[RFI] FCC Limits on Harmful Interference: Clarification

[David Eckhardt]

Don't ever,........, EVER tempt FCC to define "harmful interference".
Amateur radio (and my 'other' hobby, radio astronomy) will pay dearly if
they do!!!!!

Dave - WØLEV

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:12 PM Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org> wrote:

> We don't get to set  any limits; the FCC does, and they would probably set
> limits at the median value of man-made noise in all residential
> environments -- about S7 on 10 MHz, for example.
>
> ________________________________
> From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org at contesting.com> on behalf of KD7JYK
> DM09 <kd7jyk at earthlink.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 5:57 PM
> To: rfi at contesting.com <rfi at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFI] FCC Limits on Harmful Interference: Clarification
>
> "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.
>
> Kurt
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 

*Dave - WØLEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
*Just Think*