Samsung PN59D8000 Issues: interference complaint from neighbor - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 161 Old 03-06-2012, 05:07 PM
Member
 
tercel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The whole thing sounds ridiculous. No judge is going to enforce a fine or impose a jail term for watching television. There's obviously things they can do on their end in terms of insulation or signal amplification. What, no one else in the vicinity owns a plasma tv. They just don't want to put in the effort when they think they can intimidate you into throwing away your $3000 investment. Tell them to piss off and make a hobby of annoying the hell out of your neighbour. I'd suggest lots of loud all night parties
tercel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 161 Old 03-06-2012, 05:47 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
htwaits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 24,708
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post

I thought of trying to find something else wrong to try and get it replaced but i already got to far deep into this to sporadically come up with another issue.

We already moved the tv to ever single place it would fit in the house. nothing helped.

It seems to me that you have a case against Samsun in Small Claims Court. Check to see if the maximum you can recover with a judgment will cover the cost of your TV.
htwaits is offline  
post #33 of 161 Old 03-06-2012, 05:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by OIFVET View Post

WOW...I love a good story about how our goverment tries to bully people around. 13 year army vet here. All the more reason to vote for Ron Paul. Very high handed tactics. If it works and it was a legal purchase then don't let the federal govenment bully you around. Get a lawyer a fight it.

I'm voting obama! Rah! OEFvet

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #34 of 161 Old 03-06-2012, 06:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
SiGGy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lenexa, Kansas
Posts: 681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Lots of interesting suggestions here.

I'd contact the FCC yourself. Explain to them the manufacturer is unresponsive and you believe ALL of their TVs maybe like this. They will open a case and investigate. They will also contact the manufacturer, trust me you will hear from Samsung VERY quickly once they do. Explain to the FCC you want Samsung to replace or buy back the TV since it does not comply with the FCC regulation and you are interfering with the emergency band.

Odds are your neighbor just leveraged his ham radio geek-ness and contacted someone he knew in the FCC. Which is why it got expedited.... gotta love the government and cronyism right? Normally it wouldn't happen like this... lol.

This isn't anything new. Here's the same situation with a Panasonic Plasma. So before all of the Samsung haters get all fired up. Panasonic is in the same boat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Rsas38trU

The problem is your tossing noise out at low frequencies and the (2nd, 3rd, 4th.... order) harmonics from it are showing up everywhere in the spectrum. And it's killing your neighbors noise floor and thus his signal to noise ratio. All of the peaks you see in your video's spectrum analyzer shots are the harmonics.

Samsung should be offering you an exchange for a set that won't do this. The FCC should hopefully help make this happen. Sucks you got strong armed by your neighbor. Hopefully you're not in a situation where he's buddies with everyone involved. If you get any kick back you should fight your way up the ladder.

I'd just close the blinds and watch the TV, if the doorbell rings. Turn it off before you answer it. J/K


last option... I'd look into your city (and association if you have one) rules and regulations on antenna towers for your town. See if your neighbor is complying with local law. Most towns have height restrictions and eye sore regulations, even some restrictions on specific locations for them. Might as well return the favor

-SiGGy
SiGGy is offline  
post #35 of 161 Old 03-06-2012, 08:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 723
OP you linked to the fed agency earlier and now link this guy to the state agency; either way it sucks that he can get FCC to come out to his home so quickly, especially since he is not a fed. Maybe he's key in the emergency radio network, but my immediate impression is that he's just using his position to his advantage.

I would find out if he has a tv and if it also interferes...what's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.

I'm in the federal compliance business to an extent, just had my FDA evaluation, licensed by Customs, have to file with FCC and other government agencies (we just call 'em OGAs). Most of these guys don't care how ridiculous or impractical some of their rules are, but they love enforcing compliance, but not so much prevention or education or revising ancient rules. Don't get me started, as a taxpayer I'm pissed, but as part of the industry...well, it pays the rent.

Hey, you might want to report this to Customs as well, they're the enforcement agency behind all federal government agencies at time of import and all imported electronics like this are certified as compliant at time of import or they're not allowed in. If you have a Samsung that's not compliant then they should know, but unlikely unless you're politically connected will that go very far without a lot of help from others.

I did google the subject and the ham radio operators do have some issues with plasma tvs it seems. I've never heard that before, but I don't know any ham radio operators either. I know many of our FCC rules are based on protecting various radio frequency bands and that it's getting crowded out there, but I also know FCC doesn't have the funding to go make sure everything's compliant...they rely on industry being self-compliant (lots easier that way and then they can spend their old budget without working any harder, too, when it comes to simply enforcing rules at their convenience.

Man I feel sorry for you but the FCC base rules about interference and your possession of an article (that you apparently are convinced is at fault), then you need to comply then fight...

lovinthehd is offline  
post #36 of 161 Old 03-06-2012, 09:40 PM
"Don't PM Me Bro"
 
RandyWalters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: El Segundo, Calif
Posts: 17,428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 445
So Homeland Security is singling the OP out for possessing a device capable of knocking out official government communications systems, but they aren't bothering to investigate how this seemingly benign weapon of mass destruction, which is widely available to civilians and terrorists alike, is capable of knocking out said official government communications systems? You'd think they'd seize this TV and try to find out how the heck it's leaving our country defenseless!

Randy
TC-P55ST60, TC-P50GT50, TC-P46G10, TH-42PZ700U, TH-42PX50U, HP LC2600N, TiVo Series3, TWC Cisco 8742HDC DVR, Onkyo TX-SR605, URC R40 Remote.
Pic of My A/V setup - http://cdn.avsforum.com/f/f1/900x900..._Img_4867.jpeg
Gallery - http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/2082686/randywalter...
RandyWalters is offline  
post #37 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 12:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters View Post

So Homeland Security is singling the OP out for possessing a device capable of knocking out official government communications systems, but they aren't bothering to investigate how this seemingly benign weapon of mass destruction, which is widely available to civilians and terrorists alike, is capable of knocking out said official government communications systems? You'd think they'd seize this TV and try to find out how the heck it's leaving our country defenseless!

You'd be amazed at how silly the feds can be lol

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #38 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 03:00 AM
Senior Member
 
mobilejunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post


They all use ham radios and plasmas are well known for wiping out ham bands.

So bc u bought a normal, popular, consumer tv. That has normal standards. And that is technically FCC approved. BUT ur neighbor just so happens to use radio frequencies at home?!?

Bs dude. U are zoned residential. If he wants to use hams for a hobby. Tough for him. For work? Get an office. Move. They can't say a tv in your house can't be used bc this douche works at home.

Call your senator. Call all media channels in ur area. This is the juicy ratings stuff they dig for these days.

Worst case f um. Let them come to my door with cuffs. Their bluffing.
mobilejunkie is offline  
post #39 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 03:10 AM
Senior Member
 
mobilejunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel View Post

The whole thing sounds ridiculous. No judge is going to enforce a fine or impose a jail term for watching television. There's obviously things they can do on their end in terms of insulation or signal amplification. What, no one else in the vicinity owns a plasma tv. They just don't want to put in the effort when they think they can intimidate you into throwing away your $3000 investment. Tell them to piss off and make a hobby of annoying the hell out of your neighbour. I'd suggest lots of loud all night parties

That's just it though. One more example of the govt. being lazy and throwing around the whole "we are the govt." bs.

U are in ur home with a consumer tv. Let them fix it. This reminds me of the FCC shooting down light squared bc the govts gps leaked onto ls's fcc licensed spectrum. That's on the gps ops to fix. Smh.
mobilejunkie is offline  
post #40 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:42 AM
Member
 
karlmalone1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
As an avid proponent of "fighting the man", don't let them easily win on this one. Everyone has made good points, we all stand beside you.
karlmalone1 is offline  
post #41 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 08:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AvidHiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Very interesting story. Seems the rise of inexpensive plasma displays has the ham radio community pretty bummed:

http://www.dxengineering.com/techart...&KeyWords=True

I know you're beyond the troubleshooting stage, but for reference you will find the ham guys don't bother with the little ferrite beads, they go with toroids. It is critical you use the correct ferrite type to address the bands where RFI is to be rejected. I think the common ferrite beads, like the ones Samsung provides, are type 43 which are only effective on higher frequencies (VHF). Looks like your neighbor is at long wavelengths 40m and above (HF), where you would need a type 73, 75, or 77. The toroids are used as shown in this picture:

http://new-ham-radio.blogspot.com/20...-behaving.html
AvidHiker is offline  
post #42 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 03:56 PM
Member
 
jass5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
First off, an OEM using a ham radio for emergency communications is laughable. That said, if the set is not operating in compliance, then it is defective. The other side of the coin is whether or not the OEM's gear has been installed correctly. You don't mention how far away you are from his home. If you are in a single family unit and are still interfering with his toys, he needs to take a look at his installation as well.

Just an observation but the guy looks like a bit of a tool, which in my experience means that he probably is. If I had a problem like this with a neighbor, I would try to help him work it out. he has government resources and expertise to call on to deal with problems like this which won't cost him more than a phone call. It seems to me that he would check out what could be done on his end.

Just don't tell him I called him a tool. My clearance renewal is coming up and I don't want to have to explain that during my BI. DHS has no sense of humor that they are aware of...

MY personal take is that the FCC has been steadily taking away more and more frequencies from the general public over the past 30 years. At some point, it has to stop. I understand that OEM is an important agency but if the government can't fix an RF interference problem except by bullying a citizen, then maybe we need to replace some of them with people who are smarter and more competent. If it were me, I would send a bill to my neighbor for the cost of the tv. If he wants eminent domain over some bandwidth, then he should pay for it just like he would have to if he wanted to take part of your back yard.


Or, he could just get one of these: http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...uctid=MFJ-1026
jass5150 is offline  
post #43 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 04:04 PM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,691
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 268
subscribed: interesting thread my backgound is


licensed amateur radio operator for over 50 years

former OEM Coordinator for my town for over 5 years

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
Link to sponsors
good to be back to vBulletin
markrubin is online now  
post #44 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 04:07 PM
Member
 
lanthanidedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
is he in jail yet?
lanthanidedude is offline  
post #45 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 04:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
David_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: delete me
Posts: 983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Ok, here are the facts.

Your TV isn't allowed to radiate on certain frequencies at certain levels.

The FCC has to prove you are doing this.

If they can show you documented proof which they tested and documented with distances and levels, get a copy and contact Samsung.

So, your TV ITSELF MAY NOT be radiating illegally. Do you have audio/video/hdmi/RF cables connected too it? Ground loops, poor grounds, bad equipment hooked up to your TV can make the issue worse.

I would only plug a blu ray player directly into your plasma, unplug all other lines and see if that helps your neighbor then use the process of elimination to determine which device is making your issue worse.

Also, get one of those polarity socket testers for your A/C outlets and see if all of the outlets are wired correctly.

Do your lights dim when the furnace or A/C or some large draw device come on? Your home's main ground could be going bad.

From my past experience your neighbor is going to be a PITA, most ham opperators will bitch and bitch and bitch to try and bully you into stop using a LEGAL device that interfears with them because they are to close to you and have to sensitive equipment. Some will work with you, most won't. If you aren't truely radiating illegal levels, he can get some filters that will help him, he just doesn't want to spend the money.

Try to work with your neighbor to track down if something attached to your TV is making it happen, if he won't work with you you will have to probably seek legal help.

buytme
David_B is offline  
post #46 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 04:39 PM
Member
 
jass5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

subscribed: interesting thread my backgound is


licensed amateur radio operator for over 50 years

former OEM Coordinator for my town for over 5 years

So I'm guessing you have encountered something like this before. What is your take on what can be done by both parties to resolve this issue fairly?
jass5150 is offline  
post #47 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tomwil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by karlmalone1 View Post

As an avid proponent of "fighting the man", don't let them easily win on this one. Everyone has made good points, we all stand beside you.

Unfortunately, the OP is going against a government with unlimited resources. Defending oneself will probably cost more than the TV, with all the lawyer fees and such.

I usually don't discuss possessions with neighbors, simply because I do not want to be robbed. But this thread gives another reason on not being so talkative with neighbors.

That which may be known of God is evident within man, for God has shown it to them, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)
tomwil is offline  
post #48 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:38 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Therionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel View Post

The whole thing sounds ridiculous. No judge is going to enforce a fine or impose a jail term for watching television. There's obviously things they can do on their end in terms of insulation or signal amplification. What, no one else in the vicinity owns a plasma tv. They just don't want to put in the effort when they think they can intimidate you into throwing away your $3000 investment. Tell them to piss off and make a hobby of annoying the hell out of your neighbour. I'd suggest lots of loud all night parties

Unfortunately they can and they will. The setup the director has is immense, as far as shielding and so on and so forth there is nothing else that can be done, its the best of the best. Its just my tv is defective and transmitting signals it shouldn't.

I would under normal circumstances tell him to piss off but in this situation i am actually facing serious penalty if i do so.
Therionx is offline  
post #49 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:40 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Therionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by htwaits View Post

It seems to me that you have a case against Samsun in Small Claims Court. Check to see if the maximum you can recover with a judgment will cover the cost of your TV.

Maximum in small claims court you can recover is 5000$ but unfortunately taking on people with unlimited resources makes the effort futile
Therionx is offline  
post #50 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Therionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiGGy View Post

Lots of interesting suggestions here.

I'd contact the FCC yourself. Explain to them the manufacturer is unresponsive and you believe ALL of their TVs maybe like this. They will open a case and investigate. They will also contact the manufacturer, trust me you will hear from Samsung VERY quickly once they do. Explain to the FCC you want Samsung to replace or buy back the TV since it does not comply with the FCC regulation and you are interfering with the emergency band.

Odds are your neighbor just leveraged his ham radio geek-ness and contacted someone he knew in the FCC. Which is why it got expedited.... gotta love the government and cronyism right? Normally it wouldn't happen like this... lol.

This isn't anything new. Here's the same situation with a Panasonic Plasma. So before all of the Samsung haters get all fired up. Panasonic is in the same boat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Rsas38trU

The problem is your tossing noise out at low frequencies and the (2nd, 3rd, 4th.... order) harmonics from it are showing up everywhere in the spectrum. And it's killing your neighbors noise floor and thus his signal to noise ratio. All of the peaks you see in your video's spectrum analyzer shots are the harmonics.

Samsung should be offering you an exchange for a set that won't do this. The FCC should hopefully help make this happen. Sucks you got strong armed by your neighbor. Hopefully you're not in a situation where he's buddies with everyone involved. If you get any kick back you should fight your way up the ladder.

I'd just close the blinds and watch the TV, if the doorbell rings. Turn it off before you answer it. J/K


last option... I'd look into your city (and association if you have one) rules and regulations on antenna towers for your town. See if your neighbor is complying with local law. Most towns have height restrictions and eye sore regulations, even some restrictions on specific locations for them. Might as well return the favor

I did contact the fcc but as of 1pm today the spectrum analyzer the official took shows the tv operating outside of fcc regulation in every sigle way possible. This information was forwared to samsung as of this afternoon.

My neighbor unfortunately is operating 100% within the law

as of now its 100% all on samsung, its their product they manufactured and it defective.
Therionx is offline  
post #51 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post

Unfortunately they can and they will. The setup the director has is immense, as far as shielding and so on and so forth there is nothing else that can be done, its the best of the best. Its just my tv is defective and transmitting signals it shouldn't.

I would under normal circumstances tell him to piss off but in this situation i am actually facing serious penalty if i do so.

Feds print money, they have no idea of what real expense means. They don't pay lawyers, they're on the payroll already...if they prosecute you it does get very very expensive...even if they have no case. In cases where they are wrong, you generally can't sue them, they're just doing their job for you good citizen! It's for your benefit. Kafka comes to life! We have met the enemy and he is us! (I think that's how that goes)

I would get written documentation from the FCC to prove their claim, though.

lovinthehd is offline  
post #52 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:47 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Therionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters View Post

So Homeland Security is singling the OP out for possessing a device capable of knocking out official government communications systems, but they aren't bothering to investigate how this seemingly benign weapon of mass destruction, which is widely available to civilians and terrorists alike, is capable of knocking out said official government communications systems? You'd think they'd seize this TV and try to find out how the heck it's leaving our country defenseless!

It seems to be a one off case. The tv i have just seems to be deffective, something in it or in its operation is omitting signals beyond its manufacturing specifications. I dont think all models of this tv are cabale of this kind of interference
Therionx is offline  
post #53 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:55 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Therionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jass5150 View Post

First off, an OEM using a ham radio for emergency communications is laughable. That said, if the set is not operating in compliance, then it is defective. The other side of the coin is whether or not the OEM's gear has been installed correctly. You don't mention how far away you are from his home. If you are in a single family unit and are still interfering with his toys, he needs to take a look at his installation as well.

Just an observation but the guy looks like a bit of a tool, which in my experience means that he probably is. If I had a problem like this with a neighbor, I would try to help him work it out. he has government resources and expertise to call on to deal with problems like this which won't cost him more than a phone call. It seems to me that he would check out what could be done on his end.

Just don't tell him I called him a tool. My clearance renewal is coming up and I don't want to have to explain that during my BI. DHS has no sense of humor that they are aware of...

MY personal take is that the FCC has been steadily taking away more and more frequencies from the general public over the past 30 years. At some point, it has to stop. I understand that OEM is an important agency but if the government can't fix an RF interference problem except by bullying a citizen, then maybe we need to replace some of them with people who are smarter and more competent. If it were me, I would send a bill to my neighbor for the cost of the tv. If he wants eminent domain over some bandwidth, then he should pay for it just like he would have to if he wanted to take part of your back yard.


Or, he could just get one of these: http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...uctid=MFJ-1026

Government and all emergency broadcast use ham frequencies, and in case of any emergency known to man ham operators are the first and last line of communication. any municipal bought ham radio can be modified to accept these frequencies and some classes of ham operators can even buy radios capable of picking up these frequencies.

The tv is deffective, but samsung seems to now want to admit it.
Therionx is offline  
post #54 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 05:59 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Therionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Feds print money, they have no idea of what real expense means. They don't pay lawyers, they're on the payroll already...if they prosecute you it does get very very expensive...even if they have no case. In cases where they are wrong, you generally can't sue them, they're just doing their job for you good citizen! It's for your benefit. Kafka comes to life! We have met the enemy and he is us! (I think that's how that goes)

I would get written documentation from the FCC to prove their claim, though.

The prrof was already sent to samsung, wich includes the official fcc documentation, the spectrum analyzer test conducted on the tv and the HLS documentation stating the tv is not operating within legal spec or even stated specifications
Therionx is offline  
post #55 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 06:06 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Therionx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Samsung is denying that the tv is capable of such interference regardless of what was sent them. I was told my someone at cooperate today "Even if the tv is defective it is incapable of producing such high levels of RF interference" so samsung is completely trying to get out of blame for this. Maybe because if they accept blame all 8000 series plasmas wil have to be recalled or exchanged idk, but samsung is really letting me down, and if they dont resolve this issue the next youtube video you will se is a pn59d8000 being blown up with a stick of dynamite.
Therionx is offline  
post #56 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 06:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,067
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Just tell your neighbor to take this TV off your hands and then do what he wishes to do with it....apparently they have deep pockets.....help thy neighbor.
chikoo is offline  
post #57 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 07:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post

Samsung is denying that the tv is capable of such interference regardless of what was sent them. I was told my someone at cooperate today "Even if the tv is defective it is incapable of producing such high levels of RF interference" so samsung is completely trying to get out of blame for this. Maybe because if they accept blame all 8000 series plasmas wil have to be recalled or exchanged idk, but samsung is really letting me down, and if they dont resolve this issue the next youtube video you will se is a pn59d8000 being blown up with a stick of dynamite.

You just might be able to get pay per view for something like that...just post in some of the Samsung owner threads Could pay for a replacement...

lovinthehd is offline  
post #58 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 07:15 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
htwaits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 24,708
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post

Maximum in small claims court you can recover is 5000$ but unfortunately taking on people with unlimited resources makes the effort futile

No it doesn't. Someone in our area just took on AT&T for limiting the speed on his "unlimited" cell phone. He just received a judgment in small claims court. All it would cost you is the time to show up in court with all your "government" documentation.
htwaits is offline  
post #59 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 07:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lovinthehd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OROR
Posts: 6,323
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
Liked: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by htwaits View Post

No it doesn't. Someone in our area just took on AT&T for limiting the speed on his "unlimited" cell phone. He just received a judgment in small claims court. All it would cost you is the time to show up in court with all your "government" documentation.

Sometimes the bigger defendants don't get around to responding to small claim court claims and the small claims courts are more on your side than any federal court that FCC might escalate this to would be...

lovinthehd is offline  
post #60 of 161 Old 03-07-2012, 08:11 PM
Senior Member
 
mobilejunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jass5150 View Post

First off, an OEM using a ham radio for emergency communications is laughable. That said, if the set is not operating in compliance, then it is defective. The other side of the coin is whether or not the OEM's gear has been installed correctly. You don't mention how far away you are from his home. If you are in a single family unit and are still interfering with his toys, he needs to take a look at his installation as well.

Just an observation but the guy looks like a bit of a tool, which in my experience means that he probably is. If I had a problem like this with a neighbor, I would try to help him work it out. he has government resources and expertise to call on to deal with problems like this which won't cost him more than a phone call. It seems to me that he would check out what could be done on his end.

Just don't tell him I called him a tool. My clearance renewal is coming up and I don't want to have to explain that during my BI. DHS has no sense of humor that they are aware of...

MY personal take is that the FCC has been steadily taking away more and more frequencies from the general public over the past 30 years. At some point, it has to stop. I understand that OEM is an important agency but if the government can't fix an RF interference problem except by bullying a citizen, then maybe we need to replace some of them with people who are smarter and more competent. If it were me, I would send a bill to my neighbor for the cost of the tv. If he wants eminent domain over some bandwidth, then he should pay for it just like he would have to if he wanted to take part of your back yard.

Or, he could just get one of these: http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...uctid=MFJ-1026

I like your points. This is the type of guy that thinks he is the ****. Instead of fixing the issue that is probably at least half his fault. He is bullying you into not using your tv. I'm sorry, but it is a WIDELY known thing that plasma interferes with ham. He is going to operate out of his home and not expect to have interference from anything???

For the most part I think he is using his resources to get something done that isn't fully legal. He is to egotistical to even think that you may call him on it. He is used to people bending over and getting what he wants.

I like the sending him a bill thing. If there is any legal ground for him to stand on is eminent domain. But with that, they have to pay you for what the take. He is trying to get away with it by having his buddy's scary you with visits and letters thinking you will buckle and comply. Haha. Please stick it to this guy.

If it were possible. I would get another plasma but a different brand. When he gets interference again you can say that you didn't turn on the tv they told you not to. Haha. This guy can't dictate what electronic products you own and use.
mobilejunkie is offline  
Reply Plasma Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off