|
Title: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on April 28, 2013, 02:06:23 AM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: dykast on April 28, 2013, 02:13:33 AM And no one gave a flying fuck.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Quix on April 28, 2013, 02:24:56 AM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying...
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: BeetcoinScummer on April 28, 2013, 02:32:46 AM Don't upset the apple cart.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on April 28, 2013, 02:36:28 AM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying... I assume it's a lot cheaper than the imposed fines that can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars on manufacturers and retailers who sell products that don't conform. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on April 28, 2013, 03:24:26 AM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying... In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15 (Title 47 CFR Part 15). Should cost less than $20K. This cert might be what is holding up their bulk product shipments. Who knows, BFL is a black box that says they will ship black boxes. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on April 28, 2013, 03:50:37 AM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying... In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15 (Title 47 CFR Part 15). Should cost less than $20K. This cert might be what is holding up their bulk product shipments. Who knows, BFL is a black box that says they will ship black boxes. Does the FCC have a clause stating that if less than X units are built and shipped, then FCC certification doesn't apply? Also, I don't know what you're referring to regarding black boxes, for I clearly see a logo on them. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: pekv2 on April 28, 2013, 03:51:04 AM Interesting.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on April 28, 2013, 04:07:08 AM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying... In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15 (Title 47 CFR Part 15). Should cost less than $20K. This cert might be what is holding up their bulk product shipments. Who knows, BFL is a black box that says they will ship black boxes. Does the FCC have a clause stating that if less than X units are built and shipped, then FCC certification doesn't apply? Also, I don't know what you're referring to regarding black boxes, for I clearly see a logo on them. black box Noun Any complex piece of equipment, typically a unit in an electronic system, with contents that are mysterious to the user. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on April 28, 2013, 04:18:14 AM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying... In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15 (Title 47 CFR Part 15). Should cost less than $20K. This cert might be what is holding up their bulk product shipments. Who knows, BFL is a black box that says they will ship black boxes. Does the FCC have a clause stating that if less than X units are built and shipped, then FCC certification doesn't apply? Also, I don't know what you're referring to regarding black boxes, for I clearly see a logo on them. black box Noun Any complex piece of equipment, typically a unit in an electronic system, with contents that are mysterious to the user. Ironically, that's the first thing that came to mind when I read the term, immediately thinking back to high school in science class where we had to build a black box out using a shoe box and put an item in it so the rest of the class can deduce what's inside. What I put inside mine was...wait for it...a key (seriously--a common, obsolete house key). Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: wrenchmonkey on April 28, 2013, 04:31:00 AM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::)
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Enigma81 on April 28, 2013, 04:31:40 AM Does the FCC have a clause stating that if less than X units are built and shipped, then FCC certification doesn't apply? No such exemption exists. FCC Certification is mandatory for the BFL Products (And Avalon, I might add)Enigma Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on April 28, 2013, 04:41:42 AM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) That is the correct response. Unless their chip emits RF which hoses up your Bluetooth causing your wireless game controllers to glitch causing you to die in HALO. Then you rage. ;D Really, the only people who are going to care is BFL and the FCC. Unless BFL ends up in court over something, then the plaintiff would care. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Enigma81 on April 28, 2013, 04:46:09 AM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) That is the correct response. Unless their chip emits RF which hoses up your Bluetooth causing your wireless game controllers to glitch causing you to die in HALO. Then you rage. ;D Really, the only people who are going to care is BFL and the FCC. Unless BFL ends up in court over something, then the plaintiff would care. Eh.. Yes and no.. It should get certified for lots of reasons. If it's not UL listed, I sure as hell wouldn't plug it in. There ABSOLUTELY have been cases of insurance companies refusing to pay for a burned down house/building because the fire was caused by an unlisted device. Enigma Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on April 28, 2013, 04:55:19 AM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) That is the correct response. Unless their chip emits RF which hoses up your Bluetooth causing your wireless game controllers to glitch causing you to die in HALO. Then you rage. ;D Really, the only people who are going to care is BFL and the FCC. Unless BFL ends up in court over something, then the plaintiff would care. Eh.. Yes and no.. It should get certified for lots of reasons. If it's not UL listed, I sure as hell wouldn't plug it in. There ABSOLUTELY have been cases of insurance companies refusing to pay for a burned down house/building because the fire was caused by an unlisted device. Enigma Yeah, UL is a different story. The FCC stuff is pretty benign...unless you get malignant tumors from RF. Then not so benign. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: roy7 on April 28, 2013, 05:05:05 AM FCC web site says testing only takes 1-2 days if it passes on the first test.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Bicknellski on April 28, 2013, 05:22:32 AM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. +1 ... but now will anyone do anything about this at all? That might be the real question right? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on April 28, 2013, 06:01:08 AM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) That is the correct response. Unless their chip emits RF which hoses up your Bluetooth causing your wireless game controllers to glitch causing you to die in HALO. Then you rage. ;D Really, the only people who are going to care is BFL and the FCC. Unless BFL ends up in court over something, then the plaintiff would care. Eh.. Yes and no.. It should get certified for lots of reasons. If it's not UL listed, I sure as hell wouldn't plug it in. There ABSOLUTELY have been cases of insurance companies refusing to pay for a burned down house/building because the fire was caused by an unlisted device. Enigma Yeah, UL is a different story. The FCC stuff is pretty benign...unless you get malignant tumors from RF. Then not so benign. I agree with the FCC regulation being benign, but it is the law, just like wearing a seatbelt is the law. The UL requirement is not mandatory across the US, but is in many jurisdictions, hence companies who manufacture electrical device opt for the certification since they're most likely going to ship their products to such jurisdictions. Many municipalities, especially the larger ones, passed such laws to protect their citizens living in apartments, and elsewhere, from fires due to faulty unregulated appliances. I ain't got a clue as to how they were able to ship their previous line to Europe without a CE label, but I'm sure it was illegal. They're more than happy to come here and state their case as to how they're able to circumnavigate all three of these regulations. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: vvic on April 28, 2013, 07:13:07 AM what the hell FCC has anything to do with BFL device?
UL certification yeah, I get. But FCC? Can anyone explain? Miners do not emit any radio frequency, do they? They don't even talk to the network (computer does) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: hardpick on April 28, 2013, 07:15:53 AM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Does Avalon have fcc approval ???? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: fpgaminer on April 28, 2013, 07:44:53 AM Quote But FCC? Can anyone explain? Miners do not emit any radio frequency, do they? They don't even talk to the network (computer does) FCC regulations also cover devices that do not intentionally emit electromagnetic radiation (these are called unintentional radiators). Pretty much any electronic device sold in the U.S. needs to pass FCC regulations, and the seller must have a certificate saying so, issued by a certified testing facility.Of course, the regulations on unintentional radiators are much more lax than the regulations on things like cellphones that are built to emit RF. Testing on simple, unintentional radiators takes a day or two (as has already been mentioned), and can be quite affordable for devices that pass quickly. I've been through the process, and it's really quite boring. BFL's devices themselves will pass easily, but there is one caveat. When you go to test a device, it has to be set up in the way a typical customer would use it. That means a computer and the power supply need to be in the test chamber with the device; everything needs to be hooked up and running. While that may sound simple, "Well the computer is already FCC certified. No big deal!" you will quickly discover that most equipment fails FCC testing (despite being "certified"). That is easily the biggest time sink. That and the power supply ... oh god. As for the consequences for not being FCC certified ... meh. If the FCC contacts BFL, they will have to present the certificate or be fined. It is highly unlikely the FCC will contact them. Quote To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: The FCC doesn't receive your device (at least for unintentional radiators). You have to take it to a certified testing facility (private companies) to have it tested and certified. I don't recall even submitting paperwork to the FCC the last time I was in that rodeo, though the facility may have. Regardless, I doubt there's a list; it would be huge and expensive to maintain.By the way, a product doesn't always need the FCC mark on it. In fact, it's illegal to put it on there, depending on what kind of device it is. If you guys are unhappy with a company, seeking vengeance through an FCC complaint isn't the answer in my opinion. I would rather my tax dollars not be spent that way. Instead, vote with your wallet; ask for a refund and don't buy from them. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Syke on April 28, 2013, 04:31:33 PM Does Avalon have fcc approval ???? Avalon isn't a US company, nor did they ever claim to have applied for FCC approval. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: m3ta on April 28, 2013, 04:37:06 PM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying... In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15 (Title 47 CFR Part 15). Should cost less than $20K. This cert might be what is holding up their bulk product shipments. Who knows, BFL is a black box that says they will ship black boxes. Does the FCC have a clause stating that if less than X units are built and shipped, then FCC certification doesn't apply? Also, I don't know what you're referring to regarding black boxes, for I clearly see a logo on them. black box Noun Any complex piece of equipment, typically a unit in an electronic system, with contents that are mysterious to the user. Was I the /only/ one to immediately think about another kind of blackboxes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_%28phreaking%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_%28phreaking%29) I feel old. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on April 28, 2013, 04:42:53 PM Quote But FCC? Can anyone explain? Miners do not emit any radio frequency, do they? They don't even talk to the network (computer does) FCC regulations also cover devices that do not intentionally emit electromagnetic radiation (these are called unintentional radiators). Pretty much any electronic device sold in the U.S. needs to pass FCC regulations, and the seller must have a certificate saying so, issued by a certified testing facility.Of course, the regulations on unintentional radiators are much more lax than the regulations on things like cellphones that are built to emit RF. Testing on simple, unintentional radiators takes a day or two (as has already been mentioned), and can be quite affordable for devices that pass quickly. I've been through the process, and it's really quite boring. BFL's devices themselves will pass easily, but there is one caveat. When you go to test a device, it has to be set up in the way a typical customer would use it. That means a computer and the power supply need to be in the test chamber with the device; everything needs to be hooked up and running. While that may sound simple, "Well the computer is already FCC certified. No big deal!" you will quickly discover that most equipment fails FCC testing (despite being "certified"). That is easily the biggest time sink. That and the power supply ... oh god. As for the consequences for not being FCC certified ... meh. If the FCC contacts BFL, they will have to present the certificate or be fined. It is highly unlikely the FCC will contact them. Quote To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: The FCC doesn't receive your device (at least for unintentional radiators). You have to take it to a certified testing facility (private companies) to have it tested and certified. I don't recall even submitting paperwork to the FCC the last time I was in that rodeo, though the facility may have. Regardless, I doubt there's a list; it would be huge and expensive to maintain.By the way, a product doesn't always need the FCC mark on it. In fact, it's illegal to put it on there, depending on what kind of device it is. If you guys are unhappy with a company, seeking vengeance through an FCC complaint isn't the answer in my opinion. I would rather my tax dollars not be spent that way. Instead, vote with your wallet; ask for a refund and don't buy from them. Well, you are giving way too much thought into it, since the original intent of the thread was just to troll BFL. Really, BFL could just sell the sub-assmblie separate which does nto require FCC. Really a non-issue. See Altera FPGA devices - all NOT FCC certified. Read section on subassemblies. http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on April 28, 2013, 04:52:46 PM Quote But FCC? Can anyone explain? Miners do not emit any radio frequency, do they? They don't even talk to the network (computer does) FCC regulations also cover devices that do not intentionally emit electromagnetic radiation (these are called unintentional radiators). Pretty much any electronic device sold in the U.S. needs to pass FCC regulations, and the seller must have a certificate saying so, issued by a certified testing facility.Of course, the regulations on unintentional radiators are much more lax than the regulations on things like cellphones that are built to emit RF. Testing on simple, unintentional radiators takes a day or two (as has already been mentioned), and can be quite affordable for devices that pass quickly. I've been through the process, and it's really quite boring. BFL's devices themselves will pass easily, but there is one caveat. When you go to test a device, it has to be set up in the way a typical customer would use it. That means a computer and the power supply need to be in the test chamber with the device; everything needs to be hooked up and running. While that may sound simple, "Well the computer is already FCC certified. No big deal!" you will quickly discover that most equipment fails FCC testing (despite being "certified"). That is easily the biggest time sink. That and the power supply ... oh god. As for the consequences for not being FCC certified ... meh. If the FCC contacts BFL, they will have to present the certificate or be fined. It is highly unlikely the FCC will contact them. Quote To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: The FCC doesn't receive your device (at least for unintentional radiators). You have to take it to a certified testing facility (private companies) to have it tested and certified. I don't recall even submitting paperwork to the FCC the last time I was in that rodeo, though the facility may have. Regardless, I doubt there's a list; it would be huge and expensive to maintain.By the way, a product doesn't always need the FCC mark on it. In fact, it's illegal to put it on there, depending on what kind of device it is. If you guys are unhappy with a company, seeking vengeance through an FCC complaint isn't the answer in my opinion. I would rather my tax dollars not be spent that way. Instead, vote with your wallet; ask for a refund and don't buy from them. Well, you are giving way too much thought into it, since the original intent of the thread was just to troll BFL. Really, BFL could just sell the sub-assmblie separate which does nto require FCC. Really a non-issue. See Altera FPGA devices - all NOT FCC certified. Read section on subassemblies. http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf The OP was pointing out what may be another instance of BFL not understanding the business they are in. Of course, any examination of BFL that paints it in a negative light creates work for you. The section you quoted: Circuit boards, integrated circuit chips, and other components that are completely internal to a digital device are subassemblies of the digital device. (Note, however, that circuit boards or cards that are connected to external devices or increase the operating or processing speed of a digital device are considered peripherals.) Examples of subassemblies include internal memory expansion boards, internal disk drives, internal disk drive controller boards, CPU boards, and power supplies. Section 15.101(e) Subassemblies may be sold to the general public or to manufacturers for incorporation into a final product. While subassemblies are not directly subject to FCC technical standards or equipment authorization requirements, digital devices containing subassemblies must still comply with the FCC's technical requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers of subassemblies should design their products so the digital devices into which they are installed will comply with the technical standards Maybe if BFL shipped the 5GH/s device unassembled, they would not be subject to the regulation. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Rampion on April 28, 2013, 04:56:37 PM FCC approval takes a lot of time and money, just saying... In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15 (Title 47 CFR Part 15). Should cost less than $20K. This cert might be what is holding up their bulk product shipments. Who knows, BFL is a black box that says they will ship black boxes. Does the FCC have a clause stating that if less than X units are built and shipped, then FCC certification doesn't apply? Also, I don't know what you're referring to regarding black boxes, for I clearly see a logo on them. black box Noun Any complex piece of equipment, typically a unit in an electronic system, with contents that are mysterious to the user. Was I the /only/ one to immediately think about another kind of blackboxes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_%28phreaking%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_%28phreaking%29) I feel old. No, you were not the only one. And I feel old too. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on April 28, 2013, 05:42:01 PM If BFL didn't need FCC certification, they would have stated such with provided reasoning, oppose to claiming back in November that such certification was in the works, which has proven to not be the case.
Even after a myriad of requests on this forum (not just me) and theirs (I'm not registered) to further discuss the FCC issue, they've opted to ignore it. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: vvic on April 28, 2013, 06:20:12 PM Personally I don't give a crap if BFL has FCC cert or not. I don't give crap about this idiotic and corrupted dept. You can bribe them and they will come up with laws in your favor. That of course if you have big enough bribe. (Recall history of television at the beginning of the last century. Nice corruption drama. HDTV crap also the same way, they forced crappiest codec for OTA broadcast and other amazing things.) Their cert is useless to me, so they can shove it ;D
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on April 28, 2013, 06:41:19 PM Quote But FCC? Can anyone explain? Miners do not emit any radio frequency, do they? They don't even talk to the network (computer does) FCC regulations also cover devices that do not intentionally emit electromagnetic radiation (these are called unintentional radiators). Pretty much any electronic device sold in the U.S. needs to pass FCC regulations, and the seller must have a certificate saying so, issued by a certified testing facility.Of course, the regulations on unintentional radiators are much more lax than the regulations on things like cellphones that are built to emit RF. Testing on simple, unintentional radiators takes a day or two (as has already been mentioned), and can be quite affordable for devices that pass quickly. I've been through the process, and it's really quite boring. BFL's devices themselves will pass easily, but there is one caveat. When you go to test a device, it has to be set up in the way a typical customer would use it. That means a computer and the power supply need to be in the test chamber with the device; everything needs to be hooked up and running. While that may sound simple, "Well the computer is already FCC certified. No big deal!" you will quickly discover that most equipment fails FCC testing (despite being "certified"). That is easily the biggest time sink. That and the power supply ... oh god. As for the consequences for not being FCC certified ... meh. If the FCC contacts BFL, they will have to present the certificate or be fined. It is highly unlikely the FCC will contact them. Quote To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: The FCC doesn't receive your device (at least for unintentional radiators). You have to take it to a certified testing facility (private companies) to have it tested and certified. I don't recall even submitting paperwork to the FCC the last time I was in that rodeo, though the facility may have. Regardless, I doubt there's a list; it would be huge and expensive to maintain.By the way, a product doesn't always need the FCC mark on it. In fact, it's illegal to put it on there, depending on what kind of device it is. It would be a much more credible thread if it asked why arent any asic devices FCC or UL compliant. If you guys are unhappy with a company, seeking vengeance through an FCC complaint isn't the answer in my opinion. I would rather my tax dollars not be spent that way. Instead, vote with your wallet; ask for a refund and don't buy from them. Well, you are giving way too much thought into it, since the original intent of the thread was just to troll BFL. Really, BFL could just sell the sub-assmblie separate which does nto require FCC. Really a non-issue. See Altera FPGA devices - all NOT FCC certified. Read section on subassemblies. http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf The OP was pointing out what may be another instance of BFL not understanding the business they are in. Of course, any examination of BFL that paints it in a negative light creates work for you. The section you quoted: Circuit boards, integrated circuit chips, and other components that are completely internal to a digital device are subassemblies of the digital device. (Note, however, that circuit boards or cards that are connected to external devices or increase the operating or processing speed of a digital device are considered peripherals.) Examples of subassemblies include internal memory expansion boards, internal disk drives, internal disk drive controller boards, CPU boards, and power supplies. Section 15.101(e) Subassemblies may be sold to the general public or to manufacturers for incorporation into a final product. While subassemblies are not directly subject to FCC technical standards or equipment authorization requirements, digital devices containing subassemblies must still comply with the FCC's technical requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers of subassemblies should design their products so the digital devices into which they are installed will comply with the technical standards Maybe if BFL shipped the 5GH/s device unassembled, they would not be subject to the regulation. I totally agree. Needs fcc cert to be sold as a completed computer peripheral . See we agree on something. But why not the same "concern" over avalon or asicminer products. Thats what makes this a troll thread the fake concern over it being compliant. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Rallye on April 28, 2013, 06:54:38 PM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) That is the correct response. Unless their chip emits RF which hoses up your Bluetooth causing your wireless game controllers to glitch causing you to die in HALO. Then you rage. ;D Really, the only people who are going to care is BFL and the FCC. Unless BFL ends up in court over something, then the plaintiff would care. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on April 28, 2013, 07:03:15 PM Quote But FCC? Can anyone explain? Miners do not emit any radio frequency, do they? They don't even talk to the network (computer does) FCC regulations also cover devices that do not intentionally emit electromagnetic radiation (these are called unintentional radiators). Pretty much any electronic device sold in the U.S. needs to pass FCC regulations, and the seller must have a certificate saying so, issued by a certified testing facility.Of course, the regulations on unintentional radiators are much more lax than the regulations on things like cellphones that are built to emit RF. Testing on simple, unintentional radiators takes a day or two (as has already been mentioned), and can be quite affordable for devices that pass quickly. I've been through the process, and it's really quite boring. BFL's devices themselves will pass easily, but there is one caveat. When you go to test a device, it has to be set up in the way a typical customer would use it. That means a computer and the power supply need to be in the test chamber with the device; everything needs to be hooked up and running. While that may sound simple, "Well the computer is already FCC certified. No big deal!" you will quickly discover that most equipment fails FCC testing (despite being "certified"). That is easily the biggest time sink. That and the power supply ... oh god. As for the consequences for not being FCC certified ... meh. If the FCC contacts BFL, they will have to present the certificate or be fined. It is highly unlikely the FCC will contact them. Quote To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: The FCC doesn't receive your device (at least for unintentional radiators). You have to take it to a certified testing facility (private companies) to have it tested and certified. I don't recall even submitting paperwork to the FCC the last time I was in that rodeo, though the facility may have. Regardless, I doubt there's a list; it would be huge and expensive to maintain.By the way, a product doesn't always need the FCC mark on it. In fact, it's illegal to put it on there, depending on what kind of device it is. It would be a much more credible thread if it asked why arent any asic devices FCC or UL compliant. If you guys are unhappy with a company, seeking vengeance through an FCC complaint isn't the answer in my opinion. I would rather my tax dollars not be spent that way. Instead, vote with your wallet; ask for a refund and don't buy from them. Well, you are giving way too much thought into it, since the original intent of the thread was just to troll BFL. Really, BFL could just sell the sub-assmblie separate which does nto require FCC. Really a non-issue. See Altera FPGA devices - all NOT FCC certified. Read section on subassemblies. http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf The OP was pointing out what may be another instance of BFL not understanding the business they are in. Of course, any examination of BFL that paints it in a negative light creates work for you. The section you quoted: Circuit boards, integrated circuit chips, and other components that are completely internal to a digital device are subassemblies of the digital device. (Note, however, that circuit boards or cards that are connected to external devices or increase the operating or processing speed of a digital device are considered peripherals.) Examples of subassemblies include internal memory expansion boards, internal disk drives, internal disk drive controller boards, CPU boards, and power supplies. Section 15.101(e) Subassemblies may be sold to the general public or to manufacturers for incorporation into a final product. While subassemblies are not directly subject to FCC technical standards or equipment authorization requirements, digital devices containing subassemblies must still comply with the FCC's technical requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers of subassemblies should design their products so the digital devices into which they are installed will comply with the technical standards Maybe if BFL shipped the 5GH/s device unassembled, they would not be subject to the regulation. I totally agree. Needs fcc cert to be sold as a completed computer peripheral . See we agree on something. But why not the same "concern" over avalon or asicminer products. Thats what makes this a troll thread the fake concern over it being compliant. Because Avalon delivered on time and on spec. Their customers are minting money and happy as clams. With Avalon FCC certification would be the first defect (and only defect that I am aware of). Also, Avalon did not issue an official message through their spokesperson months ago that they were seeking an FCC cert to create the illusion of progress. BFL did. If BFL hadn't brought it up in the first place, we probably would not be talking about it. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Syke on April 28, 2013, 08:59:09 PM But why not the same "concern" over avalon or asicminer products. Thats what makes this a troll thread the fake concern over it being compliant. Because BFL started. It was a BFL shill that gave all the other ASIC producers a hard time claiming they better get FCC approval or they would be shut down. Then BFL reinforced it by claiming to have FCC approval in the works to scare the other ASIC manufacturers away. Now it turns out BFL never did have FCC approval in the works, and it was simply a scare tactic to eliminate any competition. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PuertoLibre on April 28, 2013, 09:10:47 PM Details....details....
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRwCbNOPoWS7iS-qrwYxuYOVC9hol9h3sskMbELbOnWqCSANWg It is not like anyone is actually going to report them to the FCC! Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Rallye on April 28, 2013, 09:22:12 PM Details....details.... If I wasn't the nice person that I am, I would sure as hell report them!... And hopefully delay them another 4-5 months while I get my Avalon chips ;Dhttps://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRwCbNOPoWS7iS-qrwYxuYOVC9hol9h3sskMbELbOnWqCSANWg It is not like anyone is actually going to report them to the FCC! Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on April 28, 2013, 10:01:37 PM But why not the same "concern" over avalon or asicminer products. Thats what makes this a troll thread the fake concern over it being compliant. Because BFL started. It was a BFL shill that gave all the other ASIC producers a hard time claiming they better get FCC approval or they would be shut down. Then BFL reinforced it by claiming to have FCC approval in the works to scare the other ASIC manufacturers away. Now it turns out BFL never did have FCC approval in the works, and it was simply a scare tactic to eliminate any competition. Still didn't answer my Q. What makes the other manufactures immune from this same level of scrutiny? How about the guy that's going to put the Avalon chips on the pcbs for the DIY crowd. You gonna hound him too about making sure his completed asic is UL and FCC compliant. so because he doesnt come on the board and piss off people, he gets a free pass from the FCC? Just saying, this is what makes posts like this a troll post. If you are really concerned about asics being UL and FCC compliant, be consistent about it. Just becuase BFL lied and doesn't give other manu's a free pass, lol. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on April 28, 2013, 11:17:54 PM But why not the same "concern" over avalon or asicminer products. Thats what makes this a troll thread the fake concern over it being compliant. Because BFL started. It was a BFL shill that gave all the other ASIC producers a hard time claiming they better get FCC approval or they would be shut down. Then BFL reinforced it by claiming to have FCC approval in the works to scare the other ASIC manufacturers away. Now it turns out BFL never did have FCC approval in the works, and it was simply a scare tactic to eliminate any competition. Still didn't answer my Q. What makes the other manufactures immune from this same level of scrutiny? How about the guy that's going to put the Avalon chips on the pcbs for the DIY crowd. You gonna hound him too about making sure his completed asic is UL and FCC compliant. so because he doesnt come on the board and piss off people, he gets a free pass from the FCC? Just saying, this is what makes posts like this a troll post. If you are really concerned about asics being UL and FCC compliant, be consistent about it. Just becuase BFL lied and doesn't give other manu's a free pass, lol. BFL brought up the FCC first. BFL didn't walk their own talk. BFL got a thread about not walking their talk. Re: Avalon, please cite your evidence that Avalon did not get FCC and UL approval for their product. I currently have no such evidence, I haven't seen any posted. The only time anyone has brought it up has been you trying to deflect talk from BFL. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: dogie on April 28, 2013, 11:20:12 PM I would suggest that as a US company, BFL is 'more' bound to be FCC approved. Avalon would only be being naughty when it sold units into FCC zone countries, where as say its domestic China units can probably do what they want.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: DataPlumber on May 01, 2013, 03:58:48 PM As I understand it, low power devices don't need UL certification, which is why a great many things ship with external power supplies. The power supplies have to pass UL, but the attached low-power device doesn't.
The FCC thing is a different matter; they're pretty clearly not compliant yet. But that's probably just a formality. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on May 01, 2013, 04:14:20 PM I've read that testing for unintended emitters is fairly easy to pass, and way less stringent than intended emitters. Also so is enforcement on unintended emitters, which may be NIL since i cant find and cases about it. So maybe like jaywalking, ya its illegal but... Either way to be in the law ya needs FCC, unless sold unassembled to be classified as a subassembly of a computer peripheral device.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Bogart on May 01, 2013, 04:44:22 PM FWIW, my BitForce FPGA Singles do not bear any FCC, CE, or UL stickers or marks (or anything else for that matter).
Nor does my Avalon. Personally, I'm not real worried. I'm sure some of the GPU rigs I've built and am now operating are much more of a fire (or RFI/EMI) risk than either of the above-mentioned devices. I accept that mining is an "extreme hobby", and carries with it some risks, including the risk of burning down my house (or at least my miner shed). With that said, I think this thread was more about catching BFL in a lie/broken promise. Well, I don't think we'll have too much trouble finding numerous examples of those. Shall we ask Honest Abe what charity they've donated 1,000 BTC to? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on May 01, 2013, 05:08:52 PM With that said, I think this thread was more about catching BFL in a lie/broken promise. Indeed. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on May 01, 2013, 05:20:38 PM I've read that testing for unintended emitters is fairly easy to pass, and way less stringent than intended emitters. Also so is enforcement on unintended emitters, which may be NIL since i cant find and cases about it. So maybe like jaywalking, ya its illegal but... Either way to be in the law ya needs FCC, unless sold unassembled to be classified as a subassembly of a computer peripheral device. Try jaywalking in Las Vegas where many tourist were ticketed, with some arrested, spoiling their vacation plans. Quote Either way to be in the law ya needs FCC, unless sold unassembled to be classified as a subassembly of a computer peripheral device. Hence, Josh putting the naysayers at ease by stating such certification was in the works, but as of yesterday, still no mention of BF Labs on the FCC site. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: smoothie on May 01, 2013, 05:22:52 PM And are we really surprised this is all unfinished even after 6 months after his 2 week estimate back in November?
::) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on May 01, 2013, 05:26:32 PM I've read that testing for unintended emitters is fairly easy to pass, and way less stringent than intended emitters. Also so is enforcement on unintended emitters, which may be NIL since i cant find and cases about it. So maybe like jaywalking, ya its illegal but... Either way to be in the law ya needs FCC, unless sold unassembled to be classified as a subassembly of a computer peripheral device. Try jaywalking in Las Vegas where many tourist were ticketed, with some arrested, spoiling their vacation plans. Quote Either way to be in the law ya needs FCC, unless sold unassembled to be classified as a subassembly of a computer peripheral device. Hence, Josh putting the naysayers at ease by stating such certification was in the works, but as of yesterday, still no mention of BF Labs on the FCC site. Which part of vegas? I assume you mean the strip. Doesnt the strip have pedestrian bridges along the length? You should get a ticket if you are jaywalking across the main strip thought that's like 6 lanes of traffic, you are a moron if you do. Old vegas you can jaywalk, also suburbs? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on May 01, 2013, 05:29:00 PM I've read that testing for unintended emitters is fairly easy to pass, and way less stringent than intended emitters. Also so is enforcement on unintended emitters, which may be NIL since i cant find and cases about it. So maybe like jaywalking, ya its illegal but... Either way to be in the law ya needs FCC, unless sold unassembled to be classified as a subassembly of a computer peripheral device. Try jaywalking in Las Vegas where many tourist were ticketed, with some arrested, spoiling their vacation plans. Quote Either way to be in the law ya needs FCC, unless sold unassembled to be classified as a subassembly of a computer peripheral device. Hence, Josh putting the naysayers at ease by stating such certification was in the works, but as of yesterday, still no mention of BF Labs on the FCC site. Which part of vegas? I assume you mean the strip. Doesnt the strip have pedestrian bridges along the length? You should get a ticket if you are jaywalking across the main strip thought that's like 6 lanes of traffic, you are a moron if you do. Old vegas you can jaywalk, also suburbs? Fremont Street is notorious for jaywalkers to get ticketed. I've lived in Las Vegas six time, approximately six months each. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2002/dec/13/mayor-defends-fremont-street-arrests/ Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on May 01, 2013, 05:32:28 PM wow we are major off topic, but i go to vegas like twice a year. Be there next month. Where on freemont??? The whole thing is blocked off. Guessing you mean away from the covered part?
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: sensei on May 01, 2013, 06:50:23 PM FWIW, my BitForce FPGA Singles do not bear any FCC, CE, or UL stickers or marks (or anything else for that matter). Nor does my Avalon. Personally, I'm not real worried. I'm sure some of the GPU rigs I've built and am now operating are much more of a fire (or RFI/EMI) risk than either of the above-mentioned devices. I accept that mining is an "extreme hobby", and carries with it some risks, including the risk of burning down my house (or at least my miner shed). With that said, I think this thread was more about catching BFL in a lie/broken promise. Well, I don't think we'll have too much trouble finding numerous examples of those. Shall we ask Honest Abe what charity they've donated 1,000 BTC to? BFL did reply to me that they were going to have a CE mark; self certified. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: pikeadz on May 01, 2013, 07:01:32 PM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) I don't think the FCC, who gives many fucks, gives a fuck about the zero fucks that you are giving :) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: wrenchmonkey on May 01, 2013, 07:24:08 PM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) I don't think the FCC, who gives many fucks, gives a fuck about the zero fucks that you are giving :) Nor do I give any fucks about said FCC. They can fuck themselves all they want, and I'll still not give one single measly fuck about their fuckery. This thread was intended to do nothing more than troll BFL even more. Not one single consumer really cares if they put a bureaucratic sticker on it or not. I give just as many fucks about BFL not having stickers as I give about Avalon not having stickers. The difference is that there's not a merry band of roving trolls trying to stir up shit about Avalon, so the fact that Avalon doesn't have stickers gets ignored; meanwhile, the asshattery continues in trying to make a federal case out of some stickers. And the consumers still continue to give zero fucks. The FCC only gets involved if something starts transmitting interference that it shouldn't. If I get a Jalpeno, and it starts ruining my neighbor's TV signal, then they might come ask me about it. Otherwise, they'll never know or care. Unless somebody has evidence that the BFL line of products is emitting unintentional radio interference, then the discussion is a moot one. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: ragingazn628 on May 01, 2013, 07:26:36 PM "So the FCC won't let me be
Or let me be me so let me see They tried to shut me down on MTV But it feels so empty without me" -Eminem Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: pikeadz on May 01, 2013, 08:12:20 PM Zero fucks given, regarding presence or non-presence said stickers. [Pssst. I tore the label off my mattress too!] ::) I don't think the FCC, who gives many fucks, gives a fuck about the zero fucks that you are giving :) Nor do I give any fucks about said FCC. They can fuck themselves all they want, and I'll still not give one single measly fuck about their fuckery. This thread was intended to do nothing more than troll BFL even more. Not one single consumer really cares if they put a bureaucratic sticker on it or not. I give just as many fucks about BFL not having stickers as I give about Avalon not having stickers. The difference is that there's not a merry band of roving trolls trying to stir up shit about Avalon, so the fact that Avalon doesn't have stickers gets ignored; meanwhile, the asshattery continues in trying to make a federal case out of some stickers. And the consumers still continue to give zero fucks. The FCC only gets involved if something starts transmitting interference that it shouldn't. If I get a Jalpeno, and it starts ruining my neighbor's TV signal, then they might come ask me about it. Otherwise, they'll never know or care. Unless somebody has evidence that the BFL line of products is emitting unintentional radio interference, then the discussion is a moot one. It is definitely here to troll BFL, but BFL brought it upon itself. Saying they would have the inspection done in November, and failing to do it, is amusing to me. The FCC may or may not be amused, but they are good at giving fucks, and they are also good at ensuring compliance with the law. Should be interesting to see how this plays out once they get wind of it. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on May 01, 2013, 08:28:50 PM It is definitely here to troll BFL, but BFL brought it upon itself. Saying they would have the inspection done in November, and failing to do it, is amusing to me. The FCC may or may not be amused, but they are good at giving fucks, and they are also good at ensuring compliance with the law. Should be interesting to see how this plays out once they get wind of it. Precisely. Nobody would have brought it up if BFL hadn't made statements about their progress with the process. Since we are going over BFLs statements about their progress, it is germane to the conversation. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: sensei on May 01, 2013, 08:32:46 PM If you are a DIYer and create a miner, no certification is needed. You need to follow good practices and you will be liable if there is any electromagnetic interference.
However, if you manufacturer and sell a product, in this case a class B digital device under FCC part 15, you are required to follow best practices and certify that the product meets FCC part 15 specifications and the following statement must be in a conspicuous place on the device: Quote This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. The following must also be in the user manual: Quote This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference in a residential installation. This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in accordance with the instructions, may cause harmful interference to radio communications. However, there is no guarantee that interference will not occur in a particular installation. If this equipment does cause harmful interference to radio or television reception, which can be determined by turning the equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to correct the interference by one or more of the following measures: Reorient or relocate the receiving antenna. Increase the separation between the equipment and receiver. Connect the equipment into an outlet on a circuit different from that to which the receiver is connected. Consult the dealer or an experienced radio/TV technician for help Ultimately though it seems that it is the responsibility of the user to keep emissions down. If there is an issue, even if the product does not have a part 15 certification, it the users problem. Though the FCC may still come a knockin' at the manufacturers door. As long as a neighbor doesn't complain (highly unlikely), I don't think there will be a problem. This is my understanding for now. If I am shown I am wrong, then it will change. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: pikeadz on May 01, 2013, 08:41:14 PM If you are a DIYer and create a miner, no certification is needed. You need to follow good practices and you will be liable if there is any electromagnetic interference. However, if you manufacturer and sell a product, in this case a class B digital device under FCC part 15, you are required to follow best practices and certify that the product meets FCC part 15 specifications and the following statement must be in a conspicuous place on the device: Quote This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. The following must also be in the user manual: Quote This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules. These limits are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful interference in a residential installation. This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and used in accordance with the instructions, may cause harmful interference to radio communications. However, there is no guarantee that interference will not occur in a particular installation. If this equipment does cause harmful interference to radio or television reception, which can be determined by turning the equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to correct the interference by one or more of the following measures: Reorient or relocate the receiving antenna. Increase the separation between the equipment and receiver. Connect the equipment into an outlet on a circuit different from that to which the receiver is connected. Consult the dealer or an experienced radio/TV technician for help Ultimately though it seems that it is the responsibility of the user to keep emissions down. If there is an issue, even if the product does not have a part 15 certification, it the users problem. Though the FCC may still come a knockin' at the manufacturers door. As long as a neighbor doesn't complain (highly unlikely), I don't think there will be a problem. This is my understanding for now. If I am shown I am wrong, then it will change. I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibility that someone files a complaint from here. BFL has enough enemies that probably have some interference on their televisions, which, quite possibly could be caused by an uninspected Jalapeno down the block, or across the country. I'm just saying. :) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: iCEBREAKER on May 01, 2013, 08:51:45 PM And no one gave a flying fuck. IKR? Who cares? What could possibly go wrong? https://i.imgur.com/D2w17do.png Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: centove on May 01, 2013, 11:38:54 PM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying...
And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on May 02, 2013, 01:32:58 AM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying... And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. I checked my motherboard, a DVD drive, a video card from Nvidia, and a video card from AMD. They all had the FCC compliance logo on them. I popped open an old phone, it had it on the inside of the case. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Syke on May 02, 2013, 01:44:21 AM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying... And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. Look under the battery, that's where my cell phone hides the FCC logo. Feel free to post a link verifying the FCC approval of any BFL product at www.fcc.gov. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: repentance on May 02, 2013, 01:52:30 AM Details....details.... https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRwCbNOPoWS7iS-qrwYxuYOVC9hol9h3sskMbELbOnWqCSANWg It is not like anyone is actually going to report them to the FCC! Yeah, it must be sheer coincidence that PayPal has contacted customers asking whether they've received their BFL orders and that BFL is suddenly going to issue automatic refunds to customers who don't confirm their pre-orders...right? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PuertoLibre on May 02, 2013, 02:15:20 AM Details....details.... https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRwCbNOPoWS7iS-qrwYxuYOVC9hol9h3sskMbELbOnWqCSANWg It is not like anyone is actually going to report them to the FCC! Yeah, it must be sheer coincidence that PayPal has contacted customers asking whether they've received their BFL orders and that BFL is suddenly going to issue automatic refunds to customers who don't confirm their pre-orders...right? http://i40.tinypic.com/2ues6qt.png In either case, one more win for the customers of Paypal. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: centove on May 02, 2013, 10:20:23 AM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying... And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. Look under the battery, that's where my cell phone hides the FCC logo. Feel free to post a link verifying the FCC approval of any BFL product at www.fcc.gov. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PuertoLibre on May 02, 2013, 10:49:08 AM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying... And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. Look under the battery, that's where my cell phone hides the FCC logo. Feel free to post a link verifying the FCC approval of any BFL product at www.fcc.gov. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Red_Evil on May 02, 2013, 11:01:17 AM Manga Girls Nice ...
But +1 for Paypal so and noon ? Waiting for 3 more Month ? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: centove on May 02, 2013, 11:06:24 AM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying... And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. Look under the battery, that's where my cell phone hides the FCC logo. Feel free to post a link verifying the FCC approval of any BFL product at www.fcc.gov. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PuertoLibre on May 02, 2013, 01:04:14 PM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying... And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. Look under the battery, that's where my cell phone hides the FCC logo. Feel free to post a link verifying the FCC approval of any BFL product at www.fcc.gov. You do understand the issue of non-FCC certification (or any other kind of certifications) are there for more than one reason, right? ------------------- Lets assume you don't actually know. Shipping to international countries requires some of these certifications. Without it, it gets sent back to it's origin or held for a VERY long time. Basic point you'd understand right? Okay. Good. What do you think happens if someone does actually report BFL to the FCC (and no, it won't be me)? Yeah, they get fined, their shipment may also stop going out, and in the most extreme cases the fines may crush their business. Relevant [to you] right? I could go on, but you need to realize it is not all about me. Who gives what I think. It is just plain common sense. Ignoring the certifications brings alot of different problems to the table. I am not one of them. Edit: BFL risks opening themselves up to a can of worms if one (or many) vengeful customer(s) get angry. You know there are plenty of those all over the place. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: centove on May 02, 2013, 01:30:57 PM Centove, you do realize that your thinking is all screwed, right? You do understand the issue of non-FCC certification (or any other kind of certifications) are there for more than one reason, right? ------------------- Lets assume you don't actually know. Shipping to international countries requires some of these certifications. Without it, it gets sent back to it's origin or held for a VERY long time. Basic point you'd understand right? Okay. Good. What do you think happens if someone does actually report BFL to the FCC (and no, it won't be me)? Yeah, they get fined, their shipment may also stop going out, and in the most extreme cases the fines may crush their business. Relevant [to you] right? I could go on, but you need to realize it is not all about me. Who gives what I think. It is just plain common sense. Ignoring the certifications brings alot of different problems to the table. I am not one of them. Edit: BFL risks opening themselves up to a can of worms if one (or many) vengeful customer(s) get angry. You know there are plenty of those all over the place. Here let me make it easy for you.... IF you think there is a problem with it and you have a complaint: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints File your complaint about the interference you are experiencing.. Now as far as international shipping.. Umm... The FCC only has jurisdiction in the US, other countries have other certifications, this thread was whining and moaning about the FCC and UL labels. All I was trying to point out is if you have a problem with _that_ aspect then complain to the proper place. Bitcointalk.org is not the proper place to bitch about compliance of this or that. As to what will happen if someone was to report them? The FCC, in it's own time, would investigate and make a determination (there is a handy flow chart of this on the FCC site) if found in violation a fine would be levied and corrective action would be ordered. Are the Avalon units certified? Are the FPGA things certified? I don't see you raising a stink over those. If BFL goes out of business, oh well, yet another start-up that failed. Am I gonna loose sleep over it? No. You see I don't depend on BFL for my income so I don't give a shit if they go up in flames tomorrow. So it comes back to this: You (and the others here) absolutely HATE BFL and anything to do with them, I mean why else would you constantly post in every thread that remotely mentions them? What are you trying to accomplish? You (and the others here) feel Josh is a scum sucking liar. I get it... I really do I just don't understand what you are trying to accomplish? I can sense this is gonna devolve into personal attacks against me so I'll leave it at this.. Happy BFL/Josh hating..... Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PuertoLibre on May 02, 2013, 01:43:38 PM Centove, you do realize that your thinking is all screwed, right? You do understand the issue of non-FCC certification (or any other kind of certifications) are there for more than one reason, right? ------------------- Lets assume you don't actually know. Shipping to international countries requires some of these certifications. Without it, it gets sent back to it's origin or held for a VERY long time. Basic point you'd understand right? Okay. Good. What do you think happens if someone does actually report BFL to the FCC (and no, it won't be me)? Yeah, they get fined, their shipment may also stop going out, and in the most extreme cases the fines may crush their business. Relevant [to you] right? I could go on, but you need to realize it is not all about me. Who gives what I think. It is just plain common sense. Ignoring the certifications brings alot of different problems to the table. I am not one of them. Edit: BFL risks opening themselves up to a can of worms if one (or many) vengeful customer(s) get angry. You know there are plenty of those all over the place. Here let me make it easy for you.... IF you think there is a problem with it and you have a complaint: http://www.fcc.gov/complaints File your complaint about the interference you are experiencing.. Same as above, Read.Now as far as international shipping.. Umm... The FCC only has jurisdiction in the US, other countries have other certifications, Uh yeah, that IS why I mentioned it. Reading comprehension is good!this thread was whining and moaning about the FCC and UL labels. All I was trying to point out is if you have a problem with _that_ aspect then complain to the proper place. Bitcointalk.org is not the proper place to bitch about compliance of this or that. It is the proper place to discuss it. We are in the custom hardware section. It is hardware related. Your points are right in the bin, as it were.... As to what will happen if someone was to report them? The FCC, in it's own time, would investigate and make a determination (there is a handy flow chart of this on the FCC site) if found in violation a fine would be levied and corrective action would be ordered. Yep, what is new?Are the Avalon units certified? Are the FPGA things certified? I don't see you raising a stink over those. You must be ignorant that I did open a thread on this and this lead to Avalon seeking certification. BFL did nada! (as far as I know)So again, your points are moot. You must be new here. (I failed to look at your post count) If BFL goes out of business, oh well, yet another start-up that failed. Am I gonna loose sleep over it? No. You see I don't depend on BFL for my income so I don't give a shit if they go up in flames tomorrow. If you are buying ASICs to mine BitCoin you should.Otherwise, what the hell are you doing in this section. Someone take this guy to the lost and found. So it comes back to this: That is your opinion. I don't accept it as valid. You (and the others here) absolutely HATE BFL and anything to do with them, I mean why else would you constantly post in every thread that remotely mentions them? What are you trying to accomplish? Hate implies things that do not end with a Keyboard or a posting. Hate is pretty damn strong. Learn what the word means. You (and the others here) feel Josh is a scum sucking liar. Well, I go by the past, the present, and possibly see a trend.You tell me, what do you see? Perfection? Honesty? Truthiness? It's alright, you can tell me. It will only be between you and me. I get it... I really do I just don't understand what you are trying to accomplish? I can sense this is gonna devolve into personal attacks against me so I'll leave it at this.. Happy BFL/Josh hating..... You do realize that you are pretty aggressive, but don't expect anything in return.Alright, lets look at the facts, you don't want this thread around, you don't want to even read the thread about FCC compliance. Yet, you are bugging others who do. You seem to acknowledge that the whole "certification thing" has merit despite this. So I assume you might be in the wrong place and perhaps with the wrong mindset to deal with this subject. I hope my response was even handed enough. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Warwick on May 02, 2013, 04:00:56 PM The irony in this thread abounds......
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: firefop on May 02, 2013, 08:44:29 PM The irony in this thread abounds...... I'm still laughing over the whole topic... neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. FCC compliance is required, but not the certification. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Tamerz on May 02, 2013, 08:46:42 PM I'm still laughing over the whole topic... neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick. UL no doubt has nothing to do with this. The power supply has it, end of story. Now FCC is not that simple. My mouse is not Ethernet connected, it is not a broadcast device. Yet it has FCC logos on it. EDIT: No, it is not wireless by the way. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: repentance on May 02, 2013, 09:32:05 PM Okay, I watched that video, I didn't see a sticker, you know what? At this point I don't really care anymore. I get it you hate BFL, Josh is a liar. If you think a law has been broken report it, I'm sure the authorities have nothing better to do then chase down some random complaint about some random device that may or may not be certified by some other government authority. If you think there is provable fraud that will stand up to a jury and result in jail time, then take your evidence to the proper authorities for the full formal investigation and arrests. That's not the issue. Euro customers have been saying for ages that the units won't get past customs without certification (Avalon has openly said in the past that they don't want to service the Euro market). BFL has been totally transparent about customers needing to find out about and deal with duty related issues themselves and I have no problem with that. We're probably still going to get some "zomg my ASIC is sitting in customs and I have to pay a gazillion dollars to take delivery, why wasn't I warned" posts, though. BFL has emphatically stated that they won't lie on customs declarations so people can reduce/avoid paying duty and I have no problem with that, either. Certification is an issue because the requirements aren't universally standard. Units which don't meet the standards for the country to which they're being shipped may never make it to the customers who ordered them. This isn't a "pay more to get them" situation. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: firefop on May 02, 2013, 09:44:10 PM I'm still laughing over the whole topic... neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick. UL no doubt has nothing to do with this. The power supply has it, end of story. Now FCC is not that simple. My mouse is not Ethernet connected, it is not a broadcast device. Yet it has FCC logos on it. EDIT: No, it is not wireless by the way. if it's optical it needs FCC cert re:emissions Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Tamerz on May 02, 2013, 09:57:50 PM if it's optical it needs FCC cert re:emissions Fair enough, however I just pulled out an old Dell roller mouse and it has it as well. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on May 02, 2013, 10:00:55 PM if it's optical it needs FCC cert re:emissions Fair enough, however I just pulled out an old Dell roller mouse and it has it as well. Dude read the thread its all been covered. Unintended emitter of rf is what the fcc would classify this device as. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Tamerz on May 02, 2013, 10:03:58 PM Dude read the thread its all been covered. Unintended emitter of rf is what the fcc would classify this device as. Funny how my FPGA doesn't have anything like that on it. Why is it any different? That is the part not being answered. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on May 02, 2013, 10:24:20 PM Dude read the thread its all been covered. Unintended emitter of rf is what the fcc would classify this device as. Funny how my FPGA doesn't have anything like that on it. Why is it any different? That is the part not being answered. This was also sorta touched on. I found no Altera producst in the fcc database. Seems like they are probably classified as computer boards , which should be an exempt product as a unintende emitter. They still have to be fcc compliant just not certified. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PuertoLibre on May 02, 2013, 10:57:57 PM Dude read the thread its all been covered. Unintended emitter of rf is what the fcc would classify this device as. Funny how my FPGA doesn't have anything like that on it. Why is it any different? That is the part not being answered. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: repentance on May 02, 2013, 11:16:09 PM I honestly think people would care far less about this and the shipping price changes if BFL hadn't had so long to get all of the administrative stuff in order. There's been plenty of time for them to look into the exact requirements and to make sure they're in a position to meet them (just like there's been plenty of time for them to negotiate shipment rates). With "22 employees", there's little excuse for this shit not having been done.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Operatr on May 02, 2013, 11:18:58 PM I could care less, the FCC are just as worthless and corrupt as the rest.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: ecliptic on May 03, 2013, 12:25:15 AM You guys do realize not everything that is FCC certified has a sticker on it stating so?? Look at your cell phone, where is the sticker? Look at a cordless phone, where is the sticker??? Computer motherboard? Video Card? Generally you'll hunt in the book and lo-and behold there is the FCC compliance statement. Just saying... And as far as the UL label on the power-supply, unless BFL is making that (and it looks like a fairly standard switching power supply brick, probably for a laptop) that's the manufacturer of said product. Look under the battery, that's where my cell phone hides the FCC logo. Feel free to post a link verifying the FCC approval of any BFL product at www.fcc.gov. You do understand the issue of non-FCC certification (or any other kind of certifications) are there for more than one reason, right? ------------------- Lets assume you don't actually know. Shipping to international countries requires some of these certifications. Without it, it gets sent back to it's origin or held for a VERY long time. Basic point you'd understand right? Okay. Good. What do you think happens if someone does actually report BFL to the FCC (and no, it won't be me)? Yeah, they get fined, their shipment may also stop going out, and in the most extreme cases the fines may crush their business. Relevant [to you] right? I could go on, but you need to realize it is not all about me. Who gives what I think. It is just plain common sense. Ignoring the certifications brings alot of different problems to the table. I am not one of them. Edit: BFL risks opening themselves up to a can of worms if one (or many) vengeful customer(s) get angry. You know there are plenty of those all over the place. There is massive, massive financial incentive for anyone big in mining who did NOT order BFL to report them to the FCC/etc and try and get their product jeprodized I think it's safe to assume BFL has already been reported dozens if not hundreds of times to the FCC, and they simply do not care. if by some miracle this fact has missed everyone : well, whoops, i guess the cats out of the bag. but i'm sure everyone knows this Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on May 03, 2013, 03:14:33 AM Quote There is massive, massive financial incentive for anyone big in mining who did NOT order BFL to report them to the FCC/etc and try and get their product jeprodized I think it's safe to assume BFL has already been reported dozens if not hundreds of times to the FCC, and they simply do not care. if by some miracle this fact has missed everyone : well, whoops, i guess the cats out of the bag. but i'm sure everyone knows this How can an entity facing budgetary concerns not care about filling their coffer with fines? Dude read the thread its all been covered. Unintended emitter of rf is what the fcc would classify this device as. Funny how my FPGA doesn't have anything like that on it. Why is it any different? That is the part not being answered. It's not different! Not a single one of those FPGA units was certified by the FCC. The irony in this thread abounds...... I'm still laughing over the whole topic... neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. FCC compliance is required, but not the certification. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick. If that were the case, then why was Josh so adamant in assuring that certification was in progress back in November? When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. Note that Josh claims that some screen was already certified, yet nowhere on the FCC site is such a device mentioned unless, of course, the FCC made a mistake and forgot to include it on their website, or it's a non-truth. The other option is that the FCC is behind in posting, not yet to the October of last year's submissions, which would be odd, for I can clearly see this past Wednesday's results. To this day, Josh has not once addressed the FCC again after releasing his above statement. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: firefop on May 03, 2013, 04:39:40 AM I'm still laughing over the whole topic... neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. FCC compliance is required, but not the certification. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick. If that were the case, then why was Josh so adamant in assuring that certification was in progress back in November? When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. Note that Josh claims that some screen was already certified, yet nowhere on the FCC site is such a device mentioned unless, of course, the FCC made a mistake and forgot to include it on their website, or it's a non-truth. The other option is that the FCC is behind in posting, not yet to the October of last year's submissions, which would be odd, for I can clearly see this past Wednesday's results. To this day, Josh has not once addressed the FCC again after releasing his above statement. My guess would be that the 'issue' was brought to someones attention... a guy assigned to handle it and then later found out that it wasn't needed. As for the screen - the only one I'm aware of would be on the mini-rig, and that's already an aftermarket product with it's own certs (nexus tablet). I think we tend to think of Josh as a developer when in fact his role with BFL is community management... I'm sure he has as much inside information on the actual processes / assignments going on as any other customer relations guy would at any company - which is zero from personal observation plus whatever management tells him. I know if went to my bizdev dept as an employee with a customer service job and asked them "Hey do we need FCC certs for this thing, someone brought it up on the forums" they'd probably just tell me "Yes, it's in process "so and so is handling it" . That would be the extent of the communication also if the company is big enough (or obscure enough) they wouldn't even tell me who was handling it only that someone was on it and what to tell customers. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PuertoLibre on May 03, 2013, 08:00:38 AM I'm still laughing over the whole topic... neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. FCC compliance is required, but not the certification. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick. If that were the case, then why was Josh so adamant in assuring that certification was in progress back in November? When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. Note that Josh claims that some screen was already certified, yet nowhere on the FCC site is such a device mentioned unless, of course, the FCC made a mistake and forgot to include it on their website, or it's a non-truth. The other option is that the FCC is behind in posting, not yet to the October of last year's submissions, which would be odd, for I can clearly see this past Wednesday's results. To this day, Josh has not once addressed the FCC again after releasing his above statement. My guess would be that the 'issue' was brought to someones attention... a guy assigned to handle it and then later found out that it wasn't needed. As for the screen - the only one I'm aware of would be on the mini-rig, and that's already an aftermarket product with it's own certs (nexus tablet). Uh I know you are certainly not new since I see you all the time on the BFL forums. So let me clear this up for you. Back before the Nexus (a smartphone) replaced the cases screen on the MiniRig...the original prototype was said to contain a built in screen (not a smartphone). This original screen was certified but was not ultimately used in the final development of the MiniRig. The reason was BFL told it's customers that the supplier with the screens gave an inflated number for how many screen it had in stock. So BFL had to redesign. For those who think I don't speak in facts, well, that is a history lesson. I think we tend to think of Josh as a developer when in fact his role with BFL is community management... Who is this "we"?I'm sure he has as much inside information on the actual processes / assignments going on as any other customer relations guy would at any company - which is zero from personal observation plus whatever management tells him. I know if went to my bizdev dept as an employee with a customer service job and asked them "Hey do we need FCC certs for this thing, someone brought it up on the forums" they'd probably just tell me "Yes, it's in process "so and so is handling it" . That would be the extent of the communication also if the company is big enough (or obscure enough) they wouldn't even tell me who was handling it only that someone was on it and what to tell customers. Strange uncommunicative company you have imagined there.I suppose in your example, the left hand would not know what the right hand is doing. I suppose this means you might be on to something. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on May 03, 2013, 07:57:47 PM I'm still laughing over the whole topic... neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. FCC compliance is required, but not the certification. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick. If that were the case, then why was Josh so adamant in assuring that certification was in progress back in November? When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. Note that Josh claims that some screen was already certified, yet nowhere on the FCC site is such a device mentioned unless, of course, the FCC made a mistake and forgot to include it on their website, or it's a non-truth. The other option is that the FCC is behind in posting, not yet to the October of last year's submissions, which would be odd, for I can clearly see this past Wednesday's results. To this day, Josh has not once addressed the FCC again after releasing his above statement. My guess would be that the 'issue' was brought to someones attention... a guy assigned to handle it and then later found out that it wasn't needed. As for the screen - the only one I'm aware of would be on the mini-rig, and that's already an aftermarket product with it's own certs (nexus tablet). Uh I know you are certainly not new since I see you all the time on the BFL forums. So let me clear this up for you. Back before the Nexus (a smartphone) replaced the cases screen on the MiniRig...the original prototype was said to contain a built in screen (not a smartphone). This original screen was certified but was not ultimately used in the final development of the MiniRig. The reason was BFL told it's customers that the supplier with the screens gave an inflated number for how many screen it had in stock. So BFL had to redesign. For those who think I don't speak in facts, well, that is a history lesson. I think we tend to think of Josh as a developer when in fact his role with BFL is community management... Who is this "we"?I'm sure he has as much inside information on the actual processes / assignments going on as any other customer relations guy would at any company - which is zero from personal observation plus whatever management tells him. I know if went to my bizdev dept as an employee with a customer service job and asked them "Hey do we need FCC certs for this thing, someone brought it up on the forums" they'd probably just tell me "Yes, it's in process "so and so is handling it" . That would be the extent of the communication also if the company is big enough (or obscure enough) they wouldn't even tell me who was handling it only that someone was on it and what to tell customers. Strange uncommunicative company you have imagined there.I suppose in your example, the left hand would not know what the right hand is doing. I suppose this means you might be on to something. Also remember that they were not in their new facility yet where the offices are several yards away, but in the old, much smaller facility were any offices would have been closer, if not in the same room. Ergo, the right hand knew what the left hand was doing, and if Josh made a mistake by given out wrong information, BFL would have been here to correct the point(s) as they've demonstrated doing such a few times prior. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: dogie on June 10, 2013, 12:26:45 AM Bump
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: yxt on June 10, 2013, 12:41:28 AM Nobody checked with the FCC ???
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Korbman on June 10, 2013, 12:49:58 AM Nobody checked with the FCC ??? I've submitted a query before, and the FCC confirmed they weren't registered with them. Other than the generic "File a Complaint" response, they also noted to get in touch with the offending company for details. BFL still hasn't gotten back to me (and I don't suspect they will). Oh well...as long as my miner mines after I receive it, what do I care if they get fined? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Nolo on June 10, 2013, 12:53:03 AM Surely you aren't suggesting that a company with such strong ethics as BFL would ever intentionally break the law, are you?
But seriously BFL guys. When they come knocking on your doors give me a call. Criminal law is my primary area of practice. I also accept BTC! ;) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: tabbek on June 10, 2013, 12:56:54 AM Nobody checked with the FCC ??? I've submitted a query before, and the FCC confirmed they weren't registered with them. Other than the generic "File a Complaint" response, they also noted to get in touch with the offending company for details. BFL still hasn't gotten back to me (and I don't suspect they will). Oh well...as long as my miner mines after I receive it, what do I care if they get fined? To me, this sounds like the FCC saying "we don't care unless someone files an actual complaint about actual negative impact / interference from a unit". Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on June 10, 2013, 01:14:39 AM Nobody checked with the FCC ??? I've submitted a query before, and the FCC confirmed they weren't registered with them. Other than the generic "File a Complaint" response, they also noted to get in touch with the offending company for details. BFL still hasn't gotten back to me (and I don't suspect they will). Oh well...as long as my miner mines after I receive it, what do I care if they get fined? To me, this sounds like the FCC saying "we don't care unless someone files an actual complaint about actual negative impact / interference from a unit". Dear FCC Ever since my neighbor got one of them bitcoin miners from BFL, the signals for it have been interrupting my TVs. I'm not for certain, but I think he's able to tap into my wi-fi and monitor my connection. Are you sure you tested those devices correctly? I is concerned. Bob PS: Which department do you suggest I write to to express concerns about a felon on probation named Sonny Vleisides operating a money laundering scheme, and is currently seeking property in Costa Rica? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeño Post by: dwolfman on June 10, 2013, 03:14:24 AM I've submitted a query before, and the FCC confirmed they weren't registered with them. Other than the generic "File a Complaint" response, they also noted to get in touch with the offending company for details. BFL still hasn't gotten back to me (and I don't suspect they will). Oh well...as long as my miner mines after I receive it, what do I care if they get fined? Careful, you may not realize what can happen here. But yes, it would require someone filing a complaint. As a licensed amateur radio operator, I'm very familiar with the FCC rules and regs. :) Any non-transmitting device does not require licensing, but does need to be certified that they meet the standards of Part 15 in the FCC regs. Specifically, that it must accept any interference from other devices, AND (more importantly) that it MUST NOT cause interference with other devices. So, here's what could happen: You get your BFL device, set it up and start using it. The BFL device in question happens to radiate a strong signal of some kind of RF energy which causes interference with say a nearby TV or radio. The owner of that TV or radio calls the FCC and lodges a complaint that there is interference happening. They get a few more complaints (more neighbors), so decide to investigate. They narrow it down to the BFL device. Now if it turns out this device is not FCC certified, they can confiscate it and fine YOU (the owner of the device) for operating a device that is not certified. Beyond that they may also investigate why BFL is selling non-certified devices and fine them as well. However, I think you get the picture here. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean the FCC won't either. ;) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Korbman on June 10, 2013, 12:26:58 PM Careful, you may not realize what can happen here. [...] So, here's what could happen: You get your BFL device, set it up and start using it. The BFL device in question happens to radiate a strong signal of some kind of RF energy which causes interference with say a nearby TV or radio. The owner of that TV or radio calls the FCC and lodges a complaint that there is interference happening. They get a few more complaints (more neighbors), so decide to investigate. They narrow it down to the BFL device. Now if it turns out this device is not FCC certified, they can confiscate it and fine YOU (the owner of the device) for operating a device that is not certified. Beyond that they may also investigate why BFL is selling non-certified devices and fine them as well. However, I think you get the picture here. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean the FCC won't either. ;) Interesting, I didn't know that. But wouldn't it be easy to fight the charge based solely on my ignorance in the matter? I don't see why the consumer should be penalized for purchasing a non-certified device when a) the consumer claims to know nothing about FCC laws and regulations, and b) the device manufacturer forewent certification in the first place. Hypothetically, how was I supposed to know the consequences of my actions? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: jeannie on June 10, 2013, 12:28:10 PM It takes a lot of time and resources as well as money to get such certification, I don't think they have the time, money and resources.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: KS on June 10, 2013, 12:44:44 PM Nobody checked with the FCC ??? I've submitted a query before, and the FCC confirmed they weren't registered with them. Other than the generic "File a Complaint" response, they also noted to get in touch with the offending company for details. BFL still hasn't gotten back to me (and I don't suspect they will). Oh well...as long as my miner mines after I receive it, what do I care if they get fined? To me, this sounds like the FCC saying "we don't care unless someone files an actual complaint about actual negative impact / interference from a unit". Dear FCC Ever since my neighbor got one of them bitcoin miners from BFL, the signals for it have been interrupting my TVs. I'm not for certain, but I think he's able to tap into my wi-fi and monitor my connection. Are you sure you tested those devices correctly? I is concerned. Bob PS: Which department do you suggest I write to to express concerns about a felon on probation named Sonny Vleisides operating a money laundering scheme, and is currently seeking property in Costa Rica? Thought they liked Nicaragua better. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Flying Hellfish on June 10, 2013, 01:23:56 PM Careful, you may not realize what can happen here. [...] So, here's what could happen: You get your BFL device, set it up and start using it. The BFL device in question happens to radiate a strong signal of some kind of RF energy which causes interference with say a nearby TV or radio. The owner of that TV or radio calls the FCC and lodges a complaint that there is interference happening. They get a few more complaints (more neighbors), so decide to investigate. They narrow it down to the BFL device. Now if it turns out this device is not FCC certified, they can confiscate it and fine YOU (the owner of the device) for operating a device that is not certified. Beyond that they may also investigate why BFL is selling non-certified devices and fine them as well. However, I think you get the picture here. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean the FCC won't either. ;) Interesting, I didn't know that. But wouldn't it be easy to fight the charge based solely on my ignorance in the matter? I don't see why the consumer should be penalized for purchasing a non-certified device when a) the consumer claims to know nothing about FCC laws and regulations, and b) the device manufacturer forewent certification in the first place. Hypothetically, how was I supposed to know the consequences of my actions? Generally speaking ignorance is not an acceptable reason for breaking a law LDO. I am not an FCC expert or a lawyer but I would guess in the above hypothetical scenario you might have recourse legally to go after the seller/manufacture for selling you the uncertified device. If the above is true I don't think your responsibility is relieved (I.e I guess you would still be fined and have to pay it or settle or w/e) but I do think you might have some recourse against the seller/manufacture. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: ma_rine_sa on June 10, 2013, 01:30:58 PM i think the consensus is no-fs-given
the BFL haters would even agree lol Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: dwolfman on June 10, 2013, 06:44:41 PM Careful, you may not realize what can happen here. [...] So, here's what could happen: You get your BFL device, set it up and start using it. The BFL device in question happens to radiate a strong signal of some kind of RF energy which causes interference with say a nearby TV or radio. The owner of that TV or radio calls the FCC and lodges a complaint that there is interference happening. They get a few more complaints (more neighbors), so decide to investigate. They narrow it down to the BFL device. Now if it turns out this device is not FCC certified, they can confiscate it and fine YOU (the owner of the device) for operating a device that is not certified. Beyond that they may also investigate why BFL is selling non-certified devices and fine them as well. However, I think you get the picture here. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean the FCC won't either. ;) Interesting, I didn't know that. But wouldn't it be easy to fight the charge based solely on my ignorance in the matter? I don't see why the consumer should be penalized for purchasing a non-certified device when a) the consumer claims to know nothing about FCC laws and regulations, and b) the device manufacturer forewent certification in the first place. Hypothetically, how was I supposed to know the consequences of my actions? Generally speaking ignorance is not an acceptable reason for breaking a law LDO. I am not an FCC expert or a lawyer but I would guess in the above hypothetical scenario you might have recourse legally to go after the seller/manufacture for selling you the uncertified device. If the above is true I don't think your responsibility is relieved (I.e I guess you would still be fined and have to pay it or settle or w/e) but I do think you might have some recourse against the seller/manufacture. Exactly. Though the FCC has their own way of dealing with it, and since they have full authority as granted by Congress over the airwaves, they are usually "judge, jury, and executioner" for anything they cover. Rarely does anything they do end up in court. Here's an example of what happens to a company selling unlicensed/uncertified devices: http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-targets-online-retailer-in-citation And here's what usually happens to an individual causing interference (note this person appears to be intentionally doing it): http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-fines-pennsylvania-man-18-000-for-failing-to-allow-inspection-of-cb-station Ah! Found something even better. Forgot the ARRL had a page about Part 15 devices enforcement actions. :) Find it here: http://www.arrl.org/part-15-fcc-enforcement-actions Gives a much better description of what each person is responsible for. While a fine is possible for an operator, it may not happen if the interference can be resolved while the device is in operation. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: TheSwede75 on June 10, 2013, 06:45:55 PM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people! Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on June 10, 2013, 06:54:29 PM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people! It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is. A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification. A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes. BFL falls somewhere in between. Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: minternj on June 10, 2013, 06:57:48 PM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people! It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is. A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification. A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes. BFL falls somewhere in between. Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it. K9 i'll start taking you seriously when you post the same about avalon, knc, bitfury, et al getting these certs. Until then your motive is pretty clear. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: sensei on June 10, 2013, 08:46:01 PM I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: dwolfman on June 10, 2013, 09:22:07 PM I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually. I suppose one solution would be to build a small Faraday cage around the miner. ;) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on June 10, 2013, 09:38:43 PM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people! It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is. A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification. A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes. BFL falls somewhere in between. Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it. K9 i'll start taking you seriously when you post the same about avalon, knc, bitfury, et al getting these certs. Until then your motive is pretty clear. So you dismiss what I say because I said it. Classic willful ignorance. Afraid to consider new information because it conflicts with your predetermined world view. Avalon is producing equipment in China and I have no idea what their version of the FCC (if they even have one) requires in the way of certification. As far as I know, they have no footprint at all in the US. So users of Avalon equipment might be liable if it interferes, but Avalon themselves would not because they are not building and selling it from within the US. AFAIK Bitfury is a Russian company and has no product yet, so who knows what Russian regulations they have to satisfy. KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it. This is only an issue with BFL because they bragged about getting FCC & UL certs, but never actually did. They berated their competition for not having the certification, when they themselves did not have it. If BFL hadn't been lying about it, nobody on these forums would give a hoot. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: KS on June 10, 2013, 09:56:53 PM KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it. Where do you get they are Swiss !?!? Only Swedish. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: k9quaint on June 10, 2013, 10:04:47 PM KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it. Where do you get they are Swiss !?!? Only Swedish. You are right. I don't know where I got that in my head. All parties involved in the joint venture are Swedish. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: KS on June 10, 2013, 10:22:18 PM KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it. Where do you get they are Swiss !?!? Only Swedish. You are right. I don't know where I got that in my head. All parties involved in the joint venture are Swedish. Happens to the best. I was worried a min there were new developments :) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Phinnaeus Gage on June 10, 2013, 10:24:26 PM Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people! It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is. A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification. A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes. BFL falls somewhere in between. Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it. K9 i'll start taking you seriously when you post the same about avalon, knc, bitfury, et al getting these certs. Until then your motive is pretty clear. So you dismiss what I say because I said it. Classic willful ignorance. Afraid to consider new information because it conflicts with your predetermined world view. Avalon is producing equipment in China and I have no idea what their version of the FCC (if they even have one) requires in the way of certification. As far as I know, they have no footprint at all in the US. So users of Avalon equipment might be liable if it interferes, but Avalon themselves would not because they are not building and selling it from within the US. AFAIK Bitfury is a Russian company and has no product yet, so who knows what Russian regulations they have to satisfy. KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it. This is only an issue with BFL because they bragged about getting FCC & UL certs, but never actually did. They berated their competition for not having the certification, when they themselves did not have it. If BFL hadn't been lying about it, nobody on these forums would give a hoot. Hence this thread! Josh blatantly lied about having units tested at the FCC, and when called out on it, nobody at BFL as addressed the FCC issue. The other big lie that Josh said was meeting Sonny K., of which to this day a Sonny K. has yet to be produced. If they lie about mundane aspects mentioned, what the fuck else are they lying about? Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Bicknellski on June 11, 2013, 06:41:22 AM Why no post here Inaba? Shocking oversight I guess.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: peetah on June 11, 2013, 06:44:47 AM Ran out of deadlines. Ran out of excuses. Now running low on retorts.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: PeZ on June 11, 2013, 06:51:22 AM I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually. I suppose one solution would be to build a small Faraday cage around the miner. ;) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Blueberry408 on June 11, 2013, 07:13:14 AM I'm just not quite sure that's precisely how FCC requirements work; you might want to pose your question to the lawyer subforum??
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts. If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified. When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval? Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board. The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law. Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N Search it yourself. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: sensei on June 11, 2013, 11:28:54 AM Interesting. In one of the FCC letters:
Quote ....such devices must not cause harmful interference. If and when interference does occur, the burden falls on the device operator to correct it, and if necessary, cease operation of the device, whenever such interference occurs. Some types of common consumer devices may also operate under Part 18 of the Commission's rules. In either case, however, the rules with regard to interference are the same. Please also be advised that some of these devices are imported and do not comply with Commission certification standards, and thereby result in interference to other radio services. You may have one of those devices. If the device is an approved one, it should have a silver FCC label on the unit showing a certification number. Even an approved device, however, can only be operated legally if it is not causing harmful interference to a licensed radio service. Now it may be that BFL has decided that they used good practices in designing and laying out their circuit boards that they are relatively certain that they will not radiate any spurious energy causing interference to others. They then could save $5-10K in sending out the boards to a local lab for testing and take the risk. (We do that testing here in-house where I work, but only for what we build.) As highlighted in the above letter, it is up to the user to correct the device. If the FCC sends you such a letter, maybe you can point your finger toward Kansas and tell them that they assured you that the boards were tested and passed FCC specifications. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: dogie on June 12, 2013, 02:26:50 AM Found this on bitbet, not sure on date or genuineness as you can make up names:
Quote BFL_Josh Also for luls:Having some problems with the FCC. Some electricity safety tests are required before we are able to submit documents for approval. Quote BFL_Josh http://bitbet.us/bet/307/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-july-1st/Had a fire at shop today. First chips are destroyed but new chips are on their way from the foundry. Still shipping by the end of April. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: dwolfman on June 12, 2013, 02:59:48 AM I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually. I suppose one solution would be to build a small Faraday cage around the miner. ;) True, but a ferrite core can take care of that usually. :) Still, should be much reduced from without the cage. ;) Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeño Post by: dwolfman on June 12, 2013, 03:01:58 AM As highlighted in the above letter, it is up to the user to correct the device. If the FCC sends you such a letter, maybe you can point your finger toward Kansas and tell them that they assured you that the boards were tested and passed FCC specifications. Unfortunately, pointing the finger at BFL won't change the fact that the user still has to correct the issue to the FCC's satisfaction. And if they can't they are not to use the device any more. Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: sensei on June 12, 2013, 02:54:06 PM I'm just gonna build a big foil hat for my house.
Title: Re: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeņo Post by: Chopperman on April 26, 2014, 12:09:46 AM Necro-thread. Lurker since Summer 2012.
BFL deletes any discussion of FCC conformity on their forum. The fact remains that all products need FCC compliance testing for the US market and CE testing for Europe. With everyone excited about the Monarch's imminent release, have BFL indicated that they are testing this product? Um, no... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Declaration_of_Conformity http://www.wavecor.co.uk/inf_emc1.htm "What are the penalties for non-compliance?" The principle penalty is that your product will be removed from the market throughout the European Union. In addition you are liable to fines and imprisonment if it can be shown that you have wilfully made a false declaration. Real world example of a FCC fine: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-263862A1.html http://www.ieee.li/pdf/essay/guide_to_global_emc_requirements_2007.pdf What are the possible exceptions - bare boards made in small quantities for hobbyists (Arduino style). Since BFL stated they sold over 50,000 miners, that's not small quantites by anyones measurement. But the reality is that EMC conformity for all miners is "fight-club". What's the first rule? |
