> No device like this is exempt. They either don't know, or are blowing
> smoke, particularly when even electric fences, and door bells are covered.
The problem is that the rule is specifically codified to cover all washers
as appliances and under the current rules, are not subject to case law
interpretation -- unless there's been a case of first impression on the
matter. That would require further research. Notwithstanding a recent
ruling to the contrary, the sub-part makes no distinction between legacy and
modern washers. The rule has not kept up with changes in appliance
technologies. However, the part that *is* subject to interpretation is the
last phrase within Sec. 15.103(d) where it references the term "etc."
> I'd go back to the dealer which is the first thing I'd have tried even
> before trying to remedy the problem with the washer and dryer, but
> forewarned is now forearmed. I wouldn't purchase any appliance without
> the understanding that if it caused interference they'd be getting it
> back. Most any reputable dealer including the big box stores will do
They don't care. The number of users who will stand up and demand better
RFI abatement from manufactures is so small that a boycott of the affected
appliances on their financial statements will have a negligible impact. As
such, this is a problem that is best corrected through a formal Petition for
Rulemaking with the Commission. But as soon as the comment period opens up
on that Petition, just how many appliances companies will sit idly by and
think that removal of, or modification to, Sec. 15.103(d) is a good idea?
RFI mailing list