RFM69* - FCC Certified Module?

[jefemauna]

Hello! First post in this forum but I've been a lurker for a little while. Obligatory "I did search for this topic extensively, read every post regarding this subject, and the few that addressed this topic were a few years old"

I want to bring a product to market in the U.S. 915 MHz is perfect for me; 2.4 is overkill and 433 is not enough kbps. I'm an excellent Arduino programmer and I have built a functional prototype of my product with the HopeRF RFM69 and an Arduino thanks to the excellent library. RE FCC regulations, I do NOT want to get certified as an intentional radiator. I want to use an FCC-certified module and document that my product conforms to those standards (Class B unintentional radiation certification is unavoidable but much easier to pass). See the F.C.C.'s cliff notes on this process here: http://acstestlab.com/wp-content/uploads/KDB-996369-D01-Module-Certification-Guide-v02-10-23-2015.pdf.

The gist is that if I use an FCC-certified module, and conform to the specifications/antenna used in the module's certification testing, I can label my product with "this product contains FCC ID XXXYYYYAAA" and legally sell it in the U.S after getting the host product certified for unintentional radiation.

Is there a vendor who makes the RFM69* in an FCC certified modular package? Similar to how G-NiceRF makes an FCC-certified module version of the Nordic NRF2401 (certified module is called RF2401PRO).

If not an exact copy of the RFM69, if I find someone who uses the Semtech SX1231 transceiver in an FCC-certified module would the Arduino library work with that?

Thanks y'all!
Jefe

[TomWS]

... I want to use an FCC-certified module and document that my product conforms to those standards (Class B unintentional radiation certification is unavoidable but much easier to pass). ...

Yeah, good goal.  As far as I know, only 2.4GHz modules have received FCC Modular approval and those are for a limited set of protocols.  I could be wrong, I've not been following the latest developments in that regard and who knows what the 'FCC' is 'thinking' these days!  (Who could possibly think Net Neutrality is a bad thing?)

ISM bands exist with certain constraints and, as long as your product operates within those constraints, you won't have a problem.  And the RFM69 is capable of operating within those constraints.  However, if you want to sell a product that is an RF emitter then you will have to prove to the FCC that you do not violate those constraints and, with a module like RFM69 with all the SW controllable knobs, that will require putting your product in their hands and running it through all its capabilities before you'll get a certification.

I invite others to chime in and prove me wrong (PLEASE!), but I don't think I am...
Tom

[Felix]

Jefe,
I think what you are talking about is called "modular certification". That's a different thing from having your off the shelf product certified. It's like saying an engine is working to standards, but says nothing about a potential vehicle that it might be installed in and how that vehicle ECU controls it, or whether that vehicle is certified and ready for the road. I hope this analogy makes sense.
Modular cert helps though when you cert your whole product, they have less testing to do.

FWIW - I have seen some independent lab tests on RFM69, done in china of course, by HopeRF, showing passing limits on all tests, but they don't imply modular certification, just shows the modules are not producing RF that is out of whack. That's good to know, assuming it's not rigged in any way. Hope uses custom packaged SX1231h chips, produced to standards by reputable Semtech (by all accounts and evidence I and others could produce). Hope then adds impedance matching and filtering to the SX chip to produce their modules.

[jefemauna]

Yep - there are a few modules I've found in the 915 MHz range with FCC certification, but they're awful to develop on. Microchip makes one but the SDK is horrendous and I would need to build my own library. I really want a module with an arduino library...

[jefemauna]

To follow onto this - would the Arduino libraries for the RFM69 work with any module based on the same Semtech transceiver?

[Felix]

You mean the RFM69 library (or forks/derivations) by Low Power Lab?

[stern0m1]

This interests me greatly.

A modular grant would greatly minimize the cost for overall FCC compliance. In various cases, such as a device meant to function in a car would not anything from the FCC.

Why dont we find FCC certified modules in the Sub GHz range?

Thanks

[brolly759]

I am working with HopeRF on an FCC certified module and went for FCC Lab testing before the holidays. I am receiving the FCC report either tomorrow or Friday but was told that things are looking good. It uses the Atmega328P + RF69 up to +20db with a Fractus EZconnect chip antenna .

[stern0m1]

What kind of pricing are we looking at?

Pardon my ignorance but why do we need the atmega mcu? What not just the hoperf module.

[brolly759]

You cannot FCC certify just the radio without a co-processor. Without a co processor to set the registers and send data the RF chip is useless and you cannot test connection. Sometimes they have the RF + MCU on 1 chip and that can be certified together but just the RF alone will not work.

As far as pricing is concerned, that still needs to be ironed out once I bet volume / moq pricing from the manufacturer. If I had to give an educated guess it would be around the $15 - $17 dollar mark like the xBee modules for one off orders and bulk pricing will be lower.

[z-e-b-r-a]

@ brolly759: have you been successful with that antenna & FCC?

[jra]

Not the RFM69* but there is a RFM95CW (915MHz LoRa) with an FCC ID 2ASEORFM95C stamped on the case:

https://www.hoperf.com/modules/lora/RFM95CW.html
https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2ASEORFM95C

Have not actually seen one in person, supposed to be orderable from http://www.anarduino.com/details.jsp?pid=298.