[TriLUG] PRB-1 [ Was Re: Television & RF interference -- yes computer related -- I think ]

[Joseph Mack NA3T]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, R Radford wrote:

I'm starting a new thread, since this has moved from the 
OP's request.

> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Joseph Mack NA3T <jmack at wm7d.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, R Radford wrote:
>>
>>> Hmmm, that is not how I interpreted the action, and also does not seem to
>>> match up with what I read on the ARRL website.  In fact, the ARRL was one of
>>> the big proponents of the bill that basically states that as long as you are
>>> doing everything legal in your transmitter (ie: a ham radio operator), it is
>>> not your responsibility if it causes interference on another device.
>>
>> That was an unintended consequence that the ARRL grabbed onto.
>
> I guess I am confused. You stated the bill was to save the consumer
> industry money, yet the ARRL's own website stated they lobbied for
> this action for almost 10 years (starting in 1973), pushing it out to
> the hams to lobby on their behalf to push this through - it certainly
> sounds like the ARRL was a driver in this and not just an unintended
> consequence.

> Can you point me to a source where this was something
> pushed upon us by the consumer industry during the Reagan
> administration?

It's been a while since I thought about PRB-1. I wrote about 
it in 2000

http://www.wm7d.net/az_proj/articles/au_opening.Jul2000/au_opening.Jul2000.lessons.shtml

On re-reading my posting, I see that the unintended 
consequence was relaxation of tower rules for hams and not 
that you were off the hook for RFI if your transmitter was 
operating correctly.

So I have that wrong and thanks for straightening me out.

What the rules for towers were before and afterwards, I 
don't remember. Several legal cases were involved in which 
hams challenged tower regulations (zoning laws?) and used 
PRB-1 to support their case. The ARRL provided documentation 
for the hams. The challenges succeeded and hams wound up in 
a situation with greatly relaxed rules for putting up 
towers.

The ARRL took credit for the change in tower laws 
afterwards, but didn't talk about it before hand AFAIR. 
AFAIC, the credit goes to the hams who put up their time and 
money to mount the legal challenges.

I hadn't realised that the ARRL had spent 10yrs on PRB-1.

> Can you point me to a source where this was something
> pushed upon us by the consumer industry during the Reagan
> administration?

I assume the date of PRB-1 is documented. I don't have 
documentation that the consumer industry lobbied for it, but 
that's what I remember from that time.

Removing RFI protecion from consumer equipement is in the 
same realm as relaxing any useful safety measure eg allowing 
water and air to be more dangerous to drink/breath. I doubt 
if "us" really cared what the govt did to it, anymore than 
it cares about DRM being pushed on it, so I doubt if there 
was much complaint about the new laws by the public. But I 
will go on record as a member of "us" as saying it was 
pushed on me.

Joe

-- 
Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!