FCC Certification ...

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?

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.

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.

me:  Is there someone else I can chat with that has some training on FCC rules?

agent:  No I am sorry we do not have anyone that is trained on that in our department.

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 

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.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

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"

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.)

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

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 ..."

mark

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

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.

Chuck

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.

Mark

Chuck

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.

Mark