Those who are retired don't apply. They knew RF. I can only look at what
we are not getting from the present FCC.
Dave - WØLEV
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:17 PM Jim McDonald <jim@n7us.net> wrote:
> You're insulting all FCC lawyers, current and retired, some of whom are
> very active hams.
>
> Jim N7US
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI <rfi-bounces+jim=n7us.net@contesting.com> On Behalf Of David
> Eckhardt
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 16:12
> To: EDWARDS, EDDIE J <eedwards@oppd.com>
> Cc: RFI Reflector <rfi@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"
>
> All good points and I do understand. Money talks. As I've commented
> before several times, the overpaid FCC lawyers wouldn't know RF if it bit
> them in the behind. And not much is left of OET.
>
> Another thought: Ham radio will become dead if the "digital revolution"
> continues on its present relatively unregulated path. Cities are already
> almost useless for HF comms due to all the RFI. FCC should consult
> Homeland Security, FAA, and emergency comm. organizations including DoD on
> their outlook on ham radio. For a full week after the huge deluge we
> received in 2013 (20+ inches of rain in 5 days), ham radio was the ONLY
> communications from Estes Park, Colorado to the flatlands where all the
> emergency equipment was located. Cell service and EM Comms were totally
> wiped out. During the High Park Fire in 2012, amateur radio was required
> to supply comms to ANYONE, including EM services who entered the fire
> area. I'm sure FCC is aware of these instances and many others of similar
> nature. Knowingly throwing that capability away would put FCC between a
> rock and a hard place if and when Congress learned of their "mistake".
>
> Dave - WØLEV
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:54 PM EDWARDS, EDDIE J via RFI <
> rfi@contesting.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > After everything posted so far, I think you probably already know the
> > answer to your question. It's pretty simple. Today the FCC is run by
> > political lawyers as you know. They're main concern today is to
> > protect internet and cellular systems for the consumers because they
> > are the biggest elephants in the room. It used to be Television and
> > Telephone systems many years ago; however, both are losing customers
> > every day to internet and cellular systems. It's the most ubiquitous
> > method of all communications today.
> >
> > Just as most technical IT types think wireless paging systems are
> > obsolete today, and for the most part they almost are, the same folks
> > and many more think the same thing of ham radio. So then what do you
> > think is the perception of ham radio amongst the non-technical,
> > political-lawyer class of people at today's FCC? The same or worse.
> > You want them to enforce Part 15 to protect an obsolete hobby in their
> > perception? Sorry, there's no budget for that because they're too
> > busy with high-tech stuff like FirstNet, 6G cellular, and things that
> > impact tens and hundreds of millions of citizens daily.
> >
> > The ARRL is currently the only voice to continually update and change
> > the perception of ham radio within the FCC. There is no other even
> > close to being cable of doing that.
> >
> > 73, de ed -K0iL
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: RFI On Behalf Of David Eckhardt
> > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 12:08 PM
> >
> > Ed, as I mentioned yesterday, previous to my joining this RFI group
> > online, I had absolutely no idea how involved ARRL was w.r.t. (with
> > respect
> > to) RFI/EMC. I had a rather tainted outlook when it came to ARRL. I
> > usually stated that ARRL simply served as a lobby group to maintain
> > our slice of the RF frequencies.
> >
> > Boy, that has changed since joining this group. I haven't always been
> > too "kind" to FCC based on my experiences over the years and to see
> > them gutted, especially OET. I'm technical and put food on our table
> > and a roof over our heads for some 35+ years as an EMC/RFI engineer at
> > various companies, including HP (before the reign of "the witch of the
> > West"). In the past, I had wished I could cancel my life membership.
> > No more. Keep it up! I just wish the ham community knew more
> > regarding the RFI/EMC efforts we all pay for as members.
> >
> > But, again, ARRL is now doing the job FCC was originally chartered to
> > conduct, paid for by our dues to ARRL, and free to the tax payer.
> > Everyone benefits, but why should we be paying for what the FCC should
> be doing?...
> > ... ... Your thoughts? I realize it's a labor of love for the RF
> > spectrum and our hobby.
> >
> > Dave - WØLEV
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:25 PM Jim Morgan <jvmorg@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Had intended to post to the forum... sent directly to Ed by mistake!
> > > Thank you Ed for the personal response. Hope you don't mind my
> > > posting
> > it.
> > >
> > >
> > > 73, Jim W4QE
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > Subject: Re: [RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"
> > > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:49:48 +0000
> > > From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
> > > To: W4QE@arrl.net <W4QE@arrl.net>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That point is being recognized. We are also increasing
> > > communication with the AM broadcast industry and ARRL helped fund a
> > > participant in the development of smart-grid immunity standards,
> > > benefitting the electric utility industry. Amateur radio also
> > > benefitted big time because we can only imagine what would happen if
> > > amateur radio transmissions repeatedly took down the electric power
> > > grid. It was a 10-year effort, in collaboration with the IEEE EMC
> > > Society and Power and Energy Society, but the final standards
> > > included meaningful RF immunity standards for protective relays and
> > > other equipment used in the developing smart-grid technologies. As
> > > intitially written, a rock placed in the test fixture would have
> > > passed. 🙂
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > --
> > > *From:* Jim Morgan <jvmorg@comcast.net>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2023 8:09 AM
> > > *To:* Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi@arrl.org>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"
> > > I have been following this thread with interest, and just wanted to
> > > express appreciation to all for the (generally) civil tone of the
> > > conversation. Clearly interference can be a touchy issue. I'm glad
> > > that the ARRL is so involved both in the standards process and the
> > > enforcement process. I agree with Ed that diplomacy is as important
> > > as technology when trying to get to resolution of an interference
> issue.
> > >
> > > Thank you Ed, and ARRL, for your involvement in this area.
> > >
> > > It occurs to me that the work of amateurs in this area provides
> > > benefits beyond the amateur community. RF devices are everywhere,
> > > and every time we find and fix a source of interference on the ham
> > > bands, life also gets better for some machine in a hospital, some
> > > theater or church using wireless microphones, even the drive-through
> > > at your favorite fast-food restaurant, who may not even know why
> > > their equipment is sometimes "flaky" or has dropouts.
> > >
> > > 73 all,
> > > Jim W4QE
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/20/2023 7:02 AM, Hare, Ed, W1RFI wrote:
> > > > This has been my life's work, for over 35 years, and all that I
> > > know has been built on the work of many people, not just my own.
> > > That is the strength of organization.
> > > >
> > > > But I do have to note that is is more than a club, and our
> > > standing with FCC and others is also built on decades of
> > > participation. When we work with the FCC, we do so as authentically
> > > and productively as we can, with a loyalty to what we believe to be
> > > the truth. We have this unique position with the FCC because
> > > although we do strongly represent amateur radio to their enforcement
> > > people, it is done in the light of creating a reasonable process to
> > > help resolve cases, then supporting the
> > process.
> > > >
> > > > It is done in parallel with similar work with the standardization
> > > process, through entities like the IEEE, not only with seats at the
> > > table, but with seats at the head of the table. I just completed an
> > > 10-year series of terms on the IEEE EMC Society Board of Directors,
> > > twice as a Director-at-Large and three times as their elected Vice
> > > President for Standards. I term-limited, so had to step down, but I
> > > am continuing that work by supporting the new VP for Standards and
> > > by serving its two major EMC committees in whatever ways they need
> > > me to serve. ARRL has been a member of the US EMC committee,
> > > C63.org, that writes standards often adopted by the FCC as
> > > regulation. I am the Chair of its Subcommittee 5 on immunity. ARRL
> > > has had a representative on the FCC Technological Advisory Council,
> > > bringing amateur radio and his expertise on RF safety and RF in
> > > general to their work. ARRL, and amateur radio, participated
> > > internationally as part of the ITU-R process of helping to create
> internat
> > > > ional RF law.
> > > >
> > > > So, when this "club" approaches the FCC at the staff level with a
> > > request for help and an offer to help the help, it is now seen as a
> > > legitimate request and a legitimate offer for help that will be
> > > appropriate and reasonable in its expectations. The ARRL
> > > individuals that have been elected by their peers to leadership
> > > positions have been given those positions because they are
> > > legitimately contributing to real industry processes, representing
> > > their stake and influencing the outcome, but again, in ways that are
> appropriate and reasonable.
> > > It is work that carries the strength of 700,000 US amateurs, with
> > > the ability to take on some of the tasks and, when needed, to crowd
> > > source informatiton that can be and is important and valuable to the
> > > advancement of state of the art.
> > > >
> > > > So, when "the club" works with the FCC, all of that is known, all
> > > of that is part of the processes and the FCC and others are coming
> > > around to believe that what is being asked is for a greater good
> > > that ARRL has helped establish a track record of greater-good
> > > achievement that shows that amateur radio is still a valuable part
> > > of modern technological advancement.
> > > >
> > > > Ed Hare, W1RFI
> > > > ARRL Lab
> > > >
>
--
*Dave - WØLEV*
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|