[RFI] ARRL to FCC...

[Dale]

Kelly,

Please consider that the neighbor's $1000 TV MIGHT actually meet standards.  Can the ham prove that it doesn't?  THAT's the problem.  In that case, the solution to the RFI situation has 6 answers:  

1.  The neighbor agrees to not use the TV during hours as requested by the ham.

2.  The TV manufacturer actually provides an RFI fix that works.

3.  The ham gives up using his HF radios whenever the neighbor's set is on.  VHF/UHF can be fun!

4.  The ham moves (hopefully, to a "quieter" location.)

5.  The ham buys the neighbor a "quiet" TV replacement.

6.  The FCC orders the neighbor to stop using the TV, under threat of hefty fines.

Pick one or more, whatever works.  Not pretty, but it's what we've got.

73, Dale
WA9ENA  




-----Original Message-----
>From: Kelly Johnson <n6kj.kelly at gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 21, 2014 12:20 PM
>To: mstangelo at comcast.net
>Cc: "Dale J." <dj2001x at comcast.net>, "rfi at contesting.com Reflector" <rfi at contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
>
>I understand why the FCC doesn't want to force every device to meet such
>strict standards that it can't possibly cause harmful interference.  What I
>don't understand is why the FCC isn't willing/able to put the burden of
>fixing it or replacing it on the manufacturer and/or importer.  Why do they
>put the burden on the consumer?  Well, I think I know the answer: follow
>the money.
>
>The problem we have today is that the burden all falls on the poor sap that
>bought the device.  Our neighbors assume that the $1000 TV they buy meets
>all standards.  They are understandably upset when a neighboring ham tells
>them that they must fix or replace it, esp. when the TV manufacturer won't
>lift a finger to solve the problem.  IMO, the FCC rules should force
>manufacturers and/or importers to fix or replace any device found to cause
>harmful interference.  If my neighbor mistakenly buys a device that
>interferes with my station, then that neighbor should be able to call a
>"hotline" number and get their device fixed or replaced at the manufacturer
>or importers expense.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
>Manufacturers typically claim ignorance and refuse to replace these devices.
>
>
>
>On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:30 AM, <mstangelo at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ken brings up a good point.
>>
>> How many of us buy goods on ebay which is shipped directly form China
>> because the price is right.
>>
>> How many of us check to see if it meets FCC Part 15?
>>
>> The most effective oversite is if the FCC tested every piece of electronic
>> equipment. It would severly delay the introduction of electronic devices to
>> the marketplace and jack up the price. Unfortunately this is not practical.
>>
>> Mike N2MS
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Kenneth G. Gordon <kgordon2006 at frontier.com>
>> To: Dale J. <dj2001x at comcast.net>, rfi at contesting.com Reflector <
>> rfi at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:40:24 -0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2014 at 9:37, Dale J. wrote:
>>
>> > have to live next door to my neighbors.  That's why I would like to see
>> better
>> > oversight of potential RFI generators being sold to the general public.
>>  The
>> > ultimate burden should, must be placed on the manufacturer of the errant
>> > product, not on the end user or me.
>>
>> The U.S. gummint has no authority whatever over manufacturers in other
>> countries, especially China.
>>
>> The only ones our gummint can go after are the importers and sellers.
>>
>> Ken Gordon W7EKB
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RFI mailing list
>> RFI at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>>
>_______________________________________________
>RFI mailing list
>RFI at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi