I'm wondering if Chris's research for the Long Tail was able to quantify the effect of fixed regulatory costs, like the FCC, the FDA, and related bureaucracies which are burdensome for large manufacturers, but completely crushing for products at the end of the tail. If the only way to avoid regulation is to deliver intentionally defective products (the Japanese have a legend of a painter so great, his painted birds would spring to life and fly off the page, and to this day, Japanese painters show homage by leaving their paintings a few strokes incomplete) - In a sense, we, at the long tail are required to ship products, like Japanese painters, as incomplete, unworking, experimental etc. . . , or face say a one million dollar fine like the FCC levied on Behringer even though their audio equipment was in full compliance and tested in Europe.
I know first hand that some successful electronic houses will simply not produce finished consumer goods due to the burden and risk of regulation - but what I don't know is how many potential atom making products and their associated jobs are lost at the long end of the tail?
Comments
I'm not really looking for a debate. Chris is pretty vocal on these issues, and I think unfortunately, his articles make false and unhelpful assertions on the regulatory framework visa vi the FCC. We know that Chris uses this forum as research, and I have every expectation that his articles in future will correct this oversight. I'd rather give Chris a heads up in a quieter setting. I may even delete this thread altogether if that's kosher.
And I'm guessing if Wired, Chris, Long Tail etc... doesn't know, then no one really does...
"This should be a concern to all manufacturers, distributors as well as EMC test labs. The FCC's enforcement options for unlawful equipment include equipment seizure, civil fines, and possibly even jail for "knowing violations" of law.
The FCC sent a lett r dared July 7, 2003 to a company that allegedly marketed unlawful recording equipment, an unintentional radiawr. In the past, this would ordinarily have prompted a shon letter of inquiry permitting a narrative response. Instead, the FCC's inquiry leaves no stone unturned, and ..."
(1) No authorization is required for a peripheral device or a
subassembly that is sold to an equipment manufacturer for further
fabrication; that manufacturer is responsible for obtaining the
necessary authorization prior to further marketing to a vendor or to a
user.
Part 15 is the generally starting point.
From what I have heard others suggest; This language at 15.3.K asserts FCC oversight for small electronics:
(k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a computing device). An
unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and uses
timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of ... any device or system that
... uses radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing
data processing functions, such as electronic computations...
Though there are exceptions at 15.103 F & H which exclude non AC devices running at less than 1Mhz and Devices consuming less than 6nW.
The sad truth is we might as well all be running drugs as trying to innovate a new electronic device. I think the FCC 15 is an economic suicide pact. If I'm right, I think your readers would be well served by a deeper understanding of the FCC problem.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next