slicerwizard
Member
You and your damn rants are stupid. You crap on a member (Ubbe) who actually understands issues, technical and otherwise, while you contribute nothing of value.
"forbidden" cell phone frequencies
- Thread starter rrman987
- Start date
- Status
Was I wrong?
Ubbe
Member
It's the logistics that costs, to keep track of the different firmware and model versions and model name that changes and keep different boxes and scanners in stock and have a dedicated machine for splashing epoxy on the circuit board that needs to dry before it can be handled further in the manufacturing chain. Circuit boards RF section can't be repaired and need to be replaced. There's so much extra work involved when handling that frequency blocking that are totally useless these days.
/Ubbe
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,927
I never quote myself but.. apparently very few actually read this, this is the reason the law was revised. I understand I got the year wrong, it was not 1994 it was 1986 that was just a brain fart. Bob Grove testified in front of the subcommittee in 1997 before the law was revised.
My point is all the technical stuff that experts know more than any politician was not the impetus here, it was.. politics.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
That may very well be, and I agree, it is useless.
However, if there was that much money to be saved, I would suspect the radio manufacturers would be fighting hard to bring down overhead costs and increase profits. Radio manufacturers can submit requests to the FCC just like anyone can.
If someone wants to do it, here's where you would start:
Perhaps, but the US Congress doesn't care, Uniden in Taiwan makes whatever is profitable for them and sells them as appropriate. Logic doesn't always apply in business administration.
paulears
Member
In the UK, we never repeal old laws unless they cause problems. You still cannot enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour. Although maybe that one would be handy with today's politics.
Ubbe
Member
Yes, but they will not take notice if it comes from those who are affected negatively. It has to come from an independent government entity that also can present the technical evidence that makes the legislation moot. Scanner manufactures need to push their argument to FCC and question the need for blocking certain frequencies in todays digital world that doesn't have any analog cellular systems and were it also are forbidden by law to try and decrypt any encrypted signals.
/Ubbe
It's never going to happen...let it go.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 737
And the FCC's first question would be "Why should we repeal the law unblocking those frequencies if there is nothing that your receivers can decode or your customers listen to?" It would also be the first question the corporate lawyers would ask before they spend the money to petition the FCC. Long and short of it, while the block is unneeded in the modern world, there is ZERO business case to unblock it. The exception I would add would be for the manufacturers that went nuts and also blocked portions of the 900 MHz band.. ahem, I'm looking at you Yaesu!
I have used an SDR and looked at those blocked frequencies of late because of a tower that went up nearby. I definitely do not need, nor want my scanners unblocked to hear that noise.
Decades ago I could and did hear cordless and cellular phone calls using a Uniden 2500XLT. They were terribly boring and yes I even could decode DTMF people were using for the telephone number dialed, their bank account number, their password etc. It was as enjoyable as listening to a child cry via a baby monitor.
If one wants to know what another is saying, learn to read lips. That is also boring.
Decades ago I could and did hear cordless and cellular phone calls using a Uniden 2500XLT. They were terribly boring and yes I even could decode DTMF people were using for the telephone number dialed, their bank account number, their password etc. It was as enjoyable as listening to a child cry via a baby monitor.
If one wants to know what another is saying, learn to read lips. That is also boring.
6079smithw
Member
Wouldn't make it past the metal detector anyway.
Ubbe
Member
And they would answer that it adds extra costs and work to their company that are totally unnecessary when it now are nothing to listen to in those frequency bands.
/Ubbe
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 737
Bingo.
I think Ubbe is trying to make the point that Uniden/Whistler/etc would try to make the case that blocking those frequencies adds to their costs and work.
They've been doing it for so long now that any costs involved would be minuscule. In fact, it would probably cost them more to roll those engineering and production changes back to unblock the frequencies.
Me thinks Ubbe is making a bit too much of this issue.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 737
The technical costs might be miniscule, but the legal costs to get their corporate lawyers to fight the FCC on it would be far from tiny. The amount of theoretical money they might save in manufacturing vs legal fees coupled with the fact that this would result in ZERO additional sales of their product means they dont care.
As a side note, I would propose that its trivial cost wise for a programmer to add a firmware block of frequencies but since this has already been done on all current products, you have to add an expense for a programmer to undo it.
I stand by my assertion that even if the lawyers and programmers were free, there is zero incentive for any manufacturer to have this law changed. They are in business to make money, not fight the government to remove a regulation that doesn't matter to their bottom line.
As a side note, I would propose that its trivial cost wise for a programmer to add a firmware block of frequencies but since this has already been done on all current products, you have to add an expense for a programmer to undo it.
I stand by my assertion that even if the lawyers and programmers were free, there is zero incentive for any manufacturer to have this law changed. They are in business to make money, not fight the government to remove a regulation that doesn't matter to their bottom line.
217
Sporadic E enthusiast
The early version of the Radio Shack PRO-51 scanned 'em all - right out of the box. There was some test modes built in. You could apply the test mode by holding down certain buttons when turning on the scanner. I purchased one in 1993 and it quickly became a party centerpiece. The 51 was also popular with law enforcement as I noticed them in a several LE and DOT vehicles. I used a short length of coax connected to one side of telescoping rabbit ears. I've included a photo from back in the day. She would take from me the minute I walked into the room and listen all night long.
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm saying the same thing you are, that it's not worth it on any level to roll back those blocks.
Correction on this the frequencies was removed from diodes. I had a RS scanner PRO34 (Black and Big) and I modded it as a project and it started receiving the 850 frequencies. One of the media companies here in Canada's Capital interviewed me about the lack of privacy we had and still have. You are right about the binary system that composes the cell tech. No more analog cell transmissions. I am surprised that the CRTC didn't knock on my door after my interview with the media station. WHEWAn older Uniden scanner specifically said certain frequencies (800MHz+ ?) were not programmed into scanner as those were FCC "forbidden" (analog?) cell phone frequencies. With the advent of 3G, 4G, and 5G phones everything is now digital ones and zeros, though not encrypted () I believe.
So curious if those "forbidden" frequencies are still in cell phone use or have been re allocated to a new service?
- Status
Similar threads
