For all of you who are totally unaware of pending bill regarding local law
enforcement taking over the FCC's role in CB cases, please refer to
http://rs9.loc.gov/home/c105query.html
the bills you are interested in are S. 608 and HR 2612
73 all! W6EZ
rfi-digest wrote:
> rfi-digest Wednesday, February 11 1998 Volume 01 : Number 026
>
> In this issue:
>
> [RFI] small dish tv
> [RFI] Telephone RFI problem
> [RFI] 11 meter RFI problems
> [RFI] Comments on RFI issue
> [RFI] RFI Trends
> [RFI] Mobile RFI
> RE: [RFI] Telephone RFI problem
> Re: [RFI] Telephone RFI problem
>
> See the end of the digest for information about na-user-digest
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:00:02 -0800
> From: Skip Peterson <kc0na@brainerd.net>
> Subject: [RFI] small dish tv
>
> A while ago I asked the question about possible rfi and small dish tv.
> Had a lot of mail, all were positive in that they had NO bad problems.
> I thank everyone for there input. We went ahead and installed a small
> dish system...NO problems with any band, mode or power level, and the
> dish is close to most of my antenna(farm).
> Added bonus... xyl loves the tv..
> Again thanks much for the input.. de skip
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:15:43 -0500
> From: "Randy Lake" <rlake@monad.net>
> Subject: [RFI] Telephone RFI problem
>
> Hi all......
> During the NH qso party this past weekend
> my next door neighbor,who's house is abt
> 200' from the tower, called because he needed
> to make a call to his mothere and father. In
> the past he has heard me just a little bit on the
> phone but today he cud not hear anyone on
> the phone but me....So I turned off the amp
> until he left the house...
> Has anyone found a nice way to deal with this
> type of problem? He is very willing to try things!
> Filters? new phone?
> Any help wud be appreciated..
> Randy N1KWF>>
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:06:59 -0800
> From: tduffy <tduffy@sygnet.com>
> Subject: [RFI] 11 meter RFI problems
>
> owner-rfi@contesting.com wrote:
>
> > >From k3lr Tue Feb 10 11:04:33 1998
> > Received: from x-3.nts-online.net (x-3.nts-online.net
> > [205.231.176.13])
> > by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA00160;
> > Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:04:25 -0500 (EST)
> > Received: from bryan (dialup-lbb-04.nts-online.net [205.231.176.104])
> > by x-3.nts-online.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA07014; Tue, 10 Feb
> > 1998 11:06:04 -0600
> > Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980210091005.00907280@prodistributors.com>
> > X-Sender: bryan@prodistributors.com
> > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32)
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:10:05 -0600
> > To: RFI@contesting.com, dx@ve7tcp.ampr.org, towertalk@contesting.com,
> > cq-contest@contesting.com, vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
> > From: Bryan <bryan@prodistributors.com>
> > Subject: Local police and RFI problems
> > Cc: ham-law@altlaw.com
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> >
> > Our local newspaper has just carried a story about
> > the police charging a local CB operator with criminal
> > mischief because he was causing RFI to a neighbor's computer
> > modem.
> >
> > I talked with some of the folks that have been involved
> > in this matter and it seems that the cb operator is getting
> > into various consumer electronic units in the neighborhood.
> > The neighbors have complained to the police who then checked
> > with the city attorney's office. I was given the report that
> > an assistant in the city attorney's office has authorized the
> > arrest of the cb operator on charges of criminal mischief. The
> > police had then made an attempt to arrest the cb operator but
> > he refused to give the police access to his home. One of the
> > people that I talked with said that the city attorney planned
> > to pursue charges against the cb'er on the basis of the new
> > law PENDING in Congress that would give local authorities some
> > degree of legal control over interference caused by CB operators.
> >
> > It seems that a major factor involved in this situation is
> > that the cb operator uses a profanity which is being heard on the
> > various electronic units around the neighborhood.
> >
> > It is my understanding that the Communications Act of 1934
> > that set up the FCC also gave the FCC the EXCLUSIVE rights to deal
> > with cases such as this one and the city has no authority legally to
> > get involved in this problem. I do not condone in any way the CB'ers
> > use of profanity, but most law enforcement people don't know the
> > difference in a amateur radio operator and a un-licensed CB operator.
> > I think the city could set a dangerous example if it starts to charge
> > and arrest people in RFI cases when this may be an area that is
> > totally
> > outside their jurisdiction.
> >
> > Comments, input, or suggestions would be appreciated.
> >
> > Bryan Edwards W5KFT
> > Lubbock, Texas
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:40:47 -0800
> From: tduffy <tduffy@sygnet.com>
> Subject: [RFI] Comments on RFI issue
>
> owner-rfi@contesting.com wrote:
>
> > >From k3lr Tue Feb 10 12:28:19 1998
> > Received: from imo23.mail.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.151])
> > by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01948;
> > Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:28:16 -0500 (EST)
> > From: JimW9WU@aol.com
> > Received: from JimW9WU@aol.com
> > by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id CVMLa01210;
> > Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:27:33 -0500 (EST)
> > Message-ID: <1df9c9c6.34e08e07@aol.com>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:27:33 EST
> > To: bryan@prodistributors.com
> > Cc: towertalk@contesting.com, rfi@contesting.com
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Local police and RFI problems
> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> > X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 126
> >
> > In a message dated 2/10/98 10:05:15 AM Central Standard Time,
> > bryan@prodistributors.com writes:
> >
> > <<
> > It is my understanding that the Communications Act of 1934
> > that set up the FCC also gave the FCC the EXCLUSIVE rights to deal
> > with cases such as this one and the city has no authority legally to
> > get involved in this problem. I do not condone in any way the CB'ers
> >
> > use of profanity, but most law enforcement people don't know the
> > difference in a amateur radio operator and a un-licensed CB operator.
> >
> > I think the city could set a dangerous example if it starts to charge
> >
> > and arrest people in RFI cases when this may be an area that is
> > totally
> > outside their jurisdiction.
> > >>
> > This type of criminal action is against the law. Section 302(a)(2) of
> > the
> > Communications
> > Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the FCC in these matters. The
> > legislative
> > history of that section explicitly provides that the FCC has exclusive
> >
> > authority to regulate RFI. In the Conference Report, Congress stated:
> >
> > The Conference Substitute is further intended to clarify the
> > reservation
> > of exclusive jurisdiction to the FCC over matters involving
> > RFI. Such
> > matters shall not
> > be regulated by local or state law, nor shall radio
> > transmitting apparatus be
> > subject to local or state regulation as part of any effort to
> > resolve an RFI
> > complaint. The Conferees believe that radio transmitter
> > operators should not
> > be subject to fines, forfeitures or other liability imposed by
> > any local or
> > state
> > authority as a result of interference appearing in home
> > electronic equipment
> > or systems.
> >
> > H.R. Report No 765, 97th Congress., 2d Sess.33 (1982). reprinted at
> > 1982 U.S.
> > Code Cong. & Ad News 2277.
> >
> > See also: Still v. Michaels, 791 F.Supp 248 (USDC Az, 1992) and
> > Broyde v.
> > Gotham Tower, Inc., 13 F3d 994 (6th Cir. 1994) among other cases
> > holding that
> > such actions are preempted.
> >
> > 73, Jim O'Connell, W9WU ARRL VC
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:43:11 -0800
> From: tduffy <tduffy@sygnet.com>
> Subject: [RFI] RFI Trends
>
> owner-rfi@contesting.com wrote:
>
> > >From k3lr Tue Feb 10 13:54:48 1998
> > Received: from dns1.cybertime.net (www.cybertime.net [207.155.11.64])
> > by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA04047
> > for <RFI@contesting.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:54:41 -0500
> > (EST)
> > Received: from [207.155.11.192] by dns1.cybertime.net (NTMail 3.02.13)
> > with ESMTP id pa160903 for <RFI@contesting.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998
> > 10:57:21 -0800
> > From: "J. Bradshaw" <ac6tk@cybertime.net>
> > To: <bryan@prodistributors.com>
> > Cc: <RFI@contesting.com>, <dx@ve7tcp.ampr.org>,
> > <towertalk@contesting.com>,
> > <cq-contest@contesting.com>, <vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu>,
> > <ham-law@altlaw.com>
> > Subject: Re: Local police and RFI problems
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:52:39 -0800
> > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Message-Id: <18572159310856@cybertime.net>
> >
> > Bryan,
> >
> > > Our local newspaper has just carried a story about
> > >the police charging a local CB operator with criminal
> > >mischief because he was causing RFI to a neighbor's computer
> > >modem...
> > >One of the
> > >people that I talked with said that the city attorney planned
> > >to pursue charges against the cb'er on the basis of the new
> > >law PENDING in Congress that would give local authorities some
> > >degree of legal control over interference caused by CB operators.
> >
> > This is a rather disturbing trend. Radio is considered to give
> > certain
> > tactical advantage to criminals (and civilians) so has been a target
> > law
> > enforcement types. Out here, RACES or other volunteer government
> > participation is encouraged so that we as hams might be perceived as
> > "good
> > guys". The only difficulty with that comes from those who are so
> > "privileged" as to beat down the rest of ham radio for "good guy"
> > points.
> >
> > Yes, the FCC is the responsible agency who has jurisdiction over radio
> >
> > matters in the United States and has reserved jurisdiction over the
> > states,
> > because radio signals don't hold to political borders. However, in
> > the Los
> > Angeles area we have seen little enforcement because The FCC has had
> > some
> > embarrassing setbacks with cases here.
> >
> > Recently a state court case over a local repeater pitted a bunch of
> > "newbies" and fresh CB converts against a veteran ham control
> > operator/owner. In a hail of dis-information and mis-interpretation
> > of the
> > FCC laws, it was determined that since the "control operator" of the
> > repeater was one who had "physical control" of the repeater, and since
> >
> > possession was 9/10 etc., etc., then the "new repeater committee" who
> > had
> > changed the lock on the vault, the ID'er and posted guards at the site
> > must
> > be the "control operators". Further, the court decided that it was a
> > state
> > court matter to decide owner/control operator status in cases of
> > dispute.
> > Now the "New Committee" could proceed to jack up the power and the
> > antenna
> > and talk to Mexico.
> >
> > Anyone with any practical and theoretical technical experience, knows
> > that
> > audio devices become receivers most often due to compromises in
> > engineering. It took 5 turns of the phone line on a torroid to allow
> > me to
> > operate on 80m with a tuner and still be connected to my ISP. This
> > simple
> > $1 fix for a worst case scenario might be beyond someone not qualified
> > by
> > our stringent technical standards. Heck many people don't even
> > understand
> > the "funny noises" on their cordless phone, or what the "channel"
> > button is
> > for, but the neighbor 2 doors down has the same problem! So we are
> > left
> > with trying to convince those without technical justification and the
> > determination of a hammer, not to strike.
> >
> > I bet a lot of people who questioned the technical merit of executing
> > the
> > Jews, were killed by those who wondered the same thing but kept their
> > mouths shut. A lot more were killed for just riding the train to the
> > end
> > of the line.
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:47:09 -0800
> From: tduffy <tduffy@sygnet.com>
> Subject: [RFI] Mobile RFI
>
> owner-rfi@contesting.com wrote:
>
> > >From k3lr Tue Feb 10 15:16:37 1998
> > Received: from earth.sunlink.net (root@earth.sunlink.net
> > [204.170.191.1])
> > by dayton.akorn.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA05315
> > for <rfi@contesting.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:16:36 -0500
> > (EST)
> > Received: from bud (blbg058.sunlink.net [204.170.186.58])
> > by earth.sunlink.net (1.11.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA15904
> > for <rfi@contesting.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:16:34 -0500
> > (EST)
> > Message-Id: <199802102016.PAA15904@earth.sunlink.net>
> > X-Sender: mhoover@mail.sunlink.net
> > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:15:59 -0500
> > To: rfi@contesting.com
> > From: mike <mhoover@sunlink.net>
> > Subject: ?
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > I put a Icom 706 into a !995 Toyota T100 with the 6 cylinder engine.
> > On
> > the 80 meter band I have a constant S9 noise level when the vehicle is
> >
> > running. It does not occur when the ignition switch is first turned
> > so I
> > do not believe that it is the fuel pump. When listened to in the AM
> > mode
> > the noise sounds like a high pitched alternator whine. The noise may
> > vary
> > in pitch slightly but not in intensity with engine speed. If it does
> > vary
> > it is barely noticible. No noise is present if the antenna is
> > unhooked
> > from the radio.
> > Does anyone have any information or knowledge on a fix for this
> > problem? I
> > tried sending e mail to Toyota, talked to the service people at the
> > dealership, and phoned the tech number in Ca. but they have offered no
> >
> > assistance or answer to the cause. Any information would be greatly
> > appreciated.
> > Thank You, Mike Hoover N3BUD
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:09:00 -0500
> From: "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" <ehare@arrl.org>
> Subject: RE: [RFI] Telephone RFI problem
>
> >From: Randy Lake
> >To: rfi
> >Subject: [RFI] Telephone RFI problem
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> >Date: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 10:15AM
> >Hi all......
> >During the NH qso party this past weekend
> >my next door neighbor,who's house is abt
> >200' from the tower, called because he needed
> >to make a call to his mother and father. In
> >the past he has heard me just a little bit on the
> >phone but today he cud not hear anyone on
> >the phone but me....So I turned off the amp
> >until he left the house...
>
> Sounds like something has changed. Did he buy a new phone, answering
> machine, modem? Etc.
>
> >Has anyone found a nice way to deal with this
> >type of problem? He is very willing to try things!
> >Filters? new phone?
>
> In most cases, filters will do it. These are widely sold and advertised.
> Radio Shack now sells telephone filters (the ARRL Lab helped hook them up
> with a manufacturer of good filters!)
>
> I first recommend you learn about the problem. ARRL has a
> telephone-interference package available for download from our Web site,
> http://www.arrl.org/. You may also want to get our RFI Pamphlet, available
> for an SASE from our Technical Department Secretary, 225 Main St, Newington,
> CT 06111. This pamphlet was written to explain interference to a
> non-technical neighbor.
>
> To summarize, interference to non-radio devices is not the fault of the
> transmitter. The FCC states in their material that telephones that pick up
> radio signals are improperly functioning as receivers. You may want to
> help your neighbor find a solution, but you are in compliance with FCC regs.
>
> First, simplify the problem. Disconnect all of the telephone devices. If
> you have an "RFI proof" phone (TCE Labs, Pro Distributors), plug it in and
> try it. If it works, you have determined that there is no problem with the
> lines or telephone company equipment.
>
> Now, start adding devices back to the lines one at a time. If you do have
> interference, try to eliminate it with filters. All of the filters should
> be mounted as close to the telephone as possible. First, try a telephone
> line filter. You can buy a commercial product, or make one with about 10
> turns onto an FT-140-43 ferrite core. If the interference is primarily from
> 40 m and below, an FT-140-75 core may work a bit better. You may also have
> to filter the handset cord. K-Com sells handset filters. If the telephone
> or telephone device has a connection to the AC line, usually through one of
> the "wall cube" type supplies, you may need to try a common-mode choke on
> the power lead to the phone (10 turns on an FT-140-43 or -74).
>
> In some cases, a telephone-line imbalance may create a differential-mode
> signal on the line. In this case, a 0.01 uF ceramic capacitor across the
> telephone line may cure interference that doesn't respond to conventional
> telephone (common-mode) filtering.
>
> The ARRL book, Radio Frequency Interference: How to Find It and Fix It, has
> a chapter on telephone interference.
>
> 73 from ARRL HQ,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
> ARRL Lab
> >Any help wud be appreciated..
> >Randy N1KWF>>
> >
> >--
> >Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> >Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> >WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> >Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
> >
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
To: <rfi@contesting.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:21:22 +0000
> From: k6ll@juno.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] Telephone RFI problem
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:15:43 -0500 "Randy Lake" <rlake@monad.net> writes:
>
> >Hi all......
> >During the NH qso party this past weekend
> >my next door neighbor,who's house is abt
> >200' from the tower, called because he needed
> >to make a call to his mothere and father. In
> >the past he has heard me just a little bit on the
> >phone but today he cud not hear anyone on
> >the phone but me....So I turned off the amp
> >until he left the house...
> >Has anyone found a nice way to deal with this
> >type of problem? He is very willing to try things!
> >Filters? new phone?
> >Any help wud be appreciated..
> >Randy N1KWF>>
>
> Run down to Radio Shack and buy yourself a model 43-591 phone
> for $19.95 (less if on sale). This phone is highly resistant
> to RFI. If it doesn't solve the problem, you can take
> it back to RS.
>
> I keep a supply of these phones on hand (for emergency loan
> during contests). I always install one in my house during
> contest weekends. I usually put a large ferrite bead in the
> line as additional insurance. I snip off
> one of the modular plugs that comes with the 6' cord, wind as
> many turns as possible on a 1/2" ID, 1" long ferrite bead, and
> then reinstall a modular plug.
>
> I either:
>
> 1. Loan them the phone for contest weekends, in response to complaints.
> (One guy never brought it back, but now he's too embarassed to
> complain any more about anything).
>
> 2. Offer to split the cost of the phone.
>
> I always give them a copy of the FCC Interference Handbook, CIB-2,
> which clearly describes where the responsibility lies for solving
> telephone interference (at the telephone end of course).
>
> Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> Yuma, AZ
> K6LL@juno.com
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
> - --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
> Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of rfi-digest V1 #26
> ************************
>
> --
> Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: rfi-digest-REQUEST@contesting.com
> WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-digest.html
> Questions: owner-rfi-digest@contesting.com
--
Submissions: rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
WWW: http://www.contesting.com/rfi-faq.html
Questions: owner-rfi@contesting.com
|