RE: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India
Kim/David, I can confirm that only the reduced 2.418 to 2.457 GHz band is available in Israel for SRD devices complying with EN 300 328 and EN 300 440. Maximum EIRP is 100 mW. Contact me offline for info about the other countries. Best Regards, Roger Magnuson Managing Director TGC Communication AB Industrivagen 5, 171 48 Solna SWEDEN TEL: +46 856250053 (direct) FAX: +46 856250055 mobile: +46 707770594 mailto:ro...@tgc.se internet: http://www.tgc.se -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Novarex Enterprises Ltd. Sent: den 25 november 2002 15:36 To: Kim Boll Jensen; EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: RE: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India Dear Kim, I do not work with Bluetooth myself, but I have just spoken with a colleague on your behalf. To my surprise, he states that Bluetooth has not yet been approved for use in Israel due to a clash with frequencies used by the military. However, the Ministry of Communications is working on this together with the army, so that Bluetooth can be used in this country. My colleague also states that many Bluetooth applications are already being used unofficially in Israel. You might be able to access first-hand information regarding dates and tentative requirements documents by applying directly to the Israeli Ministry of Communications. If I can be of further help, please do not hesitate to ask. Best regards, David Drori Novarex Enterprises Ltd., PO Box 45178, Room 204, 2nd Floor, Park Center, Hamarpe 1, Har Hotsvim Industrial Area, Jerusalem 91450, Israel. Tel: +972 2 540 0168 Fax: +972 2 540 0169 GSM Cellular: +972 54 828011 E-mail: da...@novarex.com -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:51 PM To: EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: Bluetooth in Israel, Brazil, Argentina and India Hi all Sorry to bring this matter up again. I have now a list of 21 countries requirements for BlueTooth products national type approvals, and still need 4 more which I can't find. Can some one help with national requirements for SRD and BlueTooth for; Israel Brazil Argentina India Thank you very much. Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark
RE: South Africa and SRD
HI Kim, Here's the info I have: The regulator in South Africa is ICASA (www.icasa.org.za). 2.4 GHz RLAN is regulated in South Africa according to "No. 1790 Government Gazette, 17 Nov. 1995". No license is needed. The specification to be satisfied is EN 300 328, thus IEEE 802.11b is accepted. 5 GHz band is not open for the moment. New regulations for 5GHz are in discussion. One may expect decisions shortly. 24002483.5 MHz, EIRP max. 100 mW 5150-5350 MHz & 5470-5725 MHz not open in South Africa. 3rd party tests reports issued by any accredited test house/laboratory according to appropriate specifications are acceptable for the purposes of application for type approval. Local certificate holder is required. The type approval certificate will only be issued to a local South African registered company. The type approval fee is ZAR4000 and the lead time 2-3 weeks. Hope this helps. We have also info about approximately 60 other countries if you're interested (including copies of the specs). Best Regards, Roger Magnuson Managing Director TGC Communication AB Industrivagen 5, 171 48 Solna SWEDEN TEL: +46 856250053 (direct) FAX: +46 856250055 mobile: +46 707770594 mailto:ro...@tgc.se internet: http://www.tgc.se -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: den 21 november 2002 21:39 To: EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: South Africa and SRD Hi all Does South Africa require approval of short range devices e.g.. Bluetooth. As fare as I can tell they require conformity to EU, US or Canadian requirements and have approved a lot of world wide accreditation bodies. But what is the actual national requirements, I can't find them at any national web. Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under R&TTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for R&TTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the R&TTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating "Absolutely R&TTE" as well as "Absolutely not R&TTE". Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the R&TTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the R&TTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the R&TTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the R&TTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the R&TTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the R&TTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that "terminal equipment" is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is
RE: R&TTE and video out
Don't think so as the equipment is using the antenna cable. As VCRs are not radio terminals this can't be either. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB Sweden -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:49 AM To: EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: R&TTE and video out Hi all I have an equipment which can convert audio and video (phono connector) signal from a PC to a normal HF antenna signal which can be transmitted though a normal antenna cable in the house to your radio and TV sets. The voltage of the HF signal is the same as normal received from an antenna. Does this product fall under the R&TTE directive ? According to my interpretation the definitions in art. 2 c) and d) say that it has to be used for TX to be under this directive. What do you think ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark
RE: Analog PSTN approvals in Czech Republic
Joe, In theory, you could approve a modem which complies with TBR 21 plus - Czech Advisory Notes ATAAB AN018, AN019, AN020 (ETSI TR 103 000-3-1, 2, 3 V1.1.1 (2001-08)) - Network Compatibility tests (tone/ring detectors etc) however it's a lot more convenient to use the TZP 018 spec as the test lab (TESTCOM) don't have automated TBR 21 testing facilities (they have to perform check testing regardless if you already have a TBR 21 test report or not). According to TZP 018, ring impedance should be >= 4 kohm i.e. there is no upper limit anymore. In-country EMC and safety testing is no longer required (DoC in Czech language is sufficient). Hope this helps. Let me know if you need further info (or help with approval!). Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB Sweden -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of j...@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:40 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Analog PSTN approvals in Czech Republic Hello All: Recent discussions on the emc-pstc listserver indicate that the Czech Republic has made an effort to harmonize their regulatory scheme with the European Union's RTTE directive. I have reviewed the text of the Czech legislation, Act 151/2000, and find that it has some similarities to the RTTE directive, but also has significant differences. It is also unclear how far they have moved in actually implementing the new law. Do any members of the group have up-to-date information on the Czech requirements for approval of analog PSTN terminal equipment, such as a modem? The last I heard, applicants could either comply with an old Czech national standard that had unusual requirements for ringing impedance, or they could comply with TBR 21 and its unusual requirement for 60 mA current limiting. I would like to know if it is now possible to get approval in the Czech Republic for an analog PSTN modem that uses a more "worldwide" type of interface that has high ringing impedance and no 60 mA current limiter. Any insight that members may have on this would be greatly appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: Jate Blue Book
Ron, The download is at http://www.jate.or.jp/english/example/analog_pdf.html If you need Blue Book testing, contact me! Good luck... Roger Magnuson Managing Director TGC Communication AB Industrivagen 5, 171 48 Solna SWEDEN Phone: +46 856250053 (direct) Fax: +46 856250055 mobile: +46 707770594 mailto:ro...@tgc.se internet: http://www.tgc.se -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Ron Pickard Sent: den 28 februari 2002 23:33 To: emc-p...@ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Jate Blue Book Hello to all, I have heard that the JATE Blue Book:2000 (in English) is freely available for download. Is it actually available for free download? And if anyone knows about this, then please share the web address to do this. Actually, I have been at JATE's website, "http://www.jate.or.jp/index-e.html";, and found the "Ordinance Concerning Terminal Facilities, etc." in multple parts. Is this the Blue Book or something else? It would be most appreciated to get a free download of the Blue Book in English (if its available). Please advise. Best regards, Ron Pickard rpick...@hypercom.com
RE: Client Presence During Testing
Kate, We are a test lab as well as a regular client at many different labs around the world and we never use test labs that don't allow us to attend the testing. We always provide technical support during testing which in my opinion benefits all involved. The same applies when we do the testing, if only the client representative is competent we prefer to get immediate support instead of endless discussions via email (or late night phone calls). Roger Magnuson Managing Director, TGC AB Dalvagen 28, 169 56 SOLNA, Sweden TEL: +46 856250050 (direct) FAX: +46 856250045 mobile: +46 707770594 mailto:ro...@tgc.se internet: http://www.tgc.se -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of k.macl...@aprel.com Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:04 AM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Client Presence During Testing Hello, Folks - Can you share with me how your favourite/preferred lab(s) handle client presence during testing? I'd like to know a) Do they allow presence in lab (technical area) itself ? If not, then where are clients who are at the lab normally placed? b) Are engineering/design type tests handled differently than compliance in this respect? c) What about formal witnessing of tests? d) How you feel about the policies that are in use? Do they influence your choice of labs? f) Have any related polices recently changed in the labs you use? How do you feel about this, and is it an influencer? e) Any other comments about this? Huge thanks in advance for your input! (Labs are welcome to comment, too!) Kate Kathy M. MacLean President, APREL Laboratories -EMC-RF Safety-Antenna design/test-SAR/MPE- -Environmental-Acoustics-Wireless- 51 Spectrum Way, Nepean, Ontario K2R 1E6 (613) 820-2730 fax (613) 820-4161 cell (613) 791-3777 Web site: http://www.aprel.com - watch for our new web site coming soon!
RE: Using RTTE directive before April 2000?
Joe, To the best of my knowledge, the implementation of RTTE differs from all previous telecoms directives as *all* Member States *must* start using it on April 8, 2000. The current TTE Directive is valid until April 7, 2000. As you know, the current Directive took much too long to implement in certain countries (no names...) and I guess this is the reason for this unusal approach. Roger Magnuson Manager, Marketing & Business Development TGC AB Dalvagen 28, 169 56 SOLNA, Sweden TEL: +46 856250050 (direct) FAX: +46 856250045 mobile: +46 707770594 mailto:ro...@tgc.se internet: http://www.tgc.se -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of j...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 10:13 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org; t...@world.std.com Subject: Using RTTE directive before April 2000? Listmembers: I have a question that perhaps some of you can help me with. I'm developing a regulatory compliance plan for a new telecom product that is scheduled to begin shipping in the first quarter of 2000. The exact date is not certain, but it is likely to be before the April 8, 2000 date that appears in the RTTE directive. If possible, I would like to avoid the whole notified body route called out by the current directive 98/13/EC, especially since it would only be required for the brief period until April 2000. I seem to recall that a new directive can be used as soon as *any* member state has transposed it into national law. If so, this suggests that the RTTE directive could be used prior to April 2000 if at least one member state has transposed it into national law. In the case of the UK, however, recent postings on the emc-pstc listserver indicate that the draft legislation for the UK calls out an effective date of April 8, 2000. In other words, even if the UK transposes the directive prior to April 2000, the national law itself will call out an effective date of April 8. I do not know what the other member states are planning to do. So, am I stuck with using directive 98/13/EC and the notified body route if the product ships prior to April 8, 2000? Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc.
