That's nice. Are those the only types of businesses who can enter the market? I'm also aware of modules, but using them is not free.
Your concept of the law is more wrong, and this I offer as proof: Language is imprecise and limited. It is more likely that the text of the law fails to track the intent of the law than otherwise.
Throughout this I have never said I would disregard a notice that a product I had made was emitting or otherwise faulty, and indeed I believe that is the first check on most low volume products that are sold "without certification."
To behave otherwise, and allow the prior limiting of otherwise benign and nondisruptive behavior, is to give in to petty tyranny and against the founding ethos of the United States.
Seriously, this is like arguing with a sovereign citizen. The law isn't just some abstract philosophical ideal. The law is the set of rules that determine how the government exercises its hard power, including the power to block import of your product, seize money from your bank account, or, ultimately, send police to arrest you, with any necessary violence if you resist. EMC regulations tend to stay pretty far on the polite side of that spectrum; but the result when people with a delusional concept of law meet actual government power still typically isn't good.
Can you give an example of evidence that would convince you that your concept of the law is wrong? As I said above, you could show me case law where the text of the law was unambiguous and not preempted by other written law, but the judge disregarded it anyways. What could I show you?
ETA: And you moved the goalposts when you said you wouldn't disregard "a notice [from the FCC] that a product I had made was emitting or otherwise faulty". An uncertified intentional radiator is noncompliant, regardless of whether it conforms to the technical limits. The FCC is under no obligation to confirm anything beyond the lack of certification before ordering the product off the market. We're talking about the requirement for certification, not the requirement to meet the technical limits (which the certification confirms; but meeting the technical limits absolutely is not a defense to lacking certification).
So if the FCC just said "your product is uncertified, stop selling it", would you comply? If no, then I think you know bad things would follow. But if yes, then why? You seem to believe (contrary to the guidance you expect from the FCC, and contrary to the text of the law) that no certification is required, right?
See this in yourself as your second paragraph details all the ways the government is scary. Yes, I already know.
I can't think of an example because I know my concept of the law is not wrong. Do not mistake my philosophical groundings of what and why the law is for what I believe the law to actually be. I offered that explanation to you in an attempt to explain why I think what I do and why it is reasonable while also referencing particulars.
What we are discussing is particulars, and if you want to show me that selling low volumes of a product without certification is dangerous then probably I'd need a few examples of that happening, and multiple justices saying "every business, regardless of how big, small, or their product, must spend tens of thousands in red tape."
I did not move the goalposts by saying I wouldn't disregard reasonable notice. You assumed I would not without asking my input and I corrected you.
It depends on what my product is. If it was a low volume prototype I was selling to evaluators before certifying in detail I'd probably say "no, it is certified, it is test and measurement equipment" and then let the company fold in bankruptcy if taken to court. Eventually it may be found the actions of the FCC were unlawful and I might be compensated. If I was intent on immediately continuing to sell it I would move production outside the US and put it on a web store.
Keep in mind you've unfairly characterized what I believe by assuming things in multiple places. I am not a sovereign citizen, and I mostly agree the FCC certification process is appropriate and on the edge of being accessible, but how most people interpret it at the lower edge is not correct.
So when you write:
> If it was a low volume prototype I was selling to evaluators before certifying in detail I'd probably say "no, it is certified, it is test and measurement equipment" and then let the company fold in bankruptcy if taken to court. Eventually it may be found the actions of the FCC were unlawful and I might be compensated.
you have broken from reality. Any lawyer you engaged to defend you would explain that you have a losing argument, and that it would be far cheaper to comply than to pay their fees and then lose. Without a lawyer defending you, your odds would be yet worse. If you won, then you'd be lucky to get even a fraction of your legal fees awarded, let alone the lost profits. In every practical sense, you'd be worse off than if you recognized that while the requirement for certification isn't typically enforced, that's nonetheless the law, and that your best action would therefore be to apologize (with a lawyer's help, to avoid admitting any unnecessary guilt) and become compliant.
I'm not saying any of this is good! Enforcement discretion is basically bad, a transfer of power from legislators to enforcers. I'd prefer a system where something like the § 15.23 exemption applied to low-volume commercial products too, since that's what we de facto have and it works fine. But that's not the law now, and wishing doesn't make it so.
You're quite correct that lawyers give conservative advice because they know the cost of conservative compliance is generally lower than the cost of litigation even if you win. The lawyers that I work with sometimes find my tendency to read the regulations to be charmingly naive, because they prefer to simply ask the regulators--in part they're just a bit lazy, but they're also quite aware of the cost (both in legal fees and in friendliness of relationship) to take any conflicting position. I'm again not saying this is good, but it's the system we have.
Finally, if you did want to argue this, I believe you'd be better off saying it's an "evaluation kit" under 47 CFR § 2.803, not "test equipment":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.803
Per my original comment, I'm not convinced that's a winning argument for this board; but I believe it would be for typical dev boards (that really are used primarily by people evaluating a part for use in a different system, and not as general-purpose single-board computers), and it's at least not a frivolous argument. Note that compliance with the "evaluation kit" rules requires some magic language in the user manual--if you're selling anything that could plausibly fall under those rules, probably a good idea to include that. Note also that you can let customers evaluate unauthorized prototypes as long as you mark them accordingly and don't collect money for the evaluation, and that you can sign a sales contract (but not complete the sale) pre-authorization as long as it's contingent on authorization.
