It's election/reelection season - an opportune moment to get your
Congressman's attention.
Contact his/her "Constituent Service" office/person and ask them to
make an inquiry to the FCC, on your behalf, about this matter.
FCC bureaucrats know better than to ignore a congressman's office.
The more people who do this the better.
This will put the bureaucrats at the FCC on-notice that voters care -
and the congressmen who wish to be reelected care, and those congressmen
control their budget.
Note that if the FCC is spending its budget frugally & genuinely does
not have the funds & dedicated-staff to enforce Part 15 consumer
protection - you'd like Congress (in our growing economy) to mandate &
fund enforcement resources as necessary.
Request an independent oversight board to assure that the funds are
spent for the protection of consumers and not corporations.
IMHO ...
Based on previous entries on this subject, I contacted my local SolarEdge
distributor. I got no sensible reply that even addressed the RFI issue.
They basically snubbed my specific query about RFI and simply offered to
rent me a system. NOT.....They know full well what they are doing.
Our FCC to which a (small) portion of your and my tax monies go to ignores
Part 15. They don't care anymore, unless its big business like Time
Warner.
Dave - WØLEV
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:15 PM, Randy Standke <r55stan@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if anything in the FCC rules address intentionally installing
equipment in a manner known to cause RFI because doing so cuts costs. I am
specifically referring to SolarEdge solar power systems. They know their
standard installation of open loop (shaped) wiring between the DC to DC
converters on each panel (they call them optimizers), combined with the
little or no filtering these optimizers have, cause RFI to the HF bands up
to about 1000 feet away. And, they have documented a fix (twisting the
wires and adding ferrites). However, they will only apply this fix when a
ham radio operator complains. In my case, they have done this to about six
houses near me, and I have at least two new houses to locate.
They say they plan to introduce a new optimizer in a few years that is
clean. But in the meantime, they are creating RFI polluted neighborhoods
all over the country. This may discourage future hams facing the choice of
complaining to perhaps a dozen neighbors, or selecting another hobby that
does not involve bothering other people. This seems like the sort of thing
the FCC should be protecting us from.
Randy KQ6RS
-----Original Message-----
From: RFI <rfi-bounces@contesting.com> On Behalf Of David Eckhardt
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:02 PM
To: Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
Cc: rfi@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RFI] Leased Solar Panels: Operator Responsibility?
In the spirit of the FCC rules (I don't want to spend the time looking up
the legalize of the wording in 47 CFR), the FCC holds the "System
Integrator" responsible for the EMC/RFI solution. If the equipment is
rented, the rentee is the entity that assembled the equipment from many
sources to offer, for rent, a complete solar system. Therefore, the rentee
is responsible for the EMC/RFI solution.
I ain't no lawyer. However, I've worked in the EMC/RFI field for some 30
years addressing and solving problems and regulatory issues in a world-wide
capacity. I still consult in the field.
Dave - WØLEV
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
In general terms, those that can exert control over a system are the
operators. This could include things like the ability to turn it off
if interference occurs or even would probably be extended in the minds
of regulators to include the people who make the decision to allow
this operation to occur on property they otherwise fully control.
Ed, W1RFI
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|