One problem is that Unauthorized Service Personal are getting the copyrighted software and special hardware needed to violate FCC rules.
NOT much different from "the old days" when you could order any crystal freq you wanted from JAN Crystals or ICM ... and here's another "for instance", I had Motorola U43HHT1100E Motrac married up to a VHF Engineering Synthesizer II ... the VHF Engineering Synthesizer II box had thumbwheel switches on the front, allowed ANY freq to be simply dialed in. Obviously, I used it on amateur freqs BUT it could have been used anywhere else within its frequency operating range (140 - 150 MHz) ... this was in 1976. An observation (IOW, don't take this the wrong way), you are either young, or have never worked with, or in, or tangential to the 2-way radio biz ...
I am a old fart and got my FCC license to legally work on 2 way radios, Years ago. I am very aware of what did and does go on. It is mostly all good.
You basically just illustrated my point. You have always been able to transmit out of band. Illegal operation is a user issue. I could bring up repeaters all over the NYC area using a Cushman service monitor back in the early 80's. Again, both the APX and the VU-5R are capable of transmitting where they don't have type acceptance, Part 95 (MURS, FRS, GMRS), for example. The Motorola letter even address this, that it's "a violation of FCC rules" to do so.
Baofeng claims: "Programming of this product's transmit frequencies can be performed ONLY by the manufacturer or by service or maintenance personnel. The operator cannot program transmit frequencies using the equipment's external operation." This is a total lie and probably grounds to revoke their equipment authorization grant.
re: "You basically just illustrated my point. You have always been able to transmit out of band. Illegal operation is a user issue. " I never said you couldn't "operate out of band". That is not my point or my thrust. My thrust is adherence to the rule of law in particular as it pertains to equipment "type acceptance" or "certification", the requirements and the process involved. Too many on this thread have simply expressed their opinion, which is, of course, their right to do (DO I really have to say this out loud? Yes, it's the zed) BUT some of those opinions run quite contrary to what is and has been established 'law' and/or practice for quite some time. AS I have written before (Do I have to say this out loud too?) I have no dog in this race, except, I want to get to the truth of the matter. Sometimes that requires trips back in history to look at established practice in history or what appears on the law books AND what the correspondence was between various parties and the FCC, to wit, written correspondence back and forth between the various parties involved such as Motorola and Baofeng and the FCC during the product type acceptance process.
Where are you seeing that ? I never seen a translator that could spit out English that good. Even the operators manual is hard to understand.
It's in one of the certification documents Baofeng submitted to the FCC's TCB. There is a link to it several posts back.
I don't do VHF/UHF. I do CW on the HF bands and more often than not operate my home-brew 10 watt 6DQ6A transmitter or my assortment of vintage Heathkit radios (HW-8, HW-16, HW-100 & HW-101). Therefore I am pleased the FCC is clamping down on the radios from the PRC.
How so? I don't see that their part 90 was ever revoked. Looks like they passed Go fine and collected part 90 certification.
https://fccid.io/ZP5BF-F9V2/Letter/Frequency-Band-2480814 https://fccid.io/ZP5BF-F9V2/Letter/Attestation-Letter-2480808 Similar letters were used in 2014 for the BF-F9V2 and also obtained part 90 fine *shrug*
