[RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"

[Jim Morgan]

Had intended to post to the forum... sent directly to Ed by mistake!  
Thank you Ed for the personal response.  Hope you don't mind my posting it.


73, Jim W4QE



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"
Date: 	Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:49:48 +0000
From: 	Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org>
To: 	W4QE at arrl.net <W4QE at arrl.net>



That point is being recognized.  We are also increasing communication 
with the AM broadcast industry and ARRL helped fund a participant in the 
development of smart-grid immunity standards, benefitting the electric 
utility industry. Amateur radio also benefitted big time because we can 
only imagine what would happen if amateur radio transmissions repeatedly 
took down the electric power grid.  It was a 10-year effort, in 
collaboration with the IEEE EMC Society and Power and Energy Society, 
but the final standards included meaningful RF immunity standards for 
protective relays and other equipment used in the developing smart-grid 
technologies.  As intitially written, a rock placed in the test fixture 
would have passed. 🙂
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Jim Morgan <jvmorg at comcast.net>
*Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2023 8:09 AM
*To:* Hare, Ed, W1RFI <w1rfi at arrl.org>
*Subject:* Re: [RFI] DEFINITION OF "HARMFUL INTERFERENCE"
I have been following this thread with interest, and just wanted to 
express appreciation to all for the (generally) civil tone of the
conversation.  Clearly interference can be a touchy issue. I'm glad that 
the ARRL is so involved both in the standards process and the
enforcement process.  I agree with Ed that diplomacy is as important as 
technology when trying to get to resolution of an interference issue.

Thank you Ed, and ARRL, for your involvement in this area.

It occurs to me that the work of amateurs in this area provides benefits 
beyond the amateur community.  RF devices are everywhere, and every time
we find and fix a source of interference on the ham bands, life also 
gets better for some machine in a hospital, some theater or church using
wireless microphones, even the drive-through at your favorite fast-food 
restaurant, who may not even know why their equipment is sometimes
"flaky" or has dropouts.

73 all,
Jim W4QE


On 1/20/2023 7:02 AM, Hare, Ed, W1RFI wrote:
 > This has been my life's work, for over 35 years, and all that I know 
has been built on the work of many people, not just my own. That is the 
strength of organization.
 >
 > But I do have to note that is is more than a club, and our standing 
with FCC and others is also built on decades of participation.  When we 
work with the FCC, we do so as authentically and productively as we can, 
with a loyalty to what we believe to be the truth.  We have this unique 
position with the FCC because although we do strongly represent amateur 
radio to their enforcement people, it is done in the light of creating a 
reasonable process to help resolve cases, then supporting the process.
 >
 > It is done in parallel with similar work with the standardization 
process, through entities like the IEEE, not only with seats at the 
table, but with seats at the head of the table.  I just completed an 
10-year series of terms on the IEEE EMC Society Board of Directors, 
twice as a Director-at-Large and three times as their elected Vice 
President for Standards.  I term-limited, so had to step down, but I am 
continuing that work by supporting the new VP for Standards and by 
serving its two major EMC committees in whatever ways they need me to 
serve.  ARRL has been a member of the US EMC committee, C63.org, that 
writes standards often adopted by the FCC as regulation. I am the Chair 
of its Subcommittee 5 on immunity.  ARRL has had a representative on the 
FCC Technological Advisory Council, bringing amateur radio and his 
expertise on RF safety and RF in general to their work.  ARRL, and 
amateur radio, participated internationally as part of the ITU-R process 
of helping to create internat
 >   ional RF law.
 >
 > So, when this "club" approaches the FCC at the staff level with a 
request for help and an offer to help the help, it is now seen as a 
legitimate request and a legitimate offer for help that will be 
appropriate and reasonable in its expectations.  The ARRL individuals 
that have been elected by their peers to leadership positions have been 
given those positions because they are legitimately contributing to real 
industry processes, representing their stake and influencing the 
outcome, but again, in ways that are appropriate and reasonable.  It is 
work that carries the strength of 700,000 US amateurs, with the ability 
to take on some of the tasks and, when needed, to crowd source 
informatiton that can be and is important and valuable to the 
advancement of state of the art.
 >
 > So, when "the club" works with the FCC, all of that is known, all of 
that is part of the processes and the FCC and others are coming around 
to believe that what is being asked is for a greater good that ARRL has 
helped establish a track record of greater-good achievement that shows 
that amateur radio is still a valuable part of modern technological 
advancement.
 >
 > Ed Hare, W1RFI
 > ARRL Lab
 >