No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeño

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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.

[firefop]

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.

[PuertoLibre]

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.

Beautiful fantasy you have there.

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.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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.

Beautiful fantasy you have there.

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.

[dogie]

Bump

[yxt]

Nobody checked with the FCC 

[Korbman]

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?

[Nolo]

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!  

[tabbek]

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".

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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?

[dwolfman]

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. 

[Korbman]

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?

[jeannie]

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.

[KS]

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.

[Flying Hellfish]

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.

[ma_rine_sa]

i think the consensus is no-fs-given

the BFL haters would even agree lol

[dwolfman]

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.

[TheSwede75]

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!

[k9quaint]

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.

[minternj]

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.