The economics of many consumer products changes the analysis of quality. In general, manufacturing has reached a point where quality issues due to manufacturing errors has decreased significantly for many consumer electronics. There may still be quality issues related to the design, but the overall failure rate of consumer products has decreased. For many consumer electronics, the purchaser has to determine whether to spend more for a high-quality product that may run fine for 20 years but will be obsolete technologically in 8 years. If the product will be replaced with an upgrade, why spend a lot for something that will last forever.
For affluent societies, the same is true for many types of products. I find that it is quite common for me to get rid of an article of clothing just because I never wear it anymore. It's uncommon for me to wear out clothing or to wear it to the point that poor quality seams rip open. Clothing price becomes more important that researching the quality of a particular clothing manufacture. The automotive market has developed to the point where quality is an important factor. The product is expensive and will likely need repairs even if only owned for a few years. Many consumers will readily list what they think of as a quality brand of automobile when they would have more trouble listing quality televisions. In other areas, price outweighs quality. Few people would call flying on Spirt Airlines or Ryan Air as quality experiences. Yet these airlines sell out based on a low price. My company has a large investment in quality and reliability testing, so I tend to believe that there are consumers purchasing consumer electronics that do care about quality. Microsoft learned about the importance of the testing through the Red Ring of Death. It became so notorious that it even got its own Wikipedia page. My company went through great effort to solve the company and to make the customers happy. The outcome has been much more work on the reliability of products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems Ted Eckert The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: Joe Randolph [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity Gary's observations about the telecom industry's obsession with field reliability and resistibility to electromagnetic interference are correct. When I started at AT&T Bell Labs in 1977, they already had a suite of self-imposed immunity requirements for static discharge, conducted RF, and lightning. I spent quite a bit of time getting my designs to meet all those requirements that AT&T self-imposed on itself. Since that time, the suite of self-imposed immunity requirements for the telecom industry has evolved into the requirements described in the Telcordia GR-1089 standard for electromagnetic compatibility. GR-1089 is an industry standard, not a regulatory standard, and is just one of several so-called "NEBS" standards for telecom networks in the USA. Compliance with GR-1089 is required by all the major carriers (AT&T, Centurylink, and Verizon) for equipment that they use in their networks. Pretty much all of the familiar emissions and immunity requirements used in the EU are represented in the current edition of GR-1089, but there is not always a one-to-one correspondence in the test procedures or the limits. In particular, the lightning immunity requirements in GR-1089 are probably the most severe worldwide. While I enjoy working on the particular challenges of GR-1089 compliance and I respect the motives behind the requirements, I can also see quite clearly how the economics of operating a large telecom network drive things in this direction. Every time you have send a repair technician out into the field (a so-called "truck roll"), it costs a lot of money. In addition, customers expect a reliable network, and each of the major carriers competes with the others for customers. However, I'm not sure how well the particular example of the telecom industry translates to other businesses such as consumer products. In the consumer products industry, the main focus seems to be on first cost, since consumers are heavily influenced by price, and manufacturers typically offer very little support after the sale. The economic incentives are different compared to the telecom industry. In my view, the overall quality of consumer electronics has fallen to a pretty low level over the last 20 years or so, and I'm not sure there is a way to fix that. In theory, consumers would be smart enough to pay extra for higher quality products, but I think that is true only for certain consumers. One final observation. Even if a consumer product is designed to meet all the applicable EMC requirements in the EU (or even Telcordia GR-1089), this still tells the consumer *nothing* about whether the product will perform its intended function. As a co-worker once pointed out, "a block of wood will pass FCC Part 68." I suspect this same concept can be extended to the full suite of EMC requirements in the EU or in GR-1089. So, we probably need to keep some perspective on the limitations of our regulatory requirements. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) [email protected] http://www.randolph-telecom.com -----Original Message----- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity The telecommunications industry has always had serious concern over product robustness: mechanical, safety, and EMC which was reflected in their private industry NEBS program. These were developed long before the wireless devices proliferated. These were private industry standards were developed between ATT, Verizon, Southwest Bell and a host of RBOCs (Regional Bell operating companies) or CLECs (Co-locators - competitors using their facilities) They were both profit driven because they had burned down a couple of central offices affecting literally 100,000s of thousands of customers. In addition the FEDS could fine them if certain performance metrics weren't met and burning down a central office pretty much assures that they won't be met for some period of time. The FEDs however didn't develop or even suggest any standards. The test included a whole series of stress tests - corrosive gasses, shock, earthquake, vibration and intentionally sticking flame inside the enclosur! e and capturing not only flame but smoke density and toxicity etc. ( I set a $250,000 test sample on fire at their labs more than once) They included emissions testing that was different, but not dramatically, from FCC and EU ITE measurement process. But other than ESD I don't remember additional EMC immunity tests. Doesn't mean that they weren't there just that I can't remember 15 years ago. The point is that this is a case where private industry developed very harsh standards that were imposed upon suppliers. If you didn't go through this NEBS standards testing process and by approved independent laboratories - there was no way in heck you were going to sell to Ma Bell in any of her forms. This suite of tests could easily run over $100,000 USD and that was just the hardware side. There were a host of software performance tests as well. Even at that cost the NEBS labs had a pretty brisk business because there was even bigger money in supplying the telecoms with equipment. In the EU there were some ETSI standards that were similar. Gary -----Original Message----- From: Sykes, Bob [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 3:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] Complaint-Driven Immunity John Woodgate writes (in part): >Considerable weight is probably given to complaints from the emergency >services, because of their importance and because they are >probably well-founded, not lunatic. Yes, and not just emergency services... I want my MTV via 4G! The Cellular/mobile industry spends billion$ 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: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.signalfinders.com_in fo_&d=BQIDAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJLDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-g laOgP0k&m=NEBvlkek5qjU9CZItDpf2kFiW3JjOVQkrFf9anpvQhc&s=J9g727v4Ds_6ANNEHg0k 0cyfblXFLNDSKVY3q_tDogc&e= Sometimes the FCC helps: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__apps.fcc.gov_edocs-5Fpu blic_attachmatch_DA-2D13-2D2077A1.pdf&d=BQIDAg&c=0hKVUfnuoBozYN8UvxPA-w&r=RJ LDFgHJo89sjFN46b74hFXEuxvz4Z1iAx-glaOgP0k&m=NEBvlkek5qjU9CZItDpf2kFiW3JjOVQk rFf9anpvQhc&s=LyTf4WDLObg5FJjDiK-j1nQn3UAuJqWEM2syvGIeeLw&e= 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 <snip> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]>
