Ed, as I mentioned yesterday, previous to my joining this RFI group online,
I had absolutely no idea how involved ARRL was w.r.t. (with respect to)
RFI/EMC. I had a rather tainted outlook when it came to ARRL. I usually
stated that ARRL simply served as a lobby group to maintain our slice of
the RF frequencies.
Boy, that has changed since joining this group. I haven't always been too
"kind" to FCC based on my experiences over the years and to see them
gutted, especially OET. I'm technical and put food on our table and a roof
over our heads for some 35+ years as an EMC/RFI engineer at various
companies, including HP (before the reign of "the witch of the West"). In
the past, I had wished I could cancel my life membership. No more. Keep
it up! I just wish the ham community knew more regarding the RFI/EMC
efforts we all pay for as members.
But, again, ARRL is now doing the job FCC was originally chartered to
conduct, paid for by our dues to ARRL, and free to the tax payer. Everyone
benefits, but why should we be paying for what the FCC should be doing?...
... ... Your thoughts? I realize it's a labor of love for the RF spectrum
and our hobby.
Dave - WØLEV
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:25 PM Jim Morgan <jvmorg@comcast.net> wrote:
> Had intended to post to the forum... sent directly to Ed by mistake!
> Thank you Ed for the personal response. Hope you don't mind my posting it.
>
>
> 73, Jim W4QE
>
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:49:48 +0000
> From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
> To: W4QE@arrl.net <W4QE@arrl.net>
>
>
>
> That point is being recognized. We are also increasing communication
> with the AM broadcast industry and ARRL helped fund a participant in the
> development of smart-grid immunity standards, benefitting the electric
> utility industry. Amateur radio also benefitted big time because we can
> only imagine what would happen if amateur radio transmissions repeatedly
> took down the electric power grid. It was a 10-year effort, in
> collaboration with the IEEE EMC Society and Power and Energy Society,
> but the final standards included meaningful RF immunity standards for
> protective relays and other equipment used in the developing smart-grid
> technologies. As intitially written, a rock placed in the test fixture
> would have passed. 🙂
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jim Morgan <jvmorg@comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2023 8:09 AM
> *To:* Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"
> I have been following this thread with interest, and just wanted to
> express appreciation to all for the (generally) civil tone of the
> conversation. Clearly interference can be a touchy issue. I'm glad that
> the ARRL is so involved both in the standards process and the
> enforcement process. I agree with Ed that diplomacy is as important as
> technology when trying to get to resolution of an interference issue.
>
> Thank you Ed, and ARRL, for your involvement in this area.
>
> It occurs to me that the work of amateurs in this area provides benefits
> beyond the amateur community. RF devices are everywhere, and every time
> we find and fix a source of interference on the ham bands, life also
> gets better for some machine in a hospital, some theater or church using
> wireless microphones, even the drive-through at your favorite fast-food
> restaurant, who may not even know why their equipment is sometimes
> "flaky" or has dropouts.
>
> 73 all,
> Jim W4QE
>
>
> On 1/20/2023 7:02 AM, Hare, Ed, W1RFI wrote:
> > This has been my life's work, for over 35 years, and all that I know
> has been built on the work of many people, not just my own. That is the
> strength of organization.
> >
> > But I do have to note that is is more than a club, and our standing
> with FCC and others is also built on decades of participation. When we
> work with the FCC, we do so as authentically and productively as we can,
> with a loyalty to what we believe to be the truth. We have this unique
> position with the FCC because although we do strongly represent amateur
> radio to their enforcement people, it is done in the light of creating a
> reasonable process to help resolve cases, then supporting the process.
> >
> > It is done in parallel with similar work with the standardization
> process, through entities like the IEEE, not only with seats at the
> table, but with seats at the head of the table. I just completed an
> 10-year series of terms on the IEEE EMC Society Board of Directors,
> twice as a Director-at-Large and three times as their elected Vice
> President for Standards. I term-limited, so had to step down, but I am
> continuing that work by supporting the new VP for Standards and by
> serving its two major EMC committees in whatever ways they need me to
> serve. ARRL has been a member of the US EMC committee, C63.org, that
> writes standards often adopted by the FCC as regulation. I am the Chair
> of its Subcommittee 5 on immunity. ARRL has had a representative on the
> FCC Technological Advisory Council, bringing amateur radio and his
> expertise on RF safety and RF in general to their work. ARRL, and
> amateur radio, participated internationally as part of the ITU-R process
> of helping to create internat
> > ional RF law.
> >
> > So, when this "club" approaches the FCC at the staff level with a
> request for help and an offer to help the help, it is now seen as a
> legitimate request and a legitimate offer for help that will be
> appropriate and reasonable in its expectations. The ARRL individuals
> that have been elected by their peers to leadership positions have been
> given those positions because they are legitimately contributing to real
> industry processes, representing their stake and influencing the
> outcome, but again, in ways that are appropriate and reasonable. It is
> work that carries the strength of 700,000 US amateurs, with the ability
> to take on some of the tasks and, when needed, to crowd source
> informatiton that can be and is important and valuable to the
> advancement of state of the art.
> >
> > So, when "the club" works with the FCC, all of that is known, all of
> that is part of the processes and the FCC and others are coming around
> to believe that what is being asked is for a greater good that ARRL has
> helped establish a track record of greater-good achievement that shows
> that amateur radio is still a valuable part of modern technological
> advancement.
> >
> > Ed Hare, W1RFI
> > ARRL Lab
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
--
*Dave - WØLEV*
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|