Hello Doug, I may or may not agree with FCC (on some issues I agree, on others I don't); however, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The FCC Rules do make the assembler responsible for compliance. And the FCC was NOT created to protect big companies from themselves but to allocate spectrum and watch for abuses. The air waves were consigned to bona-fide communication equipment. The early computers were nothing more than super-whiz-bang typewriters-cum-adding machines and not considered communication devices. Thus, they were not supposed to interfere with communication equipment;-- e.g., the Rules. The fact that you can assemble your own, and that you are small fry compared to the big companies, has nothing to do with the fact that your assembled equipment need not comply with the Rules. (I sympathize with small fry, being one myself.) If you disagree with the Rules, you have ample opportunity to write to the FCC and present your case to them;-- they have to publish your letter and present an argument for or against your position. And the FCC in the past has relented and conceded many points when presented with convincing evidence from the industry and from communication companies. (Witness the recent changes to accept DoC instead of the cumbersome Certification procedure for Class B devices.) I believe that this is the democratic and responsible way of addressing the problem rather than disregarding the law because it is inconvenient for you, or because your equipment is just a small pebble in a big pond of boulders and no one will notice. Tania Grant [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: Doug McKean Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 12:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: FCC + FCC = FCC? - Outlaw Sorry but I respectfully disagree ... If the FCC were to say yes to anyone being an outlaw for building their own PC and not having it tested, then why does the FCC label essentially tell everyone suffering from interefernce to take care of it themselves? The FCC was created to protect the big alphabet communication companies from themselves. Me building my own PC is peanuts compared to some of the issues these guys deal with. And cable tv is starting to make the issue of interfering with commercial broadcast a moot point. Heck, I don't even see the pixels blink at all anymore even with the microwave being used only 10 feet away. I was told, not sure how true it is, that the FCC in the early years of Part 15 took to task a famous computer company selling computers which hooked up to your tv screen. They were famous for intereference. I know, I had one. So the FCC threatened to confiscate the units from said company. Well, the sales were going down and the company said, "sure big brother, to ahead ..." So the FCC took them. Lots of them. In fact, so many, they had to store them all in an area which closed down part of the FCC facility. The company went on to declare it all as a loss. The FCC got stuck with the inventory. I don't think they want to repeat that again. And thus the reason for the wording of the label. Unless you're a real threat to commercial communications (such as a ham) they really don't want to be bothered. Just my 3.1415 cents worth ... - Doug McKean ------------------------------------------- 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,"
