I really like your idea of making the maker replace the equipment at
their cost! That places the problem and cost with the creator of the
issue int eh first place! Great idea!
Consider this as an option to the FCC getting every call:
1. A ham discovers RFI issues.
2. The ham does his/her homework and DFs the source.
3. The ham believes that the source may pose a danger to him/her, and
turns that single case over to the FCC.
Sometimes the Ham can locate and solve the problem, but sometimes the
Ham has worries; he/she now has some recourse... No need to turn over
every call to the FCC.
Here is an even better idea:
The ARRL sets up a corps of RFI locator's, that can help local clubs.
Let the locator's decide if they need to turn it into the FCC... The
ham then has a local group, and the FCC has an insulator between every
RFI issue, and itself... There are hundreds of ways to make this
process better...
--
Support better RFI practices, please sign this petition:
at Whitehouse.gov
http://wh.gov/lpz5Y
On Sat, 2014-03-29 at 15:43 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/21/2014 02:48 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> > Do you really think we need more gov't to be involved with inspecting
> > and testing EVERY item that is made so that it does not hurt people,
> > cause interference and on and on and on. We would never see another
> > product brought to market.
> >
> > We don't live in a perfect world and expecting something like this with
> > a gov't that is 17trillion in the hole is crazy.
>
> Proactively having the government check everything does seem
> impractical, indeed.
>
> However, putting rules in place that oblige manufacturers
> and/or importers to replace faulty equipment at their expense
> (instead of stiffing the consumers) might be a good deterrent
> to people sticking FCC stickers on untested equipment...
>
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|