dwh@ataritx.uucp (Dave Hanna) (02/12/91)
In article <1991Feb11.061309.6487@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: | |I was recently in a class in which RFI, or EMI as they now call it, |was the subject. During the class, the instructor claimed that |EMI restrictions were tougher in European countries such as Germany |than they are here in the USA. He also claimed that Canadian rules |were essentially the same as in the USA except that there was more |paperwork involved in the USA. | |So my question -- is this constant delay for FCC approval a bogus |excuse? If EMI standars are tougher in countries where new Atari |equipment shows up first, shouldn't it be a cake walk to get FCC |approval here? Having to re-engineer equipment to meet weaker |standards seems unlikely :-) All I can say is, No, it's not a bogus excuse. >- John Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -- Dave Hanna Atari Microsystems Corp UUCP ...!texsun!letni!ataritx!dwh ...!ames!atari!dhanna
bro@eunomia.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb12.153835.10822@ataritx.uucp> dwh@ataritx.UUCP (Dave Hanna) writes: >In article <1991Feb11.061309.6487@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: [... Comparing RFI certification in Europe and Canada with USA : ... ] >|there was more paperwork involved in the USA. >| >|So my question -- is this constant delay for FCC approval a bogus >|excuse? Having read several case histories of the US methods and requirements, a) the paperwork *is* almost enough to explain the differences... b) there are some bizarre requirements which prevent applicants from successfully pre-testing their machines, requiring time-consuming rejection and reapplication. (E.g. the FCC can hang *anything* off the ports - at random?) It would be interesting to read similar accounts of the process from these other countries. Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu) Disclaimer: These views are mine, not necessarily my organization's.
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (02/14/91)
Dave Hanna, of Atari Microsystems Corp. writes: >All I can say is, No, it's not a bogus excuse. Dave... while we have your ear, could you go into a little about why it is that Atari seems to be having such problems with FCC type acceptance testing..? The FCC regulations should apply equally to all computer manufacturers, but while Apple, IBM, Commodore, and all the little clone companies seem to manage to comply without too many delays, it seems that every product Atari has designed in the last few years has had to go through many cycles of testing and redesign before they can be sold. Could you comment on what you think may be the reasons for this..? BobR
mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella) (02/20/91)
> Dave... while we have your ear, could you go into a little about why it > is that Atari seems to be having such problems with FCC type acceptance > testing..? The FCC regulations should apply equally to all computer > manufacturers, but while Apple, IBM, Commodore, and all the little clone > companies seem to manage to comply without too many delays, it seems that > every product Atari has designed in the last few years has had to go through > many cycles of testing and redesign before they can be sold. > > Could you comment on what you think may be the reasons for this..? I'm not Dave; I don't even play him on TV, but I can speculate. I'll bet a lot of radiation escapes from all those ports Atari puts on all their machines. Other companies can probably classify things like MIDI, and even Centronics and RS-232 ports as optional add ons, and get the FCC approval without them.