On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Dave Michelson wrote:
> Barry L. Ornitz wrote:
> >
> > This is a round-about solution but if the commercial concerns need
> > the campus area so badly, let them pay for several shielded rooms on
> > campus.
This would not help the folks who don't know they are susceptible to
RFI until it is too late.
> As you suggest, it's expensive and a hassle. At this point, the
> university administration simply wants to define a policy regarding
> commercial transmitters that both sides will accept.
At Ohio State University, no antennas are allowed on the campus
without specific advance approval and that generally prevents most of
them. They are allowed only for university purposes. The issue of
commercial transmitters has not come up. The committee that approves
antennas is quite sensitive to RFI issues.
> On one hand, the Development Office is charged with raising money
> through rental of advertising space, sole supplier deals with soft
> drink companies :-|, conference and convention hosting, alumni and
> community use of university facilities, etc. They want to add "rental
> of roof space for commercial transmitters" to the list or be given a
> good reason why they shouldn't.
This is the typical beancounter philosophy, where academic and
scientific values which cannot be measured in dollars are simply
ignored. The RF spectrum is a priceless natural resource which
must not be frittered away for short-term financial gain. Once
gone it is gone forever.
>
> The university research community is firmly against the idea, but
> their arguments concerning the need to "preserve the research
> environment" seem a bit nebulous to the Development Office.
They are mentally incapable of understanding research needs.
One argument often used here against rooftop antennas is that the
roofs were not designed to hold antennas, and that their installation
(especially of larger antennas) would cause roof damage and leaks.
Also, the antennas and equipment will require regular access by their
commercial owners which causes the university to lose some control
over their own facilities.
> The campus is already awash in a gentle haze of RF pollution from
> cordless phones, computers, cell phones, and the like. How much
> more can be tolerated? Would commercial land mobile transmitters on
> campus add significantly to the problem or be unnoticed amidst
> everything else?
The transmitters you mention are all incidental, have low power, and
are very intermittantly used. Their antennas are tiny, low, and
shielded by nearby objects. Computer emission is specifically
limited and is generally not a problem.
But commercial transmitters have high power, high and unblocked
antennas, and run continuously. They will cause FAR more RFI than your
current situation. RFI problems will occur in areas that cannot be
predicted in advance, and will be suffered by people who have no
knowledge of RFI and hence will not understand what has hit them.
> The most important aspect of the problem is the commitment involved.
> Once a commercial transmitter is installed and operating, it's going
> to be very difficult to have it moved or turned off if RFI problems
> become apparent in the future.
I suggest you make the argument that campus wireless data networks are
becoming more widespread, and that you need to preserve the spectrum
for when these networks come to your university. Then it will be a
university installation that can be carefully planned and controlled
so as to avoid RFI.
> Policy makers love precedent. I'm hoping that list members might be
> able to supply me with any policies or recommendations that their own
> organizations have formulated concerning acceptable limits on RFI/EMI
> in research environments or campus policies regarding siting of
> commercial transmitters.
One thing that happened here is related to this issue. Our EE
department does research in advanced high-voltage power systems. They
were planning to build a lab to create artificial lightning for
testing of insulators etc. This created a huge furor since the lab was
right next to the Computer Science Dept and the Computer Center, and
there was great concern that the lightning arcs and power line
transients would get into the computers and networks and wreck
everything. There were big meetings held of all interested
parties. Eventually the lab was carefully shielded, and its power line
isolated from the rest of the buildings. No interference has been
noted to my knowledge. This is an example of how the entire community
needs to get involved and then solve the problem.
Apart from the practical issues, this is an environmental argument.
Commercial interests always want to cut down the trees and ruin the
environment for endangered species and other wildlife. This is no
different in principle. Perhaps you could stir up some student
protests against this if it were framed as an environmental issue.
Bob Dixon
Ohio State University
Received on Wed Mar 03 1999 - 21:27:18 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 02 2010 - 00:10:39 EDT