RFI
[Top] [All Lists]

[RFI] part 15 intentional radiators

To: <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: [RFI] part 15 intentional radiators
From: Hare,Ed, W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org (Hare,Ed, W1RFI)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:15:08 -0500
Hi, Kris,

Probably the biggest difference is that when contacted by hams, Winegard
decided that this was not a major problem and that they didn't have to do
anything to address it.

AT&T, the operator of the largest installed database of the PX-421 wireless
modem jacks responded differently. After a slow start, they initiated a
complete, system-wide recall of the jacks they had installed. At last
report, over 90% of the ones they purchased have been removed from service.


If you are still having difficulties with your local system, I can forward a
brief summary of your case and the problems you have encountered to the
senior-engineering staff at AT&T.  If it is a non-AT&T system, I can forward
it to our contact on the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers.  If
it is coming from an "after-market" device (one of the several thousand sold
retail) operated by a neighbor, a letter from the FCC may be what is needed.
It is very hard to convince a neighbor that a device he or she bought at
CompUSA is being operated in violation of federal law.

See http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfiteljx.html

73, 
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Supervisor
225 Main St
Newington, CT 06111
Tel: 860-594-0318
FAX: 860-594-0259
Internet: w1rfi@arrl.org
ARRL Web: http://www.arrl.org
ARRL Technical Information Service: http://www.arrl.org/tis/



-----Original Message-----
From: Kris Mraz N5KM [mailto:kilo.mike@gte.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 12:14 AM
To: RFI List
Subject: [RFI] part 15 intentional radiators



> FCC Queries Wireless Internet Provider About Interference to
> Hams (Feb 15, 2001) -- The FCC has asked a wireless Internet system
> provider what it intends to do to eliminate interference to Amateur
> Radio operations in the Dallas, Texas area. The FCC wrote Darwin
> Networks Inc on February 8, 2001, regarding complaints of harmful
> interference to Amateur TV on 2.4 GHz that's said to be a result of
> the company's deployment of Part 15 devices in an apartment complex.

If the FCC can come down hard on part 15 intentional radiators on
2.4 Ghz why can't they come down hard on the part 15 intentional 
radiators that are ruining 80m CW (wireless modem jacks)? What's
the difference? Anyone know?

Kris N5KM

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/rfi
Submissions:              rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
Questions:                owner-rfi@contesting.com

--
FAQ on WWW:               http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/rfi
Submissions:              rfi@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com
Questions:                owner-rfi@contesting.com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>