You must clearly understand what Ward was told. It punts to "no additional
funding for PROACTIVE RFI enforcement," NOT "no funds for RFI enforcement."
The FCC has finding only for reactive RFI enforcement, not proactive RFI
enforcement. Do the have authority? Yes. Do they have the ability to exercise
it in a proactive manner? No.
Not the FCC's fault, not the Senate and not the White House: turn to the House
for a solution. What's the solution? Funding and spending authority.
Kim N5OP
"People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the
music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith
> On Apr 2, 2014, at 0:13, David Cole <dave@nk7z.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Ward,
>
> Nicely put! Interestingly though that does not jive with what is
> happening... We are seeing enforcement take place, which confuses me
> after reading your take on the 2012 meeting with involved Laura Smith.
>
> I have dealt with Laura, and found her nothing but helpful, and she has
> performed enforcement tasks, based on valid data provided to her. This
> is at odds with the interpretation of the 2012 meeting, which sounds
> like no enforcement will happen at all... Any idea where the disconnect
> on this is happening? What am I missing?
>
> I do fully agree with your assessment of having major broadcasters, or
> cell vendors involved, and in your suggestion to document, document,
> document!
>
> It really is too bad these RFI generating devices don't spray into the
> cell phone spectrum a bit. :)
>
> --
> Support better RFI practices, please sign this petition:
> at Whitehouse.gov
>
> http://wh.gov/lpz5Y
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 22:25 -0500, Ward Silver wrote:
>>> I really don't care too much how the FCC accomplishes it's job, as
>> long as it is accomplishing it's jobs correctly.
>>
>> At the FCC Forum at Pacificon a couple of years ago (2012, I think) FCC
>> Enforcement Counsel Laura Smith was asked directly and specifically
>> about problems caused by RFI from consumer devices. In a nutshell, she
>> replied that the FCC would take enforcement action when Congress
>> directed the FCC to do so and not before. In the language of the
>> Executive Branch, that means when Congress creates spending authority
>> for them to do so. That responsibility lies in House of Representatives
>> and they are not asking the FCC to impede commerce (i.e. inconvenience
>> their campaign donors) in order to respond to complaints from ham radio
>> operators.
>>
>> It is possible that if the broadcasters and mobile networking companies
>> turn up the heat on *both* the FCC and the House, with support from the
>> hams, there might be some action taken. Until then, or there is some
>> tragedy or security problem caused by RFI from a non-compliant device,
>> petitioning (or blaming) the White House is pretty much pointless. You
>> need to patiently explain to your Congressional Representative (not your
>> senator) what the problem is and hope they hear the same message from
>> the AM broadcasters and local mobile phone provider lobbyists cutting
>> them checks.
>>
>> Until then, I think it behooves us to document, document, document so
>> that when we have an opportunity to influence the political process we
>> have the facts, if not the money, to do so.
>>
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|