I see Part 15 and the similar regulatory schemes as proactive regimes meant to reduce complaints in advance, and their levels as compromises allowing manufacturers to achieve compliance at relatively low cost. The issue with BPL/PLC is that the sparsely distributed emissions of compliant unintentional and incidental radiators are replaced by constant interference over wide frequency spans, which renders formerly acceptable levels no longer sufficient to the task of protecting reception.
A similar problem has have been noted here in the US where "T-band" radio communication systems share unused UHF frequencies with distant broadcast stations. When selecting frequencies within TV channels, they quite naturally used frequencies between the Sound and Picture signals of analog (NTSC) broadcasts. Now that television is digital, agencies on those frequencies are having interference problems they did not have to consider before digital modulation was required. As for self certification not being allowed... that's what a DOC is, though with evidence. If one looks hard at the technical assurances provided, many of them may turn out to be not up to the task of proving compliance; CE + CE is no CE and sometimes CE isn't, either. Still, I go for CE marked electronics if I can find therm here. You LOOK harder. Cortland KA5S > [Original Message] > From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 5/21/2010 8:19:08 PM > Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Standard for Power Lines data Transmission System > > In message <[email protected]>, dated Fri, 21 May > 2010, Cortland Richmond <[email protected]> writes: > > >A regulatory scheme has taken root over the last decades that is > >reactive, not proactive, and insists no regulatory issue exists unless > >and until someone is harmed by a violation. > > It's really *always* been like that. Is it possible to produce a > practicable regulatory scheme that does not operate on the basis of > 'reducing complaints of interference to an acceptable minimum'? > > >This has made things considerably easier on manufacturers who fall > >under PArt 15, for example, but has made it more difficult to change > >things once the harm has become evident. I won't call 1989 the "good > >old days" but at that time we had to have the FCC test a computer and > >if it passed, it by golly PASSED. Now, manufacturers self-certify, and > >if assembling from parts that achieved self certification, often slap a > >label on as "assembled with" without concern for actual results. > > That isn't allowed in Europe, expect for electrical control consoles. > -- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
