Powered by Invision Power Board


Forum Rules Forum Rules (Please read before posting)
  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Broken Sat Decoder.., FCC part 15....
gremlinsa
Posted: January 11, 2017 07:54 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict
******

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 3,112
Joined: August 25, 2005




A few months ago, we started noticing a RF devices not working well in the house.. Wifi signal drop out practically next to the Hotspot, Remote extenders locking up,Gate remote's not working.. The interference was random and varied..

Incidentally one day I happened to walk past the Sat Decoder's with my two way, and it squelched up... and i managed with the two way to trace it to the sat decoders.. (hmm we have 3 of em).

Finally one day wiped the camera out and recorded the interference..
YouTube Linky...
ARG it's our main PVR decoder.. well it worked ok for months with us making sure not to try use the wifi or remotes around it..

all was manageable until last week, when the network point on it packed up, and we were no longer able to use the VOD options.. this was now the time to take it in..

Lucky I've been paying a small 'Decoder Care' fee every month, and after going through the several problems with it, they simply pulled a new box out and swapped the decoder over..

However I still love the thought of part 15 of the FCC rules..
CODE
1) This device may not cause harmful interference.

2) This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.


Very obvious problem with point 1......

And i did check, the replacement does not have the same issue, also our wifi and remotes are no longer a problem...

Funny thing here is it affected the 400mhz, 800mhz and 2.4ghz bands, by varied amounts.. not sure if it was other bands too, but these were those that I could verify, with the two way (all 16 channels from 400 - 430), Cell phone (800) and the Wifi, remotes and Remote extenders (2.4)...



--------------------
Give me a Break... I'm dik-lic-sic, dus-kik-lic.... Gawd ... F'ed in the Head...
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
kellys_eye
Posted: January 11, 2017 08:06 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Spamminator Taskforce
Posts: 11,402
Member No.: 2,735
Joined: June 21, 2005




Nothing 'funny' about the interference as they are clearly harmonics of the original problem - generally a first indication that you have a problem!


--------------------
May contain nuts
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
deth502
Posted: January 11, 2017 10:32 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 1,178
Member No.: 14,050
Joined: March 23, 2008




what stuck me odd about this whole thing is you quoting fcc regs. you are in south africa, no? are us fcc regs a big thinig around the whole world? i would have figured no one would have gave a f outside of the us borders.
PMEmail Poster
Top
MacFromOK
Posted: January 11, 2017 10:39 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Spamminator Taskforce
Posts: 15,055
Member No.: 5,314
Joined: June 04, 2006




I'm guessing many companies build things to FCC specs, no matter where they're sold. Compliance info is usually on (or inside) the device. beer.gif


--------------------
Mac *

"Basic research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing." [Wernher Von Braun]

* is not responsible for errors, consequential damage, or... anything.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Sch3mat1c
Posted: January 12, 2017 04:17 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 20,433
Member No.: 73
Joined: July 24, 2002




Many co's design and test to CE specs, since .eu is the most restrictive, and is a large market to sell into eventually.

In practice, CISPR 11 isn't much more stringent than FCC Class A (and CISPR 22 ~= Class B ), both very common.

The most beneficial difference is CE requires immunity testing (ESD, surge, and modulated RF applied by conductors and antennas). FCC explicitly recommends immunity...but doesn't require it. Equipment tested in this way is, technically speaking, needlessly robust -- for the US and secondary markets. But it leads to better reliability, which is a good idea anyway for products coming from a generally more expensive country (even just from design cost alone).

To take a state-of-the-globe view, it's interesting to note that, as China develops more fully as a tech powerhouse, their citizens will demand more and more regulations, so that even the cheapest crap from there will meet standards similar to ours. (At around that point, many other things will be interesting, too, like comparable per capita earning power, and labor costs. Electromagnetic regulations will of course be a small part of changes to come; they've already got massive pollution problems that need to be reigned in. All will come in due time, I'm sure of it.)

Tim


--------------------
Answering questions is a tricky subject to practice. Not due to the difficulty of formulating or locating answers, but due to the human inability of asking the right questions; a skill that, were one to possess, would put them in the "answering" category.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
gremlinsa
Posted: January 12, 2017 08:48 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict
******

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 803
Member No.: 3,112
Joined: August 25, 2005




QUOTE (deth502 @ January 11, 2017 11:32 pm)
what stuck me odd about this whole thing is you quoting fcc regs. you are in south africa, no? are us fcc regs a big thinig around the whole world? i would have figured no one would have gave a f outside of the us borders.

LOL... biggrin.gif

90% of electronics here have a FCC Part 15 sticker.. Just because we not in the US does not mean that we don't use the same regulations.. In fact our Local authority ICASA, follows many of the FCC regulations (with co-operation of the FCC - 2001 inter office doc..)

If it does not have a FCC or ICASA sticker on it, it cannot be commercially sold or used here, although allot of cheep china crap does make it over the border and nothing is really done about it..



--------------------
Give me a Break... I'm dik-lic-sic, dus-kik-lic.... Gawd ... F'ed in the Head...
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
kellys_eye
Posted: January 12, 2017 10:19 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Spamminator Taskforce
Posts: 11,402
Member No.: 2,735
Joined: June 21, 2005




QUOTE (Sch3mat1c @ January 12, 2017 04:17 am)
To take a state-of-the-globe view, it's interesting to note that, as China develops more fully as a tech powerhouse, their citizens will demand more and more regulations, so that even the cheapest crap from there will meet standards similar to ours.

Citizens may demand more regulation but the customer still has a target price at which they baulk at paying. 90%+ of the purchasing market couldn't give a rats 'arris to FCC (or other) requirements for interference suppression as the bottom line is all they're interested in.

And when (if?) China's population get to Western world levels of income then the problem will have already shifted to other parts of the manufacturing world - Africa being a good example.

Corporates will also always seek to maximise profit at the expense of quality so cutting corners on regulations intended to restrict RF emissions will inevitably always be with us.



--------------------
May contain nuts
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
deth502
Posted: January 12, 2017 12:23 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 1,178
Member No.: 14,050
Joined: March 23, 2008




well i learned something today.

i get the building to FCC specs, and having the same or similar regulations, im just surprised any other countries care what FCC specs are. meaning, i can see if FCC specs are identical for ICASA specs for a particular product, but i would thinK the country of origin would still want to test said product for compliance and tag it themselves as passed. conversely, i wouldn't think something was "legal" in the us just because it was CE or ICASA passed without an FCC approval. (although, a lot of cheap chinese crap thats not necessarily "legal" ends up here too. )
PMEmail Poster
Top
dmg
Posted: January 12, 2017 08:10 pm
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Trusted Members
Posts: 1,192
Member No.: 36,860
Joined: June 06, 2012




we have FCC compilant devices, EU certification is allso in place, and RUs QC, and ISO.
if you find these 4 on something then it is going to work.
verry commonly i do get computer parts from slovakia and there are differences in exact same , make, model, revision, stepping motherboards ans slovakia does not require russian QC standards. (and parts here generally cost more)

i have no clue why we have so many standards, specially since there is a bloody ISO, international standard available.


PMEmail Poster
Top
Sch3mat1c
Posted: January 14, 2017 12:49 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 20,433
Member No.: 73
Joined: July 24, 2002




QUOTE (kellys_eye @ January 12, 2017 04:19 am)
Citizens may demand more regulation but the customer still has a target price at which they baulk at paying.  90%+ of the purchasing market couldn't give a rats 'arris to FCC (or other) requirements for interference suppression as the bottom line is all they're interested in.

What's nice(?) is, it only takes a sufficiently vocal minority to get the rules introduced (and enforced). Even in a less democratic government, like China's. And that benefits everyone, for having an overall improved minimum product quality. And drags on everyone, because the minimum profit is smaller too.

Markets, that are subject to this self regulating kind of dynamic, tends to balance towards modest regulation. It should be obvious(?) that completely unregulated capitalism is undesirable -- and also that over-regulation is just as bad. What's best is a matter of degree.

For example, in the semiconductor market, a lot of quality problems, and solutions for them, already exist, organically. They don't need government regulations, because it's so important to the quality of the industry (to a first degree), to be a high-quality supplier. It is a self-interested, competitive advantage to offer high reliability products; and thus, the market self-regulates.

(Okay, that might be a crappy example, because a lot of semiconductor development was/is driven by mil-spec designs, and that's pretty obviously a kind of government regulation.)

Whereas, some markets end up with a strong financial self-interest from the biggest players, who lobby for legal controls, which act as barriers to competition. (Remember that such moves can reduce profit per sale -- as long as total sales increase, it's still a win for the big players.)

QUOTE

And when (if?) China's population get to Western world levels of income then the problem will have already shifted to other parts of the manufacturing world - Africa being a good example.

Corporates will also always seek to maximise profit at the expense of quality so cutting corners on regulations intended to restrict RF emissions will inevitably always be with us.


I'm not sure where manufacturing will move; it's already moving to cheaper parts, like Malaysia, India and others, where the labor cost is still pretty low, and not too much work is needed to get that work performed at suitable quality levels for sale in other places.

Africa, one must remember, is HUGELY diverse; the area is several times North America! I don't know that much international manufacturing has moved there [yet?], but it's possible.

Tim


--------------------
Answering questions is a tricky subject to practice. Not due to the difficulty of formulating or locating answers, but due to the human inability of asking the right questions; a skill that, were one to possess, would put them in the "answering" category.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
kellys_eye
Posted: January 14, 2017 11:14 am
Reply to this postQuote Post


Forum Addict ++
*******

Group: Spamminator Taskforce
Posts: 11,402
Member No.: 2,735
Joined: June 21, 2005




QUOTE
I'm not sure where manufacturing will move; it's already moving to cheaper parts, like Malaysia, India and others, where the labor cost is still pretty low, and not too much work is needed to get that work performed at suitable quality levels for sale in other places.


It'll move to where regulation is least restrictive!

Manufacturing is moving to fully automated processes now so the skill levels required will be minimal (system maintenance only - which itself can be 'imported').

I believe in market forces themselves bringing the right level of regulation to the customer - people dissatisfied with a product (pyrotechnic phone chargers for example) will migrate to the quality they want at the prices they can afford without unnecessary regulatory modifications.

There are a plethora of rules pertaining to every item in existence (seemingly) such as 14 EU rules for pillow case covers for example FFS doh.gif and over 100 for a light bulb! Even the most basic item is loaded with regulatory requirements and I defy anyone to defend them ALL.

Perhaps one rule should be applied and that is ' unless the intended regulation changes affect a MAJORITY of users then such regulation should be optionally applied'?

This will prevent the knee-jerk activists demanding (and usually getting) regulations imposed that are simple additional expense for the majority at the satisfaction of a smug minority.





--------------------
May contain nuts
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 


:: support us ::




ElectronicsSkin by DutchDork & The-Force