John,
So did you visit the lab recently? And was the lab you visited part of the Office of Electronic Technology (OET)? And during your visit, what kind of test data was ascertained and how was the data handled (report or results findings)? And the equipment they test, how much of it, (would you guess during your visits) is Part15 equipment? And did they ever say what constitutes equipment certification and compliance? Who issues the certification or certificate of compliance? Were you personally involved in the testing?
During the KENC incident, the OET tested the Hamilton supplied ground filter and found it to lack sufficient performance to ameliorate the local violation notice. To my knowledge no one involved directly in the incident has ever seen anything other than a report of findings. No data or test methodology has ever been published.
I defer to your answers to the above questions and your personal experience. However, the information available, after an exhaustive study of the information on the internet, does not support (generally speaking) your experience. The data I have found (data from the last 4-5 years of Part 15 device tests) tends to support the outcome I have mentioned in my previous posts on the subject. Also, 40+ years as a practicing broadcast field engineer supports what I have found in my investigation. That is not say that the OET are not busy people and serve the FCC and the federal government very well. I believe the lab folks do a great job.
Please share your experience.
That is the reason for the, so-called, lack of consistency perception on the part of low power operators. In the final analysis, the way the certified unit is used in the field and it's compliance to Part 15 technical rules, as interpreted by the FCC inspector, is what determines whether an installation passes inspection. I know it seems inconsistent, but the FCC gets to call the shots. Whining and complaining doesn't seem to tip the scales our direction.