Ofcom don't know if interference eliminated A Freedom of Information request asked Ofcom how many cases of interference to radio amateurs had been investigated by Ofcom and successfully concluded with elimination of the interference - Ofcom admitted they did not know It appears if Ofcom simply go through what they deem as the appropriate procedure during the interference investigation they will mark the case as either ‘resolved’ or ‘cleared’ irrespective of whether the interference has been eliminated. The Ofcom FoI reply says: "Please be advised that ‘resolved’ or ‘cleared’ for our purposes means that we have completed all actions that we can. This may not remove the interference as the interference source may be unidentifiable, identified but physically inaccessible or identified and in a location that the owner of the site may not permit entry to, and it may be deemed disproportionate to seek a warrant to force entry." Read the FoI reply which contains the number of cases Ofcom investigated in 2017-18 and 2018-19 https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/ass...84/investigations-into-radio-amateurs-foi.pdf Ofcom Published responses to FOI requests page https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/foi-dp/foi-responses http://www.southgatearc.org/news/2020/january/ofcom-dont-know-if-interference-eliminated.htm
Disproportionate to who? And, who 'deemed' it? If you are the guy/gal on the receiving end of the interference a warrant to force entry is NOT disproportionate. IMO this is a case of Ofcom shirking it's responsibility. Dan WQ4G
This is a consequence of quite strict privacy protection laws in Europe. There is a legal precedent in Sweden that the agency responsible for EMI affairs cannot demand access to private dwellings, nor demand cooperation from private citizens. A somewhat different situation exists when interfering sources can be deemed as illegal radio transmitters in the sense of the law, which have another responsible agency. This agency may then act under counter-terrorism and sabotage laws to access any property to eliminate the source. (I have witnessed this when a run-away repeater blocked public safety communications around the Government offices part of Stockholm, the response from the Post&Telecom Authority together with uniformed and security police was within minutes...) Efforts have been made to extend the definition of "illegal transmitter" to also include unintentional radiators, but so far to no avail. The wide-spread interference from small solar energy installations now being reported far up in the VHF spectrum may however change this. 73/ Karl-Arne SM0AOM
Now, if it was dust, or smoke, a nasty smell, loud music, trash, toxic substances or any other offensive or insulting behavior or substance coming out of the place the precedent is probably much different. But, because it is RF that can not be heard (without special gear), smelled, or seen it is not viewed by the public, and the law, as being 'offensive'. My previous comment stands un-amended. Dan WQ4G
Burying the feedback in a general statement shows a very poor attitude to our hobby and to FOI.They are paying lip-service to FOI, -we need a government champion to get on to them from above! If Ofcom was motivated to help in any way they would at least report back with a categorisation of the results of each case. i.e. : A) case resolved with successful cessation of interference. B) unidentifiable. C) identified as existing at x location (map coordinates) but physically inaccessible. D) identified and in a location that the owner of the site may not permit entry to and deemed disproportionate to seek a warrant to force entry. That would at least allow RSGB to tackle each case appropriately, -work to locate B, get voluntary abseilers (etc) to deal with C, schmooze, cajole, or adversely publicise the owner in C ! .......Has RSGB got a Schmoozing budget?
