FCC Ok's BPL In a major ruling, the Federal Communications Commission adopted its proposals in Docket 04-37, which expand the Part 15 rules to include broadband over power line (BPL) service. In their statements, the Commissioners praised the potential of BPL technology, while highlighting their concerns that its introduction not cause communication-impairing interference. Briefly, the highlights of the ruling, and its likely impact are: BPL will eventually make it possible for consumers to connect to broadband services by simply plugging into an AC power outlet. This will provide a competitor to existing providers, such as cable modems and the various flavors of DSL (digital subscriber line) offered by the telephone companies. BPL will use spread spectrum technology, which will be able to exclude targeted frequency bands. These exclusions will protect sensitive pre-existing services, and will also allow for interference mitigation on a case-by-case basis. BPL services will have to register in a publicly available notification database to facilitate identification and mitigation of harmful interference. New measurement techniques, developed by the FCC in concert with NTIA (the National Telecommunications and Information Administration) which take into account the distributed nature of BPL equipment (the emission from the power lines spans a large distance) Certification will be the authorization method for BPL equipment. Certification involves submission of a formal application including test report and product information to an FCC approved Telecommunications Certification Body, or (depending on the equipment type) the FCC itself. The possibility of radiated interference was a serious concern of users of the radio frequency spectrum below 80 MHz, which will be used by BPL equipment. These users included radio amateur operators, short-wave hobbyists, and operators of emergency services. To that list, your editor submits we could add the small but important constituency of test laboratories with Open Area Test Sites. It will be interesting to see how BPL's capabilities evolve, how widely it is adopted, and what sorts of interference issues arise. Read the complete FCC's Public Notice announcing its Report and Order in this matter. This article reprinted with permission from Conformity.com "My EMC Results Aren't Repeatable, Part 2" Our November case study discussed the usage of a metallic label and its effect on EMC measurements taken during several different test sessions. (Read last month's case study) . Following up on this theme, here are some other interesting examples of non-repeatable results in EMC testing. When conducting radiated emissions measurements in our anechoic chambers here at Elliott Labs we start by scanning the complete spectrum using a peak detector and then hone in on the larger emissions using a Quasi-Peak (QP) detector. While testing a device a few months ago one of our engineers noticed that, from scan to scan, certain emissions were coming in significantly lower during each subsequent run... Read Full Article Runaway Treadmills Lead To $500K Fine The Consumer Product Safety Commission reached a settlement agreement with a manufacturer and distributor of a treadmill which involved the payment of $500,000. Johnson Health Tech, Co. Ltd., and Horizon Fitness, Inc. are the manufacturers and distributors, respectively, of treadmills and other fitness equipment. During the years 2000 and 2001, Johnson manufactured, and Horizon imported, approximately 10,000 treadmills with a motor control board manufactured by subcontractor Asia Star. Unfortunately, the control board contained a component which was subject to overheating. When this component overheated, the MCB would cause walking belt to increase its rate of speed to between 12.9 and 16.5 miles per hour (known in the trade as "runaway acceleration"), and the emergency stop key would fail to operate. A number of reports of this failure were made, and fifteen injuries such as sprains, bruises, and friction burns were alleged to have occurred. In response to these complaints, several modifications were made to the motor control board. However, the CSPC was not notified. The CSPC filed this action on the grounds that Johnson and Horizon failed to notify the Commission of defects in a consumer product that posed "an unreasonable risk of injury or death" as required by U. S. Law. However, Johnson and Horizon contended that they had already fully addressed the issue and instituted a voluntary recall. To avoid litigation, the settlement agreement was reached. From a manufacturer's point of view this incident highlights the need for thorough safety testing, ongoing quality control, and the importance of the reporting requirements of the CSPC where consumer safety is a potential issued. This article reprinted with permission from Conformity.com Compliance Bulletin Elliott Case Study Enforcement Save 33% on EMCT Tutorial on CD-ROM! From now until January 31, 2005 you can save a whopping 33% off the standard price of EMCT: The High Speed Design Tutorial on CD-ROM. Just use promo code cas-new when you order online. Learn more details about this industry-leading educational tool! China Compulsory Certification Does your company intend to achieve compliance with the China Compulsory Certification (CCC Mark) for any of your products in 2005? Yes No I don't know If this subject interests you, please take a moment to answer our poll. The results of this poll will be shared in the January edition of the CAS Newsletter. Results of the November Question of the Month: "The whole world seems to be going unwired these days. We'd like to know how this trend is affecting your product development plans. Is your company planning to develop products with wireless functionality in 2005?" Yes- 55% No- 45% Job Opportunities We're Hiring! View a list of current job offerings at Elliott Laboratories. 684 W. Maude Avenue Sunnyvale, California 94085 www.elliottlabs.com