However, you got to keep in mind that document had been written during a time that coincided when Yellowstone and the Highway departments began using for the first tome ever part 15 transmitters in licensed broadcast bands.
The whole thing had come out of left field and it's use became widespread all with in a period of about a year, all over the US. They weren't sure how to handle it. When you consider that then you get a clearer picture of where the FCC official who had wrote that in 1972 was coming from.
View from Tolerance
As the FCC tolerates us, we in turn must tolerate the licensed stations we are subjected to whether we like it or not.
But another factor is how our listeners tolerate us.
My Icecast streaming station, KDX-OGG, has a listener that tolerates us for very lengthy periods of time, but amazingly, whenever my program, Blare OnAir, gets run the listener closes the connection within minutes. I must be intolerable.
The listener's IP address comes from a server in Ironwood, Michigan, but at first I didn't know how they were connecting, given the fact that KDX-OGG is listed in at least three places: Xiph.org (the Icecast Directory), Steamcast, or from kdxradio.com website. To find out, I closed all directories but one and every few days switched to another until it became known that they were grabbing us from Xiph.
Reply to Rich Powers, I was referring to Canada's documents when I didn't see tolerated or sufferance but permitted. Didn't look at part 15 wording. Surprised to see that. I have all the Canadian documents by Industry Canada and the CRTC printed out and in a large legal sized envelope for reference if needed. Nowhere have I seen the wording on a sufferance basis only.
But the two words can be intertwined. If you permit someone to do something providing certain parameters are met, aren't you tolerating what the person is doing?
Not that I really want to get into debates about the intent behind the two words and I think that this is nothing to get excited about. Follow the rules, especially the don'ts and you will be tolerated.
I fully expect this thread to morph into the definition of a "ground lead." You have been warned.
Our Sufferage
AMRadioLegend anticipates: "I fully expect this thread to morph into the definition of a 'ground lead.'"
Must we be tolerant?
Sorry, I forget sometimes that these forums arn't exclusively part 15, but rather also includes the similar regulation hobbyist of other countries.
And though the ground lead gets old, it never can go away because it is intricately part of part 15.
Take Me To Your Ground Leader
Rich Powers gets the ball rolling: " Though the ground lead gets old, it never can go away because it is intricately part of part 15."
The morphing has begun.
I wasn't talking about ground leads at all, so I'm mildly insulted on the spin created. What I said was that the FCC document said that even our station is in "strict adherence to the technical limitations in Part 15", it doesn't insure any right to continued operation of that station.
That's a pretty extreme thing for an FCC official document to say.. So I explained that one need to consider what was going on at the time it was written to put that statement on a proper perspective.
It was at that time Radiolegend and Carl who began to specifically morph it into a ground lead issue.. Why? I suppose because it's unescapable and always in the back of our minds. I did not so much as mention or allude to anything about ground leads, except as a brief response to you two bringing it up. So don't go ridiculing me.