Harlock - Column for 1/16

More Things Vaguely Sinister

Grab a device that picks up radio waves, such as a walkie-talkie, a baby monitor, or even, yes, a radio. Check the back, and look for some really small type. It undoubtedly reads:

     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.

Condition 1 is all well and good. Sure, you don't want a bunch of appliances that spew random electronic noise all over the radio frequencies. That's obvious, and a perfectly reasonable rule. It's the second condition that irks me.

Why should my devices have to accept harmful interference? How come some idiot can spew harmful interference all over the place, making my devices operate in undesired ways, and I'm required to just sit there and take it? Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you: Is that the American Way? No, it is not. And yet, our own government is forcing these constricting rules upon us, without our say-so. Did you ever vote to ratify this rule? I certainly didn't.

Seriously, though, this has bugged me for a long time. The problem is that there's no explanation as to why the device has to sit there and take any and all interference directed at it. Sure, they'd have trouble fitting an explanation on the back of these devices, no matter how small they made the type ("For more information, see this microdot"). But even the FCC website doesn't provide any details. So I'm left guessing why I'm forced to allow foreign interference to corrupt my precious devices.

Now, I can't actually prove that I've ever experienced a case of harmful interference affecting my devices in undesired ways. I'm not even sure what that would entail. Would my radio start playing news reports from Kuala Lumpur? Actually, that might be interesting, so probably not. Now, if it started shrieking uncontrollably, that would be undesired.

Now that I think about it, I have experienced undesired operation of a device. The last soundcard that I had in my computer picked up signals from the nearby radio transmitter tower, so I'd be able to hear, very faintly, the sounds of modern rock coming from my speakers. But the sound card wasn't a device that designed to pick up or transmit radio signals, so I don't know if it even had that FCC warning. I'm somewhat worried that the same thing might happen to the baby monitor; I'd have to run upstairs to be sure that it's only interference, and that my daughter hasn't figured out how to turn on the radio or taken up singing 80's tunes. Which, as she's currently 5 months old, would certainly be undesired. One must learn to talk before one learns to sing New Wave songs, I've always said.

No, no, no. The point is that the surreptitious little warning has always bugged me, moreso because I don't know why it's there. Is my device supposed to suck up and destroy any harmful interference? I might not be Stephen Hawking, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. And why can't my devices be shielded from harmful interference? Sure, it would probably be difficult to keep the bad radio waves out and let the good ones in, but Part 15 doesn't even allow the option of trying.

Most importantly, though, does this also apply to Tin Foil Hats?

Columns by Harlock