first mention of twins

ill try keep this nice.

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.

anyways thats my two bits on the the pi.

sheldon bailey wrote:

 

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.

It would then seem that David Braben might be an important factor

Yes, I think so.  My impression is that Eben's goal is to shift lots of units,

regardless of where they are shifted to, and that fits with his position with the

RP Trading subsidiary.  I don't detect much enthusiasm from him with regard to

developing educational materials.

btw, Abishur credits Liz's legal work for the original determination that compliance

testing wasn't needed until later.

The issue was that originally the boards were going to be released as development boards and therefore didn’t need the CE stamp (Liz is a lawyer, she did her homework ), but due to how many boards there are being ordered and the fact that the first 10K will be released with the main bulk release the distribs decided they wanted them all CE marked.

http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/852#comment-17096

It's this kind of shoddy tech "journalism" that is responsible for the current situation imo.

I think the "journalists" are only half responsible.  Eben likes to talk about how he was

the Director of Studies at St. John's College at Cambridge University prior to founding

the RPF in 2008, and how he and his Cambridge colleages were motivated by noticing

a decline from the mid 1990's to the mid 2000's in the number and quality of applicants.

So you might assume that Eben was Director of Studies from the mid 1990's to the mid

2000's.   But I believe he graduated from Cambridge with his CS PhD in 2005, and started

work at Broadcom in July 2006.

coder27 wrote:

 

 

But it is also clear that there was lots of incentive not to incur any further delays in a project that had the attention of E14's CEO.

I suppose it's possible that there is a long reporting chain from the regulatory certification people to the E14 CEO, and the red alert got lost somewhere on its trip to the top.  However, it seems unlikely that a CEO would ever countermand regulatory advice --- that would be career-limiting.  What's more, CEOs almost certainly have input to global policy statements  such as those we examined, since they have funding implications.  This makes it even less likely that the regulatory hiccup was at top level, it seems to me.

Unfortunately, arguing from the bottom up doesn't work either, because if you're the local FCC certification expert then you would keep poking at the problem until it gets resolved to your satisfaction (it's your job after all), and you'd be highly unlikely to allow yourself to be ignored.  What's more, you have the law on your side, as well as the company Code of Ethics.  Seriously, there is no way your advice could be sidelined in a serious company like this.

Of course, it could be human error, misreading of the FCC regulations.  The trouble with that is, Title 47 Part 15 is written pretty clearly for engineers and technical management to understand, containing very little convoluted legalese.  And the FCC even went to the trouble to publish the even more simplified OET Bulletin 62, expressly to achieve what it states in its title:  "UNDERSTANDING THE FCC REGULATIONS FOR COMPUTERS AND OTHER DIGITAL DEVICES".  It's not really conceivable that the language there can be misunderstood by someone charged with FCC certification duties.

So, I'm at a loss to understand how this could possibly have happened.

However, it seems unlikely that a CEO would ever countermand regulatory advice

We can only speculate as to what advise was given, but apparently at the time the

contract was signed between E14 and RPF, the operating assumption was that

limited quantities would be initially produced, and that initial interest in an uncased

version would be mostly from developers.  

Then the first day of sales demonstrated that the initial operating assumptions were wrong,

but by then the contract was in place and E14 perhaps didn't feel like they had a whole lot of

leverage to change the certification plans beyond what could be achieved with the existing board.

Of course that doesn't explain why 1+ years and 1M+ boards later, and with a re-negotiated

distribution contract, they still don't have a published Class B certificate.

coder27 wrote:

 

but by then the contract was in place and E14 perhaps didn't feel like they had a whole lot of

leverage to change the certification plans beyond what could be achieved with the existing board.

How about the law of the land.  That tends to give one pretty good leverage.

And those massive FCC penalties  would probably provide pretty good incentive as well.

Of course that doesn't explain why 1+ years and 1M+ boards later, and with a re-negotiated

distribution contract, they still don't have a published Class B certificate.

Indeed.  It does not seem likely that the certification department simply fell asleep for 14 months.

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.

Do you have any queries about electronics legislation? Send your questions to Gary at glegislation@premierfarnell.com

http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-38293/l/gary-nevison--legislation-compliance-expert

or

http://www.element14.com/community/community/legislation?ICID=expertgroup#askexpert

It appears from their recent document updates that the compliance experts are not on holiday.

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.

Perhaps we can come up with a well-formed question or two reflecting our genuine stake in this.

I don't think there's anything difficult about what the question is, it's simply

how is it legally possible to market the RPi to residential customers without

a Class B certificate.

The difficulty is getting someone to answer it.  The closest we've come to an

answer is that Gary Nevison said

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.

and that he

will also post a blog around this subject containing further statements of authority.

http://www.element14.com/community/community/legislation/europe/other/blog/2012/04/17/the-pi-is-now-ready#comment-13501

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.

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.