Respectfully, don't buy new if that is your only choice...
It is almost always a choice for the Amateur, not a good one granted,
but for the most part the Amateur has a choice. You may have to balance
transit time, etc., but there is almost always a choice.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike HOAs and CC&Rs in almost all cases, but in
looking for homes, in several cities, and states, I find I can choose an
HOAed home, and it is easy to get to shopping, etc., or I can choose a
HOAliss home, and have to drive longer distances... It is all about
what I am willing to give up for no HOA. In my case, I will never live
in an HOA area, period!
Cities, like downtown NYC, Seattle, Chicago, etc., are the obvious
exceptions, however one can live 40 miles away from work there, and
still get to work and be on a halfway normal schedule by taking public
transit like trains, etc., however the cost is increasing transit time,
and less convenience to other items living in a city offers.
73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources
On 9/23/20 11:57 AM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
Depending on where you live, it is not really a choice. Virtually all
new construction is HOA controlled property.
73 Rich NN3W
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:14 PM Dave Cole <dave@nk7z.net
<mailto:dave@nk7z.net>> wrote:
That is a choice the ham made by living in an HOA, and hence, not as
much of a driver I would expect, as say a ham that does not live in
an HOA.
We are in the process of looking for a new place, and there will be no
HOA, or restrictive CC&Rs, period!
I will also run an RFI test overnight if possible,
(https://www.nk7z.net/sdr-rfi-survey-p1/), or a full drive around if
time is short...
73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources
On 9/23/20 8:54 AM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> One issue that pops up in terms of enforcement is the ability to
even
> make a complaint - especially with respect to neighbors. If you
live in
> a HOA, your ability to demand changes to a neighbor's RF emitting
> devices gets kind of diminished given the fact that many amateurs
aren't
> supposed to even have antennas with which they can hear the RFI
in the
> first place.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org
<mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>
> <mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org <mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>>> wrote:
>
> Part of the problem is that "enforcement" of harmful
interference is
> handled by the Enforcement Bureau, which we have working somewhat
> well. The emissions and marketing violations are enforced by the
> Office of Engineering and Technology, which knows of us,
holds ARRL
> in high esteem, but we haven't worked out a process like we have
> with EB. I think I can get that to change.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Cole <dave@nk7z.net <mailto:dave@nk7z.net>
<mailto:dave@nk7z.net <mailto:dave@nk7z.net>>>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:06 AM
> To: Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org <mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>
<mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org <mailto:w1rfi@arrl.org>>>;
> rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
<mailto:rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>>
> Subject: Re: [RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle
>
> How can I help set this up Ed? I 100% agree... You all
handed the
> FCC an open and shut case with Home Depot, and as far as I know,
> nothing ever happened... That does not bode well for
enforcement...
>
> 73, and thanks,
> Dave (NK7Z)
> https://www.nk7z.net
> ARRL Volunteer Examiner
> ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
> ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources
>
> On 9/22/20 4:58 PM, Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:
> > Yeah, although we do get the FCC to do some enforcement
anyway.
> >
> > What is needed is a campaign to identify aggregious
devices and
> report
> > them to the FCC. ARRL has filed a few complaints about
illegal
> > devices, but until that turns into a number of cases, it
is hard to
> > get more than staff-level cases. Just as we got that
underway, W1MG
> > retired and it took a while to get W1VLF into the role.
He hit the
> > ground running, but actual cases keep him pretty busy. We
did get
> > started with testing devices for compliance, even without
a fully
> > certified lab to to do, although we do duplicate the ANSI
C63 test
> > methodology the FCC specifies in the rules. It certainly
is good
> > enough testing to justify a complaint, considering that we
give a
> > number of dB leeway. I want cases that will pass all
muster when
> we can go live with this.
> >
> > COVID-19 ground that to a halt, as ARRL staff had to work
remotely
> > only, then had to comply with only 50% occupancy and other
> requirements.
> >
> > Still, we are preparing to re-engage this at our earliest
> opportunity.
> > We need to identify devices, though. To file a complaint, we
> have to
> > buy one on the open market, from a US seller, test it,
document the
> > tests and get a formal complaint filed. W1VT identified
over 10,000
> > potential emitters on the walmart.com <http://walmart.com>
<http://walmart.com> site
> alone, so there is simply
> > no way to test them all. The hard part of this is that the
> limits are
> > too high to please any of us, so device causing S7 noise
from the
> > house next door may well be in compliance. It can still be
harmful
> > interference, but if we are talking filing complaints against
> illegal
> > devices, we need, well... actual illegal devices.
> >
> > We did this with grow lights and found two models, similar, so
> > probably the same PC board, 58 dB over the FCC limits.
Translation:
> > One device was creating as much noise as 650,000 legal
devices.
> (That
> > is not a typo -- QST figured it was and changed it to 650!
lol!) We
> > tested LED bulbs from the big box stores and found them all in
> > compliance, although the next batch may or may not be the
same.
> >
> > Ed, W1RFI
> >
> >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > *From:* RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com
<mailto:arrl.org@contesting.com>
> <mailto:arrl.org@contesting.com
<mailto:arrl.org@contesting.com>>> on behalf of
> > Dave Cole <dave@nk7z.net <mailto:dave@nk7z.net>
<mailto:dave@nk7z.net <mailto:dave@nk7z.net>>>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:00 PM
> > *To:* rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
<mailto:rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>>
> <rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
<mailto:rfi@contesting.com <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>>>
> > *Subject:* Re: [RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle Perhaps the FCC
will use
> > that $50.00 per renewal they are talking about to perform RFI
> > enforcement?
> >
> > Sorry, I had too... :)
> >
> > 73, and thanks,
> > Dave (NK7Z)
> > https://www.nk7z.net
> >
> >
> > On 9/22/20 12:39 PM, Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:
> >> Yes, we might all benefit from a "new agency," but this
is not
> going to happen, so we will continue to do the best we can.
> >>
> >> To really understand this problem, we need to look at
Sec. 15.3
> closely. Here is the definition of "harmful interference." The
> emphasis is added.
> >>
> >> (m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or
induction that
> >> endangers the functioning of a *radio navigation service
or of
> other
> >> safety services* -- or -- seriously degrades, obstructs or
> repeatedly
> >> interrupts a radiocommunications *service* operating in
accordance
> >> with this chapter.}
> >>
> >> Note that the criteria for protecting a radio navigation
> services or safety service is different than for other services.
> >>
> >> Note also that the definition talks about degradation to a
> service, NOT to an individual communication within that service.
> >>
> >> Yes, S7 noise would be harmful interference if it were
taking place
> >> over an S6 signal, although amateurs are quite capable of
digging
> >> signals out of the noise. But S2 noise would be harmful
to an S1
> >> signal and there is simply no way that the FCC is going
to deem S2
> >> noise to be harmful interference and, depending on the
> > person at the FCC asked to make the determination, S7
noise could be
> > dismissed as being interference, but not harmful
interference as
> > defined in the rules because other operators in the
*service* are
> able
> > to carry out the desired communication. Even when
applied down to
> > the individual operator, as it usually is, the same "not
harmful
> > interference" conclusion can be reached. ARRL has seen an
FCC field
> > agent unable to find noise deem S9 noise to not be harmful
> > interference because he couldn't find the noise and the
amateur
> could
> > still hear some signals. We got that one sorted out, but
this is the
> > risk we run when we start demanding the FCC enforce rules.
In this
> > case, the amateur did an end run around our processes and
ended up
> > getting a local field agent out to do something about the
case, when
> > to that agent, the most expeditious thing to do is
whatever could
> close the case.
> >>
> >> We do NOT want the FCC to draw a line in sand, because if it
> did, the
> >> FCC will draw a line that we don't like. If anything, the
FCC will
> >> draw a line that is based on the median values of
man-made noise
> >> described in the ITU-R Recommendation P372.14, and that
typically
> >> would be S5 to S7 on HF. We are much better off not drawing
> > that line and allowing the FCC to tailor advisory letters
and degree
> > of response to the degree of interference. Yes, we can
get the
> FCC to
> > act when a power company creates S9 noise, but if that
noise were S3
> > from a mile away, the FCC is not likely to act past that
advisory
> > letter, so in that case, the ham better find the pole that the
> utility
> > will never find and the ham, ARRL and the FCC can usually
> convince the
> > utility to fix it. The biggest problems we face wrt
interference
> cases
> > are the utilities and/or neighbors not knowing how to find
noise
> > sources, finding the wrong ones or, worse, a non-cooperating
> responsible party.
> >>
> >> In many cases, these are neighborhood disputes that have
been made
> >> worse by the involved amateurs. Neighbors, most business
operators
> >> and some utilities do not understand the complex issues
we disagree
> >> over on this forum. Hams need to understand this lack of
> knowledge
> >> and not ride the high horse but walk the high road. For
> > those "marginal" interference cases, although the FCC may
write an
> > advisory letter, if the neighbor or utility are given
reasons not to
> > cooperate, the problem won't get fixed and the FCC will
possibly not
> > back the ham with a finding of harmful interference. In
almost all
> > cases, if actions can secure cooperation, cooperation and
help from
> > ARRL staff to the utility, neighbor or ham will be a more
effective
> > solution than taking a crap shoot with the FCC.
> >>
> >> Ed, W1RFI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from
Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> >> Windows 10
> >>
> >> From: Jim McCook<mailto:w6ya@cox.net
<mailto:w6ya@cox.net> <mailto:w6ya@cox.net <mailto:w6ya@cox.net>>>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 10:54 PM
> >> To: RFI List<mailto:rfi@contesting.com
<mailto:rfi@contesting.com> <mailto:rfi@contesting.com
<mailto:rfi@contesting.com>>>
> >> Subject: [RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle
> >>
> >> There is a lot here that doesn't make any sense to me.It
appears to
> >> be a fantasy that there is a FCC regulation to prevent
harmful
> >> interference to licensed radio communication.Interference is
> >> interference.S-7 noise is harmful when the signal interfered
> with is
> >> S-6.If the signal is S-3 and the offending noise is S-4,
it is
> >> exactly the same situation.All these special rules for
different
> >> devices, incidental radiators, unintentional radiators,
intentional
> >> radiators, ad nauseam, concern devices that need NOT cause
> >> interference above or below 30 MHz _if properly
designed_.We all
> know
> >> "FCC Compliance" is a joke where lobbying and politics
rule. It
> >> appears on a label that may have come from a roll of
labels printed
> >> in China and slapped onto electronic garbage that indeed
causes
> >> RFI.The switching power supply for my K3 sits inches from the
> radio._It creates NO RFI_.
> >>
> >> Government (FCC) is supposed to be working FOR US, but
what really
> >> happens is that FCC obviously has abandoned Part 15.3 (n)
when it
> >> comes to Amateur Radio.Ed and Paul at ARRL make a huge
effort to
> help
> >> hams by picking up the void left by FCC that has placed
ridiculous
> >> limits allowing interference to occur unless that
interference
> >> reaches a certain arbitrarily determined signal level,
never mind
> >> that it DOES cause interference to amateur radio. This
> responsibility
> >> should NOT be on the shoulders of ARRL. It is a HUGE burden.
> >>
> >> A different agency consisting of _engineers and
enforcement_ is
> >> needed to replace FCC that can properly deal with amateur
radio
> >> interference.It should be funded by our tax money that is
being
> >> thrown away on many foolish, wasteful political
agencies.Until this
> >> happens we will continue to slowly lose our HF spectrum
due to
> >> rapidly increasing sources of devastating RFI.We are rapidly
> losing this battle.
> >>
> >> Jim W6YA
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RFI mailing list
> >> RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
<mailto:RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RFI mailing list
> >> RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
<mailto:RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
<mailto:RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
<mailto:RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com <mailto:RFI@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|