On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 20:10 -0400, Tony wrote:
> It seems logical to me that that the responsibility would lie with the
> installer if the installation was found to be at fault, while the
> manufacturer would be responsible if the device doesn't meet FCC
> standards.
I believe the operator of the device, (your neighbor), is responsible,
not the installer, or the manufacturer at this point in the game.
It is operators duty to see the that the issue is corrected. It is good
that the installer is helping, (probably does not want his customer
upset), and they should be commended for it. However if the FCC gets
involved, the operator, (your neighbor), will get the letter, not the
installer, or the manufacturer, and the operator will be told to correct
the issue, and put in writing what they did to correct it. This could
force your neighbor to turn off his brand new system. You want to get
the operator, (your neighbor), on your side of this, as quickly as
possible. Don't surprise him/her with a letter, let them know every
step of the way what is happening.
Have the operator also complain to the installer, all in a nice way of
course, but let them know in no uncertain terms that if the operator
gets a letter, the system gets uninstalled and someone other than the
operator, eats the cost.
This will put the pressure on the manufacturer to solve this, as his
vendors complain, and then cease using this system due to RFI
complaints.
Then if we are lucky, the ARRL will do a study on one of these systems
and turn in the results to the FCC-- then the FCC can sit on it for a
year or more, like the last one the ARRL sent in...
I feel for the league staff, they all but handed the FCC a fait
accompli, and the FCC dropped the ball. That would be massively
frustrating to me...
--
73's, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
For software/hardware reviews see:
http://www.nk7z.net
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|