Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: (Article link) FCC states can't use non-certified radios on amateur bands?  (Read 5564 times)
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2529




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2018, 02:49:15 AM »


I am willing to bet that your 20-year old Icom can easily be made to transmit on any VHF frequency with the addition of 2 less-than-10 cent diodes.  It is definitely 'capable' of out of band operation.  Therefore you are now banned from using it on 2 meters, so let me know when you turn it in to the government.

This is the equivalent of the government banning certain firearms you may have had legally in your home for years, on the flimsy excuse that someone else may possibly use the same model of firearm to commit a crime, would you simply nod your head and hand them in, or destroy them?

I prefer that manufactured radios be certified for what they are being sold for. Nothing in the language that I see prevents home brewing your own equipment or experimenting with new technologies. All I see is just knee jerk reactionary attitudes by people who close in on a couple of words and dismiss the rest in order to make an issue out of it. Which is why you emphasized a couple words in the statement.

Bet away...I would win. Just because something CAN be modified, does not mean it WILL be modified. So why would I turn it in to the government? There is your answer as to when. So did you modify any of your rigs? Did you build anything that CAN transmit out of the ham bands? Turn them in then, as you say.

Your right. Its like banning assault rifles, bump stocks, and other guns made to just kill people in large amounts. (I don't own anything like this to turn in, however I would turn them in if that were to become the law.) But that does not mean they are banning all guns. Just like the radios. Some should be restricted or banned for general public sale to prevent other problems.

Not to wish ill will, but would you want your fire department to miss a call when your house is on fire? Or get there too late for a trapped victim in the fire? Or the ambulance go to North Whatever Street and your on South Whatever Street due to interference? How about interfering with a business band repeater where people use the radios as part of making a living. Should we let others suffer so you can have a cheap Chinese toy with no restrictions? If you say yes, then you deserve the interference you get. Even when that interference moves into the ham bands. I am in the NO group for that question. In my 25 years on a fire department, I have seen the problem grow. I have even heard interference on the local school bus repeater. Is that the safety we want for our kids?

Geez so many complain the FCC does not protect the spectrum enough, and when they do, a huge amount of whining sets in. Maybe some day when all the ham bands become secondary use to hams they will wake up and protect what we have...even if it means some cheap junk is off the retail market.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3531




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2018, 04:02:58 AM »

Quote
Not to wish ill will, but would you want your fire department to miss a call when your house is on fire? Or get there too late for a trapped victim in the fire? Or the ambulance go to North Whatever Street and your on South Whatever Street due to interference? How about interfering with a business band repeater where people use the radios as part of making a living. Should we let others suffer so you can have a cheap Chinese toy with no restrictions? If you say yes, then you deserve the interference you get.

Stan,

This is not what the FCC is concerned about. It is almost the exact opposite. They are concerned about certified radios (aka type accepted) that can operate outside of their type accepted range. This will not remove radios from the market that could be used to interfere with commercial, government, or emergency service communications. It will only allow them to operate within their service. You will still be able to buy these radios for $100 or so on the Internet as long as they only work within their certified frequency range. And public service radios and commercial business radios are certified under the same FCC "part".

The problem the FCC has, from an amateur radio perspective, is they lack the regulations to enforce the inability of any transmitter to be purchased, owned or used by an amateur as long as when it is used on the air, it complies with Part 97.

I think your comparison to assault rifles is appropriate. Just as the term assault rifle is defined to suit a political or an ideological position, so can any future regulation of the potential capabilities of a ham transmitter be used to our detriment. It could have a chilling effect on our hobby.

One can even logically argue that out of band transmissions by amateurs is permitted by current FCC regulations under specific emergency conditions. Any future regulation that requires only in-band capable amateur transmitters would thwart the intent and spirit of this capability.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2529




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: October 09, 2018, 08:47:43 AM »

Quote
Not to wish ill will, but would you want your fire department to miss a call when your house is on fire? Or get there too late for a trapped victim in the fire? Or the ambulance go to North Whatever Street and your on South Whatever Street due to interference? How about interfering with a business band repeater where people use the radios as part of making a living. Should we let others suffer so you can have a cheap Chinese toy with no restrictions? If you say yes, then you deserve the interference you get.

Stan,

This is not what the FCC is concerned about. It is almost the exact opposite. They are concerned about certified radios (aka type accepted) that can operate outside of their type accepted range. This will not remove radios from the market that could be used to interfere with commercial, government, or emergency service communications. It will only allow them to operate within their service. You will still be able to buy these radios for $100 or so on the Internet as long as they only work within their certified frequency range. And public service radios and commercial business radios are certified under the same FCC "part".

The problem the FCC has, from an amateur radio perspective, is they lack the regulations to enforce the inability of any transmitter to be purchased, owned or used by an amateur as long as when it is used on the air, it complies with Part 97.

I think your comparison to assault rifles is appropriate. Just as the term assault rifle is defined to suit a political or an ideological position, so can any future regulation of the potential capabilities of a ham transmitter be used to our detriment. It could have a chilling effect on our hobby.

One can even logically argue that out of band transmissions by amateurs is permitted by current FCC regulations under specific emergency conditions. Any future regulation that requires only in-band capable amateur transmitters would thwart the intent and spirit of this capability.

- Glenn W9IQ

Thanks Glen! Yes I can agree with that interpretation as well. I may have overreached in my interpretation of what it means. Just helps illustrate how confusing the FCC statement really is.

My theory for better wording would be... If it is a ham rig (transmitter), it should only work in ham allocations. If it is commercial or government, then it should only operate in those allocations. I see nothing wrong with restricting the marketing and operation of transmitters to what they are being sold for. But then I would also argue the FCC should also require that not only does the radio match the marketing, but also require proof of license to purchase. Just like you need proof of who you are to buy a car and register it.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
AD8CC
Member

Posts: 25




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2018, 07:38:55 PM »

I prefer that manufactured radios be certified for what they are being sold for. Nothing in the language that I see prevents home brewing your own equipment or experimenting with new technologies. All I see is just knee jerk reactionary attitudes by people who close in on a couple of words and dismiss the rest in order to make an issue out of it. Which is why you emphasized a couple words in the statement.

Those couple of words are all I really have an issue with.  "The rest," though it disgusts me slightly, is sadly old news in the hobby.  I don't really care if the Commission requires that factory radios be locked to ham bands.  I don't care that they are banning inexpensive Chinese VHF/UHF walkie-talkies to the benefit of makers of more expensive walkie-talkies.  I don't even care that some hams applaud this for selfish, vain, and elitist reasons.  That's humdrum business as usual.  

But those "couple of words" are quite dangerous and overreaching.  No one can homebrew and experiment if they are legally forbidden from operating their experimental gear on the amateur bands, and this wording does exactly that, at least for vhf/uhf.  It essentially forces you to buy a "big 3" manufactured commercial radio, at a specific price point,  if you want the privilege of transmitting on VHF/UHF.

When someone builds their own VHF gear, I can assure you that it will be capable of operating out of band, and will therefore be illegal to operate, in band,  by terms used in this enforcement advisory.  I guess this is why the ARRL also took issue, not with the entire advisory, but with that particular wording.

Bet away...I would win. Just because something CAN be modified, does not mean it WILL be modified. So why would I turn it in to the government? There is your answer as to when. So did you modify any of your rigs? Did you build anything that CAN transmit out of the ham bands? Turn them in then, as you say.

I'll bet you a brand new Baofeng against your Icom that they have essentially same core capabilities as far as coverage, and the only difference is a superficial lockout on the Icom's  board.  But whether you modify it or not, it is still, when viewed as an rf generator,  physically capable of transmitting out of band, and without a lot of effort.  All the rf-generating parts are there intact to give it that capability.  The capability is what the Commission is choosing to focus on, not what you do or don't do with that capability.

And by the same argument, just because something CAN be programmed on the keypad to transmit out of band, does it mean it WILL be?  There isn't much difference in equipment that can easily be modified to TX "wherever" and equipment that can easily be programmed to do the same.   There are even probably some who would find it easier to modify your radio than to program one of these Chinese HT's, from what I've read about them.    

All of my gear is capable of transmitting out of ham bands.  A one stage oscillator is capable of transmitting out of ham bands depending on what crystal you use.  But none of my gear is VHF/UHF gear, so it falls outside of this enforcement advisory, which specifically mentions only  VHF/UHF 2 way radios.

The point here is that the operator should only be have to be concerned with what his radio does - with what he makes it do or allows it to do - not with what it "can" do, or whether-or not his gear is contraband.  We are obligated to abide by Part 97 when we operate, not to do so only with approved "products."  

It's out of the authority of the FCC to insist or claim that if some equipment can transmit on frequency A , that you may not transmit on frequency B with that same piece of equipment, when you are a licensed amteur and frequency B is an amateur frequency.  

Not to wish ill will, but would you want your fire department to miss a call when your house is on fire? Or get there too late for a trapped victim in the fire? Or the ambulance go to North Whatever Street and your on South Whatever Street due to interference? How about interfering with a business band repeater where people use the radios as part of making a living. Should we let others suffer so you can have a cheap Chinese toy with no restrictions? If you say yes, then you deserve the interference you get. Even when that interference moves into the ham bands. I am in the NO group for that question. In my 25 years on a fire department, I have seen the problem grow. I have even heard interference on the local school bus repeater. Is that the safety we want for our kids?

All of these things you have mentioned are very bad things no one wants and they should not happen.  And also they have been illegal for as long as anyone can remember, and these services have been interfered with long before these radios were ever invented or sold.  

Of course nobody should ever interfere with public safety channels.  Nobody should ever interfere with business channels.

But then of course, nobody should also drive their car off the road into a crowd of people either, but some people do, so why aren't we calling for a ban on steering wheels, and petitioning the government mandate us all into driverless autonomous cars?  If we're fear-mongering 'for the sake of the children' we might as well ban something that has actually killed more kids than QRM has: steering wheels.

I've written the ARRL asking for updates on their discussions with the FCC on this.  If they come through and force the commission to retract and reword this advisory, I may actually join.  

Until then:
"Psst!  Hey kid, over here, in this dark alley behind the flea market... Listen kid, you wanna buy some Baofengs?  I got the good stuff, man.  Pre-ban, unlocked VFO, talk on all the frequencies...I'll throw in some unpadded nuchucks and some black-cat firecrackers. "
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 07:42:50 PM by AD8CC » Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2529




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2018, 08:32:49 PM »

I prefer that manufactured radios be certified for what they are being sold for. Nothing in the language that I see prevents home brewing your own equipment or experimenting with new technologies. All I see is just knee jerk reactionary attitudes by people who close in on a couple of words and dismiss the rest in order to make an issue out of it. Which is why you emphasized a couple words in the statement.

Those couple of words are all I really have an issue with.  "The rest," though it disgusts me slightly, is sadly old news in the hobby.  I don't really care if the Commission requires that factory radios be locked to ham bands.  I don't care that they are banning inexpensive Chinese VHF/UHF walkie-talkies to the benefit of makers of more expensive walkie-talkies.  I don't even care that some hams applaud this for selfish, vain, and elitist reasons.  That's humdrum business as usual.  

But those "couple of words" are quite dangerous and overreaching.  No one can homebrew and experiment if they are legally forbidden from operating their experimental gear on the amateur bands, and this wording does exactly that, at least for vhf/uhf.  It essentially forces you to buy a "big 3" manufactured commercial radio, at a specific price point,  if you want the privilege of transmitting on VHF/UHF.

When someone builds their own VHF gear, I can assure you that it will be capable of operating out of band, and will therefore be illegal to operate, in band,  by terms used in this enforcement advisory.  I guess this is why the ARRL also took issue, not with the entire advisory, but with that particular wording.

Bet away...I would win. Just because something CAN be modified, does not mean it WILL be modified. So why would I turn it in to the government? There is your answer as to when. So did you modify any of your rigs? Did you build anything that CAN transmit out of the ham bands? Turn them in then, as you say.

I'll bet you a brand new Baofeng against your Icom that they have essentially same core capabilities as far as coverage, and the only difference is a superficial lockout on the Icom's  board.  But whether you modify it or not, it is still, when viewed as an rf generator,  physically capable of transmitting out of band, and without a lot of effort.  All the rf-generating parts are there intact to give it that capability.  The capability is what the Commission is choosing to focus on, not what you do or don't do with that capability.

And by the same argument, just because something CAN be programmed on the keypad to transmit out of band, does it mean it WILL be?  There isn't much difference in equipment that can easily be modified to TX "wherever" and equipment that can easily be programmed to do the same.   There are even probably some who would find it easier to modify your radio than to program one of these Chinese HT's, from what I've read about them.    

All of my gear is capable of transmitting out of ham bands.  A one stage oscillator is capable of transmitting out of ham bands depending on what crystal you use.  But none of my gear is VHF/UHF gear, so it falls outside of this enforcement advisory, which specifically mentions only  VHF/UHF 2 way radios.

The point here is that the operator should only be have to be concerned with what his radio does - with what he makes it do or allows it to do - not with what it "can" do, or whether-or not his gear is contraband.  We are obligated to abide by Part 97 when we operate, not to do so only with approved "products."  

It's out of the authority of the FCC to insist or claim that if some equipment can transmit on frequency A , that you may not transmit on frequency B with that same piece of equipment, when you are a licensed amteur and frequency B is an amateur frequency.  

Not to wish ill will, but would you want your fire department to miss a call when your house is on fire? Or get there too late for a trapped victim in the fire? Or the ambulance go to North Whatever Street and your on South Whatever Street due to interference? How about interfering with a business band repeater where people use the radios as part of making a living. Should we let others suffer so you can have a cheap Chinese toy with no restrictions? If you say yes, then you deserve the interference you get. Even when that interference moves into the ham bands. I am in the NO group for that question. In my 25 years on a fire department, I have seen the problem grow. I have even heard interference on the local school bus repeater. Is that the safety we want for our kids?

All of these things you have mentioned are very bad things no one wants and they should not happen.  And also they have been illegal for as long as anyone can remember, and these services have been interfered with long before these radios were ever invented or sold.  

Of course nobody should ever interfere with public safety channels.  Nobody should ever interfere with business channels.

But then of course, nobody should also drive their car off the road into a crowd of people either, but some people do, so why aren't we calling for a ban on steering wheels, and petitioning the government mandate us all into driverless autonomous cars?  If we're fear-mongering 'for the sake of the children' we might as well ban something that has actually killed more kids than QRM has: steering wheels.

I've written the ARRL asking for updates on their discussions with the FCC on this.  If they come through and force the commission to retract and reword this advisory, I may actually join.  

Until then:
"Psst!  Hey kid, over here, in this dark alley behind the flea market... Listen kid, you wanna buy some Baofengs?  I got the good stuff, man.  Pre-ban, unlocked VFO, talk on all the frequencies...I'll throw in some unpadded nuchucks and some black-cat firecrackers. "

My Icom just beeps at me if I try to transmit out of band. Actually so does my FT-897, FT-2800, FT-8800, and my IC-706. So please stop saying that I am doing something I am not. But it seems you are...double standard?

OK as you told me...turn in all your stuff that transmits out of band. Otherwise everything you said wasn't worth the time it took you to write it. If you want me to do it, then you should to. Or stop telling me what to do. Either will work. Have a nice day.
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
AD8CC
Member

Posts: 25




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: October 10, 2018, 01:59:21 AM »

My Icom just beeps at me if I try to transmit out of band. Actually so does my FT-897, FT-2800, FT-8800, and my IC-706. So please stop saying that I am doing something I am not. But it seems you are...double standard?

OK as you told me...turn in all your stuff that transmits out of band. Otherwise everything you said wasn't worth the time it took you to write it. If you want me to do it, then you should to. Or stop telling me what to do. Either will work. Have a nice day.

So you do try to transmit out of band, eh?  On all your nice radios, too?  Wow.  I don't.  I stay in band and operate within Part 97 rules even without the training wheels.  I guess the world is a safer place after all.

I guess I'm spitting into the wind, but I'll make this simple point one more time for posterity: There is absolutely nothing illegal or wrong with having or using equipment that can transmit out of band, and there never has been.

Do you really think there is?  Seriously?  Or are u  just trolling me?

Logged
W9FIB
Member

Posts: 2529




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: October 10, 2018, 04:01:44 AM »

My Icom just beeps at me if I try to transmit out of band. Actually so does my FT-897, FT-2800, FT-8800, and my IC-706. So please stop saying that I am doing something I am not. But it seems you are...double standard?

OK as you told me...turn in all your stuff that transmits out of band. Otherwise everything you said wasn't worth the time it took you to write it. If you want me to do it, then you should to. Or stop telling me what to do. Either will work. Have a nice day.

So you do try to transmit out of band, eh?  On all your nice radios, too?  Wow.  I don't.  I stay in band and operate within Part 97 rules even without the training wheels.  I guess the world is a safer place after all.

I guess I'm spitting into the wind, but I'll make this simple point one more time for posterity: There is absolutely nothing illegal or wrong with having or using equipment that can transmit out of band, and there never has been.

Do you really think there is?  Seriously?  Or are u  just trolling me?



Sure ya don't. LOL Like you never tested what could happen if you did. Let's just say I find that extremely hard to believe. Or you have no idea how equipment works and don't know you did. But that's your problem, not mine or anyone else's. None of us really cares because your operating is probably not causing the problems that the public use of Chinese toys are.

Yes, since you seem to have reading comprehension problems, I am serious about out of band operation. I find it to be a serious problem. And it is amplified by the proliferation of radios being sold to the general public with no limitations or safeguards. And I will make sure I never buy anything you built since you disregard the limits of the ham allocations. Just as I won't by the Chinese toys being sold just for that same reason. Ownership in itself is not the problem. Illegal operation of them is. But I would rather restrict sales then pretend there is no problem and let them sell to anyone radios that will operate where they shouldn't. Or unless you have the proper license for the frequency your trying to use, which then is not a problem anymore.

As you said, turn in your non certified out of band equipment. If not, don't tell me what to do. So are you done trolling now? Is my position clear now? Are you sure?
Logged

73, Stan
Wisdom is knowledge you gain after you know it all.
W6EM
Member

Posts: 1941




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: October 10, 2018, 05:20:35 AM »

Everyone here seems to have a piece of correctness, depending on circumstances.  Perhaps the offending manufacturer, Baofeng, should have thought things through as has been done here.  At least before agreeing to limit the VHF coverage of their UV5RV2 to 145 to 155MHz.  Who of us amateurs now would be so foolish as to buy such a radio?  Useless for use on 145MHz repeaters due to 144MHz inputs.  Useless for monitoring NOAA weather channels.  Useless for monitoring VHF marine channels.

And, while I'm at it, owning a rifle doesn't make one a murderer.  Nor, does use of one to slay a robber or burglar.

In case you all haven't looked lately, Part 97 does allow us to operate anywhere necessary in a serious crisis in a life/death situation.  Just like the ham with an "open" VHF HT did to communicate with a Coast Guard helo in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Over the years I've owned and operated a lot of commercial gear for use on the VHF and UHF amateur bands.  Yes, I did program in transmit capability for marine channels since I lived near the Gulf of Mexico.  Both in my hand helds and mobiles.  No, I never used them as there were no crises that required it.  Only a listener.  But, if there were, I could.

The key to this is really the FCC's inability to enforce application/use.  While the number and availability of these cheap Chinese radios has exploded, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau has imploded and almost disappeared.

Personally, I'd like to know who it was that filed the complaint that the FCC acted upon.  Was it their "high-priced" competition?  Most likely, it was.  If the FCC were even a quarter of what it used to be, there would be scores of citations and forfeiture orders for those caught operating without licenses.  I guess I'm one of the few who is naive enough to still pay for a GMRS license so my family and I can legally use GMRS frequencies.  But, of course, today anyone can buy GMRS radios without a license these days and get away with using them without one.  Again, because the FCC isn't what it used to be....

Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3531




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: October 10, 2018, 05:51:22 AM »

Lee,

Great points.

I enjoy the flexibility of Part 90 certified UHF/VHF radios that work in the amateur bands. I can use them on my commercial repeater and still monitor and talk on the local ham repeaters.

I have no hesitation in buying any such radio now or in the future as long as it is Part 90 certified. If the FCC wants me to stop buying them, then they should yank their Part 90 certifications. Their overreaching notice does not deter me.

- Glenn W9IQ
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 05:55:35 AM by W9IQ » Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1318




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: October 10, 2018, 08:35:03 AM »

Glenn,

Quote
One can even logically argue that out of band transmissions by amateurs is permitted by current FCC regulations under specific emergency conditions.

I quite agree.

Section 4.9 of the Radio Regulations (which are an international treaty which the US has signed up to) states

4.9      No provision of these Regulations prevents the use by a station in distress, or by a station providing assistance to it, of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to attract attention, make known the condition and location of the station in distress, and obtain or provide assistance.

which suggests that there is an implied duty to respond to a distress call if nobody else does.

Section 4.9 even implies that spark can be used by the station in distress if necessary!
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3531




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2018, 09:02:15 AM »

Peter,

Thanks for the international perspective. We have very similar wording in Part 97. It includes the phrase "any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication". If we don't fight the FCC on this issue, we will soon have less means.

- Glenn W9IQ
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 09:07:26 AM by W9IQ » Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1318




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2018, 02:23:04 PM »

Glenn,

It's interesting that many aircraft HF radios cover the whole HF range and not just the aeronautical bands. Similarly, there are marine HF radios that cover the whole HF range. Proper use is down to the operator........

The best answer for VHF is that Part 90 frequencies should be disabled, and fine the suppliers that supply ones that work, just as they do the CB shops selling amplifiers etc.. Over here, in some places, we do get hang gliders using 2m: apparently they get very upset when someone transmits over them.  I say Tough!

This FCC approach does theoretically limit the modification of wide ranging VHF/UHF gear.
Logged
W9IQ
Member

Posts: 3531




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2018, 02:33:56 PM »

Peter,

Part 90 covers VHF and UHF frequencies.

What you suggest is what I think got away from the FCC because they were not following market trends. Motorola Part 90 radios, for example, could be programmed outside of Part 90 frequencies. But what kept this in check was a franchised dealer network that had a vested interest in following the regulations and the tight control by Motorola, in this example, of the software and hardware required to do the programming.

Once the market was opened by inexpensive radios that could be programmed with free software, the FCC had lost the control that the legacy marketplace maintained on their behalf. Now the FCC needs to directly deal with the problem that I believe they allowed to develop due to their lack of market diligence and lack of technical acumen.

They may be successful in wrestling this back into some type of control but their published Notice is not a durable approach. We have seen this play out before with their total inability to stop the CB linear amplifier marketplace that thrives today on the Internet.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged

- Glenn W9IQ

I never make a mistake. I thought I did once but I was wrong.
WB0CJB
Member

Posts: 189




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2018, 03:29:56 PM »

Just because the FCC says you can't sell, buy, or use such radios doesn't mean that everyone will immediately stop using them. Anyone who has bought one, whether they're a ham or not, will still use them. There is no way the FCC can enforce that rule. Ham radio equipment has been made for many many years that have been illegally modified for CB use (and abuse). If the FCC is so worried then they should have taken this issue up decades ago.

Rules are made. There will always be someone who will choose to ignore them time and time again.
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 15066




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2018, 03:48:20 PM »

What it will do is stop many of the big stores from advertising and selling them. They're the ones that the FCC will take the time to go after and make pay the big fines. The problem is that the sales people know nothing about the radio or the FCC rules regarding its operation and neither does the average customer. The instructions are: Press this button to turn it on, turn this button to set the same frequency as your buddie's radio. Push this button when you want to talk. No mention of frequency assignments, required licenses, etc.
Logged

Bob  AA4PB
Garrisonville, VA
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!