ZS6BTE undergoes a TV “interference” investigation

This scenario is one that hams fear – a formal complaint lodged by some complainant – in which your name is personally mentioned. Your own TV reception is perfect on both VHF and UHF bands, without filters or any protection and is only 8m from the TX antennas. You await with some trepidation, it must be said, the arrival of the regulating authority. But, is it a bad as one thinks, and what really happens? What are the moral issues and is the whole philosophy of this situation possibly not completely skewed?  What right does couch potato neighbours, who obviously have no intention of helping themselves or allowing you to help them, to demand that you stop “broadcasting” – particularly when it is obvious they have no technical insight into the matter? Are hams too timid in dealing with complaining neighbours, are they too eager to please and thus generating difficult circumstances for themselves and other hams?

My attitude to a complaint is that I have an immediate responsibility to attend to it and advise (even supply hardware to) the other party – until now that is. This follows recent experiences with two neighbours who obviously had no intention of lifting a finger, and failed to provide me even advisory access to their TV equipment, believing they had all legal rights in the matter.

Like a good ham I had offered in person and in writing to assist them. One even turned down an offer of help from the TVI inspectorate at Sentech. In South Africa Sentech offers a free advisory service and on-site investigation in relation to TVI complaints and the unwritten rule is that as a radio amateur, if Sentech wants you to be in attendance during a TVI investigation, you make sure that you are there to transmit, etc!

It came as a shock to both to be informed by the TVI investigating authority that in 99.9% of cases the ham was OK and the onus was on them (the neighbours) to sort out the equipment or installation they were using!

Fact: In South Africa the onus is on the complainant to do what is necessary to get rid of TVI if the ham’s equipment is found to be within the parameters specified in the Radio Regulations Act, as amended. Hams are not responsible for equipment installed at neighbouring properties.

Fact:  In 99.9% of TVI complaints (from Sentech’s records) the amateur’s equipment is not found to be at fault. If the amateur’s own TV has no interference when viewing local service area transmitters he has nearly nothing to worry about, as this is the ultimate test.

Fact: Sentech provides the complainant and ham under investigation with a written report on findings, additionally the complainant receives a written recommendation on how to get rid of the TVI. The complainant is not obliged to do anything, however.

Fact:  In most TVI problems the mode is breakthrough caused by induced voltages appearing on poorly earthed TV cables, which may also be poorly terminated. The second typical culprit is a TV preamp with excessive gain and/or untuned input circuits.

Fact: In South Africa the South African Bureau of Standards has published a specification for earthing domestic TV installations. Some house-owner’s insurance policies (hidden in the fine print of course) require compliance with this specification, failing which, and assuming the property experiences, for example, a lightning strike, the resultant insurance claim will probably not be met.

Fact: Active devices such as preamps may break into oscillation each time a ham transmits, causing considerable and often wide-band interference to all TV viewers in the vicinity. The preamp is the culprit, the ham’s signal is the catalyst, and the ham takes the blame.

Contacted Sentech myself

I actually asked the local TVI bureaucracy (Sentech, previously part of the SA Broadcasting Corp) to inspect my equipment, but was told that until a viewer lodged an official complaint there would be no inspection as there were too many outstanding complaints. Then, unknown to me, the first neighbour officially complained to Sentech and I was contacted to arrange an inspection time.

I again received a personal complaint from the second neighbour, which was conducted in a spirit of mutual rudeness as his attitude made it clear to me that his perceived solution to his problem was that I should cease “broadcasting’ immediately. It was impossible to converse with him. He left, very angry and muttering about “laying charges”. He subsequently telephoned Sentech, but did not lay an official charge.

Sentech’s visit?

This consisted of me transmitting at max legal power (I used WSJT in moon echo mode) on 6m and 80 Watts on 70 cm directly into the complainant neighbour’s house while the Sentech man fiddled the cables and connectors, etc, there. Guess what? There were badly made off cables around the DSTV, TV, distribution amp, and other video equipment, combined with a dangerous 115 V on these cables. Simply pulling these cables around to make better contact solved the TVI!

Sentech then set up a monitoring van in the main beam and checked for harmonics, etc, as detailed in the report sent to me the next day (below).

Sentech found no technical defects in my equipment and provided a written report on my station.

· There is nothing stopping a TV viewer (or radio listener) from complaining to Sentech, ad nauseum, as Sentech’s service is free to all TV licence holders.

· The validity of Sentech’s “clearance” is obscure. Presumably for the next year or two at least, Sentech will not entertain interference complaints against the ham’s station unless there is dramatic new evidence of deliberate and harmful interference.

· A successful prosecution by a complainant in terms of the Radio Regulations Act (contravention of this Act is a criminal offence) has near zero chance of success as the statutory body ICASA (Independent Communications Authority of South Africa), will consult with Sentech is this regard and dismiss the charge long before it gets to court.

· Either complainant can apply for a civil judgment against me, but armed with the Sentech report and a demonstration of my own interference-free TV reception I should be able to fend this off easily, with costs payable by the complainant.

· In this saga some e-mail traffic between the Sentech employee and myself was copied (by me) to both complainants in the letters delivered to them above, in which I made certain strong statements about an apparent unwillingness on the part of the complainants to be helped, or to help themselves, which in my opinion was coupled to an effort to get “the offending ham off the air”. One of the complainants found this e-mail “confrontational” I was told.

· Neither complainant has had the decency to acknowledge that the problem was their side, or to thank me for my assistance in solving their problems, or even to acknowledge the correspondence delivered to them.

· My own attitude towards both parties is poor, and I wonder whether I would be prepared to help either of them should they arrive at my gate asking for assistance (which I am 100% certain neither would now do), but it does impact on my perception of others possibly arriving at the gate or leaving letters on the gate.

Has this saga ended?

Possibly not – the second neighbour found it easier to stone my house than to scrape the rust off his TV connectors. This happened while on the air. When the police arrived they advised me to obtain an interdict so next morning I visited the magistrate at the local civil court. Armed with my letters of offers of assistance and advice to these neighbours, Sentech’s clearance certificate, and a point-by-point summary of proceedings and my grievances including firing a pellet gun at my property, etc, I obtained an interdict from the civil court (South African hams: if you do this yourself it costs nothing). The magistrate barely perused this paperwork and seemed more interested in my verbal description. The interdict was served on this person late at night by the police. I then returned the served copy to the court. In terms of the interdict, initial non-compliance carries the risk of arrest, a stiff fine, and the payment of any costs. A second offence carries a jail term. Time will tell.

It’s a pity that a trivial thing such as rust on a TV cable or connection can result in this sort of activity, but then life is stranger than fiction….

Other related issues

· It seems that Sentech is more interested in whether TVI is caused to local TV service area channels than the absolute value of harmonic and similar radiation, although the rig is checked anyway for harmonics and spurious radiation.

· Provided the ham’s method of operation and equipment is compliant, the complaints of TV viewers are their own problems – if they want to buy and (possibly incorrectly) install junk – it is their democratic right to do so. It is also their democratic right to view TV pictures modulated by a ham’s transmissions across the road and do nothing about it should they so wish – one cannot force them to do anything about it.

· The attitude of the typical TVI complainant is quite simple: do nothing to sort out the problem other than complain to the authorities in the hope of getting the “offending ham taken off the air”.

· To laymen, the right to watch TV exceeds a ham’s right to legally operate ham radio. Ham radio is a trivial hobby well below the status of TV-viewing. Therefore the ham should stop transmitting. If he refuses, then officialdom should remove him from the air. It came as a shock to both complaints to hear from Sentech direct that in 99.9% of interference complaints there was no interference, only poor equipment or poorly installed equipment, at the complainant’s premises.

· It is difficult not be rude to persons arriving at the door complaining about “interference”, but one does/should try to be polite. For example, when resident in Pretoria, a disabled person arrived at the door claiming that the mast I had just erected was blocking his TV reception, which had now gone black! Investigation revealed that all controls on his TV were full out and the tube was obviously tired and had been that way for a very long time…. It took about a 5-minute warm-up to display a very silvery picture! He was referred to a TV repair shop for a new tube.

· Forget about verbal argument with complainants. Put everything in writing just in case it goes to court. In particular document that you were prepared to assist the complainant and if the complainant turns down your offer make sure that fact is also recorded in writing. You don’t have to physically present yourself, hat-in-hand, simply offer some advice/assistance in writing. This will block any attempt to obtain a civil judgment against you on the basis that you know the neighbours have problems but couldn’t care less.

· New hams: prior to transmitting, obtain municipal permission to erect the mast! Neighbours signatures are required on your application to erect a mast and if they are already experiencing TVI from you, forget it! The Randburg Town Council has approved my mast, with signatures collected from the then neighbours. Also, since the complainants bought their properties long after my mast had been erected, they cannot now complain about aesthetic values and property prices being forced down by unsightly structures! One must, of course, keep the mast tidy.

· I think hams are far too humble in dealing with TVI complaints – yes, one must be sure that one’s equipment is not faulty, but to quote another ZS6 ham who had undergone a Sentech investigation and was again confronted by the same complainant: (yelled out) “if you don’t like it here sell your fxxxxxx house and fxxx off!”

On that note I rest my case…