Interesting Anytone Termn-8r info

[Titan520]

Like I mentioned previously it seems you have a personal vendetta on the 8R radios

I dont think its a vendetta, i think its common sense. Mate, multi use devices are new for you guys in the US. I think its great that someone has pulled it off, but the simple fact is that there is something shady about the whole thing. It might be kosher, it might not be. We dont know yet. To much conflicting information.

Things like this has to be done right, and with transparency. When you market something of this caliber, you have to make sure 100% without a doubt that everything is legal and approved or else it will backfire, as it did.

Zodiac went through the same bull**** with PTS. However they had the common sense to cooperate with PTS techicians. They sent down a team and redesigned the entire radio, with input from PTS, to make sure it absolutely conformed to every miniscule detail.

 

[Observer411]

I dont think its a vendetta, i think its common sense. Mate, multi use devices are new for you guys in the US. I think its great that someone has pulled it off, but the simple fact is that there is something shady about the whole thing. It might be kosher, it might not be. We dont know yet. To much conflicting information.

Things like this has to be done right, and with transparency. When you market something of this caliber, you have to make sure 100% without a doubt that everything is legal and approved or else it will backfire, as it did.

Zodiac went through the same bull**** with PTS. However they had the common sense to cooperate with PTS techicians. They sent down a team and redesigned the entire radio, with input from PTS, to make sure it absolutely conformed to every miniscule detail.

It probably isn't but it is funny: they grilled you just a couple posts ago not believing tracking information posted by you. Why would anyone even question if the tracking information is legit; who thinks that way - it comes down to head hunting for conspiracies sake.

And then it is attacked if the radios have Part 90 compliance when many radios from many manufacturers have the same dual compatibility of keyboard or software only programming --- that is nothing new for a couple years now; but it seems for some reason there is still a conspiracy that something is going on....

The truth appears to be Part 90 is in tact; Part 97 usage is legal for amateurs; and Part 95 has been dismissed (not denied as previously posted) - in which other posters have posted emails from Anytone tech saying they are getting re-certified for soon.

I will see how this plays out - to me the idea is great and a novel concept and at least a company is trying to give an affordable option to radio users legally --- we all know that most likely 50% of Baofeng buyers are illegally using their radios on GMRS anyways; so at least a company is trying to solve that dilemma.

 

[rapidcharger]

The radios can be set to be 'software programmable only' to be in line with the requirements of Part 90 (for commercial users (Amateur users can use these all day long as long as they are actually certified) - just like the AnyTone 3318UVD, Wouxun 8D, and Baofeng Uv-82C that have keypad or software only modes. You better go after buytwowayradios.com (Woxun dealer), wouxun.us (Anytone dealer), and Amazon.com for selling these as well...

Like I mentioned previously it seems you have a personal vendetta on the 8R radios

Personal vendetta... personal vendetta.... personal vendetta....
Where have I read that before?
Oh. I remember now. Hi Crypto.

At least we know that we're dealing with the same shills just on different forums.

As I've pointed out numerous times on different forums, as you're already aware, the radios are marketed as an all-in-one compliant radio. People are not expecting to have it one way or the other, they are expecting all at the same time. So it is misleading. That is my sole grievance.

Aside from that, you sure do know a lot about the other sellers and even their personal names. How come you don't know who owns Anytone Tech? OH that's right. Because they're hiding to avoid prosecution.

 

[Observer411]

Personal vendetta... personal vendetta.... personal vendetta....
Where have I read that before?
Oh. I remember now. Hi Crypto.

At least we know that we're dealing with the same shills just on different forums.

As I've pointed out numerous times on different forums, as you're already aware, the radios are marketed as an all-in-one compliant radio. People are not expecting to have it one way or the other, they are expecting all at the same time. So it is misleading. That is my sole grievance.

Well its nice to meet you too - yet another crazy conspiracy? I am not "Crypto" from another blog - in fact today is my first day posting on forums. I was just tired of the misinformation you are sharing.

But it is nice to know you are changing the conversation away from the Part 90 certificate - especially when every other ChiCom radio has the same basic dual mode for complying with part 90 and the many sellers who market them as such.

It is a common day issue and I'd much rather see people with the software option radios (8R radios and the previously mentioned ones) than a UV-5R that is sold as "commercial and professional transceiver" which is legal at the most for Part 97

Aside from that, you sure do know a lot about the other sellers and even their personal names. How come you don't know who owns Anytone Tech? OH that's right.

Hey who knows - if Anytone tech doesn't live up to their claims of support or take advantage of me I will expose them to - fingers crossed we don't find another shell company in the middle east... ;-)

Because they're hiding to avoid prosecution.

Well considering they are not the Grantee of FCCIDs or the manufacturer who is submitting the product to the lab who is then submitting the tests to the Testing Compliance Body who is then submitting the information to the FCC -I kinda doubt they are hiding from the FCC when their business is nowhere on the documents; especially when the FCC would be after those actually in contact with the FCC and signing their organization behind the radio...

I 100% agree the radio was their idea, and if it finally comes to fruition I think that would do the market good (MURS radios alone are overpriced) - but I doubt they are hiding from the FCC - more so a more reasonable reason is an attempt to keep from crazies bombarding them or stopping in.

 

[hotdjdave]

...to me the idea is great and a novel concept and at least a company is trying to give an affordable option to radio users legally...

Agreed.

 

[prcguy]

I have a UV3318 series and it can be computer programmed and locked in channel mode so users cannot program from the keypad. The intent is a radio shop can program the radio in this mode and it should be compliant with part 90.
prcguy

The radios are not compliant with part 90 rules and regulations. Until they make them so they cannot be programmed from the radio, the radio will not comply with part 90. I know you want very much to believe that it isn't so, and I hate always being the one to break people's hearts. But it's not part 90 compliant and any other previous grants for FPP radios will soon come under the microscope if they haven't already.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

All this arguing about whether or not the 8R series are still Part 90 accepted or not I'm honestly surprised no one has brought this up.

Multi-service radios are not new. They have been around for more than 30 years. There are VHF radios with Part 80 and Part 90 grants. They have a SINGLE FCC ID. There are UHF radios out there with Part 90 and Part 95(A) grants. They have a SINGLE FCC ID.

If you look at the original grant information (which started much of the debate) in the original (now locked) post, you will see a picture of the rear sticker on the radios. It contains a SINGLE FCC ID (the T4K-8RSERIES ID which only had the Part 95 grants). It wasn't until later when a picture of the shipped sticker was posted we noted the radio had DUAL FCC IDs. One for Part 90 and the other for the Part 95A/J.

Now if you read the actual dismissal letter, it shows the Commission was unaware the radio had two ID's on it. If you also do a little digging into the ID requirements, you will realize the commission puts an ID under a transmitter. By that definition, the 8R series is marked as having dual transmitters (when we know it has a receiver and a transceiver). Therefore, it is completely FUBAR in the commission's standards.

The question now becomes, can a radio have dual IDs? And until the commission rules on that, the answer is gonna be no.

 

[Observer411]

All this arguing about whether or not the 8R series are still Part 90 accepted or not I'm honestly surprised no one has brought this up.

Multi-service radios are not new. They have been around for more than 30 years. There are VHF radios with Part 80 and Part 90 grants. They have a SINGLE FCC ID. There are UHF radios out there with Part 90 and Part 95(A) grants. They have a SINGLE FCC ID.

If you look at the original grant information (which started much of the debate) in the original (now locked) post, you will see a picture of the rear sticker on the radios. It contains a SINGLE FCC ID (the T4K-8RSERIES ID which only had the Part 95 grants). It wasn't until later when a picture of the shipped sticker was posted we noted the radio had DUAL FCC IDs. One for Part 90 and the other for the Part 95A/J.

Now if you read the actual dismissal letter, it shows the Commission was unaware the radio had two ID's on it. If you also do a little digging into the ID requirements, you will realize the commission puts an ID under a transmitter. By that definition, the 8R series is marked as having dual transmitters (when we know it has a receiver and a transceiver). Therefore, it is completely FUBAR in the commission's standards.

The question now becomes, can a radio have dual IDs? And until the commission rules on that, the answer is gonna be no.

But yet there is no rule in the book that says it can't? It seems like a undefined crossing. With today's abilities to make a radio boot up into different modes that operates in compliance on how the user boots it up - its like having OS X and then using boot camp to go into Windows - It's a different "device" depending on how it is booted up.

Anytone tech is blazing a new trail so I guess after these radios there will either be a rule or be the new standard

My 2 cents

 

[FrankNY]

With regard to whether a radio can have two (or even more than two) FCC ID numbers, I happened to be reading the following page just the other day.

eCFR -- Code of Federal Regulations

The mention of multiple IDs appears in two places under §2.925 Identification of equipment, as follows.

"(b) Any device subject to more than one equipment authorization procedure may be assigned a single FCC Identifier. However, a single FCC Identifier is required to be assigned to any device consisting of two or more sections assembled in a common enclosure, on a common chassis or circuit board, and with common frequency controlling circuits. Devices to which a single FCC Identifier has been assigned shall be identified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section."

"(1) Separate FCC Identifiers may be assigned to a device consisting of two or more sections assembled in a common enclosure, but constructed on separate sub-units or circuit boards with independent frequency controlling circuits. The FCC Identifier assigned to any transmitter section shall be preceded by the term TX FCC ID, the FCC Identifier assigned to any receiver section shall be preceded by the term RX FCC ID and the identifier assigned to any remaining section(s) shall be preceded by the term FCC ID."

If multiple FCC IDs are discussed anywhere else in the FCC rules, I haven't seen it - but that doesn't mean that it's not there somewhere.

Frank.

 

[Observer411]

With regard to whether a radio can have two (or even more than two) FCC ID numbers, I happened to be reading the following page just the other day.

eCFR -- Code of Federal Regulations

The mention of multiple IDs appears in two places under §2.925 Identification of equipment, as follows.

"(b) Any device subject to more than one equipment authorization procedure may be assigned a single FCC Identifier. However, a single FCC Identifier is required to be assigned to any device consisting of two or more sections assembled in a common enclosure, on a common chassis or circuit board, and with common frequency controlling circuits. Devices to which a single FCC Identifier has been assigned shall be identified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section."

"(1) Separate FCC Identifiers may be assigned to a device consisting of two or more sections assembled in a common enclosure, but constructed on separate sub-units or circuit boards with independent frequency controlling circuits. The FCC Identifier assigned to any transmitter section shall be preceded by the term TX FCC ID, the FCC Identifier assigned to any receiver section shall be preceded by the term RX FCC ID and the identifier assigned to any remaining section(s) shall be preceded by the term FCC ID."

If multiple FCC IDs are discussed anywhere else in the FCC rules, I haven't seen it - but that doesn't mean that it's not there somewhere.

Frank.

Frank - thanks for the share I appreciate these forums for that! So we will see how they are to proceed since it appears it is possible. Since their "MURS" mode acts as a completely different radio - I am wondering if the MURS and GMRS operate on a different level than is known? Either way that is between the lab, TCB, and FCC to agree if it will come back - apparently it wasn't a definite no since the previous IDs were 'dismissed' and not 'denied'.

An email to Anytone tech yesterday myself and they seemed very optimistic they expect a resolution very soon.

 

[Voyager]

The difference between 'dismissed' and 'denied' is that something is dismissed if it was approved in error, and denied if it was not approved.

 

[Observer411]

The difference between 'dismissed' and 'denied' is that something is dismissed if it was approved in error, and denied if it was not approved.

Agree with that - but it is intriguing many of the 'deficiencies' were under-researched by the FCC

Admonishment from the dismissal to correct before reapplying (other posters have stated the same FCCID could not be attained):

"If you elect to refile for equipment authorization you must submit a currently dated and originally signed Form 731, accompanied by all data required by the Rule sections applicable to the equipment. The deficiencies listed above must be corrected before refiling."

Considering most of the 'deficiencies' have no application to the radio and anytone tech has stated they are reapplying I think it will come out ok.

Especially when it mentions FRS requirements - lol it wasn't ever sold as a FRS radio or licensed as Part 95b (there are many GMRS-only radios that output the full power on GMRS/FRS "interstitials" when they are GMRS only)

Then there is the 'deficiencies' stating the display did not have enough digits to display a full frequency (which it does BTW) - like I said the FCC was purely being lazy and just copied some complaints from vendors who were afraid of losing market share (or from the armchair lawyers that know better than a lab or TCB).

I am assuming that is why there is confidence with the re-application

 

[Project25_MASTR]

According to FrankNY's post, dual boards with common control or common enclosure is where dual ID's may be issued. It reminded me of the crystal controlled era of dual IDs. One for the transmitter and one for the receiver (as pictured below on a GE Custom MVP). These old transceivers weren't modern transceivers in the sense of 1 board with TX and RX but each had their own boards which could be individually removed from the radio. Locally we actually have as set of MASTR II's, one 28 MHz and one 430 MHz, that had the receivers swapped (one receives 28 MHz and transmits 430 MHz an the other receives 430 MHz and transmits 28 MHz) to create a split site 10m repeater.

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg586/zap_uh_lack/Mobile%20Uploads/BBA4C841-CD1A-4716-892E-829836BE8C2D_zpsfpkqycz4.jpg[img]

Now, according to the information available from AT.T, the 8R series to have a transceiver and a receiver for the crossband feature. However, the dual ID's were for transmitters and not a transmitter and receiver. We know it's the same transmitter for all services which would warrant a single ID for the actual transmitter.

The two deficiencies that stuck out to me on the dismissal letter were the FRS and MURS remarks. On UHF where AT.T. shot themselves in the foot was saying the radio has 23 GMRS channels.

In a channelized service, the FCC considers a channel to be a set RX and TX frequency. So what is the only way you can get 23 channels in a UHF Part 95 service? Have the 7 FRS only frequencies in there. Easiest way to correct this confusion, call them modes and not channels in your manual (this probably the exact reason why Motorola call's them modes on synthesized radio equipment) or reflash the radio for only 15 channels with the repeater inputs programmed in instead of a whole set of 8 simplex channels and offer a talk around option on said channels.

As far as the Part 95J comment goes, reading the rules we'll notice that they say 2W max. Not 2W on MURS or 2W VHF, 2W. I feel to obtain the certification the radio will have to be knocked down to 2W. Looking at other manufacturers equipment (Ritron) they make a VHF radio and then a completely separate radio with no more than 2W output for MURS.

 

[Titan520]

It probably isn't but it is funny: they grilled you just a couple posts ago not believing tracking information posted by you. Why would anyone even question if the tracking information is legit; who thinks that way - it comes down to head hunting for conspiracies sake.

Couldn't care less honestly. I share what I know so others can learn from it. And it turn learn and share themselves. If they aren't interested, there is nothing I can do.

I takes more than some grilling to piss me off. It just seems like I'm angry because biting sarcasm comes naturally to me. Something that has gotten me in trouble a number of times, RL and on forums.

And then it is attacked if the radios have Part 90 compliance when many radios from many manufacturers have the same dual compatibility of keyboard or software only programming --- that is nothing new for a couple years now; but it seems for some reason there is still a conspiracy that something is going on....

The reason i mentioned part 90 was becuse i was told the 398UV (Termn-8R) and the 3318UV were two completely different radios with two completely different boards (both aesthetically and electrically). That would make the 3318UV Part 90 cert invalid since the Termn8r is a completely different radio.

I was misinformed and it turned out the 398UV (base model Termn8r) and the 3318UV are indeed the same radio with different cases. Once that came to light, with the FCC document as proof, I went back and edited my post since it was clearly based on the faulty information I received from my anytone contact.

There is in my mind, at this point, no doubt that Part 90 is valid and legal as long as Anytone has not lied on the FCC application. Which we must assume they haven't.

The truth appears to be Part 90 is in tact; Part 97 usage is legal for amateurs; and Part 95 has been dismissed (not denied as previously posted) - in which other posters have posted emails from Anytone tech saying they are getting re-certified for soon.

I will see how this plays out - to me the idea is great and a novel concept and at least a company is trying to give an affordable option to radio users legally --- we all know that most likely 50% of Baofeng buyers are illegally using their radios on GMRS anyways; so at least a company is trying to solve that dilemma.

I hope they pull this off the right way. At this point there are too much questionable information for me to trust them, but I'm willing to take a step back and give them the benefit of the doubt. I've been using multi use devices (PMR446+SRBR444, equivalent to a FRS+MURS radio.) for years now, and I'm very satisfied with the function. I hope you guys in the US can get this too. There is a massive market for this.

 

[nd5y]

I hope you guys in the US can get this too.

The frequencies that PMR446 and KDR/SRBR 444 operate on are part of the 70 cm amateur band in N. America.

 

[Titan520]

The frequencies that PMR446 and KDR/SRBR 444 operate on are part of the 70 cm amateur band in N. America.

I'm aware of that. For the US the PMR446+SRBR444 radios would be the equivalent of FRS and MURS in one radio. Similar use, different name.

I didnt mean the frequencies specifically, i mean the fact that its multi use. These are as common as dirt over here. You can get them practically anywhere and they're legal, approved and certified.

 

[gesucks]

Until the law is changed, these radio will not get a multi-part grant to do GMRS FRS and part 90 in the same radio. PERIOD.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

According to FrankNY's post, dual boards with common control or common enclosure is where dual ID's may be issued. It reminded me of the crystal controlled era of dual IDs. One for the transmitter and one for the receiver (as pictured below on a GE Custom MVP). These old transceivers weren't modern transceivers in the sense of 1 board with TX and RX but each had their own boards which could be individually removed from the radio. Locally we actually have as set of MASTR II's, one 28 MHz and one 430 MHz, that had the receivers swapped (one receives 28 MHz and transmits 430 MHz an the other receives 430 MHz and transmits 28 MHz) to create a split site 10m repeater.

Now, according to the information available from AT.T, the 8R series to have a transceiver and a receiver for the crossband feature. However, the dual ID's were for transmitters and not a transmitter and receiver. We know it's the same transmitter for all services which would warrant a single ID for the actual transmitter.

The two deficiencies that stuck out to me on the dismissal letter were the FRS and MURS remarks. On UHF where AT.T. shot themselves in the foot was saying the radio has 23 GMRS channels.

In a channelized service, the FCC considers a channel to be a set RX and TX frequency. So what is the only way you can get 23 channels in a UHF Part 95 service? Have the 7 FRS only frequencies in there. Easiest way to correct this confusion, call them modes and not channels in your manual (this probably the exact reason why Motorola call's them modes on synthesized radio equipment) or reflash the radio for only 15 channels with the repeater inputs programmed in instead of a whole set of 8 simplex channels and offer a talk around option on said channels.

As far as the Part 95J comment goes, reading the rules we'll notice that they say 2W max. Not 2W on MURS or 2W VHF, 2W. I feel to obtain the certification the radio will have to be knocked down to 2W. Looking at other manufacturers equipment (Ritron) they make a VHF radio and then a completely separate radio with no more than 2W output for MURS.

Fixed the IMG link.

 

[12dbsinad]

Until the law is changed, these radio will not get a multi-part grant to do GMRS FRS and part 90 in the same radio. PERIOD.

How do they get away with obtaining part 90 (and this goes for others not just Anytone) when both wide and narrow bandwidths are selectable?? Doesn't wideband need to be restricted for part 90? Hence all the issues using commercial gear on the ham bands today because of all the firmware/software changes on existing models to "factory forced narrow" . Now why is it the Chi-comms can get away with it? A lot of things just don't make sense when it comes to the rules.

 

[prcguy]

Lots of current part 90 radios are selectable wide or narrow band, its up to the person programming the radio to make sure it complies with whatever the licensee is allowed to use. Some companies later releases of programming software now restricts everything to narrow but others do not.

As for gesucks remark "Until the law is changed, these radio will not get a multi-part grant to do GMRS FRS and part 90 in the same radio" he would be correct because FRS does not allow a removable antenna. Otherwise in my opinion there is no reason for the FCC to deny them certification for part 90, GMRS and MURS (no FRS) in the same radio if the radio can only operate in one specific mode at a time.
prcguy

How do they get away with obtaining part 90 (and this goes for others not just Anytone) when both wide and narrow bandwidths are selectable?? Doesn't wideband need to be restricted for part 90? Hence all the issues using commercial gear on the ham bands today because of all the firmware/software changes on existing models to "factory forced narrow" . Now why is it the Chi-comms can get away with it? A lot of things just don't make sense when it comes to the rules.