John Woodgate writes (in part): >Considerable weight is probably given to complaints from the emergency >services, because of their importance and because they are >probably well-founded, not lunatic.
Yes, and not just emergency services... I want my MTV via 4G! The Cellular/mobile industry spends billion$ for precious spectrum and they aggressively protect that investment. Frequencies that were once occupied by UHF channels are now home to advanced wireless services using base stations that log signal impairment data 24/7/365. Cellular (and other related) industries are motivated and well equipped to track down interference to their services. Revenue stream is directly proportional to throughput. In the US; Often these interference issues are resolved without FCC involvement by contractors such as: http://www.signalfinders.com/info/ Sometimes the FCC helps: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-2077A1.pdf As spectrum cost rises, I think we can also expect interference complaints from more sophisticated, informed, funded and connected entities to supplant Joe Consumer's problems with his rabbit ears reception. My opinion only, Bob Sykes -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 8:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity In message <[email protected]>, dated Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Ed Price <[email protected]> writes: >To paraphrase Monrad and John: "The only justification for regulations >is consumer complaints." > There is a legal principle, 'Cui bono?' ('In whose interest?') that challenges laws that are of no practical use or advantage. So emissions that do not cause interference and susceptibility that is never challenged should not be regulated. > >Does anyone have any experience in filing a consumer complaint with >their applicable national agency? Was it easy to find the place to >enter your complaint? Did you get the impression the agency was simply >trying to get you to go away? Did you feel as though your input was >going to a null-bucket? Did you receive any follow-up? Was the process >something reasonable for an average consumer? > It's deliberately not made easy because history showed that a large proportion of complaints were spurious and even lunatic. It's also costly to investigate claims. > >In short, does "no complaints" really indicate no problems? > While official information is not in the public domain, CISPR/H is said to look at the levels of complaints when determining whether existing emission requirements should be changed and where to set new requirements as the exploited EM spectrum expands upwards in frequency. Considerable weight is probably given to complaints from the emergency services, because of their importance and because they are probably well-founded, not lunatic. > -- 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]> Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
