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 arch...@mail-archive.com
