i think the whole hype about Rpi being the big bad educational tool was nothing more than a pr stunt to get it selling quick, and that is just what happened. i also remember hearing somthing about this being developed by employees of broadcom, when it was first released the soc data sheet required a nondisclosure agreement, so right out of the gate there were problems calling it open source.
i'm sorry if i dont get the idea about teaching computer science with an embeded linux board. don't comp sci cources use full-blown computers already? and if you really want to learn about how computers work, it is much better to start with an 8051 or 8088 and assembly.
but now it seems the more i read, the more i can't suggest the pi for any use other than a media center.
but now it seems the more i read, the more i can't suggest the pi for any use other than a media center.
Professionals who are aware of the relevant FCC regulations shouldn't be suggesting the Pi for use in any residential application in FCC jurisdiction anyway, since the device does not have FCC certification for residential use. That would be a Class B certification, and it doesn't have one at the present date.
I doubt that anyone would deny that media centres constitute an overwhelmingly residential or domestic use of a digital device. It's probably as close to being a poster child for residential use as one could find anywhere.
I'm at such a loss for a viable explanation that perhaps it's time to examine alternative possiblities.
What if Element14's regulatory certification team was not involved at all, because all responsibility for Raspberry Pi affairs was factored out to another autonomous department? And they, lacking the deep knowledge of the regulatory certification team, simply didn't understand the regulatory requirements for devices in residential use?
What if Element14's regulatory certification team was not involved at all, because all responsibility for Raspberry Pi affairs was factored out to another autonomous department? And they, lacking the deep knowledge of the regulatory certification team, simply didn't understand the regulatory requirements for devices in residential use?
Feel free to ask the experts what happened. They welcome questions.
It'll be important to ask questions which they can answer. Questions about internal business issues, however interesting they might be, would probably not be in that category.
However, we do have a genuine and very specific role as stakeholders, defined by Premier Farnell as:
The employees of the Premier Farnell Group
Potential future employees
Customers and suppliers of all Premier Farnell Group companies
Members of the local communities in which we operate
Premier Farnell plc shareholders, and the investment community at large
As PF stakeholders in at least two of the above categories, we have a very strong stake in the legal and safe operation of the products we buy from the Group, which are being marketed and sold to us as residential users but without carrying residential certification. This has a strong possibility of being unlawful in some key jurisdictions. If the group's Code of Ethics is at all meaningful, this should provide a good platform from which to ask a direct question and have it addressed in an effective way, and not with a brush off. EMC is an important issue, and can even be fatal.
Perhaps we can come up with a well-formed question or two reflecting our genuine stake in this.
If the Pi certification mishap can be remedied quickly before it brings forth unfortunate ramifications, it might even be worthwhile becoming a PF stakeholder of the 5th type. But then I'd be very keen about details of which part of the business was responsible for this mess, and assurance that it could not happen again.
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.
Citation needed.
I've seen no such exemption in Title 47 Part 15 anywhere (there are instructions about warning labels, but for different purposes). It wouldn't even make any sense, since if it were true the unscrupulous wouldn't ever bother to obtain Class B certifications for residential equipment at all, they'd just use Class A and a warning label, and EMC chaos would ensue.
The warning label is almost certainly for Class A equipment marketed and sold exclusively to commercial, industrial or business users, with a label warning that should such equipment be used in a residential setting, it could cause interference. That's totally different. FCC regulations distinguish Class A from Class B digital devices based on to whom they are marketed and sold. A Class A device by definition cannot be marketed and sold to residential users.
Title 47 Part 15.3 Section (h) states it clearly (my highlighting in bold):
FCC writes:
(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.
It's stated in black and white. A Class A device cannot be marketed for use by the general public or intended to be used in the home. If it's marketed for use by the general public or intended to be used in the home then it's no longer a Class A device, it becomes a Class B device. That's the whole point of the word "exclusive" in Section (h). The corresponding definition of a Class B device is given in Section (i).
====
I think it may be appropriate to link to Premier Farnell's Code of Ethics here (again). It's not that I expect any finessing of FCC regulations, but I'd much rather forestall them rather than have to point them out later. I like Farnell, and I would be disappointed for the esteem earned over many decades to drop. By the book, please.
It's unfortunate that discussions about FCC certification continued here where they're likely to get lost, instead of in the "FCC Certification ..." sister thread. I suggest moving back to the latter unless the topic is RP twins.
I have at least added the FCC 15.3 (h) citation given in post #45 to the related thread in Feedback & Support.
while the Internet can be a good tool to help learn for people who actually use it responsibly, it is also a great distraction, and it lends to the "cut and paste" type of problem solving, that has no educational value whatsoever.
I also find that increasingly the signal to noise ratio of the internet's cut&paste solution communities is so bad that they're just reinforcing the problems, so overall a negative value.
Sometimes its not the cut and paste that the problem, the lack of checking the facts is often as bad.
Even if I'm sure of the answer, I tend to check, lest someone find it wasn't right ....
Mark
An awful lot of people have copy - pasted the word "education" when referring to this little computer when the link is tenuous at best. Since at least the time of the alpha boards it has been marketed as a hobbyist / hacker item and the capability of the (not very relevant to education) Videocore GPU was initially a large part of the pitch - here's a faily typical presentation from Maker Faire NY 2011:
I'm struggling to find a justification for the use of the word "educational" at all - sure, it's cheap enough to be accessible to students and teachers, but does that justify the Foundation's charitable status? There's certainly very little concrete information from the Foundation themselves regarding how they intend to fulfil the (rather vague) aims set out on their Charity Commission page:
"THE OBJECT OF THE CHARITY IS TO FURTHER THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY IN THE FIELD OF COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SCIENCE AND RELATED SUBJECTS"
That's the "why", so where's the "how"? Will the end justify the means? Will manufacturers who haven't taken the option of exploiting charitable status feel that there is an element of unfair competition? Will other charities fear negative publicity?
We have a similar issue with 'charities' here in NZ.
Recently it was discovered that at least one large private hospital has that staus, but there are no rules about how much money is supposed to returned to the community, or the like.
It was not well received by the public when it was pointed out some of these 'charities' contribute very little compared to their profit.
There was a suggestion that some business'es should set up as a 'charity' and remove the need to pay taxes, etc.
I see the odd clip that show Eben at primary schools, etc.
I guess this constitutes education, but yes if you wanted to further the original stated aim, then more material would be good.
Regardless of the pros and cons, it has certainly set a benchmark for small computers, and probably introduced some that would otherwise not be involved.
I see the odd clip that show Eben at primary schools, etc. I guess this constitutes education, but yes if you wanted to further the original stated aim, then more material would be good.
There's a fine line between promoting IT education and self-serving promotion of a single board in schools.
If Microsoft were engaged in high-profile Windows promotion in schools under the excuse of "education", I suspect that a lot of people would be concerned about their underlying motivation.
RPF seems to have a free pass because of their charity status. That's quite reasonable I think, since in exchange for the free pass, the profits of the not-for-profit Foundation are expected to fund educational targets --- a worthwhile exchange. The existence of Raspberry Pi (Trading) complicates the picture somewhat, but there is no reason to believe that the for-profit company will siphon off profits that should be spent on RP Foundation's self-declared educational goals. For-profit companies have the goal of making profit, but hopefully the Foundation's trustees will ensure that only an absolute minimum of Pi profits will flow into non-educational pockets. As you suggest though, a lot more spending on educational staff and educational materials is needed. Without that, the "educational" part of Pi seems destined to be more of an excuse than a reality.
I'd also suggest that "Pi exclusivity" for education be de-emphasized by RPF, because IT education does not begin and end with Pi. To gain the ethical high ground, the emphasis should be more neutral across the many low-cost platforms that can accomplish the educational goals, and the Pi offered as just one enabler. What's more, special mention should be given by RPF to open platforms (especially OSHW) that can educate more fully than their semi-closed one. Taking such a neutral position would greatly increase their ethical standing as a not-for-profit foundation, in my view.
