>Hi Guys! Chalk up another satisfied TVI-complaining neighbor!
>I brought out the "phone" and installed it. Volla! No interference!
>
>I explained that this was a special phone manufactured specifically to
>eliminate interference and that it cost me $80. I also explained that the
>amplifiers/transistors in the Panasonic phone were the problem, not my
equipment
>for which I was licensed to use. I told them that I was giving them the phone
>so that they could make calls anytime. They told me that they considered the
>phone a "loan" and that they were just borrowing it and that when they move,
>they will give it back to me! I agreed to consider it a loan.
>
>We thanked each other and I went home to get on the air!
>
>One more "satisfied" neighbor! Three down and one (known) to go.
>
>More later on the continuing saga of the N3RR allband TVI contest!
>
>73!
>
>Bill, N3RR
Bill,
I am glad you were able to solve this telephone interference problem, but
you solution is do a disservice to the rest of us. Think of the poor guy
who lives a stone's throw from 100 appartments, all with bad phones. At $80
a crack, it will cost him $8000 to implement your solution!
You may not think so, but you are helping to set a very UNDESIRABLE
precedent. You TOLD your neighbors it was not your responsibility to fix
their phone (you are correct, of course). But then you ACTED like it WAS
your responsibility by buying them a phone. ACTIONS speak louder than
WORDS. Any of their friends who have a similar problem will now expect a
similar solution, ie: a free phone paid for by the poor ham involved.
I have to admit that I, too, have provided bullet proof phones at no charge
to my neighbors. The BIG difference is that I bought my bullet proof phones
from local garage sales for $2 each. They are old, heavy dial phones made
by Western Electric and don't have any of the bells and whistles that cause
all the trouble. MY nieghbors have a much lower expectation of me when it
comes to fixing their phone interference problems. You could fix 100
appartments with my solution for $200.
Bill, you are not alone in fixing your interference problems that way. I
just think it is a bad idea for any of us to assume that responsibility
because not all of us can afford to do it. It would not surprise me to
eventually see the telephone interference burden placed squarely on hams by
the legal system, especially since we sometimes act like it is our
responsibility anyway.
Stan W7NI@teleport.com
|