[RFI] New ARRL Mission statement > Was solar fix

David Colburn qrv at kd4e.com
Sun Jul 28 13:31:13 EDT 2024


Well stated.

We have to make a national security communications, domestic emergency 
communications,

and don't-let-China-pollute-our-spectrum argument - in order to gather 
the necessary special

interest powers to force these changes past the big money (cheaper = 
more profit) lobbyists.

It can be done - but it will require a lot of social media promotion so 
that it starts to cause

elected officials, CEO's, and big investors to squirm under public scrutiny.

Preppers, drone and other recreational users, as well as businesses, 
local government,

and various organizations using FRS & GMRS may also be recruited to the 
cause.

We have to clearly describe how this is in their 'enlightened 
self-interest'.

IMHO, YMMV ... kd4e


On 7/28/24 13:17, David E. Crawford wrote:
> While the admin admonitions against "politics" are well-taken, the 
> whole process of change will be inherently political.  But it can and 
> should be done without denigration, including discussions within this 
> forum, which I believe is the intent.
>
> Human nature brings a certain inertia to the administrative state 
> where the authority lies for the solution of these issues.  One must 
> get them "interested" in the process first, and the NAB and ARRL are 
> indeed the entities best situated to get the FCC's attention in the US 
> -- if not them, then who?  Since electronics are a world market, the 
> ITU and other bodies enter the equation too.  Change in this realm is 
> hard, but please don't let anyone off the hook by declaring it "too 
> hard" on their behalf.
>
> On the technical side of things, the cheap switcher supplies now found 
> in or on everything are some of the lowest hanging fruit. Part 15 put 
> down roots before those were ever invented, now the world is 
> different, and it needs an update.  Some ideas about switcher changes 
> that could be made (as in mandated):
>
> Treat them as intentional radiators rather than unintentional.  In 
> other words, assume they are going to radiate, no matter whatever else 
> you do.
>
> Allocate them some (= very few) frequencies similar to what is done 
> with ISM devices.  I don't think the ISM freqs themselves are good 
> candidates because of the QRM that ISM devices could suffer.
>
> Put some strict freq stability and harmonic content limits on that 
> radiation.  So, instead of wandering noisy blobs, we have multiple, 
> clean CW carriers sharing a single or very few strategically-chosen 
> freqs, and therefore much easier to work around.  And they can put out 
> reasonable levels of RF on those freqs without it causing problems to 
> others.
>
> Pay attention to the conducted emissions, not just the radiated, and 
> put strict limits on them, so that some load device receiving a 
> "signal" from a supply doesn't turn a clean signal into a dirty one 
> and re-radiate that.  Or, that a long power cable doesn't become a 
> radiator outside of the supply-radiated RF limits either.
>
> Stop treating the supplies as "components" buried in someone else's 
> hand-waving qual paperwork, but treat them as individual devices 
> requiring qualification before they can be used.
>
> A lot of these supplies are based around canned chipsets now -- how 
> can their designs be influenced to help mitigate the dirty RF problem 
> before they ever see a host device?
>
> ...
>
> These general concepts can really apply to just about anything 
> electronic, not just switchers.
>
> The low frequencies really are worth recovering, especially if we 
> someday find ourselves without a functioning low earth orbit comm 
> capability due to military conflict and we need the 
> terrestrial/groundwave bandwidth back.
>
> Best regards to the group.
>
>
>
> On 2024-07-28 07:57, Hare, Ed, W1RFI via RFI wrote:
>> <While getting the FCC to change may be hard, I think we need to try.
>> Just because it is hard does not mean we look away.  If we had that
>> attitude with the moon I guess we may never have gone there.>
>>
>> I agree.  My comments were not intended to say that "we can't do it," 
>> but that changing the rules is probably the most difficult – and time 
>> consuming – solution to change.   As I said, resistance will not be 
>> futile.
>>
>> Rules changes will not happen until FCC believes they are necessary.  
>> The first step in moving FCC to that conclusion is to make them more 
>> and more aware of the impact of the present rules. With recent 
>> increased interest by OET and the FCC Regional Directors, that 
>> process is beginning to bear some fruit.  It will take more.
>>
>> Ed
>>



More information about the RFI mailing list