This is in response to Artisan's latest blog and I thought to do it here as posts help to rejuvenate the forum.
I agree fully with Artisan about certification being what makes a transmitter legal to use. Some past forum members namely one who did many tests on certified transmitters has suggested that it's up to the user to take responsibility for being legal. I strongly disagree as we, the end user, don't have the expensive FIM(field intensity meter) at $10,000 and up and the ability and facilities to even use it properly as per it's instructions. The company goes through all the hoops, expense, giving it to a lab authorized by the FCC or ISED(Industry Canada) to test and give approval that makes the product legal. There are labs all over the world so a manufacturer can, as in the case of the Retekess TR 508 get it certified in China.
The transmitter in discussion at Artisan's blog is the rebranded CZH-05B Chinese transmitter....Retekess TR 508.
There is much misleading info on this or fake news if you want to call it that. Long and Macquade music store was selling these in the stores and could legally do so as it had FCC and ISED certifications. I purchased one and did some tests and the assumption that these are splatter boxes is false as I actually tested it with a spectrum analyzer and it was better than other certified transmitters and just as good as the Decade MS-100. Since the Chinese CZH 05B is the same just with rebranding, others commenting that these are garbage and splatter boxes should not just comment of the top of their head because it's what they heard from somewhere but have never actually tested one to see. One certified transmitter and I will name it....Wholehouse 3, is certified but is so bad harmonic wise that the second and third harmonics are near the intended frequency and on the "secret" high power setting you are actually transmitting a second and third at equal to and over your intended frequency. That's scary. But, it is certified and the end user shouldn't have to have a spectrum analyzer, or a FIM and should assume that if it has the certification on the label it has gone through the testing and passed and the end user is not responsible for compliance. The FCC, ISED, and the lab that tested it is.
My point, the thought going around that the Retekess CZH 05B is a splatter box is fake news.
With the Decade CM-10 which is a CZH-05B modified to Decade's specs for BETS compliance with a power reduction and modified to eliminate the power selection and change the frequency range to 88 to 107.5. The rest is the same but branded Decade CM-10. I can't really tell the difference in audio from the MS-100 and it is not a splatter box but quite clean, and right on frequency accurate to 3 decimal places.
In conclusion, in regards to the Retekess TR-508 getting an FCC part 15 certification it doesn't matter how it got it, but it did and that's all the end user has to care about. If there's a problem the FCC, ISED, has to look into the labs and the certifications and fix it at their end not go after the end user using a product with their stamp of approval, and that goes for the Wholehouse 3 also. It was my choice as I have an analyzer to not use this but still responsibility is at their end not mine.
I returned the Retekess back to where I got it here in Canada as they had stated part 15 and RSS-210 certified when in fact that was wrong info and it is certified in Canada but not license free although if part 15 and RSS-210 are the same it should have got the RSS-210 approval as labs can do the one test for both countries.
As Artisan said, If this had a license free Canadian certification I would be using it now. For the smaller footprint and the more convenient antenna.
And I want to say again that this Chinese transmitter is not junk. It is, as Artisan pointed out, better than other certified transmitters in sound quality and spectral purity.
The following is just speculation on my part, but it's speculation based on facts.
Industry Canada allows transmitter manufacturers to use certification laboratory test results from the FCC in their bids to obtain certification here.
My guess is that was what was attempted. Industry Canada may have even given them RSS210 certification at first, and that is where Long & McQuade and others selling the TR-508 got their information. These resellers definitely were labelling the transmitter as RSS210 certified.
But at some point, Industry Canada actually looked at the product, saw the claimed specs of 500 milliwatts output, and decided it truly belonged under RSS123 (which does not use field strength, but allows up to 1 watt power).
So we're left with the bizarre situation that the transmitter is certified under FCC Part 15 FM, and therefore legally useable in the U.S., but it cannot be used unless licensed under RSS123 in Canada.
I said it before, Mark repeats it far better than I did, and I'll say it again.
If the transmitter is certified, it can be legally used. It does not matter how it got certified. If it was by fraudulent means, or an error was made, then the FCC and the specific certification laboratory has to fix it. The end user of the transmitter has no way (short of spending many thousands of dollars on test equipment - and for a $75 transmitter?) of determining compliance. That's what certification is for.
And those that are saying otherwise are just spreading fake news.
My understanding of the FCC requirement to certify certain part 15 transmitters is different than has been commonly said. The legal purpose of certification is to allow transmitter sellers and suppliers to legally market fully-made transmitters (not kits). The rule does not extend any special protection to the end user of that transmitter. Therefore the user of a transmitter, whether it is certified, or uncertified in the case of a kit or home-made device, is fully responsible for complying with regulations pertaining to transmission on allowed frequencies. The fact that ordinary users do not and financially cannot have access to expensive measurement equipment is an example of gross inefficiency in the FCC's regulations. Using a certified transmitter is at best a guideline for hoping to comply with radiation limits, but compliance is not guaranteed by certification. Somewhere in the language pertaining to homemade devices the FCC advises using "best engineering practices" without supplying any definition of what that would be.
I have no knowledge of Canadian ISED/RSS-123/or RSS-210.
I'm not saying you're wrong, Carl, but where in the FCC rules does it say that the end user is legally responsible for compliant operation? I've never looked explicitly for those words.
Yes, certification allows sellers to market assembled transmitters, but that is because they have been tested and found compliant with the rules.
If the end user is indeed fully responsible for compliant operation, why certify equipment at all? There's no point. It's just an inefficient and redundant operation, with no logic behind it.
In Canada, it is a requirement that all intentional radiators used have either RSS210 or BETS certification (it's called a Technical Acceptance Certificate). That TAC (as it's known) is the first thing that is looked for if you are inspected.
In going over the Canadian rules in some detail, I have not found any indication that there is an expectation that end users will have the necessary equipment and/or knowledge to ensure compliance. At least for RSS210 or BETS. Licensed stations, are, of course, expected to do so (including RSS123).
Home built transmitters are not marketed and therefore do not require certification(FCC rule) so then yes the user is responsible for it's operation. I think a marketed kit is a grey area. Is it the kit maker's responsibility to engineer it compliant like the SStran for example or the kit builder responsible for compliant operation?
I still think that the kit builder marketing the kit should be responsible for it's operation if assembled as per instructions. The exception should be if the builder changes something to change the operation, then the user is at fault, But what if it's a mistake? A wrong component in the wrong place? This is why what Carl was saying makes sense. Pre made transmitters with a certification is what the FCC and ISED would rather see. I think that RSS-210 took kits and home built transmitters out of the rules in Canada.
Mark says: "I think a marketed kit is a grey area."
I think that's very true. This whole discussion has got me re-thinking and reviewing the rules for all these categories and this weekend I hope to spend time going over everything to make my understanding, or at least my interpretation, more solid so that I can be as sure as possible of what I say.
Oh, I just had a crazy idea. What would happen if you fed the Part 15 Regulations to an AI bot, then asked the AI bot to answer our questions? It makes my head heat up to think about it.