[RFI] LED Bulbs
dj2001x at comcast.net
Thu Feb 13 13:33:10 EST 2014
Yeah, the only problem I see with that, contacting the FCC, is it pits me against my neighbor and I don't like that, nor should it be that way. The end user should not get the blame. The mfg of the crap should, and the overseeing agency should get on the stick!!
On 13, Feb 2014, at 11:18, "EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <eedwards at oppd.com> wrote:
> I agree with "squeaky wheels get the grease". That's why most posts are saying it's important to call or file RFI complaints with the neighbor first, then the FCC, ARRL, CPSC, NCIS or any other acronym agency that you think might be interested. If the FCC doesn't get any complaints, then there is no RFI problem to address. A ham with a noisy TV next door and has not filed a complaint simply proves there is no real RFI problem.
> From all the links provided during this discussion, it looks like squeaky complainers are getting action. On the power line noise side of things, I know firsthand that FCC complaints result in FCC letters to CEOs, and CEOs don't like to get letters from the federal government. The result is immediate action and resolution of RFI problems.
> On the consumer product side, it's more complicated, but many do get some resolution eventually. We deserve inaction if that's all that we provide.
> I get the feeling from Dale J's posts he wants more testing for better filtering. But testing by who? The FCC? 3rd party contractors? And how much testing? Random, continuous, or 100 percent? And how much enforcement? And who will pay for it all? The consumer of course in higher prices. I'm guessing there are probably more consumers who vote than hams who vote.
> This all reminds me of the old 50s/60s TVI issue of adding high pass filtering to all of the TVs sold out there so they won't pick up RFI from hams even though more than 99.9% of TVs won't be located near an active ham station. Does it make any sense to spend millions of dollars (billions in today's dollars) to add the high pass filters to ever TV including the 99.99% that do not need them, or is it maybe more efficient to add the HP filters to only those located near active ham stations? I seriously doubt we hams will win that debate.
> Most of today's RFI issues are much more complex to resolve than the old TVI filters issue. But it still comes down to a balance between how much the consumer is willing to pay versus how willing the ham operator is willing to take action for a resolution to the RFI problems. Based on this, I'd say we're lucky to have the FCC and regulations somewhat on our side. But it's still up to us amateur radio operators to get up off our duffs if we want any action at all.
> 73, de ed -K0iL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dale J.
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:37 PM
> To: n0tt1 at juno.com
> Cc: rfi at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] LED Bulbs
> Yes, Ed pretty well summed it up. Paul made some interesting comments too.
> To all, thankyou for this discussion it was enlightening for me. The old saying goes, squeaky wheels get the grease. Keep it up. If we remain quiet, then nobody hears. Hopefully the message will at least be read, by someone, somewhere.
> Dale, k9vuj
> On 12, Feb 2014, at 17:59, <n0tt1 at juno.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:53:51 -0600 Ed Douglass <efdouglass37 at gmail.com>
>>> David Robbins' argument is interesting but it takes the focus away,
>>> seems to me, from what should be the primary point of our efforts.
>>> point is that the FCC's job in the first instance is to regulate
>>> manufacturers and importers of electronic equipment so that the
>>> does not cause interference to licensed users of the radio spectrum.
>>> such regulation had been enforced, then we amateurs would not need
>>> to be
>>> approaching our neighbors about their RFI-generating appliances.
>>> For the RFI-generating equipment already in the country, then we
>>> will have
>>> to approach our neighbors and hope we have the FCC's backing if our
>>> For the long haul, however, we need to use ourselves and our ARRL to
>>> the FCC to enforce its rules (and tighten them, where necessary).
>>> 73 de Ed, AA9OZ
>> Yes!! That would be the thing to do. What's the best approach
>> to get the FCC back on track?
>> I would like to think the ARRL would help with that by
>> making a concerted effort to get it done. And the
>> ARRL will need a lot of support (including money) from us!!
>> Charlie, N0TT
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> This e-mail contains Omaha Public Power District's confidential and proprietary information and is for use only by the intended recipient. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this e-mail is not a contract offer, amendment, or acceptance. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
More information about the RFI