What is this about...is gov banning handheld ham radio? - Page 5 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-27-2019, 11:36 PM
Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
Central Scrutinizer Central Scrutinizer is offline
Clinton's Hitman
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,982
Thanks: 3,146
Thanked 2,801 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
PRC-148 have turned up on some surplus sites. If you have deep pockets ($6K +/-) you can buy the newer Thales Liberty. The civilian version deletes low band and adds the public safety 700/800 bands.


Edited to add: There are several 148s listed on eBay but they look more like clones/knockoffs than the real deal.
Good point. If you see a Harris military radio for sale, it is a knockoff by Triumph Electronics. EBay and Amazon are full of new looking "military radios" that are simply UHF and VHF Chinese radios packaged to look like the real thing. Save your money.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Central Scrutinizer For This Useful Post:
Old 08-28-2019, 07:29 AM
FirstToken FirstToken is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Posts: 686
Thanks: 3
Thanked 739 Times in 389 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerindel View Post
Yep, all mine have an FCC ID, like my most recent one is FCC:2AGND82P

Which I have no idea what it means.

But its just a little sticker, I'm sure anyone could print them by the thousands.

It is either an incomplete number you just provided or it is bogus.
I assume he has dropped an H, and the ID should be 2AGND82HP, if so this is the Baofeng UV-82HP.

That radio is not Part 90 certificated, but is, partially, Part 15 certified. The measurements and report leading to certification was done by Shenzhen STS Test Services Co, Ltd, in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. The report only certifies that the radio meets emission requirements in transmit and receive modes. It ignores the fact that the radio can, out of the box and with no modifications, transmit on Part 95 frequencies, which should, I think (but I am not a lawyer, so it is my laymens understanding of the regs), prevent its certification. As far as the testing goes the radio is "legal", but the testing ignores the fact it can do things that require other certifications.

Note that I don't think that radio has a certification label anyplace on it that I can remember seeing, but it does have an FCC ID on it, and you can look the information up based on that. And that report only claims to have tested to Part 15B standards of compliance.

T!
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to FirstToken For This Useful Post:
Old 08-28-2019, 07:50 AM
Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
Central Scrutinizer Central Scrutinizer is offline
Clinton's Hitman
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,982
Thanks: 3,146
Thanked 2,801 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstToken View Post
I assume he has dropped an H, and the ID should be 2AGND82HP, if so this is the Baofeng UV-82HP.



That radio is not Part 90 certificated, but is, partially, Part 15 certified. The measurements and report leading to certification was done by Shenzhen STS Test Services Co, Ltd, in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. The report only certifies that the radio meets emission requirements in transmit and receive modes. It ignores the fact that the radio can, out of the box and with no modifications, transmit on Part 95 frequencies, which should, I think (but I am not a lawyer, so it is my laymens understanding of the regs), prevent its certification. As far as the testing goes the radio is "legal", but the testing ignores the fact it can do things that require other certifications.



Note that I don't think that radio has a certification label anyplace on it that I can remember seeing, but it does have an FCC ID on it, and you can look the information up based on that. And that report only claims to have tested to Part 15B standards of compliance.



T!
If that is the case, it can only be used by a licensed ham on ham radio frequencies. Even so, it should have frequencies other than ham radio blocked.

It really is just another example of how the FCC certification system is being skirted. Why the FCC hasn't been more vigilant on these certifications is a mystery.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 12:17 PM
FirstToken FirstToken is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Posts: 686
Thanks: 3
Thanked 739 Times in 389 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
If that is the case, it can only be used by a licensed ham on ham radio frequencies. Even so, it should have frequencies other than ham radio blocked.
The following is opinion, and I know what they say about opinions...

Agreed it would only be legal to use on ham freqs (or MARS / CAP, but that is a different discussion, legal but not currently authorized), but do not agree, necessarily, that other freqs should be blocked.

Part 95 freqs should probably be blocked, because Part 95 has a specific regulation requiring certification for radios that may transmit on those freqs. 95.603(d) “Each FRS unit (a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate in the FRS) must be certified for use in the FRS according to subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.” That means, to me, that if a radio can operate on FRS frequencies, even if not designed as an FRS radio, it must be certified as an FRS or it should not be able to operate there. This is kind of like the wording for Part 95 CB service.

But historically it has always been up to the ham to make sure he is in frequency compliance, that is one of the reasons hams have the testing they do. Ham radios capable of transmitting outside ham bands have been a fact, more common than not, since the very earliest days of commercially available radios. Prior to digital radios, and I mean real CPU controlled digital radios, not just digital frequency readouts, it was the norm. For example, my Collins KWM-2 will operate on any frequency from about 3.5 to about 30 MHz, minus a small segment in the 5.0 to 6.5 range that gets taken out by the mixing scheme. My Hallicrafters HT37 will operate well outside the authorized bands in each bandswitch setting, as will my Yaesu FT-301D.

In ham use there can be some valid requirements for a radio to operate outside the legal ham bands. For example if you are using the radio as an IF in a downcovert or upconverter configuration it might be inconvenient to be limited to the legal band edges.

It is my belief that less new regulation, and more user responsibility, is better than mandating the technology. The existing rules already establish where you can and cannot transmit. The existing rules already define what a radio can and cannot do and how it must be certified. Enforce the existing rules more stringently, don’t make up new ones that say you can’t do what is already not allowed. Of course, this would require a larger enforcement group to do so, with ensuing operational cost increases. But it would also tend to impact those intent on ignoring the rules, while having minimal impact on those who do follow the rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
It really is just another example of how the FCC certification system is being skirted. Why the FCC hasn't been more vigilant on these certifications is a mystery.
I believe the process allowing manufacturers to self certify, using a third party for confirmation, was driven by the shear number of consumer electronics on the market and the lack of manpower at the FCC to do each and every confirmation first hand. It was a result of the explosion of items requiring certification on the consumer market.

When conscientious companies are involved, and they at least make an attempt to follow the regulations, it is not an issue. When a nation state adopts the attitude that regulations exist only to be bypassed, then of course such a system will not work.

T!

PS You'll love it, it is a way of life....
PPS Lets see how many people catch that reference to this conversation
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to FirstToken For This Useful Post:
Old 08-28-2019, 04:58 PM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,433
Thanks: 6,497
Thanked 12,780 Times in 4,126 Posts
Default

Quote:
When a nation state adopts the attitude that regulations exist only to be bypassed, then of course such a system will not work.
guncontrolsomethingsomethingdamncaliforinianssomet hingseomthinggrumblegrumble.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 05:02 PM
Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
Central Scrutinizer Central Scrutinizer is offline
Clinton's Hitman
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,982
Thanks: 3,146
Thanked 2,801 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstToken View Post
The following is opinion, and I know what they say about opinions...

Agreed it would only be legal to use on ham freqs (or MARS / CAP, but that is a different discussion, legal but not currently authorized), but do not agree, necessarily, that other freqs should be blocked.

Part 95 freqs should probably be blocked, because Part 95 has a specific regulation requiring certification for radios that may transmit on those freqs. 95.603(d) ďEach FRS unit (a transmitter that operates or is intended to operate in the FRS) must be certified for use in the FRS according to subpart J of part 2 of this chapter.Ē That means, to me, that if a radio can operate on FRS frequencies, even if not designed as an FRS radio, it must be certified as an FRS or it should not be able to operate there. This is kind of like the wording for Part 95 CB service.

But historically it has always been up to the ham to make sure he is in frequency compliance, that is one of the reasons hams have the testing they do. Ham radios capable of transmitting outside ham bands have been a fact, more common than not, since the very earliest days of commercially available radios. Prior to digital radios, and I mean real CPU controlled digital radios, not just digital frequency readouts, it was the norm. For example, my Collins KWM-2 will operate on any frequency from about 3.5 to about 30 MHz, minus a small segment in the 5.0 to 6.5 range that gets taken out by the mixing scheme. My Hallicrafters HT37 will operate well outside the authorized bands in each bandswitch setting, as will my Yaesu FT-301D.

In ham use there can be some valid requirements for a radio to operate outside the legal ham bands. For example if you are using the radio as an IF in a downcovert or upconverter configuration it might be inconvenient to be limited to the legal band edges.

It is my belief that less new regulation, and more user responsibility, is better than mandating the technology. The existing rules already establish where you can and cannot transmit. The existing rules already define what a radio can and cannot do and how it must be certified. Enforce the existing rules more stringently, donít make up new ones that say you canít do what is already not allowed. Of course, this would require a larger enforcement group to do so, with ensuing operational cost increases. But it would also tend to impact those intent on ignoring the rules, while having minimal impact on those who do follow the rules.



I believe the process allowing manufacturers to self certify, using a third party for confirmation, was driven by the shear number of consumer electronics on the market and the lack of manpower at the FCC to do each and every confirmation first hand. It was a result of the explosion of items requiring certification on the consumer market.

When conscientious companies are involved, and they at least make an attempt to follow the regulations, it is not an issue. When a nation state adopts the attitude that regulations exist only to be bypassed, then of course such a system will not work.

T!

PS You'll love it, it is a way of life....
PPS Lets see how many people catch that reference to this conversation
In my opinion, the Certification is a means of the FCC policing the manufacturers and importers so that consumers don't inadvertently do dumb things like use a Baofeng on its default frequencies and activate the voting system on a county sheriff's repeaters. Which has actually happened.

I have a lot of gear on ham bands, Part 90, and elsewhere that are capable of being operated out of band. I have a GROL so tend to be careful that I don't get caught up in an FCC inspection, because I should know better. It isn't easy, because the options for full performance radios in GMRS are limited to older models. I have a pre ban, unblocked ICR-9000 receiver, so I can appreciate the dilemna.

Part 97 has an emergency communications provision that allows a ham in a dire emergency "to use whatever communications mean at his/her disposal."

In my opinion, if the ham can program a public safety mutual aid channel into a radio, and it is his sole communications in a dire emergency, that should be legal. (State laws may differ here).

However there are some hams that will argue that you cannot do that, that the rules do not permit it, etc. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you cannot in this case.

Getting back to certification, Baofeng should not market these unblocked radios to the unwashed masses on Amazon. As another posted above, telecommunications requires structure, and without it there will be chaos.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 05:36 PM
Hunter Don Hunter Don is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,382
Thanks: 70
Thanked 1,182 Times in 611 Posts
Default

Iím gonna bet, come September 1st Iím still going to be able to click add to cart on amazon and buy the same feng uv5 I have previously bought



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 06:10 PM
Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
Central Scrutinizer Central Scrutinizer is offline
Clinton's Hitman
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,982
Thanks: 3,146
Thanked 2,801 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Don View Post
I’m gonna bet, come September 1st I’m still going to be able to click add to cart on amazon and buy the same feng uv5 I have previously bought



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup, because Amazon "is to big to fail", "a job creator", a "US Corporation". Bezos could kill a guy and he would get off. Look at Epstein, he got away with being a rapist for decades. He might have got off on a technicality, but , well he just had to die.


Sent from my tricorder model XV
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 06:25 PM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is offline
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,430
Thanks: 657
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,821 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post

Part 97 has an emergency communications provision that allows a ham in a dire emergency "to use whatever communications mean at his/her disposal."
No it does not.
Again, 97.403 only applies to those services falling under part 97. The only service covered by Part 97 is amateur radio. 97.403 gives a Technician class operator authority to transmit in the Extra exclusive sub-bands for example. It does NOT convey any authority to operate on Part 90, Part 95, Part 80, or any other service covered by any Part of CFR 47 other than 97.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 07:12 PM
Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
Central Scrutinizer Central Scrutinizer is offline
Clinton's Hitman
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,982
Thanks: 3,146
Thanked 2,801 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
No it does not.

Again, 97.403 only applies to those services falling under part 97. The only service covered by Part 97 is amateur radio. 97.403 gives a Technician class operator authority to transmit in the Extra exclusive sub-bands for example. It does NOT convey any authority to operate on Part 90, Part 95, Part 80, or any other service covered by any Part of CFR 47 other than 97.

Oh here we go again. ...takes it out of context. Been waiting under the bridge a long time....

Nope not taking the bait...





Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 08:09 PM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is offline
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,430
Thanks: 657
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,821 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
Oh here we go again. ...takes it out of context. Been waiting under the bridge a long time....

Nope not taking the bait...





Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Do you know who Riley Hollingsworth is? That comes straight from his lecture when he was doing the hamfest circuit.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 08:09 PM
Chuckleberry's Avatar
Chuckleberry Chuckleberry is offline
Limited Tolerance Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NoDak
Posts: 3,375
Thanks: 5,162
Thanked 7,908 Times in 2,567 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Don View Post
Iím gonna bet, come September 1st Iím still going to be able to click add to cart on amazon and buy the same feng uv5 I have previously bought



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
`

I think that's a safe bet considering the crackdown allegedly isn't supposed to take effect till the end of Sept. I think whether they are or aren't still on sale at amazon for the same price or more, they will still be on sale at alibaba for about the same price they are now, maybe a bit more. I'm still going to stock up on some now, since I've always meant to get more comms, now I'm just a bit more motivated to do it now rather than later. Worst case scenario for me is I am much closer to the amount of radios I want to have. If they become unavailable or much more expensive to get, along with maybe less capabilities than the current ones, then at least I got them while the getting was good.

.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-28-2019, 11:30 PM
Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
Central Scrutinizer Central Scrutinizer is offline
Clinton's Hitman
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,982
Thanks: 3,146
Thanked 2,801 Times in 1,518 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
Do you know who Riley Hollingsworth is? That comes straight from his lecture when he was doing the hamfest circuit.
Yes in fact I do.
Here is what he told me. I have scrubbed personal info:

"-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: askriley w5kub.wxyz <[email protected]>
Reply-To: askriley w5kub.wxyz <[email protected]>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Usually such questions are loaded, but here's the deal. It's the rule of common sense. "Free picnic table" signs on the side of the highway do not mean you can stop with a van and get one. "Bridge ices before road" signs can be ignored in the summer.


Any frequency isn't the issue, the emergency is the issue. IF the person making the call is right at a genuine emergency, say, at an air port and a skydiver falls with no open chute and there s a taxi or electric utility truck sitting there, who ever can get there first can and should put out an emergency call to anyone listening. Frequency, service, license all are irrelevant. The operative phrase is "genuine emergency."


That's about the best it can be described--it's just the rule of common sense and what you would want any citizen, licensed ot not, to be able to do. "

So there you have it..

Last edited by Central Scrutinizer; 08-28-2019 at 11:49 PM.. Reason: deleted pers info
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-29-2019, 02:09 AM
~Black.Dog~ ~Black.Dog~ is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,524
Thanks: 1,094
Thanked 3,447 Times in 1,094 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recklessdriver View Post
Its because ham guys freak and blow a gasket that you can get into it for cheap.

Personally the ham testing is stupid and I refuse to pay a tax to the government or some club to use the country's air waves.
What tax? I didn't pay anything for my test or license.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-29-2019, 09:26 AM
Hunter Don Hunter Don is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,382
Thanks: 70
Thanked 1,182 Times in 611 Posts
Default

See, that just tells you Iím not worried at all what the date is, Iím pretty confident that sales will not stop when that date comes and goes
If they were concerned distributors would be dumping warehouse stock by now with serious sales


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckleberry View Post
`



I think that's a safe bet considering the crackdown allegedly isn't supposed to take effect till the end of Sept. I think whether they are or aren't still on sale at amazon for the same price or more, they will still be on sale at alibaba for about the same price they are now, maybe a bit more. I'm still going to stock up on some now, since I've always meant to get more comms, now I'm just a bit more motivated to do it now rather than later. Worst case scenario for me is I am much closer to the amount of radios I want to have. If they become unavailable or much more expensive to get, along with maybe less capabilities than the current ones, then at least I got them while the getting was good.



.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-29-2019, 01:29 PM
JDH's Avatar
JDH JDH is offline
Si vis pacem, para bellum
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,430
Thanks: 657
Thanked 9,945 Times in 3,821 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Central Scrutinizer View Post
Yes in fact I do.
Here is what he told me. I have scrubbed personal info:

"-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: askriley w5kub.wxyz <[email protected]>
Reply-To: askriley w5kub.wxyz <[email protected]>
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Usually such questions are loaded, but here's the deal. It's the rule of common sense. "Free picnic table" signs on the side of the highway do not mean you can stop with a van and get one. "Bridge ices before road" signs can be ignored in the summer.


Any frequency isn't the issue, the emergency is the issue. IF the person making the call is right at a genuine emergency, say, at an air port and a skydiver falls with no open chute and there s a taxi or electric utility truck sitting there, who ever can get there first can and should put out an emergency call to anyone listening. Frequency, service, license all are irrelevant. The operative phrase is "genuine emergency."


That's about the best it can be described--it's just the rule of common sense and what you would want any citizen, licensed ot not, to be able to do. "

So there you have it..

Do what you got to do. Be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Remember no good deed goes unpunished.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JDH For This Useful Post:
Old 08-29-2019, 04:37 PM
ForgedInTheFlame's Avatar
ForgedInTheFlame ForgedInTheFlame is offline
Fix Bayonets!
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 4,879
Thanks: 18,319
Thanked 7,307 Times in 3,229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDH View Post
Do what you got to do. Be prepared to suffer the consequences.



Remember no good deed goes unpunished.
Well said.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ham



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net