Ted Mittelstaedt

"K7AAY" <john.bartley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165193509.338767.56210@j44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> George Orwell wrote:
> > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option?
Routing
> > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known.
> > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away
with
> > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy,
how
> > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality."
>
>
> Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic?
>

He just did you idiot.

> Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic.
>

Oh, Usenet cop, are we? I guess your not interested in being
educated.

To the other poster the reason why there's no RF shielding in cars
in the US is simple. The law in the United States gives the FCC sole
authority
over resolving interference issues. In other words you cannot sue an
auto manufacturer for failing to put shielding in their equipment because
the law states that no body can write laws that apply to interference,
that all interference issues are under FCC control. And therein is the
problem. The FCC states that in an interference issue, the transmitter
has the responsibility to make sure that his equipment is operating within
specifications. The receiver has a responsibility to make sure that their
equipment does not malfunction in the presense of a properly operating
transmitter. And that is it. In other words, there's no hard and fast line
in the sand that the FCC has drawn up. The FCC has set some tech standards
but stated that they are all voluntary - the manufacturers don't have to
follow them if they don't want to.

If your car malfunctions as a result of your transmitter you can legally
demand the automaker resolve the issue if your transmitter is properly
operating, under FC regulations. The automaker can of course, simply
choose to give you a set of instructions about how to shield your car,
and refuse to pay for the work to actually do it, that is enough of a
resolution to satisfy FCC requirements.

If your receiver malfunctions your receiver manufacturer can demand
the automaker resolve the issue of unlicensed RF transmissions from
their product. This is a little more interesting, since if you can document
that this is a problem in the model of car, the FCC can require that
the automaker fix it - because the automaker does not have a license
to operate a transmitter.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt

"K7AAY" <john.bartley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165193509.338767.56210@j44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> George Orwell wrote:
> > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option?
Routing
> > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known.
> > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away
with
> > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy,
how
> > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality."
>
>
> Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic?
>

He just did you idiot.

> Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic.
>

Oh, Usenet cop, are we? I guess your not interested in being
educated.

To the other poster the reason why there's no RF shielding in cars
in the US is simple. The law in the United States gives the FCC sole
authority
over resolving interference issues. In other words you cannot sue an
auto manufacturer for failing to put shielding in their equipment because
the law states that no body can write laws that apply to interference,
that all interference issues are under FCC control. And therein is the
problem. The FCC states that in an interference issue, the transmitter
has the responsibility to make sure that his equipment is operating within
specifications. The receiver has a responsibility to make sure that their
equipment does not malfunction in the presense of a properly operating
transmitter. And that is it. In other words, there's no hard and fast line
in the sand that the FCC has drawn up. The FCC has set some tech standards
but stated that they are all voluntary - the manufacturers don't have to
follow them if they don't want to.

If your car malfunctions as a result of your transmitter you can legally
demand the automaker resolve the issue if your transmitter is properly
operating, under FC regulations. The automaker can of course, simply
choose to give you a set of instructions about how to shield your car,
and refuse to pay for the work to actually do it, that is enough of a
resolution to satisfy FCC requirements.

If your receiver malfunctions your receiver manufacturer can demand
the automaker resolve the issue of unlicensed RF transmissions from
their product. This is a little more interesting, since if you can document
that this is a problem in the model of car, the FCC can require that
the automaker fix it - because the automaker does not have a license
to operate a transmitter.

Ted

Ted Mittelstaedt

"K7AAY" <john.bartley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165193509.338767.56210@j44g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
> George Orwell wrote:
> > So, why isn't there rf shielding in cars, at least as an option?
Routing
> > noisy circuits through shielded cable or conduit has long been known.
> > Again, autos continue to be designed as cheaply as they can get away
with
> > instead of no-compromise construction, regardless of model hierarchy,
how
> > much you overpay or how loudly they boast about "quality."
>
>
> Not what I asked. Perhaps you could make that a separate topic?
>

He just did you idiot.

> Thanks to everyone else for staying on topic.
>

Oh, Usenet cop, are we? I guess your not interested in being
educated.

To the other poster the reason why there's no RF shielding in cars
in the US is simple. The law in the United States gives the FCC sole
authority
over resolving interference issues. In other words you cannot sue an
auto manufacturer for failing to put shielding in their equipment because
the law states that no body can write laws that apply to interference,
that all interference issues are under FCC control. And therein is the
problem. The FCC states that in an interference issue, the transmitter
has the responsibility to make sure that his equipment is operating within
specifications. The receiver has a responsibility to make sure that their
equipment does not malfunction in the presense of a properly operating
transmitter. And that is it. In other words, there's no hard and fast line
in the sand that the FCC has drawn up. The FCC has set some tech standards
but stated that they are all voluntary - the manufacturers don't have to
follow them if they don't want to.

If your car malfunctions as a result of your transmitter you can legally
demand the automaker resolve the issue if your transmitter is properly
operating, under FC regulations. The automaker can of course, simply
choose to give you a set of instructions about how to shield your car,
and refuse to pay for the work to actually do it, that is enough of a
resolution to satisfy FCC requirements.

If your receiver malfunctions your receiver manufacturer can demand
the automaker resolve the issue of unlicensed RF transmissions from
their product. This is a little more interesting, since if you can document
that this is a problem in the model of car, the FCC can require that
the automaker fix it - because the automaker does not have a license
to operate a transmitter.

Ted