harmful interference to radio services that might occur from their use."* IANAL, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 73, Gwen, NG3P On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 7:27 AM Dave Sublette <k4to.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > The answer to your question seems obvious to me. I am not a lawyer. Your > equipment had to operate too much more stringent requirements because human > life is at stake. The part 15 "must accept" clause says that if you are > being interfered with on your Part 15 device, is it not legal grounds to > award damages in a court case. It won't keep someone from from filing a > suit. But without that clause we hams might be hauled into court by every > one who is interfered with. We have been, but Part 15 has kept the > practice from proliferating. Devices sold under part 15 are not used in > situations where human life is at stake. Well they probably are, but are > not designed specifically to operate that way as are aircraft radio and > navigation systems. > > In addition, the "must accept" clause releases hams from the legal and > financial obligations to correct the problem. I should think that it also > releases the manufacturer from that also. > > I'm not a lawyer. It's just my take on it. > > 73, > > Dave, K4TO > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 11:38 PM Mark Goldberg <marklgoldb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I do want to understand what "must accept" means. Why did the FCC put #2 > in > > there? > > > > I'm from the avionics industry. We have to not produce unwanted RF > > interference and we have to operate correctly in the presence of high > > levels of RF. Especially in recent years, someone could put their phone > > down on top of your unit and subject it to huge fields. We test in fields > > of hundreds of volts per meter and have to work. > > > > My products also have to work with 4V of ripple on the power input with > no > > effect. > > > > Bose knows how to design for these environments. I was on regulatory > > committees with people from Bose and they were very sharp. So, if they > are > > not obligated to fix this, I was just suggesting that they still might if > > contacted and that they have the knowledge to fix it. > > > > 73, > > > > Mark > > W7MLG > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 8:06 PM Phil Kane <k2...@kanafi.org> wrote: > > > > > On 5/9/2020 7:08 PM, Nr4c wrote: > > > > > > > Beg to differ. Part 15 devices have no legal protection from > > > interference. You use at your own risk. > > > > > > That's what I said. We deal with that professionally. > > > > > > >> (2) this device must accept any interference received, including > > > >>> interference that may cause undesired operation.-- > > > > > > Philip M. Kane Esq / P.E. - K2ASP > > > VP - General Counsel & Executive Engineer > > > CSI Telecommunications, Inc. - Consulting Engineers > > > San Francisco, CA - Beaverton, OR > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > Elecraft mailing list > > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > > > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > > > > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > > > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > Message delivered to marklgoldb...@gmail.com > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Elecraft mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > Message delivered to k...@arrl.net > > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to ard...@gmail.com > ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
