first mention of twins

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.

coder27 wrote:

       Gary Nevison said (my highlighting in bold):

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.

I've seen no such exemption in Title 47 Part 15 anywhere (there are instructions about warning labels, but for different purposes). 

Exactly.

I'm not expecting E14 to stick with that answer, for exactly the reasons you give,

and I think that's the reason why the promised authorities for it never appeared.

Their previous answer, that "the board is in a much better place than it potentially was",

isn't an answer I expect them to go back to either, since it directly implies that

the place it's in isn't where it needs to be.

So I'm looking forward to what the next answer will be.

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.

jamodio wrote:

 

One of the keys to fix the current educational system is to throw 99.99% of it away, it is the same system we were educated, and our grandparents too, we waste zillions in $$ to print outdated books that very often nobody uses, and we tell the kids how to answer a question instead of training them to reason about how to get to the answer.

couldn't agree more. even as a kid I could never understand why the only 'correct' answer was the one they wanted to hear. Go beyond obvious stuff like 2+2 and it's rarely so simple.

Outdated books is only part of the problem, I recently had to go and get an 'industry certification' where the 5 year old PC being used for the exam proved that the 'correct' answer was now wrong as while technology had moved on, the certification hasn't. I found it quite amusing as by passing the exam I'm basically getting myself certified as being at least out of date, if not outright incompetent

I learned to program with a notepad and a pencil.

in hex.. since various bits of software weren't available and had to be done by hand. I'd not necessarily wish that experience on others, but it certainly gave a bit of perspective and a deeper understanding that doesn't seem to exist in these days of drag & drop 'programming'.

sheldon bailey wrote:

 

I have a list of buzzwords that make me skeptical of anything. among the top of the list and some my reasoning.

best practise - changes more frequently than the weather.  A colleague came up with a definition of the term that I like: "we don't have a clue what we're doing, but we're convinced we're doing it well"

sheldon bailey wrote:

 

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