========================================================================
 Copied from HAM by Ray Wade (1:170/600.2)
========================================================================
The following is my reply to someone on the SBA (Small Business
Administration) BBS in Washington DC who had "heard" that consumers now
have local (City, Township, etc. i.e. "local government") protection
against "violations" by "Ham Operators" and can get "relief" thru local
police and court action. Unfortunately this "rumor" is being widely
circulated and believed by many citizens and, in some cases, is actually
being done, illegally, by over eager local police and courts.
ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ
Í
 Area:    GENERAL
  Msg:    #1
 Date:    09-14-96 12:44 (Public)
 From:    Ray Wade
 To:      JOHN MCTAGGART
 Subject: BBS
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Ä
 On 09-10-96 JOHN MCTAGGART wrote to RAY WADE...
 JM> RW>>My understanding is the "new" ruling has to do with *only*
 JM> Citizens Band
 JM> RW>>(CB) radio interference with consumer electronics devices like TV
 JM> and
 JM> RW>>telephones. This "new" law (not law yet) will effect *only* the
 JM> RW>>operators of illegal (users of illegal amplifiers, for example) CB
 JM> RW>>radios, *not* Hams (FCC licensed Amateur Radio Operators) or GMRS
 JM> RW>>(General Mobile Radio Service) operators or any other class of
 JM> legal
 JM> RW>>radio operations. Because of the FCC's inability to properly deal
 JM> with
 JM> RW>>these "CB" problems (due to the FCC's lack of funding, so they
 JM> say) the
 JM> RW>>new rule will allow Citys and Towns to *locally* persue compliance
 JM> with
 JM> RW>>the *Federal Laws established by the FCC*. It does not allow local
 JM> rules
 JM> RW>>to be established that are not in agreement with FCC rules, at
 JM> all. But
 JM> RW>>to simply allow local ordinances that refer to the FCC rules and
 JM> allow
 JM> RW>>local prosecution of CB operators that ignore these rules, in
 JM> local
 JM> RW>>courts.
 JM> RW>>
 JM>
 JM> I've got to question this "*not* Hams."  I've seen more than one
 JM> improperly installed/grounded antenna splash an entire communities TV
 JM> reception down the tubes.  Why shouldn't they be held accountable
 JM> for their negligent use of the air waves?
Ham operators *are* accountable. But the FCC enforces its rules for ham
operators themselves and will not (or cannot) enforce the violations of
CB radio rules.
BTW, there is a separate set of regulations for each "service". The
rules for the Amateur Service are FCC part 97 rules. For CB'ers the (I
believe) proper section is part 95 (I am not sure. I don't participate
in CB radio). GMRS comes under another set of rules. "Commercial Radio"
yet another. And so on for each "type" of "service".
And, as to your assertion that you have "seen" more than "one
improper....". Do you know for a fact that the "antennas" you have seen
belong to and are being used by federally licensed and *tested* ham
operators? Could they have been CB antennas? FYI, there are no license
requirements for CB operations at all! Amateur Radio Operators,
on the other hand, are *required* to pass a series of FCC tests
for each succeeding (higher class, more privileges, more power, more
frequencies) class of license issued by the FCC.
Further, what qualifies you to judge the "improper installation"? Do you
have a degree in RF engineering? Please don't misunderstand me. I *am*
an engineer (BSME) and I am frequently astounded by the sometimes
outrageous opinions and beliefs that some otherwise highly educated and
erudite people seem to have in areas where they have had no training at
all and, incredibly in my view, rely on hearsay and rumor concerning
well known and well documented scientific fact that refute these
"opinions".
And *did you complain* to the FCC when you witnessed these "improper
installations" and trashing "of entire communities TV reception"? If so,
what was the result? The FCC *does* respond to *all* written complaints,
in *writing* (and always has). Their current response includes a booklet
outlining the various types of interference you may receive and how to
cure the problem. This booklet is titled "Interference Handbook" and is
published by the Federal Communications Commission, Washington DC 20554.
To get a copy simply write a complaint (true or contrived) and *you*
will receive their reply and the booklet (free) *or* you may purchase
(no complaint) the booklet from the Superintendent of Documents, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC 20402.
I am not saying that ham operators are all pure as the driven snow and
all CB operators are not. However, the latest statistics on
*alleged by complaint* rule violations (as cited by the FCC) is that
they get something like 4500 complaints a month (yes, 45 HUNDRED a
MONTH) against CB operators and less than 100 against ham operators. And
past investigations by them when they were "more aggressive" (with *all*
complaints) found the vast majority of "ham" complaints turned out to
not be ham operators at all *or* were the fault of poorly designed TV
sets (telephones, stereos, VCRs etc) not being able to "reject" a strong
RF (radio frequency) field on frequencies outside of the range of
frequencies they are designed to operate on. Try reading the warnings
that are nowadays attached to every electronic device you own. The FCC
clearly states on these notices and in the operator manuals
accompanying the purchase of them that the product you have purchased
*may be* interfered with by *legal* RF emissions or emissions from
*other* consumer products owned by you and in use in your own home!
Some of the items are (as listed in the booklet I refer to above)
include:
Doorbell transformers
Toaster ovens
Electric blankets
Fans
Heating pads
Light dimmer controls
Switch contacts, such as those found on dishwashers, refrigerators and
      other home appliances
Aquarium or waterbed heaters
Sun lamps
Furnace controls
Smoke precipators or detectors
*HOME COMPUTERS* (emphasis mine)
Ultrasonic pest control devices
....and many more....
These notices also declare that corrective methods (filters
etc) are the responsibility of the owner of the item.
---
 * OFFLINE 1.58 * Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence
-----------------end of my reply to him------------------------
I suggest that any time you see anything like this you also reply
aggressively opposing this attitude and belief held by many who have no
knowledge of our (Ham Operators) exemplary history of rule violations
and "self policing" corrective actions of each other via local "TVI
committees" and "elmering".
... A child of 5 could understand this!  Fetch me a child of 5.
-+- PPoint 2.00
 + Origin: K5JCM, Tulsa OK (1:170/600.2)
... Darwin was wrong. . . An Idiot can survive.
--- PPoint 2.00
---------------