KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

FCC

November 30 is deadline to apply for FCC Honors Engineering Program

By Leave a Comment

Amateur radio operators like to complain that the FCC is more political than technical. Well, I don’t know how I missed this, but last April they announced the Honors Engineering Program. According to the press release:

The Commission is seeking new engineering talent to work on cutting-edge issues in the communications and high-tech arenas. This is an opportunity for individuals to gain public sector experience at the beginning of their careers through a valuable one-year career development program. At the end of the one-year program, Honors Program engineers will be eligible for consideration for continued employment at the FCC.

Areas of work at the FCC requiring engineering expertise may involve an array of areas, including:

  • Enabling the introduction of new communications technologies and services such as 5G, the Internet of Things, next-generation TV broadcasting; and new broadbandsatellite systems, among others.
  • Facilitating the deployment of broadband services throughout the nation, including to rural and underserved areas;
  • Identifying technologies to improve access to communications services for all Americans, especially those with disabilities; and
  • Supporting the introduction of communications technologies that are vitally important for public safety and homeland security as well as various market sectors such ashealth care, energy, education and transportation
  • Developing policies that encourage innovation and investment in new communications devices and services that will support job creation and economic growth.

Sounds like a cool job to me, and I can only imagine that a ham radio license would be a big plus. According to the ARRL’s report, the deadline for applying for the program is November 30, 2018. Interested students can apply online.

FCC proposes $2.8M fine for drone electronics manufacturer

By 1 Comment

FCC LogoIs the FCC getting serious about enforcement? They proposed coming down hard on a manufacturer whose devices could potentially transmit without authorization on amateur radio frequency bands. According to a story in RadioWorld, the FCC has proposed a $2.8M fine be levied against HobbyKing, a maker of audio/video transmitters for drones and other devices.

In the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, proposing the fine, the FCC says,

[The] AV transmitters HobbyKing markets purport to operate on amateur frequencies in three frequency bands, 1240-1300 MHz (often identified as “1.2 GHz”), 2300-2310 and 2390-2450 MHz (often identified as “2.4 GHz”), and 5650-5925 MHz (often identified as “5.8 GHz”). However, more  detailed examination shows that
these AV transmitters are marketed on HobbyKing’s website as also operating in additional frequency bands not allocated for amateur operations and, in some cases, at higher power levels than allowed.

Apparently, Hobby King ignored previous warnings from the FCC, and they don’t like being ignored. RadioWorld reports,

The steep proposed penalty is not only for marketing noncompliant radio frequency devices but also for failing to comply with commission orders. According to the commission, HobbyKing failed to respond to the enforcement bureau’s previously issued a citation notifying HobbyKing of its legal and regulatory obligations. The company also failed to stop marketing the alleged noncompliant equipment despite a cease and desist order from the FCC. Current law requires companies to respond to requests from the FCC after being warned of possible violations.

MI ham who interferes with public safety communications loses license

By 8 Comments

FCC LogoOn reddit the other day was this item, “N8CAM loses his license and $3K for using cloned radio on Michigan state radio system.” According to the FCC, N8CAM, a 19 year old admitted that “over a two-year period, he illegally operated on, and caused interference to, the MPSCS” (Michigan Public Service Communication System.

The FCC report goes on to say:

Mr. Thurston is a 19-year old amateur radio licensee who operates under the call sign N8CAM. According to reports that the Michigan State Police provided to the Commission, on or about April 21, 2017, Mr. Thurston was subject to a routine traffic stop, during which, an officer of the Michigan State Police observed that Mr. Thurston was in possession of a radio capable of operating on the MPSCS. After confirming that Mr. Thurston was not an authorized user of the MPSCS, the officer seized the radio under authority provided by state law. Another Michigan State Police officer specializing in the organization’s radio equipment subsequently inspected the seized radio and determined that it was able to connect with, and operate on, the MPSCS because the device was a “clone” of an infrequently used radio belonging to Oscoda County, Michigan, that was authorized to operate on the MPSCS. As a “clone,” the device in Mr. Thurston’s possession operated using the same radio identifier code as the Oscoda County radio. Because the MPSCS recognized the code transmitted by Mr. Thurston’s radio as belonging to the authorized Oscoda County radio, the system permitted Mr. Thurston’s radio to make and receive transmissions on the state-wide network. According to records provided by the Michigan State Police, between July 15, 2015, and April 21, 2017, the cloned radio in Mr. Thurston’s possession transmitted on the MPSCS 989 times, with the average transmission lasting 4.8 seconds.19 Based on information provided by the MPSCS, during each such push-to-talk transmission, other authorized users of the “talk group” on which the cloned radio was then transmitting would not have been able to make their own transmissions during the brief periods when Mr. Thurston was transmitting on the MPSCS. The Michigan State Police have not alleged that Mr. Thurston made any false or threatening transmissions on the MPSCS.

N8CAM pleaded guilty to the felony charges, but because he’s so young, and probably because he didn’t make any “false or threatening transmissions” was treated with some leniency. He was not sentenced to any prison time, but fined $3,000 and has to surrender his amateur radio license for two years. But, he will have to pay an  penalty of $17,000 if he operates on MPSCS frequencies or causes interference to the MPSCS in the next 2o years.

I’m hoping that he’s learned his lesson here. I don’t want to be writing about him again in two years.

AFCCE making some noise over noise

By 1 Comment

Last year, the FCC’s Technical Advisory Council formed a working group to study the problem. Inquiry ET-16-191, released in June 2016, sought public comments.

About 100 individuals, companies and organizations, from a broad array of RF users including broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, consulting engineers, radio astronomers, amateur radio groups (including the ARRK), and users of other spectrum services such as cellular, GPS and public safety communications. Many different noise sources were identified, such as power lines, modern lighting systems, and switching power supplies. Almost all of the respondents requested that the FCC undertake an official study and many called for more effective enforcement of current regulations.

A working group was formed, and in December 2016, they issued a report recommending that the FCC issue a Notice of Inquiry or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to resolve unanswered questions and take corrective action. A recent article in RadioWorld describes the recommendations further.

The article goes on to say that on April 11, 2017, representatives of the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) met with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to discuss the problem of the rising radio noise floor. The AFCCE noted that:

  • There has been no systematic study of RF noise since the 1970s.
  • Many radio services are being compromised due to the rising noise floor.
  • “Internet of Things” system performance is suffering due to the background noise.
  • The FCC should re-establish the random sampling program to test products for compliance.
  • The FCC should stop turning a blind eye toward “at variance” practices.

They also pointed out that the FCC Interference Handbook for consumers was published in 1993 and is woefully out of date.

I’m pessimistic about this. I normally don’t get political on this blog, but this is an issue where technology intersects with politics, and in this political environment, I don’t see the FCC really tackling this issue. I really hope I’m wrong, though.

ARRL Executive Committee addresses membership growth, FCC cooperation

By 2 Comments

The meeting minutes for the March 25, 2017 meeting of the ARRL Board of Directors Executive Committee were just published. Two items caught my eye:

In the CEO report, there was this little gem:

The membership working group (that presented in January during the Board meeting) continues to work toward identifying ways to grow membership, especially among former members or never members.

I love the fact that they are addressing this issue. I still think that they should set a goal, and in the past, I’ve suggested a goal of 25% of licensed radio amateurs.

The CEO report goes on to say, “They are developing a ‘life-long learning’ plan to encourage activity and development among all age groups.” While that’s a worthy goal, I don’t think that’s what is going to get more hams to join the ARRL.

ARRL and FCC

The other item that was interesting to me was the report of the General Counsel, Chris Imlay, W3KD:

Mr. Imlay presented the report of the General Counsel. He was complimentary of new FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, and thinks enforcement efforts might be more successful due to Mr. Pai’s interest in the issue. The new Enforcement Bureau chief is also reported to be more “amateur friendly.” New opportunities seem to be emerging for cooperative efforts with the FCC in what Mr. Imlay described as a potential window of opportunity for better spectrum enforcement work, as well as building a better working relationship with the Commission on all issues.

Personally, all that I’ve heard about Mr. Pai so far has been negative. He opposes net neutrality rules, while I don’t know his personal opinion on the recent Senate action to unravel the Net privacy rules, I’d assume that if he had been opposed to it, the Senate wouldn’t have rushed to pass this legislation.

What is interesting is that work continues on a new memorandum of understanding between the ARRL and FCC. This could bring new responsibilities for the ARRL’s Official Observers. ARRL Second Vice President Brian Mileshosky, N5ZGT, is heading up this effort and says that his committee plans to present final recommendations later this year on revamping the Amateur Auxiliary, for ultimate consideration by the full Board.

FCC Dismisses Two Petitions from Radio Amateurs

By 7 Comments

The FCC recently dismissed two petitions from amateur radio operators for changes to the licensing system (see the ARRL bulletin below). One of them asked the FCC to make all Novices Technician Class licensees, all Advanceds Extra Class licensees, and then eliminate the Novice and Advanced license classes. The second asked the FCC to allow Advanced Class licensees to operate CW in the portions of the HF bands that are currently restricted to Extra Class licensees.

Personally, I wouldn’t be against making all Novices Techs. While I have worked some Novices, my guess is that 99.9% of them are inactive and giving them Tech privileges isn’t going to make much of a difference. Many current Extra Class licensees, especially those that actually passed the 20 wpm code test, would probably oppose the second petition, but again, I don’t think that had it been approved it would have made much of a difference.

Jeff, KE9V, opined on Twitter:

Anyone recall the last time the FCC sided with a petition from a radio ham? via
I certainly don’t, but it seems to me that most of the petitions submitted by hams—and not the ARRL—are not all that well considered. For example, while it might make sense for Advanceds to be elevated to Extra, the petition does not take into account that this was already considered—and rejected—when the rules were changed in 1999.
Also, is it really such a big chore to pass the Extra test? It does take some effort, but it’s not like getting an engineering degree, and with all the resources now available online, it’s not too much to ask.
Before I upgraded to Extra, I used to joke that I wanted to be the last living Advanced Class licensee in the U.S. As a result of this decision, those that currently hold Advanced tickets still have that chance.

SB QST @ ARL $ARLB002
ARLB002 FCC Dismisses Two Petitions from Radio Amateurs

ZCZC AG02
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 2 ARLB002
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT January 6, 2017
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB002
ARLB002 FCC Dismisses Two Petitions from Radio Amateurs

The FCC has turned down two petitions filed in 2016, each seeking similar changes in the Part 97 Amateur Service rules. James Edwin Whedbee, N0ECN, of Gladstone, Missouri, had asked the Commission to amend the rules to reduce the number of Amateur Radio operator classes to Technician, General, and Amateur Extra by merging remaining Novice class licensees into the Technician class and all Advanced class licensees into the Amateur Extra class. In a somewhat related petition, Jeffrey H. Siegell, WB2YRL, of Burke, Virginia, had requested that the FCC grant Advanced class license holders Morse code operating privileges equivalent to those enjoyed by Amateur Extra class licensees.

“Thus, Mr. Siegell’s proposed rule change is subsumed within the changes Mr. Whedbee requests, so our analysis is the same for both proposals,” the FCC said in dismissing the two petitions on January 5.

The FCC streamlined the Amateur Radio licensing system into three classes – Technician, General, and Amateur Extra – in 1999. While it no longer issues new Novice or Advanced class licenses, existing licenses can be renewed, and Novice and Advanced licensees retained their operating privileges.

“The Commission concluded that the three-class structure would streamline the licensing process, while still providing an incentive for licensees to advance their communication and technical skills,” the FCC recounted in its dismissal letter to Whedbee and Siegell. It specifically rejected suggestions that Novice and Advanced class licensees be automatically upgraded to a higher class, concluding that it would be inappropriate for these licensees to “receive additional privileges without passing the required examination elements.” The FCC cited the same reason in 2005, when it denied requests to automatically upgrade Technician licensees to General class and Advanced licensees to Amateur Extra class, as part of a wide-ranging proceeding.

The FCC said the two petitions “do not demonstrate, or even suggest, that any relevant circumstances have changed that would merit reconsideration of those decisions.”

Whedbee had argued that automatically upgrading current Novice and Advanced classes would simplify the rules and reduce the Commission’s costs and administrative burden, but the FCC said Whedbee provided no evidence that an administrative problem exists. “Moreover, such benefits would not outweigh the public interest in ensuring that amateur operators have the requisite incentive to advance their skill and technical knowledge in order to contribute to the advancement of the radio art and improvement of the Amateur Radio Service,” the FCC said.

“The Commission has already concluded that it will not automatically grant additional privileges to the discontinued license classes,” the FCC said. “Consequently, we conclude that the above-referenced petitions for rulemaking do not warrant further consideration at this time.”
NNNN
/EX

Noise floor report interesting, but I’m not optimistic

By 3 Comments

Last June, I reported that the FCC’s Technical Advisory Committee was asking licensed and unlicensed users of the electromagnetic spectrum to answer some questions about the noise they were experiencing and whether or not it was affecting their services. Specifically, they asked:

  • Is there a noise floor problem?
  • Where does the problem exist? Spectrally? Spatially? Temporally?
  • Is there quantitative evidence of the overall increase in the total integrated noise floor across various segments of the radio frequency spectrum?
  • How should a noise study be performed?

Well, the results are in, and Radio World recently published a summary of the responses that the FCC received. The FCC received 93 replies from 73 (great number, eh?) different people or organizations, including:

  • 23 companies/industry organizations
  • 39 RF professionals (broadcast and wireless)
  • 31 licensed radio amateurs
  • 9 responders did not reply to the questions asked

Respondents included the ARRL, the Society of Broadcast Engineers, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, ATT, and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. I found especially interesting comments from the Society of Broadcast Engineers. They include:

  • Increased cooperation is needed between manufacturers of Part 15 devices and users of radio spectrum to identify noise sources and take appropriate remedial action.
  • Radiated emission limits below 30 MHz in the FCC Part 15 rules for unintentional emitters should be enacted. There are presently no radiated emission limits below 30 MHz for most unintentional emitters.
  • Reduced Part 15 limits for LED lights should be enacted to be harmonized with the Part 18 lower limits for fluorescent bulbs.
  • Better labeling on packaging for Part 18 fluorescent bulbs and ballasts to better inform consumers of potential interference to radio, TV and cellphone reception in the residential environment.
  • Specific radiated and/or conducted emission limits for incidental emitters, such as motors or power lines, should be enacted.
  • Conducted emission limits on pulse-width motor controllers used in appliances should be enacted.
  • Substantially increase the visibility of enforcement in power line interference cases.

Other organizations made similar comments.

While all of this is certainly interesting, it won’t mean a thing if no action is taken on these comments. Given that the FCC is cutting back on its field offices, and our president-elect has said that he plans to reduce the number of governmental regulations, I’m not optimistic that we’ll see the noise situation get better before it gets worse. What do you all think?

 

 

Missouri radio amateur petitions FCC to designate “symbol communication” subbands

By Leave a Comment

As you can imagine, this news has caused a bit of a stir on the CW mailing lists that I’m on. As I read it, this fellow is petitioning the FCC to allow digital communications with a bandwidth up to 2.8 kHz in what is currently the CW/digital portions of the HF bands. As one commenter pointed out, “To permit data transmissions with a 20 dB bandwidth of 2800 Hz throughout the non-voice segments of the 3.5-30 MHz. This would constitute a significant source of interference for narrow-band modes.” This includes modes such as PSK-31. Please consider filing a comment opposing this petition. This is the comment that I filed.
–Dan 

FCC LogoSB QST @ ARL $ARLB016
ARLB016
ZCZC AG16
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 16 ARLB016
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT May 12, 2016
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB016
ARLB016 Missouri Radio Amateur Petitions FCC to Designate “Symbol Communication” Subbands

James E. Whedbee, N0ECN, of Gladstone, Missouri, has petitioned the FCC to designate Morse (radiotelegraphy) Amateur Radio band segments as “symbol communication” subbands. The FCC has invited comments on his Petition for Rule Making (RM-11769), filed on May 2. Arguing that retaining the current regime of “legacy” CW subbands has proven to be grossly inefficient, Whedbee said he’d like to see the FCC delete all privilege restrictions that limit any part of the Amateur Radio spectrum to Morse code to the exclusion of other modes.

RM-11769 can be found on the web at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001692464 .

“Nostalgia for retention of Morse code telegraphy-only subbands is also an insufficient reason to avoid moving forward to [the] elimination of such subbands, because nothing about this Petition suggests the elimination of the mode itself, only that it not be the sole authorized mode in the subject subbands,” Whedbee told the FCC.

Whedbee characterized CW-only subbands as “an excessive regulatory constraint, as well as a poor use of the spectrum concerned.” He proposed that the FCC’s Part 97 rules reflect the “ultimate form of communication reproduced at the receiving end.” As he explained it, his regulatory scheme would break down modes into three categories – “symbol communication mode” – for CW, digital, and other emission modes that reproduce a discrete symbol on the receiving end – “voice mode,” and “image mode.”

“[C]ontinuing regulation by specific emission designator is proving to be onerous with changes to the state of the art,” Whedbee said. “Accordingly, to continue developing the state of the art in radiocommunications, Amateur Radio needs to clearly get away from regulating in that fashion and return to consideration of what the
receiving end of the communication reproduces.”

He proposed that where the Part 97 rules refer to exclusive radiotelegraphy allocations – or subbands – privileges be changed to reflect symbol communication modes. Where the rules prohibit voice and image modes, he would revise the rules to reflect symbol communication modes. In situations where current rules prohibit symbol communication modes other than Morse, that voice and image modes would be permitted, “with an exception for manually keyed” radiotelegraphy.

For example, he would drop the distinction between 75 meters and 80 meters, authorizing symbol communication modes between 3.5 MHz and 3.65 MHz, and voice and image modes between 3.65 MHz and 4 MHz, with manual radiotelegraphy authorized throughout the band.

Whedbee told the FCC that, if his Petition is accepted for filing and put on public notice, he would submit an appendix spelling out proposed service rules as part of his Petition.

Commenters have 30 days to respond to Whedbee’s Petition.
NNNN
/EX

FCC Invites Comments on ARRL Petition That Seeks 80/75 Meter Adjustments

By 1 Comment

ARRLSB QST @ ARL $ARLB007
ARLB007 FCC Invites Comments on ARRL Petition That Seeks 80/75 Meter Adjustments
ZCZC AG07

QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 7  ARLB007
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT  February 23, 2016
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB007
ARLB007 FCC Invites Comments on ARRL Petition That Seeks 80/75 Meter Adjustments

The FCC has put the ARRL’s January Petition for Rule Making (RM 11759 ) on public notice and invited interested parties to comment on what the League has called “minimal but necessary changes” to 80 and 75 meters. The ARRL petitioned the FCC to fix a “shortfall in available RTTY/data spectrum” that the Commission created when it reapportioned 80 and 75 meters 10 years ago.

The League’s petition asked the FCC to shift the boundary between the 80 meter RTTY/data subband and the 75 meter phone/image subband from 3600 kHz to 3650 kHz. The proposed change received strong support from ARRL members, and the ARRL Board of Directors adopted it as policy at its July 2015 meeting. At that time the Board also agreed to seek RTTY and data privileges for Novice and Technician licensees within their current 15 meter CW subband, and to do the same on 80 meters, depending on the outcome of the 80/75 meter subband revision.

The petition asks the FCC to make the following changes to the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service rules, with respect to 80/75 meters:

  • Modify the RTTY/data subband, so that it extends from 3500 kHz to 3650 kHz.
  • Modify the phone/image subband, so that it extends from 3650 kHz to 4000 kHz.
  • Make 3600-3650 kHz available for General and Advanced Class licensees, as was the case prior to 2006.
  • Make 3600-3650 kHz available to Novice and Technician licensees for telegraphy – consistent with existing rules permitting Novices and Technicians to operate CW in the 80, 40, and 15 meter General and Advanced RTTY/data subbands.
  • Modify the rules governing automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS), to shift the ACDS segment from 3585-3600 kHz to 3600-3615 kHz, consistent with the IARU Region 1 and 2 band plans.

According to the ARRL, the FCC R&O in Docket 04-140 released in 2006 departed substantially and without justification from the rules proposed in the FCC’s so-called “Omnibus” Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), with respect to 75 and 80 meters. Among other actions, the resulting changes expanded voice privileges on additional frequencies in various bands, including 75 meters. The FCC shifted the phone/image subband from 3750-4000 kHz to 3600-4000 kHz, trimming the 80 meter RTTY/data subband from 3500-3750 kHz to 3500-3600 kHz and substantially changing “the entire dynamic of this band,” the League said.

Although the Omnibus R&O had indicated that incumbent licensees would not lose any operating privileges, some clearly did, the ARRL has pointed out. The most substantial adverse effect of the “unexpected and vast expansion” of the 75 meter phone/image subband, the League said, was the elimination of access to 3620-3635 kHz by ACDS.

The Omnibus R&O rule changes limited 80 meters to 3500-3600 kHz, and no longer authorized RTTY and data emissions above 3600 kHz. That the Omnibus R&O did not modify Part 97.221 of the rules to provide for ACDS “was clearly an oversight by the Commission.”

After the FCC denied a subsequent ARRL Petition for Reconsideration, the Commission replaced the inadvertently deleted 3620-3635 kHz ACDS segment with 3585-3600 kHz.

“Far from fixing the problem created by the error in the Omnibus R&O, the moving of the inadvertently deleted digital subband downward in frequency below 3600 kHz made the situation in the 80 meter RTTY/data subband even worse than it was,” the ARRL said. The result has been a shortfall in available RTTY/data spectrum at 80 meters.

“ARRL has analyzed the regulatory limitations as part of a comprehensive effort to make more efficient the use of those HF allocations, especially with respect to encouraging further experimentation and proficiency in narrowband digital communications technologies,” the League said in concluding its Petition. “The recommendations for modified band plans developed by ARRL necessitate the few, but important regulatory changes proposed.”

NNNN
/EX

ARRL Again Complains to FCC about Illegal Marketing of Electronic Lighting Ballasts

By 1 Comment

 

I rarely make political comments on this blog because amateur radio is mostly apolitical. Issues like this, however, are where amateur radio and politics intersect. Agencies like the FCC need the resources and the political backing to take action in cases like this. So, beware of politicians that are quick to claim that “government is the problem” and quick to cut funds for agencies like the FCC. Can you imagine the telecommunications chaos that we’d have without it? …Dan  

ARRLQST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 38 ARLB038
From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT December 29, 2015
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB038
ARLB038 ARRL Again Complains to FCC about Illegal Marketing of Electronic Lighting Ballasts

FCC LogoThe ARRL has again complained to the FCC to allege illegal marketing of electronic RF lighting ballasts, operating under Part 18 of the Commission’s rules, on the part of two major retailers. Letters went out this week to the FCC Enforcement Bureau and its Office of Engineering and Technology claiming Part 18 marketing regulations violations by Lowe’s and by Walmart stores. At issue is the sale of non-consumer RF lighting ballasts to consumers who, in several instances, were told by store personnel that it was okay to install these in a residential setting. In addition, non-consumer and residential-class ballasts are intermixed in store displays with inadequate signage to direct consumers to the correct choice. Both letters asked the FCC to investigate and commence enforcement proceedings with respect to the two stores’ marketing and retail sale of RF lighting devices in the US.

“ARRL purports to show that the retailer is…marketing and selling to consumers (by retail sale) non-consumer Part 18 RF lighting devices which are not intended for residential deployment, to consumers who have specifically noted their intention to deploy the devices in residential applications,” ARRL Chief Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, said in similar complaint letters to the Commission on December 28 and December 29. Part 18 emissions limits for consumer devices are far lower than those allowed for non-consumer devices.

“ARRL has received numerous complaints from Amateur Radio operators of significant noise in the medium (MF) and high frequency (HF) bands between 1.8 MHz and 30 MHz from ‘grow lights’ and other Part 15 and part 18 RF lighting devices,” Imlay continued. “These devices are easily capable of emitting RF noise sufficient to preclude Amateur Radio MF and HF communications (and, as well, AM broadcast station reception) throughout entire communities.”

Supporting both complaints are extensive and detailed reports by ARRL Laboratory EMC Specialist Mike Gruber, W1MG. The reports recount incidents of actual purchases of Part 18 RF lighting devices intended for commercial use to consumers who made clear to store personnel that they intended to use the devices at home. Gruber’s report includes multiple photographs that depict in-store displays of the products in question and showing signage that does not adequately explain which devices may be sold to whom.

The ARRL has asked that all non-consumer devices be removed from retail sale and marketing at the stores and to track and recall non-consumer devices already sold to consumers.

In his report, Gruber concluded that retailers should require purchasers of non-consumer Part 18 RF lighting devices to provide a valid contractor’s number. He also advised that the stores improve display signage to make it clear that non-consumer Part 18 devices may not be used in residential settings.

Earlier this year, the ARRL sent similar complaint letters to the FCC regarding the marketing of Part 18 RF lighting devices by The Home Depot. The League also has complained about specific RF lighting “grow light” devices that it has alleged exceed Part 18 emission limits.
NNNN
/EX