Baofeng Baofeng uv-5r

[mmckenna]

...and because one of my personal principles is that I never program a frequency into a transceiver that I'm not authorized to transmit on. YMMV.

A couple of things on this:

1. I agree.
2. The FCC has a very specific rule about this on frequencies outside the ham bands.
3. It's just good manners. You never know who is going to get their hands on the radio.
4. I still agree. Anything like that gets programmed in as RX only with absolutely no way for the radio to transmit on those frequencies. It's professional standards, and some of us have commercial licenses we use as part of our jobs. Doing something stupid like that isn't worth the issues it would cause with my career. Maybe it is part of the difference between a amateur and a professional.
5. Integrity, it seems to be vanishing in our hobby, our industry, and in our industry.

 

[MTS2000des]

Problem is these road apples have been circulated by the millions completely "unlocked" to allow essentially VFO operation on part 90/95/97 and everything in between. Many of these sold on Chinazon wind up in the hands of people who don't know or care that they may be interfering with someone who paid good money for real radios, got coordinated, got a proper license.

These things should be as contraband as illegal narcotics and subject to confiscation and destruction by law enforcement. The best kind of destruction would be by fire (lithium ion batteries removed to prevent thermal runaway) or fed into a wood chipper and ground up into dust. Be great if we could ship the dust back to China.

 

[MUTNAV]

The receiver section has to meet Part 15, in most cases.
Some amplifiers that cover 10 meters require certification, or at least they did, it was because the FCC was making an attempt to block them from use on CB.
The radios still have to meet some very basic, easy to achieve standards that they not cause problems outside the ham bands. But not require type certification on the transmitter.

I know that home made ones don't require certification or acceptance, but I thought commercially made ones for the ham bands needed certification/acceptance.

Now I have to go and try and find it somewhere..



I base this on how new ham equipment is not allowed to be offered for sale, by ICOM etc... until accepted. Still looking for the actual rule.

(certified) by the FCC ?
Thanks
Joel

Ok... found it

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-980A1.pdf

Basically your correct, if a radio can only operate inside amateur radio bands, certification isn't needed...

I assume that when new radios are designed and ICOM etc... has to post the "not offered for sale until type accepted" notice is because they can receive outside of amateur bands, this is more of a question than a statement.

Thanks
Joel

 

[Bob1955]

Since you asked….


Just curious, what are you comparing it to?

I get it, if it works, it works. I have no issue with that. Just curious when someone speaks highly of a CCR what they are using as a reference point. Serious question, looking for a serious answer.



Nothing at all wrong with that. If it works, it works. No reason to buy more radio than you need. Absolutely no reason to buy a ham radio if you have no intent on getting your ham license. It's not the right tool for the job. I think @sallen07 was referring to another member who had their ham license.




Absolutely. It's discretionary hobby spending. If you have $25 to spend on a radio and you found one that does what you need, then good for you. If you had $100 to spend on a radio and found a $25 radio that does what you need, then you saved $75 bucks.

mmcKeanna-Exactly!
I'm only a novice (KB2GQK) but just wanted to try this newer Baofeng JUST to monitor my local fire district and Westchester County Department Of Emergency Service-EMS/Fire Paging only. I don't require a Yaesu FT-65R for that BUT if I had a technician's license, absolutely would NOT buy a Baofeng.

 

[mmckenna]

It's the "scanning receiver" portion of the radio that is the requirement. Part 15 stuff.

No type acceptance required on amateur radio transmitters used within, and only within, the amateur radio frequency allocations.

 

[WRQS621]

No debate, it's a piece of feces. They suck and you know it. Garbage pail radios built for the lowest common denominator. I would think someone with an extra class ham ticket would have a clue. Silly me.

That is your opinion. The one’s I have function extremely well. BTW, my journey and eventually passing the Extra taught me that radio is all about the antenna and propagation conditions. Anyone who has ever listened to AM radio can attest to that.

 

[jeepsandradios]

It's still a road apple radio that sounds like a road apple on the air. I ignore Bowelturds, not gonna listen to low, weak muffled audio and roger beeps. I love P25. Bowelturd free zone!

Thats one of the reasons I use P25. I know what ever radio is talking to me is a quality unit. I dabbled with DMR until all the CCR stuff ended up there on top of MMDVM boards on mobile radios. Turned into a wasteland. When it was XPR only stuff DMR sounded good. P25 for the win.

 

[MTS2000des]

Thats one of the reasons I use P25. I know what ever radio is talking to me is a quality unit. I dabbled with DMR until all the CCR stuff ended up there on top of MMDVM boards on mobile radios. Turned into a wasteland. When it was XPR only stuff DMR sounded good. P25 for the win.

P25 pretty much eliminates the lowest common denominator. To network P25 infrastructure, one actually has to have technical skills, and want to participate in the "Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art." as stated in 47 CFR 97.1 section B.

Bowelturds and other spurious emitting trash can radios in the hands of amateurs hardly embraces or embodies the above. It's just a low rent way for someone to use someone else' high quality and high cost infrastructure. Think about that part. All low end subscriber radios like this do is contribute to raising the noise floor with both spurious emissions, kerchunking of repeaters, and unauthorized operation on just about every radio service between 136 and 520MHz.

 

[AK9R]

No type acceptance required on amateur radio transmitters used within, and only within, the amateur radio frequency allocations.

With a couple of exceptions:
§ 15.121 sets a whole list of restrictions on "scanning receivers" which are defined as "a receiver that automatically switches among two or more frequencies in the range of 30 to 960 MHz and that is capable of stopping at and receiving a radio signal detected on a frequency." [Yes, I know, you said "transmitters" and I'm bringing receivers into the conversation.]
§ 97.315 requires that external RF power amplifiers must be certificated for use in the amateur service. Exemptions are made for amps constructed or modified by an amateur radio operator for use at an amateur radio station or for amps manufactured before April 28, 1978.
§ 97.317 describes the standards for certification of RF power amplifiers including spurious emissions in compliance with § 97.307 (d) or (e), incapable of more than 15 dB gain, incapable of amplification between 26 and 28 MHz, incapable of being operated outside the Amateur Radio Service, or incapable of being easily modified for operate between 26 and 28 MHz.

There is one point that the proponents of using "cheap, Chinese radios" in the amateur radio service miss time and time again. When you sign FCC Form 605, either by hand or electronically, to apply for or renew an amateur radio license, you are indicating that you not only know the amateur radio rules (FCC Part 97) but agree to abide by them. That means all of Part 97, including the technical standards in § 97.301 through § 97.317. When it comes to § 97.307, which describes the emission standards for transmitters in the amateur radio service, many hams are simply ignorant of what the rule says. Ignorance is no excuse--amateur radio operators are required to follow § 97.307.

So, when a ham tells me that their Baofeng "functions extremely well" or "satisfies their needs", I think it's entirely reasonable to ask them if they are aware of § 97.307 and if they have seen their radio's transmitted signal on a spectrum analyzer. Many of them answer "no" to both questions. And, in my experience, if you show them the rule and then show them the output of their radio on a spectrum analyzer, they say that they don't care and go on their merry way. Therein lies the problem.

 

[MTS2000des]

There is one point that the proponents of using "cheap, Chinese radios" in the amateur radio service miss time and time again. When you sign FCC Form 605, either by hand or electronically, to apply for or renew an amateur radio license, you are indicating that you not only know the amateur radio rules (FCC Part 97) but agree to abide by them. That means all of Part 97, including the technical standards in § 97.301 through § 97.317. When it comes to § 97.307, which describes the emission standards for transmitters in the amateur radio service, many hams are simply ignorant of what the rule says. Ignorance is no excuse--amateur radio operators are required to follow § 97.307.

So, when a ham tells me that their Baofeng "functions extremely well" or "satisfies their needs", I think it's entirely reasonable to ask them if they are aware of § 97.307 and if they have seen their radio's transmitted signal on a spectrum analyzer. Many of them answer "no" to both questions. And, in my experience, if you show them the rule and then show them the output of their radio on a spectrum analyzer, they say that they don't care and go on their merry way. Therein lies the problem.

That part. When confronted with this, many hams respond with typical "consequence free" attitudes like "The FCC doesn't care so why should you?"

This is the cornerstone of the issue with many hams who don't understand the basis and purpose of the amateur radio service. 97.1(b) says we are supposed to be "contributing to the amateur's proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art" but it is difficult to comply with this when amateurs insist on using substandard equipment that doesn't comply with 97.301 thru 97.317, the amateur gives the middle finger to the FCC and refuses to acknowledge that just because they don't agree with the rules that means following them is optional.

I've actually encountered a "YouTube" ham on Facebook who got upset because I pointed out another Chinese vendor of road apples was trying to pass off a bogus FCC OET ID on a product being improperly marketed to amateurs as a "GMRS and ham" transceiver when the rules clearly do not allow this. GMRS radios can ONLY transmit on part 95(e) frequencies. He didn't like this but went on a diatribe about how the FCC is a joke, doesn't care, doesn't enforce rules, blah blah blah. "Been in radio for 38 years" (CB), so that entitles one to be an SME on all things radio but FORK THE RULES. A ham of less than a year but clearly one who is very misinformed about the basis and purpose of amateur radio. He/she is not alone.

Ladies and gentlemen, what separates the amateur radio service from others is as outlined in 47 CFR 97.1(c) and (d) from other radio services is:

(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts.

Using and promoting the use of equipment which is proven to be historically non-compliant with 97.301 through 97.317 completely contradicts why amateur radio is here and still exists and completely contradicts the intended basis and purposes as outlined in 47 CFR 97.1 paragraphs C and D.

We as amateurs are supposed to KNOW BETTER and should DO BETTER. I digress, in today's "consequence free USA" of late, no one likes to be made to follow rules and no one likes to be told NO.

There in lies the real problem!

 

[mmckenna]

In an earlier post I asked a ham that expressed their like for the CCR's what they were using as a benchmark.
Never got a reply.

I'm not trying to stir anything up, just trying to figure out the wide difference between experiences.

I ended up inheriting a site at work that came with about 5 Baofengs on a UHF repeated system. Customer was complaining of really poor audio quality. Sounded like low deviation, muddy audio, etc.
UV-5Rs were their radios of choice. I programmed up a Kenwood TK-3180 and most of their complaints dissolved. I had them replace their Baofengs with some used/refurbished TK-390's and they were mostly happy. The repeaters still needed some work, but it wasn't the core issue. Along the way, they went with a few NX-3300's and a bunch of NX-1300's. Customer is really happy with the system now.

The Baofengs showed low deviation on PL, DTMF etc. At the time, I didn't have a way to inject a tone into the audio path to see the audio deviation, but based on the others, I knew what the issue was. A few others were quite a ways off frequency, one was up around 500Hz off. These were all relatively fresh Baofengs. QC seems to be a big issue, the amount of variance between a few radios was pretty extreme.

The Kenwood's fixing the issue told me what I needed to know.

As I've said before, ham radio is a hobby, and I totally get having a restricted budget. Not all of us have the discretionary funds to blow on radios. The less expensive radios can be a great way to get started.

But there is a real deep gap here between experiences. I'd love to hear an honest answer as to what the benchmark is when comparing audio quality.

 

[Bob1955]

It's the "scanning receiver" portion of the radio that is the requirement. Part 15 stuff.

No type acceptance required on amateur radio transmitters used within, and only within, the amateur radio frequency allocations.

I'm ONLY using it in "frequency mode" and I'm a "MATURE" guy and WOULD never transmit on it.

 

[Bob1955]

With a couple of exceptions:
§ 15.121 sets a whole list of restrictions on "scanning receivers" which are defined as "a receiver that automatically switches among two or more frequencies in the range of 30 to 960 MHz and that is capable of stopping at and receiving a radio signal detected on a frequency." [Yes, I know, you said "transmitters" and I'm bringing receivers into the conversation.]
§ 97.315 requires that external RF power amplifiers must be certificated for use in the amateur service. Exemptions are made for amps constructed or modified by an amateur radio operator for use at an amateur radio station or for amps manufactured before April 28, 1978.
§ 97.317 describes the standards for certification of RF power amplifiers including spurious emissions in compliance with § 97.307 (d) or (e), incapable of more than 15 dB gain, incapable of amplification between 26 and 28 MHz, incapable of being operated outside the Amateur Radio Service, or incapable of being easily modified for operate between 26 and 28 MHz.

There is one point that the proponents of using "cheap, Chinese radios" in the amateur radio service miss time and time again. When you sign FCC Form 605, either by hand or electronically, to apply for or renew an amateur radio license, you are indicating that you not only know the amateur radio rules (FCC Part 97) but agree to abide by them. That means all of Part 97, including the technical standards in § 97.301 through § 97.317. When it comes to § 97.307, which describes the emission standards for transmitters in the amateur radio service, many hams are simply ignorant of what the rule says. Ignorance is no excuse--amateur radio operators are required to follow § 97.307.

So, when a ham tells me that their Baofeng "functions extremely well" or "satisfies their needs", I think it's entirely reasonable to ask them if they are aware of § 97.307 and if they have seen their radio's transmitted signal on a spectrum analyzer. Many of them answer "no" to both questions. And, in my experience, if you show them the rule and then show them the output of their radio on a spectrum analyzer, they say that they don't care and go on their merry way. Therein lies the problem.

Too MUCH technical stuff here and WHO has the time to read this! CHILL OUT dude!

 

[Bob1955]

How many years will this debate continue? It is a walkie talkie. Seriously, grow up.

KY4OA- Yes, it's a "WALKIE TALKIE" and you are right, they need to SERIOUSLY, grow up! Too much technical stuff on this site and who really cares!!
There are "choices" in this world and I'm "NEVER" going to be told what to do or not to do when it comes to making a purchase.
I'm SICK of this DEBATE 24/7 already.

 

[KevinC]

Too MUCH technical stuff here and WHO has the time to read this! CHILL OUT dude!

I agree. All this technobabble is silly. If I wanted technical info I’d go to Reddit.

 

[Bob1955]

I agree. All this technobabble is silly. If I wanted technical info I’d go to Reddit.

KevinC: This is "exactly" why I don't pay $30 a year to support this group. "ENOUGH" of all of this technical garbage from "some" members that are obviously "frustrated" here in this group. Just chill out as this world is tough enough now for everyone!! All you read/hear about are active shooters/police officers killed and my son is a police officer too. ENOUGH!!

 

[AK9R]

Too much technical stuff on this site and who really cares!!

This site is about all aspects of the radio hobby. Radio is technical. If you don't care to engage in technical details, why are you participating?

However, as a licensed amateur radio operator, you are bound by the rules. It doesn't matter that you think the rules are too technical and it doesn't matter that you don't care to abide by them. You signed a federal document saying that you would follow the rules.

I'm "NEVER" going to be told what to do or not to do when it comes to making a purchase.

Nobody is telling you to not purchase a Baofeng. However, I do notice in post #12 in this thread where you told the OP to buy a Yaesu FT-65 and in post #32 where you again told the OP to buy an FT-65. In that post you also acknowledged that "the Baofeng UV-5R has a crappy front end and VERY low audio as the other one is 1 watt of audio output compared to 700 milliwatt's." So, I guess it's OK for you to tell someone else what to buy, but it's not OK for some of us who appreciate the technical details and want to follow the rules to tell someone that buying a Baofeng might be a bad idea.

I'm SICK of this DEBATE 24/7 already.

You can check out any time. Heck, I'll make it easy for you by giving you a 7-day reply ban in this thread

 

[MUTNAV]

It's the "scanning receiver" portion of the radio that is the requirement. Part 15 stuff.

No type acceptance required on amateur radio transmitters used within, and only within, the amateur radio frequency allocations.

Not just used, but able to be used only in the amateur allocations....

Which brings the question as to why ICOM etc... puts the "can't be offered for sale" notice on all of their new radios, when they clearly aren't set up for out of band operations from the box...

Thanks
Joel

 

[N4KVE]

Not just used, but able to be used only in the amateur allocations....

Which brings the question as to why ICOM etc... puts the "can't be offered for sale" notice on all of their new radios, when they clearly aren't set up for out of band operations from the box...

Thanks
Joel

I think that’s for part 15 approval. Not any of the 90 approvals. To me the CCR’s make great targets at the range.

 

[TomLine]

I wonder how the bands really sounded back in the day when guys were building their own rigs? The Doren Brothers in my home town made radio parts and I still run across some scary looking radios from time to time.