I must disagree. The wording of Part 15 requiring users of Part 15 devices to accept interference, does not reduce complaints; hardly any users actually know it is there, or what it means. Fewer care. If they are receiving one's signals, they consider them intrusions to which they must react. They do NOT want someone telling them to live with it. This has created some unfortunate situations.
Cortland (What I write here is mine alone. My employer does not Concur, agree or else endorse These words, their tone, or thought.) John Shinn wrote:... > the susceptability) to incidental RF. Secondly, by requiring the label to say > "must accept", eliminates a lot of complaints about LEGAL incidental as well > as intentional radiators (you might also read that as easer to dismiss > complaints). ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
