IMO consolidate BFL threads to mine.
It has the most views and I'm fantastic at attention-whoring (they call it 'marketing' in schools) so just keep adding to that and I'll promise to try and get it in Ars Technica / NPR / TheVerge / Forbes all publications I've been quoted in this year
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bryan-micons-butterfly-labs-scammer-investigation-including-josh-zerlan-136392
Topic: My analysis of the claim BFL is violating law by not registering with FCC rules. (Read 1405 times)
September 02, 2013, 02:40:48 AM
September 01, 2013, 09:10:39 AM
One issue is not whether the units are FCC compliant or not, but that Josh was sticking it up BFL's competitor's asses at the time on this very same issue. When pressed about their own FCC certs, Josh went on record and stated that BFL was expecting results back in a couple weeks (paraphrased) last November.
This. You can't use the same argument that also applies to your fucking company.
August 31, 2013, 09:37:10 AM
Here is my analysis, I actually spend a few hours researching this.
Lolk.
August 30, 2013, 05:14:35 AM
so, where is the problem? 
August 30, 2013, 03:24:20 AM
they could have had the intention of doing this but under legal council been advised to shut up about it and drop the subject. did that not occur to you?
July 13, 2013, 09:40:58 PM
One issue is not whether the units are FCC compliant or not, but that Josh was sticking it up BFL's competitor's asses at the time on this very same issue. When pressed about their own FCC certs, Josh went on record and stated that BFL was expecting results back in a couple weeks (paraphrased) last November.
Therefore, there's only two possibilities: Either BFL felt like they needed FCC certs and was in the process of getting it, or Josh outright lied about the ordeal to garner more sales via quieting the discontents. Pick one! Either choice would not bode well for BFL.
BTW, have you seen my new thread? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/petition-to-get-bf-labs-inc-to-sue-me-please-sign-255830
Therefore, there's only two possibilities: Either BFL felt like they needed FCC certs and was in the process of getting it, or Josh outright lied about the ordeal to garner more sales via quieting the discontents. Pick one! Either choice would not bode well for BFL.
BTW, have you seen my new thread? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/petition-to-get-bf-labs-inc-to-sue-me-please-sign-255830
July 13, 2013, 07:38:59 PM
Reserved
July 12, 2013, 12:49:13 AM
Here is my analysis, I actually spend a few hours researching this. Feel free to disagree with any point here. I did this after reading a few BFL hater claims and wanted to see if they were just being over dramatic asshats or had a legitimate point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules for FCC compliance are here: Some may argue that BFL is violating the law by not getting certified, however its not as cut and dry as they would like to make it.
Source: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf
1) Technically every device that uses a clock higher then 9khz must be certified.
In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15. The lawyers call this "Title 47 CFR Part 15," meaning that it is the 15th subsection of the 47th section of the Code of Federal Regulations. In Europe, there is a similar regulation called CISPR 22. The requirements are almost the same, but slightly stricter about emissions at certain frequencies.
You can read 47 CFR 15 online. It's not as incomprehensible as you might expect. It seems overwhelming, but if you read the first few PDF's, you'll realize that most of it irrelevant for any single product.
Within 47 CFR 15, there are two classes of testing: Class A and Class B. Class A is an easier test to pass, intended for devices that are used in industrial settings. Class B is stricter, intended for devices that are targeted at consumers.
2) Reality is a bit different right now. From talking with some people that have experience with FCC/CE/IC leaves me with the impression that most of these regulations are rarely if ever enforced, but are in place just in case your product starts dropping airplanes out of the sky.
It is a bit like going 70 in a 65 mph zone. Can you get pulled over and get a ticket? Yes. Will you get pulled over and get a ticket? Probably not.
3) Each country has their own certifications world wide. Each certification has different requirements. For a small company like BFL to try and comply with every single different standard worldwide would be an impossible task.
4) BFL products would not be classified as a "Digital Device" but rather a "Peripheral to a Digital Device"
A "Peripheral to a Digital Device" is defined as:
Any device that feeds data into or receives data from a digital device is a peripheral of
the digital device. Peripherals include external devices that connect to a digital device
by wire or cable, and circuit boards within the digital device that connect it to external
peripherals. Also included are circuit boards that increase the operating or processing
speed of a digital device. Examples of peripherals are computer printers, monitors,
keyboards, printer cards, video cards, local area network cards, modems, and
enhancement or accelerator boards.
Section 15.3(r)
Peripherals to a digital device are subject to FCC technical standards because they can
generate their own radio noise or allow the escape of radio noise generated by the
digital devices to which they are connected.
6) There is provisions to exclude certain types of devices. A case could be argued that the BFL device does no useful work other then creating random numbers and heat. There is actually a provision for this that could possibly exclude such a device from being subject to FCC rules.
"Digital devices that are exempt from FCC technical standards.
There are a number of digital devices that are exempt from the technical standards in
Part 15. These are:
Digital devices used EXCLUSIVELY in appliances. "Appliances"
are devices that are designed to heat, cool or move something by
converting electrical energy into heat or motion. " All BFL would need to do to become in compliance is add the claim that you can use it to heat your house in the winter to its marketing.
7) It can be argued that the chips inside the BFL device are Subassemblies of a Digital Device. Those devices are connected to a power supply which has been properly Certified. Therefore since the power supplies are properly licensed, and the boards are subassemblies, the devices do not fall under the FCC rules.
Subassemblies of a Digital Device
Circuit boards, integrated circuit chips, and other components that are completely
internal to a digital device are subassemblies of the digital device. (Note, however, that
circuit boards or cards that are connected to external devices or increase the operating
or processing speed of a digital device are considered peripherals.) Examples of
subassemblies include internal memory expansion boards, internal disk drives, internal
disk drive controller boards, CPU boards, and power supplies.
Section 15.101(e)
Subassemblies may be sold to the general public or to manufacturers for incorporation
into a final product. While subassemblies are not directly subject to FCC technical
standards or equipment authorization requirements, digital devices containing
subassemblies must still comply with the FCC's technical requirements. Accordingly,
manufacturers of subassemblies should design their products so the digital devices into
which they are installed will comply with the technical standards.
The FCC specifically allows for a company to assemble a computer as long as they start with an authorized part. This would lead me to believe that since the power supplys are authorized, and the chips could be considered a sub assembly, this would seem to allow for BFL to do what they are doing with out needing additional authorization
Can someone assemble and sell a computer without getting FCC authorization?10
Yes, as long as they start with an FCC-authorized system and add to it only
FCC-authorized peripherals (or certain subassemblies that don't affect the authorization
of the system such as internal disk drives and internal memory expansion units).
Assemblers, however, must follow any special instructions for the peripherals or
subassemblies, such as the use of shielded cables, and may not change the
identification of any peripheral or personal computer without the consent of the person
or company that obtained FCC authorization.
9) The point of FCC regulations is that the device is generally interference free for 10 meters (30 feet) for a class B device.
In order for the FCC to to act on this, people would have to prove they were harmed by the BFL device, file complaints, and agree to have an investigator come out and verify that the device was in fact causing harmful interference. At that time, the person who owned the device would be required to turn it off until the source of the harmful interference was eliminated. In order for this to be true, the device would actually have to be creating harmful interference that would be detectable by an investigator.
The most likely scenario here is that the device does not cause harmful interference and therefore is actually in compliance with the spirit of the FCC rules if not to the letter.
My conclusion,
It seems that as long as you are in compliance with FCC non interference rules and are actually not harming people with your interference, your mostly good. When you get bigger to a certain size, and potentially a larger target, then it makes sense to spend the money to become fully compliant. It also seems that since BFL uses power supplies that have been tested and are in compliance, and they are simply assembling computers, their devices would not necessarily be subject to the rules to need to additionally become certified them selves and can most likely ride off of the certs of the power supply makers.
I think that BFL made the best available choice given the current business climate and reading the exact rules.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and my opinion means nothing.
In the following thread, SgtSpike asked about the FCC certification process. Josh avoided the question in his very first post after it was asked, yet had to have read it for he commented on other aspects prior to the question and on posts afterward.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/690-13-jan-2013-asic-update-discussion-thread-41.html#post12289
For those who don't believe that Josh never brings up the FCC again, here's a link that will help you: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22butterflylabs.com%22%20fcc&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=78629189bbca0ba2&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48572450,d.aWc&biw=1066&bih=646
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/690-13-jan-2013-asic-update-discussion-thread-41.html#post12289
Quote
Josh, can you comment on the FCC certification process? Has BFL already acquired the necessary certification? If so, how was that accomplished without working chips on hand?
More curious than anything - if you can't answer these questions yet, that is fine.
More curious than anything - if you can't answer these questions yet, that is fine.
For those who don't believe that Josh never brings up the FCC again, here's a link that will help you: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22butterflylabs.com%22%20fcc&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=78629189bbca0ba2&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48572450,d.aWc&biw=1066&bih=646
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules for FCC compliance are here: Some may argue that BFL is violating the law by not getting certified, however its not as cut and dry as they would like to make it.
Source: http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet62/oet62rev.pdf
1) Technically every device that uses a clock higher then 9khz must be certified.
In the US, all products containing electronics that oscillate above 9 kHz must be certified. The law that governs this is FCC Part 15. The lawyers call this "Title 47 CFR Part 15," meaning that it is the 15th subsection of the 47th section of the Code of Federal Regulations. In Europe, there is a similar regulation called CISPR 22. The requirements are almost the same, but slightly stricter about emissions at certain frequencies.
You can read 47 CFR 15 online. It's not as incomprehensible as you might expect. It seems overwhelming, but if you read the first few PDF's, you'll realize that most of it irrelevant for any single product.
Within 47 CFR 15, there are two classes of testing: Class A and Class B. Class A is an easier test to pass, intended for devices that are used in industrial settings. Class B is stricter, intended for devices that are targeted at consumers.
2) Reality is a bit different right now. From talking with some people that have experience with FCC/CE/IC leaves me with the impression that most of these regulations are rarely if ever enforced, but are in place just in case your product starts dropping airplanes out of the sky.
It is a bit like going 70 in a 65 mph zone. Can you get pulled over and get a ticket? Yes. Will you get pulled over and get a ticket? Probably not.
3) Each country has their own certifications world wide. Each certification has different requirements. For a small company like BFL to try and comply with every single different standard worldwide would be an impossible task.
4) BFL products would not be classified as a "Digital Device" but rather a "Peripheral to a Digital Device"
A "Peripheral to a Digital Device" is defined as:
Any device that feeds data into or receives data from a digital device is a peripheral of
the digital device. Peripherals include external devices that connect to a digital device
by wire or cable, and circuit boards within the digital device that connect it to external
peripherals. Also included are circuit boards that increase the operating or processing
speed of a digital device. Examples of peripherals are computer printers, monitors,
keyboards, printer cards, video cards, local area network cards, modems, and
enhancement or accelerator boards.
Section 15.3(r)
Peripherals to a digital device are subject to FCC technical standards because they can
generate their own radio noise or allow the escape of radio noise generated by the
digital devices to which they are connected.
6) There is provisions to exclude certain types of devices. A case could be argued that the BFL device does no useful work other then creating random numbers and heat. There is actually a provision for this that could possibly exclude such a device from being subject to FCC rules.
"Digital devices that are exempt from FCC technical standards.
There are a number of digital devices that are exempt from the technical standards in
Part 15. These are:
Digital devices used EXCLUSIVELY in appliances. "Appliances"
are devices that are designed to heat, cool or move something by
converting electrical energy into heat or motion. " All BFL would need to do to become in compliance is add the claim that you can use it to heat your house in the winter to its marketing.
7) It can be argued that the chips inside the BFL device are Subassemblies of a Digital Device. Those devices are connected to a power supply which has been properly Certified. Therefore since the power supplies are properly licensed, and the boards are subassemblies, the devices do not fall under the FCC rules.
Subassemblies of a Digital Device
Circuit boards, integrated circuit chips, and other components that are completely
internal to a digital device are subassemblies of the digital device. (Note, however, that
circuit boards or cards that are connected to external devices or increase the operating
or processing speed of a digital device are considered peripherals.) Examples of
subassemblies include internal memory expansion boards, internal disk drives, internal
disk drive controller boards, CPU boards, and power supplies.
Section 15.101(e)
Subassemblies may be sold to the general public or to manufacturers for incorporation
into a final product. While subassemblies are not directly subject to FCC technical
standards or equipment authorization requirements, digital devices containing
subassemblies must still comply with the FCC's technical requirements. Accordingly,
manufacturers of subassemblies should design their products so the digital devices into
which they are installed will comply with the technical standards.
The FCC specifically allows for a company to assemble a computer as long as they start with an authorized part. This would lead me to believe that since the power supplys are authorized, and the chips could be considered a sub assembly, this would seem to allow for BFL to do what they are doing with out needing additional authorizationCan someone assemble and sell a computer without getting FCC authorization?10
Yes, as long as they start with an FCC-authorized system and add to it only
FCC-authorized peripherals (or certain subassemblies that don't affect the authorization
of the system such as internal disk drives and internal memory expansion units).
Assemblers, however, must follow any special instructions for the peripherals or
subassemblies, such as the use of shielded cables, and may not change the
identification of any peripheral or personal computer without the consent of the person
or company that obtained FCC authorization.
9) The point of FCC regulations is that the device is generally interference free for 10 meters (30 feet) for a class B device.
In order for the FCC to to act on this, people would have to prove they were harmed by the BFL device, file complaints, and agree to have an investigator come out and verify that the device was in fact causing harmful interference. At that time, the person who owned the device would be required to turn it off until the source of the harmful interference was eliminated. In order for this to be true, the device would actually have to be creating harmful interference that would be detectable by an investigator.
The most likely scenario here is that the device does not cause harmful interference and therefore is actually in compliance with the spirit of the FCC rules if not to the letter.
My conclusion,
It seems that as long as you are in compliance with FCC non interference rules and are actually not harming people with your interference, your mostly good. When you get bigger to a certain size, and potentially a larger target, then it makes sense to spend the money to become fully compliant. It also seems that since BFL uses power supplies that have been tested and are in compliance, and they are simply assembling computers, their devices would not necessarily be subject to the rules to need to additionally become certified them selves and can most likely ride off of the certs of the power supply makers.
I think that BFL made the best available choice given the current business climate and reading the exact rules.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and my opinion means nothing.
Jump to: