Quote

There is massive, massive financial incentive for anyone big in mining who did NOT order BFL to report them to the FCC/etc and try and get their product jeprodized

I think it's safe to assume BFL has already been reported dozens if not hundreds of times to the FCC, and they simply do not care.

if by some miracle this fact has missed everyone : well, whoops, i guess the cats out of the bag. but i'm sure everyone knows this

How can an entity facing budgetary concerns not care about filling their coffer with fines?

Quote from: Tamerz on May 02, 2013, 10:03:58 PM

Quote from: minternj on May 02, 2013, 10:00:55 PM

Dude read the thread its all been covered. Unintended emitter of rf is what the fcc would classify this device as.

Funny how my FPGA doesn't have anything like that on it. Why is it any different? That is the part not being answered.

It's not different! Not a single one of those FPGA units was certified by the FCC.

Quote from: firefop on May 02, 2013, 08:44:29 PM

Quote from: Warwick on May 02, 2013, 04:00:56 PM

The irony in this thread abounds......

I'm still laughing over the whole topic...

neither FCC nor UL certification is required... these things aren't broadcast devices. FCC compliance is required, but not the certification. That being said, since it's not ethernet connected it's just fine to ship these items. The only part that needs the cert is the power brick.

If that were the case, then why was Josh so adamant in assuring that certification was in progress back in November?

Quote from: Inaba on November 03, 2012, 05:03:19 AM

Quote from: abracadabra on November 02, 2012, 11:36:06 PM

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.

Note that Josh claims that some screen was already certified, yet nowhere on the FCC site is such a device mentioned unless, of course, the FCC made a mistake and forgot to include it on their website, or it's a non-truth. The other option is that the FCC is behind in posting, not yet to the October of last year's submissions, which would be odd, for I can clearly see this past Wednesday's results.

To this day, Josh has not once addressed the FCC again after releasing his above statement.