ProSoundWeb Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro  (Read 1352 times)

Jason Glass

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 737
    • CleanWirelessAudio.com
Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« on: April 06, 2020, 02:29:22 pm »

Hi Y'all,

The FCC is throwing the book at these guys, in the form of a $685,338 fine.

RF professionals recommend against bargain-basement wireless equipment for many good reasons, and they're mostly the same reasons that the commission does this kind of enforcement.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-46A1.pdf

frank kayser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1496
  • Maryland suburbs of Washington DC
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2020, 02:54:07 pm »

Ouch.  That's going to leave a mark.
One has to follow the rules, or pay the piper later. C'est la guerre.
Logged

Daniel Levi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 354
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2020, 02:54:37 pm »

Interesting reading, not only were five of their systems operating in completely different bands to what the FCC had approved (some transmitting in band I instead of band II and two where one should have been band II frequencies but in band IV and vice-versa, there were some operating in the aircraft band, there was one where they did not know what frequency the microphone operated on and 9 with no FCC ID/authorization at all.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if they were forced to do a recall, esp. as some of their devices operated on completely different frequencies to those approved and I would guess shown in the manuals.

Just shows why good wireless costs money, as it's much cheaper to make items when you don't follow teh rules.
Logged

Jeff Lelko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1434
  • Cape Canaveral, FL
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2020, 04:24:37 pm »

I'm glad to see this being enforced.  Now if only the FDA would crack down on all the cheap illegal lasers on the market along with the ATFE doing their part regarding the ebay "Cold Spark" machines and flame units...  At least by me the AHJ has really gotten strict about these things but sadly it's not a universal effort.
Logged

Philip Roberts

  • Church and H.O.W. Forums
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 182
  • South West MI
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2020, 10:04:39 pm »

With as fast and loose as they are playing I've got to wonder are these mic's actually opperating on the frequencies they say they are.

Philip
Logged

Keith Broughton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3306
  • Toronto
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2020, 06:24:22 am »

I wonder if this liability could extend to the end user if it is shown the user was aware of the frequency the device was on.
Logged
I don't care enough to be apathetic

Henry Cohen

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
  • Westchester Co., NY, USA
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2020, 10:29:12 am »

I wonder if this liability could extend to the end user if it is shown the user was aware of the frequency the device was on.

The liability of the user/operator transmitting on frequencies for which they're not licensed would not be an 'extension' of the retailer's violations: It would be a new and separate violation(s) on the part of the operator.
Logged
Henry Cohen

CP Communications    www.cpcomms.com
Radio Active Designs   www.radioactiverf.com

Keith Broughton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3306
  • Toronto
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2020, 06:16:55 am »

The liability of the user/operator transmitting on frequencies for which they're not licensed would not be an 'extension' of the retailer's violations: It would be a new and separate violation(s) on the part of the operator.
Correct!
I worded my point poorly.
Could the sales data be used to find users that purchased this equipment and could those customers be liable for breaking the regulations?
Logged
I don't care enough to be apathetic

Robert Lofgren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 872
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2020, 09:56:19 am »

But if a customer bought a system in good faith trusting the sellerís specifications. Would then the customer still become liable, even if he violates the law.

The liability of the user/operator transmitting on frequencies for which they're not licensed would not be an 'extension' of the retailer's violations: It would be a new and separate violation(s) on the part of the operator.
Logged

Tim McCulloch

  • SR Forums
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21164
  • Wichita, Kansas USA
Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2020, 10:02:47 am »

But if a customer bought a system in good faith trusting the sellerís specifications. Would then the customer still become liable, even if he violates the law.
Yes. Under the Communication Act of 1934, as amended, it is the responsibility of the operator to ensure compliance.  The operator can sue the manufacturer and distributor for any losses resulting from the mislabeled or noncompliant products.
Logged
"Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something."  - Kurt Vonnegut

ProSoundWeb Community

Re: Big FCC Trouble For PylePro
¬ę Reply #9 on: April 08, 2020, 10:02:47 am ¬Ľ


Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 



Page created in 0.053 seconds with 22 queries.