Gary:
True, the FCC is essentially still following the Communications Act of 1934 in its scope. However, telegraph rates aren't so important anymore, while the issue of consumer electronics immunity certainly is. We expect our laws and regulations to evolve to address the important issues of the day, junking the obsolete and helping with new conflicts. Immunity problems may manifest themselves as product quality issues (fitness for use, truth in advertising) or safety issues (inadvertant activation, erratic reliability, failure to respond), so maybe the FCC shouldn't be the lead agency. OTOH, immunity control is technically so closely related with established FCC emission regulations (and our industry that helps enforce them) that I don't see it making any sense to get another authority involved. Agency cooperation isn't unheard of; for example, the FCC and FAA share requirements for radio tower marking, lighting and location. Ed Price WB6WSN Chula Vista, CA USA -----Original Message----- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:30 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question IMO - The FCC was commissioned with protecting the public airways only - a far different scenario than in the EU. As such they worry about emissions coming from any unintentional or intentional radiator that would be detrimental to the public airways recivers or transmitting equipment. They were never set up or intended to protect the general public - even the CB and Ham radio stuff was to protect the public communications and not our neighbors TV. Although proper design, frequency allocation and usage would cut down on that type of interference. They do mention immunity but only in so much as to let you know that properly operating public communications equipment could cause problems - and the consumer should deal with it because the FCC has no authority to mandate it for non- public telecommunications equipment. Whether it should be granted that power or not is the discussion of the minute I suppose. -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:45 AM To: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] RF Common Mode Immunity Test Question In message <sn1pr12mb07357121e3850ada9346ec6380...@sn1pr12mb0735.namprd12.prod.outlo ok.com>, dated Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Rodney Davis < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> writes: >Hi guys, in simple English.. the FCC does state in section >15.17 Susceptibility to interference..., you are responsible for >reducing the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference. Who is 'you', and how does anyone know what level of immunity is 'enough' without immunity standards? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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]>
