Actually went through this with a commercial product in about 1984. I
received a letter (or call) from the FEDS that the police couldn't transmit
or receive when they were going past a bank and they were blaming our
equipment, turns out they were right. Jumped on a plane, found the problem
and fixed it. (Some of the equipment had to be turned off to find the signal
so no wonder I missed it during test) Wrote back to the FEDS, they called
the cops who confirmed the problem was cured and I never heard from the FEDS
again.
I suspect it would have been different if I hadn't responded
quickly.
Gary
While I had all of the equipment in the field updated - I was never
asked nor did I tell the FEDS that we fixed all occurrences of the
equipment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Javor [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:26 AM
To: Chris Maxwell; chris maxwell; 'emc-pstc internet forum'
Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
Someone else on this thread quoted chapter and verse from Title 47 of the US
code stating that individuals who built their own ITE were not covered by
Part 15 rules. Regardless of that, I find it hard to imagine the FCC going
after any individual other than to make him fix an interference or shut off
an interference source. This comment specifically aimed at incidental
transmissions. it does not apply to the case of an individual intentionally
transmitting rf energy at levels greater than allowed by law.
----------
>From: Chris Maxwell <[email protected]>
>To: "'Ken Javor'" <[email protected]>, Chris Maxwell
<[email protected]>, "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'"
<[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
>Date: Mon, Jun 25, 2001, 8:00 AM
>
>
> Ah,
>
> I see what you're saying.
>
> Point 7 was intended to say that a test should be performed if there was
any
> doubt of a safety problem.
>
> I never intended to say that someone should market a product if they know
> that it will interfere with people's reception of radio or TV. Even "I
Love
> Lucy" re-runs.
>
> I'll restate with a more clear example. Someone could buy a system with
an
> FCC Class B computer, an FCC class B printer, an FCC class B keyboard and
an
> FCC class B mouse only to find out that, by some freak of physics (a
> resonance condition ...) this system is now radiating at levels higher
than
> class B and it is fouling up a neighbor's TV reception.
>
> In this case, the person would be required to fix the emissions, after the
> fact. I think we can all agree on this.
>
> The finer point of what I'm saying is: If this person was ever brought to
> the attention of the FCC, there would probably be no punitive action
against
> him/her (other than correcting the emissions) because this person should
be
> able to connect FCC approved equipment together, without performing a
system
> level EMI test, with a reasonable assumption of conformity.
>
> But, if the person assembling this system had any knowledge beforehand
that
> the emissions could cause a personal or public safety problem; I don't
> think the FCC would be so nice.
>
> It would have been more clear if I had never mentioned "Lucy" at all.
>
> Chris
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 6:08 PM
>> To: Chris Maxwell; 'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'
>> Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
>>
>> I have no trouble with your checklist except #7. Like it or not, the FCC
>> RE
>> limits protect "I Love Lucy" broadcasts. More basically, the limits
>> protect
>> the broadcasters' market. If excess RE from consumer appliances
interfere
>> with reception in fringe areas, the broadcaster's customer base is
>> reduced,
>> which in turn reduces the value of advertising time that he can charge.
>> You
>> are literally putting him out of business, and he has a license to
>> transmit
>> and your appliance does not.
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: Chris Maxwell <[email protected]>
>> >To: "'EMC-PSTC Internet Forum'" <[email protected]>
>> >Subject: FW: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
>> >Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2001, 2:59 PM
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >> Hi Ken,
>> >>
>> >> Come on guys, these flames are burning me :-)
>> >>
>> >> I'm just advocating sound engineering judgement. I understand that a
>> user
>> >> would have to take "adequate measures" if his/her appliance was
messing
>> up
>> >> the neighbor's "I Love Lucy" reception. I understand that those
>> >> "adequate measures" would include fixing the emissions or turning the
>> unit
>> >> off.
>> >>
>> >> The 120dB safety margin is there. We can't argue whether it is right
>> or
>> >> wrong. It's a fact. I agree that it would be wrong for anybody to
>> >> abuse the safety margin and willfully produce a non-compliant product.
>> >> One 911 that gets slammed by a non-compliant product would be too
much.
>> >>
>> >> More to the point.
>> >>
>> >> I assume that you have a good enough background in EMC to make a sound
>> >> judgement. (probably more so than I) What would you do with a product
>> >> that you evaluated using my checklist? Would you have your company
>> write
>> >> the check for a re-test?
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Ken Javor [SMTP:[email protected]]
>> >> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:21 PM
>> >> To: Chris Maxwell; '[email protected]'
>> >> Subject: Re: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw
>> >>
>> >> NO!!!!
>> >>
>> >> The 120 dB safety margin comment and point number 7 are
self-consistent
>> >> but
>> >> consistently WRONG!
>> >>
>> >> If you screw up "I Love Lucy" reception, regardless of your subjective
>> >> assessment of the nuisance value that represents, you are in violation
>> of
>> >> not only the philosophy of FCC emissions control, but also the
verbiage
>> >> attached to the FCC sticker that says regardless of measured
>> compliance,
>> >> if
>> >> it causes interference, fix it or turn it off.
>> >>
>> >> I reiterate, the fact that your product could be out not 30 - 40% but
>> 30 -
>> >> 40 dB has no safety impact to a non-antenna connected receiver. But
if
>> it
>> >> interferes with either I Love Lucy, or a cell phone calling in 911,
you
>> >> are
>> >> violating the spirit and letter of the law.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------
>> > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
>> > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>> >
>> > Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>> >
>> > To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>> > [email protected]
>> > with the single line:
>> > unsubscribe emc-pstc
>> >
>> > For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> > Michael Garretson: [email protected]
>> > Dave Heald [email protected]
>> >
>> > For policy questions, send mail to:
>> > Richard Nute: [email protected]
>> > Jim Bacher: [email protected]
>> >
>> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
>> > http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
>> >
>
> -------------------------------------------
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
> [email protected]
> with the single line:
> unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Michael Garretson: [email protected]
> Dave Heald [email protected]
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Richard Nute: [email protected]
> Jim Bacher: [email protected]
>
> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
> http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
>
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
Dave Heald [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
Dave Heald [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
