[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] FCC Limits on Harmful Interference: Clarification

To: "rfi@contesting.com" <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] FCC Limits on Harmful Interference: Clarification
From: KD7JYK DM09 <kd7jyk@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:57:54 -0800
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
"the worded definition is better than any numbers. Why? Because all the utility needs to do is find an instrument that shows the number the FCC wants it to be in order to send data to the FCC proving the utility doesn't have to do anything since they met the number. One number on one HF frequency and they're off the hook. You do NOT want a specific number that can satisfy the FCC and utility. The verbal definition requires that the ham be satisfied, not a specific data number. Do you get it now?"

Make the requirement lower, don't like -120, make it -130 @ 1m across a specific range, and leave the worded requirement of satisfying others beyond that for those that still produce crap. Right now the requirements are so convoluted with so many variables, and exemptions, almost everyone gets away with almost everything.


RFI mailing list

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