From: blackbelt@cup.portal.com (Ben - Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Black Belt vs the FCC
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 21:55:33 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

James-Hastings-Trew:

FYI, there are two "regulatory" issues here: One is "compliant with the FCC
regs" in the sense that the HAM-E meets (well, exceeds, but it only HAS to
"meet" them) the RFI standards imposed by the FCC, as measured by the FCC or
an FCC-approved lab. This it unquestionably does. The other is, "registered
as an FCC-approved product" which is the stage that never got completed,
again entirely due to a paperwork issue, said paperwork NOT being anything to
do with the testing/passing process.

Many, many thousands of dollars were paid to get the testing accomplished
properly, involving trips out of state (no labs here) and suchlike
entertainment. Lots of cash. A much smaller amount was sent as a check
written out to the FCC, in the amount of $700 and sent to the lab, the last
vestige of the process (that's the "filing" fee), but that was never cashed;
if we had ever done the entire process before we would have caught on right
there, but it was the first time we did "the whole thing". We have other
hardware products that are approved (The AVT system, for instance) but
although we did the design and filled out forms and etc, AEA corporation, who
markets the AVT, handled the back-and-forth with the paperwork people.

The AVT, just fyi, is approved for _both_ RFI and telecomm (since it connects
to the phone lines). There can be no question whether we know what we're
doing when it comes to RFI, and meeting specs.

The HAM-E snafu was a registration one, an issue of crossing t's and dotting
i's at the absolute tail-end of the process - no portion of the RFI testing,
the part that exists to protect the consumer (or so the official line goes)
was either failed or bypassed. So Perry is - technically - right. The issue
of responsibility to the consumer, which is what is relevant here, now stands
as follows:

(1) The HAM-E poses no RFI threat as defined by the FCC standards, and in
fact is quieter than many Amiga peripherals, for instance it is MUCH quieter
than my own personal ASDG Dual serial board... imagine that. It's so nice to
have your won test gear so you can see these things for yourself. :^) The
HAM-E not only exceeded "commercial standards" it exceeds the much more
stringent consumer level standards.

(2) The issue of registration stands as follows: The HAM-E never completed
the registration process. We didn't know that initially - we thought it was
all settled; we had the ID number which THEY sent to us, and we decided to
stop selling the unit for a number of our own, very good reasons. We did
that, and we sold off the remaining units. _After_ that, we got a letter from
the FCC, complete with xerographic copy of the bottom of the unit in
question, with the serial number, saying it's not salable (whooops), stop
selling it (not relevant as I've explained) and we needed to tell 'em why the
process was not completed (we did, as much as they cared to hear... which
wasn't much, they yelled at us pretty hard). We got it settled, more or less,
but as the unit wasn't being sold, it wasn't relevant anymore anyway.

From the consumers point of view, we weren't avoiding the process designed to
save 'em from bad TV reception and worse; from the FCC's point of view, they
were annoyed at us alright, but apparently the fact that we went through the
_critical_ part of process was sufficient to satisfy them. No fines were
levied or anything of that nature. This, if anything, is a very good sign -
they (the FCC) apparently looked at the situation and decided since it WAS a
passing device, they'd let the issue drop. If I had my druthers, I'd change
the rules; I don't agree with them at all, as they stand I think they're
designed to screw small companies and help larger ones, and the regulation
side of things is more complicated than the testing side of things (at least
for us, since we knew how to engineer for quiet, but weren't very good at
paperwork).

Bottom line, we made sure that the consumer wasn't hurt from the very
beginning, without any prodding from authorized sources like the FCC, or
"other" sources. I hardly think that a paperwork mistake of this type can be
construed as malicious intent or careless treatment with regard to our
customers. Unless you're desperately in need of something to say about us,
which is where we get to Perry K.

Perry has every reason in the world to hassle us. Anything he can do to poke
holes in, or dent, our reputation helps him. This he needs desperately, since
his products are falling so far behind Imagemaster in image manipulation
areas it's sorry to see. I guess we're going to have to look to GVP for
competition soon. :^) Kermit? Where are you, Kermit? Right. Well, anyway...

The FCC considers both parts of the process important; the first part (the
actual RFI testing) because, well, that's what the point is, isn't it? The
second because they need to be SURE that said "important" part is done, and
being a large gov't organization, paperwork is their life and breath. They
could have smacked our hands but good for not completing the process;
ignorance is no excuse, nor, from what I gather from correspondence with the
people there, are there any other reasons they'll accept, good or no, our
specific reasons included.

Think of it as very like the tax process. They just don't want you to pay
your taxes - although that's the POINT, they also want the paperwork. You
screw up the paperwork in this country, and Uncle Sam visits you - it's hard,
or impossible, for them to know you did the "right" thing. And probably,
because (IF) you did the right thing in the important part, they'll either
let you off or just yell at you real well. They COULD fine you, maybe even
worse - but they probably won't, because although it is fair to characterize
either "whole" as an unfeeling, clunky bureaucracy, they are both made up of
reasoning, feeling people and you've got a good chance of common sense
overcoming the highly inertial rules system IF you really weren't trying to
get around what the agency is there for.

As is obvious, we've decided to do software only; we decided that well before
any of this was an issue (to us), and so as you characterized it, it's "dead"
from our perspective. There you have the situation. If it gives Perry K. the
warm fuzzies, great - maybe it'll help balance the heartburn Imagemaster
gives him. :^))

Ben