[RFI] ARRL to FCC...

[Dale J.]

I don't see as being (or overly) rigorous. Some oversight should be implemented by an overseeing agency.  After all, this stuff is being imported, mfg here in the US and marketed to unsuspecting consumers, with their safety in the mix to boot.  

The U.S. does oversee many other forms of consumer goods, be it child safety seats, drugs, food we eat, vehicles and other goods that consumers use.  

Seems to me this is only something that just simply needs more attention from the same or other overseeing agencies.  It may even create more jobs which is something everybody wants, right? 

Dale, k9vuj


On 31, Mar 2014, at 12:24, CR <ka5s at earthlink.net> wrote:

> In general, these are between the buyers and vendors, and it is IMO a not-so-smart economy to leave them out. Considering the distance between buyers and vendors and the (in)ability of buyers to exercise remote supervision over process, though, it often turns out that rigorous incoming QC (also shirked as too costly) is all that is left.
> 
> So long as these are more expensive than any penalties that result, or than buying legislators and regulators (which happens) we will not see any change.
> 
> Cortland Richmond
> 
> On 3/30/2014 5:24 AM, 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RFI mailing list
> RFI at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi