Dale,
I see after the ARRL filed the report to the FCC, that Sears and the
Vendor in CA removed the product from the web sites in very short order!
I have not checked to see if they have put them back.
I can only say thanks to the ARRL for this... If only someone could
generate a hefty fine to both that would send a message!
To the folks that will say there are hundreds of switchers left, yes I
am aware that there are hundreds of switchers out there, but there is
now one less, and the vendors know a bit more about RFI than they did a
month ago. That is progress.
--
Support better RFI practices, please sign this petition:
at Whitehouse.gov
http://wh.gov/lpz5Y
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 04:24 -0500, Dale J. wrote:
> Ed,
>
> If the manufacturer is required to test the device then the overseeing agency
> should have the right to visit the mfg lab where the testing is performed and
> do an audit of the procedures, watch tests being performed and if procedures
> are followed. Unscheduled visits are also to be permitted and spot checks in
> the field may also be performed, not required, but the possibility would
> exist. This would place a burden on the mfg to assure that testing is
> performed and in a prescribed way, sample sizes, methods, test equip. etc.
>
> I don't believe this would require an army of agency personnel to carry this
> out. Just the fact that it's in place would send a message. Of course the
> penalty for non-compliance would be enormous, both monitory and criminal
> negligence for those who knowingly broke the law with intent to deceive. This
> after all could constitute a safety issue.
>
> This business of allowing manufacturers to simply test something without any
> oversight and just because they say it's good is like allowing a fox to
> manage a chicken coop. They probably don't do any testing at all, just take
> our word for it's good, ya right.
>
> As for product that's shipped from overseas, the receiving company would be
> responsible for the testing and would be under the same rules and penalty as
> on shore mfg.'s.
>
> This is not rocket science.
>
> 73
> Dale, k9vuj
>
>
>
>
> On 29, Mar 2014, at 20:40, "Hare, Ed W1RFI" <w1rfi@arrl.org> wrote:
>
> > The unit we tested had the FCC logo on it, even though it was 58 dB over
> > the noise limits.
> >
> > It also has a CE mark on it, and there are already complaints being brought
> > in Europe.
> >
> > Under the US rules, the FCC does not test any equipment to authorize it.
> > Even certification is based on manufacturer-supplied test data. In the
> > case of lighting devices, the equipment is "verified," meaning that the
> > manufacturer is required to test the design before marketing it.
> >
> > Ed Hare, W1RFI
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: RFI [rfi-bounces@contesting.com] on behalf of Roger D Johnson
> > [n1rj@roadrunner.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:50 PM
> > To: RFI@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
> >
> > An occasional spot check wouldn't bring world commerce to a halt! If an
> > item fails
> > and it's found that the mfr left out critical filtering components, the
> > whole
> > load goes
> > back to China.
> >
> > On 3/29/2014 3:43 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> On 03/21/2014 02:48 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> >>> Do you really think we need more gov't to be involved with inspecting
> >>> and testing EVERY item that is made so that it does not hurt people,
> >>> cause interference and on and on and on. We would never see another
> >>> product brought to market.
> >>>
> >>> We don't live in a perfect world and expecting something like this with
> >>> a gov't that is 17trillion in the hole is crazy.
> >> Proactively having the government check everything does seem
> >> impractical, indeed.
> >>
> >> However, putting rules in place that oblige manufacturers
> >> and/or importers to replace faulty equipment at their expense
> >> (instead of stiffing the consumers) might be a good deterrent
> >> to people sticking FCC stickers on untested equipment...
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
> > _______________________________________________
> > RFI mailing list
> > RFI@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
>
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|