This is some discussion! As far as I am concerned, we as hams have an obligation to provide public service when asked by an NGO or Gov. agency. Of course we do not get involved if we are not asked. Should we tell NWS to take a hike and hire some professionals to do wx related stuff? ( are you willing to pay for such as a taxpayer?) When a non profit org/NGO asks for help with a public event, should they have to hire and pay for a group of "pro's" to provide communication services? I know that many will agree with the fact that we are obliged to provide public service, when asked. One commenter said go to Congress! and how long do you think that might take? And as a general comment, perhaps those who are opposed to providing public service when asked should surrender their ham license, sell their gear and find another hobby. George N1YAE
Many comments here, you cant blame anyone here but all licensed and unlicensed spectrum uses falls under F.C.C. or other Federal jurisdiction, local police can not be involved with enforcement of Federal issues such as transmitting RF in some mentioned above spectrum. The problem is simple, no one today knows a thing about radio communication or cares so it is a game of ignorance from A to Z that is all...
Well, by your example, my 10 years of service as a volunteer firefighter/EMT is taking a job away from a professional firefighter. Some things just will not get done unless the community gets involved. They didn't offer to do an MPE study, or an exhaustive RFI analysis, they offered (and found) a bad consumer electronic device. They (apparently) DID go thru the proper channels, but got no where. So shoot them for finding a solution when cars are getting stranded? Helping your community when your able goes beyond what FCC service the spectrum is in. Community volunteers provide services that otherwise would probably not be filled. But you choose to look at it as them taking away a paying job. Try asking the firefighter cutting you out of a car after an accident if he or she is a "professional" or not. Steve KV6O
Was it an emergency? or, that doesn't matter now either - ok... I'm just saying that the ARRL should be doing MORE to DF the jamming that goes on if they want to DF anything - my opinion and I know about what I'm talking about. They did NOTHING - well - very little and certain no DFing to help with the 75 meter issue where a recent jammer was levied a $25k NOF.... thankfully others did help - lookup TCI Blackbird... I'm OK with helping LE - absolutely - no doubt about it - I am an ARES/RACES member - but not just LE...and that's what I have seen. The ARRL should be more involved in DFing persistent jamming issues on HF... they always JUMP at the chance to help LE - but their own constituents - not so much... and THAT is my point... - - Tim/KK7HO hmmm... another 1 call
This entire issue is being dismissed as out of the ham bands. I would strongly suggest a review of what constitutes ham bands. If you take a look you will find it is 420 to 450 MHz. BTW, what's the problem with 1 calls? (addressed to Tim/KK7HO purveyor of hasty generalizations) George N1YAE
See much unexplained hate here not sure if it is aimed at the ARRL or law enforcement maybe both. Why would ham radio operators and their organizations not want to be of service to the law enforcement community the positive relations alone are sufficient to make this a worthwhile effort. If you have a flat on your vehicle and a motorist stops to help you change the tire is he taking business away from the local garage? Lighten up with the faux outrage.
I find this whole story, brought to us by ARRL, who winds up looking the hero, quite odd. I find it odd that if the police department of such a large municipality really believed they had a public safety concern which directly falls within the responsibility of the FCC, that they could not communicate their concern better and more urgently to the FCC, and "striking out with the FCC" immediately knew where to go next - the ARRL Lab. Further I find it odd, that the ARRL, who knows as well as anyone how to reach the right desk at FCC, didn't ring that desk to say hey look this situation really does come within your responsibilities scope, and we'll be glad to assist but you gotta be the main actor in this. Just odd! As if some people in the Evanston police department didn't try very much to get the message across to FCC, and instead saw this as an opportunity to inject ARRL, with some people there only too glad to upstage the FCC. Too bad there isn't a readily available record of the FCC's side of this thing. Berj / KI3U
I work with the PD in my geographic area. I can comment on how things would go down here. People perceive a hazard/risk associated with key fob interference and call 911. 911 dispatches a police officer. Responding officer is not going to know what to do and calls the Sargent. After a dozen calls or so, the Sargent becomes concerned over the impact on police work. The Sargent kicks it up the chain. Someone up the chain calls the FCC. I'm confident that part 15 is explained and understood. This does not stop the calls. 911 has neither resources nor expertise to parse and explain part 15 calls. Police dispatches continue. Up the chain continues to look for a solution... I'm glad to hear that the ARRL stepped up and addressed a perceived, immediate, safety concern. I wonder what resources the ARRL might/could have referred. 73, -Bob ah7i/w4
True, the local police don't have the jurisdiction to enforce rules against creating unlawful interference. But anyone has the right to use a receiver to try and track down the source of interference, and anyone can politely knock on a door an inform the owner of a device of what they've found, and/or inform the FCC of their findings. Citizens informed the police of a problem, and it seemed like it might at least potentially be a public safety issue. They made some phone calls and got the problem figured out. Ask any experienced law enforcement officer if he's ever gotten an oddball call that involved something outside of his jurisdiction, where he didn't have authority to arrest or cite anyone, but where he was nevertheless able to facilitate some sort of resolution to a problem. You'll hear lots of stories.
Regarding interference to key fobs, those are Part 15 devices and as such receive no protection from interference. The FCC was correct in declining to investigate the key fob complaint. However if there really was "harmful interference" to cell phones in the initial complaint to the FCC, it seems to me that they should have addressed that. So the question arises, what did the original complaint to the FCC actually entail? i.e. did it actually mention interference to cell phones or did that come later for dramatic effect in the ARRL news story? Nobody would care if it was just key fobs - there's spots all over the place where key fobs don't work perfectly due to EM environment and that's not a secret. If cell phone interference was indeed specifically mentioned in the initial complaint to the FCC, what was the FCC response to that part of the complaint? Article is silent about that, but makes a point of mentioning the FCC response to the key fob complaint. Seems like the story is missing something. Another question is whether the switching power supply in question is compliant with Part 15.209 rules as an "unintentional radiator". A field strength measurement would tell that. 200 microvolts per meter at distance of 10 meters is the limit. Interesting thing about cell phones ... if you have signal problems standing where you are, just move a few feet one way or the other and it often clears up. Walking up and down the block looking for the exact spot where your cell phone doesn't work and then complaining that your cell phone doesn't work seems a bit contrived. Reminds me of the old "BPL" interference to mobile radio complaints from 10-15 years ago where hams would drive around until they got interference and then complain about it. As for ARRL Lab helping out ... I don't see a problem with that assuming that it was a form of RFI that they were unfamiliar with and felt it worth looking into as a potential new threat to amateur radio. For example the mention of interference to key fobs implies a potential problem to 70cm ham band. But I would agree that it's not something ARRL should routinely be spending ARRL resources to engage in the business of EMC. No, ham radio cannot save the world over every little thing. ARRL should serve the membership, and the membership can serve the public if they choose to.
I find this whole argument against what the ARRL did ridiculous. True, we are AMATEUR radio operators and as such engage in this only as a hobby and are not considered professionals. However, we do have a unique set of skills and knowledge which is not enjoyed by the average person. As such, when we are asked for help in situations such as this it is only proper for us to help. Claiming that we should only look to our own hobby and our own bands is ridiculous, short sighted, and borderline narcissistic. These same people who were helped by the ARRL may very well have to field complaints from neighbors on supposed interference caused by radio amateurs or the unsightliness of our equipment. They will remember that we helped when asked and hopefully learned a thing or two about our hobby in the process. This only makes future engagements with law enforcement easier for amateur radio as a whole. Now with that whole paragraph said, I'm not going to sit here and sing high praises for the ARRL. They've done a lot of good for us over the years but they sometimes get it into their head that they are the end all be all. Some of you have brought up that this article is a bit fishy on the details and I tend to agree. However I will attribute this instance to journalistic short-cutting which has the happy effect of making the ARRL look good.
Reading the article carefully, the ARRL Lab referred the complainants to the Division Director to look into it. Since Division Director is an unpaid/volunteer position, no ARRL resources were consumed by doing that.
These skills are not unique, and in fact, are out done by professionals who now are paid to sleuth down RF-- msny of them hams, most not. Lotsa former service people....Marines, Army, AF. Lotsa experience on these issues. More than all but a very few hams. With a handheld LP and one of those chinese pocket digital spectrum analyzers, any freshman EE student could have done this....even HS kids. No special sauce with hamming, ARRL or otherwise. We should not overstate our importance here. There is an opportunity for ARRL to pub a book and do a training course if they wish....but this is hardly an ongoing service biz model for this non profit. The more I consider it, the less I see value in this PR exercise.
Also note that although the problem radiator was identified, but the problem was not actually solved. There's nothing to solve. This is a normal every day occurence. Key fob interference has been around as long as key fobs have been around. There are hundreds of virtually identical stories all over the internet going back a couple decades. Someone has trouble getting into their car, a "radio expert" of some description is called in and they find a noisey device or some sort of UHF transmitter in the vicinity. The solution is always the same. Hold the key fob closer to the car. Can't open your car? Call the FCC? No. Call the ARRL? No. Google it !!
