One of those FCC lawyers, Dave, it the very reason that ARRL's process to
resolve RFI cases with the FCC exists at all. Riley Hollingsworth and ARRL Lab
staff created that process from the ground up. Another one of those lawyers,
Laura Smith, is the reason that the process continued when Riley retired from
the FCC. She is far from what you describe, Dave, and although she is not as
knowledgeable as ARRL staff on RFI issues, she has intentionally learned a lot
about the subject -- well enough to apply her own expertise and work with ARRL
on RFI issues and, when needed, use contact from the FCC to help move cases
towards resolution.
The process is not perfect, but it has made a major difference, not only to
resolve a lot of cases, but also to raise awareness of the importance of
manufacturers and operators of noisy devices to follow the FCC rules. The two
FCC lawyers I described have done as much to resolve RFI as the ARRL Lab staff,
in their own ways, yet you have insulted them using some pretty nasty terms.
DO you really believe that to be helpful?
Yes, ARRL does a lot to help resolve RFI issues, on a number of levels, but it
is NOT because of FCC legal incompetence. One need to look no farther than
this list to see that there are a lot of misunderstandings about RFI amongst
amateurs and no small number of incorrect identifications of RFI noise sources.
ARRL works with the amateurs involved in RFI to ensure that the cases that are
reported to the FCC are reported accurately. We are probably batting .950, with
95% of the cases reports being 100% appropriate.
What the ARRL Lab does is essentially:
o Work with the involved amateur to first determine whether the RFI problem is
"harmful interference" as defined in the FCC rules. Other interference can
still be resolved, but it is often helpful to recognize whether FCC would see a
case as "harmful interference" or not. (This is another looonnnggg story...)
o Determine that the correct source has been identified.
o Determine whether simple filtering solutions could resolve the interference.
o Identify the operator of noisy devices and determine whether reasonable
attempts have been made to secure cooperation and assistance.
If all of that is done, and solutions are not forthcoming and/or cooperation is
not happening, then the case is well prepared to go to the FCC. About half of
the cases involve misidentification, or unrealistic expectations in some way,
and if 50% of what got reported to the FCC turned out to be wrong, then amateur
radio would be seen as the incompetent factor and the FCC would not take action
in most of the cases.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Lab Volunteer
________________________________
From: RFI <rfi-bounces+w1rfi=arrl.org@contesting.com> on behalf of David
Eckhardt <davearea51a@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 7:43 PM
To: Jim McCook <w6ya@cox.net>
Cc: RFI List <rfi@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] LED Street lights
I hate to write this, but our very own ARRL is doing the job that FCC
should be doing in these respects - ....... and for free......
At present, the FCC is useless and nothing but a collection of overpaid
lawyers who wouldn't know RF if it bit them in the behind. If you wish,
have a read of my QRZ page - all from experience as an EMC / RFI engineer
over the past 30+ years.
Dave - WØLEV
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:32 PM Jim McCook <w6ya@cox.net> wrote:
> Ed, In every RFI case I've had involving LED lighting in fixtures like
> chandeliers, the solution has been to either isolate the switching power
> supply from the line with a Corcom filter, or in the case of LED strip
> lighting, those supplies had to be replaced with magnetic transformers.
> The AC line in those houses were obviously radiating. Those neighbors
> understood their responsibility. I donated the Corcom filters. Does
> this not place these situations as Part 15 Subpart B unintentional
> radiators via the AC wiring in the house, which is non-compliant?
>
> The only situation I was unable to resolve with a hostile neighbor was
> with his Jandy multispeed swimming pool motor. It's obviously radiating
> via the line, but FCC refused to recognize it as a problem, despite the
> 20 KHz wide moving interference on several bands reaching S-7, where
> noise level was otherwise S-3/4. I was told "you can still use your
> radio."
>
> Now I have a neighbor involved in an extensive remodel who is using low
> voltage wiring throughout the house for his LED lighting. Of course he
> installed switching power supplies. I gave him a copy of the WSJ
> article that was normally helpful to orient neighbors to FCC regulation
> of RFI, but he refused to read it, saying that his electricians are
> under contract and will finish the job as planned. He said any changes
> will be my financial responsibility to his electricians; otherwise he
> will see me in court. I would guess the wiring on both sides of the
> switching supplies is radiating.
>
> I have no faith in FCC any longer, so without their help, I am planning
> for the expense to make those changes. The hostile pool pump neighbor
> is just starting to build an ADU/office, so I can expect the same
> resistance from him. I can't help but think FCC has failed me completely.
>
> If anyone wants a copy of the WSJ 2014 article, please send me Email.
> It is very helpful with reasonable neighbors. 73, Jim W6YA
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
--
*Dave - WØLEV*
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|