Wow Cortland,
That was pretty good for someone that is not an attorney.
Best Wishes & Happy Holidays,
Mike Martin
RFI Services
6469 Old Solomons Island Rd
Tracys Landing, Md 20779
rfiservices.com
240-508-3760
-----Original Message-----
From: rfi-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On
Behalf Of Cortland Richmond
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:59 AM
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Nasty RFI wiping out higher bands
I am not an attorney,and this is not legal advice; an attorney is needed to
pursue the line of attack I am suggesting.
The FCC is not the only law,and even though it may exempt the electronics
is an appliance from mandatory compliance with Part 15's limits,
interference might still be resolved by civil action.
Most states have an implied warranty of serviceability for everything of
use sold, that is to say, absent some other conditions, the seller is
assumed to warranty that what one buys is suitable for the use he buys it
for. An item that is for whatever reason NOT suitable, may be returned for
a refund.
When the FCC says one must stop using a device until the condition is
corrected, the appliance cannot be said to be serviceable. Moreover, an
appliance suitable for use in a residence will not foreclose other uses of
one's residence. If an appliance is legally restricted from use -- as Part
15 does -- it cannot be suitable. And, BTW, if it forecloses another use.
like listening to the radio -- my argument goes -- one should likewise be
able to avail himself of that warranty.
Cortland
KA5S
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Christensen <w9ac@arrl.net>
> To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: 12/16/2008 3:11:13 AM
> Subject: [RFI] Nasty RFI wiping out higher bands
>
> I posted this reply on QRP-L this morning. I thought it would be equally
> relevant here on this list.:
>
> > When I complained to the FCC about the RFI from my Kenmore High
> > Efficiency washer and dryer (see my post from a few months ago) they
> > responded by explaining that since I am the operator of the appliances
> > I am the source of the interference and could not (read that would
> > not) help me.
>
> It's a tough pill to swallow, but pursuant to current Part 15 Rules, the
> Commission was correct by their (in)action in your case. Section
15.103(d)
> states that such washing appliances are subject only to the general
> provisions of Section 15.5 and 15.29, and are further "exempt from the
> specific technical standards and other requirements contained in Part 15."
>
> The operator of an exempted device shall be required to stop operating the
> device upon a finding by the Commission or its representative that the
> device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until
the
> condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.
>
> You are the owner of the washer. You must stop operating the washer if it
> is causing harmful interference.
>
> The real issue here is that Part 15 has not kept pace with the realities
of
> modern appliances. The new wave of washing systems with direct-drive
motors
> generate enormous amounts of RFI.
>
> In our home, nearly every major appliance runs from some form of digital
> controlling device and/or switch-mode power supply. And yet, Part 15 is
> telling us that the manufacturers of common appliances are given special
> dispensation from having to comply with technical standards set forth in
> other sections of Part 15. Ironically, the switch-mode power supply that
> provides powering to the appliances may be non-exempt if sold and used on
> its own. But subject only to vague interpretation under Sec. 15.103(i),
the
> device is protected through exemption under the shield of the "appliance."
>
> Then to add insult to injury, the preamble of 15.103 goes on state
"Although
> not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the manufacturer of an
> exempted device endeavor to have the device meet the specific technical
> standards in this part." Well forgive me, but if the issue is important
> enough for the Commission to make a "strong recommendation," then it seems
> to me the issue should rise to a level of importance in which the
> manufacturers should be compelled to conform to the technical standards of
> non-exempted devices.
>
> BPL is important, but in terms of priority as to what is adversely
impacting
> the population of amateur operators today, it is clearly the growing
> bombardment of trash coming from Part 15-exempt and non-exempt devices.
>
> Our spectrum protection activism should be focused on an overhaul of Part
15
> rules, and should not be limited to BPL activities. But reform in this
area
> does not occur when we call the FCC to file a complaint. Reform requires
a
> grass-roots effort, led in part by a strong organization like the ARRL.
>
> Paul, W9AC
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|