Why doesn't the FCC allow multi-service radios?

[marcspaz]

I suppose someone who wants to do this can do what an overwhelming number of people have... buy a quality radio that does everything and keep your mouth shut about it. If you don't tell anyone, no one will know.  Don't cause interference, don't be an ass, and don't go on frequencies you shouldn't be on, and you're going to be fine... not that I am making any promises or condoning violating the rules.

[buttholejim]

8 hours ago, marcspaz said:

I suppose someone who wants to do this can do what an overwhelming number of people have... buy a quality radio that does everything and keep your mouth shut about it. If you don't tell anyone, no one will know.  Don't cause interference, don't be an ass, and don't go on frequencies you shouldn't be on, and you're going to be fine... not that I am making any promises or condoning violating the rules.

Touché!

Haha! I think I like this answer the best... Not that I'm incapable of spending hours reading through FCC rules with my lawyer goggles on. But after dealing with DoD contract compliance, government inspectors, and other bureaucratic government types, It's apparent that most of these employees are simply in it for the benefits and a paycheck. I have had security clearances in the past. I know how to keep my mouth shut. Rules be damned...

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, buttholejim said:

Rules be damned..

With and attitude like that why bother with rules at all? That’s until someone else’s attitude stomps all over you ruining your ability to use the services. 

[Hoppyjr]

The simple answer is our government has become too big and needs to justify its existence with endless regulatory nonsense.

It’s time to scale back all federal agencies and re-organize the ones that remain. The FCC is no exception.

[WRKC935]

Gonna expand on what I said a bit.

There were / are technical reasons that the regulations were put into place that simply continue to exist even though the technical reason no longer does.

I sort of spelled out the HAM VS everything else reason.  And the real truth to that is if you had a radio that was full TX/RX from 400 to 500Mhz (UHF) and you started showing up on commercial and public safety parts of the band.  The argument could reasonably be that the radio came that way and I just used it.  Hence the TX block for the ham radios and of course the no end user programming for commercial and GMRS radios.  It keeps people from doing dumb stuff and minimizes the calls about interference to the FCC. 

We as radio operators know that only goes so far.  There will always be those people that will interfere with communications on any repeater they decide to.  And that's part of the draw for public safety to switch their operations to 700/800 digital trunked radio systems that require a system key and assigned ID to communicate on the system.  It's a more effective (not 100% effective) way of keeping purposeful interference to a minimum and offers ways of stopping it by disabling the radio ID from accessing the system.  Some of this functionality has existed in analog for years in the signalling systems like DTMF and QC2 where the radio ID could be sent a stun command and the radio would disable transmit.  That was effective for radios that were stolen or misplaced that were programmed to accept the command and be stunned.  With the newer digital trunked systems, the ID can be disabled in the radio system.  Since the radio ID is transmitted every time the radio is keyed, the system can ignore the radio and block it's access to the system regardless of the programming in the radio.  This happens at a system / repeater level. 

This was looked at a number of years ago by some ham buddies of mine that were fingerprinting radios.  Every radio as it goes into transmit 'rings up' as the transmit oscillator comes online and the modulation circuit becomes active.  This 'ring up' is typically unique to every radio and can be used to identify a specific radio.  That part they had down.  The next steps were to compare that to a set of files that were banned radios and disable the repeater if a banned radio was attempting to transmit.  The computers we had at the time were simply not fast enough for all that to occur before the person started talking.  Of course this was all done in the days of 8 and 16 bit computers running DOS ( think Windows 3.1 time frame)  and the first generation of SoundBlaster sound cards)   Software was called XMITid.  Written by Richard Rager. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

Gonna expand on what I said a bit.

There were / are technical reasons that the regulations were put into place that simply continue to exist even though the technical reason no longer does.

I sort of spelled out the HAM VS everything else reason.  And the real truth to that is if you had a radio that was full TX/RX from 400 to 500Mhz (UHF) and you started showing up on commercial and public safety parts of the band.  The argument could reasonably be that the radio came that way and I just used it.  Hence the TX block for the ham radios and of course the no end user programming for commercial and GMRS radios.  It keeps people from doing dumb stuff and minimizes the calls about interference to the FCC. 

We as radio operators know that only goes so far.  There will always be those people that will interfere with communications on any repeater they decide to.  And that's part of the draw for public safety to switch their operations to 700/800 digital trunked radio systems that require a system key and assigned ID to communicate on the system.  It's a more effective (not 100% effective) way of keeping purposeful interference to a minimum and offers ways of stopping it by disabling the radio ID from accessing the system.  Some of this functionality has existed in analog for years in the signalling systems like DTMF and QC2 where the radio ID could be sent a stun command and the radio would disable transmit.  That was effective for radios that were stolen or misplaced that were programmed to accept the command and be stunned.  With the newer digital trunked systems, the ID can be disabled in the radio system.  Since the radio ID is transmitted every time the radio is keyed, the system can ignore the radio and block it's access to the system regardless of the programming in the radio.  This happens at a system / repeater level. 

This was looked at a number of years ago by some ham buddies of mine that were fingerprinting radios.  Every radio as it goes into transmit 'rings up' as the transmit oscillator comes online and the modulation circuit becomes active.  This 'ring up' is typically unique to every radio and can be used to identify a specific radio.  That part they had down.  The next steps were to compare that to a set of files that were banned radios and disable the repeater if a banned radio was attempting to transmit.  The computers we had at the time were simply not fast enough for all that to occur before the person started talking.  Of course this was all done in the days of 8 and 16 bit computers running DOS ( think Windows 3.1 time frame)  and the first generation of SoundBlaster sound cards)   Software was called XMITid.  Written by Richard Rager. 

Thank you for this sag-way into the odds and ends of fixed radio IDs and some interesting tinkering around that topic.

Please allow me a follow-up question as I am somewhat lost regarding your aim:

Are you proposing "microstamping" radio communication ? -- or -- Is this just a review of exciting technology with a hint of nostalgia ?!?

(Yes, I do remember 3.1 and 3.11 for workgroups and tinkering with DR-DOs and trying OS/2 and ... )

 

 

[WRKC935]

3 minutes ago, WRXD372 said:

Thank you for this sag-way into the odds and ends of fixed radio IDs and some interesting tinkering around that topic.

Please allow me a follow-up question as I am somewhat lost regarding your aim:

Are you proposing "microstamping" radio communication ? -- or -- Is this just a review of exciting technology with a hint of nostalgia ?!?

(Yes, I do remember 3.1 and 3.11 for workgroups and tinkering with DR-DOs and trying OS/2 and ... )

 

 

Not really looking to 'microstamp' radios.  Point I was making was back in the day the idea of fingerprinting was a thing.  Now with the digital radios and assigned ID's it's really not needed.  P25 standard has an additional feature called 'radio inhibit'.  This fully disables the radio rendering it a brick.  This can be reversed by the system admin that sends it out, but outside of that, the newest radios have to go back to the factory to be turned back on. 

And the factories require a pretty reasonable explanation of why the radio got that way to begin with before they will turn them back on and return them to you.  In other words, it will  be returned fully disabled, but only after the original owner according to their records and the system administrator of the system that inhibited the radio to begin with is notified.

To that end.  Technology has gotten us past the need of needing to 'control via regulation' radios abilities to transmit where ever.  So even getting the regulations reviewed and changed pertaining to using a radio for multiple services is not gonna happen. 

And you need to remember that testing is done at the request of the manufacture by the FCC for a fee.  If a radio is designed for LMR service, sure it could be used for GMRS if UHF or MURS / Marine if VHF.  But those are additional tests that would need to be paid for at the time of testing.  The manufactures are NOT going to build a radio for multiple services because there is simply no need.  And if you think about the cost of a MURS or marine radio VS a commercial LMR radio, there is a huge difference.  No one is going to spend the money for a commercial LMR radio when new to use on MURS when the LMR radio is hundreds of dollars more.  And the manufacture see's no profit when the radio is sold used later on and the new owner wants to use it for something outside the original purpose.

 

[buttholejim]

12 hours ago, Lscott said:

With and attitude like that why bother with rules at all? That’s until someone else’s attitude stomps all over you ruining your ability to use the services. 

It's not about being a "rebel". Not my intention or motivation. But... there are ways to make the appearance of compliance, but not be technically compliant. No need to make "judgements" about my "attitude".

One could buy a non-conforming radio, program all the legal license free channels (or even channels that require a license for which the user has the appropriate license) whilst ensuring that the programming itself complies with FCC rules for the respective services for channel separation, bandwidth, power, etc., and comply with FCC rules as for as proper etiquette, and in lawerspeek, what would would the damages be  other than the ridiculous argument of "you're not following the rules"? Who would someone be hurting by not conforming with the rules by using a non-type certified radio while everything else is withing the rules? That's how a lawyer would put this in front of a jury.

My point is there's a shitload of "rules" in the Code of Federal Regulations. For a large number of these rules, the justifications for these rules are outdated, nebulous, or completely lost for many of them. But no bureaucrat has ever had the motivation to make changes until there's complaints from the public.

The ATF is a perfect example of this. Until you do something stupid enough to get their attention, they really don't go looking to bust weed smokers for lying on their Form 4473 when they make a firearms purchase. And for as yet unknown reasons, some people in the amateur radio community go into apoplectic seizures when someone suggests that responsibly using a non type certified radio is a crime against humanity. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by buttholejim
typo

[buttholejim]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Gonna expand on what I said a bit.

There were / are technical reasons that the regulations were put into place that simply continue to exist even though the technical reason no longer does.

I sort of spelled out the HAM VS everything else reason.  And the real truth to that is if you had a radio that was full TX/RX from 400 to 500Mhz (UHF) and you started showing up on commercial and public safety parts of the band.  The argument could reasonably be that the radio came that way and I just used it.  Hence the TX block for the ham radios and of course the no end user programming for commercial and GMRS radios.  It keeps people from doing dumb stuff and minimizes the calls about interference to the FCC. 

 

This is an argument for nanny state government. Plain and simple. People do dumb shit all the time. And the answer for the very, very few number of people that are stupid enough to do something like try to intentionally interfere with a radio communication is to put "rules" in place to try to "idiot proof" everything. Guess what, it doesn't work. People still get into their car drunk all the time.

 

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

We as radio operators know that only goes so far.  There will always be those people that will interfere with communications on any repeater they decide to.  And that's part of the draw for public safety to switch their operations to 700/800 digital trunked radio systems that require a system key and assigned ID to communicate on the system.  It's a more effective (not 100% effective) way of keeping purposeful interference to a minimum and offers ways of stopping it by disabling the radio ID from accessing the system. 

Trying to keep users of illegal radios from interfering with public safety systems was not the reason for the adoption of trunked systems. I've been a scanner listener for many, many years. In the 1980's before any major metropolitan areas switched to trunked systems, I would listen to District 4 Police in Denver. I would listen for hours and hours. The radio channels were always busy. The switch to trunked systems was for greater efficiency and improved cross agency communications. Not once had I ever heard an interloper on a police channel. For that matter, I can't even recall ever reading a news story in the last 40 years where someone has used an "illegal" radio to interfere with public safety. No to say that it hasn't happened, but whatever incidents that may have happened are so low profile they probably aren't even news worthy.

If someone honestly wanted to interfere with public safety channels for criminal reasons, they would probably resort to jamming and not try to engage in a conversation.

 

[buttholejim]

3 hours ago, WRXE944 said:

Exactly!

Why should Duke Energy be inhibited in its free flow of commerce by having to properly take care of coal ash by too big governmental agencies?

Electricity is cheaper when the government just allows Duke Energy to just wash away its coal ash for free into a river previously providing drinking water!

Duke Energy Agrees to $3 Million Cleanup for Coal Ash Release in the Dan River

Ughhh.... whenever rules for anything are put in place, people/companies are always going to find a way to circumvent/ignore/defy/rebel/plead ignorance against those rules for whatever reason suits them. We could go on and on with respect to industrial disasters. But if the rules are broken and there's a negative consequence to another party, the fact that rules existed, didn't exist, or were ignored becomes irrelevant. There was an incident that resulted in loss. And it's up to the courts to decide if it was from a negligent act that could have been reasonably avoided.

But what if the rules are broken, and there's no loss of life or property, and the rule breaker can establish that the rules being violated in the proper context have no liability for causing a potential loss of life or property? That's the point I'm trying to make. Some rules are necessary because of the consequences of the actions the rules are intended to govern. Other rules are just antiquated, irrelevant, or serve no meaningful purpose. And we have a plethora of the latter.

Why should I be forced into buying 3, 4 or 5 radios by FCC rules when one will serve the same purpose with no consequence?

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

And the real truth to that is if you had a radio that was full TX/RX from 400 to 500Mhz (UHF) and you started showing up on commercial and public safety parts of the band

When the cheap $25 UV-5R’s hit the market the above was exactly the problem. People purchase these off places like Amazon, never read the documentation or the notice on the site stating a license was required. They fed treated like toy FRS radios.

After a number of years of the above nonsense and increased complaints the FCC finally started clamping down on the CCR manufacturers. That’s when these radios shipped locked to the Ham bands. Don’t want to address the issue with the simple workaround unlock procedures.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, buttholejim said:

Not once had I ever heard an interloper on a police channel.

Might just have been bad luck. I had a buddy who purchased a UV-5R and bugged the cops at the local jail with it. When he told me what he was doing I told him to immediately STOP, that’s how you get caught and burned by the FCC.

He did. Later found out the FCC was in fact trying to track the source down. Now he’s a happy licensed, after some encouragement from me, a Ham and GMRS user. He learned a valuable lesson without the high cost.

[buttholejim]

4 minutes ago, Lscott said:

When the cheap $25 UV-5R’s hit the market the above was exactly the problem. People purchase these off places like Amazon, never read the documentation or the notice on the site stating a license was required. They fed treated like toy FRS radios.

After a number of years of the above nonsense and increased complaints the FCC finally started clamping down on the CCR manufacturers. That’s when these radios shipped locked to the Ham bands. Don’t want to address the issue with the simple workaround unlock procedures.

Lets see a link to FCC complaints that have resulted in any actions based on the cheap non-compliant CCR's. Or any other legal action where a CCR has been the culprit of a criminal act.

Personally, I don't see the argument as being valid. And the reason is because it's not illegal to sell a radio that can be used on business band, GMRS, or ham to someone that does not have any type FCC license. You can ban and confiscate every UV-5R in the country, but it doesn't change anything. You can still buy radios from Motorola, Icom, Kenwood, etc. that still function on these bands and then some. The only difference is cost. As much as I detest anything made in Communist China, I don't understand why one specific cheap radio has generated so much controversy.

In some areas GMRS/FRS has become the 21st Century day Citizens Band, with respect towards idiots that are abusing the band. And that sucks. But UV5R's aren't the cause of the problem.

At least we don't have to deal with skip on GMRS...

[Lscott]

2 minutes ago, WRXE944 said:

Why should I be forced into buying an EV with an AM radio, as being proposed by Congress?!?

The auto companies are wimping out. EV’s use high frequency power inverters,  very similar to industrial VFD’s, variable frequency drives, for the traction motors. These generate a lot of RF interference which requires extensive EMC shielding. The AM radios are sensitive to this noise. Rather than fix it the manufacturers just decided to remove the AM radio, poof no complaints and it saved them money. Has nothing to do with big government control or conspiracy theories.

[buttholejim]

15 minutes ago, WRXE944 said:

Why should I be forced into buying an EV with an AM radio, as being proposed by Congress?!?

One man's no consequences is another man's annoyance!

The fact of the matter is that the Radioddity DB20-G a/k/a Anytone AT-779UV is the best "all-in-one" mini-mobile radio on the market (and the TYT-UV88 is the best HT), but in this thread everyone wants to argue ad infinitum instead of just buying/using these radios and keeping their mouths shut!

Yeah... the AM radio thing is silly. But EeeeVeee's don't need any radio... 'cause they're connected to the cell phone network all the time so you can listen to Spotify and da gubbamint can spy on you all the time, even if you dropped yer cell phone in the toilet!

The Anytone AT-779UV is OK. I like the display, but I hate how the controls function. I originally hated the display on the Btech UV-50X2 (QYT 980PLUS), but now that I've figured how to set them up, I like them.

Well, I got my ribs in the smoker and my Jeep needs washed...

[Lscott]

8 minutes ago, buttholejim said:

Lets see a link to FCC complaints that have resulted in any actions based on the cheap non-compliant CCR's. Or

I’m old enough not to waste my time playing this game. Another idiot on this forum tried the same thing on another topic. He earned his place on my block list. And that does take some effort and crappy attitude to get there.

I wouldn’t be surprised people will just start ignoring you.

[buttholejim]

6 minutes ago, Lscott said:

I’m old enough not to waste my time playing this game. Another idiot on this forum tried the same thing on another topic. He earned his place on my block list. And that does take some effort and crappy attitude to get there.

I wouldn’t be surprised people will just start ignoring you.

Wow. You must be the life of the party. So much for engaging in a rational, logical discussion. Please feel free to block me anytime.

25 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Might just have been bad luck. I had a buddy who purchased a UV-5R and bugged the cops at the local jail with it. When he told me what he was doing I told him to immediately STOP, that’s how you get caught and burned by the FCC.

He did. Later found out the FCC was in fact trying to track the source down. Now he’s a happy licensed, after some encouragement from me, a Ham and GMRS user. He learned a valuable lesson without the high cost.

I had a friend of mine... blah, blah, blah...

[WRUU653]

50 minutes ago, buttholejim said:

Let’s see a link to FCC complaints that have resulted in any actions based on the cheap non-compliant CCR's. Or any other legal action where a CCR has been the culprit of a criminal act.

Here and more somewhere 

Please continue…

Edited August 6, 2023 by WRUU653
Removed my horrific blunder and fixed it.

[buttholejim]

10 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

Here and more here. 

Please continue…

 

The first link was a complaint against Midland in 2009? And the second link has to do with improper license transfers involving ADM and Cargill?

WTF do either of these links have to do with cheap CCR's???

Neither of these have any relevance in what's being discussed... Nice graphic though...

 

[WRUU653]

4 hours ago, buttholejim said:

 

The first link was a complaint against Midland in 2009? And the second link has to do with improper license transfers involving ADM and Cargill?

WTF do either of these links have to do with cheap CCR's???

Neither of these have any relevance in what's being discussed... Nice graphic though...

 

Well I guess I copied the wrong link in the second one. My deepest apologies. Midland was fined for having non compliant radios. Midland is made in China. You can decide if they are cheap or not. That’s wtf it has to do with your question.  I’ll try and grab the appropriate link where they were fined from the FCC or you can look it up. I don’t care. I don’t have a dog in this fight. The graphic is just to emphasize how ridiculous this thread has become IMHO. Please continue whatever this is being discussed. Alright I’ll check in later I gotta go do some yard work or something.

[wrci350]

5 hours ago, Lscott said:

 People purchase these off places like Amazon, never read the documentation or the notice on the site stating a license was required.

You forgot the "best" part ... they all came pre-programmed with a bunch of test frequencies, many of which were in the public safety bands.

4 hours ago, Lscott said:

I wouldn’t be surprised people will just start ignoring you.

Did that hours ago.

[Lscott]

6 minutes ago, wrci350 said:

You forgot the "best" part ... they all came pre-programmed with a bunch of test frequencies, many of which were in the public safety bands.

Unfortunately they did. You’re right about that.

[Lscott]

On 8/6/2023 at 10:45 AM, WRXD372 said:

trying OS/2

That’s a cool OS. I have Warp 4 running in a VirtualBox VM just to see what it does. IBM really screwed up and let M$ Windows take over the world.

[Lscott]

3 hours ago, WRXE944 said:

What makes you think that IBM knew any better back then?

Have you ever watched the three-part PBS documentary: Triumph of the Nerds (1995)?

Apparently they, IBM, didn’t. They screwed up in multiple ways with the development and marketing of OS/2. Then, M$ had their own agenda, which didn’t align with IBM’s, and were responsible for part of the joint development effort.

I haven’t seen that one, the documentary.

[WRKC935]

And this thread ladies and gentlemen is why some of us that actually work or have worked in the communications industry and might know a bit more about these topics than the casual user tend to steer clear of posts like this and giving technical answers to questions.  There is always somebody that thinks that someone told them something else that they have ZERO first hand knowledge of will argue with guys that do this crap for a living.  It gets old.  And is one of the reasons that guys like me no longer bother with these forums like we did. 

But here's the sad part of all of this.  There are some on here that DO know.  And when they get driven off of here due to the BS, you loose that knowledge base.