This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules.

[Audiovox 6]

I'm curious. I see that sticker all over the place, on stuff that I use every day to stuff in doctors offices to stuff at school, fucking everywhere. According to most of the stickers, "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." As I understand it, this is to keep devices such as tvs and such from affecting other peoples stuff. Most consumer devices are waaay below the output to even come close to being able to interfere with something right beside it. But that's not my point, the question I have is about the 2nd condition of operation. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. I have tried to find a good reason to have that there, but didn't have much luck so far. Perhaps one of you guys can tell me what's going on, I can't keep government conspiracy out of my head

-Audio

[Neur0 34]

I'm curious. I see that sticker all over the place, on stuff that I use every day to stuff in doctors offices to stuff at school, fucking everywhere. According to most of the stickers, "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation." As I understand it, this is to keep devices such as tvs and such from affecting other peoples stuff. Most consumer devices are waaay below the output to even come close to being able to interfere with something right beside it. But that's not my point, the question I have is about the 2nd condition of operation. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. I have tried to find a good reason to have that there, but didn't have much luck so far. Perhaps one of you guys can tell me what's going on, I can't keep government conspiracy out of my head

-Audio

OMG THERE GUNAZ TAEK OVER MAH TV.

Lol but really, I have no idea.

[Audiovox 6]

Screw you dude, the only reason it bothers me is cause I went to the eye doctor people and saw that fucking sticker on the thing that takes pictures of the inside of my eyes, and tbh, I don't want my eyes screwed up because it was designed to accept harmful interference. Fuck that.

-Audio

[Guest starscream]

I had to learn about this in my Radio Technician training;

The reason they put that on there is because the FCC doesn't want millions of people calling them for recieving interference on their little electronic equipment. Therefor, they cover their ass by having that (2) provision, thereby requiring the electronics manufcter to make the device sufficiently shielded and immune to interference from out of band transmissions.

[Audiovox 6]

But that sounds like the 1st condition, the 2nd one simply says it has to accept interference. Or are you saying that everything has to accept interference, but you are allowed to shield the equipment to protect it from such interference? And that 2nd provision is there so the FCC can say it's not their fault the manufacturer didn't properly protect it? That makes more sense, but it's just strange the way they word it.

-Audio

EDIT: Going back and thinking about it, it seems like shielding the device from interference would be a direct contradiction with the 2nd condition. That's why I'm confused, there must be more to it than I know of. Like you can take measures to shield the equipment but you can only protect it certain ways or something, idk. Cause what if I intentionally try to make interference with it, and it doesn't work, wouldn't that mean it has broken the 2nd condition by it not accepting the interference?

[Neur0 34]

Screw you dude, the only reason it bothers me is cause I went to the eye doctor people and saw that fucking sticker on the thing that takes pictures of the inside of my eyes, and tbh, I don't want my eyes screwed up because it was designed to accept harmful interference. Fuck that.

-Audio

Dude, you have to chill the fuck out. First you go crazy on the racism thread, and now here? I don't know whether you're joking or not, but if you're not, then I advise you chill for a bit because I wasn't intending to make anyone angry. So screw you.

If you are joking, ignore this.

[UltimateOreo 145]

That was a bit unprovoked man, it didn't sound like he was serious.

Anyway, this might help you out a bit if you haven't came here yet-

http://www.fcc.gov/searchtools.html

[Øpiate 30]

I think the sticker explains itself pretty well. It applies to any electronic device legally sold in the US. It cannot cause interference, and must accept interference even if it is harmful to the device. I always had a suspicion that this second part was a provision for the government to be able to develop ways to view content on pc's and shut down private radio communication equipment even if they weren't on a network.

[Audiovox 6]

I'm not sure if I was joking or not, Insomniac knows the story, in any case, sorry for sounding like an asshole. And I did not go crazy, I do not appreciate being messed with in this particular situation. At least it got you to be serious for just a minute. But anyways, if what I gather from starscream is right, I understand what's going on, though it still seems like an odd way to do it.

-Audio

[UltimateOreo 145]

That's exactly what I was thinking, what other reason would they want it to accept harmful interferance unless they had to cause the device to malfunction to the point you couldn't use it?

[Neur0 34]

I'm not sure if I was joking or not, Insomniac knows the story, in any case, sorry for sounding like an asshole. And I did not go crazy, I do not appreciate being messed with in this particular situation. At least it got you to be serious for just a minute. But anyways, if what I gather from starscream is right, I understand what's going on, though it still seems like an odd way to do it.

-Audio

If anything, I'm more serious than I am immature as most people will tell you. I apologize for having misinterpreted what you said.

[Ethyl Methyl Phail 1]

That's exactly what I was thinking, what other reason would they want it to accept harmful interferance unless they had to cause the device to malfunction to the point you couldn't use it?

I think the second statement suggests that the device has to functionally operate under conditions that normally would cause undesired effects from outside factors. The manner it is written is confusing. =/

[UltimateOreo 145]

In another confusing event, is that a spark plug in your avatar?

[Guest starscream]

But that sounds like the 1st condition, the 2nd one simply says it has to accept interference. Or are you saying that everything has to accept interference, but you are allowed to shield the equipment to protect it from such interference? And that 2nd provision is there so the FCC can say it's not their fault the manufacturer didn't properly protect it? That makes more sense, but it's just strange the way they word it.

-Audio

EDIT: Going back and thinking about it, it seems like shielding the device from interference would be a direct contradiction with the 2nd condition. That's why I'm confused, there must be more to it than I know of. Like you can take measures to shield the equipment but you can only protect it certain ways or something, idk. Cause what if I intentionally try to make interference with it, and it doesn't work, wouldn't that mean it has broken the 2nd condition by it not accepting the interference?

No, Because then the other person is breaking the first rule. The second rule is only there so they can say "HEY, Your equipment manfacturer is responsible for the interference your getting, they didnt desensitize their device enough. The FCC cannot help you ma'am, it clearly says right there in Part 15 (2) that your device must accept this interference."

[Ethyl Methyl Phail 1]

In another confusing event, is that a spark plug in your avatar?

Looks like one, but no it's a damper for car suspension. Tein is the company and that little fella there is "Dampachi" their mascot.