RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Commercial, Professional Radio and Personal Radio > GMRS / FRS


GMRS / FRS - Discussions related to GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) and FRS (Family Radio Service) communications

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-06-2018, 7:30 PM
RFI-EMI-GUY's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,266
Default

With respect to the TR-505. This seems to be another case of a wonky dual service radio slipping past the "largely unwatching" eyes of the FCC OET. The FCC says they will no longer dual certify FRS, MURS and GMRS radios. I have some Motorola Systems Saber radios. These are certified for Part 95 GMRS and Part 90. They also do digital encryption which is a no no in GMRS. These radios were certified decades ago. They are legal today.

My opinions and observations of Cheap Chinese Radios;

I like to call them "low parts count radios" because that is what you are getting, for beer money. You must ask yourself why the Chinese can build a radio around a single IC chip when manufacturers like Motorola and Harris insist on putting hundreds of parts in their Part 90 radios. I can tell you the reason why, filtering at RF, IF and audio frequencies, a decent FM limiter to eliminate static and multipath pops, and compliance with industry minimum standards *.. You cannot put those passive and active parts inside a tiny slab of silicon. You can, do some fancy mathematics in DSP at IF and audio frequencies, but not with a $5 IC. Filtering the receiver front end and suppressing transmitter harmonics requires big expensive parts that you won't see in a $35 radio (or an overpriced CCR).

Then there are the "wonky" FCC certifications for these radios. The FCC only requires the radio to operate within certain spectrum masks for the modulation and harmonics. The FCC has no interest in whether the radio works well *. So lets say you are a Chinese manufacturer and you have a bunch of $5 transceiver chips and you want to turn them into radios to market them in the US. Instead of adding all those expensive filter parts that Motorola and Harris (and even Hytera) are obsessed with, you simply turn down the power and modulation until the radio passes under the spectrum mask. Who could possibly want to pay attention to the emission designation 5k6F3E or 10K3F3E? Just turn the mike gain up! Or that the radio must not be set to over 1.09616 watts or all hell breaks loose. You get what you pay for.

The new crop of radio enthusiasts seem to be obsessed with how cheaply they can buy a "radio", not with how well it will work in the real world. A lot like hypermilers who try to get 200 mpg even if it means removing all the seats and spare tires, tearing out the AC compressor and sliding through a few red lights.

*TIA603D defines MINIMUM performance specs for land mobile radios. Does your CCR comply with TIA603D ? Nope.
__________________
"Have Spectrum Analyzer, - Will travel" "Going Green"

Last edited by RFI-EMI-GUY; 07-06-2018 at 7:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 12:58 AM
K6LED's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmckenna View Post
It's not the FCC that passes muster on these things.

...

The FCC didn't make the mistake, the manufacturer did.
Well, again, I'm told that the FCC is well aware of this radio and has chosen not to do anything about it, and further that they are okay with it, as certified, and as marketed either as a 4W GMRS or a 2W MURS. If I were the manufacturer, I probably wouldn't bother to correct it if the FCC had conveyed this to me, because there's really no upside to it, other than maybe hushing up some of the independent radio police.
__________________
RF Geek, Audio/Music Editor/Composer, WP Web Designer, Mac Freak
Authorized TERA Reseller & Owner of BetterSafeRadio.com
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 1:05 AM
K6LED's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueSteward View Post
Here are the results of a test I just ran. TR-505 vs Yaesu FT-60R @ 442.0 MHz and with both units operating at max power. It does appear there are additional harmonics the TR-505 are transmitting that aren't apparent on the Yaesu...
Interesting. I can't really see the detail in the images very well to see if those other harmonics are really an issue or not. I'd expect these to have somewhat less purity than an older big manufacturer radio, but given that the TR-505 is meant to operate in the 462-467MHz range, I'd like to see a test at a frequency these radios are actually designed to operate at, and also at 151-154MHz at 2W.
__________________
RF Geek, Audio/Music Editor/Composer, WP Web Designer, Mac Freak
Authorized TERA Reseller & Owner of BetterSafeRadio.com
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 1:12 AM
K6LED's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjonesinc View Post
So with this logic if someone built a radio and has it certified at 2 watts of power but it was capable of running 120 watts it would be okay. The complaint is they certified it for lower power and make it very simple to program higher in their software that's being sold by them. Could it be because it would pass on low power but harmonics and other issues showed up on high power? Not saying RogueSteward is using the same equipment as the lab that did the certification but obviously there's something going on here. Shame yaesu went through of manufacturing their radio correctly and having it test appropriately. Could have save a pile of cash otherwise.
Umm, no, what form of logic are you applying here, fuzzy logic?

Of course it wouldn't go over what is limited for any given band, which in this case is 5W PEP for a handheld, right?

Come on, you're complaining about a 2.8W difference? OMG, call the FBI!

It's cute how you're so worried about another Asian manufacturer though. I'm sure if Yaesu was in the same market, they would be forced to be more competitive and design "thinner" radios as well. Just the same, I have people complimenting how good these radios sound compared to the FT60 and many other ham and commercial radios, and they cost a LOT less. That's kind of the point of business, and these radios are much better than the average Baofeng, or most of the other import radios.
__________________
RF Geek, Audio/Music Editor/Composer, WP Web Designer, Mac Freak
Authorized TERA Reseller & Owner of BetterSafeRadio.com
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 1:18 AM
K6LED's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmjonesinc View Post
Well welcome to the forums ozdsd. Hopefully he will return it and take one more junk radio off the band. If no one ever complains about all these imports people are just going to keep buying them and transmitting wherever they want and we'll have the jammers, poor harmonics, and interference to deal with.
What evidence do you have that the TERA is a "junk radio?" Just because you have concerns about the certification, which may or may not be valid concerns, you assume that the radio is junk? The OP even said that this radio works great for him on a daily basis, and outperformed his FT60.

Equating a TERA user with a jammer is wholly unfair, and you have no proof that they have "bad harmonics" or cause interference of any kind. You're basically just blowing smoke, for what reason, I don't know - maybe just to isht another people? Boredom? Jealousy that you spent so much more on your radios? I just don't understand the outrage.

When I use my TERAs and my Wouxuns and my AnyTone, nobody knows I'm on a "junk radio." In fact, I've had people ask what I'm using because they think they sound great and want to get one for themselves.

But suit yourself. Be a Debbie Downer and spew unsubstantiated claims if that's your thing.
__________________
RF Geek, Audio/Music Editor/Composer, WP Web Designer, Mac Freak
Authorized TERA Reseller & Owner of BetterSafeRadio.com
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 1:20 AM
K6LED's Avatar
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozdsd View Post
Take it for what it is. It is a cheap radio. Seriously! Let it go. It makes no sense to continue arguing.

If you are so unhappy with it, sell it on ebay with a small loss, buy Motorola, and be happy again.
Exactly! Go spend 4 times the amount on a radio that won't make any difference in the state of the world.
__________________
RF Geek, Audio/Music Editor/Composer, WP Web Designer, Mac Freak
Authorized TERA Reseller & Owner of BetterSafeRadio.com
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 7:03 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9
Default

I think these are good radios for what they are (I do not own one). They are $89 cheaper than my Motorola. On top of that they have features that my Motorola does not have like removable antenna and accessories I cannot get from my Motorola at all.

Technically, there is no proof that TERA would not pass the certification at 2W or full power. FCC knows that the radios are 2W. See the uploaded manual: https://fccid.io/2ACK8TR505/User-Man...Manual-2489539 The fact they they certified them at 1.104W while they overlooked the discrepancy in the manual is the FCC fault. FCC needs to do a better job.

I think there are bigger issues than the extra 3dB of power.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 9:59 AM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 9,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by K6LED View Post
Well, again, I'm told that the FCC is well aware of this radio and has chosen not to do anything about it, and further that they are okay with it, as certified, and as marketed either as a 4W GMRS or a 2W MURS.
FCC does not get involved in marketing. That would likely fall under the FTC.

And since the radio was certified under the lower power limits, they won't care. However, operating it outside it's type certification parameters is exactly that. You seem to be confusing not getting caught and being legal.

As a dealer, I can understand your desire to protect your investments.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 10:03 AM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 9,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozdsd View Post
Technically, there is no proof that TERA would not pass the certification at 2W or full power. FCC knows that the radios are 2W. See the uploaded manual: https://fccid.io/2ACK8TR505/User-Man...Manual-2489539 The fact they they certified them at 1.104W while they overlooked the discrepancy in the manual is the FCC fault.
As I laid it out above, the FCC does not do the testing. They don't read the manuals. The way the FCC has it set up is that they lay out the rules. It's up to the manufacturer and testing labs to be honest, file accurate paper work, and make sure all the FCC requirements are met.

All the FCC knows is that the manufacturer/lab have said that the radio meets Part 95 specification as 1.104 watts. No more, no less.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ozdsd View Post
FCC needs to do a better job.
That they do.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 12:00 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 9
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmckenna View Post
They don't read the manuals.
They should read it and if they do not it is a disservice to all you here who are so critical. Do you realize that if FCC read it this thread would not exist?
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 07-07-2018, 3:47 PM
mmckenna's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: WTVLCA01DS0
Posts: 9,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozdsd View Post
They should read it and if they do not it is a disservice to all you here who are so critical. Do you realize that if FCC read it this thread would not exist?
The better scenario would be for the FCC OET to actually spot check these things before they hit the market.

However, the rules are clear. Failing to understand the rules doesn't mean the rules no longer apply.
I can take any commercial radio off the shelf and beat at it with the service software and force it to work outside it's type certification. Power level, spurious emissions, over deviation, etc.
That would void it's type certification. The fact that the programming/service software allows me to do something stupid like that doesn't make it legal. There's a point where the guy tweaking the radio has to show a level of responsibility. Claiming it's "OK" because the FCC should have known that some lunkhead could do something stupid is childish.

There comes a time in ones career where you realize that doing things correctly the first time is a lot easier than trying to scam the system to let you get off easy. Professionals understand that. Amateurs do not.

The key issue is that we are dealing with those that do not understand what they are doing or what the rules say. Ignorance is not a valid defense.

Last edited by mmckenna; 07-07-2018 at 3:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions