[RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton

[Dave (NK7Z)]

On 5/10/22 13:07, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> Personally, I think more groups, from more directions, attempting to 
> address the issue more directly, in more ways, to what Ed posted earlier 
> as being regulations developed in the 1950's, and not addressing, or 
> resolving issues we have now, for a problem noted as getting worse since 
> the 1970's, could be a good thing.
> 
> A few fussy people is one thing, even a larger radio club, but everyone, 
> everywhere, having a problem with all of it, all the time, that may 
> bring attention to a current valid issue, and total inability to address 
> it.

I think you are saying that we need to address the RFI issue via several 
different groups, more loudly.  I disagree, simply yelling louder does 
not fix things, and in many cases can make things worse...  I think a 
unified approach, run by the ARRL is the way to go.

Why?  To effect change in any large organization like the FCC and/or the 
US Government, one needs a plan, not a rabble.  If a bunch of Amateurs, 
all operating separately, all approaching the FCC about RFI, start 
throwing uncoordinated petitions at the FCC, while at the same time the 
ARRL is working with the FCC, the solar companies, and at the same time 
suggesting industry wide changes on standards committees, all to reduce 
RFI, the results become far from predictable.  This is not a simple 
matter one can just yell louder at.

We want results as predictable as possible in order to not loose what we 
have now.  Right now we have an option to complain based on interference 
levels, as defined by the license holder.  That is a tool we dare not 
loose.

Hence why I would like to see as predictable a result as possible come 
from the good work the ARRL is doing, and has done so far.  Lets not 
throw a wrench in it...

On 5/10/22 13:07, KD7JYK DM09 wrote:
> Regarding rethinking emissions limits: My suggestion, months ago, was 
> remove the words "meet emission limits", so sloppy designers quit trying 
> to design for the maximum limit, as the regulations state they must be 
> met, and move a decimal point in levels one or two places left, and let 
> RFI die off on its own in a few years, the new levels being 1/10th, or 
> 1/100th by default.

I agree!  Start a petition to that effect-- but vector it via the ARRL 
so we don't look like a bunch of villagers with pitchforks and torches 
at the castle gate screaming for change.

If we approach the FCC by simply screaming louder, the results are not 
well predicted, and may well harm what we have now.  Loss of the 
interference complaint option.

If on the other hand we approach the issue in a coordinated way, 
presenting a unified face to the FCC, then we stand a far better chance 
of attaining the change we want.

Have you asked your Director to suggest the ARRL create a web based 
petition regarding the problems RFI is creating for the Amateur 
community?  If not, you should.

This issue took decades to get so far out of control, and it will take 
decades to get back under control...  But, it will get corrected faster 
via a coordinated approach, not a rabble...

RFI will become a hot issue when, and only when, the folks with money 
are affected, (read that as Cell, Medical, Air, Broadcast, etc.), and 
not until then...

No matter how loudly we scream, no matter how many petitions we foist 
upon the FCC, we will be far less effective than one single cell company 
complaining about a high noise floor.

Make friends with your local cell tech, and ask them to run a noise 
floor analysis.  If it is harming their service they will simply ask the 
FCC to see that it get corrected, and it will-- far faster than any 
petition by anyone...

The money runs the show-- we are not the money...  Tread carefully least 
we loose what we have now...

73, and thanks,
Dave (NK7Z)
https://www.nk7z.net
ARRL Volunteer Examiner
ARRL Technical Specialist, RFI
ARRL Asst. Director, NW Division, Technical Resources