Hi There,
anybody knows where I can find the FCC Part 15 Test report and certification documents for the Raspberry Pi Model A and B ?
Thanks & Regards
Jorge
Hi There,
anybody knows where I can find the FCC Part 15 Test report and certification documents for the Raspberry Pi Model A and B ?
Thanks & Regards
Jorge
Mark Beckett wrote:
Yes. We also have to use recognised testing authorities for certification.
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? 
Mark Beckett wrote:
There is room for more. (if we run out the neighbours have empty space)
Haha. 
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.
selsinork wrote:
Unfortunately you're describing an approaching 100% of the MBA, 'business leaders' type people there.
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 wrote:
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.
Morgaine Dinova wrote:
John Beetem wrote:
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.
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.
that's the oldest argument with computer problems : "It's a hardware problem... No Damn it,, it is obviously a software problem " lol 
