-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
fcc Bullys little old lady
- Thread starter mackmobile43
- Start date
Regardless if they gave her time to comply - how is it her fault? She bought the product in good faith believing that it was plug n' play.
If one buys a crystal-controlled toaster - and it threw off spurious emissions; how is that the fault of the purchaser? There is no 'malice of forethought' in that act; no intention to harm. Or break any law.
The FCC should have contacted the mfr of the offending product and had words with them. The mfg should have a recall of the product; or offer to replace the defective item at their cost. Not balancing the burden of responsibility on the customer. The end user neither knows any better and could probably care less. Or - even know what is going on - for the most part. Or - unlikely to know what to do about it. Or - any of the implications of the situation.
What it is - is poor judgment on the part of the FCC.
Very poor judgement...
If one buys a crystal-controlled toaster - and it threw off spurious emissions; how is that the fault of the purchaser? There is no 'malice of forethought' in that act; no intention to harm. Or break any law.
The FCC should have contacted the mfr of the offending product and had words with them. The mfg should have a recall of the product; or offer to replace the defective item at their cost. Not balancing the burden of responsibility on the customer. The end user neither knows any better and could probably care less. Or - even know what is going on - for the most part. Or - unlikely to know what to do about it. Or - any of the implications of the situation.
What it is - is poor judgment on the part of the FCC.
Very poor judgement...
Last edited:
Let's look at the citation itself-
The above date was when they found where the interference was coming from. Now look at the date of the citation-
The citation was written 7 days after they found the source of the interference. It sure doesn't appear they gave her the chance to rectify the problem.
Yes, don't they generally give a customary 20 days for the accused to respond to the charge?
As I said, we don't know what happened. To discover the cause of the interference, she had to let them into the house to inspect the equipment. If they told her to shut it down and stop using it and she said no, or said yes but kept using it then they would issue a citation immediately. I am sure that Verizon is paying big licensing fees and so its complaints garner more attention than your every day citizen. On the other hand, the LA office of the FCC is one of the worst in the country. Dallas is a close second.
I hope that this woman has someone who can assist her in this matter with the FCC. I believe that I would be applying some pressure to the suits at Philips for some sort of representation. Then again, the idiots at the field office that filed this absurd citation may just drop the NAL/citation if the device is removed from service and destroyed. Philips would more than likely not want to claim any responsibility since they did not have control over the installation or use of the device. Maybe it is time for Obama to find another FCC Czar.
73, Dave
73, Dave
It may very well be the reason the citation was delivered, the FCC will now attempt to drag Phillips into a large suit and then fine them and hand down an earth shattering decree that they recall all unit affected and replace them.
They did this with the makers of the xm/sirius receivers with the addition of a pair of ferrite beads to eliminate the transmission of broadcast received which are inadvertently picked up by any nearby receiver that happens to be in range of it's FM modulator that happens to be tuned to the same frequency. I know it's bullshit.
She did not have a transceiver IE radio station so they had no authority to enter her home.
I didn't say they had the authority to enter her home without permission. What I said was there was no way for them to know the make and model of the device without entering her home and inspecting it. She obviously gave them permission, either willingly or because of coercion.
Maybe so, but the FCC does not break cobras balls each time one of there radios is seized in a station raid for transmitting more power than is allowed neither should they assume all these devices are faulty such as in the xm/sirius case.
BS on a hazard to navigation. Maybe if the unit is on the plane and 10 feet from the cockpit, but it is not going to interfere with navigation while being operated in someone's house.
Are you a pilot?
Are you an engineer.
B.S. based on what information.
Please back this up with something of substance.
Based on common sense and based on testimony of FCC engineers. Common sense, we know that cell phones can interfere with planes, but you don't see planes crashing everytime they fly over a cell tower. FCC engineers admitted in the Ranger case that you have to be on the plane to interfere with navigation unless you have about a 1000 watts of power and you are sitting under the flight path. I don't think that the woman's antenna had a 1000 watts of power.
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
dxBot:63Sprint has left the room.
-
dxBot:kennyjames 0151 has left the room.
-
-
