18 Dec
2006
18 Dec
'06
5:26 a.m.
Ever read that FCC certification on the back of your machine? Its interference
to the outside world is below certain limits and it must accept all
interference from the outside. Thanks a bunch.
Things have come a long way. The DEC micro-computer I once worked at home on
blacked out TV over a nice radius. I thought I was doing the world a service
but awaited neighbors' complaints which thankfully never came.
How about having a session ruined because someone is nearby with their
cellular phone? I am not talking about their voice. Outgoing and incoming
calls transmit a nice signature through the audio system, in the computer or
external amps, etc. Every time. (Most of this equipment was designed/built
before the overabundance of these toys.)
I assume the computer stuff is grounded. A little battery guitar amp might not
be. No matter, both get the calls. Had to kill the PA last night because the
organizer would not kill his phone.
What can one do about it?
18 Dec
18 Dec
5:58 a.m.
On Monday 18 December 2006 04:26, David Baron wrote:
Ever read that FCC certification on the back of your
machine?
Its interference to the outside world is below certain limits
and it must accept all interference from the outside. Thanks a
bunch.
Even after 30 years of playing with FCC-certified toys, I've
never understood that wording. Most computer equipment I've
used has at least SOME shielding from outside RFI, which would
seemingly violate the terms you're describing, which are from
FCC Part 15. I've heard people claim that it was just intended
to provide a shield to the manufacturers against consumer
complaints when RFI did impair their use of the product, but I
would think they'd have made that a little less cryptic.
Has any audio or computer equipment manufacturer ever been fined
by the FCC for NOT crashing when the neighbor turns on his
blender (or when the guys in dark sunglasses sitting in the
flower delivery truck in the parking lot turn on their
computer-crashing ray gun?) This seems like one of
those "Straight Dope" kind of questions, but I can't find a
definitive answer.
Rob
12:06 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 04:45:09AM -0500, Rob wrote:
On Monday 18 December 2006 04:26, David Baron wrote:
I think you've misinterpreted it. It means that:
a) This device does not produce RFI that causes problems with
other devices, and,
b) this device does not break if it receives RFI from other
devices
It's basically trying to say that the device's functionality is
neutral with respect to radio devices, even through it does produce
some amount of detectable radio frequencies.
On the other hand, you'll note that a cellphone (which is certainly
not neutral with respect to radio) carries no such FCC text.
--
Ross Vandegrift
ross(a)kallisti.us
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine
man in the bonds of Hell."
--St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
Ever read that FCC certification on the back of
your machine?
Its interference to the outside world is below certain limits
and it must accept all interference from the outside. Thanks a
bunch.
Even after 30 years of playing with FCC-certified toys, I've
never understood that wording. Most computer equipment I've
used has at least SOME shielding from outside RFI, which would
seemingly violate the terms you're describing, which are from
FCC Part 15. I've heard people claim that it was just intended
to provide a shield to the manufacturers against consumer
complaints when RFI did impair their use of the product, but I
would think they'd have made that a little less cryptic.
6553
days inactive
6553
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
David Baron -
Rob -
Ross Vandegrift