[BC] Wisconsin family fears village will take down son's Ham radio tower

[Broadcast List USER]

He/they are responsible for resolving interference that is their  
fault, not unreasonable interference caused by the consumer  
electronics devices.

There is no reason that any phone should have interference issues, yet  
many do.  Why?  Because they are cheap pieces of junk.  Put a WE 500  
in place of the bad phone and the interference will just go away.

Putting an RF filter or even a DSL filter will likely stop the  
problem, if the filter is at the phone in question.

TV interference?  You have GOT to be kidding.  Now that TV is digital,  
there is no way the consumer can determine that the kid's operation is  
causing problems.  Yes, it may be, but they will never hear his audio.

If they are on cable with NTSC TVs and there is interference, it is  
time to start looking for cable ingress problems.  That is the cable  
company's problem, not the amateur's.

Same for satellite.  If it is getting in, there is a cable or  
connector problem.

Finally, if the tower is dropped from 62 to 35 feet, THE PROBLEM WILL  
ONLY GET WORSE!  For God's sake, it is closer to them, AND they are  
more in the main beam of any antennas.

Dumb, dumb, dumb, stupid.

--chip

On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:46 PM, broadcast-request at radiolists.net wrote:

> Message: 24
> From: Cowboy <curt at spam-o-matic.net>
> 	Ham radio	tower
>
> On Tuesday 20 April 2010 12:26:32 pm Kevin Raper wrote:
>> On 4/20/2010 2:46 AM, Dana Puopolo wrote:
>>> Pound sand, Kenosha!
>
> Well, yes. There is pre-emptive FCC authority for anything HAM.
>
>> They need to get the ARRL involved. Ham Radio towers are protected by
>> the FCC, and as long as he uses good engineering practice, He is NOT
>> responsible for TVI complaints.
>
> BZZZZZZTT !!
>
> You may not cause interference even if you are a licensed amateur.
> He *is* responsible for resolving complaints, or at least making all
> "reasonable" attempts at doing so.
>
> Cowboy