Well stated.
We have to make a national security communications, domestic emergency
communications,
and don't-let-China-pollute-our-spectrum argument - in order to gather
the necessary special
interest powers to force these changes past the big money (cheaper =
more profit) lobbyists.
It can be done - but it will require a lot of social media promotion so
that it starts to cause
elected officials, CEO's, and big investors to squirm under public scrutiny.
Preppers, drone and other recreational users, as well as businesses,
local government,
and various organizations using FRS & GMRS may also be recruited to the
cause.
We have to clearly describe how this is in their 'enlightened
self-interest'.
IMHO, YMMV ... kd4e
On 7/28/24 13:17, David E. Crawford wrote:
While the admin admonitions against "politics" are well-taken, the
whole process of change will be inherently political. But it can and
should be done without denigration, including discussions within this
forum, which I believe is the intent.
Human nature brings a certain inertia to the administrative state
where the authority lies for the solution of these issues. One must
get them "interested" in the process first, and the NAB and ARRL are
indeed the entities best situated to get the FCC's attention in the US
-- if not them, then who? Since electronics are a world market, the
ITU and other bodies enter the equation too. Change in this realm is
hard, but please don't let anyone off the hook by declaring it "too
hard" on their behalf.
On the technical side of things, the cheap switcher supplies now found
in or on everything are some of the lowest hanging fruit. Part 15 put
down roots before those were ever invented, now the world is
different, and it needs an update. Some ideas about switcher changes
that could be made (as in mandated):
Treat them as intentional radiators rather than unintentional. In
other words, assume they are going to radiate, no matter whatever else
you do.
Allocate them some (= very few) frequencies similar to what is done
with ISM devices. I don't think the ISM freqs themselves are good
candidates because of the QRM that ISM devices could suffer.
Put some strict freq stability and harmonic content limits on that
radiation. So, instead of wandering noisy blobs, we have multiple,
clean CW carriers sharing a single or very few strategically-chosen
freqs, and therefore much easier to work around. And they can put out
reasonable levels of RF on those freqs without it causing problems to
others.
Pay attention to the conducted emissions, not just the radiated, and
put strict limits on them, so that some load device receiving a
"signal" from a supply doesn't turn a clean signal into a dirty one
and re-radiate that. Or, that a long power cable doesn't become a
radiator outside of the supply-radiated RF limits either.
Stop treating the supplies as "components" buried in someone else's
hand-waving qual paperwork, but treat them as individual devices
requiring qualification before they can be used.
A lot of these supplies are based around canned chipsets now -- how
can their designs be influenced to help mitigate the dirty RF problem
before they ever see a host device?
...
These general concepts can really apply to just about anything
electronic, not just switchers.
The low frequencies really are worth recovering, especially if we
someday find ourselves without a functioning low earth orbit comm
capability due to military conflict and we need the
terrestrial/groundwave bandwidth back.
Best regards to the group.
On 2024-07-28 07:57, Hare, Ed, W1RFI via RFI wrote:
<While getting the FCC to change may be hard, I think we need to try.
Just because it is hard does not mean we look away. If we had that
attitude with the moon I guess we may never have gone there.>
I agree. My comments were not intended to say that "we can't do it,"
but that changing the rules is probably the most difficult – and time
consuming – solution to change. As I said, resistance will not be
futile.
Rules changes will not happen until FCC believes they are necessary.
The first step in moving FCC to that conclusion is to make them more
and more aware of the impact of the present rules. With recent
increased interest by OET and the FCC Regional Directors, that
process is beginning to bear some fruit. It will take more.
Ed
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|