Attention: Volunteer fire fighters/reserve police officers/security guards, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,782
It is easy to get mired in the minutia of the FCC rules and find that key rulemakings and deadlines are not apparent. This archived page from the FCC rules 'splains the FCC narrowbanding deadline which passed back on January 1, 2013. From that date forward, 25 KHz operation on the Part 90 VHF UHF bands ceased to be permitted.

"After January 1, 2013, licensees not operating at 12.5 KHz efficiency will be in violation of the Commission's rules and could be subject to FCC enforcement action, which may include admonishment, monetary fines, or loss of license."

https://www.fcc.gov/vhfuhf-narrowbanding-information

God forbid one might be admonished by the FCC.. They did loft a hefty fine at a west coast taxi company recently. The operators were pretty blatant in ignoring advice from the radio shop. Somebody "dropped a dime" on them, perhaps a competitor, or radio tech...
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,685
Location
Texas
It is easy to get mired in the minutia of the FCC rules and find that key rulemakings and deadlines are not apparent. This archived page from the FCC rules 'splains the FCC narrowbanding deadline which passed back on January 1, 2013. From that date forward, 25 KHz operation on the Part 90 VHF UHF bands ceased to be permitted.



"After January 1, 2013, licensees not operating at 12.5 KHz efficiency will be in violation of the Commission's rules and could be subject to FCC enforcement action, which may include admonishment, monetary fines, or loss of license."


/QUOTE]



Should note that bandwidths an excess of 12.5 kHz can be applied for if used for data application.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Oh Wow, I didn't mean to embark so deeply on this subject--
.
,,,,,,but at the outset, this Johnson PPL of mine is not exactly the off-the-shelf Johnson PPL of yore. Anyone familiar with what lies beneath the radio's cover knows that there are certain little Pots that can be 'tweak'd", mods that can be easily preformed- that will easily drop a transmitter into the new narrow-band requirements....
.
That said, I go back to my original, somewhat rhetorical question.... Is once Type Accepted always Type Accepted?... Let me throw out this hypothetical--
.
Lets say I have an old GE tube boat anchor.... let's say, its on high band VHF. It was originally type accepted for Part 90--- Now, this nameless FCC licensed gnome turns down the deviation to make it fall within the new narrow band regulations- maybe add a audio filter here and there..... it looks compliant on my - ahh-- the Gnomes 'scope--- is it still Part 90 acceptable? On the the boat anchor's receiver such signals may sound weaker than 3.2 beer, but the receiver isn't the issue here. If it looks clean and legal on an external (FCC) monitor; is it not still legal under Part 90, -- frequency tolerances etc. all in limits,,,. all that aside.
.
This kind of attitude doesn't making selling new radios easier, but I would love to hear other's opinions on this- fact based or otherwise...citing sources??.... Remembering, I ask'd it (semi) rhetorically..... I really don't want to call the FCC.... I have this certain reputation...oh well......... :)
.
.
............................CF
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,685
Location
Texas
Oh Wow, I didn't mean to embark so deeply on this subject--
.
,,,,,,but at the outset, this Johnson PPL of mine is not exactly the off-the-shelf Johnson PPL of yore. Anyone familiar with what lies beneath the radio's cover knows that there are certain little Pots that can be 'tweak'd", mods that can be easily preformed- that will easily drop a transmitter into the new narrow-band requirements....
.
That said, I go back to my original, somewhat rhetorical question.... Is once Type Accepted always Type Accepted?... Let me throw out this hypothetical--
.
Lets say I have an old GE tube boat anchor.... let's say, its on high band VHF. It was originally type accepted for Part 90--- Now, this nameless FCC licensed gnome turns down the deviation to make it fall within the new narrow band regulations- maybe add a audio filter here and there..... it looks compliant on my - ahh-- the Gnomes 'scope--- is it still Part 90 acceptable? On the the boat anchor's receiver such signals may sound weaker than 3.2 beer, but the receiver isn't the issue here. If it looks clean and legal on an external (FCC) monitor; is it not still legal under Part 90, -- frequency tolerances etc. all in limits,,,. all that aside.
.
This kind of attitude doesn't making selling new radios easier, but I would love to hear other's opinions on this- fact based or otherwise...citing sources??.... Remembering, I ask'd it (semi) rhetorically..... I really don't want to call the FCC.... I have this certain reputation...oh well......... :)
.
.
............................CF

If the type certification didn't include the emissions designator that would work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,782
If the type certification didn't include the emissions designator that would work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But then they usually do. I have System Sabers from about 1989 and the certification certainly indicates the emissions.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,782
Oh Wow, I didn't mean to embark so deeply on this subject--
.
,,,,,,but at the outset, this Johnson PPL of mine is not exactly the off-the-shelf Johnson PPL of yore. Anyone familiar with what lies beneath the radio's cover knows that there are certain little Pots that can be 'tweak'd", mods that can be easily preformed- that will easily drop a transmitter into the new narrow-band requirements....
.
That said, I go back to my original, somewhat rhetorical question.... Is once Type Accepted always Type Accepted?... Let me throw out this hypothetical--
.
Lets say I have an old GE tube boat anchor.... let's say, its on high band VHF. It was originally type accepted for Part 90--- Now, this nameless FCC licensed gnome turns down the deviation to make it fall within the new narrow band regulations- maybe add a audio filter here and there..... it looks compliant on my - ahh-- the Gnomes 'scope--- is it still Part 90 acceptable? On the the boat anchor's receiver such signals may sound weaker than 3.2 beer, but the receiver isn't the issue here. If it looks clean and legal on an external (FCC) monitor; is it not still legal under Part 90, -- frequency tolerances etc. all in limits,,,. all that aside.
.
This kind of attitude doesn't making selling new radios easier, but I would love to hear other's opinions on this- fact based or otherwise...citing sources??.... Remembering, I ask'd it (semi) rhetorically..... I really don't want to call the FCC.... I have this certain reputation...oh well......... :)
.
.
............................CF

There are a lot of newer, surplus, rugged Motorola radios that are narrowband compliant that could be had for pennies on the dollar. You would have to 1) Make sure of exact model number and specs (troublesome for e-bay purchases) 2) Obtain beg, buy or borrow the appropriate programming cables and softwarez. 3) Buy new batteries. Hint, select a model that can use lithium ion batteries from one of the domestic or Chinese aftermarket battery companies. You will be pleased with Li-Ion versus NIMH. 4) Check the tuning, the frequency drift might be biggest issue.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I appreciate the thoughtful suggestions RFI-- :)
.
...... I do fear I have turn'd this mole hill into a mountain. Its not for economics that my little transceiver still graces my refrigerator's top.
Its more simple- I've had it for years, it works great around my ranch, -- not to mention I hate being told to get rid of something perfectly useful. It must seem like I'm on a crusade here- well, hardly--
But I can see the heads shaking slowly as people turn and walk away, mumbling--
.
"What IS her problem?!"..... "get another radio, for crying out loud!"
.
(laffing)
.
Actually, I hadn't given this radio a thought until it dawn'd on me to use it as an example for my questioning expired Type Certifications.
I have 450 meg Vertex 4600's in my vehicles- It would not be a big deal to add another to the top of my refrigerator.
.
Now I wish I hadn't started this line of thinking......... the 4600's ARE cute little units...... maybe it IS time to retire the Johnson..........
Hmmmmm, a new one (Vertex) is only a telephone call away,,,,,,, tomorrow??...Why, I could have the new toy by next week !........ (smiles ;) )
.
.
................................CF
 
Last edited:

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,782
(snip)

Its more simple- I've had it for years, it works great around my ranch, -- not to mention I hate being told to get rid of something perfectly useful. It must seem like I'm on a crusade here- well, hardly--
But I can see the heads shaking slowly as people turn and walk away, mumbling--
.
"What IS her problem?!"..... "get another radio, for crying out loud!"
.
(laffing)
.
(snip).
.
................................CF
I agree with the concept of not getting rid of perfectly useful. I have perfectly useful HP200LX DOS based palm computer I seldom use. But hey, I have all these nifty engineering programs (I seldom use) in it.

I am a complete Luddite. I have no smartphone, wont be a part of it. Sorry..

What I have is a Motorola Systems Saber Obsession. These can be had for nothing because they no longer are Part 90 compatible. But they work great on GMRS and interestingly, back in the 90's somebody at Motorola put in for Part 95 certification for a $3000 radio. Go figure. So I have collected a bunch. Oh and should TS (really) HTF, they have an interesting feature where you can load in 56 bits of hexadecimal nonsense and out will come cryptic pseudo noise, should that ever be needed, should TSHTF.

So anyhow, to make all this work nicely tuned like a fine harpsichord, I needed to reconstruct my test bench specifically to satisfy the intricacies of modulating 12KB CVSD in a 25 KHz channel. This means tweaking all kind of electronic soft pots via archaic DOS computer and making a bunch of fiddly adjustments requiring a 1000 Hz and 20 Hz tone to satisfy the sick deviations of the flat audio gods.

So here in one picture is the focus of my sick obsession. Totally unnecessary to life and yet I must do it. I will not be searching for "BARS" (the electronic kind) with a smartphone when TSHTF - not me.

http://leikhim.com/attachments/Image/P1130492a.JPG
 
Last edited:

burner50

The Third Variable
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
2,163
Location
NC Iowa
To be fair, this doesn't only affect volunteer services...

Many paid services have people do the same nonsense.
 

krokus

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Southeastern Michigan
....That said, I go back to my original, somewhat rhetorical question.... Is once Type Accepted always Type Accepted?...
Yes, for the emissions that were certified. Those emissions have since been disallowed, for many uses.

Of course, that is my opinion. I am not a lawyer, do not play one on tv, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express.

Sent via Tapatalk
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
Ah, a good point, Krokus ....... what it was originally certified for.
.

I am hardly in way-shape-or -form, a radio lawyer... so whether a 're-purposed' transmitter, operating compliant would ever raise so much as an eyebrow ??
.
I am one of those types that prefers to let sleeping dogs lie. As it is, I come in contact with the FCC thru my work enough to save my energies for those times. Like I said earlier, I have a certain reputation at a certain field office.... :)
.
So I will leave it at that. I want no awaken'd dogs giving me any official pronouncements.
.
But ! all this is now moot. This morning I order'd a brand new VX series UHF Vertex. My Johnson PPL will retire.
.
Anyway, I can now sign this in an old fashion'd way- in keeping with my dinosaur Johnson--
.
.......... "30"
.
:)
.
.................................CF
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,782
I looked up the Johnson PPL radio specs, and found an old manual .pdf. That radio was type accepted for some FCC subparts that no longer exist.

There are folks in some parts of the world, like Haiti that would love a radio like that in their Taxi. Your radio could have an exciting lively sunny vacation instead of being sent to pasture. Or you could keep it wired up in case of Zombie apocalypse.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
 

12dbsinad

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
1,473
.
Lets say I have an old GE tube boat anchor.... let's say, its on high band VHF. It was originally type accepted for Part 90--- Now, this nameless FCC licensed gnome turns down the deviation to make it fall within the new narrow band regulations- maybe add a audio filter here and there..... it looks compliant on my - ahh-- the Gnomes 'scope--- is it still Part 90 acceptable? On the the boat anchor's receiver such signals may sound weaker than 3.2 beer, but the receiver isn't the issue here. If it looks clean and legal on an external (FCC) monitor; is it not still legal under Part 90, -- frequency tolerances etc. all in limits,,,. all that aside.
It is not legal to modify an old boat anchor for narrowband (even though this can be successfully done with no problems) unless it has been FCC certified operating under those parameters. Now, having said that, if you have about 10-12K dollars laying around, you COULD send the boat anchor in to a independent FCC test lab. Be ready to do a lot of work (you'll need to produce modified service manuals, etc) but it can be done to obtain a new legal FCC cert. Is it worth it? Probably not.

Back in the day, Motorola used to make narrowband conversion kits for their radius line radios. Also, during the previous "narrowbanding" many MANY years ago, radios could be modified BUT there was a special sticker that needed to be affixed stating it was modified. Not the case today.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,782
It is not legal to modify an old boat anchor for narrowband (even though this can be successfully done with no problems) unless it has been FCC certified operating under those parameters. Now, having said that, if you have about 10-12K dollars laying around, you COULD send the boat anchor in to a independent FCC test lab. Be ready to do a lot of work (you'll need to produce modified service manuals, etc) but it can be done to obtain a new legal FCC cert. Is it worth it? Probably not.

Back in the day, Motorola used to make narrowband conversion kits for their radius line radios. Also, during the previous "narrowbanding" many MANY years ago, radios could be modified BUT there was a special sticker that needed to be affixed stating it was modified. Not the case today.
Back in the day, only a licensed technician with a GROL certificate could tinker inside the radio so you can be sure the technicians "did it right" by the book. Motorola used to sell printed certificates for annual radio maintenance. The tech would write down the pertinent notes, deviation, frequency error, power out, even meter readings, sign it and write in their FCC "first" or "second" class operators license number. I wish I still had my log books. Motorola lobbied those requirements away.

The new generation doesn't know the cold end of a soldering iron, but can write code to bust an ATM. Not sure anymore which is a more useful skill.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
4,782
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote-Frostbyte View Post
.
Lets say I have an old GE tube boat anchor.... let's say, its on high band VHF. It was originally type accepted for Part 90--- Now, this nameless FCC licensed gnome turns down the deviation to make it fall within the new narrow band regulations- maybe add a audio filter here and there..... it looks compliant on my - ahh-- the Gnomes 'scope--- is it still Part 90 acceptable? On the the boat anchor's receiver such signals may sound weaker than 3.2 beer, but the receiver isn't the issue here. If it looks clean and legal on an external (FCC) monitor; is it not still legal under Part 90, -- frequency tolerances etc. all in limits,,,. all that aside."

What you could do,,,, since you are all into R&D and such. Is get a developmental license and pretty much do anything to the radio under the guise of "New Product Development". Your radio could become Johnson PPL-Retro Tech 3000 and you could plaster PROTOTYPE #1 labels all over it.
 

12dbsinad

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
1,473
The new generation doesn't know the cold end of a soldering iron, but can write code to bust an ATM. Not sure anymore which is a more useful skill.
Ha, funny you mention that about the new generation. I just had this conversation today with a coworker of mine. It is sad, but true.

Anywho, to the poster who asked about modifying boat anchors, what once COULD be done relatively easily is no longer the case, legally.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I love it !!
.
Thanks Guys-* wonderful answers !
.
A Development License !... Wow, Part 5 stuff, No?... I Never thought along those lines RFI ! You think very dangerously (laffing!).. aren't, by chance, afilliated with one of my favorites, Guy Fawkes?? ;)
.
.
I looked at the Specifications on the Johnson PPL and its FCC Compliances... Parts 15, 21 , 89, 91, 93, 95 ... old Parts that are bygones and... Wait a Second!... Part 95? That's GMRS ! ........... hmm, (pondering) - Naw, too much trouble..........
.
My Vertex is supposed to arrive FedEx on Monday... its Windows programmable, gobs of channels... I won't get rid of the Johnson- it will join my Museum- maybe to transmit another day. :)
.
.
.......................................CF
.
__________________________________________________
.
* an un-intend'd connection to "the Guy?"-- (grinning )..hardly!
.
(btw, I love to observe the Fifth... not always with a bonfire, but certainly with other things that make noise... ;) )
 

Attachments

Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,685
Location
Texas
Ha, funny you mention that about the new generation. I just had this conversation today with a coworker of mine. It is sad, but true.



Anywho, to the poster who asked about modifying boat anchors, what once COULD be done relatively easily is no longer the case, legally.


25 year old Astro 25 tech checking in…I refuse to be a part of the millennial BS though. I know of one other Astro 25 tech my age…we both share the same view on all of that though we both live in two different states.

On my last trip to Schaumburg, I did notice some of the newer generation. Mostly handling networking and software development.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ka9ucn

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2016
Messages
29
My god if my house is on fire and my family is in danger. Pleas show up with a non certified Baofeng, a shovel a sprinkling can or whatever might help. I will forgive you if you mess up NCR and a prairie home companion long enough to help. We should be very grateful for all the volunteers who show up and not belittle them for not carrying a $3000 hand held.
I have donated Baofeng radio to volunteer firemen. It is not like we are giving them to 10 year olds to play with.
It does set funny in my craw that some of the amateurs would complain that a volunteer civilian might endanger his life to save others while the arm chair quarterbacks wine about spectral purity and certification of equipment with extremely limited range.
Good God get a life and while you are at it thank a volunteer emergency person. You might even consider buying the local volunteers a Baofeng and diner for his family. IF your conscience bothers you that much. Buy him a multi thousand dollar radio and tell him he can buy his own diner. If it bothers you that much please don’t bother yourself with the complicated questions like. Do I really want that guy helping if he is going to use a non certified radio.
I do know one thing that is certifiable and that is the idgit that worries non paid professional who are willing to risk life and health for others are better off with no equipment than non certified equipment.
My god what have we become?
Joe KA9UCN
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top