Posts Tagged ‘FCC’
RFI – More Vigilance Coming?
July 11th, 2017 | 
Author: 
A posting yesterday in the Yahoo MW DXer's Group pointed to a new article at RadioWorld.com, re the new urgency within the broadcast field to address the growing noise floor.
The article "Noise Inquiry Spurs Recommendations" discusses the fallout from last year's FCC Technical Advisory Council's (TAC) Inquiry ET-16-191, seeking public comments on the rapid increase in "man-made RF noise issues".
As radio amateurs have known for decades already, there is a huge problem when it comes to spectrum noise levels. They were even complaining about this way back in 1932's Short Wave Craft ... "The reasons for this extraordinary amount of noise which we have to contend with at the present time are manifold." If only they knew how quiet it really was!
Now that noise is beginning to have severe affects on profit margins when it comes to AM, FM, TV and Wi-Fi connected devices, it seems that there may now be a larger appetite for some resolution.
"Other industries using RF wireless technologies report growing noise trouble as well. A recent IEEE Spectrum article was subtitled “Electronic Noise Is Drowning Out the Internet of Things.” Designers of IoT devices are not getting the range they expect due to unexpectedly high background noise, it reported."
Comments to the enquiry pointed out the usual offenders, all well-known to hams, such as noisy powerlines, switching power supplies, noisy motors etc and emphasized the fact that none of these offenders should cause interference if properly designed.
The TAC Working Group recommended some steps that it thought the FCC should take with the key one being an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to "resolve unanswered questions and take corrective action".
According to a recent meeting between The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers and FCC officials, it was pointed out that:
- there had been no official RF noise studies done in over 40 years.
- some manufacturers are deliberately cheating to skirt emission requirements.
- those in charge of enforcement (FCC) need to be more diligent.
Other somewhat "telling" recommendations were also put forward and can be viewed in the Radioworld article here.
If you're one of the hundreds (thousands?) struggling with a new mystery noise source, perhaps you can identify the noise signature from one of these two sites:
http://www.arrl.org/sounds-of-rfi
http://www.rfiservices.com/sound.htm
It is reported that the new FCC Chairman seemed receptive to the concerns presented but so far there has been no official action. Hopefully he will soon tackle this with the same gusto shown for chasing down illegal broadcasters. With recent FCC cutbacks and proposed budget slashing from Washington, one wonders if this problem will be given the attention that it needs before it is truly too late to reverse.
RFI – More Vigilance Coming?
A posting yesterday in the Yahoo MW DXer's Group pointed to a new article at RadioWorld.com, re the new urgency within the broadcast field to address the growing noise floor.
The article "Noise Inquiry Spurs Recommendations" discusses the fallout from last year's FCC Technical Advisory Council's (TAC) Inquiry ET-16-191, seeking public comments on the rapid increase in "man-made RF noise issues".
As radio amateurs have known for decades already, there is a huge problem when it comes to spectrum noise levels. They were even complaining about this way back in 1932's Short Wave Craft ... "The reasons for this extraordinary amount of noise which we have to contend with at the present time are manifold." If only they knew how quiet it really was!
Now that noise is beginning to have severe affects on profit margins when it comes to AM, FM, TV and Wi-Fi connected devices, it seems that there may now be a larger appetite for some resolution.
"Other industries using RF wireless technologies report growing noise trouble as well. A recent IEEE Spectrum article was subtitled “Electronic Noise Is Drowning Out the Internet of Things.” Designers of IoT devices are not getting the range they expect due to unexpectedly high background noise, it reported."
Comments to the enquiry pointed out the usual offenders, all well-known to hams, such as noisy powerlines, switching power supplies, noisy motors etc and emphasized the fact that none of these offenders should cause interference if properly designed.
The TAC Working Group recommended some steps that it thought the FCC should take with the key one being an FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to "resolve unanswered questions and take corrective action".
According to a recent meeting between The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers and FCC officials, it was pointed out that:
- there had been no official RF noise studies done in over 40 years.
- some manufacturers are deliberately cheating to skirt emission requirements.
- those in charge of enforcement (FCC) need to be more diligent.
Other somewhat "telling" recommendations were also put forward and can be viewed in the Radioworld article here.
If you're one of the hundreds (thousands?) struggling with a new mystery noise source, perhaps you can identify the noise signature from one of these two sites:
http://www.arrl.org/sounds-of-rfi
http://www.rfiservices.com/sound.htm
It is reported that the new FCC Chairman seemed receptive to the concerns presented but so far there has been no official action. Hopefully he will soon tackle this with the same gusto shown for chasing down illegal broadcasters. With recent FCC cutbacks and proposed budget slashing from Washington, one wonders if this problem will be given the attention that it needs before it is truly too late to reverse.
RFI … Radio Spectrum’s Global Warming?
 |
| courtesy: http://www.arrl.org/utilities |
The FCC's recent publication of an Order and Consent Decree (DA-17-471) has me wondering if this action signals new interest in cracking-down on those who manufacture and distribute unapproved spectrum polluting noise-generating devices or is it just a once-in-awhile muscle flex with little change in overall policy ... hopefully it's the former!
Highlights of the agreed upon notice:
Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to promulgate reasonable regulations to minimize harmful interference by equipment that emits radio frequency energy....Specifically....that “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations....
.... the Commission establishes technical requirements for transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing interference to authorized radio services ... the Commission administers an equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market in the
United States complies with the technical and administrative requirements set forth in the Commission’s rules. The equipment authorization program requires, among other things, that radio frequency devices must be tested for compliance with the applicable technical requirements in accordance with one of three authorization procedures—i.e., certification, Declaration of Conformity, or verification—prior to marketing.
... the Rules prohibits the marketing of radio frequency devices unless the device has first been properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the Rules ...
... a privately-held company that manufactures and distributes lighting fixtures that are used in residential and commercial properties ... under-cabinet LED light fixtures were reportedly causing interference to AM/FM radio transmissions.
During the course of the investigation, the evidence revealed that ... the LED light fixtures were not tested and authorized under the Commission’s equipment authorization rules prior to marketing.
... the Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) ... directing to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to ... the marketing of its LED lighting fixtures in the United States.
... continued to market the light fixtures at issue for certain times during an approximately five-month period after receipt of the LOI.
Other highlights indicate that the company in question acknowledged their violation and agreed to appoint a Compliance Officer in charge of implementing new company protocols, including the retraining and education of employees dealing with compliance issues. As well, a $90,000 civil penalty was imposed on the company for the violation.
As a point of interest, I can't ever recall seeing similar notifications being released or reported here in Canada by our FCC equivalent, the ISEDC. Hopefully they also take similar actions, but if so, they don't seem to be reporting it ... perhaps I'm just not looking in the proper places.
As I've mentioned here previously, for too many radio amateurs, the growing noise floor throughout the radio spectrum has become a global threat for the healthy pursuit of our hobby. Even if we saw the immediate implementation of rigorous new tight standards, crackdowns and prosecutions of offenders, it may already be too late to reverse the damage we are now seeing ... in many respects, it's the 'global warming' of the RF spectrum and there may be no turning back without immediate action.
RFI … Radio Spectrum’s Global Warming?
|
| courtesy: http://www.arrl.org/utilities |
The FCC's recent publication of an Order and Consent Decree (DA-17-471) has me wondering if this action signals new interest in cracking-down on those who manufacture and distribute unapproved spectrum polluting noise-generating devices or is it just a once-in-awhile muscle flex with little change in overall policy ... hopefully it's the former!
Highlights of the agreed upon notice:
Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to promulgate reasonable regulations to minimize harmful interference by equipment that emits radio frequency energy....Specifically....that “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations....
.... the Commission establishes technical requirements for transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for causing interference to authorized radio services ... the Commission administers an equipment authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market in the
United States complies with the technical and administrative requirements set forth in the Commission’s rules. The equipment authorization program requires, among other things, that radio frequency devices must be tested for compliance with the applicable technical requirements in accordance with one of three authorization procedures—i.e., certification, Declaration of Conformity, or verification—prior to marketing.
... the Rules prohibits the marketing of radio frequency devices unless the device has first been properly authorized, identified, and labeled in accordance with the Rules ...
... a privately-held company that manufactures and distributes lighting fixtures that are used in residential and commercial properties ... under-cabinet LED light fixtures were reportedly causing interference to AM/FM radio transmissions.
During the course of the investigation, the evidence revealed that ... the LED light fixtures were not tested and authorized under the Commission’s equipment authorization rules prior to marketing.
... the Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) ... directing to submit a sworn written response to a series of questions relating to ... the marketing of its LED lighting fixtures in the United States.
... continued to market the light fixtures at issue for certain times during an approximately five-month period after receipt of the LOI.
Other highlights indicate that the company in question acknowledged their violation and agreed to appoint a Compliance Officer in charge of implementing new company protocols, including the retraining and education of employees dealing with compliance issues. As well, a $90,000 civil penalty was imposed on the company for the violation.
As a point of interest, I can't ever recall seeing similar notifications being released or reported here in Canada by our FCC equivalent, the ISEDC. Hopefully they also take similar actions, but if so, they don't seem to be reporting it ... perhaps I'm just not looking in the proper places.
As I've mentioned here previously, for too many radio amateurs, the growing noise floor throughout the radio spectrum has become a global threat for the healthy pursuit of our hobby. Even if we saw the immediate implementation of rigorous new tight standards, crackdowns and prosecutions of offenders, it may already be too late to reverse the damage we are now seeing ... in many respects, it's the 'global warming' of the RF spectrum and there may be no turning back without immediate action.
We’ve Got Some Explaining to Do
There was a fun interaction on twitter the other day about how we represent amateur radio to the general public. It started with this tweet from @FaradayRF:
This refers to an article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal newspaper where the author decided to use the theme of “ham radio is retro” to tell the story of a ham radio gathering at NAB. I really hate it when ham radio gets positioned as “old technology” in the world of awesome wireless stuff. Clearly, some of our technology is dated, but the amateur service includes lots of new technology and experimentation. (Actually, the tone of the article was very positive, so we shouldn’t complain too loudly.)
So I replied, along with a few other folks:
So KB6NU and KC4YLV took the discussion back to good old Part 97 of the FCC rules. (You ever notice how often radio hams like to quote Part 97? It’s right up there with the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.) I tried to recall from memory the five things listed in 97.1 as the Basis and Purpose of the Amateur Radio Service, but failed.
I had to look them up, so I’ll save you the trouble and list them here. Actually, I am going to provide the KØNR Abbreviated Version (go here to see the full text):
Part 97.1 Basis and Purpose of Amateur Radio
a) Voluntary public service, including emergency communications
b) Advancement of the radio art
c) Advancement of communication and technical skills
d) Expansion of trained radio/electronics enthusiasts
e) Enhancement of international good will
These five things are still relevant and are being pursued today. Not all radio amateurs contribute to every one of these but as a group we are doing these things. The good news is that many non-hams do understand the When All Else Fails aspect of ham radio…most have had their cellphone become a useless brick during major incidents. Items b, c and d are all about learning new things, building skills and expanding the number of radio hams. We should talk more about that. Enhancing international good will may seem a bit quaint but this crazy world can always use another dose of that.
Part 97 does leave out one thing that is the ultimate attraction and, in fact, the universal purpose of ham radio:
To Have Fun Messing Around with Radios.
73, Bob KØNR
The post We’ve Got Some Explaining to Do appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.
LF and MF Now Very Close For U.S. Amateurs!
For U.S. amateurs anxiously awaiting implementation of the new 630m and 2200m bands, the wait seems to be almost over!
Good news came down late yesterday in the form of the FCC's "Report and Order" (ET Docket No. 15-99) which lays out the proposed rules and regulations that, barring any further changes, will likely become standard operating procedures once these two bands become finalized.
Highlights of the FCC's document are as follows:
1. Recognition that both Utilities (UTC) and amateurs can co-exist within these parts of the spectrum:
... co existence between PLC systems and amateur radio operations in these bands is possible, and the service rules we adopt in this Order will foster this co existence.
2. Amateurs operating within these bands must be no closer than 1 km from transmission lines that are actively carrying PLC (control) signals:
As proposed, we will permit amateur stations to operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz bands when separated by a specified distance from electric power transmission lines with PLC systems that use the same bands. To support the operations of both the amateur service and PLC systems in these bands, we adopt a minimum horizontal separation distance of one kilometer between the transmission line and the amateur station when operating in these bands.
We find that a one kilometer separation distance reasonably ensures that PLC systems and amateur radio stations are unlikely to experience interference. In addition, establishing a zone where amateur use is not authorized will simplify and streamline the process for determining whether an amateur station can transmit in these bands when in proximity to transmission lines upon which PLC systems operate.
3. Amateurs must "make notification" to local UTC authorities before commencing operation on either of these two bands:
We will require amateur operators to notify UTC of the location of their proposed station prior to commencing operations, to confirm that the station is not located within the one kilometer separation distance.
The notification requirement will entail notifying UTC of the operator’s call sign and coordinates of the proposed station’s location for confirmation that the location is outside the one kilometer separation distance, or the relevant PLC system is not transmitting on the requested bands. UTC, which maintains a database of PLC systems must respond to the notification within 30 days if it objects. If UTC raises no objection, amateur radio operators may commence operations on the band identified in their notification. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a public notice providing the details for filing notifications with UTC.
A simple notification to UTC with a 30-day waiting period does not appear to be burdensome. Amateur operations can commence as soon as that period expires. ARRL claims that UTC should provide access to the PLC database to them or directly to amateurs to assist them in determining whether their notified operations are within the one-kilometer separation distance from transmission lines with PLC systems operating on these bands. ARRL fails to make a persuasive case why it would be a better organization to make those determinations rather than UTC. Further, since UTC has control of the PLC database which can be updated, we find no reason to mandate its release to another party especially considering the sensitive nature of information it contains.
4. Power limits will be expressed in EIRP as well as maximum PEP:
Amateur stations may operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band with a maximum radiated power of one watt EIRP ... that amateur stations operating in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band should be subject only to the general Part 97 limit of 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP).
We also adopt the power limits proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM for amateur stations operating in the 472-479 kHz band. For such stations, the maximum radiated power will be five watts EIRP, except for stations located in the portion of Alaska that is within 800 kilometers of the Russian Federation, where the EIRP will be limited to one watt. We also limit the transmitter power for amateur radio operations in the 472 479 kHz band to 500 watts PEP; provided, however, that the resulting radiated power does not exceed five watts EIRP. In other words, it may be necessary to reduce transmitter power below 500 watts PEP to avoid exceeding the five watts EIRP limit.
5. Antenna height will be limited:
... we will require that the antennas used to transmit in these bands not exceed 60 meters in height above ground level (AGL), as ARRL proposed.
6. Regarding transmission modes, no bandwidths have been specified in order to encourage experimentation:
Consistent with our proposal in the WRC-12 NPRM, and with the existing rules in Section 97.305 for the frequency bands below 30 MHz, we authorize amateur stations to transmit the following emission types throughout the new amateur bands: CW (international Morse code telegraphy), RTTY (narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy), data, phone, and image emissions. These emission types provide amateur operators with maximum flexibility, and we find that additional restrictions would needlessly hinder experimentation.
7. Experimental stations appear to 'still be in business' but are encouraged to transition to the 'amateur' service:
Finally, we decline to permit previously licensed experimental stations – some of which have been authorized with significantly more radiated power than the adopted EIRP limits for these new amateur service bands – to communicate with amateur stations operating in these bands. Amateur operations in these bands currently authorized under experimental licenses should transition their operations in accordance with the adopted rules and not circumvent such rules by use of experimental licenses.
My understanding of the R&O document is that participating parties may still file a 'Petition For Reconsideration' notification within 30 days of the R&O's publication in the Federal Register. Once these (if any) are dealt with, there are no other roadblocks preventing immediate implementation.
The document contains additional details not discussed here and makes fascinating reading for amateurs that might be looking forward to the new allocations.
This is the news that many U.S. amateurs have been waiting many years to hear! It is also good news for Canadian's operating on these bands to know that they may soon see a large increase in activity south of the border. Let's hope things continue to transpire favorably and that we will finally see the new bands become a reality.
Get those soldering irons out guys and gals!
LF and MF Now Very Close For U.S. Amateurs!
For U.S. amateurs anxiously awaiting implementation of the new 630m and 2200m bands, the wait seems to be almost over!
Good news came down late yesterday in the form of the FCC's "Report and Order" (ET Docket No. 15-99) which lays out the proposed rules and regulations that, barring any further changes, will likely become standard operating procedures once these two bands become finalized.
Highlights of the FCC's document are as follows:
1. Recognition that both Utilities (UTC) and amateurs can co-exist within these parts of the spectrum:
... co existence between PLC systems and amateur radio operations in these bands is possible, and the service rules we adopt in this Order will foster this co existence.
2. Amateurs operating within these bands must be no closer than 1 km from transmission lines that are actively carrying PLC (control) signals:
As proposed, we will permit amateur stations to operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz and 472-479 kHz bands when separated by a specified distance from electric power transmission lines with PLC systems that use the same bands. To support the operations of both the amateur service and PLC systems in these bands, we adopt a minimum horizontal separation distance of one kilometer between the transmission line and the amateur station when operating in these bands.
We find that a one kilometer separation distance reasonably ensures that PLC systems and amateur radio stations are unlikely to experience interference. In addition, establishing a zone where amateur use is not authorized will simplify and streamline the process for determining whether an amateur station can transmit in these bands when in proximity to transmission lines upon which PLC systems operate.
3. Amateurs must "make notification" to local UTC authorities before commencing operation on either of these two bands:
We will require amateur operators to notify UTC of the location of their proposed station prior to commencing operations, to confirm that the station is not located within the one kilometer separation distance.
The notification requirement will entail notifying UTC of the operator’s call sign and coordinates of the proposed station’s location for confirmation that the location is outside the one kilometer separation distance, or the relevant PLC system is not transmitting on the requested bands. UTC, which maintains a database of PLC systems must respond to the notification within 30 days if it objects. If UTC raises no objection, amateur radio operators may commence operations on the band identified in their notification. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau will issue a public notice providing the details for filing notifications with UTC.
A simple notification to UTC with a 30-day waiting period does not appear to be burdensome. Amateur operations can commence as soon as that period expires. ARRL claims that UTC should provide access to the PLC database to them or directly to amateurs to assist them in determining whether their notified operations are within the one-kilometer separation distance from transmission lines with PLC systems operating on these bands. ARRL fails to make a persuasive case why it would be a better organization to make those determinations rather than UTC. Further, since UTC has control of the PLC database which can be updated, we find no reason to mandate its release to another party especially considering the sensitive nature of information it contains.
4. Power limits will be expressed in EIRP as well as maximum PEP:
Amateur stations may operate in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band with a maximum radiated power of one watt EIRP ... that amateur stations operating in the 135.7-137.8 kHz band should be subject only to the general Part 97 limit of 1.5 kW peak envelope power (PEP).
We also adopt the power limits proposed in the WRC-12 NPRM for amateur stations operating in the 472-479 kHz band. For such stations, the maximum radiated power will be five watts EIRP, except for stations located in the portion of Alaska that is within 800 kilometers of the Russian Federation, where the EIRP will be limited to one watt. We also limit the transmitter power for amateur radio operations in the 472 479 kHz band to 500 watts PEP; provided, however, that the resulting radiated power does not exceed five watts EIRP. In other words, it may be necessary to reduce transmitter power below 500 watts PEP to avoid exceeding the five watts EIRP limit.
5. Antenna height will be limited:
... we will require that the antennas used to transmit in these bands not exceed 60 meters in height above ground level (AGL), as ARRL proposed.
6. Regarding transmission modes, no bandwidths have been specified in order to encourage experimentation:
Consistent with our proposal in the WRC-12 NPRM, and with the existing rules in Section 97.305 for the frequency bands below 30 MHz, we authorize amateur stations to transmit the following emission types throughout the new amateur bands: CW (international Morse code telegraphy), RTTY (narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy), data, phone, and image emissions. These emission types provide amateur operators with maximum flexibility, and we find that additional restrictions would needlessly hinder experimentation.
7. Experimental stations appear to 'still be in business' but are encouraged to transition to the 'amateur' service:
Finally, we decline to permit previously licensed experimental stations – some of which have been authorized with significantly more radiated power than the adopted EIRP limits for these new amateur service bands – to communicate with amateur stations operating in these bands. Amateur operations in these bands currently authorized under experimental licenses should transition their operations in accordance with the adopted rules and not circumvent such rules by use of experimental licenses.
My understanding of the R&O document is that participating parties may still file a 'Petition For Reconsideration' notification within 30 days of the R&O's publication in the Federal Register. Once these (if any) are dealt with, there are no other roadblocks preventing immediate implementation.
The document contains additional details not discussed here and makes fascinating reading for amateurs that might be looking forward to the new allocations.
This is the news that many U.S. amateurs have been waiting many years to hear! It is also good news for Canadian's operating on these bands to know that they may soon see a large increase in activity south of the border. Let's hope things continue to transpire favorably and that we will finally see the new bands become a reality.
Get those soldering irons out guys and gals!
