---------- > From: Laurie Mead <lm...@qualmark.com> > To: UMBDENSTOCK, DON <umbdenst...@sensormatic.com>; 'emc-pstc' <emc-p...@ieee.org>; 'Dan Mitchell' <dmitch...@eoscorp.com> > Subject: Re: Are all these agencies really necessary? > Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 9:30 AM > > Sounds crazy to have so many marks and certifications for the same things. > Some of you already know about the new mark QualMark and TUV Product > Service are offering, Qht Certification. Given the current climate against > more bumper stickers, I just wanted to give you guys a heads up on how Qht > differs from these other safety and compliance marks. > > The Qht Mark has 5 category levels designed to show a product's level of > design ruggedization using the HALT technology. When consumer or > commercial buyers want to determine which products are more rugged (i.e. > phones, laptops, cameras, modems, medical equipment, avionics parts, > whatever...) this new mark will show that through independent third party > certification. The marketing people in these companies can use and have > used Qht certification in their advertisements, press releases, sales > proposals and presentations. If they are able to secure one deal, based on > having the Qht mark as a differentiator, then they will have made their > money back and more. Our customers realize that Qht is a voluntary mark > and consider it for its return on investment (ROI). > > I welcome your comments. Your group has often been a good sounding board > for us and I didn't want anyone to misunderstand what the Qht mark is for. > > Laurie Lee Mead > National Director of Certification Programs > QualMark Corporation > website: http://www.qualmark.com/core.html > voice: 888-425-8669 x 243 > email: lm...@qualmark.com > facsimile: 303-254-4002 > Qht info: http://www.qualmark.com/qht.html > > ---------- > > From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON <umbdenst...@sensormatic.com> > > To: 'emc-pstc' <emc-p...@ieee.org>; 'Dan Mitchell' > <dmitch...@eoscorp.com> > > Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary? > > Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:28 AM > > > > Another slant -- it may be your company's marketing strategy. > > > > For some of our products our compliance engineering group has determined > > that the CE mark is sufficient for European markets; however, for > marketing > > reasons (read: "our customers like to see . . . ") we also obtain TUV > > approval. So some of our expense is strictly marketing related. If the > > payback is there, go for it! > > > > Don Umbdenstock > > Sensormatic > > > > > ---------- > > > From: Dan Mitchell[SMTP:dmitch...@eoscorp.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:26 PM > > > To: 'emc-pstc' > > > Subject: Are all these agencies really necessary? > > > > > > The company I work for routinely requests that I get certifications > > > through > > > the following safety agencies: > > > UL, VDE, SEMKO, DEMKO, NEMKO, FIMKO, EZU, QAS, GOST and > > > ad nausium. > > > > > > My question is this; Are all these agencies necessary? If you get a > base > > > > > > safety certification from say, UL, coupled with a CB Report/Cert and a > > > third party EMC/EMI report to FCC ClassB, and EN50022, why is it > necessary > > > > > > to get the safety agency for every country you want to sell in? > > > Why can't this industry come up with an all encompassing mark, lets > call > > > it > > > the OM (for Overall Mark) that is granted to your product after you get > > > the > > > following: > > > 1. Base safety cert (from your agency of choice) > > > 2. CB Report/Cert > > > 3. FCC/Cispr22 cert > > > THe mark would allow you to sell your product in any country in the > world. > > > > > > It makes alot more sense than the way it is done now. I can spend up > to > > > 3 > > > months waiting for a certification to come back from China. > > > The cost is outragous also. If we spend $30,000 on the certification
> > > process, we count ourself lucky. I believe that alot of these new > > > agencies > > > that have been appearing on the scene over the last couple of years are > in > > > > > > it strictly to make a buck. All they have to do is block your product > > > from > > > their market unless you pay their extortion money. > > > > > > I know that this is opening up a can of worms, but I would like to know > if > > > > > > there are other disgruntled safety persons out there that feel the same > > > > way. > > > > > > This view is strictly my own. > > > Daniel W. Mitchell > > > Product Safety > > > EOS Corp. > > > > > > --------- > > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com > > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list > > > administrators). > > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list > > administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
