Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13442 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 08:29:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO warrior-inbound.services.quay.plus.net) (212.159.14.227) by excalibur-qfe1-smtp-plusnet.harl.plus.net with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 08:29:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 8297 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 08:27:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO post.thorcom.com) (212.172.148.70) by warrior with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 08:27:49 -0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15d5zG-000202-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 09:18:42 +0100 Received: from carbon.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.92]) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 15d5zF-0001zx-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 09:18:41 +0100 Received: from [213.123.19.69] (helo=default) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15d5yb-0006N3-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2001 09:18:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c132be$53e3d620$45137bd5@default> From: "Alan Melia" To: "LF-Group" Subject: LF: re TV QRM Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 00:07:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group Sender: Hi Steve, well I suspect the problems will be swept away by changing the verbage if we were to make too big a fuss with the authorities. I suspect the actual conditions of the TV licence depend on one of the Radio Telgraphy Acts possibly modified by later Radio Communications Bills. I remember seeing that in the late 50s or early 60 there was similar wording on the TV licence document. Then quite suddenly it changed to say "no undue interference". I thought at the time that was sneaky as the 10.125kHz from the old 405 line service was a killer on the MF bands. I am not sure whether it stated "broadcast services" or not. To use this with the RA "sledgehammer" would just be to get them to change that line on the next licence print (lowest cost option). My guess is that the dealer is the most vulnerable point of attack. First he stands to loose a customer and as conditions are at the moment no-one wants that. The customer could quite correctly cite the Sale of Goods Act at him and invoke the local Trading Standards. He might also worry about the possibility of being sued by the customer, a growing problem in the UK with solicitors looking for business everywhere. It is also a gentle way to get a slight edge in the negotiations with your neighbour I would suggest. We always seem to be at a disadvantage. The knock out blow is when you offer to cure it for no charge without voiding the warranty. I think it should be possible to get the dealer to pay for a braid-breaker and/or a mains filter (RSGB EMC bits??). It the dealer says there is no EMC spec below 1MHz, which is probably correct, you can tell him that you are not invoking that legislation. The RT Act as I understand it in essence requires that these radiations be kept within the boundaries of your own premises. (a rather difficult thing to achieve!!) As a final blast how out the Human Rights legislation....you must surely have a right to enjoy your chosen hobby within your own premises without unwarranted interference from another property!! This one could bite both ways if you have TVI problems when you transmit!! "Hobby-horse" now stabled !! Good luck one and all. Cheers de Alan G3NYK Alan.Melia@btinternet.com