[RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle
Dave Cole
dave at nk7z.net
Wed Sep 23 14:14:05 EDT 2020
That is a choice the ham made by living in an HOA, and hence, not as
much of a driver I would expect, as say a ham that does not live in an HOA.
We are in the process of looking for a new place, and there will be no
HOA, or restrictive CC&Rs, period!
I will also run an RFI test overnight if possible,
(https://www.nk7z.net/sdr-rfi-survey-p1/), or a full drive around if
time is short...
73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources
On 9/23/20 8:54 AM, Richard F DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> One issue that pops up in terms of enforcement is the ability to even
> make a complaint - especially with respect to neighbors. If you live in
> a HOA, your ability to demand changes to a neighbor's RF emitting
> devices gets kind of diminished given the fact that many amateurs aren't
> supposed to even have antennas with which they can hear the RFI in the
> first place.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org
> <mailto:w1rfi at arrl.org>> wrote:
>
> Part of the problem is that "enforcement" of harmful interference is
> handled by the Enforcement Bureau, which we have working somewhat
> well. The emissions and marketing violations are enforced by the
> Office of Engineering and Technology, which knows of us, holds ARRL
> in high esteem, but we haven't worked out a process like we have
> with EB. I think I can get that to change.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Cole <dave at nk7z.net <mailto:dave at nk7z.net>>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 1:06 AM
> To: Hare, Ed W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org <mailto:w1rfi at arrl.org>>;
> rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle
>
> How can I help set this up Ed? I 100% agree... You all handed the
> FCC an open and shut case with Home Depot, and as far as I know,
> nothing ever happened... That does not bode well for enforcement...
>
> 73, and thanks,
> Dave (NK7Z)
> https://www.nk7z.net
> ARRL Volunteer Examiner
> ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
> ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources
>
> On 9/22/20 4:58 PM, Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:
> > Yeah, although we do get the FCC to do some enforcement anyway.
> >
> > What is needed is a campaign to identify aggregious devices and
> report
> > them to the FCC. ARRL has filed a few complaints about illegal
> > devices, but until that turns into a number of cases, it is hard to
> > get more than staff-level cases. Just as we got that underway, W1MG
> > retired and it took a while to get W1VLF into the role. He hit the
> > ground running, but actual cases keep him pretty busy. We did get
> > started with testing devices for compliance, even without a fully
> > certified lab to to do, although we do duplicate the ANSI C63 test
> > methodology the FCC specifies in the rules. It certainly is good
> > enough testing to justify a complaint, considering that we give a
> > number of dB leeway. I want cases that will pass all muster when
> we can go live with this.
> >
> > COVID-19 ground that to a halt, as ARRL staff had to work remotely
> > only, then had to comply with only 50% occupancy and other
> requirements.
> >
> > Still, we are preparing to re-engage this at our earliest
> opportunity.
> > We need to identify devices, though. To file a complaint, we
> have to
> > buy one on the open market, from a US seller, test it, document the
> > tests and get a formal complaint filed. W1VT identified over 10,000
> > potential emitters on the walmart.com <http://walmart.com> site
> alone, so there is simply
> > no way to test them all. The hard part of this is that the
> limits are
> > too high to please any of us, so device causing S7 noise from the
> > house next door may well be in compliance. It can still be harmful
> > interference, but if we are talking filing complaints against
> illegal
> > devices, we need, well... actual illegal devices.
> >
> > We did this with grow lights and found two models, similar, so
> > probably the same PC board, 58 dB over the FCC limits. Translation:
> > One device was creating as much noise as 650,000 legal devices.
> (That
> > is not a typo -- QST figured it was and changed it to 650! lol!) We
> > tested LED bulbs from the big box stores and found them all in
> > compliance, although the next batch may or may not be the same.
> >
> > Ed, W1RFI
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > *From:* RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org at contesting.com
> <mailto:arrl.org at contesting.com>> on behalf of
> > Dave Cole <dave at nk7z.net <mailto:dave at nk7z.net>>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:00 PM
> > *To:* rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>
> <rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>>
> > *Subject:* Re: [RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle Perhaps the FCC will use
> > that $50.00 per renewal they are talking about to perform RFI
> > enforcement?
> >
> > Sorry, I had too... :)
> >
> > 73, and thanks,
> > Dave (NK7Z)
> > https://www.nk7z.net
> >
> >
> > On 9/22/20 12:39 PM, Hare, Ed W1RFI wrote:
> >> Yes, we might all benefit from a "new agency," but this is not
> going to happen, so we will continue to do the best we can.
> >>
> >> To really understand this problem, we need to look at Sec. 15.3
> closely. Here is the definition of "harmful interference." The
> emphasis is added.
> >>
> >> (m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that
> >> endangers the functioning of a *radio navigation service or of
> other
> >> safety services* -- or -- seriously degrades, obstructs or
> repeatedly
> >> interrupts a radiocommunications *service* operating in accordance
> >> with this chapter.}
> >>
> >> Note that the criteria for protecting a radio navigation
> services or safety service is different than for other services.
> >>
> >> Note also that the definition talks about degradation to a
> service, NOT to an individual communication within that service.
> >>
> >> Yes, S7 noise would be harmful interference if it were taking place
> >> over an S6 signal, although amateurs are quite capable of digging
> >> signals out of the noise. But S2 noise would be harmful to an S1
> >> signal and there is simply no way that the FCC is going to deem S2
> >> noise to be harmful interference and, depending on the
> > person at the FCC asked to make the determination, S7 noise could be
> > dismissed as being interference, but not harmful interference as
> > defined in the rules because other operators in the *service* are
> able
> > to carry out the desired communication. Even when applied down to
> > the individual operator, as it usually is, the same "not harmful
> > interference" conclusion can be reached. ARRL has seen an FCC field
> > agent unable to find noise deem S9 noise to not be harmful
> > interference because he couldn't find the noise and the amateur
> could
> > still hear some signals. We got that one sorted out, but this is the
> > risk we run when we start demanding the FCC enforce rules. In this
> > case, the amateur did an end run around our processes and ended up
> > getting a local field agent out to do something about the case, when
> > to that agent, the most expeditious thing to do is whatever could
> close the case.
> >>
> >> We do NOT want the FCC to draw a line in sand, because if it
> did, the
> >> FCC will draw a line that we don't like. If anything, the FCC will
> >> draw a line that is based on the median values of man-made noise
> >> described in the ITU-R Recommendation P372.14, and that typically
> >> would be S5 to S7 on HF. We are much better off not drawing
> > that line and allowing the FCC to tailor advisory letters and degree
> > of response to the degree of interference. Yes, we can get the
> FCC to
> > act when a power company creates S9 noise, but if that noise were S3
> > from a mile away, the FCC is not likely to act past that advisory
> > letter, so in that case, the ham better find the pole that the
> utility
> > will never find and the ham, ARRL and the FCC can usually
> convince the
> > utility to fix it. The biggest problems we face wrt interference
> cases
> > are the utilities and/or neighbors not knowing how to find noise
> > sources, finding the wrong ones or, worse, a non-cooperating
> responsible party.
> >>
> >> In many cases, these are neighborhood disputes that have been made
> >> worse by the involved amateurs. Neighbors, most business operators
> >> and some utilities do not understand the complex issues we disagree
> >> over on this forum. Hams need to understand this lack of
> knowledge
> >> and not ride the high horse but walk the high road. For
> > those "marginal" interference cases, although the FCC may write an
> > advisory letter, if the neighbor or utility are given reasons not to
> > cooperate, the problem won't get fixed and the FCC will possibly not
> > back the ham with a finding of harmful interference. In almost all
> > cases, if actions can secure cooperation, cooperation and help from
> > ARRL staff to the utility, neighbor or ham will be a more effective
> > solution than taking a crap shoot with the FCC.
> >>
> >> Ed, W1RFI
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> >> Windows 10
> >>
> >> From: Jim McCook<mailto:w6ya at cox.net <mailto:w6ya at cox.net>>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 10:54 PM
> >> To: RFI List<mailto:rfi at contesting.com <mailto:rfi at contesting.com>>
> >> Subject: [RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle
> >>
> >> There is a lot here that doesn't make any sense to me.It appears to
> >> be a fantasy that there is a FCC regulation to prevent harmful
> >> interference to licensed radio communication.Interference is
> >> interference.S-7 noise is harmful when the signal interfered
> with is
> >> S-6.If the signal is S-3 and the offending noise is S-4, it is
> >> exactly the same situation.All these special rules for different
> >> devices, incidental radiators, unintentional radiators, intentional
> >> radiators, ad nauseam, concern devices that need NOT cause
> >> interference above or below 30 MHz _if properly designed_.We all
> know
> >> "FCC Compliance" is a joke where lobbying and politics rule. It
> >> appears on a label that may have come from a roll of labels printed
> >> in China and slapped onto electronic garbage that indeed causes
> >> RFI.The switching power supply for my K3 sits inches from the
> radio._It creates NO RFI_.
> >>
> >> Government (FCC) is supposed to be working FOR US, but what really
> >> happens is that FCC obviously has abandoned Part 15.3 (n) when it
> >> comes to Amateur Radio.Ed and Paul at ARRL make a huge effort to
> help
> >> hams by picking up the void left by FCC that has placed ridiculous
> >> limits allowing interference to occur unless that interference
> >> reaches a certain arbitrarily determined signal level, never mind
> >> that it DOES cause interference to amateur radio. This
> responsibility
> >> should NOT be on the shoulders of ARRL. It is a HUGE burden.
> >>
> >> A different agency consisting of _engineers and enforcement_ is
> >> needed to replace FCC that can properly deal with amateur radio
> >> interference.It should be funded by our tax money that is being
> >> thrown away on many foolish, wasteful political agencies.Until this
> >> happens we will continue to slowly lose our HF spectrum due to
> >> rapidly increasing sources of devastating RFI.We are rapidly
> losing this battle.
> >>
> >> Jim W6YA
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RFI mailing list
> >> RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RFI mailing list
> >> RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com <mailto:RFI at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
More information about the RFI
mailing list