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

[KK4JUG]

And, NO, some are not changing anything. Many small counties and towns have plain old UHF & VHF with and without repeaters. Lots of agencies don't have the money or maybe even the need to change their system. For instance, Preston, Georgia, has one frequency for police, fire and public works. Their county, Webster, has 3 frequencies for sheriff, fire & EMS and Highway. They are all shown as "BM." in the listing. There are scores of counties and town all over Georgia and all over the country with almost identical setups.

They use these because they work, money's short and the agency has not changed in years because the county or town hasn't changed either.

 

[zz0468]

In California, at least, virtually every fire department has a presence on VHF analog. Even departments with 700/800 P25 systems, many also run VHF conventional analog systems, or at least their various apparatus is equipped.

Aren't most agencies/depts going to P25/trunked/700/800mhz radios anyway? Historically I could see a problem but it seems like that problem would be going away as the CCRs haven't made their way into radios capable of the aforementioned specs. Other than hobbiest/scanning, I don't deal with public service radio services so this is more of a question.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

While I think that Hatzolah is overstating the impact, there is obviously a truth somewhere between their claims and your 100% certainty:
https://i.imgur.com/RpTEjH8.jpg

News article of the same: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/new...Interfere-With-Emergency-Calls-228090311.html

If I recall correctly, there is also a county over in Southern California that has BaoFengs factory programmed to the input frequency to their repeater. I don't think they have the proper CTCSS but they block the receiver.

 

[JasonTracy]

If I recall correctly, there is also a county over in Southern California that has BaoFengs factory programmed to the input frequency to their repeater.

You're likely on to something.

I just checked my Chirp file for BTECH UV-5X3 before I loaded my config, here are the default frequencies. Best I can tell, not a single one of these are within the amateur allocation for ITU Region 2.

452.125
453.225
454.325
455.425
456.525
457.625
458.725
459.825
461.925
462.225
463.325
464.425
465.525
402.225
437.425
479.975
138.55
157.65
172.75
438.5
155.7

I think I agree with the FCC on these. They shouldn't ship in the USA with frequencies that are illegal to transmit on in the USA. Since this doesn't have a Part 90 sticker, even if you had a license for these frequencies, you couldn't use it.

 

[wwhitby]

True, but I can guarantee you that isn't the reason behind this. All you have to do is look around and damned near every small business (even some very large businesses), school, etc., are using Baofeng or similar...at least out here in Los Angeles Co. Motorola and friends are losing tons of money to the CCRs and they are not the least bit pleased with it.

FWIW, I've been told of one small police department that uses Baofeng radios. I suspect there are a lot more out there that are using them. But its not new. I knew of a Sheriff's Department 15+ years ago that was using non-type accepted Kenwood HTs that were made for foreign markets. They were cheaper to order off eBay than to pay for type accepted radios through the local Kenwood dealer.

That's 2 entities. This is happening all over the country, in WAY bigger numbers than people care to believe. I see these radios all over the place. You're probably talking hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue for Motorola. You still don't think they're putting pressure on the FCC to crack down on these radios?

My instincts tell me that the bigger manufacturers of commercial and ham radios were behind the recent stirring of the FCC. I had heard a podcast three years ago about how the Chinese radios were causing the major manufacturers to have to lower their prices to compete. You know they could not have been happy with decreased sales and decreased earnings.

Secondly, something that not been brought up yet, is the obvious way around the restrictions...start limiting these radios to the ham bands, and have a modification for opening them up completely. Very simple firmware update to fix that. So for all the hams who are complaining about the CCRs, way to go! Now you're going to have businesses and kids and everything else smack dab in the middle of the ham bands, since most people probably won't modify them to go outside of that.

I thought about this last night, and I figure this is exactly what will happen. Look for more interference on the ham bands, since 2m and 70cm frequencies will now be the preprogrammed frequencies.

Aren't most agencies/depts going to P25/trunked/700/800mhz radios anyway? Historically I could see a problem but it seems like that problem would be going away as the CCRs haven't made their way into radios capable of the aforementioned specs.

In my area, there's still a lot of VHF with no plans to move to a trunked system or a different band.

 

[Darmtn]

Just a thought - if there was MASSIVE interference on the public safety bands wounldn't the people on this site know it.I mean we monitor more than the FCC. The interference cases i know of around me have all been stolen radios and in the end they get caught. Most of the traffic in the central valley is still VHF and UHF the only big trunked system is PG%E{power co}

 

[KK4JUG]

It doesn't take a "MASSIVE interference" to cause a problem. There are almost 18,000 law enforcement agencies in this country. I would guess that most have under 20 officers. If someone is interfering in Ozark, AR, or Louden, KY or some campus agency, you're probably not gonna hear about. The fact is, one is too many for any agency.

 

[Darmtn]

But it happens - and I see no proof these cheap radios are the main problem just a excuse.

 

[bharvey2]

In California, at least, virtually every fire department has a presence on VHF analog. Even departments with 700/800 P25 systems, many also run VHF conventional analog systems, or at least their various apparatus is equipped.

I got to thinking after posting that fire ground locations would likely stay on simplex if not analog all together (K.I.S.S. principle) VHF makes sense for this purpose. Is fire ground activity where you've seen interference or is "less traveled" groups like public works/animal control?

I was aware that some of the smaller and rural depts have stayed on conventional radios but would expect that since the population density of those areas is less, the likelihood of boneheads trying to interfere would be correspondingly smaller as well. That may be an assumption not based on evidence however.

 

[KK4JUG]

But it happens - and I see no proof these cheap radios are the main problem just a excuse.

If you're trying to legitimize your radios, things are gonna get tougher.

 

[KevinC]

A major issue with these radios is unlicensed operation. A private school near me uses some sort of CCR (they look like Baofengs, but I have no desire to get close enough to confirm) on 465.3125. Which in turn can lead to unintentional interference.

 

[zz0468]

Firefighting on Federal land is almost exclusively on VHF. Cal Fire is on VHF state wide. Aerial firefighting is on VHF. I occasionally hear chatter on 170.000 mhz which is a NIFC air tac channel. Ive heard people using both fireground and fire dispatch frequencies.

I've heard illegal traffic as recently as this week on a fire dispatch channel.

I got to thinking after posting that fire ground locations would likely stay on simplex if not analog all together (K.I.S.S. principle) VHF makes sense for this purpose. Is fire ground activity where you've seen interference or is "less traveled" groups like public works/animal control?

I was aware that some of the smaller and rural depts have stayed on conventional radios but would expect that since the population density of those areas is less, the likelihood of boneheads trying to interfere would be correspondingly smaller as well. That may be an assumption not based on evidence however.

 

[bharvey2]

A major issue with these radios is unlicensed operation. A private school near me uses some sort of CCR (they look like Baofengs, but I have no desire to get close enough to confirm) on 465.3125. Which in turn can lead to unintentional interference.

I've no doubt that this is the main problem. People have a desire for local two way communications. They look to Amazon for a cheap and easy solution, order what Amazon coughs up in their search and radios show up at their doorstep with "who knows what" frequencies pre-programmed into the radios. I suspect many are unaware of the need for licensing, frequency coordination, etc. If they showed up with nothing programmed in, that may give some enough pause to realize that there may be more to radios than just turning them on and talking.

My wife works at a decent-sized school district, They have a fleet of LTR radios that are supplied by a local vendor (I've know the owner for many years) However, it's easier to buy blister pack radios or cheap CCRs from Amazon than put in a request for real radios that are far better and won't interfere with local businesses and potentially get a visit from an FCC rep. However, this is just what they've done in the past (minus the FCC visit so far)

I have every confidence that the reports of interference by zz0468 are legit. But bureaucrats being what they are, following that money train isn't as lucrative as sucking up to the likes of the big M.

 

[bharvey2]

Firefighting on Federal land is almost exclusively on VHF. Cal Fire is on VHF state wide. Aerial firefighting is on VHF. I occasionally hear chatter on 170.000 mhz which is a NIFC air tac channel. Ive heard people using both fireground and fire dispatch frequencies.

I've heard illegal traffic as recently as this week on a fire dispatch channel.

I'm curious. Is the traffic you've heard intentionally interfering or malicious or is it more akin to legitimate business or personal traffic on an improper channel?

 

[zz0468]

Just a thought - if there was MASSIVE interference on the public safety bands wounldn't the people on this site know it.

Who said "MASSIVE"? I know I used the word "influx". In any case, as informative as this sites members can be, collectively, we don't know everything.

I mean we monitor more than the FCC. The interference cases i know of around me have all been stolen radios and in the end they get caught.

I've had a very lucrative career tracking down various interference sources, among other things. It's typically been illegal BDA's and illegally programmed radios by people who not only don't know the rules, they don't know that there are rules.

In these cases, contact is discreetly made, the interfering party is made aware, and the problem goes away. Sometimes they don't quite believe me, so a follow up letter from the FCC fixes it. No case is opened, no punishment is handed out, and the RR community as a whole had no clue that yet another CCR has caused a real problem. Outside of a few well publicized amateur radio related cases, I've never seen it go beyond that, and that just doesn't make for a good press release.

 

[zz0468]

I'm curious. Is the traffic you've heard intentionally interfering or malicious or is it more akin to legitimate business or personal traffic on an improper channel?

Both, but mostly clueless dolts not knowing what the rules are.

 

[AK9R]

It doesn't take a "MASSIVE interference" to cause a problem.

It doesn't take a massive amount of "interference" to raise the noise floor thus making it more difficult for everyone to communicate. It's not so much a matter of Billy Baofeng inadvertently transmitting on your repeater's input frequency or on your department's fire ground channel. It's that his radio is generating spurious emissions all up and down the band.

 

[12dbsinad]

It doesn't take a massive amount of "interference" to raise the noise floor thus making it more difficult for everyone to communicate. It's not so much a matter of Billy Baofeng inadvertently transmitting on your repeater's input frequency or on your department's fire ground channel. It's that his radio is generating spurious emissions all up and down the band.

Bingo. Aside from intentional interference on frequency, there is a reason why the FCC requires type acceptance for part 90. Just because you talk on a baofeng and it works good and everything is hunky dory doesn't meant you're not causing interference, because you are. Those things are dirtier than Stormy Daniels. It does take some technical understanding of RF to know this, not just that it "works good".

 

[Darmtn]

If you're trying to legitimize your radios, things are gonna get tougher.

I don't have anything but frs/gmrs but have seen write ups saying they make decent scanners!

While I'm very rural -I monitor cities 500,000+ populations Maybe in NYC,LA etc there is a lot more interference , but point was MOST people are not looking to cause problems with fire/police/med. there are always somebody .....

 

[mastr]

Both, but mostly clueless dolts not knowing what the rules are.

Clueless people on the air are not a new thing, but it is a safe bet that the cheap import radios make them a bit more common these days.

In the mid-80's, I talked to a couple of young men on 155.160 who were driving up an interstate just shooting the breeze. They told me about their "quiet, private CB's" they had bought at a liquidation sale. They had no idea what a Phoenix SX actually was.