1. Home
  2. ⏚ Electrical Engineering
  3. Rogue Computer Sellers on Ebay--Not FCC Compliant--Cheap Parts
  4. Page 2

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

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:    
formatting link
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.        (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:
formatting link
   "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!

Reply to
Keith
Loading thread data ...

No, only if it's later found to be non-compliant (fat chance of that).

All cases are bad. Some are more bad. Plexiglass may or may not be worse than steel, though if the board manufacturer requires a metal case then that's what you're supposed to have (try reading Part 15, Fuchs).

Nope. They are only required to pass the "open box" test and suggest an appropriate enclosure scheme if needed. There is no such animal as a "rated case". What a maroon!

Reply to
Keith

The FCC has busted his transmitter a couple times but he never seems to be there. He is a folk hero in a neighborhood where a couple guys in cheap suits and a white Crown Vic attract a lot of attention. The only complaint seems to be from stations that are pissed about the ad revenue. I haven't heard a ligitimate interferance issue unless it is a part 15 person using their Mr Microphone on that unassigned area of the dial. We don't have a ot of radio down here.

Reply to
gfretwell

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.

Reply to
gfretwell

Doesn't matter how "nice" he is. He is in violation of federal law. He will have his assets siezed and will have an all expense vacation in "Club-Fed". None too soon.

Reply to
Keith

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:12:09 -0500, Keith Gave us:

You're the idiot that made the "open box test" remark. It isn't true, it was never true, and you are full of shit for saying it.

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:30:45 -0500, Keith Gave us:

It says nothing about being tested in the box it came in. You are a glutton for lying.

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

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.

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

He tells us all when he posts as NunYaBidness! ;-)

Reply to
VWWall

I showed you *exactly* where the open-box test is specified in 47 CFR Part

15, dolt. You're not only illiterate, but dumb as a box-o-rocks.
Reply to
Keith

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:
formatting link
   "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!

Reply to
Keith

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:11:17 -0500, Keith Gave us:

It's a faraday cage with one side opened up.

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:16:53 -0500, Keith Gave us:

A "typical enclosure" is NOT the box it came in. It IS a PC case made for the purpose.

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

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.

Reply to
Keith

`> (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.

Reply to
jaywitkow

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).

Reply to
Keith Williams

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."

formatting link
"Certain electronics equipment, including equipment deemed unlawful by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is not permitted on eBay."
formatting link
"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!"

formatting link
"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. . ."

formatting link

Reply to
jaywitkow

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

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

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

formatting link
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.

Reply to
jaywitkow

I would conclude that, at least as a technicality, yes. Though the lack of a stamp would seem to be a small issue. If all the components are qualified, I wouldn't have much problem. The FCC might what to talk to 'em, but no one is going to jail over it.

No issue with this.

Sure, like it or not (I don't), apparently states can trump the Constitution.

Sure, the FCC has the last say over such things. They can even tell your HOA that they may have no interest in your satellite dish.

Sure, see above.

Note that these items do *not* fall under the PC exemption. They're illegal just by description.

Contract law.

Advertizing things clearly in violation of copyright law. No issue here either.

Advertizing products knowingly illegal. I'm not sure what you rpoint is though.

If it's not clearly illegal, I can't see how eBay could be held liable for anything other than perhaps it's sales fee. If they were in posession of this merchandise it could be confiscated, sure.

Unless it knows? Once they're notifed of a violation the rules change.

Ok, your point is? Perhaps you just hate eBay? The fact is that eBay has no more liability than your local newspaper or auctioneer. Unless they're

*knowingly* advertising stolen or illegal merchandise, their only liability is *maybe* their advertising fee. That's all the skin they have in it. They do *not* know the PCs in question have not met the letter of Part-15.
Reply to
Keith

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.