Bluetooth Compliance & Excessive Fees - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: mhanley
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 29, 2019, 06:51:06 pm
content: I work for a small company that are interested in developing using Bluetooth but the excessive fees demanded by the Bluetooth SIG are completely stifling innovation. I believe that many other small businesses are in the same position as us and would like to develop Bluetooth devices but cannot justify the fees which range from 2.5K to 8k USD per product/product name.The hope of this post is to get feedback from as many engineers/companies as possible and bring this feedback and the issue to light with the Bluetooth SIG, requesting that they amend their fees policy to include an option to pay per device manufactured or other method the promotes innovation in small businesses.It’s possible that if there are enough engineers/companies interested in this fee change that the BT SIG will consider it.If we don’t ask we won’t get!Thanks,M.

author: Tomorokoshi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2019, 06:04:00 am
content: Welcome to approvals and standards. Now, I don't do anything with Bluetooth. However, let's look at this in general.1. What is included in this $8000 price?2. How is the distinction between per product / product name defined?3. How does this interact with EMC requirements? Which regions are you looking at?Not sure where you are located, but let's say an engineer at your facility makes $80,000 per year. That fee is 1/10 of one engineer-year. Figure management and other overhead, you will approach 1/50 of the labor cost of the product. An alternative involving in-house work of some kind to mitigate some of the cost, even if it were possible, would likely not be worth it. Additionally, to the extent the $8000 discovers software problems or other operational issues that cost is quickly recovered.One of the problems when dealing with product development is how testing, approvals, certificates, etc. are accounted for in the initial project estimates. These are easily and often ignored, which means they become a costly surprise after some other work or investment return calculations. Additionally, management in general can't stand engineering approval costs, and in particular may not even understand the point in doing them.Agency approvals and testing are costs that are unavoidable, particularly with any kind of intentional transmitter.

author: oPossum
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2019, 06:21:32 am
content: I don't think you are going to find the outrage you are looking for. Licensing fees are just one of many business expenses.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2019, 11:06:56 am
content: It isn't necessarily $8K. It can be $2.5K for your first product if you are a small business.They say they are not-for-profit, but they rake in millions of dollars every year in licensing fees. Be warned that if you don't pay the money and even use a third party Bluetooth module in your design, Bluetooth SIG will try to hunt your down. They search web pages for the Bluetooth logo (and probably the word Bluetooth), and if you are not licensed, you will get nasty threatening legal action. If you import Bluetooth products into the US, Customs can seize the Bluetooth products if license fees have not been paid. A competitor might report you and get you finedhttps://blog.guidedimports.com/bluetooth-guide.$8,000, and even $2,500 is a lot of money for a small business, especially considering you don't get anything tangible for your money. I think they would get a lot more compliance if they charged a small royalty per Bluetooth chip used - a much more equitable and fairer idea. Not surprisingly, the board of directors at Bluetooth SIG are all from large corporations. There is no representation from small business. The fee scale is disproportionate; and I wonder if such behaviour could border on violating US anti-trust laws.You are not off the hook with WiFi either. Invented in Australia by Australians, but companies (mostly in the US) shamelessly stole the IP. The Aussie CSIRO sued the pants off them. I don't think the US can point the finger at China for violating patents when they shamelessly do it themselves.https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/how-the-aussie-government-invented-wifi-and-sued-its-way-to-430-million/

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2019, 11:10:38 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on December 30, 2019, 11:06:56 amIf you think $2500 is a lot, you are going to be really unhappy when you take your product to the approvals lab.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2019, 11:15:55 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on December 30, 2019, 11:06:56 amAs i understand it, there is only an issue if you advertise your product using the bluetooth logo or use the bluetooth trademark.You can have bluetooth in your device without paying for SIG if you avoid those two things.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2019, 08:59:19 pm
content: Yes, plenty of cheap Bluetooth coming from China...Just like with USB, you can get the standard for free, and implement it, and as long as you don't draw too much attention to your product they won't bother going after you.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 01:50:12 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 30, 2019, 11:10:38 amyeh, USB is something like $3500 for use of the logo and $5000 for a vendor ID

author: nigelwright7557
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 01:58:04 am
content: USB VID and PID codes are similar.You have to buy in codes to be legal.I cant remeber what the cost is now.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 02:07:20 am
content: Quote from: nigelwright7557 on December 31, 2019, 01:58:04 amA lot of specialised devices, like test equipment, simply ship with the generic VID and PID codes people typically use during development work.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 02:19:51 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on December 31, 2019, 02:06:31 amOpen source projects can get PID codes for free.http://pid.codes/

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 07:06:17 am
content: Whilst IP should be respected and dues paid, there is a level of what is fair and reasonable. Again, a small fee charged per chip using the IP is all that is needed. Then you have a level playing field and everyone should be happy.Remember IBM and their rip-off Microchannel architecture licensing fees? IBM's greed killed a superior product in favour of PCI. Microsoft under Gates was synonymous with greed. Windows ME and Vista were lemons. If Microsoft was not so money hungry, they would have provided free upgrades for these atrocious operating systems as an act of goodwill. Once Gates was gone, things were much better with Microsoft (eg: Office 365 is a great product at a fair rental price).IP in medical is a double edge sword. Yes, profits are sometimes poured into new developments. But when private equity is involved it is all about profits and nothing else. But then you get this character who brings greed to a whole new level, like at the bottom of a sewer...https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34331761.

author: mhanley
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 03:30:52 pm
content: @TomorokoshiI absolutely agree with that EMC testing and approvals are of value but where my and many others have issue is where an already fully tested and compliant device, already listed on the SIG website, is then subject to an additional fee because it is used in another product.Correct me if I’m wrong on any of the examples below.Example 1.I purchase a Samsung Tablet which has WiFi and Bluetooth and a host of other features. I mount the tablet in an enclosure, install an app to present some information and call it the InfoTAB 8 because it has an 8inch screen. I’m a small company and will probably only sell 5 or 10 of these units. The SIG states that I now have to list the device and pay $4000. Then my customer asks me for 2 more units but wants 10inch screens so the tablet has to change and it uses a different Bluetooth core. Again, another $4000 fee. And all of this for something that is already fully compliant, tested and certified. And it only gets worse from here e.g. Samsung changes the tablet and I have to pay all over again.Example 2.I purchase a Raspberry Pi which has Bluetooth which is fully certified and compliant. I install some software and have it connect to some BLE sensors. I buy an off-the-shelf enclosure to house the device and put a sticker on the front with “SM-01” for Sensor Mate 01. Again, I’m a small company with unit sales in the 10’s but I have to pay $4000.This is where the issue is. $4000 for a large company is nothing, but for a small company it decides the fate of a product. A simple change to the fee structures to allow for small run items to stay compliant but not stifle innovation is what is needed.Double dipping for already tested, certified and compliant equipment, devices, modules, etc. does not promote the spirit of innovation.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 04:50:38 pm
content: Quote from: mhanley on December 31, 2019, 03:30:52 pmCitation?Normally by the doctrine of first sale etc, once someone has paid the licensing fee for a patented technology, the rights are "exhausted" and the original IP owner has no further control. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_of_intellectual_property_rights:QuoteSo the double dipping you allude to should not occur. Only if you integrate an OEM type module would you be liable for license fee.You have to be a bit careful with these IP owners bodies, they like to make you think you need to pay up when you don't.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2019, 05:26:44 pm
content: What if the product is designed with a socket for a Bluetooth module but doesn't ship with the module, leaving it up to the end user to buy the module from a third party and install it?

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 12:58:02 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on December 31, 2019, 05:26:44 pmIt wont be RED (Radio Emissions Directive) compliant and cannot be sold in the EU because it won't have CE compliance. RED testing is not only for modules, but for the entire system.RED is some compliance by the EU that is making test houses a lot of money. Recently I had to make a number of design modifications to a client's board. The previous engineer had most unfortunately used a Taiyo Yuden WiFi/BT module that used aseparateTaiyo Yuden chip antenna on the PCB, rather than a fully integrated module. This decision to use a separate antenna, even though he had done a good layout job and complied with Taiyo's design recommendations, will cost the client roughly $30,000 extra in RED compliance testing over using a fully integrated module. Taiyo did not have a fully integrated module of the same small footprint size. But Ublox did, so I suggested the Ublox alternative (which was also much cheaper than the Taiyo solution), but the client did not want to risk firmware delays using a new module vendor.So if you are going to design in BT or WiFi and it is going to sold in the EU, unless you are going to sell at least tens of thousands of units, go for an integrated modulewithantenna that already has CE compliance. It will not get you off the hook for RED compliance testing of your product as it still needs to be tested - but there is much less testing to be done if those test reports are available from the module vendor.RED testing for CE is hideously expensive and really is a disincentive for small players to sell anything in the EU.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 01:10:20 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on January 01, 2020, 12:58:02 amNot exactly... Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use BT and Wifi dongles for example. If the device has a USB port which can be used for a USB BT module which is provided by the end user then there is no way this disqualifies agency approvals. Otherwise it would be impossible to sell PCs, laptops, etc.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 01:16:09 am
content: Most Bluetooth modules do have built in antennas, the most notable exception being mini PCIe and M.2 modules.I also wonder if having just a socket can be a workaround for the EMI testing. It shouldn't be any different than a PC without built in wireless, that the end user adds wireless to with a plug in module.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 01:18:15 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 01, 2020, 01:10:20 amNote that you have to use a commercial USB BT dongle made for PCs to be free and clear to rely on the dongle's approval. If the device you use is not cased, or you remove the case to make it smaller, you will need to engage in the RED approvals process. You find quite a lot of equipment with plenty of space around a USB connector somewhere inside, so its easy to fit a commercial dongle.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 01:42:43 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 01, 2020, 01:18:15 amWhat if the socket is "for testing and expansion purposes" and then tip off the DIY community to make a guide on how to install the wireless module and activate it in software, never officially endorsing it?It could even be the case of the socket being UART and that the unit doesn't even need to know that it's a wireless device, plus there's also the possibility of connecting a module that does something other than wireless. (From what I can tell, that's how the Wifi option on the Prusa Mini was done.)

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 10:25:00 am
content: A lot of equipment does not suit having a dongle plugged in, eg: hand held portable devices. But granted, a customer supplied dongle that is RF independent might scrape through. However if you have other receivers or transmitters inside the device, you need to test for co-located RF device behaviour. It gets complicated and expensive! For example, you need to measure adjacent band interference to a receiver from a co-located transmitter. Despite interference to the outside world, the EU is also concerned about how YOUR product will work from interference from itself.Another example I worked on at another company cost ~$100K to get FCC and RED compliance and the testing took over a year on a stable design. In my opinion, the EU's RED is way over the top. Because the EU have still not published the standard after a few years of enforcing compliance, you have to spend extra $$$ for type approval as well. RED compliance testing, whilst being important, is a big money-spinner for the test houses.At the other end of the scale in Australia, people import any sort of illegal crap right under the nose of Australian Customs, including solar inverters without any approvals which have been known to cause huge EMC issues. I know, because a neighbour has done just that, swamping the LF, MF, HF and VHF bands in the area with 10kHz wide noise every 35 kHz. With this sort of rubbish getting into the country, it makes me wonder how easy it would be to import a kilo of crystal meths via eBay into the country... in a 240V shower head.There needs to be middle ground; ie: stop the rubbish getting imported, but also in a way where compliance is affordable so that that projects are viable by small and medium businesses.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 12:05:35 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on January 01, 2020, 10:25:00 am$100k seems high. $30k to $50k seems more typical. Did you have serious problems that required a lot of retesting? What aspects of the EU requirements are not currently published?When you are spending the cash, it does seem like RF testing is a gravy train for the test houses. However, they do seem to go out of business with some regularity, so maybe it just works out very costly to run the services they do.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 02:36:33 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 01, 2020, 01:46:52 pmThe problem many non-local people find when getting approvals tests done in commercial test labs is how to proceed when there is a test failure. If the customer is local they can visit the lab, work through problems as they occur, and end up with a successful outcome. People who are remote - say people using a Chinese lab, but located in a different part of China, or some other Asian country with no local commercial labs (Vietnam, Indonesia, etc) - can't easily do this. From most Chinese test labs they tend to end up with a report that shows a failure, no detailed indication of what was really going on, few pointers for how to proceed, and another bill for the original amount when they try for certification again.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 03:28:22 pm
content: The biggest problem with Bluetooth, apart from the painful approval processes, is that the technology just isn't very good... in the sense that the average consumer finds it painful to pair devices and make things work. This isn't my personal opinion - this is the result of consumer research conducted by a company I worked for. This perception ended up killing the product idea.What the world needs is something that does what Bluetooth does, but is as easy to use as a headphone jack, or even easier... with no software steps involved for the user at all.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 03:38:16 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on January 01, 2020, 03:28:22 pmHow old is that research? In the early days Bluetooth was a usability disaster, but its a while since I had much trouble. The utter incompatibility between BT and BTLE seems to have been the only major source of frustration in recent years, which might be enough to keep the research showing low satisfaction.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 06:02:42 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 01, 2020, 03:38:16 pmThis was conducted about 18 months ago. The higher age demographics overwhelmingly considered BT(LE) too hard to use in general, and the benefits not worth the effort needed to understand how to make it work or troubleshoot problems (this was also true for elderly people who were otherwise generally comfortable with smartphones). Even the younger demographics that identified as Bluetooth users thought that BT(LE) products were sometimes difficult to get working and sometimes unreliable. Only a relatively small subset of the demographics had the skills and were willing to put in the effort to make a Bluetooth product work - and even then only if the product was considered essential or "blows them away" with the features it provides.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 06:04:51 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on January 01, 2020, 03:36:04 pmNot a bad idea. It would need to be able to automatically download/install whatever app is needed by the device once it is detected, so the user doesn't need to do anything at all...

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 06:22:07 pm
content: More to BT difficulties, the devices just stop working in a while. I had a fitness tracker, BT dongle and a BT keyboard, all stopped pairing within a few months. Do not know why and absolutely hate bluetooth. Look at ANY bluetooth headphones reviews, garantee each one will have reviews saying people having problems with link pairing and dropping.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 06:36:04 pm
content: Well, I mostly hate Bluetooth as well. It's not just expensive for the manufacturer, but also annoying for the end-user.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 08:45:43 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 01, 2020, 06:36:04 pmHuh? One of the main reasons to use Bluetooth is its low cost.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 09:39:10 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 01, 2020, 08:45:43 pmHow is Bluetooth lower cost than another equivalent standard? It's merely the only standard for its applications that's widely adopted. If there was a serious initiative by smartphone manufacturers to adopt a (currently AFAIK non-existent) FOS-alternative, it could be implemented in one baseband firmware update.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 09:47:23 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on January 01, 2020, 09:39:10 pmThat's a key reason why Bluetooth is cheap to implement. Everyone already has one end of the link, so you only have to provide the other. Also, being widely used, the silicon is highly developed, and available from a number of suppliers, with the kind of keen pricing that competition ensures. Similarly some highly developed, polished and reliable software stacks exist, keeping implementation and support to a minimum.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 11:17:57 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 01, 2020, 12:05:35 pmIt had a satellite transceiver as well as two other transceivers. The satellite part limited who could do the testing. I used a test house in the UK and have since dumped permanently due to poor communications, a long drawn out process and cost. I have since found an alternative that is less than half the cost and much more responsive ie: 8 weeks rather than 50 weeks.And I don't like Bluetooth much myself, having done some BT designs and coding. It is a lot of work to get it robust, easy to use and repeatable. For non-critical close-proximity home-brew that is non commercial, I reckon a decent protocol on 433.920 MHz is a cheap, easy and FUN way to go. Most car door and garage door remotes 15 years ago used 433.920 MHz. Be aware that home weather stations typically mounted on a house roof can swamp the frequency for as much as 50 metres radius.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 11:22:14 pm
content: Another very important thing to look out for with CE RED compliance: If you have two or more transmitters and/or receivers that can run concurrently, you must be able to talk to the receivers to gets its SNR for the co-located radio testing. That is they want to test that one transmitter does not swamp another receiver. If you do not have a way to do this, you won't get CE unless you do a board re-spin and write code. There are typically two ways to do this: Transparent or pass-through mode sending and receiving commands to a UART/SPI/I2C via your host processor, or using an independent dedicated UART port via some test pins. Also, you must get data from the chip or module manufacturer about what commands are needed, such as setting an engineering mode and reading the SNR. Unfortunately, I heard from a test house in the US that companies have been caught out not realising this is a requirement and have ended up having to do a re-spin.When going for CE when there is BT, WiFi or any other radio, it pays to talk to your test house up front. Even so, RED is a dog's breakfast and most test houses are not fully conversant with it so it also pays to do research yourself. Don't forget the THREE types of risk analyses you will have to do.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2020, 11:51:04 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 01, 2020, 09:47:23 pmThat's the dream, for sure. But - sadly - not the experential reality, in far too many cases.