Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!motcsd!xdos!doug
From: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: FCC approval needed??
Message-ID: <557@xdos.UUCP>
Date: 1 Dec 89 16:36:42 GMT
References: <68558@psuecl.bitnet> <552@xdos.UUCP> <4645@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Reply-To: doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Organization: Hunter Systems, Mountain View CA (Silicon Valley)
Lines: 29

In article <4645@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
[ In RE: FCC certification, EMI noisy equipment confiscation ]
>Well, a better moral to this story is make damn sure you're satisfied it'll
>pass, even if you don't go through the bureaucratic paperwork. If you stuff
>doesn't pass it's gonna cost you a bundle to redesign, tool up, and maybe
>still build new parts whether they confiscate your stock or just say "try
>again".

Absolutely. But what often happens is that they *don't* consider noise
as a major factor when designing it. Then they start manufacturing/shipping
and someone says "what about EMI & FCC?", and everybody says "Oh sh*t,
now what?"

In other words, poor planning. But I've seen it happen even at one
otherwise professional, well funded (venture capital), well intentioned
company. It just sort of fell through the cracks. And manufacturing
engineering put in a lot of overtime redesigning it. It worked out ok
in the end, but it was still an expensive and unnecessary mistake.

Many other garage shops screw this up simply out of inexperience and
insufficient familiarity with the complex dimensions of manufacturing
a clean, mature product. This is also often the reason for poor reliability.
Garage shops rarely know the phrase "burn-in", for instance. Or think
they can't afford it. In truth it's more like you can't afford *not*
to do a product right. But try to convince a Jack Tramiel-type of that.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt		{pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug
Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow		Professional Wildeyed Visionary