I tell that story about Texas and every one of my workshops. And it's amazing
how often that scenario is what I have to deal with.
I totally agree with you
Michael Martin
RFI Services
240-508-3760
www.rfiservices.com is under construction and will be up and running soon.
Get BlueMail for Android
On May 27, 2022, 9:32 AM, at 9:32 AM, "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
>And we send that message to utilities, too. And yes, those 50+ sources
>were a real experience, showing an investigator who made a decision
>that the utility should think is as unfair as the ham thought the first
>decision was.
>
>It's interesting, Mike, to see how those who have been in this game for
>decades like you and me know exactly why we do things the ways we do.
>Our credibility with the FCC and most of the utility industry is high,
>because we support what is true and right. We will back a utility that
>legitimately finds a non-utility device generating noise; we at least
>accept that a utility only needs to fix noise sources that cause actual
>interference, although correcting some of the others is good
>maintenance practice.
>
>I also know from experience, as do you, that a formal FCC complaint
>changes things, but, like field investigations, it can change things
>for the better or for the worse. In many cases, when the FCC letter
>shows up, the lawyers take over. For that reason, if the utility is
>responsive at all and willing to try to fix it, we will help them in
>any way we can.
>If things are still at the staff level, we are all better off keeping
>it there, and use the FCC only as a last resort.
>________________________________
>From: Michael Martin <mike@rfiservices.com>
>Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 8:40 AM
>To: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
>Cc: David Eckhardt <davearea51a@gmail.com>; Dave (NK7Z)
><dave@nk7z.net>; Rfi List <rfi@contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton
>
>Watch what you wish for, agreed!
>Those scenarios are very familiar to me. And there are many additional
>stories to support what it is saying.
>
>Imagine being diagnosed with 50 interference sources in the FCC
>demanding they be fixed. Only to discover that not one of those 50
>sources were a contributor to the noise level the ham was experiencing.
>
>Sometimes the paper tiger is best left undisturbed!
>
>Michael Martin
>RFI Services
>240-508-3760
><http://www.rfiservices.com>www.rfiservices.com<http://www.rfiservices.com>
>is under construction and will be up and running soon.
>
>Get BlueMail for Android<https://bluemail.me>
>On May 27, 2022, at 7:10 AM, "Hare, Ed, W1RFI"
><w1rfi@arrl.org<mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>> wrote:
>
>As amateurs, we should very much prefer it the way it is rather than
>having the FCC be 100% responsible for "enforcing its own rules." We
>can be assured that if FCC were to 100% take on that task, the first
>thing it do is to make a clear definition of harmful interference that
>I can assure you we would not like.
>
>Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it and then have
>to live with the aftermath. The League staff are very much aware of
>what they are choosing to do and why they undertake what the FCC will
>not. We, in fact, work at not demanding the FCC field investigations
>that some hams think will make their case. It probably will not.
>
>Let me tell you a Tale of Two RFI Cases.
>
>In one case, a ham had S9 interference. The utility screwed around
>endlessly and the FCC finally was able to have a team going there for
>other reasons look at the noise. It could not determine the source, so
>it told the amateur that because he could hear some signals on the
>band, it was not harmful interference, so the FCC was going to close
>the case and take no action. You would not believe the difficulty in
>getting that decision overturned.
>
>In another instance involving S9 noise, and FCC field investigation
>identified over 50 noise sources and told the utility to fix them all.
>
>It's a crap shoot, then, right? No, it's worse! Both of those were
>the same case in Texas, with two different FCC investigators. Do you
>REALLY want to see the FCC enforcing the RFI rules? If so, without
>ARRL's staff getting and staying involved, it would have been game over
>after the first investigation.
>
>If FCC enforces, this will ultimately be turned over to multiple field
>offices, with investigators for which RFI is a sideline at best, and a
>mystery at worst. We are MUCH better off having 1.5 staff in the ARRL
>Lab with literally world-class expertise and experience managing these
>cases, with help from local volunteers, doing all of the legwork and
>turning cases over to the FCC when necessary. What ARRL has put
>together here, in collaboration with FCC and the involved industries,
>is as good as we are going to get in principle, always improvable in
>the details. IMHO, it is a model of consumer/industry/regulator
>collaboration that will ultimately be adopted in other ways.
>
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Lab
>
>________________________________
>
>From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org<http://arrl.org>@contesting.com>
>on behalf of David Eckhardt <davearea51a@gmail.com>
>Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 12:20 PM
>To: Dave (NK7Z) <dave@nk7z.net>
>Cc: Rfi List <rfi@contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton
>
>Dave, NK7Z, you hit the nails squarely on the heads in your last email.
>
>Further, those of us who are members of ARRL are paying in our dues (or
>life memberships) what FCC was originally tasked to do, among other
>tasks
>within CFR47. ARRL and the amateurs are now the RFI sleuths,
>especially
>when it comes to home solar power installations. So, our dues and life
>memberships to ARRL should be tax deductible??
>
>All have read my past rants on FCC shirking the responsibilities
>spelled
>out in CFR47. Now we amateurs and ARRL are tasked with some of those
>responsibilities originally defined in CFR47. And all for free.......
>Something is wrong with this picture!
>
>Sure, FCC is severely short of funds. And.,...... maybe ARRL has been
>working with FCC for 20 years on. But this is no excuse for handing
>their
>own responsibilities, at no cost, off to a volunteer paid organization
>of
>members.
>
>Dave - W0LEV
>
>On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:24 PM Dave (NK7Z) <dave@nk7z.net> wrote:
>
> If only the FCC enforced their own rules, I would agree with you...
>
> There is very little proactive enforcement happening up in this area,
> and I suspect elsewhere...
>
> RFI is rampant, and getting worse, not better. It is a mindlessly
>simple task to locate a grow operations in most cases. Yet the Amateur
>is the person on the front lines in location, and in first contact with
> the offender, exposing the Amateur to possible liability, and possible
> assault.
>
>The grow ops up here are far too big to be selling in state, which
>means
>they are selling out of state, which means they are illegal. So the
>FCC
> is placing the Amateur in the position of possibly dealing with a drug
> offender... The real issue is the RFI, not what is being grown, or
>warmed, or lit... Just the RFI, but it is still the Amateur that has
>to
> knock on the door, and explain what is happening to whoever answers...
>
> The FCC is ham stringed by not enough funding, so we are the front
> line... RFI enforcement has switched from proactive to reactive as a
>result of lack of funding-- unless you are a cell provider... Then one
>call gets instant action, and-- god forbid you even think about
>starting
> a pirate FM station...
>
> In a perfect world, I would report RFI to the FCC, and they would send
> down a field engineer in a timely manner, locate the RFI, and fine, or
> warn the perpetrator, then followup with the operator of the device a
> few weeks later, to ascertain compliance levels. This would force an
> overall reduction in the amount RFI, over time as consumers went after
> the installers, and the manufacturers.
>
> That is just not happening. Thus the problem gets worse, not better.
>
> This is why I say, there is some reasonable level of RFI that the
> amateur is going to have to accept. Be it right or wrong, that is the
> way it is working, and for the foreseeable future going to work. This
> is very unfortunate.
>
> 73,
> Dave,
> https://www.nk7z.net
> On 5/25/22 11:26, Jim Brown wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 1:38 AM, Dave (NK7Z) wrote:
> Respectfully I am saying that at some point there is a level at which
> the FCC will say too bad, live with it. That level will be above what
> things were before the solar installation arrived.
>
>FCC Rules say that if a product interferes with licensed radio
>operation
> that use of it must be discontinued.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
>
>--
>*Dave - WØLEV*
>*Just Let Darwin Work*
>________________________________
>
>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
|