Fcc/ce Testing... Passed!

[GizmoTheGreen]

IT'S A SONY

 

[Vlynndar]

IT'S A SONY

...Oh my. That was nice.

 

[Vorporeal]

IT'S A SONY

...Oh my. That was nice.

+∞

 

[Monk]

Well, FCC testing is basically the same as CE testing, just with a few different allowed radiation values (usually, CE is much more strict).
So basically, the FCC testing was the same as the CE testing. It would pass both.
But we didn't do a specific FCC testing.

Oh, I absolutely understand that. I just think that, when the official website doesn't make it clear that CE testing has been done and is being used as a superset of/stricter version of FCC testing, replies like this:

Wait... when was there an official FCC test?

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

If I had the skills I'd make each of my words a link to a thread where it has been said before.

seem a little harsh. Especially at this time of year (goodwill to all men, and suchlike).

Personally, I'm in a surprisingly good mood lately despite not having a new toy to play with... and the Pandora's Progress looks most promising

 

[(naw)mcx]

IT'S A SONY

...Oh my. That was nice.

+∞

+3

 

[gruso]

To be fair, that information has been on the unofficial roadmap (with source linked) for over a month.

 

[Mithrildor]

Are we going to put it in the blender now as a test?

 

[Chip]

To be fair, that information has been on the unofficial roadmap (with source linked) for over a month.

To be even more fair, the roadmap is not inaccurate, it's just not totally clear. There is no requirement that devices pass an FCC test in the US, only that they meet the requirements. The CE tests are more stringent than the FCC. Any device that passes CE testing meets or exceeds the FCC requirements. So the CE tests do technically prove compliance with both sets of regulations.

 

[mali]

^This is exactly what ED(IIRC) said. That quote must still be somewhere.

 

[Monk]

^This is exactly what ED(IIRC) said. That quote must still be somewhere.

It wasn't - top of the previous page, actually:

Well, FCC testing is basically the same as CE testing, just with a few different allowed radiation values (usually, CE is much more strict).
So basically, the FCC testing was the same as the CE testing. It would pass both.

To be fair, that information has been on the unofficial roadmap (with source linked) for over a month.

Since you seem to be linking to a post where Craig says both that FCC testing will never be done AND that:

I can now see no reason why some Pandora consoles won't ship before christmas, I'm not saying we can get all 4000 built and shipped, but we can get as many as possible done.

I'm not sure QUITE which information you're pointing out, to be honest - that FCC testing will never be done or that random forum posts cannot be taken as gospel. It could work either way AFAICS, which makes it even funnier, to me at least. I love the ambiguity that comes with the English language in general, never mind specifics

ISTR it being said that FCC testing is not required for one reason or another, but one of those being that it's not being made in America. I also recall being told that the quality of the product will be top notch, as it's being made in America not some cheap far Eastern factory. I'm getting to the point where my shoulders ache from shrugging in mildly bemused fashion

But yeah, many things have been intimated or even said outright, and I'm not entirely convinced that the official web page shouldn't be correct, accurate, and clear - all at the same time. It's really not that big a deal IMHO, but it seemed a bit harsh for that chap to have gotten such a harsh response when the official web site says (unclearly) that "CE / FCC Testing2 has been done and passed/completed. I myself have fallen behind the unofficial stuff as it's not as funny as the forum

 

[mali]

^This is exactly what ED(IIRC) said. That quote must still be somewhere.

It wasn't - top of the previous page, actually:

That's not what I meant. It was mentioned before, maybe even a long time ago. But I'm really too lazy to search for it. Could have been on the German Board, though.

 

[gruso]

To be fair, that information has been on the unofficial roadmap (with source linked) for over a month.

I'm not sure QUITE which information you're pointing out, to be honest - that FCC testing will never be done or that random forum posts cannot be taken as gospel. ...

My link points to MWeston's post, which categorically states that there will be no FCC test. My point was that it's been on the record for over a month, so it's understandable that Craig might be a little annoyed at having to explain it repeatedly.

 

[Pleng]

And Monk's point, as far as I can tell, was that on the official website FCC testing is still on the roadmap.

It's more than a little irritating when official people get annoyed at customers who read information on official websites then are told that you should take the official information with a pinch of salt and trawl through hundreds of posts on this site, many of which themselves contain misinformation, just to try and find something from somebody official which (based on past performances) has some remote possibility of being true...

 

[gruso]

That wasn't his point when I replied to him. Aaanyway, I think I'd rather crack the first bottle of red than spend NYE explaining why I posted things. Happy new year all, see you in the year of the Pandora.

 

[peca]

My link points to MWeston's post, which categorically states that there will be no FCC test. My point was that it's been on the record for over a month, so it's understandable that Craig might be a little annoyed at having to explain it repeatedly.

Sorry to interfere, but You link leads me not to MWeston's post but to post Jourdy288's post Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:38 PM

I guess that You mean link this MWeston's post.

What is weird is difference between links:

http://www.gp32x.de/board/.../page__st__80__p__777123&#entry777123
http://www.gp32x.de/board/.../page__view__findpost__p__777123
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I takes links from upper right conner of post. There is number of post in thread and exact url for linking. I gess that You take it in some other way and result depend on how many post per page is set. In my case it is 15 posts per page and I have this linked post as 7th on on 7th page.
EDIT: No offence. I just guess that this is matter of misunderstanding.

 

[mali]

^That's the quote I meant So, it was MWeston, not ED.

 

[Asmo]

My point was that it's been on the record for over a month, so it's understandable that Craig might be a little annoyed at having to explain it repeatedly.

I wasn't asking for either a date for the FCC or an explanation though, I was simply highlighting the incongruity of implying that an FCC test had been passed when one hadn't even taken place.

No idea how it was twisted so.

 

[Monk]

I'm not sure QUITE which information you're pointing out, to be honest - that FCC testing will never be done or that random forum posts cannot be taken as gospel. ...

My link points to MWeston's post, which categorically states that there will be no FCC test. My point was that it's been on the record for over a month, so it's understandable that Craig might be a little annoyed at having to explain it repeatedly.
[/quote]

Sorry, here your link opens right onto a post by... Jourdy288, at the top of the page. I have to scroll down and guess what you're referring to, and apparently I misguessed and the post you're linking to doesn't show up on the page I arrive at.

And Monk's point, as far as I can tell, was that on the official website FCC testing is still on the roadmap.

^ That. Repeatedly. Over and over. Combined with...

It's more than a little irritating when official people get annoyed at customers who read information on official websites then are told that you should take the official information with a pinch of salt and trawl through hundreds of posts on this site, many of which themselves contain misinformation, just to try and find something from somebody official which (based on past performances) has some remote possibility of being true...

^that. Precisely.

That wasn't his point when I replied to him. Aaanyway, I think I'd rather crack the first bottle of red than spend NYE explaining why I posted things. Happy new year all, see you in the year of the Pandora.

Yes, it was. It's incredibly tiresome for ME to post explaining why I said things, seemingly clearly, too. And the more I post, the more import the issue seems to gain - like a vendetta against misleading info - just as the mor epeople post against me the more tiresome and vindictive that seems too, instead of a simple "Yeah, that could be clearer - let's change the official web site!".

My link points to MWeston's post, which categorically states that there will be no FCC test. My point was that it's been on the record for over a month, so it's understandable that Craig might be a little annoyed at having to explain it repeatedly.

Sorry to interfere, but You link leads me not to MWeston's post but to post Jourdy288's post Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:38 PM

I guess that You mean link this MWeston's post.

Oh THAT post? If Gruso had linked to that post, that would have been a LOT clearer and less guesswork would ahve been involved on my part. Yes, that makes a lot more sense - many thanks!

Thanks for working out how Gruso seems to arrive at his links too - I've wondered, very vaguely, for some time why what he says he links to seems so often to be different to what shows up in the web browser. Now we know!

^That's the quote I meant So, it was MWeston, not ED.

Ah, yes - it's certainly clearer now we have the link to MWeston's post. Though I can't help thinking it would be clearer still if the web site were just less misleading/more informative.

My point was that it's been on the record for over a month, so it's understandable that Craig might be a little annoyed at having to explain it repeatedly.

I wasn't asking for either a date for the FCC or an explanation though, I was simply highlighting the incongruity of implying that an FCC test had been passed when one hadn't even taken place.

No idea how it was twisted so.

I agreed with you and thought to try and highlight it some more and suggest that the issue be looked at and corrected rather than stomp on you (not you personally, but anyone really). Which is, apparently, tantamount to an attack on OpenPandora and all that is good. Sorry

 

[mali]

Ah, yes - it's certainly clearer now we have the link to MWeston's post. Though I can't help thinking it would be clearer still if the web site were just less misleading/more informative.

+1

Especially because not everyone has access to/wants to access quotes on the boards.
Without that quote from MWeston in mind it's indeed misleading to have FCC/CE written on the status table.

 

[MWeston]

The website should say "testing for FCC/CE compliance" and then it would be totally legit, no need to drop the acronym FCC at all. There is no such thing as FCC testing. They don't do testing, neither does CE. I believe they are just governing bodies that set regulations and standards. Craig should have said we won't be doing FCC registration and then it would have made sense but he probably assumed people such as Monk would know this from reading the forum for so long and not complain about it for two pages.

Maybe ED will see this and make the website more clear if it is really a problem for the select few. I'm looking forward to that page not even needing to exist anymore.