Source: https://www.element14.com/community/message/88179
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 02:15:38
Document Index: 433481

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 15', 'art 2', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15', 'art 15']

FCC Certification ... | element14 | Raspberry Pi
88 Replies Latest reply on Sep 29, 2016 12:24 PM by alan4nier
jamodio Aug 21, 2013 8:15 PM
anybody knows where I can find the FCC Part 15 Test report and certification documents for the Raspberry Pi Model A and B ?
coder27 Aug 21, 2013 10:50 PM (in response to jamodio)
I haven't seen any such test reports.
... so hopefully we should have another update for you soon. With graphs in. We know you guys love graphs.
http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/878
But I don't recall seeing any such graphs.
jamodio Aug 22, 2013 7:01 AM (in response to coder27)
I remember seeing that loooooooooooong time ago.
BTW, you can also add to the list that the hazardous materials tests report is not available either and the individual ROHS certificate automatically generated by e14 won't do.
I'm about to give my final recommendation to a large school district and without those reports it will be a big NO NO for the Raspberry Pi.
morgaine Aug 22, 2013 11:56 AM (in response to jamodio)
I note that Farnell UK declares very strong policy statements, which include:
Statement of Quality Policy (part) [my highlighting]
All employees will be appropriately trained so they understand fully the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements. All training will be recorded.
Top management support will be given at all levels of the business to ensure that sufficient resource is available to realise customer expectations, to ensure legal compliance and to see that the requirements of any relevant national or international standards are satisfied.
That sounds very professional, and it doesn't leave much room for misinterpretation.
So why is there so much difficulty in locating and supplying the relevant certifications that were obtained by Raspberry Pi? Or does the above Statement of Quality Policy apply only to Farnell UK?
coder27 Aug 22, 2013 4:35 PM (in response to morgaine)
There are a few tidbits here:
... the product was tested for RoHS which showed bromine in several plastics and a trace of cadmium in one component but was declared compliant, and the REACH analysis of Substances of Very High Concern concluded that the Pi was low risk.
http://www.element14.com/community/community/legislation/europe/other/blog/2012/05/02/raspberry-pi--the-road-to-compliance
btw, there was an interesting case a few years ago of Hobby Lobby importing
RF devices without proper FCC certification, as discussed in this thread:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1057497
post #2 says:
Jeti is working on the FCC paperwork. It is my understanding that the system meets all the requirements.
post #6 says:
I'm not exactly sure about the process. It's my understanding that the modules and rx's meet all of the FCC requirements, but Jeti never went the certification process. We have suspended all sales until this is worked out. We will inform customers who purchased thus far if they need to do anything. Hopefully Jeti will resolve this soon, I really want to try out the variometer!
jamodio Aug 22, 2013 5:24 PM (in response to morgaine)
In the recommendation I'm working on, said reports (not just a self made certification of complaince) have to be public records, where is shown who, where, how and when the tests were done and the detailed results of each sections of the test and detailed analysis.
The underlying issue is a question and game of liabilites.
coder27 Aug 22, 2013 5:43 PM (in response to jamodio)
The recent $30M Apple contract for the Los Angeles Unified School District shows (p. 11)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/156571124/Apple-LAUSD-iPad-Contract-Signed-FINAL-7-16
25. FCC AND UL APPROVAL
Motherboards used to manufacture the desktop, mobile computers, and server computer systems
provided under this Contract must be Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved,
and the power supplies must be Underwriters Laboratories (UL) approved.
Complete systems must be submitted to the FCC for evaluation and certification, or self certified
(declaration of compliance) in accordance with guidelines established by the FCC for self
certification. Each such system must have FCC and UL or self-certification/labeling affixed to
the back of each system.
Systems without FCC and UL approval or declaration of compliance statements and labels will
be considered non-compliant and will be rejected. Desktop and laptop systems must be FCC
Class B certified, or self certified, and server systems must be FCC Class A certified, or self
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 12:24 PM (in response to morgaine)
I decided to see if any of the Newark support folks on live chat have any such training
on FCC regulatory requirements. Here's the relevant excerpt:
me: What are you basing your opinion on? Have you been trained at all on FCC rules?
agent: No I have not you may contact the FCC directly or you may contact the Raspberry PI foundation.
agent: I have sent you a link for that before.
me: Is there someone else I can chat with that has some training on FCC rules?
agent: We are not trained on FCC rules I apologize.
agent: No I am sorry we do not have anyone that is trained on that in our department.
morgaine Aug 23, 2013 6:06 PM (in response to coder27)
The policy statements I quoted are from Farnell UK, and unfortunately I have no information whatsoever about their relevance or otherwise to Premier Farnell as a whole. I would certainly hope that the entire group holds to these policies (or similar ones) because that would underline their committment to professional engineering and social responsibility. That's just my personal hope though.
I'm not aware of who runs Newark's "live chat", but judging by your excerpt, it seems that they have not been trained to the policy standards of Farnell UK. It may not be strategic to pursue that though --- beware of detours that just make the desired destination even more distant..
The interest here should be purely in obtaining factual information about Pi certification, promptly, in order to meet "customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements". (Quoting Farnell UK again.) I welcome anything that brings that closer.
It's a bit concerning that anyone has to beg for this. Certifications aren't supposed to be secret.
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 6:20 PM (in response to morgaine)
I'm not aware of who runs Newark's "live chat",
Her name is Rachelle Sheffer, technical support manager.
http://www.element14.com/community/thread/17930
Certifications aren't supposed to be secret.
Of course not. And they aren't.
http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-44828/l/raspberry-pi-safety-data-sheet
What is secret is the legal justification for selling a Class B device,
and portable computers are considered Class B devices,
to residential customers with only a Class A certificate.
morgaine Aug 23, 2013 6:46 PM (in response to coder27)
Is that the issue here, that there is no evidence of Class B certification? (I haven't been following the story, sorry.)
If so, can't we just ask, point blank?
Element14, do the existing revisions of Raspberry Pi currently being sold by the group have FCC Class B (Residential) Certification? If they do, please link to the certificate, and if not, please confirm that it's lacking. (Don't pass the buck!)
These are just matters of fact. How hard can it be?
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 7:00 PM (in response to morgaine)
Yes, I have asked. The answer was:
So, Class A is all that RPi were aiming for.
It passed quite comfortably and, add to that, FCC, C-tick, REACH SVHC and RoHS compliance testing
the board is in a much better place than it potentially was.
http://www.element14.com/community/community/legislation/europe/other/blog/2012/04/17/the-pi-is-now-ready#comment-13475
jamodio Aug 23, 2013 7:11 PM (in response to morgaine)
Nobody seems to be able or willing to confirm if the Raspberry Pi has passed a Class B certification with the FCC and provide access to the appropriate test reports and certification documents.
It is not a matter if it may interfere with your TV or radio but as I said before an issue of liabilities.
A school district will have a hard time to approve a non-certified device that may interfere with among others devices, for example a medical device like a pacemaker, even if there is no chance for anything wrong to happen.
morgaine Aug 23, 2013 7:43 PM (in response to jamodio)
Premier Farnell's answer to code27 appears to describe the situation very authoritatively:
Gary Nevison wrote:
The board underwent EMC testing which enables one to discern if it should be classed as A or B. From the RPi pre-compliance work it was evident that it would not meet Class B. It did not meet the Class B limit but did meet, and comply with Class A. It is legal to place Class A equipment on the market for use in a domestic environment in both the EU and U.S. and to affix the CE and FCC mark provided that there is a warning on the product that it may cause interference. In the case of RPi the warning is on the Safety Data Sheet (a copy of this can be found on the Raspberry Pi area of element14.
That seems totally clear. The Pi board in question (which revision?) was Class A certified only. That was in April 2012 and things may have changed since then, but at least there can be no doubt about that specific Model B.
This Raspberry Pi Safety Data Sheet is probably the one mentioned by Gary. Note that it's dated 19th April 2012.
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 7:46 PM (in response to morgaine)
Actually this part is as clear as mud:
It is legal to place Class A equipment on the market for use in a domestic environment in both the EU and U.S. and to affix the CE and FCC mark provided that there is a warning on the product that it may cause interference. In the case of RPi the warning is on the Safety Data Sheet (a copy of this can be found on the Raspberry Pi area of element14.
How could it possibly be true that simply supplying a warning that the product may cause interference
would be of any value whatsoever in eliminating the requirement that Class B devices be tested to
Class B standards. That warning is required of all devices, whether Class A or B, and there is no
reason to believe it has magic powers in eliminating the need for Class B certification.
Gary said he would provide some authorities for that claim, but he never did, and I'm not
morgaine Aug 25, 2013 10:52 AM (in response to morgaine)
That FCC document that coder27 linked, "UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR COMPUTERS AND OTHER DIGITAL DEVICES", is certainly explicit:
On pages 8-9, FCC writes:
What is the difference between a Class A and Class B digital device?
If a digital device will be sold to anyone who is likely to use it in a residential
environment then it is a Class B digital device. When determining whether a particular
device should be classified as Class A or Class B, the Commission normally considers
the following three questions, in this order:
Is the marketing of the device restricted in such a manner that it is not sold to residential users?
If a digital device is sold or offered for sale to any residential users (including
commercial or industrial companies that could employ the equipment in a residential
environment) then it is a Class B digital device regardless of its price or application.
Marketing through a general retail outlet or by mail order to the general public with a
simple disclaimer, such as "For Business Use Only," is not sufficient to qualify as
Class A. Instead, all marketing (advertising, sale and distribution) must be restricted
by the marketer to users in a commercial, industrial, or business environment.
Does the application for which the device is designed generally preclude operation in residential areas?
For example, mainframe computer systems have generally been considered Class A
digital devices because it is highly unlikely that they would be used in residential
Is the price of the device high enough that there is little likelihood that it would be used in a residential environment, including a home business?
The merits of classifying a digital device as Class A based on its price are reviewed on
a case-by-case basis. This is because, for example, the price threshold for an I/O card
will be different than the price threshold for a computer system configuration.
Portable computers, because they are designed to be used anywhere, are considered
Class B devices regardless of their price or restrictions placed on marketing. Only in
those cases where the designed application precludes the possibility of operation in a
residential environment may portable computers be qualified as Class A devices.
What happens if one sells or imports non-compliant digital devices?
As explained earlier, the form of authorization that is required for a digital device
depends on how the device will be marketed. The FCC rules are designed to control
the marketing of digital devices and, to a lesser extent, their use. If someone purchases
a non-compliant digital device, uses it, causes interference to authorized radio
communications, and is the subject of an FCC interference investigation, the user will
be told to stop operating the device until the interference problem is corrected.
However, the person (or company) that sold this non-compliant digital device to the
user has violated the FCC marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law and may be
subject to an enforcement action by the Commission's Field Operations Bureau that
could result in one or more of the following:
-- forfeiture of all non-compliant equipment
-- $100,000/$200,000 criminal penalty for an individual/organization
-- a criminal fine totalling twice the gross gain obtained from sales of the non-compliant equipment
-- an administrative fine totalling $10,000/day per violation.
It is the act of selling or leasing, offering to sell or lease, or importing a digital device
that has not gone through the appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure that
is a violation of the Commission's rules and federal law.
If I understand the above correctly, product classification into class A or B is not a vendor option. A product falls into one class or another depending on who is expected to buy it, and the duty then falls upon the vendor to obtain the appropriate certification, otherwise apparently it's in violation of FCC rules and federal law. Is there any other way of understanding the above FCC statements?
Link to FCC OET (Office of Engineering and Technology) Rules and Regulations page.
The FCC OET publishes the e-CFR (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations), and at the time of writing declares "e-CFR Data is current as of August 22, 2013". The relevant item here is Title 47 (Telecommunication).
OET e-CFR Title 47 Part 15 (RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES) Subpart A (General) section 15.3 (Definitions) maintains the definition of Class A and B devices that was described in the OET Bulletin 62 document that we examined above.
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 8:13 PM (in response to morgaine)
I think you unintentionally removed the emphasis on "any" and "portable computers".
morgaine Aug 23, 2013 8:32 PM (in response to coder27)
Thanks for the headsup. All emphases in the original were lost because I imported those paragraphs via a text file to avoid direct pasting into the forum editor, since that causes all kinds of literary fireworks. I'd better go back and reinsert them manually, since it's an official document.
DONE, I've put the missing emphases back. I see why you mentioned it --- the paragraph about Portable computers is very specific:
morgaine Aug 23, 2013 8:59 PM (in response to morgaine)
Based on the above FCC document, the situation doesn't look too good, to put it mildly.
There's not much that can be done on the weekend, but perhaps good advice for Monday morning at Element14 is to begin the first steps towards Class B certification. If that requires Pi board redesign, so be it, the result will be a better board.
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 9:16 PM (in response to morgaine)
If that requires Pi board redesign, so be it, the result will be a better board.
Back in May 2012, Eben said there was already PCB-level work going on to meet Class B standards.
Starting at 17:35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIf4Fk2252A
So the question was when are the boxed ones for kids going to be available?
Most of our distribution partners have boxing plans afoot.
I've seen some CAM models they look pretty cute.
I guess the kid's thing's got two things associated with it.
One of them is a Class B FCC pass, so a consumer FCC pass.
It's really pretty important I think not to start to ship millions of these
into schools before we have the FCC pass,
so we'll be doing that.
There's PCB level work going on at the moment to accomplish that
and, yeah, lets say summertime.
morgaine Aug 24, 2013 12:19 AM (in response to coder27)
It doesn't take 14 months to redesign a small board and a box, so a reasonable conclusion is that the PCB work Eben described as ongoing in May 2012 was put on hold.
Pi board redesign is Pete Lomas' bailiwick, I think. I wonder if there are any clues as to why the work was stopped in the articles he's written.
coder27 Aug 24, 2013 12:51 AM (in response to morgaine)
So maybe it's all Jamodio's fault for finding the LAN chip power bug, which may have accelerated plans for rev 2.0, pushing Class B compliance back to rev 3.0. Then maybe 3.0 was delayed by the camera module. Who knows? The emphasis these days seems to be on industrial applications, so that may have shifted the focus away from homes and schools. A recent Eben intervew says:
Gareth Jones tells me that the Raspberry Pi is being considered as a processor for controlling industrial processes, with a division of Sony in San Jose interested in using the computer for a project they’re developing.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/raspberry-pi-featureinterview/
The interview says they will soon be producing up to 12,000 boards per day, and I doubt they are expecting schools to be a large fraction of that demand anytime soon.
morgaine Aug 25, 2013 10:59 AM (in response to coder27)
I've added FCC reference links confirming currency of the Class A and B definitions to my long post #16 above.
louijp Aug 25, 2013 11:11 AM (in response to morgaine)
During the whole conversation, I did not see any mention of the new rev of the boards.
The conversation seemed to cover the original design, and ignore the changes made in the latest release.
Maybe this one passed all the test, but we do not have documentation.
morgaine Aug 25, 2013 11:48 AM (in response to louijp)
Yes, that's clearly a very relevent issue, since certification of one revision of a board may not carry over to another revision. What's more, Pi Models A and B are very different electronically despite using the same PCB.
So, quite separate from the issue of Class B certification for what is clearly a device in residential use, there is also the matter of whether the revisions of both models sold today are actually covered by a current FCC certification even for Class A. Newer revisions can usually be expected to behave better than old ones (as I think you were hinting), but this of course needs to be verified. I assume that a test certificate details the exact board revision being tested, so Element14 can (presumably) verify the validity of existing certifications immediately without room for doubt just by checking revision numbers.
I suspect that there are clear rules for when a certification can be carried over to a new revision and when not. Has anyone found the relevant FCC guidelines?
coder27 Aug 25, 2013 1:50 PM (in response to morgaine)
See p. 10 of the previously cited OET Bulletin 62 under the heading
What changes can be made to an FCC-authorized device without requiring a new FCC
morgaine Aug 25, 2013 2:37 PM (in response to coder27)
If my reading of p.13 is correct, then "For certified equipment (personal computers and their peripherals)", with the proviso that clock circuitry is unchanged (because that could entirely change RF characteristics), if there is no increase in RF emissions, then no new certification is required. Again stressing that this is only if my reading is correct. then because this equipment is only certified rather than verified, it is up to the certifier to declare that there has been no increase in RF emissions, rather than it needing to be verified. It seems to work on trust.
It wouldn't surprise me if my reading of this is incorrect, since such an approach seems open to abuse --- comments welcome. That said, I would not expect any engineering professional in the Pi ecosystem to abuse such regulations, so it doesn't seem to be relevant here.
In other words, it seems to me that if Pi development engineers find that "a change does not affect, or reduces the radio frequency emissions from the device" (the FCC's words) then it's entirely proper to consider the previous certification to continue to apply. Needless to say, this "Class I permissive change" would have to appear on the certification, or an ammendment to it. Just saying nothing is asking for trouble.
mcb1 Aug 25, 2013 3:21 PM (in response to morgaine)
Without diving in FCC, if you certify something, you have tested that it meets the necessary requirement/laws and that testing will record the conditions under which it met those requirement/laws.
If the manufacturer continues with the method, then any subsequent items will still meet that certification.
Verify is to check it still meets the requirement/law and could be random sampling (espcially if its close) or when something has been changed.
I believe there were issues with the HDMI during inital testing, hence it was reduced slightly to meet the necessary emissions, and tested under those settings.
I do note that once again NZ and Australia have been singled out.
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND CLASS A EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
jamodio Aug 25, 2013 5:30 PM (in response to mcb1)
Let me share as an example what accompanies the Texas Instruments LaunchPad Evaluation Kit ...
The problem with RPF and Rpi is that the initial plan for it was to be an evaluation board, that way they were able to circumvent the certification requirements, but instead of sticking with the original plan of creating a limited number of boards for testing and development they got blinded by ambition after seeing the demand generated by so much hype and buzz.
Then it was too late to circumvent the tests when you start calling it a "computer" or a "box" and obviously the number of boards produced.
After making a deal with Farnell and RS, they had to step in and at least perform the hazardous materials tests, I remember seeing a picture of one guy from RS holding one of the early RPi boards on the Fischer material analyser, results of those tests have never been made public.
I remember that there was an issue with the signal levels on HDMI that complicated the first pass of the emissions tests, but afaik minimal changes have been done to the pcb layout between 1.0 and 2.0 to address any other issues, and what Pete Lomas said about sharing what other issues have been found never materialized.
Will RPF ever make all this information public ? Who knows, but if Farnell/element14 have assumed the responsibility of manufacturing and selling the boards, they SHOULD be now the ones to make the information available publicly.
There is nothing wrong about been transparent and open, if it is not certified or certification can't be met, it is not the end of the world, at least we know what we are dealing with and know what to say to the end user.
coder27 Aug 25, 2013 6:23 PM (in response to jamodio)
There is a discussion of development kits here:
http://www.element14.com/community/community/legislation/europe/rohs/blog/2012/09/28/development-kits-in-scope-of-the-rohs-recast
morgaine Aug 25, 2013 7:33 PM (in response to jamodio)
It's striking that FCC makes no distinction at all based on intended use of a board at design or manufacturing time. All that matters is to whom the vendor markets or sells the board, and the likelihood of its use in a domestic environment. This is very sensible if you think about it, because a board that was not designed for domestic use but is then sold to residential users as if it had been so designed represents a liability to society, with potentially damaging consequences of many kinds. This is especially true if large numbers are sold.
In effect, non-compliance with consumer standards (whether that non-compliance is declared or not) cannot be invoked as a defence nor waiver when marketing a board into the consumer segment, because non-compliance would entail violation of FCC regulations and federal law. Therefore the only option is not marketing a non-compliant board into that segment in the first place.
The US tends not to be associated with consumer protection laws quite as much as the EU, but in this case FCC regulation is clearly very strong. This isn't necessarily about protecting consumers of course --- unintentional radiators as covered in Part 15 can affect everyone, including hospitals and the military. I wouldn't be surprised if that is why the penalties are so severe.
morgaine Aug 27, 2013 9:56 AM (in response to morgaine)
Element14 has written about "dev kits" being considered finished products in the EU. What seems to be appreciated somewhat less is that the FCC has effectively the same rules, but just differing in language.
Whereas the EU refers to "finished products" (bare boards are considered finished when they merely require plugging in), the FCC doesn't bother with such finessing and instead simply classifies digital devices based on marketting and sales: if they are marketted and sold for use in a residential environment, then they are Class B devices, and require Class B certification before they can be marketed or sold at all. No ifs or buts, and the FCC's published penalties for violation are harsh.
Since the EU employs the same A/B classification for commercial/residential uses and in addition defines ready-to-operate boards as finished products, in practice there is no distinct category for so-called "dev kits" in EU nor FCC regulations. If marketed or sold into a residential environment, they are captured by the Class B certification requirement on both side of the Atlantic.
This makes me wonder why certification of "dev kits" is a discrete topic of discussion at all. It appears to be wishful thinking, since such a distinction doesn't seem to exist in EU/US legislation. (It might exist in other jurisdictions though.)
coder27 Aug 27, 2013 10:18 AM (in response to morgaine)
and the FCC's published penalties for violation are harsh
Amazon raised some eyebrows by taking pre-orders last Sept for its latest Kindle,
prior to FCC approval. but FCC declined to comment.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/08/amazon-fcc-idUSL2E8K80EB20120908
morgaine Aug 27, 2013 1:19 PM (in response to coder27)
Well how difficult can it be? If your job spec says "Keep us FCC-compliant", all you have to do is to read the damn FCC documentation, advise your company accordingly, and give hell to your suppliers until their products comply. Damn it, I'd love such a cushie job! (Parden the "damn"s, but they're warranted in this case.)
How to fail on such a simple task is hard to imagine. Maybe by trying really really really hard? The FCC goes out of its way to write short and friendly documents about certification, easily understandable by anyone. It's hard to pin the blame on them.
jamodio Aug 27, 2013 2:04 PM (in response to morgaine)
Well, if RPF manage to redesign the Rpi to run on batteries and with a clock speed of 1.7MHz they will be excluded ...
coder27 Aug 27, 2013 8:02 PM (in response to morgaine)
Anyone who is concerned that there may have been some FCC or EC noncompliance
is welcomed and encouraged to provide feedback in order to get that resolved:
We welcome, and continue to actively encourage, open feedback and consultation on this policy from any interested parties via email to swebb@premierfarnell.com.
http://www.premierfarnell.com/sustainability/our-sustainability-policy
Our vision is to become the world’s most sustainable provider of products and services to Electronic Design Engineers by 2020
We seek to be known for our exceptional ethical standards and compliance, and for the way that we treat our stakeholders.
Our Group-wide Code of Ethics requires compliance with laws and regulations in the countries in which we operate.
The senior manager of our business units in each country is required quarterly to identify any non-compliance with the laws and regulations of the country in which that business unit operates and any breaches of the Group’s Code of Ethics of which the manager is aware.
The Internal Audit function reports any instances of non-compliance that it identifies to the Audit Committee. ...
morgaine Aug 27, 2013 11:38 PM (in response to coder27)
Premier Farnell state:
A very visionary Code of Ethics, and I'm glad to see that this code is "Group-wide" and matches the equally strong policy statements that I was very happy to find (and much lauded) earlier at Farnell UK.
A reasonable question might now be how this Code of Ethics is to be applied in regard to compliance with FCC regulations and US laws concerning the marketing and sale of computer boards knowingly for use in a residential environment but without residential certification.
On Monday, without knowing about this Code of Ethics, I tried to advise Element14 (not yet acknowledged by them) through Feedback and Support to obtain Class B certification for Pi as a matter of urgency, not only because the current situation looks risky, but also because quite clearly that is the right thing to do for a board in widespread residential use. The group-wide Code of Ethics does I think elevate both the need and the urgency.
mcb1 Aug 28, 2013 12:56 AM (in response to morgaine)
So hyperthetically speaking
What would happen if someone reported to the FCC that products were being sold without the necessary certification?
I know Andy Laing ( Global Product Manager for Raspberry Pi at Farnell element14. ) stated that e14 is a business to business, so in theory e14/RS are not selling to the end user.
Farnell element14 is a Business-2-Business company (the same as RS) and as such there are strict laws in place (within each country) that dictate 'How' we can trade with the end consumer directly
(The rest is not for open forum)
It appears that the FCC has made it fairly clear that it must meet certification based on the end user. (business, school, consumer).
So does that mean as a business purchaser you can't use it in a residental setting.(because it is non-complient for ClassB) ?
If this is the case then what is the purpose of an XBMC? ... surely there aren't that many business/commercial requirements.?
I'm guessing that the legal team are still grasping just why a RaspberryPi needs electronic certification, and why e14 are now selling edible products.?
coder27 Aug 28, 2013 3:35 PM (in response to mcb1)
I think if the FCC took the report seriously, they would verify its claims,
and if they were convinced that the product was in fact being sold without the
necessary certification they would contact E14, and very soon you would
see the product listing disappear from the website.
morgaine Aug 28, 2013 7:49 AM (in response to mcb1)
Given what we now know about the group-wide Code of Ethics, I suspect that they are currently wondering (and in great dismay about) how they ever managed to get themselves into this situation. They have a well-manned team providing professional advice on certification to industry, yet somehow nobody noticed the need for residential certification when bringing their own digital device to market for residential use.
It's certainly a worrying problem, but delay just makes it worse, which is why I recommended on Monday that the Class B certification work be (re)commenced with maximum urgency to reduce the risks for all stakeholders in the chain. Everything else can be done in parallel while the certification work runs its course.
jamodio Aug 28, 2013 8:50 AM (in response to mcb1)
The FCC provides some guidelines that explain what constitute a change that may require a new test. Also is not "you" who can perform the test, it has to be an approved third independent party who performs the test.
Here is some information about the enforcement arm of the FCC
mcb1 Aug 28, 2013 10:15 AM (in response to jamodio)
Also is not "you" who can perform the test, it has to be an approved third independent party who performs the test.
Yes. We also have to use recognised testing authorities for certification.
It shouldn't be hard to follow whats needed to rectify.
morgaine Aug 28, 2013 12:14 PM (in response to mcb1)
To add a ray of sunshine to a rather depressing week on the certification front, your system of democracy is working well too --- "New Zealand Bans Software Patents". Awesome! (And congratulations.)
Any room for immigrants?
mcb1 Aug 28, 2013 12:47 PM (in response to morgaine)
That slipped quietly under cover as they are busy arguing about spying, opposition leader changing and selling off our assets.
There is room for more. (if we run out the neighbours have empty space)
I suspect the software companies will be registering overseas, and effectively bypass it, but the patent system as it currently is, limits innovation imo.
morgaine Aug 28, 2013 4:07 PM (in response to mcb1)
but the patent system as it currently is, limits innovation imo.
It only ever promoted innovation back in the early days of the industrial revolution, when industry was thin on the ground and required help to germinate. Today patents are at best a mechanism for profit extension and slowdown of innovation, because without them a company would have to innovate faster to survive among the huge swarm of other companies in the sector.
Innovation is universal, not rare. Only those without the mental apparatus to innovate think it's rare. It's second-nature to engineers and scientists and legions of craftsmen and artists, not to mention everyone with commonsense, enthusiasm and time to think.
The excuse that "without patents we couldn't afford to invest" is mind-bogglingly ridiculous, because if one company chooses not to invest then another will, and will grab a large slice of the market simply through being first. It's not like there's a shortage of competitors eager for a chance. Patents stifle the whole process of innovation by entrenching the incumbents.
agrahambell Sep 2, 2013 12:47 PM (in response to morgaine)
Only those without the mental apparatus to innovate think it's rare.
Unfortunately you're describing an approaching 100% of the MBA, 'business leaders' type people there.
Apologies for the continuing thread drift, only just catching up after building a rather large wall over the last week or so..
morgaine Sep 3, 2013 9:25 AM (in response to agrahambell)
Innovation in business is a double-edged sword. Look at the example closest to us: Raspberry Pi.
Technical innovation in Pi was nil, since an existing SoC was just slapped onto a board along with very rudimentary power circuitry (I'm being generous) and some ad hoc socketry (again, being generous).
In contrast, business innovation in Pi was extremely high. The business plan amounted to: "Design a low-tech board to the lowest standards that will pass industrial certification, advertise it as a $25 computer but don't bring the $25 model to market for almost a year, claim the 'educational' high ground but focus primarily on the low ground of media centre functionality for mass appeal, hype it across the entire known universe and beyond, sell it into the residential market despite lacking residential certification, and (as the meme goes), profit."
This was quite awesome business innovation because nobody else ever had the temerity to do such a thing, and the business plan worked. It was undoubtedly innovation in business The question is, was it a good thing? This is a very hard question to answer because both good and bad things were done. The only possible complete answer has to be "Yes and No".
On the "Yes" side, as I have said many times before, RPF did enthusiasts a huge favour and gave the ARM ecosystem an incredible push by creating and popularizing a price niche that just didn't exist previously, and the unprecedented price has opened up a veritable mountain of new applications and competing products. This was quite an awesome achievement, and the many demerits that both Pi and RPF rightfully earned cannot take that good thing away. In my view, we're in a better world post-Pi than we were pre-Pi, and that's not causal coincidence --- it was achieved quite deliberately by RPF.
Unfortunately, and very much on the "No" side, it was achieved as a consequence of RPF doing some pretty bad things. The worst is probably marketing and selling Pi into the residential market despite lack of residential certification. The legal ramifications aside, in my opinion it is very unethical engineering to knowingly place a million+ boards into an environment in which their emissions do not meet the regulatory requirements for residential use, and hence knowingly to expose the public to potential EMC mishaps. In my opinion, this is professionally inexcusable.
We've been examining other "No" side issues for a year and a half on this forum, so I won't repeat them here. (This thread is preferably focused on FCC certification anyway.) Suffice to say, there hasn't been a shortage of aspects to the Pi project that have received strong criticism, and merited it.
There is no well-founded way of comparing dissimilar things nor of calculating an average of good outcomes and bad practices. The Pi business innovation brought very good and very bad things, and both are important.
Perhaps the moral of the story regarding innovation from BMAs is: Be careful what you ask for.
John Beetem Sep 3, 2013 1:22 PM (in response to morgaine)
... claim the 'educational' high ground but focus primarily on the low ground of media centre functionality for mass appeal ...
I still like to think that RasPi Foundation really did want to push RasPi as a tool for education, but that once the technology was for sale the applications went every other way: media center as you state, but also as a cheap GNU/Linux board for hardware applications where there's a significant risk of destroying your computer.
I agree with others here who have said the problem with RasPi regarding education is that they're throwing cheap hardware at what is almost exclusively a software problem. Most RasPi users do have access to a PC of some sort, and it's probably a whole lot more effective for them to learn about programming on that PC. Maybe at some point RasPi will have an SD card that boots directly into a friendly programming environment without myriad lines of debugging data scrolling past first. But for now, you're booting into a mainframe computing environment that "chooses its friends carefully".
morgaine Sep 3, 2013 2:47 PM (in response to John Beetem)
I agree with others here who have said the problem with RasPi regarding education is that they're throwing cheap hardware at what is almost exclusively a software problem.
Phrased that way, it almost sounded like the Foundation is using its profits to equip school classrooms.
I know you weren't saying that, but it gave rise to the idea. If contributing directly to the software problem and to IT education is too hard or not cost effective given their limited manpower, RPF could instead pour the profits from Pi and camera sales into hardware donations. That could be a worthwhile thing for a non-profit charity to do with profits, as some schools are desperately short of cash for equipment.
7point62 Sep 3, 2013 3:33 PM (in response to morgaine)
Charity does not exist to ensure that education is fit for purpose. Neither does it exist to prop up industry (who are the ultimate beneficiaries of education).
If the Foundation do actually intend spending some of that money I'd be happier if it was directed towards a public campaign to convince the UK taxpayer that computer science education is important and pressuring government, educational institutions and industry into providing solutions.
starson35 Sep 3, 2013 3:39 PM (in response to 7point62)
I do appreciate you guys debating about the educational side ,,, but let's please find a compromise and keep it cheap !! I just read an article online that a lot of schools are using an iPad base of teaching kids.. but I think that is just the educational materials of learning through the grades,,, not learning the basics of how a computer works and hooking it up and designing software to run devices. and an iPad is not cheap.
starson35 Sep 3, 2013 3:35 PM (in response to morgaine)
that's the oldest argument with computer problems : "It's a hardware problem... No Damn it,, it is obviously a software problem " lol
John Beetem Sep 3, 2013 3:39 PM (in response to morgaine)
That could be a worthwhile thing for a non-profit charity to do with profits, as some schools are desperately short of cash for equipment.
In the USA, a not-for-profit organization refers to money left over as a "surplus", not a "profit". After all, how could a "not-for-profit" have a profit without running into trouble with the tax authorities?
A quick-witted friend of mine once said out loud at a NFP business meeting:
So, I guess "surplus" is the politically-correct term for "profit"
morgaine Sep 3, 2013 5:49 PM (in response to John Beetem)
Well here's a radical idea: How about spending any "surplus" first on residential FCC certification in order to comply with EMC regulations and federal law?
(Laughter track for the humour impaired: It's an idea for those who live in a world in which compliance with FCC regulations and federal law is optional.)
starson35 Sep 4, 2013 8:17 AM (in response to morgaine)
I am just a rasp-pi user but i am intelligent in other fields of endeavor,, and what I want to know is why are you guys so hell bent on this FCC debate instead of concentrating on us r-pi users ?? I have asked a couple questions with no response but I am getting a full law degree on FCC regulations !! lol,,, Is there a way that u can take your debate off-line,, and keep us paying users satisfied with what we have at the moment ? Don't get me wrong,, I am enjoying your FCC debate and educational concerns and all that,, but I thought this forum was for R-pi questions and problems,,, and also enticing us with cool projects ?? Sincerely, Chuck Smith
morgaine Sep 4, 2013 10:10 AM (in response to starson35)
This is an engineering forum, and compliance with EMC regulations is part and parcel of professional electronics engineering. There is no escaping it.
Engineering aside, seeking residential EMC compliance is also the socially responsible thing to do, because it affects everyone. If an unintentional radiator causes a pacemaker to fail or a traffic fatality to happen, no amount of smilies will make up for it. It is very serious.
The regulatory certifications are not frivolous, but mandatory for a reason. Raspberry Pi has no free pass.
To those who don't care about the EMC impact of their devices, I recommend simply to not read the threads about Class B certification. But everyone should care.
PS. There is plenty of discussion here about Pi technology and applications, but it's in other threads.
coder27 Sep 4, 2013 12:00 PM (in response to morgaine)
Is there a way that u can take your debate off-line,, and keep us paying users satisfied with what we have at the moment ?
In a university class, it is annoying when the professor allows a student to enroll without the required prerequisite courses,
who then unfortunately monopolizes the class time with remedial questions. Everyone else wishes the professor would have
enforced the prerequisites.
You seem to have the same discomfort here where "remedial" issues are being discussed rather than how to get along with
using our RPi's. We share that discomfort and are wishing that E14 would have enforced the FCC prerequisites for residential
sales, prior to importing and selling the device in large numbers.
But in this case, it doesn't make sense to try to discuss the issue "offline" using PMs, because it affects a wide class of users.
There has been an attempt to discuss it more privately in the "top member" forum, but that discussion ended with
"that's a good question, we'll ask our legal experts and get back to you", with nothing further after considerable time.
Fortunately, it's not exactly like a classroom where discussion can be monopolized, as plenty of other threads here
are able to proceed in parallel.
7point62 Sep 4, 2013 7:42 PM (in response to pacetech)
terry mckinnell wrote:
What a lot off twaddle go get a life
I'll try to use short words.
In my experience, companies that play fast and loose with regulation tend to lead their customers up the garden path too - and there's no customer more ripe for exploitation than the "cheap at all costs" merchant - because he just doesn't know when he's being bent over. Even if he does eventually realise then he knows there's no point in complaining because it's his fault anyway.
mcb1 Sep 4, 2013 8:55 PM (in response to 7point62)
Actually the short words won't work.
You only need to check the profile to see.
Is the post by Terry Mckinnell considered abuse.?
It doesn't contain anything regarding the discussion, and simply attacks the person
it personalises it by singling out one person, and is similar to this one
7point62 Sep 4, 2013 9:53 PM (in response to mcb1)
I was aware of his "previous", Mark - and it was all I could do to resist the urge to bite. I wonder if he's related to billybob...
Jeez, these "cheap trumps all" clowns will send us back to the Stone Age if we're not careful. With potential customers like that it's no wonder that the grown-up ARM general purpose computer is still no more than wishful thinking.
pacetech Sep 4, 2013 11:09 PM (in response to 7point62)
no relasion to billybob
and it wasn't pointed at anyone person it was at the discusion,
and what potential customers are you on stroids
have you made your blinking lights sent your pi in the sky to see if they did land on the moon and check the buggy on mars if it complies with the ffc.
7point62 Sep 5, 2013 12:25 AM (in response to pacetech)
I'm afraid that you're making absolutely no sense whatsoever.
mcb1 Sep 5, 2013 12:41 AM (in response to pacetech)
It was pointed, directed and abusive.
If you had of made a comment about whether you need FCC Class B certification for use in Australian, then that would have been part of the discussion.
If you are attempting to bait users into some form of word war with you, then I'm afraid you need to rethink your strategy.
And please do your profession and your father some credit by either learning to spell, or slowing down and checking what you post before hitting the Add Reply
ALPAT COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNICAL OFFICER COMMUNICATIONS
I LIKE TO FIDDEL WITH DIFFERING CONSEPTS
VIOCE AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS
jamodio Sep 5, 2013 10:46 AM (in response to mcb1)
Perhaps he is handicapped like the Rpi SoC
pacetech Sep 5, 2013 11:44 PM (in response to jamodio)
Maybe you have no idea what you are talking about or
Is Raspberry pi a conspiracy so it has no FCC markings
And every other kit you can buy from time to time and
Encourage students to make and Experiment with ?
jamodio Sep 6, 2013 6:05 AM (in response to pacetech)
starson35 Sep 6, 2013 12:48 AM (in response to jamodio)
Hi Jamodi,
this is Chuck smith. I seem to think that anything in my email list with Raspberry pi in it,, I should read.
I am just trying to hook up this small mini-computer,,, that's all.
Right now, I cannot get it to talk Not a peep out of it yet,,, I have tried a few things but no response.
BTW, I am sorry about the inadvertant FCC response,, I am not privvy to that,, I misunderstood the email and should have filtered it out,, huh ?
starson35 Sep 6, 2013 1:12 AM (in response to jamodio)
becareful and kind my friend... I became handicapped just awhile ago although i can kid about it,,, some people get really pissed off about it.
Be nice,, It may happen to you some day.. It is NOT FUN !! . Anyways, since you seem to know your stuff , can you help me make my R-pi speak to me I cannot get any audio out of it as of yet ? I tried a few things but to no avail. any thoughts ?
Sincerely, Chuck Smith,, U.S.A. ,, state of Delaware
mcb1 Sep 6, 2013 2:40 AM (in response to starson35)
As Coder27 pointed out, you should start a new discussion which will ensure others ignoring the FCC thread may answer.
Also repeating the same request three time is not good forum etiquite
Sorry I'm not as experienced as others, so I would probably be wondering the same.
I would have done a search on google using 'raspberrypi adobe flash', which may surprise what turns up inc this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRXedwXrPh8
and this which is the same http://cae2100.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/installing-flash-player-on-raspberry-pi/
So while this is a great forum, sometimes google can turn up the answer as well.
BTW good to see you have come to terms with your handicap, and having been around jamodio for a while I'm sure he intended no malice.
You may wish to start a new discussion, and then copy these into it for others to find, as your contribution to the forum.
jamodio Sep 6, 2013 7:35 AM (in response to mcb1)
That's right that is not my intention at all, and Chuck if your are really handicapped and felt offended my sincere apologies, but you really need to work on your communication skills and post the questions in the right places.
starson35 Sep 6, 2013 12:20 PM (in response to jamodio)
I'd like to meet you Jamodio,,,, well,,, actually you would have to come here ,, since I cannot walk too good Hey, I am just trying to play with this really cool mini-computer,,, that's all,,,:) I use it to keep my mind off my pain ,,, I still cannot get it to talk to me,, speak, voice,, audio
I also bought a kit with a servo motor and I cannot get that boy to work either... I am batting Zero It's hard lately to concentrate on a specific tech problem,, but I can endure it,,, it just takes longer It seems that you guys have overblown my concerns a bit,,, i apologize for that,, I guess I have lost some of my people skills since living alone now.!!!!!!!! Things will always get better !
mcb1 Sep 4, 2013 10:30 AM (in response to starson35)
I agree 100% with what Morgaine stated.
I have asked a couple questions with no response
Looking at your postings every question you raised has been answered, so are we missing something (other than you not marking them as answered despite multiple answers).?
and keep us paying users satisfied with what we have at the moment ?
I wasn't aware anyone paid for access to element14's forums, and there is no joining fee, so maybe you refer to your internet time.?
Perhaps you mean the item you have paid for, but doesn't meet the necessary laws?.
There are many threads on multiple different groups, and you don't require to have every one of them email you, or indeed read them.
Unlike some forums where it shows your unread content, e14 isn't the same.
IMO this is the correct place to have the debate about FCC requirements regarding RaspberryPi.
Yes it shouldn't be required, however we the users don't dictate that, the FCC does, and the manufacturers and suppliers are required to meet that, however in this case its not been done, hence the conversation.
If you want a similar comparison, it's like buying a car, where the manufacturer has tested this model for compliance in their country, and for some others.
The dealership that sells that model has issued a warning that it doesn't comply, so the users drive it when it doesn't comply, or they pay mega$ to test it for compliance.
The problem with the first option, is it may result in major costs if something goes wrong and causes damage to others.
jamodio Sep 4, 2013 1:38 PM (in response to starson35)
Take your intelligence and post the questions in the proper thread, if you have some left read the title of this thread.
It is not a LOL thing, and if the use of acronyms make you "throw up" you need to see a doctor. If you do take the opportunity to ask him/her to figure in which "endeavours" your intelligence is located because if you are a "paying" user of the forum your intelligence is being abused by someone.
If you are not interested in this subject or have nothing to contribute you are more than welcome to ignore it.
starson35 Sep 5, 2013 8:50 PM (in response to jamodio)
SORRY that i interrupted your FCC Certification discussion.
I get this in my email ,titled as ... " -Re: FCC Certification "
I have a Raspberry Pi so anything in my email that starts with ,, i assume i should read it,,, don't ya think ?
I am interested in that Certification discussion but more interested in R-pi problems, solutions and projects. I do not know why I got the email that has the " Re:FCC Certification" and I will not read it anymore.
I respect you answering me though,, thank you
mcb1 Sep 5, 2013 10:06 PM (in response to starson35)
I believe you have clicked on the receive email notifications at the top ie the RaspberryPi group.
Unfortunately there seems to be no way to stop individual threads from sending, despite the ability to also receive them independant of the Group setting.
Your situation where you wish to receive new threads, but be able to ignore others, is not unique.
I will post this in the feedback section .
In the meantime ... sorry, I suggest delete it, or set a filter that automatically deletes it for you.
But do keep an eye out regarding it, I'm sure there will be some other notifications, as its fairly important.
starson35 Sep 6, 2013 12:59 AM (in response to mcb1)
I am new to the raspberry groups and element14 , et al.
I am currently trying to make my r-pi speak I cannot get any sound out of it as of now ? I have tried a few things but nothing ?
I guess i am going to go down to the local Radio shack and buy a cheap set of pc speakers powered on their own and see what happens,
I also brought up the internet, but when i get to a video, it tells me that adobe flash player needs to be updated ? I would think the r-pi SD card cannot handle the adobe download ? Maybe I am losing it
Sincerely, Chuck,,,,,, U.S.A. state of Delaware
coder27 Sep 6, 2013 1:40 AM (in response to starson35)
The element14 forum threads are organized by topic, as relected in their titles.
Please try to post questions on adobe flash in a thread related to that topic,
rather than on the FCC thread. That helps members to monitor threads of interest
and avoid being bothered by other threads.
If you can't find such a thread, you can start a new one. One such thread is here:
http://www.element14.com/community/message/72936
7point62 Sep 3, 2013 3:20 PM (in response to John Beetem)
I'm not exactly sure when the Foundation started focussing heavily on selling their board as a hobbyist device with only vague educational connotations, but certainly by the time of the alpha boards in late 2011 Eben was busy pushing the attributes of the Videocore GPU and proudly showing the Quake demo.
I agree that hardware is not the overwhelming issue. Upton himself has stated that a possible advantage that he and his contemporaries had was (and I'm paraphrasing because Youtube is currently misbehaving here) that they had computers that would boot up, beep and he ready for programming - an integrated hardware / software environment. The current Pi paradigm is a mish-mash of wires, packages, dependencies, omnipotent server and insignificant client.
Of course, if someone really wants to be creative with computers then they will figure it out for themselves, so perhaps a paucity of programming skills among younger people points to a simple lack of interest, rather than a lack of opportunity. There are a huge amount of creative tools out there, after all, but there is also far more apparent abstraction between the applications that people see and may wish to emulate and the mechanisms by which they are created. Where do I start? Why should I even bother? It's all just so darn complicated. It's not enough to be presented with the hardware, you gotta want to dig in and create. How many people have gotten their Pi up and running, only to realise that they don't actually have a use for it? Perhaps they've never been nurtured in creativity, or been taught sound enineering principles, or been given to appreciate that mathematics is just a human creation that describes the stuff that we experience every day, Maths is art in it's purest form imo! Nope, hardware is not the answer.
Any news on the FCC certification thing, btw?
agrahambell Sep 3, 2013 6:17 PM (in response to 7point62)
Jonathan Garrish wrote:
Of course, if someone really wants to be creative with computers then they will figure it out for themselves, so perhaps a paucity of programming skills among younger people points to a simple lack of interest, rather than a lack of opportunity.
pretty much spot on and an excellent observation. people tend to be much better at things they're interested in and while you can teach things by rote there's little real value in that. getting them interested is a much more complex thing
mcb1 Sep 3, 2013 10:46 PM (in response to agrahambell)
while you can teach things by rote there's little real value in that.
Funnily enough my teacher wife and another have worked out the results are hugely better by teaching new entrants the times table using rote learning.( .. and they retain it)
For those of us in the older age group, this was always the way, and it didn't necessarily do us any harm.
I agree that getting someone interested first, will get better results.
In the arduino stuff I've done having them blink lights in the first lesson has worked to get them interested, before diving into the how and why.
"It's a hardware problem... No Damn it,, it is obviously a software problem "
We also have that with our network people, ".. its your network, no its your program .."
So can we see that with interference.
"... its your RaspberryPi .... no its your overly sensitive pacemaker ..."
jamodio Aug 25, 2013 5:00 PM (in response to morgaine)
Yes Model A and B require different emissions tests given that Model A does not include the 25MHz crystal and ethernet PHY, a very well known source of common mode noise and EMI.
coder27 Aug 25, 2013 6:37 PM (in response to louijp)
Eben was asked if the Rev 2 board would be tested for FCC Class B emissions,
Not on this version. This will have to wait for the “educational release” board.
http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/1929#comment-31756
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 9:05 PM (in response to morgaine)
Yes, good point. That's my understanding as well.
I don't see any other way of reading it. I think it directly contradicts Gary's claim that
The board underwent EMC testing which enables one to discern if it should be classed A or B.
http://www.element14.com/community/community/legislation/europe/other/blog/2012/04/24/rp-i-class-a-and-b
and you will notice that my comment pointing this out was not answered.
http://www.element14.com/community/community/legislation/europe/other/blog/2012/04/24/rp-i-class-a-and-b#comment-13534
jamodio Aug 23, 2013 9:15 PM (in response to coder27)
School year is starting right now on this side of the pond, recommendation already went out, budget and curriculum is closed.
jamodio Aug 23, 2013 8:18 PM (in response to morgaine)
Then they should have no problem telling who, how, when, what, where made the tests and post publically as the Beaglebone guys did, the test reports.
There is no tops secret or trade information on those reports, just a detail of what test have been performed and if the device passed or failed the test.
coder27 Aug 23, 2013 7:39 PM (in response to jamodio)
A school district will have a hard time to approve a non-certified device ...
A school district doesn't actually need to worry too much about the reasons for
the laws, such as pacemaker or TV interference, because in addition to the
manufacture, import, or sales of non-compliant devices being prohibited,
the "use" of such devices is also prohibited. See for example paragraph 6 of
the Hobby Lobby citation:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2220A1.pdf
morgaine Aug 29, 2013 8:26 AM (in response to jamodio)
Pasting the relevant section of Title 47 Part 15.3 here to reduce thread hopping and get back on topic:
FCC OET e-CFR Title 47 Part 15 Subpart A Section 15.3 (h,i) states (my highlighting in bold):
(h) Class A digital device. A digital device that is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment, exclusive of a device which is marketed for use by the general public or is intended to be used in the home.
(i) Class B digital device. A digital device that is marketed for use in a residential environment notwithstanding use in commercial, business and industrial environments. Examples of such devices include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general public.
radiogal Sep 2, 2013 5:46 PM (in response to jamodio)
Try going to "www.ARRL.org". . They have a lot of FCC information there or just google the information you need.
jamodio Sep 2, 2013 7:49 PM (in response to radiogal)
There are some interesting resources at the ARRL site (in my previous life I was a ham -not the edible one-) like this one
But most of the information is amateur radio related/centric.
Well makes sense, ARRL is the national Association for Amateur Radio.
louijp Sep 2, 2013 10:08 PM (in response to jamodio)
Why go to the ARRL.ORG which limit the scope to amateur radio, when you dan get the original at FCC.GOV. That link was previously given by morgaine.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=48455758bace4de4b1932267458d956d&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.16&idno=47#47:1.0.1.1.16.1.236.12
alan4nier Sep 29, 2016 12:24 PM (in response to jamodio)
I realise I'm a bit late to this discussion but... All reports submitted to the FCC are (with a few "confidential" exceptions) publicly available and can be searched at https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Raspberry Pi's "FCC Grantee Code" is 2ABCB and the Pi3 "Product Code" is -RPI32 (also both publicly available by searching "Raspberry Pi" on the same page).
Once the search results are returned click on the assorted "Detail" tabs to see what documents it contains and download them.