Jump to content

700 mhz liability


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Since I don't have an authoritative answer, ask Henry Cohen on PSW. He is someone I trust for answers on wireless issues. I have no idea if anyone on here is an attorney and can answer that. Good question though. I would think it probable that operators MIGHT be partially liable, which means you are an equal target for those you infringed on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


Tomm Williams wrote:

 

Say you get hired to run an installed system that uses 700 mhz wireless and the owner INSISTS on using it. Would the contracted operator share the impending doom ?

 

Since you insist, the short answer is "yes". The long answer is I'd guess they'd go after the owner of the equipment, especially if the venue owns it, and the chance of them eventually busting it is fairly high if it is a fixed install not in the boonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IANAL, but it seems to me that this is something that could be covered by the contract agreement between installer and client. There is a contract, right?

Something to the effect of... "given the constantly changing nature of federal allocation of frequencies, company X is not responsible for any conflicts that may arise from the use of any specific frequencies in this installation"... or some such.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I would expect the owners of the equipment to be the responsible party, but wireless mic transmission power is so low compared with everything else in that band as to be the receiver of problems rather than the giver of problems. The radiated power difference is on the order of 100-1000x diffetent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe the law prohibits a person from "operating" equipment which does not conform with FCC requirements. While an enforcement action would probably be taken against the enterprise that runs the venue and owns the gear (as a practical matter), the person who turns on the non-compliant transmitter(s) probably has some technical liability, too. To me, the bigger risk would be as a defendant in a civil suit where a person alleges personal injuries arising from interference with public safety communications. (E.g., the 911 dispatcher didn't get the information to the police/fire/ambulance as quickly as has the interfering transmission not occurred.). Mark C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wireless mic transmitters are below the RF noise floor at ~200 feet line of sight, and compared with life safety radios they are several orders of magnitude lower in ERP at worst case. Wireless mic operation will be severely affected WAY before ANY intereference is noticed in any higher powered RF system.

Not saying that it's not illegal, or that it's the "right thing to do", but it's not IMO the impending disaster that those SELLING the products (including replacement products) imply in their marketing. If you are in an area where there is no EMS radio systems in use, then it's a moot point. There are thousands of square miles where there is NOTHING in this spectrum, and likely will not be for 10 or more years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

 

You damn well know it's illegal.  The owner of the equipment damn well knows it's illegal.  Ignorance of the law is "no excuse"... Willful breaking of the law is "easily prosecutable".

Admittedly, an accomplice generally gets a lighter sentence than the perpetrator.

But... I've gotta ask:  Is finding honest work that tough?  And regardless of that:  Is ethics a matter of convenience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...