Necro-thread. Lurker since Summer 2012.
BFL deletes any discussion of FCC conformity on their forum.
The fact remains that all products need FCC compliance testing for the US market and CE testing for Europe.
With everyone excited about the Monarch's imminent release, have BFL indicated that they are testing this product? Um, no...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Declaration_of_Conformity
http://www.wavecor.co.uk/inf_emc1.htm
"What are the penalties for non-compliance?"
The principle penalty is that your product will be removed from the market throughout the European Union. In addition you are liable to fines and imprisonment if it can be shown that you have wilfully made a false declaration.
Real world example of a FCC fine:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/News_Releases/DOC-263862A1.html
http://www.ieee.li/pdf/essay/guide_to_global_emc_requirements_2007.pdf
What are the possible exceptions - bare boards made in small quantities for hobbyists (Arduino style). Since BFL stated they sold over 50,000 miners, that's not small quantites by anyones measurement.
But the reality is that EMC conformity for all miners is "fight-club". What's the first rule?
Topic: No FCC or UL label on BFL's Jalapeño (Read 9689 times)
I'm just gonna build a big foil hat for my house.
As highlighted in the above letter, it is up to the user to correct the device. If the FCC sends you such a letter, maybe you can point your finger toward Kansas and tell them that they assured you that the boards were tested and passed FCC specifications.
Unfortunately, pointing the finger at BFL won't change the fact that the user still has to correct the issue to the FCC's satisfaction. And if they can't they are not to use the device any more.
I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually.
I suppose one solution would be to build a small Faraday cage around the miner.
True, but a ferrite core can take care of that usually.
Still, should be much reduced from without the cage.
Found this on bitbet, not sure on date or genuineness as you can make up names:
Quote
BFL_Josh
Having some problems with the FCC. Some electricity safety tests are required before we are able to submit documents for approval.
Also for luls:Having some problems with the FCC. Some electricity safety tests are required before we are able to submit documents for approval.
Quote
BFL_Josh
Had a fire at shop today. First chips are destroyed but new chips are on their way from the foundry. Still shipping by the end of April.
http://bitbet.us/bet/307/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-july-1st/ Had a fire at shop today. First chips are destroyed but new chips are on their way from the foundry. Still shipping by the end of April.
Interesting. In one of the FCC letters:
Now it may be that BFL has decided that they used good practices in designing and laying out their circuit boards that they are relatively certain that they will not radiate any spurious energy causing interference to others. They then could save $5-10K in sending out the boards to a local lab for testing and take the risk. (We do that testing here in-house where I work, but only for what we build.)
As highlighted in the above letter, it is up to the user to correct the device. If the FCC sends you such a letter, maybe you can point your finger toward Kansas and tell them that they assured you that the boards were tested and passed FCC specifications.
Quote
....such devices
must not cause harmful interference. If and when interference does occur,
the burden falls on the device operator to correct it, and if necessary,
cease operation of the device, whenever such interference occurs. Some
types of common consumer devices may also operate under Part 18 of the
Commission's rules. In either case, however, the rules with regard to
interference are the same.
Please also be advised that some of these devices are imported and do not
comply with Commission certification standards, and thereby result in
interference to other radio services. You may have one of those devices.
If the device is an approved one, it should have a silver FCC label on the
unit showing a certification number. Even an approved device, however, can
only be operated legally if it is not causing harmful interference to a
licensed radio service.
must not cause harmful interference. If and when interference does occur,
the burden falls on the device operator to correct it, and if necessary,
cease operation of the device, whenever such interference occurs. Some
types of common consumer devices may also operate under Part 18 of the
Commission's rules. In either case, however, the rules with regard to
interference are the same.
Please also be advised that some of these devices are imported and do not
comply with Commission certification standards, and thereby result in
interference to other radio services. You may have one of those devices.
If the device is an approved one, it should have a silver FCC label on the
unit showing a certification number. Even an approved device, however, can
only be operated legally if it is not causing harmful interference to a
licensed radio service.
Now it may be that BFL has decided that they used good practices in designing and laying out their circuit boards that they are relatively certain that they will not radiate any spurious energy causing interference to others. They then could save $5-10K in sending out the boards to a local lab for testing and take the risk. (We do that testing here in-house where I work, but only for what we build.)
As highlighted in the above letter, it is up to the user to correct the device. If the FCC sends you such a letter, maybe you can point your finger toward Kansas and tell them that they assured you that the boards were tested and passed FCC specifications.
I'm just not quite sure that's precisely how FCC requirements work; you might want to pose your question to the lawyer subforum??
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually.
I suppose one solution would be to build a small Faraday cage around the miner.
Ran out of deadlines. Ran out of excuses. Now running low on retorts.
Why no post here Inaba? Shocking oversight I guess.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people!
It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is.
A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification.
A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes.
BFL falls somewhere in between.
Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it.
K9 i'll start taking you seriously when you post the same about avalon, knc, bitfury, et al getting these certs. Until then your motive is pretty clear.
So you dismiss what I say because I said it. Classic willful ignorance. Afraid to consider new information because it conflicts with your predetermined world view.
Avalon is producing equipment in China and I have no idea what their version of the FCC (if they even have one) requires in the way of certification. As far as I know, they have no footprint at all in the US. So users of Avalon equipment might be liable if it interferes, but Avalon themselves would not because they are not building and selling it from within the US.
AFAIK Bitfury is a Russian company and has no product yet, so who knows what Russian regulations they have to satisfy.
KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it.
This is only an issue with BFL because they bragged about getting FCC & UL certs, but never actually did. They berated their competition for not having the certification, when they themselves did not have it. If BFL hadn't been lying about it, nobody on these forums would give a hoot.
Hence this thread! Josh blatantly lied about having units tested at the FCC, and when called out on it, nobody at BFL as addressed the FCC issue.
The other big lie that Josh said was meeting Sonny K., of which to this day a Sonny K. has yet to be produced.
If they lie about mundane aspects mentioned, what the fuck else are they lying about?
KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it.
Where do you get they are Swiss !?!?
Only Swedish.
You are right. I don't know where I got that in my head. All parties involved in the joint venture are Swedish.
Happens to the best.
I was worried a min there were new developments
KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it.
Where do you get they are Swiss !?!?
Only Swedish.
You are right. I don't know where I got that in my head. All parties involved in the joint venture are Swedish.
KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it.
Where do you get they are Swiss !?!?
Only Swedish.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people!
It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is.
A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification.
A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes.
BFL falls somewhere in between.
Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it.
K9 i'll start taking you seriously when you post the same about avalon, knc, bitfury, et al getting these certs. Until then your motive is pretty clear.
So you dismiss what I say because I said it. Classic willful ignorance. Afraid to consider new information because it conflicts with your predetermined world view.
Avalon is producing equipment in China and I have no idea what their version of the FCC (if they even have one) requires in the way of certification. As far as I know, they have no footprint at all in the US. So users of Avalon equipment might be liable if it interferes, but Avalon themselves would not because they are not building and selling it from within the US.
AFAIK Bitfury is a Russian company and has no product yet, so who knows what Russian regulations they have to satisfy.
KNCMiner is Swiss + Sweden IIRC, so they would be subject to EU rules. The have also not yet sold product but it would not be hard to check for the correct decals when they do. If they advertise that they have been certified and have not, I will be sure to post about it.
This is only an issue with BFL because they bragged about getting FCC & UL certs, but never actually did. They berated their competition for not having the certification, when they themselves did not have it. If BFL hadn't been lying about it, nobody on these forums would give a hoot.
I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually.
I suppose one solution would be to build a small Faraday cage around the miner.
I am going to be writing some strongly worded letters if my BFL miners start interfering with my amateur radio gear. They will be in the same room actually.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people!
It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is.
A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification.
A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes.
BFL falls somewhere in between.
Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it.
K9 i'll start taking you seriously when you post the same about avalon, knc, bitfury, et al getting these certs. Until then your motive is pretty clear.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people!
It is less about whether the FCC will fine BFL or their customers and more about determining what sort of company BFL is.
A company that is concerned with doing everything correctly would obtain both FCC and UL certification.
A scam would never bother to get them, since that would just be paperwork that could lead back to them when the scam implodes.
BFL falls somewhere in between.
Every chance BFL gets to act like a real company and live up to expectations, they pass on it.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=resTnZa3erg&feature=youtu.be
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
The accompanying "brick" clearly shows the label, and if it didn't one, the supply sure as hell wouldn't have applied for it. The UL is definitely required being that it's a outlet plug of sorts.
If the FCC requirement wasn't important, then Josh wouldn't have taken the time to lie about getting certified.
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?
Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.
With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.
The video is proof that this is a customer's unit and not that of a developer, therefore, at this speaking, Butterfly Labs is breaking the law.
Also, as of Friday, BFL has not apply for FCC approval of any of their units. To be clear, if the FCC received a unit in their facility on Thursday from some entity, it would most definitely be on this website on Friday: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N
Search it yourself.
Damn, I find myself caring almost 0%, pitchforks people!
Jump to: