While not losing sight of the reason why regulations exist,
let's also remember that if we don't participate in making
them, we can only complain afterwards about their impact. I
have participated in the FCC's comment process on several
occasions, but some firms seem not all that willing to do
so. This is perhaps because companies are reluctant to
bring themselves to the attention of regulatory bodies by
criticizing their initiatives.
In the absence of constructive criticism, government will do
as its (we hope informed) opinion suggests. Sometimes
informed opinion isn't enough, if legislators make technical
decisions. (One apocryphal tale -- it's untrue -- had the
Tennessee state legislature declaring the value of "pi" to
be three. It _could_ happen.)
This depends on a responsive government bureaucracy, which
may or may not be the case. That is a different discussion.
Cortland
As usual, the above opinions are my own, and may not reflect
those of my employer.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Shiep rules
Author: Ron Fotino <[email protected]> at internet
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 1/3/97 13:21
George, David L TR wrote:
>
> Maybe you are not sympathetic but you should be. EMC means eliminate minor
> companies. The way the rules are developed in many cases have little to do
> with the actual importance of the issue. Comparing regulatory requirements
> to the rules of physics is like comparing apples to oranges. If we do not
> question the need and validity for regulatory requirements we will find it
> increasingly difficult to deliver products. There many people out there
> eager to travel to far away places to develop additional requirements for
> us. We should ensure the requirements are necessary not just blindly
> accept everything. I applaud the people who question and probe the real
> need for requirements.
>
> Dave George
> Unisys Corp.
> ----------
Dave,
HOORAAY! I have been singing that song for a long time and have had
many people attempt to put me off insinuating that I was going to allow
people to be hurt. My real story is: Let's never lose sight of WHY
particular regulations exist and if the reason is revenue generation,
then call a spade a spade and get rid of the rules when enough revenue
is generated. If there is a VALID reason for the rules, then OK.
I don't mean to say all compliance rules are unnecessary, I just mean to
say that rules don't exist simply for the sake of rules, they must be
continually questioned!!
Sincerely,
Ron Fotino
Compliance Eng. Group Leader
Cabletron Systems, Inc.
