In message
<cy1pr03mb14701aee786ef1ef0a0689e994...@cy1pr03mb1470.namprd03.prod.outlo
ok.com>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Ted Eckert <[email protected]>
writes:
As such, I am taking the lack of visible complaints for a possible lack
of the problem of interference.
The *only* justification for emission limits and immunity requirements
is complaints of interference.
A major reason for different approaches in Europe and US is historical.
For around 40 years, people in continental Europe could not listen to
the radio stations they wanted to, partly because of 'jamming' by
authorities with different politics and partly because many such
transmissions were low-power and were drowned out by local interference
sources. So European governments have for long been very sensitive about
any threat to broadcast reception.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See 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]>
