Hi Jim.....
I have had an ANC-4 for quite a while.....if I had known you were going to
spend money on one of those things I would have given you mine.
It has worked only occasionally for me....it's just too much trouble to fool
with.
73
David Harmon
K6XYZ
Sperry, OK
-----Original Message-----
From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Kennedy
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 6:09 PM
To: ka5s@earthlink.net; rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
Hi Folks, , this certainly is an interesting thread but its time for a reality
check. The offending broadband emitting consumer devices are not going away
anytime in the near future. The FCC is so far behind the power curve regarding
Part 15 devices that I don’t see it getting resolved anytime soon.
That’s not to say that we as hams should give up trying to bring pressure on
the FCC to do something to curtail the importing or manufacturing of all this
junk.
I live in a typical residential area and am faced with all kinds of noise being
generated by these types of devices, just like you guys. When and If I can
identify the source of the problem I approach the owner of the offending device
and try to work out a resolution. Sometimes it is successful and other times
its not. That’s just the stark truth of the matter. But the bottom line is that
if you want to get the noise issue resolved its going to take action from you.
Go find it, identify it and take action to get it resolved if possible. No
amount of banter about whether the FCC is doing its job or not is going to get
rid of the noise. It takes action on your part that includes diplomacy,
technical ability. and common sense.
I have invested in a ANC4- Noise Canceller and in most cases will mitigate the
noise to a level where I can at least operate. I find it's been affective on
power line and most broadband kinds of noises. It does require a sense antenna
that can hear the noise that the receiver is hearing in order to null it out.
It may be a thought to consider.
Jim
W7OUU
-----Original Message-----
From: CR
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 19:45
To: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
When we're cheated by a merchant who sells noncompliant equipment, we
have to act ourselves to recover the cost of replacing non-compliant
equiment or bringing it into compliance wit FCC Rules.
The FCC can and does penalize those who unlawfully use, import,
advertise or sell non-compliant apparatus or equipment.
What it can't do, because Congress won't fund it, is go around looking
for interference-producing equipment in use. It must rely on complaints
- and it is as we know predisposed to ignore them if acting would anger
Congress. Look at BPL!
Cortland KA5S
From FCC Part 15
15.1
(b) The operation of an intentional or unintentional radiator that is
not in accordance with the regulations in this
part must be licensed pursuant to the provisions of section 301 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, unless otherwise exempted from
the licensingrequirements elsewhere in this chapter.
(c) Unless specifically exempted, the operation or marketing of an
intentional or unintentional radiator that is
not in compliance with the administrative and technical provisions in
this part, including prior Commission authorization or verification, as
appropriate, is prohibited under section 302 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as
amended, and subpart I of part 2 of this chapter. The equipment
authorization and verification procedures are detailed in subpart J of
part 2 of this chapter.
From Part 2 Subpart I:
§2.803 Marketing of radio frequency products prior to equipment
authorization.
(a) Marketing, as used in this section, includes sale or lease, or
offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease, or
importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or
leasing or offering for sale or lease.
(b) General rule. No person may market a radio frequency device unless:
(1) For devices subject to authorization under certification, the device
has been authorized in accordance with the rules in subpart J of this
chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by §2.925 and
other relevant sections in this chapter; or
(2) For devices subject to authorization under verification or
Declaration of Conformity in accordance with the rules in subpart J of
this chapter, the device complies with all applicable technical,
labeling, identification and administrative requirements; or
(3) For devices that do not require a grant of equipment authorization
under subpart J of this chapter but must comply with the specified
technical standards prior to use, the device complies with all
applicable, technical, labeling, identification and administrative
requirements.
On 3/21/2014 1:20 PM, Kelly Johnson wrote:
> What I
> don't understand is why the FCC isn't willing/able to put the burden of
> fixing it or replacing it on the manufacturer and/or importer. Why do
> they
> put the burden on the consumer?
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|