[RFI] FW: Sweden imposes higher levy on electricity bills for EMC | Southgate Amateur Radio News

[Dave]

Hi Dave (KD4E),

Respectfully, I must disagree with you in almost all cases here.  Let me 
explain why.

On 12/30/21 06:22, qrv at kd4e.com wrote:
> You already pay tons of taxes for your government, which is supposed to 
> serve you - not the other way around - to deal with this mess.

I am aware of this, I pay taxes.  However, your expectations are not 
happening, and we are not a large enough group to insist they "serve" us.

The reality is that we are a small group of people, (today), complaining 
about RFI, and we have very little power.  Most of the power we have, is 
vested in the ARRL and their efforts to solve the EMI issues.

The real problem--  no one but us, and a few vendors, care about this 
issue because EMI issues are not affecting more people.

Until EMI starts killing off TV and Cell coverage, (OMG we won't see the 
Crab Fishing show this week), for a lot more people on a regular basis, 
this will not change.  We will be fighting an uphill battle with very 
little power until then.

> And if you believe that giving them $600. will solve the problem - you 
> don't understand the way that bureaucracy works.

I fully understand how our government works.  Re-read my comment-- I did 
not say I thought $600.00 would solve the problem, I said I would be 
willing to pay $600 to solve the problem.  A big difference...

> There will always be a new excuse for not solving the problem - and a 
> new fee (or fee increase).

Welcome to Government fixes...  Here I agree with you totally and 
completely.

> Tell your elected representatives to enforce existing law, or fix it, 
> then use the massive resources they already have to get it done - or 
> lose the next election.

I agree in principle with you!  However unfortunate as this is, that 
process has failed all of us utterly for issues far larger than EMI. 
Thus, expecting the threat of dis-election over EMI issues to put the 
fear of God into an elected official is is simply a fantasy, and will 
not work.

Selective enforcement is a major issue in Government, and RFI is an 
issue almost no one cares about, so for the most part, it is selected 
out of the enforcement universe.

> That's how problems, that cross property lines, are addressed.
> David KD4E

If you are looking for an _effective_ way to solve issues that is 
incorrect!  Your solution sounds well and good, unfortunately your 
approach is not working, else we would not be here discussing the lack 
of enforcement of EMI issues.

The real issue is that there simply are not enough of us to do much 
about the EMI issues facing us today...  Yes the ARRL is addressing the 
issues in a way that works, but the cards are stacked against them, and 
progress is slow.  The ARRL lobbies for better EMI controls, and in some 
cases that helps, but in actuality, the general public does not even 
know what EMI is-- or care!  Until the general public cares about EMI, 
we will be stuck in this mess...

The problem is only going to get worse, until it starts trashing 
services most people use...  Then and only then will there be some sort 
of universal enforcement rules that work.

Imagine what would happen if EMI caused Facebook, or Twitter to crash... 
  EMI would be a thing of the past.  It is all about who, and how many 
are effected.

73,
Dave (NK7Z)


>> Joe,
>>
>> Am I willing to pay more for a clean RF environment, yes!  I would 
>> happily pay $600/year for a clean RF spectrum.
>>
>> The problem is filtering devices stop very little, no matter what the 
>> quality when used at the receiving site.  Why?  Filtering the RF at 
>> the receiving end simply does not work in most cases.
>>
>> If I can't get to the devices causing the issues, then I can't filter 
>> them, and if I can get to the device, then there is the liability 
>> issue afterwards...
>>
>> So to answer your original question, yes, if my bill were to go up, I 
>> would be fine.  As I mentioned, upthread, fine hell out of the 
>> offenders, the vendors, and the manufacturers, and the problem would 
>> be reduced greatly.  Charge them for the location and time involved, 
>> plus a hefty fine per occurrence.
>>
>> In general start throwing far more roadblocks to the sale, and use of 
>> EMI emitting devices then there are currently.
>>
>> 73, and thanks,
>> Dave (NK7Z)
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi