[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] Nasty RFI wiping out higher bands

To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Nasty RFI wiping out higher bands
From: kb2kfv@aol.com
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:24:47 EST
List-post: <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
The thing to do is wait until after the first of the year and refile your  
complaint with the Commission after the 
new Commissioner's come on Board and direct your complaint to the new  
Commissioner after we get rid of the moron's that have done nothing but cater 
the whims of big business. As was just brought out in the recent Senate  
hearings, about their misinterpretations about BPL and how they ignored their  
rules and prior recommendations.
Ken Davis - KB2kFV
In a message dated 12/16/08 7:36:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
n4zr@contesting.com writes:

Bravo,  Paul.  We should all be writing our Directors asking for attention  
and action on this issue.  In the meantime, it would be very  interesting to 
know whether a good filter (common plus differential mode)  on the line cord 
is generally sufficient to manage this, and if specific  manufacturers have 
been more or less responsive in dealing with it.   That's the sort of thing 
that ARRL HQ staff could be working on while we  wait for the new FCC 
leadership to sort itself out.

73, Pete  N4ZRE

At 03:11 AM 12/16/2008, Paul Christensen wrote:
>I posted  this reply on QRP-L this morning.  I thought it would be  equally
>relevant here on this list.:
> > When I  complained to the FCC about the RFI from my Kenmore High
> >  Efficiency washer and dryer (see my post from a few months ago)   they
> > responded by explaining that since I am the operator of the  appliances
> > I am the source of the interference and could not  (read that would
> > not) help me.
>It's a tough pill  to swallow, but pursuant to current Part 15 Rules, the
>Commission was  correct by their (in)action in your case.  Section  15.103(d)
>states that such washing appliances are subject only to the  general
>provisions of Section 15.5 and 15.29, and are further "exempt  from the
>specific technical standards and other requirements contained  in Part 15."
>The operator of an exempted device shall be  required to stop operating the
>device upon a finding by the Commission  or its representative that the
>device is causing harmful interference.  Operation shall not resume until the
>condition causing the harmful  interference has been corrected.
>You are the owner of the  washer.  You must stop operating the washer if it
>is causing  harmful interference.
>The real issue here is that Part 15 has  not kept pace with the realities of
>modern appliances.  The new  wave of washing systems with direct-drive motors
>generate enormous  amounts of RFI.
>In our home, nearly every major appliance runs  from some form of digital
>controlling device and/or switch-mode power  supply.  And yet, Part 15 is
>telling us that the manufacturers of  common appliances are given special
>dispensation from having to comply  with technical standards set forth in
>other sections of Part  15.   Ironically, the switch-mode power supply that
>provides  powering to the appliances may be non-exempt if sold and used on
>its  own.  But subject only to vague interpretation under Sec. 15.103(i),  
>device is protected through exemption under the shield of the  "appliance."
>Then to add insult to injury, the preamble of  15.103 goes on state "Although
>not mandatory, it is strongly  recommended that the manufacturer of an
>exempted device endeavor to  have the device meet the specific technical
>standards in this  part."  Well forgive me, but if the issue is important
>enough for  the Commission to make a "strong recommendation," then it seems
>to me  the issue should rise to a level of importance in which  the
>manufacturers should be compelled to conform to the technical  standards of
>non-exempted devices.
>BPL is important, but  in terms of priority as to what is adversely impacting
>the population  of amateur operators today, it is clearly the growing
>bombardment of  trash coming from Part 15-exempt and non-exempt devices.
>Our  spectrum protection activism should be focused on an overhaul of Part  
>rules, and should not be limited to BPL activities.  But reform  in this area
>does not occur when we call the FCC to file a  complaint.  Reform requires a
>grass-roots effort, led in part by a  strong organization like the ARRL.
>Paul,  W9AC

**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and 
favorite sites in one place.  Try it now. 
RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>