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."

23 of 158 comments (clear)

  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 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?
    4. 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
    5. 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.

  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 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.

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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 ..

    6. 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.

    7. 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
  4. 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

  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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."
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.