Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jason Glass]

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]

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

[Daniel Levi]

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.

[Jeff Lelko]

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.

[Philip Roberts]

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

[Keith Broughton]

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.

[Henry Cohen]

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.

[Keith Broughton]

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?

[Robert Lofgren]

But if a customer bought a system in good faith trusting the seller’s 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.

[Tim McCulloch]

But if a customer bought a system in good faith trusting the seller’s 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.

[ProSoundWeb Community]