• 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.

Discussion: FCC Advisory on Two-Way VHF/UHF Radios

Status
Not open for further replies.

MTS2000des

5B2_BEE00 Czar
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
6,322
Reaction score
8,446
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
Which is a hardware modification that the FCC has historically accepted as sufficient to prevent the radios, as sold, from transmitting outside the amateur radio bands. The CCRs typically do not have this feature which has always been an indication to me that the manufacturers and importers have been primarily intent in going after the Part 90 and Part 95 market.
and no commercially sold amateur transceiver EVER came out of the box were "pre-programmed" with part 90/95 frequencies by default, even for RX only. The bottom line is the CCRs are marketed to consumers who aren't aware that these devices, by default out of the box, could create harmful interference to legitimate users. This, combined with intentional and fraudulent certifications, are designed to intentionally mislead consumers into buying products that are completely misrepresented as being lawful to use when they are not. End of story.
 

bill4long

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
1,271
Location
Indianapolis
Which is a hardware modification that the FCC has historically accepted as sufficient to prevent the radios, as sold, from transmitting outside the amateur radio bands. The CCRs typically do not have this feature which has always been an indication to me that the manufacturers and importers have been primarily intent in going after the Part 90 and Part 95 market.

No doubt. But I must point out again (again) that a lot of these CCR are type 90 certified. Banning the ones that aren't will change what exactly? The Part 90 certified ones will still be available, and they are just as inexpensive as the ones that aren't. You can get the version 2 of the UV-888s, which is Part 90 certified, for $13 quantity one, or a UV-5RA for $25, etc. And the technical specs (spurious suppression, etc) are equivalent.
 

AK9R

Lead Wiki Manager and almost an Awesome Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
10,793
Reaction score
9,886
Location
Central Indiana
Nothing stopping the FCC from withdrawing the existing Part 90 certifications from certain CCRs (as has been done in the past). Nothing stopping the FCC from conducting an independent evaluation of a previously Part 90 certificated radio and finding that the radio does not, in fact, meet Part 90 rules and the original testing lab misled the FCC. Nothing stopping the FCC from saying "even though we granted a Part 90 certification to that radio in the past, we now find that it does not meet Part 90 rules because of [insert reason of your choice]". Nothing stopping the FCC from telling a user "sorry, you were duped by the dealer who sold you those radios, so you'll have to stop using them otherwise we'll fine you". Nothing stopping the FCC from telling an importer, wholesaler, or retailer that they need to find another lab to submit certification test results for their products.

Will any of this happen? Time will tell. I have a policy of not holding my breath when it comes to waiting for government bureaucracies to actually do anything. And, even if the FCC does take action, the horses have left the barn so long ago.
 

Darmtn

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Are there any REAL stats on how often public safety communications have been disrupted by unauthorized users that have been using these radios and not stolen,etc?
 

WhiskeyChuck

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
CN88
Am I missing something? The notice is talking about unauthorized radio, the baofeng uv-5r IS authorized by the FCC by equipment authorization ZP5BF-5R, so this notice would not apply to that radio. Now the many other UV-5xxx radios that may or may not be "fake", those are the radios my logic would tell me are illegal. Some are reported to have the FCC logo but no number, hence not approved. I could be totally wrong but I'm new here so I apologize for my ignorance. Also, I have a UV-5R in the mail that should arrive shortly after I take the technician exam so maybe I'm just biased.
 

KK4JUG

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
3,250
Location
GA
You really think if it's on a YouTube video it's got to be true?

They wouldn't put stuff on the Internet that wasn't true, would they? :)

Actually, that's probably what keeps Snopes in business.
 

nd5y

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
12,347
Reaction score
4,596
Location
Wichita Falls, TX
Am I missing something? The notice is talking about unauthorized radio, the baofeng uv-5r IS authorized by the FCC by equipment authorization ZP5BF-5R, so this notice would not apply to that radio. Now the many other UV-5xxx radios that may or may not be "fake", those are the radios my logic would tell me are illegal. Some are reported to have the FCC logo but no number, hence not approved. I could be totally wrong but I'm new here so I apologize for my ignorance. Also, I have a UV-5R in the mail that should arrive shortly after I take the technician exam so maybe I'm just biased.
There are several FCC IDs for similar UV-5R type radios:
https://fccid.io/2AJGM-UV5R
https://fccid.io/2AGNDF8HP
https://fccid.io/ZP5BF-5R
https://fccid.io/ZP5BF-5RA
https://fccid.io/ZP5BF-F9V2
https://fccid.io/ZVMUV-E5
https://fccid.io/QGDTD-Q8
https://fccid.io/PODTH-UVF9
Some of these are 5 watt and some are 8 watt. One is a Part 15 scanning receiver. Those are only the ones that I know about. There may be more with different FCC IDs, there may be some with no FCC ID and there may be some with fake labels.

The FCC thinks for now at least that any radio that is comes out of the box with VFO or front panel programming capability for frequencies it isn't certified for is illegal (unless it's designed for federal or aircraft use).
 

WhiskeyChuck

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
CN88
I understand what you and everyone else are saying, that the device was certified, but is illegally capable of operating outside of its certification. However that's not exactly how the text reads, in fact FCC themselves tell us what devices they are specifically talking about. I will break down the text in the scope and application of the UV-5R specifically, because that's the most common model that appears to be in question in so many forums and videos.

"These radios must be authorized by the FCC prior to being imported, advertised, sold, or operated in the United States."
-The UV-5R is authorized by the FCC as mentioned and referenced above.

"Because these devices must be, but have not been, authorized by the FCC, the devices may not be imported into the United States, retailers may not advertise or sell them, and no one may use them."
-"These devices" are devices that "have not been" certified. The UV-5R has in fact been certified, therefore it can not be one of "these devices" being talked about in this advisory.

"Rather, these devices may only be imported, advertised, sold, or used only if the FCC first has approved them under its equipment authorization process"
-The FCC already gave us their definition of "these devices" and the UV-5R is not one of them. Also the FCC has in fact "first approved" the UV-5R for part 90, as mentioned and referenced above.

Conclusion: According to what the FCC tells us in their text, the CCR's this advisory applies to are ones that have not been authorized and approved by them. The Baofeng UV-5R and several other models have been authorized and approved by them, and those specific models are not subject to the ceased importation, advertising, and use as described in the advisory.

No where in the advisory do they say, "We accidentally certified some radios, and we take it back."
 

MTS2000des

5B2_BEE00 Czar
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
6,322
Reaction score
8,446
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
The FCC thinks for now at least that any radio that is comes out of the box with VFO or front panel programming capability for frequencies it isn't certified for is illegal (unless it's designed for federal or aircraft use).
and what the FCC thinks is all that matters. Just because a product has a fake, misleading or errant label on it doesn't make it legal. As the folks at AnyTone Tech learned 5 years ago, bogus certifications don't add up and the FCC has spoken. Field programmable radios allowing unfettered access to public safety and business frequencies to be programmed by unqualified consumers isn't allowable under part 90 and part 95 rules. There are logical reason why Joe consumer has ZERO business having equipment with the open ability to transmit from DC to daylight.
 

WhiskeyChuck

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2018
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
CN88
and what the FCC thinks is all that matters. Just because a product has a fake, misleading or errant label on it doesn't make it legal. As the folks at AnyTone Tech learned 5 years ago, bogus certifications don't add up and the FCC has spoken.
This is exactly what I think the FCC is trying to prevent by the way the advisory is written, the counterfeit radios with the fake labels that don't actually have an FCC certification. They just share a fake model number with a radio that is actually FCC certified.
 

SpugEddy

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
438
Reaction score
17
Location
Camden County South Jersey
Anybody else here see the relationship between
the radio issue and the gun issue? Neither the radio
nor the gun are doing anything illegal. They just provide
a person with the right apparatus to USE it illegally.
A gun used responsibly affects nobody
A radio used responsibly affects nobody

Just surprised nobody threw that observation
into the thread so far
 

mancow

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Feb 19, 2003
Messages
6,930
Reaction score
1,089
Location
N.E. Kansas
Anybody else here see the relationship between
the radio issue and the gun issue? Neither the radio
nor the gun are doing anything illegal. They just provide
a person with the right apparatus to USE it illegally.
A gun used responsibly affects nobody
A radio used responsibly affects nobody

Just surprised nobody threw that observation
into the thread so far

Yup. Even the federal exemptions.
 

K7MFC

WRAA720
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 18, 2017
Messages
882
Reaction score
890
Location
Phx, AZ
A gun used responsibly affects nobody
A radio used responsibly affects nobody

Yep, and if everyone was responsible using the things you just mentioned, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But here we are.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,861
Reaction score
5,083
Yep, and if everyone was responsible using the things you just mentioned, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But here we are.

Very true, I don't see much debate about chainsaw ownership!
 

SpugEddy

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2015
Messages
438
Reaction score
17
Location
Camden County South Jersey
Yep, and if everyone was responsible using the things you just mentioned, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But here we are.

Kind of my point in a roundabout way.
Why do we always go after the wrong issue? In this case,
why go after the radio instead of going after the offenders?
Put a ban on Chinese radios and the violators will figure out
a way to open the frequencies on the Motorolas, Kenwoods,
Icoms, etc. And I guess while we're at it, remember that
Yaesu is imported and, at one time, they were considered
Cheap Chinese Crap!

bill4long said:
I suppose for completeness we should mention that the sky is blue.

Not here. We haven't seen the sun for almost 8 days.
So, the sky is gray
 

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
27,541
Reaction score
33,556
Location
United States
I agree. I don't see that them transmitting outside of the amateur band as the major issue. People that want to do that will do it, no matter what. However, being able to do it for $18.00 might be making it too simple. The issue with them being preprogrammed on frequencies they shouldn't be using would be a fix that the manufacturers could address easily.

However, the rules are there, and like many rules, they exist because someone else did something stupid.

The issue is the spectral purity, which is an issue, as well as RFI. These devices are required to meet Part 15 requirements. That means their internal oscillators are not allowed to leak crap out due to improper design, filtering, shielding, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top