Caveat emptor! The Part 68 competitive costs listed below by Jason L. Chesley have been in effect (in the Silicon Valley area) for several years.
Jason is correct, performing IC and Part 68 simultaneously can save time and money. I've actually seen lower prices quoted, but have not used the testing houses giving the lower quotes. I prefer using a test house I have a track record with. It pays to shop around and make sure a flat fee is being quoted. Duane Marcroft Telecom Consultant Peer Communications [email protected] ______________________________ >From: [email protected] (Steve Wallace) >Subject: Re: Part 68 Costs >=3D >>Competitive costs in California are about $1,200.00 for analog testing = >and >>$2,000.00 for digital testing per interface. This includes the >>submissions. Testing takes about one to two days. CCs are about 3/4 = >that >>price. Filing fees are generally $190 for the FCC and $550 for the >>Industry Canada. Doing IC and 68 simultaneously can save on time and >>money. =20 >> >>Jason L. Chesley >>EMC Technology Services, Inc. >>UL >> >> > >Dear Sirs > >The following e-mail was forwarded to me from TREG and was just a bit >surprising for two reasons. =20 >=46irst, I am not a member and have no idea how this was sent to me, >although I would like to change that situation as soon as possible >(could someone help me out) and second it does seem to be in flagrant >breech of the general code of conduct I understand is generally held >within the group. >Since I am not a registered subscriber to the group, I apologise in >advance if this response is not welcomed. > >As I understand it TREG is a forum where telecommunications topics of >all kinds are openly discussed by experts and amateurs alike. >Wherever possible it seemed that any bias was to be avoided and >advertising of any kind very much frowned upon. =20 >As the manager of a telecommunications equipment test laboratory based >in Santa Clara, California, I must state that the 'competitive' costs >quoted are atypical and almost definitely at the lowest end of the >spectrum. > >Suffice to say that if an unbiased view is to be provided to >members/subscribers to the group, it would only be fair, especially if >it appears a generalisation is being made, that a range of prices >should have been quoted. >Not putting to fine a point on this, it may also be perfectly >reasonable to suggest that "what you pay for is what you get". The >vast majority of manufacturers, in my experience (over the last >fourteen years) within regulatory approval testing, consider 'cost' as >only one factor in the decision making process pertaining to selection >of a laboratory. Factors like service level, report presentation, >product knowledge, engineering expertise and experience, turn round >time etc. are also highly influential in the outcome. > >Once again, I apologise if this response is not considered 'good >etiquette' but felt it was only reasonable to clarify the situation, >which I feel was unfairly represented. >>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\< >Steve Wallace >Telecom Manager >BABT Product Service, Santa Clara, CA > > Email : [email protected] > Telephone : 408 919 3771 > Pager : 408 939 4210 > >>/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/<
