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

[jvfreetage]

What a load of crap!!!!

I just got done reading this entire thread, and I have GOT to throw the BS flag.

First of all, why are people being "armchair lawyers"? I understand that everyone has an opinion, but when I see a letter which is FABRICATED I tend to feel the need to weigh in.

Mr. "rapidcharger",

This is directed specifically at you. It appears that you have a problem with inexpensive radio equipment, and are looking for a fight with someone. I personally don't care about equipment, but what I do care about is when someone fabricates an official looking letter to "stir the pot".

How do I know it is a fabrication? Anyone who is a LICENSED GMRS and Amateur radio operator knows the basics of frequency allocation and wattage restrictions. As a GMRS operator I KNOW my frequencies and I KNOW the wattage restrictions. And if I ever forget? This website has a WONDERFUL page which refreshes my memory.

FRS/GMRS combined channel chart - The RadioReference Wiki

It really takes the Part 95 frequency allocations and breaks it down into an easy to read format. So why did I put a link to that page? In your fabricated letter, you wrote in section 2 that the seven channels shared with FRS are limited to 500 mW. Do you even know what the wattage limit is for a licensed GMRS operator is on those frequencies? Better read the chart because it is 5 WATTS!!!! Did you really think that people would take this garbage at face value?

I won't go into the other points, because they are finite and probably too technical for you to understand, because you can't even grasp a simple wattage restriction, but suffice it to say that a radio can not operate GMRS and MURS frequencies at the same time. Guess what... the TERMN-8R doesn't. You can program those frequencies in, but then it's all on you not the radio.

Mr. "rapidcharger" I don't know what your motivations are to try and smear a radio, but you really screwed up on this one. If you want to give your opinion on something, and say something is a piece of crap, that's fine. In fact I ENCOURAGE it. If you want to argue finite points of FCC regulations, GO FOR IT!! But the minute you FAKE an official looking letter with bogus information, make sure you do your homework first and make sure you fabricate something just a little believable.

 

[hotdjdave]

Lame

I hope that Anytone Tech (and any other company taking on the same venture) gets this straightened out with the FCC. There SHOULD be radios that are Part Certified for multi-use - it's something they should have done all along. It's lame that there aren't any radios that can do this, or lame that the rules disallow it - however you look at it.

I applaud any company trying to make this a reality, and also caution that any company attempting to do so get it right (and certified) before going forward. But nevertheless, DO IT.

We need more options, not less.

 

[rapidcharger]

So, part 95 is out the window. What about part 90? It is interesting they would even market these before any cert grants. They have some balls, I will give them that. Basically, what they are doing now is selling and marketing an illegal product, with plenty of documentation of that. It will be interesting to see what happens...

They never had a part 90 grant on these 8R series radios. They used the ID and label of another radio.

I hope that Anytone Tech (and any other company taking on the same venture) gets this straightened out with the FCC. There SHOULD be radios that are Part Certified for multi-use - it's something they should have done all along. It's lame that there aren't any radios that can do this, or lame that the rules disallow it - however you look at it.

I applaud any company trying to make this a reality, and also caution that any company attempting to do so get it right (and certified) before going forward. But nevertheless, DO IT.

We need more options, not less.

To be clear, my problem doesn't lie with the concept of multi-certified radios. I use multi certified radios for marine (part 80) and part 90 use. My problem is with deception and lies claiming something is legal when it isn't. That is what I set out to expose. The rules, as they're written won't allow for legal operation of multiple radio services. Until the rules are changed, anything that claims you'll be legal is lying. And I hate liars.

 

[hotdjdave]

The rules, as they're written won't allow for legal operation of multiple radio services.

If there is a will, there is a way. I am sure someone can figure out how to make radios that operate in such a way as to be compliant on multiple levels, including those bands discussed. It seems that Anytone is trying and are on a path towards that goal. I have nothing to saying about them supposedly lying -- maybe they meant well and actually thought they were doing the right thing... maybe not. Let the powers that be judge their intentions. However, they have opened up a new possibility in the melding of radios.

KEEP TRYING until we get it right.

Until the rules are changed...

If not (refernng to above), then maybe the rules can/should be altered in a way to make it possible for such radios, but still remain intrinsically safe and usable without issue. I understand the purpose of the rules, but if there is a way to make a radio that complies with all of them that transmits on frequencies most of us use, then why not take on that endeavor?

 

[baayers]

I'm glad I ran across this thread. If they are willing to lie about their certification who knows what else they have lied about. It's one thing to spend $40 on a Baofeng for ham but $100+ for a radio that has fraudulent certification as well as who knows what else as far as problems are concerned is a Nother story. Especially seeing as the radio is being promoted for duel commercial purposes.

As they use Amazon for their distribution I wonder if anyone has reported these issues to them? I know in the past Amazon has taken a stance against this when they have been notified.

 

[rapidcharger]

If there is a will, there is a way. I am sure someone can figure out how to make radios that operate in such a way as to be compliant on multiple ))))

Well it sort of looks a little like they tried to by making the operator select whether they want it to be a part 95 radio or a part 90 radio upon initial setup. Of course, that's not what most buyers has in mind. Buyers weren't expecting a one or the other scenario. They wanted both at the same time.

((( It seems that Anytone is trying and are on a path towards that goal. )))

Anytone isn't on a path towards that goal. Anytone Tech (separate unregistered company or DBA using Anytone's trademark) is marketing them as such but the manufacturer, I'm guessing, was unaware they were being marketed the way they were, with improper labeling. I could be wrong, that's just a hunch.

(((I have nothing to saying about them supposedly lying -- maybe they meant well and actually thought they were doing the right thing... maybe not.)))

The facts that were exposed in the original post of this thread should lead reasonable people to draw the conclusion that the intent was to mislead. The marketer Anytone Tech can't even be reached with a legitimate mailing address so they may be hearing about the dismissal of the certifications for the first time right here from this very thread.

(((If not (refernng to above), then maybe the rules can/should be altered in a way to make it possible for such radios, but still remain intrinsically safe and usable without issue. I understand the purpose of the rules, but if there is a way to make a radio that complies with all of them that transmits on frequencies most of us use, then why not take on that endeavor?

Like I said, it's not a matter of technology. It's a matter of legislation. And since I wasn't there when the legislation was originally drafted, I don't know what reasons there are but I suppose they thought it wasn't a good idea for frequency agile radios in bands where it could cause interference. Finding loopholes to skirt legislation that seems to make sense doesn't sound like something that's in the best interest of the public or users of the spectrum.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

I'm glad I ran across this thread. If they are willing to lie about their certification who knows what else they have lied about.)))

I'm glad you found the thread helpful and that it saved you the money or trouble of having to now get your money back. Saving people from this anguish was what I originally set out to do. And you make a very good point. There's all sorts of claims about the radio's specs that are highly suspect. 1 watt audio output? Yeah right.

((( As they use Amazon for their distribution I wonder if anyone has reported these issues to them? I know in the past Amazon has taken a stance against this when they have been notified.

I don't know either but I haven't. I'm sure it will get around to Amazon eventually but I've noticed that they've become a little like ebay in the past year, not really having a lot of concern over what marketplace sellers are doing.

 

[prcguy]

I think the FCC letter posted yesterday is the first hard evidence of non compliance and until then its been pretty much speculation. Now its official and that's not good for the importer.
prcguy

My opinion and your opinion aren't what matters. What does is the FCC's, and if the certifications have been dismissed (which according to the FCC OET they have been), then having a sticker on the back of radio referencing an invalid or dismissed certification number on it is no different than using a modified ham radio on GMRS or commercial frequencies.

We will have to see what the FCC has to say, because in the end, their opinion is the only one that matters.

 

[prcguy]

Wow, that's quite an accusation and if true would be similar to someone producing a fake document that says a particular Ford car has lost some DOT certification and is lot legal to drive on US highways. That could get the person fabrication and posting a fake letter tied up in court for a slander of defamation lawsuit.

It would be nice if someone could post a link to the FCC site that has the letter if it does exist.
prcguy

I just got done reading this entire thread, and I have GOT to throw the BS flag.

First of all, why are people being "armchair lawyers"? I understand that everyone has an opinion, but when I see a letter which is FABRICATED I tend to feel the need to weigh in.

Mr. "rapidcharger",

This is directed specifically at you. It appears that you have a problem with inexpensive radio equipment, and are looking for a fight with someone. I personally don't care about equipment, but what I do care about is when someone fabricates an official looking letter to "stir the pot".

How do I know it is a fabrication? Anyone who is a LICENSED GMRS and Amateur radio operator knows the basics of frequency allocation and wattage restrictions. As a GMRS operator I KNOW my frequencies and I KNOW the wattage restrictions. And if I ever forget? This website has a WONDERFUL page which refreshes my memory.

FRS/GMRS combined channel chart - The RadioReference Wiki

It really takes the Part 95 frequency allocations and breaks it down into an easy to read format. So why did I put a link to that page? In your fabricated letter, you wrote in section 2 that the seven channels shared with FRS are limited to 500 mW. Do you even know what the wattage limit is for a licensed GMRS operator is on those frequencies? Better read the chart because it is 5 WATTS!!!! Did you really think that people would take this garbage at face value?

I won't go into the other points, because they are finite and probably too technical for you to understand, because you can't even grasp a simple wattage restriction, but suffice it to say that a radio can not operate GMRS and MURS frequencies at the same time. Guess what... the TERMN-8R doesn't. You can program those frequencies in, but then it's all on you not the radio.

Mr. "rapidcharger" I don't know what your motivations are to try and smear a radio, but you really screwed up on this one. If you want to give your opinion on something, and say something is a piece of crap, that's fine. In fact I ENCOURAGE it. If you want to argue finite points of FCC regulations, GO FOR IT!! But the minute you FAKE an official looking letter with bogus information, make sure you do your homework first and make sure you fabricate something just a little believable.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

Wow, that's quite an accusation and if true would be similar to someone producing a fake document that says a particular Ford car has lost some DOT certification and is lot legal to drive on US highways. That could get the person fabrication and posting a fake letter tied up in court for a slander of defamation lawsuit.

It would be nice if someone could post a link to the FCC site that has the letter if it does exist.
prcguy

I haven't figured out how to get the links to work properly from OET. So we'll see if this works. If not got to the advanced OET search, change Application Status to All then type in T4K for the guarantee code and -8RSERIES for the product code. I'll bring it right up.

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=2568382

The thing that is real fishy, apparently the Commission did not realized it was filed under two ID's because they made comments to the manual stating the radio had Part 90 certifications but did not see the filing for the grant.

 

[Voyager]

That could get the person fabrication and posting a fake letter tied up in court for a slander of defamation lawsuit.

I thought the link was posted about 4 posts prior to the letter, but I think you mean either libel or defamation of character. Slander is verbal. Libel is written. Either can be defamation of character.

 

[hotdjdave]

I thought the link was posted about 4 posts prior to the letter

That link was to a pdf stored on the RR server uploaded by the posting person, not to the FCC:

View attachment 50186

I haven't figured out how to get the links to work properly... I'll bring it right up.

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=2568382

This link brings you to a page that reads:

You are not authorized to access this page.

 

[toastycookies]

That link was to a pdf stored on the RR server uploaded by the posting person, not to the FCC:




This link brings you to a page that reads:

You are not authorized to access this page.

his instructions worked fine for me.
maybe a browser problem on your end?

 

[rapidcharger]

You want a link?
I got your link right here.
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...500&application_id=680375&fcc_id=T4K-8RSERIES
NOTE: Be sure to click the little envelope icon underneath where it says "correspondence"

The letter resides on the FCC's server.
If you still think the letter was forged and the above URL is spoofed, go to the FCC OET website and click on ADVANCED SEARCH. There is a drop down menu to view all grants, dismissals and denials. Select that option.
and enter in just the T4K part. It spits out 10 results at a time. It's on page 4 or 5 of the results. It'll be easy to spot since it now says "not granted" in the "grant" column.

 

[cmdrwill]

And that's that... Type Certification Dismissed.

 

[12dbsinad]

Hopefully Anytone Tech gets the memo... and acts accordingly.

 

[hotdjdave]

his instructions worked fine for me.
maybe a browser problem on your end?

The new link he posted works. Thanks.

Looks like someone needs to get to busy to make it work and reapply.

 

[Voyager]

Or just re-apply if the app didn't describe the function completely. It wouldn't be the first time an app was rejected because it was not understood.

 

[prcguy]

I know a number of people on RR have purchased these radios, maybe they can contact Anytone Tech and ask what to do since the radios are not as advertised and apparently not legal to operate in the US. It will be interesting to see what Anytone Tech says.
prcguy

 

[strycnine]

This is the reply I got when I asked about a refund. Seems like they are trying to rectify the problem.

 

[rapidcharger]

This is the reply I got when I asked about a refund. Seems like they are trying to rectify the problem.

No it doesn't. It seems like they're shoveling more and more horse manure.
That is complete and utter H.S. The dismissal letter says nothing about MURS power levels although I did point out the MURS power levels in my OP.

But thanks for sharing that. It just further proves every point I've made in this thread.