Samsung PN59D8000 Issues: interference complaint from neighbor - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 04:36 AM
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
You need to get with your neighbor and do the troubleshooting I suggested earlier, disconnect everything but the power, if he gets no interference connect 1 cord at a time till he has the problem.

If he gets the interference with nothing hooked up, it's completely the TV and there's nothing you can do.

So, does he have a self supporting tower? or does it have wires supporting it?

Are any of those support wires close to the setback of his property lines?

If he's not helpful you really do need something to fight back at him with. It's not like he doesn't have a stake in this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post

Im not sure what else to do... i got an email earlier today from the tech company that was supposed to some out stating they dont have proper equipment or certified techs to conduct the evaluation required to asess the tv.

I was on the phone with samsung for almsot 2 hours earlier trying to come to some sort of resolution wich seems to be heading towards epic fail.

They have all the paperwork, the FCC violation papers, specrum scans etc and they just refuse to admit that anything is wrong with the tv.

I have contacted all available resources and have a complaint filed with the fcc pending further investigation along with a report to the BBB a letter to the local news station and an investigation with OEM.

I am just tired of waiting and want my 3g investment to not be in vain


buytme
David_B is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 05:51 AM
Senior Member
 
dzt41j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 292
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Do any of your local tv stations have a 'trouble shooter' segment? I would let Samsung know you are going public with the issue and their lack of response.
It sounds like if they broadcast something it could end up going viral in youtube. This is probably effecting others that don't even realize it.
You have to hit Samsung where it matters!
dzt41j is offline  
post #93 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 05:58 AM
Member
 
Noonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post

Im not sure what else to do... i got an email earlier today from the tech company that was supposed to some out stating they dont have proper equipment or certified techs to conduct the evaluation required to asess the tv.

I was on the phone with samsung for almsot 2 hours earlier trying to come to some sort of resolution wich seems to be heading towards epic fail.

They have all the paperwork, the FCC violation papers, specrum scans etc and they just refuse to admit that anything is wrong with the tv.

I have contacted all available resources and have a complaint filed with the fcc pending further investigation along with a report to the BBB a letter to the local news station and an investigation with OEM.

I am just tired of waiting and want my 3g investment to not be in vain

Three words...Small Claims Court. If you can get the paperwork from FCC with what codes are being violated and the spectrum scans, Samsung will lose.
Noonin is offline  
post #94 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 06:01 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noonin View Post

Three words...Small Claims Court. If you can get the paperwork from FCC with what codes are being violated and the spectrum scans, Samsung will lose.

first send written notice of your intent to sue:

it just may break loose a settlement

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
markrubin is online now  
post #95 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 06:07 AM
Member
 
Noonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

first send written notice of your intent to sue:

it just may break loose a settlement

You'd think. Mention (and provide links to) in the letter the recent successful suit a woman brought against Honda Motor Company in small claims court.
Noonin is offline  
post #96 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 06:50 AM
Member
 
dmbmay98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 82
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
yeah small claims court are not that bad, my parents took FORD to court and won. Most times they are not going to spend a lot of time on defense for a <5k case.
dmbmay98 is offline  
post #97 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 08:26 AM
Member
 
Noonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmbmay98 View Post

Most times they are not going to spend a lot of time on defense for a <5k case.

Especially when they can't send in an attorney
Noonin is offline  
post #98 of 161 Old 03-23-2012, 10:59 AM
Member
 
Aus1095's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I agree with the small claim court idea. Seems to be your last choice. Go public and sue them. Try to light a fire under there ass. I would think that home land security and the FCC would be on your side more...


This makes me want to never buy another Samsung tv again and possibly avoid Plasmas in general....
Aus1095 is offline  
post #99 of 161 Old 03-25-2012, 02:46 PM
Senior Member
 
kaosv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Small claims is a good idea. I'd first ask to borrow another plasma like yours for reference. Just to see if its the just your set or all Samsung plasma's. You might have a one in a million. Ask Samsung if that is possible, they don't need testing equipment.

...and if your neighbor won't help you out or work with you :

.... sell the set to one of your neighbors. We won't say a thing. Tell him you got a new set and its lcd, sorry to hear your still having issues.
kaosv1 is offline  
post #100 of 161 Old 03-25-2012, 02:55 PM
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
Man, these people suggesting you ask Samsung for help have clearly NEVER delt with them over a serious issue. You'd have better odds heading to a casino to win back your investment.

If you spend the time to read the thread, this problem is clearly way beyond the troubleshooting stage, and the warranty option is pretty much tapped. RF interference from plasmas has ALWAYS been a problem for ham radio (for over 10 years!) and a simple google search effectively demonstrates that. This is now an issue for the courts to decide unfortunately, but I agree that Samsung will likely settle quickly.
AvidHiker is offline  
post #101 of 161 Old 03-26-2012, 12:11 AM
Member
 
desmond82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
call me crazy but I think your neighbor and his agency is blowing smoke up your a$$. I live in the washington D.C. metropolitian area and have worked for the federal government for my whole along with several family members. Some contain highest of security clearences.blah blah blah anyway after bring up this very thread I got choruses of laugher. A got almost the same reponse. Basicly the government doesnt have the right to dictate your tv preference. And your neighbor and his agency would have to make accomodations for their special needs. They then gave me examples they knew to be fact of governement agency making these accomodations to include relocation. I havent for this thread line by line so i dont know what your status is currently. I think some good advice would be to contact your polical representative and make a inquiry.
desmond82 is offline  
post #102 of 161 Old 03-26-2012, 12:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RobbyTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,233
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I would keep the TV on 24/7 until the police show up with a search warrant.

you may make the news and make money from a book deal for standing up for your rights.
RobbyTV is offline  
post #103 of 161 Old 03-26-2012, 09:36 AM
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
^ +1 agree
chikoo is offline  
post #104 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 01:07 AM - 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
All the people who noted filing for small claims, i have filed a claim as of this morning.

No tech has come out as of yet and somehow samsung has stated that the tv is working within spec even though they have no proof nor have done any form of test to prove so.

I spoke with my state rep and district attorney and have decided to move forward with a lawsuit against samsung.

and to desmond82 obviously you have no family in government and your post is complete bs as if you really did you would have first hand knowledge of homeland security and OEM and how they operate and the regulation involved with set organization. That being said please feel free to use the vast knowledge base know as the internet to better inform yourself on government broadcasting and fcc regulation


I have hot my wits end with this issue and in the midst of all this have purchased a Panasonic vt30 wich has shown 0 interference and is working within legal stated specs

I have also contacted my local news who is sending out a reporter for further notes on friday and an taking samsung to court for the maximun allowed by small claims. and possibly taking it o the next level depending on the ruling.

i would also like to post the email i received today from samsung


snaecr_ag129 snaecr_ag129@sea.samsung.com
5:56 PM (9 hours ago)

to me
Hello,

I contacted Williston Park TV(contact# +1 (888) 323-4725), in regards to servicing the unit. I explained to them the situation and they have noted that the tv is working within FCC regulation as part of FCC rule Part 15. (Digital devices can transmit non incidental radiance herby not to interferer with licensed or emergency FCC sanctioned broadcasts) There is no need for further service.

Thanks
Ashley S.| Executive Customer Relations Department

356 Centerpointe Blvd | Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681|8 www.samsung.com


Is it me or this person a complete dumbass??

so you just sent me an email stated that the tv is working correctly and there is no need for service as long as it is not interfering with licensed broadcasts when i have not only a violation against be but proof from the FCC and department of homeland security that the tv not only is not functioning properly but is in violation from rule 15 of the fcc.

This is why i am going to hit samsung for all they got and implore anyone with any issue with a a samsung to do the same.

Im not having this anymore and no company should have the right or power to so this to anyone especially a person who purchased their product legit.

I will update when the haring takes place and i have a final verdict on this issue.


To everyone who has involved with this thread please keep posting and keep this thread alive, more people need to be aware of samsung and their non ethical ways of business.
Therionx is offline  
post #105 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 04:04 AM
Senior Member
 
kaosv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Good luck !! Keep us posted. You are doing the right thing for sure! Stick to your guns.

You should ask for whatever you can get under the law.
kaosv1 is offline  
post #106 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 10:44 AM
Member
 
OIFVET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think I am going to buy a toaster and then post to the world that it's not toasting my bread properly and then sue the manufacturer for all they got. I'm playing the world’s smallest violin for you right now. I hope you go broke over legal fees just so a judge can throw out your case. You are barking up the wrong tree. I once had Samsung replace a 52" LCD TV over a cosmetic issue with a bezel and even upgraded to a newer model. Driving to my house packing up the old one while dropping off the new model and installing it for my wife while I was in Iraq. My issue was minor and they took care of it.
OIFVET is offline  
post #107 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 10:52 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
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.

Feeling ok today, soldier?
AvidHiker is offline  
post #108 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 01:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WonHung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by OIFVET View Post

I think I am going to buy a toaster and then post to the world that it's not toasting my bread properly and then sue the manufacturer for all they got. I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you right now. I hope you go broke over legal fees just so a judge can throw out your case. You are barking up the wrong tree. I once had Samsung replace a 52" LCD TV over a cosmetic issue with a bezel and even upgraded to a newer model. Driving to my house packing up the old one while dropping off the new model and installing it for my wife while I was in Iraq. My issue was minor and they took care of it.

Are you joking? Did you not read any part of this thread?
WonHung is offline  
post #109 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 01:12 PM
Senior Member
 
kaosv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by OIFVET View Post

I think I am going to buy a toaster and then post to the world that it's not toasting my bread properly and then sue the manufacturer for all they got. I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you right now. I hope you go broke over legal fees just so a judge can throw out your case. You are barking up the wrong tree. I once had Samsung replace a 52" LCD TV over a cosmetic issue with a bezel and even upgraded to a newer model. Driving to my house packing up the old one while dropping off the new model and installing it for my wife while I was in Iraq. My issue was minor and they took care of it.

Go broke at small claims court. OK....
kaosv1 is offline  
post #110 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 01:21 PM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 289
from my experience over several decades with similar complaints:

they will have to settle these complaints to avoid larger class action

hang in there: do not be discouraged

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
markrubin is online now  
post #111 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 05:56 PM
Member
 
OIFVET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Before I was a medic I was a radio operator for the military then an engineer for AT&T wireless for several years. I was laid off like many engineers were in the late 90's after 8 years with the company. I then reentered the army and became a medic. I have a thorough knowledge of telecommunications to include types of signals bandwidths and types of obstacles which cause signal interference. I use to program TDMA/GSM switches and cell sites for Nortel and Ericsson radio. The point in which I am trying to make is that it's quite possible that your Television may put out some form of interference that may disrupt certain signals. However, there are so many variables at work here. First of all your plasma would have to penetrate sheeting, drywall, possibly brick or siding or whatever your house is constructed off and have to be putting out a rather powerful signal in order to cause the disruption. Depending on how close your TV is to his radio tower is another variable. If your plasma is sending out that much power then you would be bathing in radiation and your hair would be falling and you'd have radiation sickness. At AT&T we used line of site satellites when running fiber wasn't practical. Unless you were using jamming equipment pointed directly at your neighbor's toy radio tower or had the juice turned up on an Omni directional antenna then it would be extremely unlikely that you would be the cause of his signal issues. Bottom line it's easy to throw stones at your TV because he doesn't have a real clue what's causing your issues so he's picking on you. Are you a RF engineer? Because Samsung has engineers that develop their technology that is tested before it goes to the public, the only reason they would ever give in to your lawsuit is to avoid bad publicity and shut you up. They aren't going to fix a product that isn't broken. Go ahead and get a Panasonic and when your neighbor's problems don't go away he'll throw another fit over his toy radio.
OIFVET is offline  
post #112 of 161 Old 03-29-2012, 08:02 PM
Member
 
schj98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by AvidHiker View Post

Dude, I'm sorry to say it, but you are no engineer. BTW, I'm an engineer, and you have just destroyed any trace of credibility you may have had. What is your degree? Certainly it's not in English.

While we most definitely appreciate your service, you have no business here derailing the thread. You also clearly lack even the most basic understanding of what has transpired. While I am not a physicist, I'm fairly confident in the following:

The Samsung plasma causes major RFI on HF bands.
HF can easily penetrate solid materials without causing your body harm.
Typical low frequency (long wavelength) electromagnetic radiation (such as HF) is non-ionizing, so it does not cause what most would refer to as "radiation sickness".
Attempts to correct the problem with the Samsung plasma have failed.
Samsung chooses to ignore hard data proving their product is the culprit.
A comparable Panasonic plasma emits absolutely ZERO RFI on the HF band.
This is essentially a controlled experiment. The ONLY VARIABLE is the television.

Conclusion?

I am also a Broadcast Engineer and HAM operator your conclusions are absolutely correct given the available information.

Which is extremely obvious if you have any understanding of the topic at hand...
schj98 is offline  
post #113 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 03:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tomwil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by OIFVET View Post

Go ahead and get a Panasonic and when your neighbor's problems don't go away he'll throw another fit over his toy radio.

According to the OP, he has already purchased a Panasonic with no problems:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therionx View Post

I have hot my wits end with this issue and in the midst of all this have purchased a Panasonic vt30 wich has shown 0 interference and is working within legal stated specs.


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 #114 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 04:06 AM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by AvidHiker View Post

Dude, I'm sorry to say it, but you are no engineer. BTW, I'm an engineer, and you have just destroyed any trace of credibility you may have had. What is your degree? Certainly it's not in English.

While we most definitely appreciate your service, you have no business here derailing the thread. You also clearly lack even the most basic understanding of what has transpired. While I am not a physicist, I'm fairly confident in the following:

The Samsung plasma causes major RFI on HF bands.
HF can easily penetrate solid materials without causing your body harm.
Typical low frequency (long wavelength) electromagnetic radiation (such as HF) is non-ionizing, so it does not cause what most would refer to as "radiation sickness".
Attempts to correct the problem with the Samsung plasma have failed.
Samsung chooses to ignore hard data proving their product is the culprit.
A comparable Panasonic plasma emits absolutely ZERO RFI on the HF band.
This is essentially a controlled experiment. The ONLY VARIABLE is the television.

Conclusion?

As a person that has delt with RFI for 30 years I will say you are only half right.

As I have stated on more then 1 occasion, but the op has chossen to ignore, loose grounds when plugging devices together are paths for RFI to escape electronic devises. The only way to know if something is truely "broken" and doesn't meet FCC requirements is through the process of elimination.

So now he has a new tv, the old one is probably disconnected and whatever caused his RFI may be gone even if he plugs in and turns on his TV.

The burden of proof will be on him in court, unless he proves the tv is not meeting FCC requirements or unless samsung doesn't show he will lose without proof. All the fcc has shown is signals coming from his home, not from what device. The fcc did not test his TV. Samsung can come in with lots of data showing they meet FCC requirements, ask the OP what other devices he has in the room with the TV, especialy asking about any broadband cable, and show he has not proven it is the TV exclusively.

The OP needs to get on the phone and move up the chain at samsung. Everyone has a boss.

buytme
David_B is offline  
post #115 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 04:28 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 289
^^^

agreed, but I think it is also possible the Samsung is defective: a loose or missing shield, an open capacitor, mis assembly, etc

and in small claims court, I would think the facts will speak for themselves: typically a big company will not defend itself and a judgement will be awarded to the OP

I think the only way to get their attention is through this process

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
markrubin is online now  
post #116 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 04:45 AM
Senior Member
 
kaosv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

As a person that has delt with RFI for 30 years I will say you are only half right.

As I have stated on more then 1 occasion, but the op has chossen to ignore, loose grounds when plugging devices together are paths for RFI to escape electronic devises. The only way to know if something is truely "broken" and doesn't meet FCC requirements is through the process of elimination.

So now he has a new tv, the old one is probably disconnected and whatever caused his RFI may be gone even if he plugs in and turns on his TV.

The burden of proof will be on him in court, unless he proves the tv is not meeting FCC requirements or unless samsung doesn't show he will lose without proof. All the fcc has shown is signals coming from his home, not from what device. The fcc did not test his TV. Samsung can come in with lots of data showing they meet FCC requirements, ask the OP what other devices he has in the room with the TV, especialy asking about any broadband cable, and show he has not proven it is the TV exclusively.

The OP needs to get on the phone and move up the chain at samsung. Everyone has a boss.

So how does that explain a new TV not doing it. Everyone has an answer but you aren't in his shoes. He isn't an engineer he is taking a path of least resistance.
Make Samsung deal with it , process of elimination was my idea why bring in all kinds of equipment when you can use another TV plugged into the same circuit. You get different results the TV is faulty let Samsung prove that not to be true. Plus I also read in earlier replies others have had similar experiences with plasma TV.
So this isn't his toaster or microwave or hairdryer......its his TV.
Not everyone has the time or ability to fight the FCC or go to court sans an attorney either.

He did what he should have done under the circumstances. Eliminate the problem.
"I collaborated with my neighbor to conduct a test, i would turn my tv on and see what happens and he would let me know the outcome via phone with one another. Well, it turns out it is my tv that is wiping out the repeater and communication whenever the tv is turned on."

I'm not an engineer but I did sleep at Holiday Inn last night!
kaosv1 is offline  
post #117 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 05:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sheshechic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 2,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 90
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's not futile, Small Claims Court is perfect for this and you already have tons of excellent proof and information for the fight. Samsung won't want to spend money or get publicity over this issue and most likely will settle. I know of cases where the big boy settle before even appearing in Small Claims Court. All I'm saying is don't assume.

sheshechic is offline  
post #118 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 06:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sheshechic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 2,849
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Okay, I see that you have filed already. I've only just finished reading this long thread.

It sounds as though all your communications with Samsung have been through the warranty department. Have you been able to communicate with their legal department? It seems to me that is your next best option- unless you feel like being on TV.

sheshechic is offline  
post #119 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 06:36 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

As a person that has delt with RFI for 30 years I will say you are only half right.

As I have stated on more then 1 occasion, but the op has chossen to ignore, loose grounds when plugging devices together are paths for RFI to escape electronic devises. The only way to know if something is truely "broken" and doesn't meet FCC requirements is through the process of elimination.

So now he has a new tv, the old one is probably disconnected and whatever caused his RFI may be gone even if he plugs in and turns on his TV.

Yes, I made some assumptions with my assessment, but I think you're exaggerating a bit there sir. Perhaps the tone of your posts put him off, I can appreciate that.

Maybe I'm not recalling correctly, but I thought the OP had gone through a number of those troubleshooting steps, including disconnecting all sources. It seems he has not listed specifically what was done, but presumably with the help of his neighbor (who should be fairly knowledgable when it comes to RFI), some significant troubleshooting was conducted. Here is one post which suggests to me that, at minimum, he tried other outlets and locations, just turning the TV on anf off, so very likely without a source attached:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post21743079

Sorry, but what you are suggesting seems very unlikely to me. So when he plugged in the new panasonic, he jiggled the outlet just enough to establish a proper ground? No way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

The burden of proof will be on him in court, unless he proves the tv is not meeting FCC requirements or unless samsung doesn't show he will lose without proof. All the fcc has shown is signals coming from his home, not from what device. The fcc did not test his TV. Samsung can come in with lots of data showing they meet FCC requirements, ask the OP what other devices he has in the room with the TV, especialy asking about any broadband cable, and show he has not proven it is the TV exclusively.

The OP needs to get on the phone and move up the chain at samsung. Everyone has a boss.

We'll see, I think you are a bit delusional.
AvidHiker is offline  
post #120 of 161 Old 03-30-2012, 07:21 AM
Senior Member
 
kaosv1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Samsung won't show up...... taking bets. Why go to the legal dept , why spend more time dithering with them. They had amble opportunity to settle this privately and quietly.

You go........
kaosv1 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