On 5/10/22 13:07, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
Personally, I think more groups, from more directions, attempting to
address the issue more directly, in more ways, to what Ed posted earlier
as being regulations developed in the 1950's, and not addressing, or
resolving issues we have now, for a problem noted as getting worse since
the 1970's, could be a good thing.
A few fussy people is one thing, even a larger radio club, but everyone,
everywhere, having a problem with all of it, all the time, that may
bring attention to a current valid issue, and total inability to address
it.
I think you are saying that we need to address the RFI issue via several
different groups, more loudly. I disagree, simply yelling louder does
not fix things, and in many cases can make things worse... I think a
unified approach, run by the ARRL is the way to go.
Why? To effect change in any large organization like the FCC and/or the
US Government, one needs a plan, not a rabble. If a bunch of Amateurs,
all operating separately, all approaching the FCC about RFI, start
throwing uncoordinated petitions at the FCC, while at the same time the
ARRL is working with the FCC, the solar companies, and at the same time
suggesting industry wide changes on standards committees, all to reduce
RFI, the results become far from predictable. This is not a simple
matter one can just yell louder at.
We want results as predictable as possible in order to not loose what we
have now. Right now we have an option to complain based on interference
levels, as defined by the license holder. That is a tool we dare not
loose.
Hence why I would like to see as predictable a result as possible come
from the good work the ARRL is doing, and has done so far. Lets not
throw a wrench in it...
On 5/10/22 13:07, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
Regarding rethinking emissions limits: My suggestion, months ago, was
remove the words "meet emission limits", so sloppy designers quit trying
to design for the maximum limit, as the regulations state they must be
met, and move a decimal point in levels one or two places left, and let
RFI die off on its own in a few years, the new levels being 1/10th, or
1/100th by default.
I agree! Start a petition to that effect-- but vector it via the ARRL
so we don't look like a bunch of villagers with pitchforks and torches
at the castle gate screaming for change.
If we approach the FCC by simply screaming louder, the results are not
well predicted, and may well harm what we have now. Loss of the
interference complaint option.
If on the other hand we approach the issue in a coordinated way,
presenting a unified face to the FCC, then we stand a far better chance
of attaining the change we want.
Have you asked your Director to suggest the ARRL create a web based
petition regarding the problems RFI is creating for the Amateur
community? If not, you should.
This issue took decades to get so far out of control, and it will take
decades to get back under control... But, it will get corrected faster
via a coordinated approach, not a rabble...
RFI will become a hot issue when, and only when, the folks with money
are affected, (read that as Cell, Medical, Air, Broadcast, etc.), and
not until then...
No matter how loudly we scream, no matter how many petitions we foist
upon the FCC, we will be far less effective than one single cell company
complaining about a high noise floor.
Make friends with your local cell tech, and ask them to run a noise
floor analysis. If it is harming their service they will simply ask the
FCC to see that it get corrected, and it will-- far faster than any
petition by anyone...
The money runs the show-- we are not the money... Tread carefully least
we loose what we have now...
73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|