• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

Anytone Tech (aka Baofeng Tech) is deliberately misleading consumers.

Status
Not open for further replies.

rapidcharger

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
2,382
Location
The land of broken calculators.
I am writing this post at the request of others to expound upon my discovery of Anytone Tech's wild claims that their “8R” series radios are certified for multiple radio services.

I put some time into this and I request that moderators do not merge it into any existing threads as I feel it is important that consumers find this without any unrelated commentary.

Brief background...
Anytone Tech has released 4 radios for sale to the general public. Those models are marketed under the trade names “Annihilator”, “Instigator”, “Obliterator”, and “Terminator.”

Anytone Tech claims that all four radios are part 90 certified and that the Obliterator and Terminator are part 95 certified for both MURS and GMRS in addition to being part 90 certified. The manufacturer of the radios testified that the Obliterator and Terminator are identical radios just with a different trade name.

Anytone Tech assures consumers in their marketing literature that these radios are fully compliant and certified although the user manuals tell a little different story. They are placing a lot of emphasis on the certification because they know a lot of radio buyers are looking for a radio they can legally use in more than one radio service.

First, to address the part 90 certification, none of the 4 radios are in fact certified for part 90 as of their March 9 release date or the date I am posting this. They are labeling these 4 radios with an FCC ID number ( t4k-qzqx3318 ) that was issued for a completely different model radio (the model was 3318UV) back in May of 2014.
That radio is shown here. And here.
As you can see, there aren't many similarities between the 3318UV and the 8R series models being offered for sale by Anytone Tech, to the general public.
Furthermore, the manufacturer testified that the radio that was certified was not frequency agile.

Certifications are not transferable from one company to the next and are only good for the equipment specifically stated on the authorization letter.


Second, to address the GMRS grant, they did get a certification (ID t4k-8rseries) for part 95- A, GMRS however it was for an emission type that the radio is not capable of emitting. (15k0f3e)
And the product must not be sold to the general public. It is currently for sale to the general public on _Amazon.

Third, there was a separate grant for part 95-J, MURS, with the same 15k0f3e emission designator however it only grants power output to 0.19 watt. No, not 1.9 watts, 0.19 (King Henry Died Merrily Drinking Chocolate Milk). The radio is not capable of transmitting at 0.19 watt nor is it capable of that emission type.

A dualbander has never been granted certification for GMRS and MURS before and the reason for that is because the FCC rules and regulations
1.) do not permit a MURS transmitter to have more than 2 watts output in any condition §95.639 (H)
2.) will not certify a MURS transmitter that is capable of operating on frequencies outside of the 5 MURS frequencies. §95.655 (D)

The user manual doesn't seem to agree completely with the marketing materials.
It specifically states that the device “complies with part 90” (it doesn't, but that's not the point I'm making) but stops short of saying it has been certified for part 90. Then in the very next paragraph, it specifically states that the device has been “type accepted” and “certified” for GMRS and MURS operation. So evidently the manual doesn't want to come right out and say the radio is certified for part 90 because they know full well that it isn't. Unlike with websites, and facebook comments, you can't just delete what it says in a user manual when people have an actual copy of it in hand.


Who cares? Why am I making a federal case out of this? We just want to have fun!

The reason I bring this up is because the marketing material is misleading and untruthful and I don't think it's right if consumers are taken advantage of. And it could end up costing lives if these products end up in the hands of a public safety responder as they suggest the product is suitable for through the use of imagery of fire fighters and using the term "public" instead of "citizen". We know from past posts on this forum that folks in public safety buy these budget radios not fully understanding the difference.

I don't know of any public safety radio that cannot be transmitted for longer than a minute and must have a 50/50 duty cycle or else it will overheat so badly that it can cause nearby objects to melt.

Anytone Tech has chosen their language carefully and deliberately. There is no doubt they want to claim the product is truly certified when it isn't. In addition, Anytone Tech has taken deliberate actions to conceal their identity and location so if they were to be held accountable for their deceptive practices, the most anyone is going to get out of them is …
anytonlyingscum9e_zps4ihddl5b.gif


It is stuff like this that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of people who are new to the hobby. Especially when they have a radio that doesn't work and they want to send it for warranty service and the dealer goes unresponsive. If someone can't politely ask a simple question on Anytone Tech's facebook page without it getting deleted and being blocked from asking any other questions, what do you think they're going to be like to deal with when you have a problem with your radio?


Notes and disclaimers:
Clicking the links takes you to a completely different website with my supporting documentation.
I got most of my information from the 3rd party website FCCID.net as well as the user manual. I did not get this information from the FCC as it wasn't available there at the time I reviewed it. This information is offered without any warranty nor guarantees of its accuracy and I shall not be held responsible for any errors or omissions from the information posted on any third party website. This post has been my opinion and not the opinion of this website, its owners, nor my employer.
 

WyoDuner

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
158
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Hmm.... Clearly you have put a lot of thought and effort into this and I applaud the effort. However, I personally don't share your stance on the matter. I think the life and death comments and transmitting for more than a minute lest it melt nearby objects might be making a big deal out of nothing. Anyway, I have no problems at all with Chinese radios and own a few but personally don't see myself buying one of these. Price is too high with nothing to offer (me at least) over a Baofeng or Wouxun.

Should be an interesting thread.

On edit.... Thinking about this a bit more, what's wrong with a low cost part 90 certified radio for commercial users who can't afford Motorola, etc? Surely the local golf course, warehouse or grocery store isn't depending on these radios as a matter of life and death. If they are not actually certified then that's a matter for the FCC to pursue with he manufacturer or distributor who slapped a FCC label on the radios. Consumer is not liable for that.

What's wrong with inexpensive radios for hobbyist or amateur communications? Same thing people are using Baofeng, Wouxuns, etc for now. Is it legal the way most people are using these radios - probably not in most cases but is it worth hunting these people down and prosecuting them for transmitting on FRS frequencies on ther UV-5R???
 
Last edited:

MTS2000des

5B2_BEE00 Czar
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,173
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
RapidCharger put alot of effort into this and this is the type of stuff that makes a difference.

The facts are that this company is marketing products with misleading statements. From his revelations, the supposed "certifications" are dubious at best and may not even be valid considering the numbers return to totally different products being marketed and sold by a totally different company at that.

I have forwarded this to the FCC and we will say what they say on the matter.

It IS a valid concern when products are advertised and marketed fit for a particular purpose and they clearly aren't.

The fact that this distributor/vendor goes through much trouble to hide their identity is shady. Plain and simple. Legitimate distributors of Chinese radios like PowerWerx have their information right on front street, no vagaries or hiding behind post office boxes or blocking simple comments on Facebook:
Contact Us

(I have no affiliation with them, just providing an example)

I have no problem with Chinese radios, I've probably owned just about every model from Baofeng and Wouxun made since they first came in off the boat 4 or 5 years ago. The Puxing radios are the real "sleepers" that offer surprisingly good performance.

But with some exception (Powerwerx) many sellers/importers boast outright shady and fraudulent claims of actual real world part 90 certifications. Any radio with a VFO is not a true part 90 radio, not my rules, those are the FCC's. Same goes for MURS. You can't have a MURS radio put out more than 2 watts. Claiming a radio is MURS, GMRS, and Part 90 certified is huge claim in the book of regulations the FCC puts out. Anyone who tells this tale better expect people to check the facts. It's one of those claims that sound great on the surface, but when you scratch and sniff, you smell feces pieces.

Consumers who pay a premium price for an imported Chinese walkie-talkie on chip radio believing they are getting one thing but really are getting another are being deceived. It's as simple as that.

If AnyTone Tech or whoever they are this week wasn't aggressively promoting these radios as being "multi-service FCC certified" I wouldn't have an issue.

I will await the FCC's response. I am SURE they will put these so-called certifications under a microscope now, as they should have been doing all along.

Maybe that's why the proprietors of AnyTone Tech would block someone when they ask legitimate questions about the FCC certifications authenticity or not want their real address shown? After all, the FCC usually sends cease and desists and notice and/or NAL's via USPS certified mail.

I guess the postmaster is gonna be scratching his head in Arlington, SD. :roll:
 

WyoDuner

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
158
Location
Las Vegas, NV
You guys are making the assumptions that they are a shady company, faked FCC certifications, radios will not perform in commercial use and are not of high quality. What factual evidence is there to support any of this? FCC certs aren't different for cosmetic variations. Just because a radio looks different means nothing.
 

gesucks

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
698
Location
Our Nation's capitol
Anytone radios are made by Qixiang Electron Science& Technology Co., Ltd as shown on their FCC grant. Qixiang Electron Science& Technology Co., Ltd does not have any radio that is Part 90 Type accepted that is also Type accepted for any of Part.
They have 1 radio that is Part 95A only.

They have nothing that can be legally sold in the us as a Part 95 and Part 90 radio.
 

prcguy

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
15,224
Location
So Cal - Richardson, TX - Tewksbury, MA
Anytone Tech appears to be independent from Anytone and could simply have requested Qixiang mfr them a custom version of an existing radio, which Anytone Tech is pursuing FCC type acceptance for. My guess is they are seeking FCC type acceptance and have banked a lot of advertising and product on a favorable outcome which may or may not materialize.
prcguy

Anytone radios are made by Qixiang Electron Science& Technology Co., Ltd as shown on their FCC grant. Qixiang Electron Science& Technology Co., Ltd does not have any radio that is Part 90 Type accepted that is also Type accepted for any of Part.
They have 1 radio that is Part 95A only.

They have nothing that can be legally sold in the us as a Part 95 and Part 90 radio.
 

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
11,225
Location
Wichita Falls, TX
Check out https://hamgear.wordpress.com
The FCC IDs are posted there as well as pictures of four boxes. Two of the boxes have lables with two FCC IDs.
The documentation on the FCC web site shows lables with only one FCC ID.
I have no idea if the FCC would allow a particular product to have more than one FCC ID.
 

gesucks

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
698
Location
Our Nation's capitol
The FCC does not. I do not need to see a box. I asked to see the radios label. According to the FCC these are 2 different radio. One radio can not use both FCC ID's
 

gesucks

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
698
Location
Our Nation's capitol
Thank you for the input. If you do not have one of the radios and can not provide FACTS, please leave it at that. We are not looking for guessing for more misleading statements.

Just the facts
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
And exactly what "facts" does the OP have, if he doesn't have any of the radios in question in his possession???
 

gesucks

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
698
Location
Our Nation's capitol
I dont know but I will tell you want facts I have.

FCC records and law. And what Anytone Tech is claiming and what the FCC records show and what the law requires do not match up
 

WyoDuner

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
158
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Clearly, there are a couple of people here that have it out for Anytone Tech and Baofeng Tech... Fine, whatever, hate who you want for whatever reason you want. But.... Airing all this BS on a public forum is childish and serves no point whatsoever but to try to do harm to those businesses.
 

Voyager

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2002
Messages
12,060

They may be technically the same minus firmware. The OBLTR-8R is missing 3 bands, crossband repeat, dual receive, and perhaps other features. I would not call that "identical" as far as sales go even if the hardware is identical.

First, to address the part 90 certification, none of the 4 radios are in fact certified for part 90 as of their March 9 release date or the date I am posting this. They are labeling these 4 radios with an FCC ID number ( t4k-qzqx3318 ) that was issued for a completely different model radio (the model was 3318UV) back in May of 2014.

I was surprised that the Uniden HP-2 didn't get a new certification despite having different hardware. I guess it's similar enough to be able to use the same FCC TA. Likewise, if this is just a 3318 in a different case and with different firmware, it's entirely plausible that the same FCC TA would apply.

There are several models of the 3318, BTW, and they all share the same TA, too.

Ironically, I was looking at the new radios in question, and decided that they weren't a substantial upgrade from my 3318 aside from the addition of the HF receive. (and how effective can that be?)

That radio is shown here. And here.
As you can see, there aren't many similarities between the 3318UV and the 8R series models being offered for sale by Anytone Tech, to the general public.

Outside, perhaps not. How about inside?


For FCC Part 90 compliance, you must disable the keypad entry. Same with any of the Part 90 radios. As long as they have that capability, and the lockout is enabled, they are Part 90 usable. Been that way since the Wouxun models several years ago.

Certifications are not transferable from one company to the next and are only good for the equipment specifically stated on the authorization letter.

And how exactly is Anytone a different company from Anytone? I think you're confusing manufacturers with dealers. Any number of dealers can sell the same radios without a new FCC TA.

As for equipment stated, how are others getting away with it, then? If you change the label on a radio, does that invalidate the FCC TA? I think not. The FCC TA is for the hardware. You can re-label the same radio, remove some features, and sell it without the need for a new TA.

Second, to address the GMRS grant, they did get a certification (ID t4k-8rseries) for part 95- A, GMRS however it was for an emission type that the radio is not capable of emitting. (15k0f3e)

Yea - like that doesn't look like a typo of 16K0F3E which is the standard GMRS emission.

That said, if they only pass audio at 4.5 kHz deviation and 3 kHz maximum frequency, you know what you have? A 15K0F3E transmission.

The reason I bring this up is because the marketing material is misleading and untruthful and I don't think it's right if consumers are taken advantage of.

You have some valid points, but some of them are full of holes.


Seriously? Look at some of the Motorola specs where the duty cycle is specified at 5-5-90. That's 5% TX. Not 50% - 5%.

Try running one at 50% with a melt-able object near the heatsink.

Again, not saying you don't have valid points, or that Anytone or AnytoneTech are not misleading (intentionally or otherwise), but some of your points just don't hold water.
 
Last edited:

W1MTW

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2008
Messages
17
Anytone Tech is NOT Anytone.

I emailed Ed Griffin at Wouxun.us (distributor for Anytone radios), and this is his response to my inquiry:

I don't know anything about that company or their
radios. It's strange that the physical location
of the company "Googles" to a local Post Office
and the domain name is registered to someone in Australia.

Ed

This will hopefully clean any confusion that these radios are NOT made by the same company that make the AT3318, or AT5888.
 

gesucks

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
698
Location
Our Nation's capitol
You can google good. Now find where it says you can have different FCC ID for the same unit with different types of type acceptance (90 and 95) and use both at the same time on the same radio.... hint you will not because you can not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top