Hi Ed (K0IL),
Leaving out any references to the "current administration", (and thus
avoiding the trap of a political argument ensuing), the sniff test for
the FCC's activity would be to look at the actions that the FCC has
taken in the past 12 months. Maybe Ed (W1RFI) can shed some light on
that subject, and where we might go to look for that info. I see the
list on the ARRL web site, and I see some action reports now and then
elsewhere, but I don't see nearly as many as I suspect are happening,
and a lot of them are from several years ago as well. This leads me to
suspect that I am looking in the wrong spots for them. Maybe there is a
site that gives the most current info on what the FCC is doing more in
real time.
I really don't care too much how th FCC accomplishes it's job, as long
as it is accomplishing it's jobs correctly.
As an aside, when last I looked we only needed something like 64 more
signatures to make the 150 needed to get listed!!! Many thanks to all
that signed, and anyone that has not please consider signing the
petition located at:
http://wh.gov/lpz5Y
Thanks,
Dave
NK7Z
--
Support better RFI practices, please sign this petition:
at Whitehouse.gov
http://wh.gov/lpz5Y
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 17:54 +0000, EDWARDS, EDDIE J wrote:
> Ed,
>
> OK, so you say the FCC has the "right" to "ask for data" and/or to "test the
> unit" themselves, and the FCC "should" do those things; however, is there
> currently a regulation, rule or law that requires them to do any of this or
> anything at all?
>
> Of course, we currently see that even if there is an actual law on the books,
> the feds don't have to actually follow it or do anything about it, so I
> suppose that reality makes my question sort of pointless, but I am still
> curious.
>
> 73, de ed -K0iL
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFI [mailto:rfi-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Hare, Ed W1RFI
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 12:38 PM
> To: Dale J.
> Cc: RFI@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
>
> The FCC already has the right to ask for test data, to test the unit
> themselves and to determine that those tests are accurate. I am not sure
> what else you are thinking they should have the right to do.
>
> The FCC should actually do those things from time to time.
>
> Ed
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale J. [mailto:dj2001x@comcast.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 5:24 AM
> To: Hare, Ed W1RFI
> Cc: RFI@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RFI] ARRL to FCC...
>
> 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail contains Omaha Public Power District's confidential and
> proprietary information and is for use only by the intended recipient.
> Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this e-mail is not a contract offer,
> amendment, or acceptance. If you are not the intended recipient you are
> notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
> reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|