[RFI] RFI - A Losing Battle
Richard F DiDonna NN3W
richnn3w at gmail.com
Wed Sep 23 14:57:48 EDT 2020
Depending on where you live, it is not really a choice. Virtually all new
construction is HOA controlled property.
73 Rich NN3W
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:14 PM Dave Cole <dave at nk7z.net> wrote:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
More information about the RFI
mailing list