Steve, i'm not inferring that the operator, IF LICENSED, is correct to intentionally interfere with anyone. What I am saying is that ultimately, by the law, the operator is not compelled to do anything about it.
And I'm saying a whole bunch of folks don't give a rat's ass about the law when someone invades their domestic tranquility. They take care of it.
As for your ravings about an inalienable constitutional right to watch mindless drivel on television... just... wow. Have you READ the constitution?
Again, you're being "legalistic" and I'm being "realistic".
By the way, a lot of rights are not in the constitution. Women have a right to equal pay for equal work though the ERA failed. And most any judge will enforce everyone's right to breath clean air.
And, in prisons from coast to coast, inmates have won court battles to preserve their right to watch TV in their cells, at taxpayers expense yet.
Your argument: It's the viewer who has to fix the problem: Possibly legally correct(to a federal bureaucrat).
My argument: Somebody messes with my TV reception, they fix it, not me: English common law (the basis for all tort law in the US), common sense and rough justice if need be(as a last resort).
I only started this because some postings implied the monkey was on the poster's back to deal with and/or pay for curing problems caused by his neighbor's pass time just because the jerk thought he had a license interfere with the "rights" (quotes for you) of a law abiding TV drivel watcher.
In the words of the philospher Y. Smirnoff: America: What a country!