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. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort. - 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]>
