RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC..

To: Rfi List <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC..
From: Kimberly Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
Reply-to: Kimberly Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
List-post: <rfi@contesting.com">mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
That's not entirely true, Dale. I also recall TVI. I grew up in Tulsa, OK, 
where we have the accursed channel 2, which harmonically related to 10 m. We 
also had a channel 6, whihc is (I think) harmonically related to 15 m. In every 
case I encountered, we could clean up the TV well enough for the ham and TV 
viewer to coexist. In my experience, the FCC tended to impose quiet hours only 
when the ham became uncooperative.

While I lived in Longmont, CO, I got to know the enforcement engineers in the 
FCC office, mainly because I was the ARRL Section Technical Advisor. They bent 
over backwards to be helpful to the hams and had no qualms about patiently 
explaining that the ham was in compliance to an irate neighbor and no qualms 
about coming down like a ton of bricks on an uncooperative ham. I had some 
minor problems in my neighborhood with what I believed to be a rectification 
source within a few houses of me. They came out with an enforcement vehicle (by 
my invitation) and gave my station the "third degree." I came up clean as a 
whistle, with harmonics and spurs 15-20 dB well below permitted levels at QRO. 
They then began looking for a rectification source. At about 1 kW out, they 
found the beam heading that generated the strongest rectified signal and asked 
that I give them a solid carrier at max smoke so that they could isolate hunt 
down the rectification source. We found
 that it was a rusty top-rail section of chain-link fence. We contacted the 
neighbor, told them of the trouble, explained that if he electrically bonded 
the fence to the top rail, the problem would vanish. He did, it did, and 
everything was golden. 

In another instances, a ham had an uncooperative neighbor who had threatened 
the ham. The neighbor had a criminal record. The FCC was notified and 
documentation was submitted. After talking with me, we made sure the ham's 
station was squeaky clean (it was in good shape from the beginning). The 
neighbor still refused to cooperate. So, after notifying local law enforcement 
and setting up a special communications channel in case things got nasty, the 
FCC showed up, checked the ham's station, found it clean and then spoke with 
the neighbor. I wasn't there for the conversation, but they left some printed 
material, made suggestions about what the neighbor might do and that was the 
end of it. The ham never had another complaint from the neighbor, who wound up 
moving shortly thereafter.

Mine was a special case, and one that the engineers had fun with, but it also 
tied up the only enforcement vehicle they had for the better part of a day. 
They didn't have much fun with the other one, but even it took only a couple of 
hours. 

It is not a reasonable expectation for the FCC to hear a non-specific RFI 
complaint from one of us and then go on what amounts to a snipe hunt looking 
for it while the ham drums their fingers waiting for the problem to be solved. 
As a nation, we are simply unwilling to pay for that level of effort on the 
FCC's part. We eschew any additional regulation because it might affect jobs 
and economic health. 

Like it or not,we're "it," and that includes you, Dale. There will be no Men in 
Black constantly cruising our streets looking to put the kibosh on noisy pool 
heaters, grow lights, plasma TVs, computer power supplies or crummy U-Verse 
installations. Tommy Thompson (Hi, Tom!) has given us all sorts of tips and 
resources the we can use to isolate, down to the house (and sometimes the 
room), RFI sources. We've been given hints and guidance on how to approach 
neighbors with our findings. We've been told umpteen times that if we do our 
homework, carefully document every step, try to work with our neighbors and, 
failing a resolution, handing that info over to both the local FCC office and 
the ARRL, we will be assisted. 

Is this all a PITA? Yes, it is. It is also how the system works. Wouldn't it be 
nice if the government simply took the bit in its teeth and chased down each 
and every offending device and put it in a plasma incinerator? Sure! But that's 
not the system we have. Learn how to chase this stuff yourself. Use (or 
spearhead the creation of) an RFI committee in your local club to help. Then 
contact your neighbors with the information. If they're at all reasonable, 
they'll be cooperative. If they're unreasonable, who cares if they get PO'ed? 
It's not like you've lost your bet friend because they weren't friends in the 
first place. Not everyone likes me and I don't like everyone. That's true for 
anyone. If they threaten you? Call the cops. That's what they're for. 

People like Ed (Hi Ed!) are rare. He works tirelessly, has almost infinite 
patience and has as kind a nature as you'll find in anyone. He is relentless in 
chasing down an RFI issue and his understanding of RFI and the issues they pose 
to the radio environment is second to none. I seriously doubt he is paid enough 
in light of the service he provides us. If anyone ever asks "What good is the 
ARRL?" I point to the down-and-dirty tedious work and resulting unassailable 
findings that people like Ed and his staff work through on our behalf. 

It's convenient to blame bureaucracies, politics, deregulation and corporate 
profit-seeking for our problems. But these didn't appear out of a vacuum: it's 
the system that we, as a nation, have carefully created. It's now the system we 
are tasked to work within and no amount of complaining or finger-pointing will 
change anything in the short term. 

Kim N5OP


________________________________
 From: Dale J. <dj2001x@comcast.net>
To: "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org> 
Cc: "rfi@contesting.com" <rfi@contesting.com> 
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC..
 

Ed, 

First I do appreciate the ARRL efforts, it's not a easy task for sure. 
I've been a member for over 50 years.  The ARRL is our only voice in Washington 
and we should support it.  

However, there's no way I can see working around noise problems in a city or 
suburban area where we/I have to deal with multiple noises and sources.  It's a 
nightmare situation as far as RFI goes.  

It's sort of funny, but I remember a time when hams were getting into TV's big 
time and it didn't take too much effort for the TV watcher to get some response 
from the FCC, even to the point of requiring the ham operator to maintain 
"quiet hours".  The burden of responsibility was on the Ham operator to clean 
up his station so as not to interfere with TV watching, remember the 15 Mc 
IF's?  Up until a few years ago, I can remember the FCC actually visiting ham 
radio stations here in the metro area and inspecting the operations.  One ham 
was only about 2 miles from me.      

The plasma noise here yesterday was horrendous.  They must have moved the TV or 
changed something.  I have my outside lights on a X10 system and it was wiping 
that out too so I couldn't turn on the outside lighting.  I'm going to 
cautiously approach the neighbors when I get a chance and see if they'll allow 
me to try a 2.4 inch #31 mix choke per K9YC's manual and see if that has any 
impact on it.  When this happens is up in the air.  They're nice folks, but 
again I hate to impose.  

Now, lets say I have 3 or 4 plasmas all around the neighborhood, plus a grow 
light operation, a crappy computer switcher and a noisy light dimmer, can you 
imagine the situation in trying to clean that up, yeah right.  

That crackpot ham up the street is complaining about our TV set, pool heater 
and kitchen lights of all things!  The nerve…!!  

I think bureaucracies, politics and concern for profits have bogged down the 
whole process.

73
Dale, k9vuj
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>