I believe that the presence of harmful interference outside a residence (in
this case apparently 200 feet away - and to WWV) makes it possible for the
FCC to act -- and for Riley Hollingsworth to apply an "attitude adjustment"
to the firm whose equipment produces it.
I could be wrong.
However, this is where the various state laws on implied suitability come
into play. Since tech RUles say harmful interference (even at "legal"
levels) requires us to cease operating the devices which generate it, then
the equipment we've bought is NOT suitable for the purpose for which it is
sold. (That's our argument against BPL!) In such cases, I am told, many
states require merchants to refund the purchase price. That is why I
advised seeking out a consumer advocacy agency or office. It may be
necessary to engage an attorney. Or not. Small Claims court is available
for amounts below $5,000, depending on the state. And of course, the
adverse publicity might wake up the manufacturer.
> [Original Message]
> From: N6KJ <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Now for my second question. Suppose my neighbor's TV which is about
> 50 feet away generates S7 or S8 noise. Will the FCC do anything about
> that? To go one step further...if BPL is implemented (as is obviously
> planned in Manassas Va) will the FCC actually do anything if a ham
> complains that it is causing harmful interference to their amateur
RFI mailing list