On 25 May 2009 21:43:21 +0200, OhFord <OhFord@BNW.gov> wrote:

>In your opinion, does that obligate USA sellers on the web to cough up the
>FCC ID number of their radios on request?

The way I read the FCC rules, the manufacturers are required to label
their devices with the FCC ID number and such. There is no clause
requiring pre-sale disclosure. There is also no penalty for doing so.
It's yet another example of a "problem" with the way the FCC rules
were written. Pre-sale disclosure should be required, as should the
FCC ID on any advertising literature, manuals, etc.

>I looked at the FCC web site urls
>you gave and could find nothing that addressed this specifically among all
>their gobbledy gook language which, without a team of Pickwick lawyers is
>impossible to decipher.

Yep. Reading the FCC rules and regs gives me a headache. However,
they're much easier reading than the IEEE 802.11(a-z) specifications,
which have been known to induce a state closely resembling confusion.
However, don't worry, it's not fatal.

> Also they don't answer their emails.

Sure they do. You just need to know whom to ask. However, I suggest
you reconsider asking the FCC for an informed opinion. I frequently
get either the "wrong" answer, that I don't want to hear, or a wild
guess based upon nothing better than a wild guess.

>This seems to imply that the answer to the question above is "yes" but
>again, nothing definitive one way or another.

Exactly. I try to be very specific and exact, about things that are
vague and uncertain.

>Ok so this is just another implied rule that is never enforced, so what the
>FCC says really does not matter.

Nope. They do enforce the labeling requirements. Welcome to the FCC
Enforcement Burro:
<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/>
A look at the most recent headlines kinda shows the FCC's direction.
Find the trivial and fine them:
<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Headlines.html>
There was some recent "importation of non-compliant" devices in the EB
list, but I'm too lazy to dig for the references. Still, it's not too
difficult to find radios that lack type certification on eBay.

>Or is it one of these things they do
>nothing about until someone complains?

Nope. Other than revenue enhancement actions, the *ONLY* complaints
that the FCC acts on are those that involve terrorism. The Burro of
Homeland Security controls enforcement funds. If the complaint
doesn't get there attention, nothing happens. I've had some personal
experience with such nonsense. I were having problems with fishermen
using channels that landed on ham frequencies. Nothing happened until
they landed on a local police channel (which is a valid marine channel
in Holland). Even the police couldn't get the FCC's attention, so I
convinced them to mention to the FCC that these fishermen might be
terrorists practicing for some attack by jamming the police
frequencies. Obviously baloney, but we were able to get one FCC
monitoring van to hang around for about 30 minutes, and then drive
away. Of course, that was in the afternoon, which was a waste of
effort as the fishermen are only active in the early morning. Welcome
to the post 911 FCC.

Admittedly, if Motorola complains about the sale of non-certified
radios, there will be some sort of action. However, it will mostly
likely occur only after Motorola contributes to the politically
correct campaign fund.

>Follow the yellow brick road to get
>an answer on this, maybe the WIZARD can return us to Kansa where things
>make sense.

Maybe Dorothy and Toto are running the FCC and we never noticed? Pay
no attention to the computer behind the curtain.

>> Also, please note that having FCC certification does not somehow imply
>> that the product is reliable or suitable for the intended purpose.
>> I've seen some fairly awful designs, that managed to pass Part 15, but
>> don't work very well.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558