Slashdot Mirror


L.A. Building's Lights Interfere With Cellular Network, FCC Says

alphadogg writes "When a certain Los Angeles office building lights up, it's a dark day for nearby cellphone users, according to the Federal Communications Commission. Fluorescent lights at Ernst & Young Plaza, a 41-story tower near the heart of downtown, emit frequencies that interfere with the Verizon Wireless 700MHz network, the agency said in a citation issued against the building owner. The FCC's message comes through loud and clear in the filing: the building owner could be fined up to $16,000 a day if it keeps using the interfering lights, up to a total of $112,500. The alleged violation could also lead to 'criminal sanctions, including imprisonment,' the citation says."

158 comments

  1. The building owner is at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this a case where the manufacturer of the fluorescent fixtures needs to fix them so they don't emit interference? Don't electronics of that type have to go through FCC testing?

    1. Re:The building owner is at fault? by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If they continue to use the bulbs, yes the building owners are at fault. They cant just point the finger elsewhere once they have been notified.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:The building owner is at fault? by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isn't this a case where the manufacturer of the fluorescent fixtures needs to fix them so they don't emit interference?

      That only works before the person/company operating the fixtures is informed of the interference: once informed, they must disconnect the fixtures and cease operating them immediately --- otherwise, they are liable for potential forfeitures or criminal sanctions.

    3. Re:The building owner is at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building owner is at fault for using them, they then pass that fault onto the supplier via their contract.

      FCC will fine the owner, then the owner will demand the supplier replace the bulbs and seek compensation from them (ie get them to pay the fine). Otherwise there's nothing that would stop the owner continuing to use them.

      Meanwhile the FCC should indeed also go after the manufacturer since they're presumable in use elsewhere too.

    4. Re:The building owner is at fault? by Mitsoid · · Score: 1

      If the manufacturer is not a US company, the FCC can't do much to stop them directly.

      Yes, they could go after other places that use the bulbs, but it could also be a factor of:
      1. Bad batch
      2. Interaction with local device/electricity
      3. age-related

      Either way, the manf. will know there is a problem, and will likely address it since they may get bad publicity in the circles that matter to them (business building owners) much like a bad HDD story would circle around slashdot, I'm sure the people owning buildings communicate as well... Or own a few dozen other buildings....

      Ultimately, I think the "Fine Owner" solution is great.. There is an immediate requirement to fix an issue, and costs/blame is done after. Much better then assign blame then work on a solution!

    5. Re:The building owner is at fault? by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Chain of responsibility. The FCC tells the building owner to fix their building (which is emitting RF interference), the building owner take the lights down, replace them, and tell the maker of the lights to refund them or replace the lights with correctly working ones.

    6. Re:The building owner is at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they used incandescent light bulbs they would not have had this problem,

      welcome to the suck

    7. Re:The building owner is at fault? by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative

      TFA stated that the light ballasts were made by GE and that they were aware of the problem and had a procedure to replace them.
      Probably this is an issue of who is going to pay to replace all of the ballasts... this won't be cheap.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    8. Re:The building owner is at fault? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2

      The manufacturer of the ballasts already said they would replace them. But the building owners haven't taken advantage of this.

      Devices of that sort (unintentional emitters) are subject to FCC regulations but do not go through FCC testing. They are generally self-certified. That is, the makers submits a document indicating they have tested the device and it conforms.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    9. Re:The building owner is at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      High rises have not used incandescent builds to light their floors in over 50 years. If you read the article you would have known the interference is due to faulty ballasts in the GE UltraMax line and the company has offered to exchange them for working ballasts that do not cause interference.

      You are just another fucking moron.

    10. Re:The building owner is at fault? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      I'm imagining emailing the "abuse" contact for a electronics manufacturer about thier abusive light-bulbs, them opening a ticket, emailing you back a month later only to claim that they looked into it and they can't find any abuse coming from thier line of toasters. Maybe a few links to an FAQ about protecting yourself from abusive fridges.

    11. Re:The building owner is at fault? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      the FCC can't do much to stop them directly

      They can prohibit the importing and selling of their products in the US. That seems fairly direct to me.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:The building owner is at fault? by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      It's interesting they would produce interference way up into the 700Mhz range. It obviously must be harmonics from a switching type electronic ballast, but still that's really high frequency.

    13. Re:The building owner is at fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amazing thing is that the FCC has obviously already OK'd the use of the ballasts! So, who is at fault here: the manufacturer, the owner, or the FCC *who regulates this and has already allowed the use*??!!??

      It's obvious that the FCC fucked up once again, and is blaming the building owner rather than dealing with it in the proper way. Since they OK'd the use, they should be responsible for the replacement. But of course, that won't happen.

      In the end, the FCC is the problem here. As it is in many, many problems.

    14. Re:The building owner is at fault? by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Umm.. no. One set of devices is sent to the FCC for approval. They test it and then approve it or not.

      Something GE changed, or faulty production did not produce a product that was similar to what was submitted to the FCC. They (GE) are aware of the problem, and have a procedure to replace them. Now whether it is the building or GE that covers the costs of actually replacing them is between them, but usually they won't. They will send correctly working parts, but not cover the labor involved with the actual replacement.

      The FCC is funded by government taxes, which is paid for me, well, us. Why would we pay for a device that GE manufactured defectively? Really.

    15. Re:The building owner is at fault? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I think part of the issue is, sure GE will replace them, but who is going to install them.

      Most of the time, building maintenance will handle changing out a bad ballast. Telling them to go change *all* of them is a pretty big deal.

      In one building I worked in, they swapped all the florescent for LED fixtures. They worked every night for about a month, changing fixtures. It was a hired contractor who did the work, changing *all* the fixtures is way beyond the abilities of a handful of maintenance people.

      I don't see any indication here that they have a good way to identify *which* ballasts are bad. It's just "small number of its UltraMax ballasts". It may only require changing a couple dozen, instead of a couple thousand. It may only be the set closest to the windows on one side of the building. It may just be some on a few suites that were recently renovated.

      It doesn't sound like Verizon or the FCC has volunteered to do any additional work to mitigate the situation, like sending someone with a spectrum analyzer to identify which ones are faulty.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  2. including imprisonment? by jjeffries · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who are they planning to imprison for this? The president of the company? The guy who changes out the lightbulbs? Will they build a giant prison around the building?

    Neither Ernst nor Young are around to throw in the slammer, both having started their corps. in the early 1900s.

    1. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's find who ECM tested the bulbs. Which leads us back to FCC.

    2. Re: including imprisonment? by Kierthos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obviously, instead of imprisoning any of the current executives (because we can't have that), the building manager will be thrown in prison, because clearly, it's his fault.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re: including imprisonment? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Who are they planning to imprison for this? The president of the company? The guy who changes out the lightbulbs? Will they build a giant prison around the building?

      They could probably very well start by giving the utility operator a law enforcement order to disconnect and keep disconnected all electrical power service at the location.

      They would probably be making the forfeiture order against the company itself.

      As for criminal sanctions involving prison time ---- this would potentially go to officers of the company.

    4. Re: including imprisonment? by lxs · · Score: 1

      If they even were tested. Untested grey imports are much cheaper than properly certified light fixtures. A contractor probably has been cutting corners.

    5. Re: including imprisonment? by PuckSR · · Score: 5, Informative

      What are you talking about? Imprisoning executives? Do you understand how FCC regulations work?

      Very simple. The FCC is the "radiowaves police". If you get pulled over in a brand new car that has a faulty speedometer which is showing your speed as 20 mph slower than reality, the cop is still going to write you a speeding ticket ticket. Sure, it is the manufacturer's fault. The traffic cop's job is to make sure everyone is driving at the correct speed. The traffic cop isn't going to drive back the manufacturer and write them a citation.

      The end-user IS ALWAYS responsible for using equipment that interferes. It doesn't matter if he bought it legally. It doesn't matter why the interference is being caused. If you have a transmitter that is causing illegal interference, you are responsible. This just makes sense. Even if they went back to the reseller or manufacturer; that doesn't fix the problem in the "here and now". The only way to fix the immediate problem is to compel the end-user to STOP TRANSMITTING.

    6. Re: including imprisonment? by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      I think that it is the board members that ultimately have legal liability for incorporated entities is it not?

    7. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ernst & Young Plaza is owned by Brookfield Office Properties. The CEO of Brookfield Office Properties is Dennis Friedrich.
      Dennis Friedrich would face imprisonment, if they failed to comply.

    8. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Ernst nor Young are around to throw in the slammer, both having started their corps. in the early 1900s.

      is "started their corpse" a funny way of saying they died ?

    9. Re: including imprisonment? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      It is not. Corporations are limited liability organizations - They are legally liable up to the value of the corporation. After that it goes bankrupt.

      Now, one can sue board members if they were negligent - as in failed to due their duties - not in making bad business decisions. That being said, the are usually only a few 10s of millions of dollars between the board members and their insurance companies (and yes, most of them take out insurance.) so if they caused a multibillion dollar corporation to go bust one can collect a few pennies per share.

    10. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The feds will just bust into the building one day unannounced with a 200-man SWAT team, immediately shoot any dogs they see, lobbing flashbang gernades all over, throw everyone to the floor with machine guns pointed at their heads, and seize all the offending lights, plus everyone's computers, tablets, smartphones, all the security cameras too. All the building's occupants will be arrested and charged at minimum with conspiracy. Then they'll probably burn the building down and have any remaining rubble scooped up with bulldozers.

    11. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feds don't need to bust in, the secret service has 2 floors in that building.

    12. Re: including imprisonment? by lairdb · · Score: 1

      Yes -- the corporate officers are potentially criminally liable for the acts of the corporation. Assuming that the underlings acted responsibly and according to company policy and direction, then the criminal liability will run upstream, probably to the COO. (Of the building operator, if that wasn't obvious; typically the same as the building owner.)

      Incorporation is not a magic shield, however much the anti-corporatists would like you to think so.

      --
      "...and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys."
    13. Re: including imprisonment? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So do the SS floors use different lighting than Ernst and Young floors in the building? Inquiring minds can't wait to poke fun.

    14. Re: including imprisonment? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The only way to fix the immediate problem is to compel the end-user to STOP TRANSMITTING.

      This is true on so many levels.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re: including imprisonment? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Limited liability is about money, it does not mean you can swap jail time for bankruptcy.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re: including imprisonment? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      True. But I thought that the thrust of this thread was about civil actions and fines and if one can lock away board members for something the company does. And you can't.

      Now, if those board members fail to due their duty they can be sued for money in civil court. If they personally commit fraud that would be a different story - that would be criminal and jail time would apply.

    17. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is even softer than the speeding ticket example. They just got a fix-it ticket. Solve the problem, ticket goes away. Just don't drive past the cop going 20 over again.

    18. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't been to any of the other floors, but the lights on SS13 are the typical fluorescent tubes.

    19. Re: including imprisonment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are they planning to imprison for this? The president of the company? The guy who changes out the lightbulbs? Will they build a giant prison around the building?

      Neither Ernst nor Young are around to throw in the slammer, both having started their corps. in the early 1900s.

      the whole building (with the lightbulbs) should be prisoned in faradays cage ... or faradays jail as it would be then.

  3. "Must accept harmful interference..." by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What ever happened to the ubiqitous 47 C.F.R. 15.5? How did this building even find noncompliant lights to install, in the US? And weirder still, why the hell would a lighting system use 700MHz?

    1. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Tom+Hek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Switching transformers that are out on the market nowadays put out all sorts of crap, including noise on those frequencies. In Europe, police in the Netherlands and other countries search for illegal marijuana growers by scanning the RF band for strange noise from the transformers used for the lamps, sometimes they even get discovered by the cable companies that get complaints about channels not working or with a fuck load of noise, etc.

    2. Re: "Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's either a ballast or controller issue which should be quite easy to put right. RF in weed growing is only a problem for non magnetic ballasts

    3. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the long tube full of ionized gas makes a very good antenna.
      See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_antenna

    4. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cheap switching power supplies crank out plenty of harmonics, and you don't need a very high percentage of the power lighting an entire high-rise to overwhelm cellular signals.

      As for compliant lights (and drivers), I think most certifications specify "when installed according to specifications". For an industrial-scale lighting installation, I'd bet there are plenty of places where contractors could cut corners on grounding or shielding, throwing a product out of compliance.

      I'm no expert, though, so I'll defer to those who are.

    5. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by quetwo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not that the lighting system uses 700 Mhz, but that the ballasts or other high-energy equipment that is used to power these lights leak RF in the 700Mhz band. Cheap electronics are noisy and they leak out RF like crazy. Hell, just last week I found an old CRT monitor that was flooding out the aeronautical band at about 9,000 mV -- enough for my meter to go crazy over a football field-length away.

      Most likely the electronics are not grounded properly, or they aren't properly shielded. That is why the UL and and FCC require certifications on most classes of devices in order to catch this stuff. Of course, with our global economy it is easy to order cheap crap from Asia or elsewhere that was never tested by the UL or FCC.

    6. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without reading the CFR, 700mhz is probably licensed spectrum, and probably does not apply - licensee takes priority. The lighting system probably is a noise issue, not a purposeful emission.

      CM

    7. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Of course, with our global economy it is easy to order cheap crap from Asia or elsewhere that was never tested by the UL or FCC.

      Isn't that exactly the type of stuff customs is supposed to be keeping out of the US if not bearing the proper UL or FCC cert?

    8. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And weirder still, why the hell would a lighting system use 700MHz

      Not intentionally.

      All electronic circuits are likely to emit some RF... it's only an issue if it's strong. Some circuits will therefore emit RF that the designers never intended. The designers will try to design the circuits in such a way they don't emit problematic RF but in this case they must have failed to take something into account. It could also be harmonics of a frequency that is desired, or a faulty circuit (which is less likely if it's affecting all the lights, as it likely is if it's strong enough to be such an issue).

    9. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by grumling · · Score: 1

      One of our club repeaters started getting a lot of QRM (interference) back in November. It is located on top of a ski mountain in a building that houses a small restaurant. It turned out when they opened the restaurant and turned on the florescent lights the QRM started. At the end of the day they shut off the lights and it stopped. It took the better part of a day for the guys to track down the source, thinking it had to be something like a wireless router or plasma TV. It's likely that it was just one bad ballast or transformer, but it was more than enough to make the repeater unusable.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    10. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by dbc · · Score: 1

      Part 15??? Ha ha ha..... hooooweeeee..... let me catch my breath......

      You mean the part of the Code of Federal Regulations to keep unlicensed RF emitters from causing excessive harmful interference? You mean the part of the CFR's where manufacturers self-certify that they pass? You mean the part of the CFR's where even *if* the manufacturer sends out for certification, they only send a few sample "lab queen" units that have been carefully selected? And where they send it to a lab that has zero oversight requirements from the FCC? You mean the same part 15 where getting any enforcement attention *at* *all* from the FCC requires months of lobbying from someone with influenece?

      The lax to non-existent enforcement standards around part 15 is why the entire spectrum from DC to daylight is becoming a cesspool. Part 15 is a cruel joke.

    11. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by evilviper · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to the ubiqitous 47 C.F.R. 15.5? How did this building even find noncompliant lights to install, in the US?

      Paragraph 6 of TFA...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Yew2 · · Score: 2

      not when youre paying $2 for it on ebay and its coming in zillions of tiny packages one at a time

      --
      will work for dragon quest localization
    13. Re: "Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FCC is a federal agency and there is enforcement involved. The UL is a private commercial oufit. Building codes and Insurance companies usually mandate UL or equivalent standards compliance.

    14. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by mysidia · · Score: 1

      not when youre paying $2 for it on ebay and its coming in zillions of tiny packages one at a time

      They just have to check 1 in 10 of the zillions of tiny packages, and fine the crap out of the recipient, as in a $10,000 penalty for whoever the tiny package was being shipped to, every time a shipment found to contain uncertified electronics requiring FCC/UL certification for import.

    15. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sometimes they even get discovered by the cable companies that get complaints about channels not working or with a fuck load of noise, etc.

      Thanks, that solved it for my sister's annoying problem of partially showing channels. Unfortunately, the next step would be to search all surrounding apartments for drug paraphernalia and sneaks living in terrariums with unlicensed thermal lights since the cable company says there have been no complaints otherwise.

    16. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How did this building even find noncompliant lights to install"

      That's explained in the article.

    17. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idealistic dreamer, aren't you? They're so cute when they're young, but watch out when their eyes eventually open.

    18. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I never understood what that sentence means anyway. How could you even create a device that doesn't "accept" interference? If you figure out a clever way to filter out noise, you're not allowed to use it?

    19. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by DTentilhao · · Score: 2

      "What ever happened to the ubiqitous 47 C.F.R. 15.5? How did this building even find noncompliant lights to install, in the US? And weirder still, why the hell would a lighting system use 700MHz?"

      They don't operate at 700mhz, they do use a high frequency switching square wave operating at 30kHz to 100kHz, which produces harmonics at multiple of the fundamental frequency and not enough shielding can lead to electromagnetic interference ..

    20. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by J+Story · · Score: 1

      For the terminally curious, can you tell us how the situation was finally resolved, and how much effort/money it took?

    21. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Only if they are aware there is a problem. Mostly they will look, see it is lighting stuff which is legal to import, and make sure the importer has paid the appropriate import tax on it.

    22. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by pla · · Score: 0

      It just means that the FCC likes its money the same way all government agencies do.

      If they license (aka "accept a bribe for monopoly use of a free public resource") a chunk of spectrum to your neighbor so he can run a Christian Rock radio station, you have absolutely no right to complain that your microwave, can opener, and dog fountain all buzz along non-stop to Petra's Greatest Hits.

      If, however, your blender causes even the slightest bit of feedback for your neighbor's radio station, you can expect the feds to swoop in with guns drawn to confiscate and destroy every electronic device in your house.

      Really quite a great scam!

    23. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by sjames · · Score: 1

      Part 15 devices may not emit disruptive signals. The devices must accept such interference but the FCC doesn't have to.

      Apparently they got the lights from GE who have admitted that some of that model do have a problem with RF emissions in that range.

      60Hz flourescents cause headaches and eye strain. Good florescents run at a higher frequency to eliminate the flicker. Going with a higher frequency in a switching power supply also allows for use of a smaller, lighter, and cheaper transformer.

      700MHz is quite high though. I'm guessing it's a harmonic of the frequency they actually use.

    24. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      In this case, the fixtures are GE branded. GE has admitted that some of that model have a defect.

    25. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, then I will order some cheap electronics to your house.

      BTW: I'm not sure about US but import to Europe is not illegal. Usage may be depending on circumstances.

    26. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by sjames · · Score: 1

      In the sense that if there is interference you cannot get it resolved by filing a complaint with the FCC.

    27. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

      I would guess that the ballasts have plastic cases instead of metal, same for the fixtures. Normally between the housing and fixture all the RF gets stopped.

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    28. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed! If my shitty microwave turns every TV screen in 300ft radius into abstract art - tough titties, get a Hulu subscription, losers, I'm not eating my pizza cold.

      PS: Totally agree, all attempts to regulate the use of any public resource is a scam. That's why I'm also going to drive whenever, however and wherever I want on the roads. I'm not giving in into Department of Transport scam gouging people for "licenses" and limiting my ability to use public roads with arbitrary rules!

    29. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Without reading the CFR, 700mhz is probably licensed spectrum, and probably does not apply - licensee takes priority. The lighting system probably is a noise issue, not a purposeful emission.

      CM

      I thought the 700 mhz band was specifically the unlicensed spectrum we freed up by ending analog TV transmission.

    30. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by grumling · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the cost of repair was, it wasn't up to our club to fix it. In fact, I'm not entirely sure it has been fixed yet, but if we don't get resolution we can contact the FCC. We all hope it doesn't come to that, and I'm sure the owner will cooperate with us since we rent space in the same building.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    31. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not when youre paying $2 for it on ebay and its coming in zillions of tiny packages one at a time

      They just have to check 1 in 10 of the zillions of tiny packages, and fine the crap out of the recipient,
      as in a $10,000 penalty for whoever the tiny package was being shipped to, every time a shipment found to contain uncertified electronics requiring FCC/UL certification for import.

      Nice, except... you're intercepting the shipment *before* I've received it, so how on earth would I know if it wasn't FCC/UL certified before I've even received it? If I import/buy 10,000 gallons of baby formula from China, and it's intercepted and found to be tainted with Melamine, it's not my fault (although it may be my monetary loss) that it is tainted - it would only be illegal of me, in fact, if I sold it to anyone here after I received it (and even then, while I could be sued, technically not "illegal" then either unless I knew it was tainted).

      It really shouldn't be a $10K fine for "whoever it's being shipped to", it should be a $100K fine on whoever was *shipping* it/producing it - sending food/electronics/whatever into the country that does not meet our countries laws/rules should be illegal. You're arguing the equivalent of "the government should fine the people who buy the snake oil that is actually toxic stuff laced with mercury that's probably killing them, and let the snake oil *salesman* off scott free to continue to hawk their toxic stuff on the market to others." You'll note that historically that is why the FDA was created, to stop the snake oil *salesman*, and protect the consumer, not stop the consumer and let the salesman continue (although, to be honest, with the rampant revolving-door corruption in our government now, it is rapidly becoming that more and more).

    32. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't acceptance. The receiving devices are accepting the interference. The issue is the radiation:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr...

      b and c indicate what's going wrong here.

      The system isn't emitting on 700MHz intentionally. It's just that the equipment is out of spec. Either it was designed wrong and the proper testing not done or else it was designed correctly and not built properly so the particular units that were installed in this building are out of spec.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    33. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Not that I'm a great fan of Christian Rock, but I have to feel that there are more people who would prefer to listen to that genre of music as compared to the random electrical noise of your blender. Haven't recently checked on the popularity of the heavy metal scene, but I think I'm right.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    34. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, it's the licensed spectrum used by LTE.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    35. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by cusco · · Score: 2

      Apparently you don't realize that the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) is not a Federal agency, so has no say as to whether anything can be imported or not. UL approval may be required by insurers (thus the 'underwriters' part of the name) and may be incorporated into building codes, but nothing about UL approval has the force of law.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    36. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      it should be a $100K fine on whoever was *shipping* it/producing it

      The problem is the sender is not in the US and may not even be identifiable. So enforcing anything against them is very difficult.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    37. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by matfud · · Score: 1

      The manufactorer may be selling a legal product in many juristictions. It is up to the buyer to determine if it is legal in their juristication.

      The people who made it may know but the companies who retail it are not them. And if they are not covered by FCC regulations (different country) why would they care?

    38. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I never understood what that sentence means anyway. How could you even create a device that doesn't "accept" interference? If you figure out a clever way to filter out noise, you're not allowed to use it?

      Basically it means that if there's some interference that occurs from a licensed user that results in your product exploding when powered on, it's your fault. You cannot redirect blame to the licensed spectrum user. Your product may accept it by handling it safely (i.e., not blowing up) using filters and whatnot, or it may decide it's immune enough to handle it.

      It's basically saying that your device is responsible for all interference, even ones that lead to undesired, unknown or unspecified behavior.

      The Part 15 manufacturer cannot deflect blame for the product malfunctioning to the licensed user even if it's the licensed user operating not-quite-to-spec, even if the only area where it fails is in the licensed user's location, etc. Effectively, it's "if it doesn't work because of RFI, tough."

    39. Re:"Must accept harmful interference..." by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      The only caveat to this is in the cases of the following:

      1) Medical devices

      2) Aeronautical devices

      3) Emergency Response devices

      4) Milspec devices

      For these, the owners CAN go after the licensee of the spectrum if their operating even slightly out of spec interferes with the operation of these devices.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  4. Divine? by aslashdotaccount · · Score: 0

    Are they sure it's the lights of the building and not the aura of an angel?

    1. Re:Divine? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Measurements will reveal that the emitted frequency is actually 666 MHz, pointing to a less divine source. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. Re: including imprisonment? & perfect timing by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    As the decriminalization of marijuana continues along it's mary way, there will develop a need to fill prison beds.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  6. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    - Building has non-compliant GI made FL ballasts, that they know there are some defects, it otherwise passed the FCC
    - Building management seems negligent on fixing the problem in a timely manner.

  7. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by gl4ss · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it needs a web interface where you can just go by fuckslashdot.com or something similar. that's why slashdot reigns over some forums. easier to type in a pinch at work or where ever.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. need action on infomercials as interference... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the DFW area over 50% of the OTA TV channels are strictly continuous ads -"infomercials." In view of the limited RF spectrum, why isn't this interference?

  9. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All right. I took a peek into comp.misc through the Google Groups web interface. What I am seeing there is just more of this "fuck beta" raving and a lot of just general spam. No thanks.

  10. Re: including imprisonment? & perfect timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the decriminalization of marijuana continues along it's mary way

    mary Way? something tells me you want to become a /. editor

  11. Re: including imprisonment? & perfect timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hah, OT but funny.
    I can hear the PrisonCorp lobbyists now.
    "But $congresscritter, we need this criminalisation legislation to keep american jobs!"

  12. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why not something more specific.

    comp.misc.slashdot perhaps?

    You clearly don't know Usenet rules. A more specific group for comp.misc would be comp.slashdot. Which could then be split up into comp.slashdot.developers, comp.slashdot.ask, etc. with comp.slashdot.misc for the stuff that doesn't go into one of the more specific groups.

    However given the group creation rules (assuming they are still enforced), it would be easier to create alt.slashdot instead of comp.slashdot (alt.ALL is a hierarchy with much more relaxed group creation rules).

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. An Opportunity is disguise? by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 1

    Upgrade to LED lights. High upfront costs but can use the same fixtures, uses less power, and absolutely no chance of having frequency issues.

    1. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Um, how can you be so certain about that? You know something about off-line switchers you want to share with us?

      I mean, this circuit topology is very recent:

      http://newscenter.ti.com/2013-...

      Are you claiming that now every single LED lighbulb out there uses this now? Every single one?

    2. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by grumling · · Score: 1

      Cheap switching power supplies can still put out a bunch of RFI. Cost of upgrading is non-trivial when talking about an entire office building. If the cell tower is on or next to the offending building it can be degraded by only one or two faulty units.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    3. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding from the article that the ballasts were the issue. LEDs do not use the fixture's ballast, they have their own built in. To hook them up, you must disconnect the fixture's ballasts completely. And yes, at roughly $25 a tube, they're pricey for an office building that probably has a few thousand.

    4. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      uses less power,

      Nope.

      No commercial buildings are using incandescent lights (and certainly not this one sine they're RF quiet). Modern LEDs and modern fluoresent tubes have comparable efficiency. They both top out at a little above 100lm/W in practical situations.

      IOW, LEDs won't save any money at all.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

      uses less power,

      Nope.

      No commercial buildings are using incandescent lights (and certainly not this one sine they're RF quiet). Modern LEDs and modern fluoresent tubes have comparable efficiency. They both top out at a little above 100lm/W in practical situations.

      IOW, LEDs won't save any money at all.

      I don't think that's accurate. Most LEDs I've seen are a little more efficient fluorescent bulbs, plus they last a lot longer. While the LED bulbs are still more expensive initially in most cases, I think the increased efficiency and longer life will balance out in their favor at the end. You might be right if (only) the fluorescent bulbs were free.

      --
      R.Mo
    6. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the efficacy of the light source (fluorescent tube or LEDs) is comparable, the system efficacy that includes the luminaire (reflectors, etc.) is higher for LEDs, because LEDs are directional while most fluorescent tubes also radiate light up into the luminaire. End result is that you can use lower-power LEDs to get the same luminous flux or same illumination out of the luminaire.

    7. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Most LEDs I've seen are a little more efficient fluorescent bulbs, plus they last a lot longer.

      Two things: CFLs are less efficient than standard linear. light fluorescents. Second, commercial CFLs and fluorescents last a lot longer than cheapie ones you might get from most stores: tubes exist for ratings up to 30k hours.

      Thirdly...

      Our three main points are: 1) linear tubes, 2) longer life and 3) don't forget to compare modern tubes on modern ballasts and starters. And an almost fanatical devotion to the pope.

      Our points include: 1)...

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:An Opportunity is disguise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IOW, LEDs won't save any money at all.

      Except that, conservatively, LEDs are rated to last 3 times longer (yet are not 3x moree expensive): 60K hours rated lifespan for LED vs. 20K lifespan for flourescent. Also, the lifespan rating for lights is crap: flourescent lights never make it to 20K hours before they flicker or die, and LEDs fucking last forever (yes, long after the last red dwarf snufs out, the universe will still be lit by LEDs made in the 1960s).

  14. Corporations are people too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imprison the corporation!

  15. Re: including imprisonment? & perfect timing by JustOK · · Score: 1

    Naw, he's probably one of those bald long haired hippies what like to smoke that rope dope

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  16. CATV leakage is an issue too by grumling · · Score: 5, Informative

    As Verizon (especially) lights up LTE they bring in trucks that look for problems in the 700MHz bands. They are taking a proactive approach to cleaning up the band before RFI causes problems. This makes sense since LTE uses QAM and high symbol rates to push data, meaning that the carrier to noise requirements are much higher than 3G. Most cable companies use the same frequency band, up to 750MHz. To make matters worse, cable systems use QAM carriers too, so the demodulators can get confused and pick up the wrong carrier.

    Cable companies monitor their plant for signal egress from broken coax, cracked housings, poor craftsmanship, etc (leakage), but usually around 115MHz, in the aeronautical bands (since there's been cases of planes lining up on leaks instead of the glide path). Because some types of leaks are frequency dependent, a system that looks great in the aeronautical band might leak like a sieve at 700MHz. In fact a certain set top box happened to have vent slots that made a perfect antenna at 700MHz.

    http://www.slideshare.net/Cisc...

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    1. Re:CATV leakage is an issue too by quetwo · · Score: 1

      CATV is heavily regulated by the FCC, because they use high RF energy that duplicates the RF spectrum that exists outside the cable network. Leaks of RF can and are very problematic for everybody involved. Cable companies are required to do very regular checks of their plant for leaks and if they find them are required to do immediate remediations. While a big focus of CLIs are in the aeronautical band (because of the atmosphere, leaks often go "up" and cause issues for airplanes), the entire spectrum needs to be tight. And on long-lines where you are pushing the RF energy to +60dBm, leaks can be problematic for a very large distance if they actual do happen. Regardless of QAM modulation or not, if there is noise on the wire you start to get errors -- and if you are running at QAM256 like most cable plants, there is very little room for error.

    2. Re:CATV leakage is an issue too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DOCSIS3 uses CDMA for QAM256 and can handle a lot of noise. CDMA is like magic. I've seen DOCSIS3 modems that bonded 8 CDMA channels all on the same physical channel and got 320mb/s over that single 6mhz band. Not too shabby.

    3. Re:CATV leakage is an issue too by grumling · · Score: 1

      You're sort of confusing leaks and ingress, but because they go hand in hand you get a pass. A leaking cable system usually doesn't cause problems for the cable system, except that a break in the shield will often cause an impedance mismatch, which will in-turn cause microreflections (standing waves) on the transmission line. I've driven out poorly maintained plants, where my leakage detector never stopped, but for the most part the plant still was able to deliver good bit error ratios and decent analog pictures.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  17. Re:Fucking BETA building by maxwell+demon · · Score: 0

    If their bulbs emit beta radiation, they indeed should replace them immediately. ;-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  18. Re: Doesn't each device have a disclaimer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. Specific classes of devices must accept all interference. Devices in other frequency bands can be highly protected and anything interfering with them prohibited from emitting.

    Wifi is an example of "must tolerate interference" which is why it's open and flexible and easy to deploy.

  19. Re:Doesn't each device have a disclaimer? by quetwo · · Score: 1

    The FCC regulates RF airspace. They are involved with anything that emits or accepts RF energy, whether purposefully or not. They are the responsible federal agency for enforcing this matter.

  20. Re:comp.slashdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reddit works way better

  21. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by arth1 · · Score: 1

    All right. I took a peek into comp.misc [google.com] through the Google Groups web interface. What I am seeing there is just more of this "fuck beta" raving and a lot of just general spam. No thanks.

    On the other hand, you can filter the posts according to your own criteria, unlike a web forum where the filtering happens centrally, if at all. As was pointed out in another article here just the other day, having the power at the edge instead of the core brings some unique advantages.
    If you don't want "fuck beta" posts, there's a regexp for that!

  22. Re:Duck for cover, but Hawaii full of liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    trade war 2.0

  23. By any chance is there a vault in that building? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The circuits that cannnot be cut are cut automatically in response to a interference incident. You asked for miracles, Mysidia, I give you the FCC.

  24. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

    And for those who want to use an easy all-in-one program to participate in Usenet, the Seamonkey web suite still includes an NNTP newsreader component (combined with the email component.) In addition to the Mozilla browser from before the beta-dudes at Firefox wrecked it, incidentally.

  25. High frequency electronic ballast circuits .. by DTentilhao · · Score: 1

    "Here’s what you need to know about dimming fluorescent lighting" link

  26. How does one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does one post to comp.misc (via a browser)?

  27. Frequency jammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if there is a square wave generator in the circuit (I.e., all frequencies-- an interrupter causes this problem with DC circuits in boats,for example, but it's easily fixed).

  28. Seems like the punishment is directed incorrectly by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I'd say whoever made the light fixtures, and sold them for general use emitting that much interference is really the person against whom they should be acting.

    The article says the lights are made by GE, who was aware that some of their ballasts were causing interference. IF the building owner was advised, and they failed to replace them, then they're at fault. If GE's replacement program was chintzy (ie they'd replace the fixture, but building owners had to pay for labor, for example), then they should be the target here.

    --
    -Styopa
  29. After 17th by maratumba · · Score: 0

    What's going to happen after 17th. Will we keep this up? Or just abandon slashdot for good?

  30. Re:Beta interferes by richlv · · Score: 0

    it could be great if /. would have separate comment sections. you could go over to the "beta" one and stop being annoyed. or annoying...

    --
    Rich
  31. fuck em by Osgeld · · Score: 0

    112 grand fine is cheaper than redoing the lighting system of a skyscraper, besides why is verizion that low anyway

  32. Job killing regulations.... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0
    Wondering what happened to all those people who fall over themselves denouncing the government interfering with free markets, regulations being job killers and taxation being theft etc etc? All those ideas look attractive in the abstract. On the ground when the free market is interfering with your drinking water supply (like it happened in Charleston recently) or when some building interferes with cell phones, that is when we want the regulators to have some power. But we have systematically cut their budgets, driven all competent people out of civil service by constant insults.

    The sad thing is, polluters follow the "power rule", that is 80% of the pollution is caused by 20% of the polluters, they use lobbying and public (mis)information campaigns that bias the general population against the civil service.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  33. GOOD! by MXB2001 · · Score: 0

    Jam that technojunk! Free up the airwaves again for real broadcast TV.

    --
    01/01/01
  34. Re:FUCK YOUR BETA AND FUCK YOU, YOU INCOMPETENT FA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dislike Beta as much as the next AC, but leave the gays out of it you homophobic fuck.

  35. Funny thing by bytesex · · Score: 1

    Just the other day I read in a magazine how a lot of LED lights are not at all EMC-proof. They may have an efficiency of 80+ percent, but they emit radio for the rest of it.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:Funny thing by vandamme · · Score: 1

      It's the switching power supplies, that generate high-speed, high power pulses, that radiate if not shielded or filtered properly. This is just an engineering problem, not an innate characteristic of LEDs. Best is to use inductors to feed the LEDs, so they have a constant current.

  36. If they think the lights are causing interference by jennatalia · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should check the CRTs as well. All of that EMI pr0n floating around. Question: What type of communications do Christians use? Answer: Ham Radio

  37. Re: including imprisonment? & perfect timing by sjames · · Score: 1

    Perhaps he meant Mary Jane?

  38. Re:Beta interferes by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    Humanity interferes with my faith in humanity...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  39. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by fsterman · · Score: 1

    Because Beta has exposed a fatal flaw in web- based communities, ie that the current owner of a domain around which a community has formed can choose to do whatever they like, the new official Slashdot is on Usenet, at comp.misc and I hope to see you all there.

    Eternal September is a free Usenet provider, with the caveat that they do not carry binary (warez+porn) groups. Head on over and get your account today, and then we'll see each other on comp.misc!

    The intersection of people who regularly read Usenet and the people pissed off at /. moving past it's late 90's development model is nearly perfect.

    --
    Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
  40. Re:Seems like the punishment is directed incorrect by sjames · · Score: 2

    It doesn't matter what GE does if the building keeps the old fixtures in use.

    The building management was notified of the problem last April by the FCC. The management claimed they knew about the problem and were investigating. They agreed to send a report of the problem and remediation plan in 60 days. At that time, no fines were contemplated. Here we are 10 months later and no report and no remediation. Given that, the FCC has no reason to believe they'll ever do anything about it without significant prodding.

    Back in April, they had plenty of time to contact GE and insist on replacements and compensation for the cost of swapping them out. Had they done it then, they could have avoided major disruptions.

  41. I'm conflicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an amateur astronomer, I'm all in favor of turning off as many lights as possible. No, turning these off in the middle of city will make no difference, but symbolically I like.

    I also hate cell phones.... ...from a Ram Dass perspective. Bascially just the title of his book, Be Here Now. You can't talk on a cell phone and be here now.
    You can almost run me over crossing the street, however. I was "be here now," jumped out of the way, and am still alive to post rants at windmills on internet sites.

  42. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by Yahooti · · Score: 1

    Does Digg even work anymore? It was once enjoyable like Slashdot used to be.

  43. Re:Seems like the punishment is directed incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what GE does if the building keeps the old fixtures in use.

    The building management was notified of the problem last April by the FCC. The management claimed they knew about the problem and were investigating. They agreed to send a report of the problem and remediation plan in 60 days. At that time, no fines were contemplated. Here we are 10 months later and no report and no remediation. Given that, the FCC has no reason to believe they'll ever do anything about it without significant prodding.

    Back in April, they had plenty of time to contact GE and insist on replacements and compensation for the cost of swapping them out. Had they done it then, they could have avoided major disruptions.

    Bingo. Presumably they could have hired someone to come in with a spectrum analyzer or some such equipment and pinpointed the problematic fixtures... at the least, they could have come back in 60 days and said "we have 10,000 fixtures and we've retained a company to help us identify the faulty ones, but need another 90 days to find & remediate them ("a plan") - and it would have at least shown they were doing something. They chose to do nothing, and it's been the better part of a year - they obviously need some "prodding" to take it seriously.

  44. fluorescent 40 watt: $4. led 40 watt: $472 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > I think the increased efficiency and longer life will balance out in their favor at the end.

    The efficiency of fluorescent tubes with a modern ballast is comparable. So the only two factors are cost and lifespan. At say 2 years per tube, about $20 will cover ten years of use. With bulk discounts, it might cost half that, $10.

    An LED fixture with approximately the same light output is $472. For now, and probably for the next 10 years, florescent, halide, and some other options make sense for bulk lighting, but LED doesn't even begin to come close. Led makes sense for small amounts of directed light, such as a reading light, or an accent light on a picture. It makes no sense for lighting an entire office building, factory supermarket, parking lot, etc.

  45. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    You clearly don't know Usenet rules. A more specific group for comp.misc would be comp.slashdot. Which could then be split up into comp.slashdot.developers, comp.slashdot.ask,

    ... comp.slashdot.judean.peoples.front, comp.slashdot.peoples.front.of.judea, ...

  46. Re:Beta interferes by glavenoid · · Score: 1

    I think that's actually a feature they play to implement *in* the beta.

    --
    I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.
  47. Re:comp.slashdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works pretty well but it's full of dipshit redditors...

  48. Newer LED lights known to cause interference by PassMark · · Score: 2

    After a bunch of anecdotal reports we did some measurements of radio interference caused by LED lighting (and the power supplies included in these globes).

    Most were OK, but there are a bunch that spray out a large amount of broad band interference. Some spectrum graphs are here showing a few lights in their on and off states.
    http://www.ledbenchmark.com/fa...

    Interference was seen in the digital radio bands, FM radio, DAB bands, everywhere really. So the only thing surprising about this post is the lack of publicity the problem has been given to date.

  49. Have the potential to be lower power. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Modern LEDs and modern fluoresent tubes have comparable efficiency.

    In more detail: LEDs have the potential to be about as much more efficient than switcher-ballasted flurorescents as such fluorescents are more efficient than generic incandescents. Actual LED fixtures have been improving and right now are at the point where they're matching and starting to edge past fluorescents.

    Give 'em a few more years and LEDs should be substantially ahead of fluorescents. But this year they're just about tied.

    (This is why I haven't replaced my fluorescents with LEDs yet. I plan to do it in a few more years, when my current stock of spares, enough for about one more bulb change, is used up. I'm abouit to switch the yard lghting, though, because the motion detector / fluorescent fixture combination has been problematic and is now failing.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  50. Re:Usenet is the new Slashdot, see you in comp.mis by xenobyte · · Score: 0

    comp.slashdot.beta.sucks and comp.slashdot.beta.sucks.comments.sucks ...

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  51. Really? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    How can these ballasts cause disturbances outside the building? - The building itself will act as a partial shield (try getting a cell signal inside - can be next to impossible) and the basic emission cannot be that powerful.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:Really? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      The wavelength at 700 MHz is 42 cm, so a half-wavelength hole (less than a foot) will radiate. It can also disperse, attenuate and garble a nice clean signal like your cell phone, so you don't get a clear signal. But hundreds of noisy switching power supplies in a building can generate some bodacious noise outside.

  52. In other parts of the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Sweden, somebody noticed her new electric cooker was interfering with iPhone. When asking the company that produced the appliance, they were told those ovens are compatible only with Samsung products, so they should change their phone. Link to the article in Swedish:

    http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/bara-samsung-kompatibel-med-spis/

  53. Ha ha! by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Grocer's apostrophe. Idiots.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  54. Contact your friendly neighborhood ham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can find a ham radio club, they will usually have people in them who know about foxhunting (RF direction-finding) and have the equipment to do it. They will likely do it for fun (and for the fact that they hate RF interference more than anyone on earth).