Just a typo correction. The certification was offlined, pending corrections.
-
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.
- Thread starter rapidcharger
- Start date
- Status
rapidcharger
Member
I'm curious. Did you even read the dismissal letter?
Since it was buried 2 pages back, here it is again.
I'm curious. Did you even read the dismissal letter?
Since it was buried 2 pages back, here it is again.
I'll admit, I just read it myself. Looks like its more than just a couple typos.
12dbsinad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,011
The bottom line here is these units are not certified, in the past or to this present day. So, why they started marketing these radios before rubber stamped is beyond me. I do know one thing, it is not fair for the customers who are purchasing these with basically bogus FCC cert numbers printed on the radios, and marketed as legal to use in the US. I would assume Anytone Tech does not want a wide spread request for refunds. But then again, it's not our fault they are not properly certified when marketed as such.
Looking through the dismissal letter I believe many of the problems can be overcome with a firmware update that fixes power levels for FRS and occupational vs uncontrolled use, BW and frequency steps. That leaves the separate part 90 cert and prior versions of the radio have been issued part 90 cert, so that doesn't sound like a big hurdle.
The fact the radio must be booted up in the specific FRS, GMRS or MURS mode might satisfy part 95.655(d). It will be interesting to see where this goes.
prcguy
The fact the radio must be booted up in the specific FRS, GMRS or MURS mode might satisfy part 95.655(d). It will be interesting to see where this goes.
prcguy
Corrected I stand. I wonder how he's gonna fix that one! I'm now wondering if he is in fact doing a whitewash job? Hmm.... it may be getting close to me issuing that apology or "you told me so" I mentioned some pages back.
Last edited:
nd5y
Member
You're wrong. They were certified for a few weeks. The FCC issued the Part 95 A and J certification grants on 3/9/15 then dismissed them on 3/27/15. The part 90 grant is still good as far as I can tell.
Last edited:
12dbsinad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,011
Well, I must have missed that part. But again, if it's been dismissed would you agree marketing should reflect that? At least until a new certification is acquired? Also, they mention only a typo in power levels in a response email when clearly it's more than that. Why not mention whats really going on to the customers?
FrankNY
Member
nd5y, I think that you meant "15" rather than "14", right?
As to the Part 90 certification, it really is for another product, isn't it?
Frank.
As to the Part 90 certification, it really is for another product, isn't it?
Frank.
nd5y
Member
I don't know. Here are the rules about marketing and operating radio frequency devices prior to equipment authorization. Here are the equipment authorization procedures.
nd5y
Member
Yep. Damned numbers all look the same.
From what can tell they took the exact same boards from an existing part 90 certified product (AT-3318 or whatever it is) and put them in a different plastic case with new firmware that allows locking it down on GMRS or MURS frequencies and then applied for part 95 certification. That is why they have (or had) two FCC IDs.
Yep. Been saying that since day one. So, the Part 90 cert is still valid.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Doesn't matter, the existing products with the dismissed ID's are still not valid if they are issued a new FCC ID number, it isn't on THAT product with the corrected issues. The product has to be re-submitted and re-certified. As the letter clearly states, a NEW FCC ID will be issued if the product is in fact, re-certified with the problems corrected.
This does NOTHING for the presumably hundreds or thousands who, in good faith, handed this "company" money for a product that was advertised as being certified under false pretenses.
It's very clear the me they tried to pull one over on Uncle Charlie and got caught. End of story.
Anytone Tech: refund people's money or expect them to sue you. Anytone Tech customers: better hope you used a real credit card, something tells me you will have a hard time getting them in court. Good luck serving them at the US Post office in Arlington, SD or getting a real address to send a process server to the mysterious "Greg Wilson"
Now that you have proven yourself to wrong, would you like to apologize? The letter isn't fabricated, if you actually searched the OET site you'd find it, in clearly visible black and white "photostatic copy"...Anytone Tech "stole fizzly lifting drinks"..
GOOD DAY SIR.
I'm still waiting...
rapidcharger
Member
The part 90 grant was issued for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RADIO. These 8R series radios are not included in the grants for those completely different models.
It is akin to using the EPA fuel economy ratings for a hyundai accent for a GMC Yukon. It belongs to a different model.
Yes, it is. It's the 3318UV model and some others.
Valid for another radio but not these.
Wasn't this solved early on in this thread? The radio itself (not the case) is identical. I thought pics were posted in this very thread (or maybe the other one).
The FCC has stated that T/A can be used on models without the requirement for a new TA as long as the only difference is marketing.
Anytone is the same radio as Anytone.
The FCC TA was for the 3318. It also covers the 3318-A, 3318-C, 3318-D, 3318-E, and the 8R series which are all the same radio just with different cases and different firmware.
I know there is a witch hunt for AnytoneTech, but come on, guys - be realistic. Anytone is no different from Anytone.
rapidcharger
Member
The authorization letter for the part 90 grant lists specific modes. the 8R series are not amongst those models. Whether the radio is identical or not, it is not the same model and the attestation letter makes no mention of them being identical to the 3318 series or those other models, just that they were identical to the other 8R series radios. That is my understanding of the situation.
Right but so long as the applicant attests to that fact. And that hasn't been done.
Either way, it's a moot point because the radios do not comply with, nor meet the standards for part 90.
Not only that! But they submitted photos of the label which included only the 8RSERIES id number on the label. The part 90 ID was conveniently left out of that photo in the application.
Something tells me this is the beginning of a long string of some more careful examination of the certifications for other frequency agile VFO radios with part 90 grants.
Last edited:
rapidcharger
Member
The thing I find really amazing about all this is that with all the incredible, unbelievable claims Anytone Tech has made about their radios achieving certification when all others didn't, and only a few people bother to fact check it.
And then the people who don't bother to fact check it because it involves; Ugh...Reading...oh barf! that they later go on to regard the person who exposes it and provide heaps of evidence as incredulous instead of the deceptive liar who continues to lie and take people's money.
I just can't wrap my mind around that.
And then the people who don't bother to fact check it because it involves; Ugh...Reading...oh barf! that they later go on to regard the person who exposes it and provide heaps of evidence as incredulous instead of the deceptive liar who continues to lie and take people's money.
I just can't wrap my mind around that.
All Right... You all told me so. I'm Sorry I doubted you guys. I'll be more attentive in the future and have more of an open mind.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
It's okay. It's easy to want something so bad to forget to actually look beyond the surface.
For the record, I have NO PROBLEM WITH CHINESE RADIOS. I have even sung praises of reviews of Baofeng UV-5R and UV-82, on Amazon and other sites. For their intended purpose as hobbyist radios, they are a GREAT way to get into the hobby for little money.
That being said consumers who want a TOOL should be VERY SKEPTICAL of claims of multiple certifications, and should actually LOOK UP the FCC ID on the OET's website and ensure that the product they are buying is truly certified for their intended use, and has the correct emission designators and such.
After all, simply putting a sticker on the back of the radio with an FCC ID on it is meaningless if the radio itself is not actually certified, or that certification is revoked, dismissed or for a completely different product if they are purchasing such a radio to be 100 percent compliant with FCC rules.
Buyers should be VERY CAUTIOUS and only buy from a reputable dealer with a return policy.
This response from AnyTone Tech to one of their customers is just plain B.S. The letter from the FCC CLEARLY says that once an FCC ID is dismissed, that ID number cannot be used again. AnytTone Tech, I am calling you a liar and a sleazebag. You OWE anyone who bought one of these misrepresented now uncertified radios a FULL REFUND should they ask for it. You tried to get one over on the FCC and consumers.
Consumers acted in good faith and paid for a product which you claimed was certified and in fact, you are still selling on your Amazon Web Store as of this post, despite the FCC advising you to cease and desist marketing these to the general public or else face penalties for violating the Comm Act of 1934 so the FCC said.
Shame on AnyTone Tech/Baofeng Tech for trying to get over on people. Shame on them.
- Status
