I've always maintained (and it's confirmed in both the FCC Part 15 rules) that it's the manufacturer who is responsible for compliant operation of certified (and operated according to manufacturer instructions) transmitters. Not the end user. Certification means that the device was found to operate within the rules within an FCC approved laboratory environment.
Further confirmation can be found in this document. This is the Notice of Forfeiture issued against Hobbytron for selling the Ramsey FM100 and the FM25B. Hobbytron was having purchasers sign an agreement indemnifying the company against the potential illegal operation of the uncertified devices, and the FCC rejected it. Certification also means that the devices can be sold and operated.
The NAB report I just posted the other day, as well as dubious certifications to some Chinese transmitters, shows that the FCC certification process is far from being perfect. In fact, it really needs an overhaul.
What's the point of certification with the proliferation of easily available illegal devices, and such new measures as the Pirate Act, which attempts to put the onus on the operator (conflicting with the Part 15 rules themselves).
ISED in Canada has gotten it right. All devices have to be certified for their intended operation, and a Technical Acceptance Certificate (TAC) issued. None of this compliant stuff. It's either certified, or not. The certification process is rigorous, and you won't find the plethora of illegal devices on such sites as Amazon.ca or elsewhere that you will on Amazon.com. The few that do pop up disappear pretty quickly.
In Canada, spectrum policing is driven by complaints. They don't drive around searching for illegal signals, in part because of these policies, which limit casual piracy. And the first thing that an agent will ask for is to see your transmitter certification. If you don't have it, they will (and do) shut you down. I am aware of only a few interactions with ISED agents; if you are using a legal (in Canada) device, they will work with you. It doesn't tend to be the 'us vs you" mentality that is prevalent in the U.S.
I've always maintained (and it's confirmed in both the FCC Part 15 rules) that it's the manufacturer who is responsible for compliant operation of certified (and operated according to manufacturer instructions) transmitters. Not the end user. Certification means that the device was found to operate within the rules within an FCC approved laboratory environment.
Further confirmation can be found https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-2382A1.html&source=gmail&ust=1742315770303000&usg=AOvVaw2R1kYeFGul9pvQs5mX9bV p">in this document. This is the Notice of Forfeiture issued against Hobbytron......
I think your view on this is distorted. The responsibility of compliant operation relies primarily on the operator of the equipment. The manufacturer is only responsible for the equipment itself.
If the operator alters a certified transmitters capabilty by extended the antenna system to over the 10 feet maximum then he has voided that certification, which then can result in a FCC citation for the user - Not the manufacturer.
There is nothing in the documentation concerning the Hobbytron issue you link too (or anywhere else) that contradict the fact of the end user retains the sole and final responsibility of compliant operation.
I'm talking AM and you were talking FM.. but the point remains the same...
It is never the manufacturer of a part 15 transmitters responsibilty to insure the operator uses the equipment in a compliant manner.
I sort of agree with what Rich is saying. That the manufacturer is not responsible for what a user does after the fact. Once it has passed approval and is in the user's hands the manufacturer is not responsible anymore. There usually is a disclaimer that any changes or alterations to the original design could void certification and is done at your own risk.
But I agree with Artisan that something compliant claimed by the manufacturer but not actually tested by an independent ISED/FCC approved lab that has tested for all the requirements of compliance is not valid. It's just someone's say so. There is no way that a manufacturer has all the necessary testing equipment or know how at home as most of the people are that make our transmitters are home businesses. I, as mentioned, was at the lab here near Toronto and saw first hand the certification process and for BETS to say it's "compliant" you would need test equipment like you wouldn't believe costing near a million dollars to test for all the things needed that give it technical approval. And a third party would still have to approve it. Transmitters like SStran, Sean Cuthbert, Criss Cuff, kits, say "compliant" with no actual 3rd party verification means nothing, AM or FM, and there's reasons why they aren't allowed here(Canada). Someone builds these in their basement and you take the word of the builder? Who's responsible? No certification, the manufacturer...and the user.
@richpowers My point was, and is, is that if a device is certified, and operated according to the manufacturer's instructions (which are part of the certification), then it is the manufacturer who is responsible for compliance of the equipment. It's right in the FCC Part 15 rules. Check it out.
Otherwise, why bother certifying equipment? Checking for compliance is way outside the competence of most casual users of this equipment. Even for AM, as you have to measure input to the final. FM requires expensive test equipment, and you can't rely on range measurements. FM range depends on the sensitivity of the receiver/antenna, terrain, obstructions, subjectiveness of what listenability means, etc. and can vary hugely.
I recently did some research on a Maxell FMT (I think) car transmitter that was reviewed by both Hobbybroadcaster and in a post here. Taping said transmitter to a board, hanging it off a roof, got an individual (reporting at Part15.us, i.e., here) well over 200 meters range. At Hobbybroadcaster, they reported 50 meters after being cajoled into reviewing it by the same individual. We don't know how or where the latter tested it, what they meant by a listenable signal, what kind of receiver was used. All we know is that the results were substantially different.
We do know that adding audio cables to transmitters can change the field strength. So now we're only supposed to transmit dead carrier because we might not be compliant?
In fact, changing the orientation of the transmitting antenna will change the field strength. Surrounding objects will change it. Putting the transmitter on a metal shelf will change it.
Range means nothing. The only constant is certification.
It's somewhat of a moot point, as most pirates will not use Part 15 certified equipment. And it's highly unlikely that users of Part 15 certified equipment, whether actually compliant or not, will bother anyone and generate a complaint and/or investigation.
I bring it up because certification, at least in the U.S., appears to be a moving target, and not given enough attention by the FCC. When transmitters that have removeable antennae (and common connectors) can be certified, multiple power levels, etc., then you have a real problem. They can be marketed and sold, and will be used. Come down hard on the labs to ensure that devices are being properly certified, and you will have far fewer problems overall.