3 ms·

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

by 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!
  - Stratoscope 8y ago
    Oh gosh, I didn't mean to shame you, it's a common point of confusion. 73! :-)
    - lima 8y ago
      In Germany, I'm always the first to point out that it's called "Funkamateur" and not "Amateurfunker". 73! :-)
madengr 8y ago
Yeah, but I think the difference is DIY is not selling the radios. I had a DJ-580T 25 years ago that I modded for out of band transmission. That is legal for personal use, but I can’t sell those. Same with scanners that access the old AMPS band. You can modify it, but you can’t buy a modded radio. Ah, the good old days of getting radio mods via BBS. Now if it’s “test equipment” it’s the Wild West. All my SDRs can transmit to 6 GHz, but it’s not something for consumer use. Hope it stays that way.
- lima 8y ago
  Not sure why you got downvoted? IMO, it would be reasonable to ban these mass-market ham radio transceivers like the ones mentioned in the article (Switzerland banned most of them). 99% of the people buying them aren't ham radio operators, and their output filters are so bad that you need to mod them to make them acceptable. > Now if it’s “test equipment” it’s the Wild West. All my SDRs can transmit to 6 GHz, but it’s not something for consumer use. Hope it stays that way. That's how it was with model airplanes, before the big drone hype happened - there was a small community of experienced people who would play by the rules and police themselves.
  - Lucky225 8y ago
    The problem is the 'ban' bans ANY radio that is simply CAPABLE of transmitting outside the ham bands, not just the baofengs.
Lucky225 8y ago
Yes, and a misunderstanding by Special Counsel, Enforcement Bureau of the FCC here in the US, which is why it's a big deal.
soneil 8y ago
I don't think this pertains to homebrew at all, they're covered separately under part 15.23. The bigger worry is modified devices - devices that would have had a type-acceptance, but it's been invalidated by the operator. They'd be a grey area that becomes a much darker shade of grey under this interpretation. It does bring to mind a specific example I'd be morbidly curious in; the Icom M802 is a marine HF/SSB set that's popular in small craft. It has a neat trick where if you hold a specific set of buttons while you power it on, it can be operated in the amateur bands (until it's powered off, then it falls back to the factory behaviour). Under this interpretation, that'd no longer be legal? Since the operator has invalidated the part80 type-acceptance by enticing the unit to transmit outside of its intended bands, it can no longer be operated (by a ham operator) in the ham bands? Under my current understanding you'd need both an (unrestricted) radiotelegaph or radiotelephone operator's license to be allowed to adjust a part80 transmitter in a way that'd affect it's proper operation; plus a technician (or above) amateur endorsement to actually operate it in this mode, to do this legally. Under this (new?) interpretation, that's still not enough to be trusted? (A rather long-winded example, but one close to my heart. I believe it's one of the reasons this particular model lost its type-certification in Europe.)

by lima 8y ago

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!
- Stratoscope 8y ago
  Oh gosh, I didn't mean to shame you, it's a common point of confusion. 73! :-)
  - lima 8y ago
    In Germany, I'm always the first to point out that it's called "Funkamateur" and not "Amateurfunker". 73! :-)

madengr 8y ago

Yeah, but I think the difference is DIY is not selling the radios. I had a DJ-580T 25 years ago that I modded for out of band transmission. That is legal for personal use, but I can’t sell those. Same with scanners that access the old AMPS band. You can modify it, but you can’t buy a modded radio. Ah, the good old days of getting radio mods via BBS. Now if it’s “test equipment” it’s the Wild West. All my SDRs can transmit to 6 GHz, but it’s not something for consumer use. Hope it stays that way.

lima 8y ago
Not sure why you got downvoted? IMO, it would be reasonable to ban these mass-market ham radio transceivers like the ones mentioned in the article (Switzerland banned most of them). 99% of the people buying them aren't ham radio operators, and their output filters are so bad that you need to mod them to make them acceptable. > Now if it’s “test equipment” it’s the Wild West. All my SDRs can transmit to 6 GHz, but it’s not something for consumer use. Hope it stays that way. That's how it was with model airplanes, before the big drone hype happened - there was a small community of experienced people who would play by the rules and police themselves.
- Lucky225 8y ago
  The problem is the 'ban' bans ANY radio that is simply CAPABLE of transmitting outside the ham bands, not just the baofengs.

Lucky225 8y ago

Yes, and a misunderstanding by Special Counsel, Enforcement Bureau of the FCC here in the US, which is why it's a big deal.

soneil 8y ago

I don't think this pertains to homebrew at all, they're covered separately under part 15.23. The bigger worry is modified devices - devices that would have had a type-acceptance, but it's been invalidated by the operator. They'd be a grey area that becomes a much darker shade of grey under this interpretation. It does bring to mind a specific example I'd be morbidly curious in; the Icom M802 is a marine HF/SSB set that's popular in small craft. It has a neat trick where if you hold a specific set of buttons while you power it on, it can be operated in the amateur bands (until it's powered off, then it falls back to the factory behaviour). Under this interpretation, that'd no longer be legal? Since the operator has invalidated the part80 type-acceptance by enticing the unit to transmit outside of its intended bands, it can no longer be operated (by a ham operator) in the ham bands? Under my current understanding you'd need both an (unrestricted) radiotelegaph or radiotelephone operator's license to be allowed to adjust a part80 transmitter in a way that'd affect it's proper operation; plus a technician (or above) amateur endorsement to actually operate it in this mode, to do this legally. Under this (new?) interpretation, that's still not enough to be trusted? (A rather long-winded example, but one close to my heart. I believe it's one of the reasons this particular model lost its type-certification in Europe.)