I am glad to see that there are level heads out there and that someone
finally saw what I was getting at when I started this fire storm.
I didn't say anything at all about getting rid of all the agencies and
replacing them with one huge world agency. Sure, go to your local agency,
whether it be UL, SEMKO, VDE, GOST, EZU, CCIB and ad nausium, and have the
testing done by them. This "should" not present much of a problem since
most of the world uses some derivitive of IEC 950 or IEC 601 and adheres to
some sort of EMC regulation such as CISPR 22 or FCC Class B. This keeps
the safety agencies in the game, but it will save the submitting company
oodles of money over the long run BECAUSE they only have to get their
product tested ONE TIME ONLY. Your safety agency of choice would then
issue a Mark that is accepted world wide, along with their own to show who
actually did the testing.
With this method you would have shorter time to market, which would
generate more income for your company and increase profits. You could sell
any place in the world, you could not be locked out of a market because you
did not jump through all the hoops, dotted all the "I"s and crossed all the
"T"s required by some agency.
The only down side to this scenerio is that if your country has a low
tech
base and doesn't consistantly put out new products, your safety agencies
may not get much work. In which case your agency was probably started to
create cash inflow from more developed countries to put your "bumper
sticker" on their product.
Of course, someone says this will put them out of work. No it won't,
you
just won't have any more headaches from trying to conjole an agency from
Outer Minner Middle Mongolia to get on the ball and release the cert.
that you have been waiting 2 years for.
The large enlightened corporation whose comment follows would have to
increase their productivity and throughput, otherwise I could go to another
agency in another part of the world and still get a mark that would allow
me to sell in my country.
As I stated earlier, this in my dream. It probably will not happen in
this world, because of agencies like the one mentioned in the last
paragraph, but we can always hope.
Daniel W. Mitchell
Product Safety
EOS Corp.
----------
From: Scott Douglas[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 11:59 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: One Mark discourse
[email protected] writes:
>Well, gee lets see. I work for....Therefore I want my mark to go away and
>make everyone who is in this business equal.
>
>OK, how about this. Everyone remove their brand name from products. Let's
>have one mark and generic products only. Thats a free market system
>right???
>
>
>Or we just have one lab become world wide dominate and only use their
>mark.
> naw.
I don't think that this is what we are really asking for. It just dawns on
me, anyway, that I don't really care what one single agency mark I use on
my products. I am testing to what is essentially the same standards over
and over and over and paying over and over and over. This is what I
personally object to. It is counter-productive and inefficient. Tell me I
have to have a mark, any ONE mark, and OK, I'll do it gladly. I like the
third party confirmation that I have read, understood and applied the
standards. That will be much better for me should the unthinkable happen
and someone chooses to sue me for something my product supposedly did or
didn't.
>
>Right now Government and Retailers have decided they want some proof of a
>"safe" product. In the case of the US, an Independant Corporation took
>the
>"bull" by the horns and created a set of standards to evauate products
>to.
>They then created a mark whereby a manufacturer could display showing
>they
>underwent this evaluation and complied. Governments, Retailers and
>Consumers
>liked this idea and bought into it. Hooray for the progressive
>Corporation.
And a great job the Independent Corporation did, too.
>
>Now this Corporation got to big. Others started to complain that they
>wanted
>a piece of the market too. The bad word "monopoly" arose and the
>Government
>interviened to put a stop to it. Now these little guy's have the
>Government
>backing their existance by law instead of by experience.
But isn't this what democracy is all about? The ability for anyone who can
muster the resources to enter a market can do so? The government did not
end a "monopoly", the made the law more generic, fair and uniform. They
removed a special treatment for a single entity. And, as always, it's
caveat emptor when it comes to choosing your "agent".
>But the big
>Corporation has too much history and too much acceptance. So the little
>guy's
>want to go back to the Government and have the individual marks done away
>with so the can compete in a market they had nothing to do with
>developing.
I don't think this is what any of us are really saying. We really want a
single mark. But get the semantic point here. One mark, not a specific
single mark from a specific single source, but a single mark from the
source of our choosing selected from the many providers available.One
test, one mark, one cost.
>
>They want a mark that is sanitized from any history or experience as
>being a
>quality mark. They want the Government to control the market. They do not
>want to build their acceptance the "Old Fashion Way" by hard work.
I for one won't do business with a provider unless and until they can
convince me that my money is well spent. That means proving that they can
provide a consistent, reliable and cost-effective product (mark) to me.
And that usually only comes from hard work.
>
>
>Like I said, Sounds like we need a World wide Government controlling all
>products and approvals. Everything will be generic and have one name and
>one
>mark. Oh and how about we just make everything Gray......
My products are already gray.
>
>
>Now I have been an Agent, with two different labs and in manufacturing. I
>understand the pain of multiple requirements. But I am willing to live
>with
>this as opposed to the alternative I just outlined.
Point made. I don't want any more government control than there already
is. In fact, I would like a little less. In these times of competition and
tight markets, we need to look at every way possible to be more productive
and less wasteful. Spending the time and money for three or four or more
marks is one of those things that gets looked at.
>
>I will duct now and watch your fireworks.
>Oh, one last thought. This diatribe is not to be misconstrued as having
>the
>sanction of my employer.
>
>
>John L. Allen, P.E.
>Manager - Atlanta
>Local Engineering Services
>Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
>770-498-9156
>
>
Comments from:
Scott Douglas
Principal Compliance Engineer
ECRM Incorporated
[email protected]
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected] (the list
administrators).
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected] (the list
administrators).
