Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio,net.tv
Subject: Re: curing interference to TV and stereo
Message-ID: <2383@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Jan-84 15:32:28 EST
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2383
Posted: Thu Jan 12 15:32:28 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Jan-84 07:29:59 EST
References: <1702@ihuxf.UUCP>, <139@ihopa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24


Sorry, Dave, for once I have to disagree with you.
The transmitter must be within spec, and that's
IT.  (Otherwise, you would be holding the 
transmitting entity responsible for the failure
of the interfered entity.)  

The FCC is quite emphatic on this.

Despite this, a lot of ham radio operators, etc,
will go to extreme ends in order to help out people
who are having interference problems just as a matter
of public relations.  

The law (and the  FCC ) do require the transmitter to
be "non-offending".  They also, however, define the
word "offending" to indicate a malfunction of the
transmitting equipment.  Poorly designed equipment
that is being interfered with is specifically NOT
the fault of the transmitter.
-- 
TEDDY BEARS ARE PEOPLE, TOO!

(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj