Obviously I read Kevin's Post #152. I quoted part of in my my reply #155. :wink:
-
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
- Thread starter AK9R
- Start date
- Status
Obviously I read Kevin's Post #152. I quoted part of in my my reply #155. :wink:
Obviosly that was,nt ment for you it just happened to be posted under you post
Good audio quality on receive part of the problem
I know of a few families that chose them as FRS radio replacements based *SOLELY* on receive audio quality compared to your normal frs radios.
While I don't condone it, I can fully understand it.
The $10 BF has better / louder audio quality than ANY modern scanner from both Uniden and Whistler in my opinion, as well as the aforementioned FRS radios.
Yeah, right - all I need to hear is louder "roger beeps", but the point is, I believe many families chose them as frs replacements not due so much to the higher power, but the mere fact that they can understand each other without that "frs toy" rx audio sound.
Quite frankly, these cheap radios often sound MUCH better than some recent "big three" manufacturers. That always left me scratching my head.
Maybe it's time the big boys start paying attention to the primary physical sense we use - our ears, and improve the audio so that the cheap radios won't be such a temptation.
I know of a few families that chose them as FRS radio replacements based *SOLELY* on receive audio quality compared to your normal frs radios.
While I don't condone it, I can fully understand it.
The $10 BF has better / louder audio quality than ANY modern scanner from both Uniden and Whistler in my opinion, as well as the aforementioned FRS radios.
Yeah, right - all I need to hear is louder "roger beeps", but the point is, I believe many families chose them as frs replacements not due so much to the higher power, but the mere fact that they can understand each other without that "frs toy" rx audio sound.
Quite frankly, these cheap radios often sound MUCH better than some recent "big three" manufacturers. That always left me scratching my head.
Maybe it's time the big boys start paying attention to the primary physical sense we use - our ears, and improve the audio so that the cheap radios won't be such a temptation.
jwsnyder1969
Newbie
The FCC trusts NO ONE when it comes to ensuring compliance with its frequency, emission, power, and antenna restrictions in the Part 95 personal radio services. There is not even any "Trust But Verify." The FCC's policy is "DISTRUST AND VERIFY." The FCC seems to acknowledge tacitly that while it can and will wield a heavy hand to enforce its ban on the importation and marketing of non-compliant radios that there is not much it can do or will do once the non-compliant radios end up in hands of consumers in the absence of specific complaints by aggrieved incumbent & licensed radio system users about interference being caused by someone using a non-compliant radio, and such interference is likely to be of the malicious variety.
The Baofeng, Wouxon, and other Chinese radios for which the FCC now seems to be gunning have been very popular with amateur radio operators (I own a Baofeng BF-F8HP) and also the prepper/#SHTF crowd, many of whom are also licensed amateur radio operators and/or GMRS operators. Everything that I have read regarding the use of two-way radios by the prepper#SHTF crowd is that they have no desire or interest in causing harmful interference, intentional and otherwise, to licensed and incumbent radio services (first responders, aircraft,, military, et al) or other users of license-free services. The prepper/#SHTF frequency lists that I have seen have not specified any frequencies that are used by first responders, aircraft, military, et al. I have seen some prepper/#SHTF frequency lists that include Business Radio Service frequencies, but the frequencies are for itinerant use, and included almost always is a statement that one can apply for a license to be able to use the itinerant frequency legally. Perhaps the most popular BRS itinerant frequency that preppers/#SHTF folks use is 33.400MHz FM.
Here is a link to one such prepper/#SHTF frequency list: https://radiofreeq.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/shtf-survivalist-radio-frequency-list/
Will Snyder
ARS: KB4LFD
GMRS: WQOQ345
The Baofeng, Wouxon, and other Chinese radios for which the FCC now seems to be gunning have been very popular with amateur radio operators (I own a Baofeng BF-F8HP) and also the prepper/#SHTF crowd, many of whom are also licensed amateur radio operators and/or GMRS operators. Everything that I have read regarding the use of two-way radios by the prepper#SHTF crowd is that they have no desire or interest in causing harmful interference, intentional and otherwise, to licensed and incumbent radio services (first responders, aircraft,, military, et al) or other users of license-free services. The prepper/#SHTF frequency lists that I have seen have not specified any frequencies that are used by first responders, aircraft, military, et al. I have seen some prepper/#SHTF frequency lists that include Business Radio Service frequencies, but the frequencies are for itinerant use, and included almost always is a statement that one can apply for a license to be able to use the itinerant frequency legally. Perhaps the most popular BRS itinerant frequency that preppers/#SHTF folks use is 33.400MHz FM.
Here is a link to one such prepper/#SHTF frequency list: https://radiofreeq.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/shtf-survivalist-radio-frequency-list/
Will Snyder
ARS: KB4LFD
GMRS: WQOQ345
FCC DA-18-980A1.pdf
I am taking a class to obtain my Technician license.
I want to make a copy to take to class for discussion.
When I click on the link, it no longer works.
It worked earlier in the week.
Any suggestions?
I am taking a class to obtain my Technician license.
I want to make a copy to take to class for discussion.
When I click on the link, it no longer works.
It worked earlier in the week.
Any suggestions?
nd5y
Member
Looks like the FCC web site isn't working properly.
You can find the .pdf document here when they fix the web site or download the Word .doc version.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/enforcement-advisories
Thank You!
Yep it seems to be that All the PDF,s Links are going to Downloadable Instead and Not Opening Up--I Just Tried Them
This is Happening on Everything on their Site Even the Press Releases and the Ones You Posted Tom
This is Happening on Everything on their Site Even the Press Releases and the Ones You Posted Tom
All the pdf files are opening just fine here.
Hey Mule---I Used to Just Be able to click on PDF and it would open Up with no Problem and No downloading--Now today it wants me to download to my pc copy and save to open them up--i dont need anymore downloaded crap in my pc--i find it odd this is happening--meanwhile yesterday everything was fine as posted above in my statement
This happened a few weeks ago also when the site went down and returned a few hours later
This happened a few weeks ago also when the site went down and returned a few hours later
Seems like every time a post gathers some steam,
the train always ends up going off the rails. Just as
this thread has.
If you go back into the original post and read the actual
.pdf, you will find no mention of spurious emissions, splatter,
or anything else. It simply addresses radios being able to
transmit outside of "ham" frequencies.
I personally am getting tired of hearing all of the Baofeng bashing.
I read, at least, one post every single day where the Baofeng
radio haters are on their soapbox bashing, not only the radios,
but the users and the buyers as well. What ever happened to
"Hey, if that works for you, then that's fine"? After all, I happen
to remember a time when Yaesu radios were considered CCR's.
I have many handheld radios. I have 7-Motorolas, 3-Icoms,
2-Kenwoods, and 5-Baofengs. And guess what! The Baofengs sometimes
work and sound far better than any of the others. NOT ONCE
have I ever been approached and told that my Baofeng radios
were causing interference. And I have used them on cruise ships,
in amusement parks, hotels, NASCAR races, NHRA races, air
shows, etc.
The last thing I want to address is the "holier than thou" "legal
eagles" The ham police who love to state and quote FCC regulations.
I challenge each and every one of you. Until you can prove: that
you never, ever drive beyond the posted speed limit, you never
lie on your income tax return, you have never installed software
purchased by one of your friends, never downloaded an mp3, never
taped an album onto a cassette tape, etc. Only then, after you
can prove 100% immaculate cleanliness, can you start
to preach FCC legality.
the train always ends up going off the rails. Just as
this thread has.
If you go back into the original post and read the actual
.pdf, you will find no mention of spurious emissions, splatter,
or anything else. It simply addresses radios being able to
transmit outside of "ham" frequencies.
I personally am getting tired of hearing all of the Baofeng bashing.
I read, at least, one post every single day where the Baofeng
radio haters are on their soapbox bashing, not only the radios,
but the users and the buyers as well. What ever happened to
"Hey, if that works for you, then that's fine"? After all, I happen
to remember a time when Yaesu radios were considered CCR's.
I have many handheld radios. I have 7-Motorolas, 3-Icoms,
2-Kenwoods, and 5-Baofengs. And guess what! The Baofengs sometimes
work and sound far better than any of the others. NOT ONCE
have I ever been approached and told that my Baofeng radios
were causing interference. And I have used them on cruise ships,
in amusement parks, hotels, NASCAR races, NHRA races, air
shows, etc.
The last thing I want to address is the "holier than thou" "legal
eagles" The ham police who love to state and quote FCC regulations.
I challenge each and every one of you. Until you can prove: that
you never, ever drive beyond the posted speed limit, you never
lie on your income tax return, you have never installed software
purchased by one of your friends, never downloaded an mp3, never
taped an album onto a cassette tape, etc. Only then, after you
can prove 100% immaculate cleanliness, can you start
to preach FCC legality.
teufler
Member
Use of commercial equipment
FCC says radios that that transmitt out of the ham band, what about hams that acquire commercial gear to use for ham ops. In the DMR world, you hear some talk that they are using Motorola XXX. I am confused about radios that have wide band coverage that many use for a scanner.
FCC says radios that that transmitt out of the ham band, what about hams that acquire commercial gear to use for ham ops. In the DMR world, you hear some talk that they are using Motorola XXX. I am confused about radios that have wide band coverage that many use for a scanner.
It's legal to operate a Part 90 radio in the ham bands, because type approval is not required in the ham bands. Rather than rely on technology to maintain technical compliance, the amateur service relies on the operator to maintain technical compliance.
Using a Part 90 radio as a scanner is legal, so long as the user doesn't transmit, and the transmitter is rendered inoperable. Programming the TX frequency as "blank" will suffice, and just removing the microphone probably would, too, so long as the radio doesn't attempt to affiliate.
bill4long
Member
A lot of FUD buzzing around this advisory, but "these radios" have nothing to do with radios that are Part 90 certified if they are marketed for Part 90 use. Amateur operators may use Part 90 certified radios if they do not cause harmful interference. (Amateur operators may use any transmitter, even ones they build themselves, as long as they don't cause harmful interference.)
Last edited:
What if they're falsely labeled as certified since I'm sure no one in a position of authority has checked them before now. If they're allowed, I'm gonna snatch up a bunch and get a Sharpie and go do town. My "certification" will mean just as much.
bill4long
Member
Interesting question. I doubt enforcement for such devices has occurred or will occurred at the docks. There's just too much stuff coming in. Maybe some spot checks, I don't know. This advisory is essentially a threat to Internet marketers, who are easy to spot check for genuine certifications and proper marketing practices. If the FCC is really interested in cracking down, and issuing fines, this would be the way to go. Moreover, the concern is not amateur radio operators using such devices. It is people using such devices in Part 90 and Part 95 services, whether they are licensed or not.
At any rate, as a ham radio guy myself, and a Part 90 licensee, the Chinese radios I buy are always Part 90 certified so I can use them in both services legally. I have several Baofengs, Wouxuns and TYT radios that are Part 90 certified. But hams should understand and not be afraid, even though a Baofeng UV-5R is not Part 90 certified (and thus illegal to import, market and sell since it covers Part 90 frequencies), they are NOT illegal to use by hams as long as they conform to 97.307 emission standards, and do not cause harmful interference to other services. So to you hams, don't go tossing out your radios just because they were illegally imported and sold.
Last edited:
If the radio is ordered from China, I think they come labeled as "Toy." However true that might really be, that is not the intention. But because of the labeling, the platoon of package poking people of the federal government are not likely to check a "toy" as much as they might check a radio. If they've been told to look for "Part 90" somewhere on the device, that's all they care about because they haven't a clue what it represents. They get paid the big bucks to look, not test.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
A few years ago, the famous AnyTone great FCC certification scam went down, and that was my point then. A label is meaningless if it isn't backed up by factual legit certification.
bill4long
Member
Right. Which is why, for all intents and purposes, The Advisory is the threat to the Internet (read: Amazon and Ebay) marketers. That's the only realistic choke point if the FCC actually cares about enforcement. The thing is, I don't see how any of this matters at all, because Part 90 radios which are capable of full VHF/UHF Part 90/95 spectrum transmitting, and are perfectly legal to import and sell, are not banned and not covered by this advisory. So even if the non-certified radios are all completely wiped out, the cheap Part 90 radios that remain will simply be the ones that people purchase. The Baofeng UV-888, for example, is Part 90 certified and they cost $13 quantity one (I've seen $8 in larger quantity.) The marketers will just sell those as GMRS and FRS radios, or whatever, so how this would actually impede illegal usage is a mystery. The cat is out of the bag and there is no going back, unless they want to force marketers to verify licenses of their customers for any radio that is capable of general VHF/UHF usage. I don't see this happening.
Last edited:
- Status
