Hi Dave....
My point was simply that to most people. EMI/RFI has little to no meaning. To
tax all for something that, to the majority of people, would have no affect or
meaning, was questionable.
I have never disputed the fact that most fees any group or organization
imposes, be it government, HOA's, clubs, etc., can (and are) be
misused/misspent.
BTW, it was not I who mentioned the vote out of office suggestion. That too
rarely works either. Case in point, the recent recall election in California.
No problem getting the sigs on the petitions to make the recall possible, but
when it came down to the vote, the recall was a bust. (And a waste of
California’s taxpayers money. ) [And no, I do not live in California!]
What *IS* my opinion is that the FCC has no concerns about important matters,
like anything pertaining to overall communications, but only to those things
that generate funds for their perceived needed agendas. Like frequency
allotments, controlling the internet, etc.
::SIGH:: Not much we can do about it, if there are no 'ears' willing to listen
to real complaints. L
Joe – W7RKN
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave [mailto:dave@nk7z.net]
Subject: Re: [RFI] FW: Sweden imposes higher levy on electricity bills for EMC
| Southgate Amateur Radio News
Hi Joe,
Again, respectfully, you keep moving the question from would I pay
$600.00 a year to have a clean RF environment, to something other than a
clean RF environment for my paying a fee... These are entirely
different questions. So for now, lets agree to a different set of
questions...
Let me answer your new question:
All of us are already paying a fee, (via taxes), for enforcement of the
EMI suppression laws, and yet here we are with EMI problems!
We are here because that process has clearly failed us. So why would I
pay an additional fee for a failed process?
Thus my answer is no, I am not willing to pay an increased fee for a
failed process. However, (as per my original answer to the original
question), I am willing to pay a reasonable fee for a successful process.
As you said:
On 12/30/21 16:43, Joe wrote:
>But you (and I) are but .001%, or less, of the population. I really
>doubt many non-hams would welcome another needless (to them) 'tax'
>added to what they are burdened with already!
The above seem to be in conflict with what you suggested originally, to
threaten officials with removal by election.
As I said initially, we can not threaten elected officials with a vote
to remove, over EMI issues, for precisely the reason I stated
originally, and you have now agreed with.
That said, the real question here is how do we solve the current EMI
problem with solutions that will actually work, in the current environment?
I think the ARRL is on the right track... Start by setting boundaries,
via current methods...
While this is a very slow process, it is one that I believe in the long
run will help.
Will it fix the issue of EMI, not a chance, but it will make it
better... But only when people in general are effected by EMI.
On 12/30/21 16:43, Joe wrote:
> But you (and I) are but .001%, or less, of the population. I really doubt
> many non-hams would welcome another needless (to them) 'tax' added to what
> they are burdened with already!
>
> How about any radio frequency licensee paying an additional fee for RFI
> surpression? Would you (we) be open to that?
>
> Joe - W7RKN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces+w7rkn.7=gmail.com@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Dave
> Subject: Re: [RFI] FW: Sweden imposes higher levy on electricity bills for
> EMC | Southgate Amateur Radio News
>
> Joe,
>
> Am I willing to pay more for a clean RF environment, yes! I would
> happily pay $600/year for a clean RF spectrum.
>
>
73,
Dave,
https://www.nk7z.net
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|