I read in !emc-pstc that Mark Kirincic <[email protected]> wrote (in <091001c2f4dd$85c69910$6501a8c0@kristina2005>) about 'OK, what's going on?' on Thu, 27 Mar 2003:
>In my opinion, what really needs to be done is full accountability for failed >products that the company by having the company name made public at the FCC and >CE websites and trade journals. Also have the companies pay for audits of all >the units that are in the country that fail to meet FCC and CE standards. What >I am saying is to charge a flat fee per unit that fails. Secondly, I would >prevent them form selling into a market segment if the audit shows non >compliance of multiple units. Have the company provide future proof of >compliance before shipping which will hurt them in their pocket book a lot more >than just a simple fine. Can you produce a justification for such Draconian measures? Economic damage or risk to human life comparable with the penalties you propose? Remember, every penalty you apply to a company ends up with either its employees losing their jobs or its customers paying higher prices. So, who would benefit from your proposals, apart from test-houses? -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
