[RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton

Fri May 27 11:00:00 EDT 2022

Yes, and do make the point that it was just as wrong for the FCC inspector to make that call as it was for the first one to say that S9 noise wasn't harmful interference. It drives home the point to hams and utilities alike that simply finding the problem and fixing it is much better than playing FCC roulette.

Another story to tell that you can also use.  We had a case in North Carolina that had dragged on for years. The utility was not responsive, and ultimately, the ARR and FCC letters went to the CEO.  Mike Gruber (now retired from the League) was at a convention to give a talk on RFI. He brought the Radar Engineers noise-locating equipment.

He gave his talk, and in the Q&A part, a ham raised his hand and introduced himself as the complainant in that case.  Now, Mike didn't particularly like ARRL booth duty, which he would hav e done all day Sunday, so he told the guy that he had all the equipment, and asked the ham if he'd like Mike to come out and find the noise source.

The guy's face lit up, a result beyond his wildest dreams!  Mike got up the next day and drove to his house.  They met in the driveway, and Mike said that he'd show the guy how the equipment worked.  He connected the UHF directional antenna to the receiver, turned it on and... BZZZZZZZZZZZT... the unmistakable sound of power-line noise was screaming out of the receiver.  Mike pointed at the pole on the street outside the guy's house and the S meter on the receiver was almost full scale.

Now, this case had dragged on for years.  There were letters, emails, back and forth from ARRL to FCC, the CEO, the company lawyer, the CEO, the lawyer, FCC, the CEO, the lawyer, ARRL... ad nauseum.  Mike found the source in less than 30 seconds.  The point of this is that the utility spent orders of magnitude more very-expensive staff time NOT fixing it than it would have taken to fix it.  There is a lesson in that for utilities, too, Mike, and feel free to steal the story shamelessly.

Ed

________________________________
From: Michael Martin <mike at rfiservices.com>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org>
Cc: David Eckhardt <davearea51a at gmail.com>; Dave (NK7Z) <dave at nk7z.net>; Rfi List <rfi at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton

I tell that story about Texas and every one of my workshops. And it's amazing how often that scenario is what I have to deal with.

I totally agree with you

Michael Martin
RFI Services
240-508-3760
<http://www.rfiservices.com>www.rfiservices.com<http://www.rfiservices.com> is under construction and will be up and running soon.

Get BlueMail for Android<https://bluemail.me>
On May 27, 2022, at 9:32 AM, "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" <w1rfi at arrl.org<mailto:w1rfi at arrl.org>> wrote:
And we send that message to utilities, too.  And yes, those 50+ sources were a real experience, showing an investigator who made a decision that the utility should think is as unfair as the ham thought the first decision was.

It's interesting, Mike, to see how those who have been in this game for decades like you and me know exactly why we do things the ways we do. Our credibility with the FCC and most of the utility industry is high, because we support what is true and right. We will back a utility that legitimately finds a non-utility device generating noise; we at least accept that a utility only needs to fix noise sources that cause actual interference, although correcting some of the others is good maintenance practice.

I also know from experience, as do you, that a formal FCC complaint changes things, but, like field investigations, it can change things for the better  or for the worse.  In many cases, when the FCC letter shows up, the lawyers take over. For that reason, if the utility is responsive at all and willing to try to fix it, we will help them in any way we can.
If things are still at the staff level, we are all better off keeping it there, and use the FCC only as a last resort.
________________________________
From: Michael Martin <mike at rfiservices.com>
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 8:40 AM
To: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org>
Cc: David Eckhardt <davearea51a at gmail.com>; Dave (NK7Z) <dave at nk7z.net>; Rfi List <rfi at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton

Watch what you wish for, agreed!
Those scenarios are very familiar to me. And there are many additional stories to support what it is saying.

Imagine being diagnosed with 50 interference sources in the FCC demanding they be fixed. Only to discover that not one of those 50 sources were a contributor to the noise level the ham was experiencing.

Sometimes the paper tiger is best left undisturbed!

Michael Martin
RFI Services
240-508-3760
<http://www.rfiservices.com>www.rfiservices.com<http://www.rfiservices.com> is under construction and will be up and running soon.

Get BlueMail for Android<https://bluemail.me>
On May 27, 2022, at 7:10 AM, "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" < w1rfi at arrl.org<mailto:w1rfi at arrl.org>> wrote:

As amateurs, we should very much prefer it the way it is rather than having the FCC be 100% responsible for "enforcing its own rules."  We can be assured that if FCC were to 100% take on that task, the first thing it do is to make a clear definition of harmful interference that I can assure you we would not like.

Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it and then have to live with the aftermath.  The League staff are very much aware of what they are choosing to do and why they undertake what the FCC will not.  We, in fact, work at not demanding the FCC field investigations that some hams think will make their case. It probably will not.

Let me tell you a Tale of Two RFI Cases.

In one case, a ham had S9 interference.  The utility screwed around endlessly and the FCC finally was able to have a team going there for other reasons look at the noise. It could not determine the source, so it told the amateur that because he could hear some signals on the band, it was not harmful interference, so the FCC was going to close the case and take no action.  You would not believe the difficulty in getting that decision overturned.

In another instance involving S9 noise, and FCC field investigation identified over 50 noise sources and told the utility to fix them all.

It's a crap shoot, then, right?  No, it's worse!  Both of those were the same case in Texas, with two different FCC investigators.  Do you REALLY want to see the FCC enforcing the RFI rules? If so, without ARRL's staff getting and staying involved, it would have been game over after the first investigation.

If FCC enforces, this will ultimately be turned over to multiple field offices, with investigators for which RFI is a sideline at best, and a mystery at worst. We are MUCH better off having 1.5 staff in the ARRL Lab with literally world-class expertise and experience managing these cases, with help from local volunteers, doing all of the legwork and turning cases over to the FCC when necessary.  What ARRL has put together here, in collaboration with FCC and the involved industries, is as good as we are going to get in principle, always improvable in the details.  IMHO, it is a model of consumer/industry/regulator collaboration that will ultimately be adopted in other ways.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab

________________________________

From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org<http://arrl.org>@contesting.com> on behalf of David Eckhardt <davearea51a at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 12:20 PM
To: Dave (NK7Z) <dave at nk7z.net>
Cc: Rfi List <rfi at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] Solar Panel RFI Awareness At Dayton

Dave, NK7Z, you hit the nails squarely on the heads in your last email.

Further, those of us who are members of ARRL are paying in our dues (or
life memberships) what FCC was originally tasked to do, among other tasks
within CFR47.  ARRL and the amateurs are now the RFI sleuths, especially
when it comes to home solar power installations.  So, our dues and life
memberships to ARRL should be tax deductible??

All have read my past rants on FCC shirking the responsibilities spelled
out in CFR47.  Now we amateurs and ARRL are tasked with some of those
responsibilities originally defined in  CFR47.  And all for free.......
Something is wrong with this picture!

Sure, FCC is severely short of funds.  And.,...... maybe ARRL has been
working with FCC for 20 years on.  But this is no excuse for handing their
own responsibilities, at no cost, off to a volunteer paid organization of
members.

Dave - W0LEV

On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:24 PM Dave (NK7Z) <dave at nk7z.net> wrote:

      If only the FCC enforced their own rules, I would agree with you...

 There is very little proactive enforcement happening up in this area,

 and I suspect elsewhere...

 RFI is rampant, and getting worse, not better.  It is a mindlessly

 simple task to locate a grow operations in most cases.  Yet the Amateur

 is the person on the front lines in location, and in first contact with

 the offender, exposing the Amateur to possible liability, and possible

 assault.

 The grow ops up here are far too big to be selling in state, which means

 they are selling out of state, which means they are illegal.  So the FCC

 is placing the Amateur in the position of possibly dealing with a drug

 offender...  The real issue is the RFI, not what is being grown, or

 warmed, or lit...  Just the RFI, but it is still the Amateur that has to

 knock on the door, and explain what is happening to whoever answers...

 The FCC is ham stringed by not enough funding, so we are the front

 line...  RFI enforcement has switched from proactive to reactive as a

 result of lack of funding-- unless you are a cell provider...  Then one

 call gets instant action, and-- god forbid you even think about starting

 a pirate FM station...

 In a perfect world, I would report RFI to the FCC, and they would send

 down a field engineer in a timely manner, locate the RFI, and fine, or

 warn the perpetrator, then followup with the operator of the device a

 few weeks later, to ascertain compliance levels.  This would force an

 overall reduction in the amount RFI, over time as consumers went after

 the installers, and the manufacturers.

 That is just not happening.  Thus the problem gets worse, not better.

 This is why I say, there is some reasonable level of RFI that the

 amateur is going to have to accept.  Be it right or wrong, that is the

 way it is working, and for the foreseeable future going to work.  This

 is very unfortunate.

 73,

 Dave,

     https://www.nk7z.net

 On 5/25/22 11:26, Jim Brown wrote:

       On 5/25/2022 1:38 AM, Dave (NK7Z) wrote:

        Respectfully I am saying that at some point there is a level at which

 the FCC will say too bad, live with it. That level will be above what

 things were before the solar installation arrived.

 FCC Rules say that if a product interferes with licensed radio operation

 that use of it must be discontinued.

 73, Jim K9YC

________________________________

 RFI mailing list

 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

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

________________________________

RFI mailing list
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