7 ms·

FCC bans radios that haven't been certified for non-amateur bands

119 points by Lucky225 8y ago

ohazi 8y ago
So this would make it impossoble to sell just about any software defined radio that can transmit?
- im3w1l 8y ago
  My common sense tells me that it probably depends on ease of doing it. Consider these scenarios: It will transmit on non-amateur bands if you... plug it in. push a particular button. type in a particular password. flash the firmware. short two pins. physically remove a limiter component. physically add a limit-override component. take a hammer to it and rebuild it from scratch. Somewhere along that scale it will decided to be compliant.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    > physically add a limit-override component. Is this possible at all? > take a hammer to it and rebuild it from scratch. That does not count as an adaptation.
    - VLM 8y ago
      Maybe 40 years ago toward the end of the CB fad (CB was kinda the boomer generations version of the current social media fad) vacuum tube medium to high power external amps were (and still are) a thing for ham radio use and toward the higher end of the HF frequency range they struggled to achieve 10 dB of gain, at least with simpler designs and cheaper tubes, so stick a simple low pass filter in the input that rolls off to 10 dB of loss by 11 meters and you've ruined the amp for illegal CB use while all a technically knowledgeable ham has to do to operate legally on the ham 10 meter band is short the low pass filter out with a piece of wire. It depends a bit on your filter topology, blocking the input can be shorted as per above, whereas filter elements shorting to ground you'd have to snip one wire. Usually the advertisements in the magazines would mention obtusely "snip one wire for full legal coverage" or "solder one wire for reversible full legal coverage".
    - im3w1l 8y ago
      I was thinking of something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip Idk if that's a thing for radios.
- drmpeg 8y ago
  Transmit capable SDR's are classified as test equipment and exempt from equipment authorization.
  - Lucky225 8y ago
    Regarding Software and specifically SDR, it would seem that the radio would need to be certificated AS an SDR, AND only software that has been approved would be allowed to be loaded on to the radio: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.1 Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, can be altered by making a change in software without making any changes to hardware components that affect the radio frequency emissions. In accordance with § 2.944 of this part, only radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the above-listed operating parameters or circumstances under which the radio transmits must be certified as software defined radios. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.944 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.944 (a) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into the radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. (b) Any radio in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and must be certified as a software defined radio.
- swebs 8y ago
  There are exemptions below a certain wattage. I believe 1kw.
tracker1 8y ago
Between this crap, and forcing wifi vendors to lock everything down, effectively killing legitimate homebrew, fuck the FCC.
- themodelplumber 8y ago
  As a ham radio operator: It is frustrating to see the FCC do stuff like this. https://medium.com/@lucky225/fcc-back-peddles-all-transceivers-capable-of-transmitting-on-frequencies-that-require-40377a3722c5 https://medium.com/@lucky225/fcc-back-peddles-all-transceive... Why not just stop and think about things for a while, as opposed to running around making these executive decisions and annoying people like homebrew operators? Holy smokes. And why not go through back channels, drop some truth bombs on whoever the really big offenders are, rather than scooping up all possible babies to throw out with the bathwater? (Still, I heard from a Russian today that he'd be arrested for taking an HT to the park even just to listen to whatever's on the air. So it's all in perspective, but homebrew is huge for innovation.)
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    Is there any legitimate reason for this rule?
    - themodelplumber 8y ago
      The major part of it is about controlling what happens on the bands. Which to a degree is a useful function, because the FCC is useful as a sort of arbiter between various users of those bands. Commercial, public sector, amateur, etc. However, the recent explosion in popularity of "transmit on whatever band you please, right out of the box" radios has created a lot of opportunities for idiots to cause limited havoc on one end, and for the FCC to apparently extrapolate that to "omg unlimited havoc" on the other. We'll see how it goes, but there is clearly a lot of B&W (i.e. uneducated or just non-analytical) thinking on the matter currently.
- VLM 8y ago
  "legitimate homebrew" There's no agreement on what that means in the sense that there's at least one (very old) cultural group that sees it as buying a small pile of generic components and soldering them together by hand on a workbench into a working system of ones own custom design, and a somewhat more recent interpretation that it means buying a commercial product marketed for one group, then because its technologically possible sometimes, using that commercial product for a different marketing group without the support of the manufacturer. Needless to say both sides can't communicate, not even having common terms to discuss. And throw in the FCC which has extensive regulatory support only for the first definition for many decades and has generally opposed the latter definition, its absolute chaos.
Animats 8y ago
The trouble is this thing: "BaoFeng BF-F8HP (UV-5R 3rd Gen) 8-Watt Dual Band Two-Way Radio (136-174Mhz VHF & 400-520Mhz UHF) Includes Full Kit"[1] This cheap radio is sold as a "ham radio", and requires a ham license. Large numbers of non-hams are using it in the GMRS service at higher power levels than allowed. It's popular with "preppers", even though it's not very rugged, is complicated to use, tends not to put out as much power as claimed, and the battery tends to come loose.[2] The FCC's concern is that it allows 8 watt blithering over a wide range of frequencies by people with no clue how to use it properly. There are GMRS radios made for hunters which are much more suitable for wilderness use - waterproof and easy to use.[3] [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MAULSOK https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MAULSOK [2] https://offgridsurvival.com/baofenguv5rv2review/ https://offgridsurvival.com/baofenguv5rv2review/ [3] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004PGM9PO/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004PGM9PO/
- Stratoscope 8y ago
  Don't single out the BF-F8HP as if it were the radio the FCC is talking about. There are many similar radios made by Baofeng, AnyTone, TYT, Wouxun, and other manufacturers. By "similar" I mean "capable of transmitting outside the amateur bands." The radios are all different, but this is the point they have in common. (FWIW, the BF-F8HP is one of the nicer Baofengs, not just for the extra power but because it comes with a much better antenna than the cheapest models.) The current point of confusion is that the FCC seems to be saying that amateur operators can no longer legally use a radio within the ham bands if that radio is even capable of transmitting on another frequency, unless the radio is type certified for whatever other frequency that might be. This of course is ridiculous. It goes completely against the way the FCC has always regulated amateur radio. Hams have always been allowed to build their own equipment and to repurpose military or commercial radios to use in the ham bands. It's fairly shocking that the FCC would change their views on this so suddenly. If true, it means that radios hams have bought and used legally are suddenly illegal. I have to believe that there is some misunderstanding at the bottom of all this.
  - Lucky225 8y ago
    100% the point of my post thank you. I'd also add to your sentence "it means that radios hams have bought and used legally" is a misnomer under this interpretation, in the FCC's eyes they've been using them illegally since the inception of the Communications Act.
8bitsrule 8y ago
For several generations, ham gear has never had to 'certified' so long as it is known to obey the rules ... power, modulation type, non-interference, etc.... for the band it's being operated in. OTOH, if a particular amateur does not have the knowledge to know (from observations) that the gear does not violate the regs, s/he could, of course, be in violation. I'd guess that the ARRL will have something to say about this by Monday.
- escherplex 8y ago
  The world has changed. On the one hand you still have FCC 97.315 (on the extra exam) which permits sale of non-certified HF (sub 2M) amplifiers from amateur operators to amateur operators, which serves as a convenient loophole for 'homebrews' exchange by individuals with technical competence and presumably a sense of responsibility. On the other you have Amazon placing no restrictions on the purchase of BaoFeng UV5R-s at US$ 23 which have wide VHF Tx capacity. Among other things this supplies individuals, nefarious or otherwise, with the capacity to jam or transmit false weather reports on NOAA 162 MHz maritime band (for the hell of it, verified Tx capacity there using a 136-174 MHz Wouxun KG-689 run into a dummy load). With today's pervasive laissez faire mindset, measured tighter restrictions may be a necessary evil.
  - VLM 8y ago
    Since the mid 90s when SAME codes rolled out for NOAA weather radio system, there's been a constant low level nation wide problem with people transmitting "funny" SAME codes like hurricane warnings in north dakota and so forth. It was pretty obvious security issue when the system was released, and the fake alerts usually make it into the news as "news of the weird" rather than "OMG someone has hacked the system" type of story. There is no way to "patch" or fix the system by the nature of its design, all receivers have to trust that any transmission is genuine. Obviously cheap radios (SDR?) are just going to make the problem worse until NOAA alerts are essentially useless. Of course now there's cellphones and their broadcast emergency messages, so I would not be surprised to see the NOAA alert system discontinued in a couple years. Although SAME sounds like a horrible idea, it was well intentioned in that the radio transmissions can carry 30 to 50 miles so people would ignore all warnings given that statistically most of the warnings wouldn't apply to them (sort of like Amber Alert fatigue), so they added all this digital stuff to specify the exact problem (why?) and exact zip codes (good idea).
femto 8y ago
It hinges on the interpretation of the word "capable"? That the hardware can do it doesn't always mean the radio as a system is "capable" of it. For example, the firmware may contain a list of banned frequencies or bands. From a commercial perspective, my understanding is that the FCC is okay with radio hardware being widely tuneable, as long as the end user never sees the widely tuneable characteristics and has no way to use the device outside the defined frequencies. I'm guessing the FCC has yet to grok what "capable" means when it is a non-proprietary system where there is no manufacturer to act as gatekeeper? My guess is that the FCC would consider a radio not to be capable if it required a firmware reflash, or some other major action on a workbench, to transmit in a band, meaning it is impossible to accidentally change bands or to do so in the field. Even if the FCC disagreed that firmware can render a radio non-capable, a bandpass filter, counted as being an integral part of the radio would do so? From my listening of the conversation and reading the article, the above is consistent with what the FCC said, if you use the above defintion of "capable".
comboy 8y ago
How about, instead of more regulation, try to enforce existing one? Sure, there's some man-hours cost but with cheap SDRs it should be pretty simple especially in places where it's actually causing a problem. Otherwise nothing will change except for most hardware being imported from less known brands from China instead of being sold in the US.
franga2000 8y ago
I could maybe understand not allowing non-hams to own such radios - you really can't trust any random person not to do dumb shit like transmit garbage on emergency frequencies, but the whole reason ham licenses exist is to prove to the government that you know how to properly, safely and legally operate a radio. The FCC has gone too far on this one (they seem to do that a lot...). I just hope this doesn't get picked up by some moron from the EU. They've already fucked up our Internet. Please, don't take away my garbage ebay radio too.
lima 8y ago
This is clearly a misunderstanding of the relevant laws on the part of the FCC. I have yet to see any HAM radio transceiver that is not capable of transmitting outside the HAM radio bands - many of them DIY devices with no certifications whatsoever, which is the whole point of being a HAM radio operator. This interpretation would outlaw 99% of all HAM radio transceivers. Of course, it's not legal to actually transmit on anything but the HAM radio bands, but a HAM radio operator is certainly allowed to operate it on the HAM radio bands. HAM radio is a very special kind of spectrum user - other than any other radio service, there is no requirement for devices to be commercially certified, with the burden of ensuring safe operation being placed on the operators rather than the manufacturers (in the early days, most tranceivers were of the DIY variety). This is why there's a hard technical exam - you have to prove that you're capable of building and verifying your own transceiver. At least in Europe, this is codified by law with no room for interpretation, and I would be quite surprised if it were any different in the US (HAM radio laws are pretty much the same everywhere thanks to international harmonization treaties). That being said: These Baofeng transceivers are a nuisance and the earlier generations are rightfully banned in multiple countries for having poor output filters with strong harmonics all over the place - it would not be legal to operate one of these even on the HAM radio bands, by a HAM radio operator. At our local HAM radio club, a few members actually added extra filters to theirs to make them usable. I'm all for cracking down on the use of these by non-licensed operators, since it's extremely easy to interfere with legitimate services like weather fax and emergency service communications, even if you're not actually using their frequency. Preventing this is exactly the FCCs job. Source: licensed HAM radio operator
- Stratoscope 8y ago
  Thank you for the excellent analysis. Just one nitpick for the benefit of any non-hams who are reading this thread and may wonder: it's usually spelled "ham", not "HAM", as it is just an ordinary word, not an acronym. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio
  - lima 8y ago
    Shame on me, thanks for pointing it out!
Mountain_Skies 8y ago
Does anyone think that the current entry level amateur test might be too easy? When I was in elementary school I loved the idea of being a ham radio operator. I checked out books from the county library but found the content beyond my abilities at that time, especially as they were my one and only source of help. In my college days I took another look as the tests were simplified but at the time every license still required a Morse Code test. With lots of other things going on I dropped the idea. Recently I looked into it again and took sample tests online. I passed every one on the first try. My university degree isn't EE but it's in a related field that required taking a good number of EE courses. Even with that, I couldn't design a radio to save my life. I might be able to figure it out relatively quickly with available material online but it strikes me as being a bit of a mismatch that I likely can easily pass the Technician test while my practical knowledge of equipment used by amateur operators in that of a black box. If nothing else, perhaps the bank of questions should be larger. I'm not good at rote memorization but others are. Perhaps there is no real problem here but I can't help thinking that maybe there are a lot of people getting licenses without a real understanding of how much in the ham world actually operates. I understand the desire to make it more accessible, especially given the pressure to reassign amateur band to other uses but is there a risk of becoming CB Radio 2.0?
mbrumlow 8y ago
How does this affect things like SDRs like the HackRF?
Lucky225 8y ago
ARRL now in talks with FCC over this: http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-fcc-discussing-issue-of-uncertified-imported-vhf-uhf-transceivers http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-fcc-discussing-issue-of-uncert...

119 points by Lucky225 8y ago

ohazi 8y ago

So this would make it impossoble to sell just about any software defined radio that can transmit?

im3w1l 8y ago
My common sense tells me that it probably depends on ease of doing it. Consider these scenarios: It will transmit on non-amateur bands if you... plug it in. push a particular button. type in a particular password. flash the firmware. short two pins. physically remove a limiter component. physically add a limit-override component. take a hammer to it and rebuild it from scratch. Somewhere along that scale it will decided to be compliant.
- anticensor 8y ago
  > physically add a limit-override component. Is this possible at all? > take a hammer to it and rebuild it from scratch. That does not count as an adaptation.
  - VLM 8y ago
    Maybe 40 years ago toward the end of the CB fad (CB was kinda the boomer generations version of the current social media fad) vacuum tube medium to high power external amps were (and still are) a thing for ham radio use and toward the higher end of the HF frequency range they struggled to achieve 10 dB of gain, at least with simpler designs and cheaper tubes, so stick a simple low pass filter in the input that rolls off to 10 dB of loss by 11 meters and you've ruined the amp for illegal CB use while all a technically knowledgeable ham has to do to operate legally on the ham 10 meter band is short the low pass filter out with a piece of wire. It depends a bit on your filter topology, blocking the input can be shorted as per above, whereas filter elements shorting to ground you'd have to snip one wire. Usually the advertisements in the magazines would mention obtusely "snip one wire for full legal coverage" or "solder one wire for reversible full legal coverage".
  - im3w1l 8y ago
    I was thinking of something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip Idk if that's a thing for radios.
drmpeg 8y ago
Transmit capable SDR's are classified as test equipment and exempt from equipment authorization.
- Lucky225 8y ago
  Regarding Software and specifically SDR, it would seem that the radio would need to be certificated AS an SDR, AND only software that has been approved would be allowed to be loaded on to the radio: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.1 Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter in which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, can be altered by making a change in software without making any changes to hardware components that affect the radio frequency emissions. In accordance with § 2.944 of this part, only radios in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the above-listed operating parameters or circumstances under which the radio transmits must be certified as software defined radios. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.944 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/2.944 (a) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded into the radio. The software must not allow the user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. (b) Any radio in which the software is designed or expected to be modified by a party other than the manufacturer and would affect the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted), or the circumstances under which the transmitter operates in accordance with Commission rules, must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section and must be certified as a software defined radio.
swebs 8y ago
There are exemptions below a certain wattage. I believe 1kw.

tracker1 8y ago

Between this crap, and forcing wifi vendors to lock everything down, effectively killing legitimate homebrew, fuck the FCC.

themodelplumber 8y ago
As a ham radio operator: It is frustrating to see the FCC do stuff like this. https://medium.com/@lucky225/fcc-back-peddles-all-transceivers-capable-of-transmitting-on-frequencies-that-require-40377a3722c5 https://medium.com/@lucky225/fcc-back-peddles-all-transceive... Why not just stop and think about things for a while, as opposed to running around making these executive decisions and annoying people like homebrew operators? Holy smokes. And why not go through back channels, drop some truth bombs on whoever the really big offenders are, rather than scooping up all possible babies to throw out with the bathwater? (Still, I heard from a Russian today that he'd be arrested for taking an HT to the park even just to listen to whatever's on the air. So it's all in perspective, but homebrew is huge for innovation.)
- nerdponx 8y ago
  Is there any legitimate reason for this rule?
  - themodelplumber 8y ago
    The major part of it is about controlling what happens on the bands. Which to a degree is a useful function, because the FCC is useful as a sort of arbiter between various users of those bands. Commercial, public sector, amateur, etc. However, the recent explosion in popularity of "transmit on whatever band you please, right out of the box" radios has created a lot of opportunities for idiots to cause limited havoc on one end, and for the FCC to apparently extrapolate that to "omg unlimited havoc" on the other. We'll see how it goes, but there is clearly a lot of B&W (i.e. uneducated or just non-analytical) thinking on the matter currently.
VLM 8y ago
"legitimate homebrew" There's no agreement on what that means in the sense that there's at least one (very old) cultural group that sees it as buying a small pile of generic components and soldering them together by hand on a workbench into a working system of ones own custom design, and a somewhat more recent interpretation that it means buying a commercial product marketed for one group, then because its technologically possible sometimes, using that commercial product for a different marketing group without the support of the manufacturer. Needless to say both sides can't communicate, not even having common terms to discuss. And throw in the FCC which has extensive regulatory support only for the first definition for many decades and has generally opposed the latter definition, its absolute chaos.

Animats 8y ago

The trouble is this thing: "BaoFeng BF-F8HP (UV-5R 3rd Gen) 8-Watt Dual Band Two-Way Radio (136-174Mhz VHF & 400-520Mhz UHF) Includes Full Kit"[1] This cheap radio is sold as a "ham radio", and requires a ham license. Large numbers of non-hams are using it in the GMRS service at higher power levels than allowed. It's popular with "preppers", even though it's not very rugged, is complicated to use, tends not to put out as much power as claimed, and the battery tends to come loose.[2] The FCC's concern is that it allows 8 watt blithering over a wide range of frequencies by people with no clue how to use it properly. There are GMRS radios made for hunters which are much more suitable for wilderness use - waterproof and easy to use.[3] [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MAULSOK https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MAULSOK [2] https://offgridsurvival.com/baofenguv5rv2review/ https://offgridsurvival.com/baofenguv5rv2review/ [3] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004PGM9PO/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004PGM9PO/

Stratoscope 8y ago
Don't single out the BF-F8HP as if it were the radio the FCC is talking about. There are many similar radios made by Baofeng, AnyTone, TYT, Wouxun, and other manufacturers. By "similar" I mean "capable of transmitting outside the amateur bands." The radios are all different, but this is the point they have in common. (FWIW, the BF-F8HP is one of the nicer Baofengs, not just for the extra power but because it comes with a much better antenna than the cheapest models.) The current point of confusion is that the FCC seems to be saying that amateur operators can no longer legally use a radio within the ham bands if that radio is even capable of transmitting on another frequency, unless the radio is type certified for whatever other frequency that might be. This of course is ridiculous. It goes completely against the way the FCC has always regulated amateur radio. Hams have always been allowed to build their own equipment and to repurpose military or commercial radios to use in the ham bands. It's fairly shocking that the FCC would change their views on this so suddenly. If true, it means that radios hams have bought and used legally are suddenly illegal. I have to believe that there is some misunderstanding at the bottom of all this.
- Lucky225 8y ago
  100% the point of my post thank you. I'd also add to your sentence "it means that radios hams have bought and used legally" is a misnomer under this interpretation, in the FCC's eyes they've been using them illegally since the inception of the Communications Act.

8bitsrule 8y ago

For several generations, ham gear has never had to 'certified' so long as it is known to obey the rules ... power, modulation type, non-interference, etc.... for the band it's being operated in. OTOH, if a particular amateur does not have the knowledge to know (from observations) that the gear does not violate the regs, s/he could, of course, be in violation. I'd guess that the ARRL will have something to say about this by Monday.

escherplex 8y ago
The world has changed. On the one hand you still have FCC 97.315 (on the extra exam) which permits sale of non-certified HF (sub 2M) amplifiers from amateur operators to amateur operators, which serves as a convenient loophole for 'homebrews' exchange by individuals with technical competence and presumably a sense of responsibility. On the other you have Amazon placing no restrictions on the purchase of BaoFeng UV5R-s at US$ 23 which have wide VHF Tx capacity. Among other things this supplies individuals, nefarious or otherwise, with the capacity to jam or transmit false weather reports on NOAA 162 MHz maritime band (for the hell of it, verified Tx capacity there using a 136-174 MHz Wouxun KG-689 run into a dummy load). With today's pervasive laissez faire mindset, measured tighter restrictions may be a necessary evil.
- VLM 8y ago
  Since the mid 90s when SAME codes rolled out for NOAA weather radio system, there's been a constant low level nation wide problem with people transmitting "funny" SAME codes like hurricane warnings in north dakota and so forth. It was pretty obvious security issue when the system was released, and the fake alerts usually make it into the news as "news of the weird" rather than "OMG someone has hacked the system" type of story. There is no way to "patch" or fix the system by the nature of its design, all receivers have to trust that any transmission is genuine. Obviously cheap radios (SDR?) are just going to make the problem worse until NOAA alerts are essentially useless. Of course now there's cellphones and their broadcast emergency messages, so I would not be surprised to see the NOAA alert system discontinued in a couple years. Although SAME sounds like a horrible idea, it was well intentioned in that the radio transmissions can carry 30 to 50 miles so people would ignore all warnings given that statistically most of the warnings wouldn't apply to them (sort of like Amber Alert fatigue), so they added all this digital stuff to specify the exact problem (why?) and exact zip codes (good idea).

femto 8y ago

It hinges on the interpretation of the word "capable"? That the hardware can do it doesn't always mean the radio as a system is "capable" of it. For example, the firmware may contain a list of banned frequencies or bands. From a commercial perspective, my understanding is that the FCC is okay with radio hardware being widely tuneable, as long as the end user never sees the widely tuneable characteristics and has no way to use the device outside the defined frequencies. I'm guessing the FCC has yet to grok what "capable" means when it is a non-proprietary system where there is no manufacturer to act as gatekeeper? My guess is that the FCC would consider a radio not to be capable if it required a firmware reflash, or some other major action on a workbench, to transmit in a band, meaning it is impossible to accidentally change bands or to do so in the field. Even if the FCC disagreed that firmware can render a radio non-capable, a bandpass filter, counted as being an integral part of the radio would do so? From my listening of the conversation and reading the article, the above is consistent with what the FCC said, if you use the above defintion of "capable".

comboy 8y ago

How about, instead of more regulation, try to enforce existing one? Sure, there's some man-hours cost but with cheap SDRs it should be pretty simple especially in places where it's actually causing a problem. Otherwise nothing will change except for most hardware being imported from less known brands from China instead of being sold in the US.

franga2000 8y ago

I could maybe understand not allowing non-hams to own such radios - you really can't trust any random person not to do dumb shit like transmit garbage on emergency frequencies, but the whole reason ham licenses exist is to prove to the government that you know how to properly, safely and legally operate a radio. The FCC has gone too far on this one (they seem to do that a lot...). I just hope this doesn't get picked up by some moron from the EU. They've already fucked up our Internet. Please, don't take away my garbage ebay radio too.

lima 8y ago

This is clearly a misunderstanding of the relevant laws on the part of the FCC. I have yet to see any HAM radio transceiver that is not capable of transmitting outside the HAM radio bands - many of them DIY devices with no certifications whatsoever, which is the whole point of being a HAM radio operator. This interpretation would outlaw 99% of all HAM radio transceivers. Of course, it's not legal to actually transmit on anything but the HAM radio bands, but a HAM radio operator is certainly allowed to operate it on the HAM radio bands. HAM radio is a very special kind of spectrum user - other than any other radio service, there is no requirement for devices to be commercially certified, with the burden of ensuring safe operation being placed on the operators rather than the manufacturers (in the early days, most tranceivers were of the DIY variety). This is why there's a hard technical exam - you have to prove that you're capable of building and verifying your own transceiver. At least in Europe, this is codified by law with no room for interpretation, and I would be quite surprised if it were any different in the US (HAM radio laws are pretty much the same everywhere thanks to international harmonization treaties). That being said: These Baofeng transceivers are a nuisance and the earlier generations are rightfully banned in multiple countries for having poor output filters with strong harmonics all over the place - it would not be legal to operate one of these even on the HAM radio bands, by a HAM radio operator. At our local HAM radio club, a few members actually added extra filters to theirs to make them usable. I'm all for cracking down on the use of these by non-licensed operators, since it's extremely easy to interfere with legitimate services like weather fax and emergency service communications, even if you're not actually using their frequency. Preventing this is exactly the FCCs job. Source: licensed HAM radio operator

Stratoscope 8y ago
Thank you for the excellent analysis. Just one nitpick for the benefit of any non-hams who are reading this thread and may wonder: it's usually spelled "ham", not "HAM", as it is just an ordinary word, not an acronym. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_ham_radio
- lima 8y ago
  Shame on me, thanks for pointing it out!

Mountain_Skies 8y ago

Does anyone think that the current entry level amateur test might be too easy? When I was in elementary school I loved the idea of being a ham radio operator. I checked out books from the county library but found the content beyond my abilities at that time, especially as they were my one and only source of help. In my college days I took another look as the tests were simplified but at the time every license still required a Morse Code test. With lots of other things going on I dropped the idea. Recently I looked into it again and took sample tests online. I passed every one on the first try. My university degree isn't EE but it's in a related field that required taking a good number of EE courses. Even with that, I couldn't design a radio to save my life. I might be able to figure it out relatively quickly with available material online but it strikes me as being a bit of a mismatch that I likely can easily pass the Technician test while my practical knowledge of equipment used by amateur operators in that of a black box. If nothing else, perhaps the bank of questions should be larger. I'm not good at rote memorization but others are. Perhaps there is no real problem here but I can't help thinking that maybe there are a lot of people getting licenses without a real understanding of how much in the ham world actually operates. I understand the desire to make it more accessible, especially given the pressure to reassign amateur band to other uses but is there a risk of becoming CB Radio 2.0?

mbrumlow 8y ago

How does this affect things like SDRs like the HackRF?

Lucky225 8y ago

ARRL now in talks with FCC over this: http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-fcc-discussing-issue-of-uncertified-imported-vhf-uhf-transceivers http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-fcc-discussing-issue-of-uncert...