No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeño

[fpgaminer]

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.

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.

[Syke]

Does Avalon have fcc approval ?

Avalon isn't a US company, nor did they ever claim to have applied for FCC approval.

[m3ta]

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?

I don't know.

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
I feel old.

[minternj]

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.

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

[k9quaint]

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.

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.

[Rampion]

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?

I don't know.

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
I feel old.

No, you were not the only one. And I feel old too.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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.

[vvic]

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

[minternj]

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.

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.

[Rallye]

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. 

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.

And Avalon customers.  Because for us, the longer BFL gets held up, the better

[k9quaint]

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.

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.

[Syke]

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.

[PuertoLibre]

Details....details....



It is not like anyone is actually going to report them to the FCC!

[Rallye]

Details....details....



It is not like anyone is actually going to report them to the FCC!

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

[minternj]

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.

[k9quaint]

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.

[dogie]

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.

[DataPlumber]

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.

[minternj]

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.

[Bogart]

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?