A few weeks ago, I bought a Motorola wireless headset. I kept the box and receipt until today, when I decided I was satisfied with them. Upon thumbing through the guarantee, manual, and various extra parts, I noticed a document with bold underlined letters at the top.
FCC NOTICE TO USERS
The following statement applies to all products that have received FCC approval. Applicable products bear the FCC logo, and/or an FCC ID in the format FCC ID: xxxxxxx on the product label.
Motorola has not approved any changes or modifications to this device by the user. Any changes or modifications could void the user’s authority to operate the equipment. See 47 CFR Sec. 15.21.
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. See 47 CFR Sec. 15.19(3)
The implications of these statements disturbed me greatly, and so I attempted to find some clarification on the matter by looking up 47 CFR Sec 15.19 and 15.21. Unfortunately, they did not shed any light on the matter, as they simply reiterated what appeared on the document.
Am I to understand, by this regulation, that I, as the property owner of this device, have no legal right to modify it according to my needs? And by doing so, do I forfeit my legal “authority” to use the device, or to own the device? There is no mention of rights, there is only mention of authority. As far as the authors of this regulation are concerned, I have not paid for something and therefore established property rights over it; rather I have only paid for the legal privilege to operate the device by the authority of whomever may be responsible for the manufacturing and regulation of these devices.
Even more disturbing than the replacement of ‘right’ with ‘authority’ is the demand for compliance in receiving “interference… including interference that may cause undesired operation.” The questions that arise from these statements are mind-boggling. I searched the web to try and understand what they might mean by “interference that may cause undesired operation,” but found nothing pertinent. I also found nothing about how a bluetooth headset could cause “harmful interference.” Perhaps this is just a quirk in regulations requiring this notice, like the “do not ingest: contains lead” label being required on fish hooks. I thought maybe it had something to do with air travel, but then I found a thorough safety report for bluetooth devices on aircraft that stated, “...worst-case interference from Bluetooth devices to the VHF communications and navigation systems used by all aircraft using FAA approved VHF navigation and communications equipment is some 20 to 40 dB below the interference threshold for these systems. For the high sensitivity UHF systems, TCAS, GPS and Satcom, the Bluetooth signal is just below the interference threshold; but, considering the signal design of Bluetooth and the signal processing of these systems, the effective safety margin is more than adequate to prevent any disturbance to those systems.”
Maybe I’m channeling Alex Jones, but it disturbs me greatly to see the ever-encroaching regulations affect something so trivial as a headset I use with my phone. What kind of “interference” are they going to force me to accept? I’m not paying for a headset so that I can accept “interference that may cause undesirable operation.” I’m buying them because I want to talk on my phone without using my hands. If I don’t accept unwanted interference (if I even what that was, or how it would be possible to avoid), will some kind of red flag appear on some grid at the FCC office? Will goons in black suits hunt me down and confiscate my headset?
The taxpayer pays to have these offices staffed, and for all the work they do to come up with these regulations; then they pay again when they buy the regulated products, as professionals are needed at each electronics company to make sure they are abiding by all the superfluous regulation, and altering the manufacturing and/or packaging procedures to ensure compliance; yet apparently even after all this, we still don’t really own anything. We have just paid for the “authority” to operate the device. Unless, that is, they plan on letting you keep the device after you fail to comply, but somehow keep you from using it.
So what do you think? Is there any reason for this regulation? Does it make any sense to anyone? Am I nuts, or is the FCC off the rails on a crazy train?
No comments:
Post a Comment