Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 22 Apr 91 04:06:36 GMT From: Nick Sayer Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone Message-ID: Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 299, Message 8 of 11 Lines: 32 herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > In article , lairdkb@mentor.cc.purdue. > edu (Kyler Laird) writes: >> A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home >> telephone. The FCC told him to use a choke. That's it!? He hasn't >> tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are. >> Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this. > Perhaps the basic idea is to find the person operating the transmitter > and choke him. Dan just lit my fuse. I am an amateur radio operator and have been on the receiving end of an irate neighbor who had a shoddy "Time Magazine" phone. My transmitter, operating legally, and in total compliance with FCC regulations (and then some!) was blamed by the idiot because, of course, nothing ever went wrong when I was not transmitting. In RFI troubleshooting, being "the cause" and being "at fault" are two different things. It's stupid and irresponsible remarks like Dan's that continue to perpetuate the attitude that force Hams to constantly be on the defensive. Dan owes all of us (450,000 in the United States alone) an appology. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ [44.2.1.17] 209-952-5347 (Telebit)