Rogue Computer Sellers on Ebay--Not FCC Compliant--Cheap Parts

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 05:50:40 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:


You fuching moron, you still can't read what I've now posted *twice*. PLease get a refund from any school you've gone to. Anyone as illiterate as you've demonstrated yourself to be deserves a full refund.
--
Keith


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keith wrote:

He tells us all when he posts as NunYaBidness! ;-)
--
Virg Wall, P.E.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:44:15 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com Gave us:

No, they do not.

Good thing that is not the criteria. Bad choice to have used it as such.

That doesn't mean that it complies with emission standards. I'll bet your house is as electrically noisy as it gets.
Dude, they sell foil with sticky on the back. Don't you know how to make a proper case for high frequency digital components?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:17:23 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs

Why wouidn't I have some equipment that displays this rampant interferance? Tell me where I will see/hear/detect this and I will look.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:51:16 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com Gave us:

Get one of those 900Mhz (800? whatever) "space phones", and get a conversation going and then walk near your wooden PC case with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:35:13 -0800, jaywitkow wrote:

Most certainly. Those sold as consumer items (in boxes) are required to pass the "open-box" test.

Nope. If it's sold in a pretty box, it's intended for the public and must pass the "open-box" requirements. You might want to search the FCC site (perhaps liit it to the part-15 rules), but thie was the way it was done in the late '90s, anyway. We spent a a couple_hundred_grand showing pre-compliance of *chips* on boards we had no control over.

It's not all that bad really. Remember, the 6dB allowance for no case. Some sing like a banshee, but they're going to do the same in a crappy case. ...and they all are. *BZZZT*
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bullshit. All claims of compliance are in the setting of being in a closed cage.

Cite?

I think you make crap up.

C'est la vie...

Motherboards are noisy as hell.

The cases are crappy or the motherboards? I say neither. Motherboards are made to be top performers. That means better not poorer emissions Those guys truly are at the state of the art in PCB layout, particularly as things ramp up faster and faster.
Cases... well, many are poor and non-compliant, but there are quite a few makers that are not only compliant, but designed to be that way.
I have a case that even has a plated frontispiece that has doors over the CD doors. It is likely the least emissive case I have ever owned. It is made by Antec. They aren't the best either.
You can say that they are all crappy, but I'd say that you have no selection... a crappy computer store... or maybe your entire town has no PC stores worth a shit...
All I know is that there are well made MOBOs as well as well made cases for PCs out there... even better than the nice one I have right now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr15_04.html Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations -- Telecommunication PART 15 - RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES SUBPART A - GENERAL Section 15.32 Test Procedures for CPU boards and computer power supplies
[Start Quote] Power supplies and CPU boards used with personal computers and for which separate authorizations are required to be obtained shall be tested as follows:
(a) CPU boards shall be tested as follows:
(1) Testing for radiated emissions shall be performed with the CPU board installed in a typical enclosure but with the enclosure's cover removed so that the internal circuitry is exposed at the top and on at least two sides. Additional components, including a power supply, peripheral devices, and subassemblies, shall be added, as needed, to result in a complete personal computer system. If the oscillator and the microprocessor circuits are contained on separate circuit boards, both boards, typical of the combination that would normally be employed, must be used in the test. Testing shall be in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 15.31 of this part.
(i) Under these test conditions, the system under test shall not exceed the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.109 of this part by more than 6 dB. Emissions greater than 6 dB that can be identified and documented to originate from a component(s) other than the CPU board being tested may be dismissed. [Note - when using the test procedure in (a)(1), this test is mandatory and must be passed. Passing the test in (a)(1)(ii) but failing the test here in (a)(1)(i) signifies a noncompliant product. If compliance cannot be shown under (a)(1)(i), see (a)(2) of this section for an alternative test procedure.]
(ii) Unless the test in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section demonstrates compliance with the limits in Section 15.109 of this part, a second test shall be performed using the same configuration described above but with the cover installed on the enclosure. Testing shall be in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 15.31 of this part. Under these test conditions, the system under test shall not exceed the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.109 of this part.
(2) In lieu of the procedure in (a)(1) of this section, CPU boards may be tested to demonstrate compliance with the limits in Section 15.109 using a specified enclosure with the cover installed. Testing for radiated emissions shall be performed with the CPU board installed in a typical system configuration. Additional components, including a power supply, peripheral devices, and subassemblies, shall be added, as needed, to result in a complete personal computer system. If the oscillator and the microprocessor circuits are contained on separate circuit boards, both boards, typical of the combination that would normally be employed, must be used in the test. Testing shall be in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 15.31 of this part. Under this procedure, CPU boards that comply with the limits in Section 15.109 must be marketed together with the specific enclosure used for the test. [End Quote]
The bottom line appears to be that if a motherboard (CPU board) is sold separately in a retail box it has to have a statement silkscreened (permanently marked) on it indicating that it complies with FCC requirements. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/filing/ead/doclabel.pdf
So, in other words, if Tiger Direct, Newegg, CompUSA, Best Buy, PC Connection, or Fry's, for instance, sells you a motherboard separately and it doesn't have an FCC label on it, it's an illegal sale, presumably subject to a fine.
On the otherhand, if Dell, for instance, were to sell you or your repairman a replacement motherboard for your Dell computer (with an FCC sticker on the case), that motherboard wouldn't necessarily have to have an FCC label on it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:32:35 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

You are a gluton for punishment, hey Fuch-head... Ok, I spent ten minutes searching through Part-15. Not that I care a Fuch what you're into, but I'll go through this for those who asked.
47 CFR Part 15: http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15- 91905.pdf
Section 15.102 CPU boards and power supplies used in personal computers. [page 30 for those following along at home]
(a) Authorized CPU boards and power supplies that are sold as separate components shall be supplied with complete installation instructions. These instructions shall specify all of the installation procedures that must be followed to ensure compliance with the standards, including, if necessary, the type of enclosure, e.g., a metal enclosure, proper grounding techniques, the use of shielded cables, the addition of any needed components, and any necessary modifications to additional components.
<stuff skipped>
(b) Assemblers of personal computer systems employing modular CPU boards and/or power supplies are not required to test the resulting system provided the following conditions are met: [Note the *NOT* *REQUIRED* in there Fuchs?]
(1) Each device used in the system has been authorized as required under this part (Note: according to Section 15.101(e), some subassemblies used in a personal computer system may not require an authorization);
From 15.101 (page 29):
(c) Personal computers shall be authorized in accordance with one of the following methods:
(1) The specific combination of CPU board, power supply and enclosure is tested together and authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification;
(2) The personal computer is authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification, and the CPU board or power supply in that computer is replaced with a CPU board or power supply that has been separately authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification;
or,
(3) The CPU board and power supply used in the assembly of a personal computer have been separately authorized under a Declaration of Conformity or a grant of certification.
(4) Personal computers assembled using either of the methods specified in paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section must, by themselves, also be authorized under a Declaration of Conformity if they are marketed. However, additional testing is not required for this Declaration of Conformity, provided the procedures in Section 15.102(b) of this chapter are followed. [Notice the *NOT* *REQUIRED* in there Fuchs?]

47 CFR Part 15: http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-91905.pdf
"Section 15.32 Test procedures for CPU boards and computer power supplies."
Power supplies and CPU boards used with personal computers and for which separate authorizations are required to be obtained shall be tested as follows:
(a) CPU boards shall be tested as follows: (1) Testing for radiated emissions shall be performed with the CPU board installed in a typical enclosure but with the enclosure's cover removed so that the internal circuitry is exposed at the top and on at least two sides. Additional components, including a power supply, peripheral devices, and subassemblies, shall be added, as needed, to result in a complete personal computer system. If the oscillator and the microprocessor circuits are contained on separate circuit boards, both boards, typical of the combination that would normally be employed, must be used in the test. Testing shall be in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 15.31 of this part.
(i) Under these test conditions, the system under test shall not exceed the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.109 of this part by more than 6 dB. Emissions greater than 6 dB that can be identified and documented to originate from a component(s) other than the CPU board being tested may be dismissed.
Sure looks like an "open box" test they're describing there, son. Also note the 6bB, is pretty much what I claimed, numbnutz.
What is that sound I hear? Could it be mommy turnng off your computer because l'il Fuchs is crying?

I think, no, I *know* you're in over your head. Nothing new here though.

...did't bother me. I was paid well (a good part of that couple of hundred grand) for playing with some nice shiny new analyzers and antennas. Sure beat working for 18 months or so. ;-)
Jealous?

No, they're surprisingly not too bad. Even the ones I was testing in the '90s didn't have too much trouble passing the open box test (which they weren't designed for - too new at the time).

Cases.

I say you're Fuched. BTW, you said above that motherboards were noisey as hell! Up, right up there:
"Motherboards are noisy as hell" Roy L. Fuchs 1/31/2006 2:32 PM
Make up your mind, twit!

What guys? I thought you just said motherboards were noisy as hell? Sheesh, what a maroon!

The FCC isn't asking for much (only 6dB), and for good reason. Most are terrible.

Ah, so now you're in the compliance biz? How come you don't know Part 15 from your Fuchs-hole?

My "entire town" has *no* computer stores. I'm giving you my professional opinon as one why has done EMI pre-compliance testing on personal computer hardware professionally. The FCC agrees with me, since they only allow 6dB for the casing.

Not much, obviously.

Aren't we special!
I wonder what that sound is? Is that Roy L. fuching himself? What a stupid Fuch!
--
Keith



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It says nothing about being tested in the box it came in. You are a glutton for lying.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:35:59 +0000, Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

You're not only an idiot, but can't read for shit.
Let me refresh your memory Fuch-head (thouth it was only kast night):
47 CFR Part 15: http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-91905.pdf
"Section 15.32 Test procedures for CPU boards and computer power supplies."
Power supplies and CPU boards used with personal computers and for which separate authorizations are required to be obtained shall be tested as follows:
(a) CPU boards shall be tested as follows: (1) Testing for radiated emissions shall be performed with the CPU board installed in a typical enclosure but with the enclosure's cover removed so that the internal circuitry is exposed at the top and on at least two sides. Additional components, including a power supply, peripheral devices, and subassemblies, shall be added, as needed, to result in a complete personal computer system. If the oscillator and the microprocessor circuits are contained on separate circuit boards, both boards, typical of the combination that would normally be employed, must be used in the test. Testing shall be in accordance with the procedures specified in Section 15.31 of this part.
(i) Under these test conditions, the system under test shall not exceed the radiated emission limits specified in Section 15.109 of this part by more than 6 dB. Emissions greater than 6 dB that can be identified and documented to originate from a component(s) other than the CPU board being tested may be dismissed.
*THE ABOVE IS THE "OPEN BOX TEST"*

No lies. You're simply a stupid spoiled brat. Does mommy know you're on her computer? ...she knows about the panties.
What a maroon!
--
Keith



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A "typical enclosure" is NOT the box it came in. It IS a PC case made for the purpose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keith wrote:
`> (4) Personal computers assembled using either of the `> methods specified in paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this `> section must, by themselves, also be authorized under a `> Declaration of Conformity if they are marketed. However, `> additional testing is not required for this Declaration of `> Conformity, provided the procedures in Section 15.102(b) of this `> chapter are followed. [Notice the *NOT* *REQUIRED* in `> there Fuchs?]
So, in otherwords, it is possible for eBay sellers to obey the law without incurring the high costs involved with testing. And it is reasonable to expect them to do so.
In order to obey FCC regulations sellers of "home-made" computer systems merely have to do 3 things:
1) Use authorized components with an FCC label on them. 2) Follow manufacturers' instructions for assembly. 3) Comply with FCC regulations regarding documentation (Sections 2.1077(b), 15.19, 15.21, 15.27 and 15.105).
EBay needs to promptly notify sellers of home-made computers that their auctions will be cancelled immediately unless they include a statement on their auctions certifying that they are compliant with FCC regulations and the computer cabinet has the appropriate FCC label and the buyer will be supplied with FCC required documentation.
Although the technical issues regarding FCC regulations can appear to be quite complicated from a laymen's point of view, the issue is very simple from the point of view of the eBay buyer:
If the computer case doesn't have an FCC label on it, the eBay sale is illegal. Buyer's also need to understand that if they decide to re-sell their computer, they will be selling an illegal computer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk says...

Yes. That was the whole point of these changes (specifically aimed at the "white box" PC market).

Looks good to me at first glance, though there may be something left out there. I'd have to loot at the details a little closer, were I to certify it. ;-)

EBay is under no obligation to do so. They're not selling anything more than a service (thouth there are exceptions for 23-channel CBs, for instance). It's up to the seller to certify the system at delivery. eBay doesn't certify television FCC compliance either (and they don't fall under this variation of the regulations).

This sounds reasonable, but IANL. Note that eBay has no skin in this though. They've not in any way sold the computer, any more than a want-ad in a newspaper would have. You'd have to go after the seller (good luck).
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keith Williams wrote:

I believe that we have now established beyond any doubt that the sale of computers on eBay that do not have the appropriate FCC label is illegal.
As you have indicated, the remaining issue now is what obligation, if any, does eBay have to prevent the sale of illegal items on their website and what is their policy? In doing some quick surfing on the net, I can find the following statements which might be pertinant:
"Weapons listed on eBay U.S. must comply with the California Penal Code covering the sale of weapons." http://forums.ebay.ph/thread.jspa?threadID 0000455&tstart=0&mod38798245149
"Certain electronics equipment, including equipment deemed unlawful by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is not permitted on eBay." http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/electronics.html
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not permit the use of power amplifiers with Citizens Band radios. Therefore, eBay prohibits any listings of the following:
* CB amplifiers * Amplifiers specified for use on the 11 Meter band * Amplifiers designed for use in frequencies 24 MHz to 35MHz * Amplifiers posted within the CB category * CB Radios that are amplified to exceed 4 Watts using the AM Settings or 12 Watts using the SSB settings"
"eBay Guideline: If you are authorised to sell academic software, make sure you say so in your listing!" http://pages.ebay.ie/help/policies/academic-software.html
"EBay in trouble over knock offs Breakfast at Tiffanys By Nick Farrell: Monday 30 January 2006, 08:06
ONLINE AUCTIONEER EBay is being sued by Tiffany's for helping to peddle counterfeit jewellery online.
If it wins then EBay could have a bit of a problem, because it is impossible to tell if the goods that its customers are flogging are real.
Currently EBay's policy is to allow the sale of knock-offs until it gets a complaint from someone who owns the trademark or copyright.
However, if a normal punter complains that they have spotted an illegal sale, Ebay apparently refuses to notice, sticks its hands in its ears and sings loudly. . ." http://www.theinquirer.net/?article )335
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3 Feb 2006 15:22:06 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk Gave us:

Not true. The label does't mean a damned thing. Also, it is up to the buyer to declare compliance... or not.
It is, in the final analysis, the end user's obligation to change his equipment IF a complaint gets registered which checks out to be a noise violation.

E-bay has NO obligation to attest to, or affirm, or require that ANY product sold on its site complies with ANY standard anywhere.
Plenty of examples. One can get ivory on ebay. Ivory is not legal for sale or trade in the US in forms other than antique collectibles. Yet, there it is... on ebay. Ebay has NO obligation to control what gets sold. They DO, however assist the government with capturing criminals, and have policies which prevent some behaviors.

No shit. Weapons sold ANYWHERE in the US from within ANY forum must comply with many federal laws, not just California's gun laws.

An illegal FM band CB radio comes to mind. I'll bet you can find them there though.
Computer devices, components, and cases, etc. are not "deemed unlawful" by the FCC very often, and basic compliance is assumed. Again, them not permitting it makes it their policy, not a law anywhere.
It similar to these DVD rip it characters everywhere that think that copyright infringement is not a crime because no physical theft took place. Folks can come up with some doosey excuses.

That's funny... I thought it was 5 Watts.

100% unrelated.

Ebay will win that fight, because ebay is not the seller. Tiffany's need to go after the actual action giver (read seller). Regardless of their policies, they are not doing the actual selling. The crap about them not listening to complaints of fakery, I have doubts about the efficacy of. It could easily be Tiffany's trying to bolster their case.
snip
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

I can understand how one might argue that it's not a good law, but I don't understand how you can argue that it isn't the law since it's written in black and white on the FCC website. Homemade computers sold on eBay should have two FCC labels on them as indicated below. In addition, the seller is required to provide the user with some compliance information. Here are the regulations applicable to labeling:
Section 15.102 CPU boards and power supplies used in personal computers.
(b)(4) "If the system is marketed, the resulting equipment combination is authorized under a Declaration of Conformity pursuant to Section 15.101(c)(4) of this part and a compliance information statement, as described in Section 2.1077(b) of this chapter, is supplied with the system. Marketed systems shall also comply with the labelling requirements in Section 15.19 of this part and must be supplied with the information required under Sections 15.21, 15.27 and 15.105 of this part."
Section 15.19 Labelling requirements. (a)(3)
"This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation."
(a)(5)(b)&(ii) Products subject to authorization under a Declaration of Conformity shall be labelled as follows:
[FCC GRAPHIC] Trade name Model number Assembled from tested components Complete system not tested
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr15_04.html Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 47 CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PART 15 - RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES Subpart B - Unintentional Radiators

If eBay requires sellers of academic software, for instance, to include a statement of authorization on their auctions, I don't see why eBay shouldn't require sellers of homemade computers to include a statement that they have complied with applicable FCC regulations on their auctions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:46:20 -0800, jaywitkow wrote:

DOn't agrue with Fuchs. It only encourrages him.

I have no issue with this, though it's not really eBay's problem.
<snip>

Perhaps this is a good idea, though I'm not sure who would police it. Are you proposing that every used computer have a like declaration from everyone who opened the case. perhaps to install a stick of RAM? Ugly!
--
Keith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who up to December was posting as "Numba Bidness", but found it necessary to morph into "Roy L. Fuchs" after earning several usenet kook awards:
<http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=nunya
He an expert on everything, if you haven't already noticed.
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.