I'm not saying to hit them over the head with this, but to
enforce the fact that they are required to fix this, it doesn't hurt to
It didn't seem to hurt my case. My noise is fixed.
73, Tom K5IID
At 15:53 01-12-02 -0800, Bill Turner wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 20:40:25 +0000, Tom Horton wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand what I am saying.
>No, I don't. Your message was based on the premise that power
>line noise should be eliminated because of its potential to
>disrupt emergency traffic.
>I hate power line noise as much as the next guy, but this is a
>phony issue IMO, and when it is presented to the folks at the
>electric company, will just make them look at us even more
>strangely than they do already.
>Put yourself in their shoes: Some guy calls up who wants us (the
>power company) to send out a repair crew because he's getting
>some erratic line noise that might someday interfere with
>possible disaster communications. How fast can you say "good
>A much better approach, IMO, is to present them with some
>evidence that the line noise is interfering with your ongoing
>regular ham operations, which are licensed by the FCC and which
>they are mandated to fix anyway. Leave the disaster comm stuff
>out. As I said in my original reply, any on-scene disaster
>communication is likely to be done by mobile or portable stations
>anyway, and off-scene communications can be handled by any number
>of other stations.
>In other words, the power company is likely to see your complaint
>as a "manufactured" crisis and treat it accordingly. We hams
>don't need that.
>73, Bill W7TI