Jim,
Thanks for your reasoned response. I agree.
I too have the noise canx devices, more than one here and they do help to a
point. I've contacted the local noise source and we have good relationship,
we're on good terms, but so far the problem has not been fixed. I suspect that
either I buy a new TV for them or the TV that is in use will eventually fail,
but there will always be more after that one goes away. I think the days of
operating in somewhat noise free cities are a thing of the past. It will be a
never ending knocking at doors requesting next door neighbors to turn off their
devices etc, but I'm not up to doing that. Maybe it's time to just write off
this radio hobby and take up chasing butterflies or photography something.
Very distressing after all these decades of radio interests, since before 1960.
Dale, k9vuj
On 21, Mar 2014, at 18:08, Jim Kennedy <kennedyjp@cableone.net> wrote:
> Hi Folks, , this certainly is an interesting thread but its time for a reality
> check. The offending broadband emitting consumer devices are not going away
> anytime in the near future. The FCC is so far behind the power curve
> regarding Part 15 devices that I don’t see it getting resolved anytime soon.
> That’s not to say that we as hams should give up trying to bring pressure on
> the FCC to do something to curtail the importing or manufacturing of all
> this junk.
>
> I live in a typical residential area and am faced with all kinds of noise
> being generated by these types of devices, just like you guys. When and If
> I can identify the source of the problem I approach the owner of the
> offending device and try to work out a resolution. Sometimes it is
> successful and other times its not. That’s just the stark truth of the
> matter. But the bottom line is that if you want to get the noise issue
> resolved its going to take action from you. Go find it, identify it and take
> action to get it resolved if possible. No amount of banter about whether the
> FCC is doing its job or not is going to get rid of the noise. It takes action
> on your part that includes diplomacy, technical ability. and common sense.
>
> I have invested in a ANC4- Noise Canceller and in most cases will mitigate
> the noise to a level where I can at least operate. I find it's been affective
> on power line and most broadband kinds of noises. It does require a sense
> antenna that can hear the noise that the receiver is hearing in order to null
> it out. It may be a thought to consider.
>
> Jim
> W7OUU
>
> -----Original Message----- From: CR
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 19:45
> To: rfi@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
>
>
> When we're cheated by a merchant who sells noncompliant equipment, we
> have to act ourselves to recover the cost of replacing non-compliant
> equiment or bringing it into compliance wit FCC Rules.
>
> The FCC can and does penalize those who unlawfully use, import,
> advertise or sell non-compliant apparatus or equipment.
>
> What it can't do, because Congress won't fund it, is go around looking
> for interference-producing equipment in use. It must rely on complaints
> - and it is as we know predisposed to ignore them if acting would anger
> Congress. Look at BPL!
>
>
> Cortland KA5S
>
>
> From FCC Part 15
>
> 15.1
> (b) The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator that is
> not in accordance with the regulations in this
> part must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of section 301 of the
> Communications Act of 1934, as amended, unless otherwise exempted from
> the licensingrequirements elsewhere in this chapter.
>
> (c) Unless specifically exempted, the operation or marketing of an
> intentional or unintentional radiator that is
> not in compliance with the administrative and technical provisions in
> this part, including prior Commission authorization or verification, as
> appropriate, is prohibited under section 302 of the Communications Act
> of 1934, as
> amended, and subpart I of part 2 of this chapter. The equipment
> authorization and verification procedures are detailed in subpart J of
> part 2 of this chapter.
>
> From Part 2 Subpart I:
>
> §2.803 Marketing of radio frequency products prior to equipment
> authorization.
>
> (a) Marketing, as used in this section, includes sale or lease, or
> offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or
> importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or
> leasing or offering for sale or lease.
>
> (b) General rule. No person may market a radio frequency device unless:
>
> (1) For devices subject to authorization under certification, the device
> has been authorized in accordance with the rules in subpart J of this
> chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by §2.925 and
> other relevant sections in this chapter; or
>
> (2) For devices subject to authorization under verification or
> Declaration of Conformity in accordance with the rules in subpart J of
> this chapter, the device complies with all applicable technical,
> labeling, identification and administrative requirements; or
>
> (3) For devices that do not require a grant of equipment authorization
> under subpart J of this chapter but must comply with the specified
> technical standards prior to use, the device complies with all
> applicable, technical, labeling, identification and administrative
> requirements.
>
>
>
>
> On 3/21/2014 1:20 PM, Kelly Johnson wrote:
>> What I
>> don't understand is why the FCC isn't willing/able to put the burden of
>> fixing it or replacing it on the manufacturer and/or importer. Why do they
>> put the burden on the consumer?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|