Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+ARRL\s+to\s+FCC\.\.\.\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[RFI\]\s+ARRL\s+to\s+FCC\.\.\.\s*$/: 144 ]

Total 144 documents matching your query.

81. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com>; Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 21:05:28 -0600; We live in two different realities. Mike W0MU I think that the spot check idea is a fine idea... I also think that with sufficient thought it might even be doable! It is so easy to wait for someone t; /archives//html/RFI/2014-03/msg00296.html (9,743 bytes)
82. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Dale J." <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 04:24:25 -0500; Ed, If the manufacturer is required to test the device then the overseeing agency should have the right to visit the mfg lab where the testing is performed and do an audit of the procedures, watch te; /archives//html/RFI/2014-03/msg00299.html (13,536 bytes)
83. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: David Cole <dave@nk7z.net>; Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 06:16:18 -0700; Dale, I see after the ARRL filed the report to the FCC, that Sears and the Vendor in CA removed the product from the web sites in very short order! I have not checked to see if they have put them bac; /archives//html/RFI/2014-03/msg00301.html (15,418 bytes)
84. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: Dale <svetanoff@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 09:56:16 -0500 (GMT-05:00); Ed, Your comments about testing of fixtures are of great interest to me. You may have seen a posting I made a few days ago regarding a replacement fluorescent fixture that creates much more RFI than; /archives//html/RFI/2014-03/msg00311.html (13,446 bytes)
85. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: CR <ka5s@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:24:13 -0400; In general, these are between the buyers and vendors, and it is IMO a not-so-smart economy to leave them out. Considering the distance between buyers and vendors and the (in)ability of buyers to exer; /archives//html/RFI/2014-03/msg00312.html (10,507 bytes)
86. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:13:12 +0000; I used one of the wayback sites to look to see if Hydrofarm had the product available recently. I didn't find it on their site going back a couple of months, so they may have discontinued being the d; /archives//html/RFI/2014-03/msg00313.html (16,668 bytes)
87. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Dale J." <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:31:08 -0500; I don't see as being (or overly) rigorous. Some oversight should be implemented by an overseeing agency. After all, this stuff is being imported, mfg here in the US and marketed to unsuspecting consu; /archives//html/RFI/2014-03/msg00314.html (11,402 bytes)
88. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: CR <ka5s@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 07:34:59 -0400; Considering I got into EMC while the FCC was still "going to town" on enforcement, and doing its own testing too (complete with IIRC a frog under the 1-meter wooden turntable OATS outside their offic; /archives//html/RFI/2014-04/msg00000.html (8,048 bytes)
89. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>; Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 17:38:00 +0000; The FCC already has the right to ask for test data, to test the unit themselves and to determine that those tests are accurate. I am not sure what else you are thinking they should have the right to; /archives//html/RFI/2014-04/msg00002.html (12,474 bytes)
90. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "qrv@kd4e.com" <qrv@kd4e.com>; Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:52:57 -0400; How many RF engineers are left on FCC staff? Last I heard they'd been flooded with bureaucrats and politicians. Also, how many of the remaining engineers are assigned any hours to address RFI? Just a; /archives//html/RFI/2014-04/msg00003.html (9,136 bytes)
91. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <eedwards@oppd.com>; Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 17:54:05 +0000; Ed, OK, so you say the FCC has the "right" to "ask for data" and/or to "test the unit" themselves, and the FCC "should" do those things; however, is there currently a regulation, rule or law that req; /archives//html/RFI/2014-04/msg00004.html (14,048 bytes)
92. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: David Cole <dave@nk7z.net>; Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:56:38 -0700; Hi Ed (K0IL), Leaving out any references to the "current administration", (and thus avoiding the trap of a political argument ensuing), the sniff test for the FCC's activity would be to look at the a; /archives//html/RFI/2014-04/msg00010.html (17,092 bytes)
93. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "KD7JYK DM09" <kd7jyk@earthlink.net>; Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 21:16:49 -0700; Drown them in complaints and see how many more they hire. Kurt _______________________________________________ RFI mailing list RFI@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi; /archives//html/RFI/2014-04/msg00014.html (7,971 bytes)
94. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:56:46 +0000; The FCC has not tested equipment for authorization in over 40 years. There are 3 main levels of authorization for equipment: 1. Certification. The manufacturer submits test data to the FCC and it or; /archives//html/RFI/2014-07/msg00040.html (9,585 bytes)
95. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Dale J." <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:20:28 -0500; I know it's not very practical to hire a bunch of FCC inspectors to check each and every product that's sold. However, spot checking of these requirements should be within the reach of one of the gov; /archives//html/RFI/2014-07/msg00041.html (11,618 bytes)
96. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:10:41 -0700; Did you miss the "small government" revolution that began in the 70s and 80s that included deregulation of many industries? 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ RFI mailing li; /archives//html/RFI/2014-07/msg00042.html (8,414 bytes)
97. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Dale J." <dj2001x@comcast.net>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:17:07 -0500; Yes and that has become a problem. It was started with the "R" administration and so called privatization movement for government operations. It also affected the airline industry and "trickled down"; /archives//html/RFI/2014-07/msg00043.html (8,813 bytes)
98. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:17:04 -0500; Deregulation is a fine thing, isn't it? Were the FCC inclined, and it's not, they'd outsource any type of certification (as Ed described) to private vendors anyway. And we'd find that north of 95%, m; /archives//html/RFI/2014-07/msg00044.html (8,984 bytes)
99. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:50:34 +0000; The FCC has already outsourced certification to the TCBs, Peter. Can you elaborate a bit more on what additional outsourcing you think is possible? Ed, W1RFI Deregulation is a fine thing, isn't it? W; /archives//html/RFI/2014-07/msg00045.html (9,859 bytes)
100. Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC... (score: 1): Author: Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail.com>; Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:54:42 -0500; Someone in the thread seemed to think the FCC should be doing the inspections and on a large scale. Not gonna happen, as you know, and if it did it would be contractors, not the FCC ... just like it; /archives//html/RFI/2014-07/msg00046.html (8,215 bytes)

Current List: 81 - 100
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]