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

[David Eckhardt]

The broken process to which you refer is the entire present FCC.

Another process would have to be put in place entirely independent of the
present FCC.  Given that, yes, I would be willing to pay a bit extra but
*not* funds funds going to FCC.

At present, personally, I see no reason to even do EMC/RFI, filing with the
FCC, paying for formal testing of products, the existence of accredited
labs to make those measurements (FCC USED to do that!!!).  FCC has pretty
much allowed a free-for-all much like they let CB go to the trash heap.
This, in spite of the fact that I made a living, put a roof over our heads
and food on our table doing EMC/RFI to the regulations.  Regulations in
place and unenforced are useless - FCC.

Dave - WLEV

On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 4:22 PM Dave <dave at nk7z.net> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
>
> Again, respectfully, you keep moving the question from would I pay
> $600.00 a year to have a clean RF environment, to something other than a
> clean RF environment for my paying a fee...  These are entirely
> different questions.  So for now, lets agree to a different set of
> questions...
>
> Let me answer your new question:
>
> All of us are already paying a fee, (via taxes), for enforcement of the
> EMI suppression laws, and yet here we are with EMI problems!
>
> We are here because that process has clearly failed us.  So why would I
> pay an additional fee for a failed process?
>
> Thus my answer is no, I am not willing to pay an increased fee for a
> failed process.  However, (as per my original answer to the original
> question), I am willing to pay a reasonable fee for a successful process.
>
> As you said:
>
> On 12/30/21 16:43, Joe wrote:
>  >But you (and I) are but .001%, or less, of the population.  I really
>  >doubt many non-hams would welcome another needless (to them) 'tax'
>  >added to what they are burdened with already!
>
> The above seem to be in conflict with what you suggested originally, to
> threaten officials with removal by election.
>
> As I said initially, we can not threaten elected officials with a vote
> to remove, over EMI issues, for precisely the reason I stated
> originally, and you have now agreed with.
>
> That said, the real question here is how do we solve the current EMI
> problem with solutions that will actually work, in the current environment?
>
> I think the ARRL is on the right track...  Start by setting boundaries,
> via current methods...
>
> While this is a very slow process, it is one that I believe in the long
> run will help.
>
> Will it fix the issue of EMI, not a chance, but it will make it
> better...  But only when people in general are effected by EMI.
>
> On 12/30/21 16:43, Joe wrote:
> > But you (and I) are but .001%, or less, of the population.  I really
> doubt
> > many non-hams would welcome another needless (to them) 'tax' added to
> what
> > they are burdened with already!
> >
> > How about any radio frequency licensee paying an additional fee for RFI
> > surpression?  Would you (we) be open to that?
> >
> > Joe - W7RKN
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces+w7rkn.7=gmail.com at contesting.com] On
> Behalf Of
> > Dave
> > Subject: Re: [RFI] FW: Sweden imposes higher levy on electricity bills
> for
> > EMC | Southgate Amateur Radio News
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > Am I willing to pay more for a clean RF environment, yes!  I would
> > happily pay $600/year for a clean RF spectrum.
> >
> >
> 73,
> Dave,
> https://www.nk7z.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>


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