That's right. The FCC and/or their TCBs (Telecommunications Certification Bodies that actually do the testing) are incompetent or corrupt or something.
Almost all CCR (Cheap Chinese Radios) come out of the box straight from the manufacturer ready to use in VFO mode. The user can easily program the radio to operate on any frequency they pull out of their @$$ (and use "wideband" 5 kHz deviation, which is no longer allowed on most Part 90 or NTIA frequencies). Read the documentation with false statements that the manufacturers submitted for certification. They all say that only authorized maintenance personnel are able to change the frequency and the end user is not capable of changing the frequency. The manufacturers are lying about the equipment and the TCBs that test and approve the equipment don't even check the functionality. How do the TCBs test for transmit power, emission mask, harmonics, spurs, etc. without the radio being freely programamble? Why do the equipment authorization grants not mention the radios are capable of wideband FM mode on any frequency? Why do the user manuals all instruct the end user how to program any frequency in VFO or memory channel if only factory authorized maintenance personnel can program the radio? Why do the equipment authorization grants for some radios only list transmit power and emission designator bandwidths that don't compare to the specifications in the user manual or published on the manufacturer's web site? How do the radios get equipment authorization grants when technically they should not be allowed to? If the TCBs were doing their job or the FCC was policing them properly then few or none of these radios would be certified.
re: "How do the radios get equipment authorization grants when technically they should not be allowed to [added: in the first place]?" Good question. It's almost like the FCC is trying ex post facto to correct their previous error or re-interpret their rules if indeed the Chinese made product met then, and still now meet the same technical requirements (they may not, keep on reading below). Things get messy all the way 'round under those circumstances (FCC ex post facto corrections), as I think we may be seeing (keep reading, I'm not done yet). It has been stated years ago ... Never push the commission on an issue, you're likely to get a decision or ruling that no one likes. This advice preceded the internet even, and a LOT of new ppl may be gaining this perspective now. Sometimes on "grey" issues it is better to let sleeping dogs lie ... So, who was it that made the initial complaint that set the FCC off looking at Baofengs et al? Okay, here is the meat - This looks to have been a conflagration or 'perfect storm' involving (1) the FCC, (2) Chinese radio manufacturers, (3) a multitude of on-line retail outlets peddling product from (2) and, I think, perhaps incremental feature change (like adding FPP later in the game _after_ the radios had initially gained Type Acceptance; adding FPP after Type Acceptance is a fairly obvious no-no.) (4) An aggrieved party (perhaps more than just 'legally' harmed in some way (as in, actual damages can be demonstrated), and not too hard to understand) who viewed the proliferation of cheap Chinese product as a 'live threat' who then asked (1) the FCC, to investigate.
I can certainly agree with this up to a point. However, while I do own a couple of cheap radios, I mainly bought them to experiment with when a local club started up a 220 repeater. As for my other rigs, I use Yaesu which I truly like. I would also like to add, is that for newly licensed operators who can't afford a decent radio when they get started, these radios are a great substitute until the can afford a better one which may HAMs including myself recommend. As for the ruling, it's currently being discussed now that ARRL is involved. In either case, I seriously doubt they'll be able to stop them when you consider they are still being sold by even Radio gear vendors. It will certainly be interesting to see where this will go.
I read the PDF and then I looked in the back of my Chinese radio and lo and behold there is an FCC sticker and FCC ID: !! I looked up the ID and discovered that it is certified to 'operate on the appropriate frequencies' of Part 90 (Land mobile) but it clearly has capability to be programmed to frequencies noT allocated to Part 90 or Part 97. Plus it can be partially programmed with the keypad on the front. SO HOW DID IT PASS FCC CERTIFICATION? I don't have a station license for Part 90 so I cannot operate there anyway so what's the problem?
KC8WIK: from Powerworx own website - https://powerwerx.com/db750x-dual-band-commercial-mobile-radio FCC Approval The DB-750X is Part 90 certified for commercial use. CE & FCC Part 90 certified. Unless Powerworx is wanting to be put out of business by FCC, we have to assume they are telling the truth. I think the only way to verify this would be to consult the FCC. Personally I would doubt that Powerworx would be ignorant enough to make this claim if it were not true, so if I owned one of these radios I wouldn't worry about anyone coming to confiscate it or charge me with a fine. I believe you can assume that it is perfectly legal to operate your radio. 73!
I agree with the point you made regarding new technician operators, many are just getting started, and the bands these radios operate on are perfect for them to get started on. We are fighting an uphill battle getting young people into the hobby, that is a fact. With the combination cellphone/dmr hybrids on the market costing in the low to mid hundreds of dollars and their preference for cellphones anyway, we have a hard time selling them on a radio that has limited range due to power restrictions and the fact that these combination devices have global reach, (as long as they have the internet to rely on). These newcomers consider the internet to be bulletproof, and we've never seen it fail here in the US for any length of time. The cost of their devices continues to escalate and they always seem to come up with the money to invest, because they have been raised to believe in the technology. I think we would all be shocked to find out how few of the younger generation even own an AM/FM receiver. They get their "radio" out of cell phone apps. Ham radio needs these entry level Chinese products if we are going to continue to thrive. A lot of beginners learn on these radios, but many soon realize that they are no one's radio nirvana. They exist because there is a market for them, although they have a limited market. They serve a utility function, for communications on a limited budget. I wonder how much of the resistance to these radios is being driven by the manufacturers of the more expensive handheld radios? I believe we should be suspicious about the Chinese made radios based on their components and low prices. Unless you are an electronics engineer, do you really know what is in these things? How do we know that there isn't some hidden circuits embedded in them that can be activated from a distance that will create a nation wide network o **************************************************************************************************** I completely agree with you, Bonnie. There is no worse offender than RFI that comes from the plethora of non-shielded electronic devices in the average American household, as well as in businesses and government institutions. There is a great public ignorance regarding this subject, and there is no urgency being given to resolving the vast amount of RFI we live in on a daily basis. You are right about this being the single most important source of RFI. It isn't the new ham with his Baofeng HT that is causing the noise floor to rise across the entire RF spectrum. It's the (especially the older ones) LED bulbs every environmentally conscious person is using to replace their incandescent light bulbs, and the kitchen appliances that are largely ignored in regard to the RF pollution they produce. You are right about Part 15 being written before the age of modern electronics, and those rules among others are due for an update to include the unwanted effects of the operation of modern devices and their negative effects on other devices that function within the radio spectrum. The part I find particularly humorous was (2) this device must accept any interference received including interference that may cause undesired operation. In (1) the FCC declares that the device may not emit any interference, then they come back and state the same device must absorb outside interference even to the point it ceases to operate. With that kind of logic flow, how can we expect any kind of solution to any degree of a problem? What they are doing in reaction to the popularity of cheap Chinese radios seems to be the result of industry lobbying efforts as opposed to resolution of a problem with those radios themselves. Remember this is Washington DC, and very little of what goes on there isn't directly beneficial to the groups that send lobbyists to sway the opinions of these regulatory agencies. I'm not disputing the quality of the high priced handhelds, and the Chinese radios cut corners to get their low market price in areas such as the receiver section - the higher priced units all have superheterodyne receivers, where as the Chinese made ones use older and less capable designs but cost less per unit to make. It has been a matter of record that the quality control of the Chinese made units has not been given primary importance, hence the multitude of complaints on the subject. If they are serious in wanting to suppress spurious emissions in the RF spectrum, they would mandate the control of noise from all of those LEDs and the kitchen appliances by forcing RF shielding to be inside each one produced, killing the problem at the source. The noise floor in RF would correspondingly drop across the spectrum. Then there would be no further need of item 2 of Part 15. Killing off the entry level ham radio is not going to increase sales of the more expensive ones, all it will really accomplish is reducing interest in ham radio among the youth who must become the future of ham radio. Until we can encourage young people to become involved in amateur radio we have to face the fact that amateur radio may fade into history like the telegraph. If that happens, this argument will be moot. The next sounds we may hear could be the end of amateur radio as we know it in our own lifetime.
Flooding the market with Chinese or Japanese what's the difference? Could you imagine Collins, Drake, Hammarlund, Hallicrafters, Ten Tec, Motorola or Heathkit manufacturing radios that have the same features as a $50 Wouxun with Union labor? On the other hand China probably uses 9 to12 year olds in slave labor to put the things together. But that would never happen...........
The rules are quite clear that it is the responsibility of the licensee to insure the operation their equipment remains within the regulations...so NEVER assume anything. Powerworx's FCC Grantee Code is: 2ACK8....and searching the Grantee Code ( https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid ) shows no certification has been granted for that model. So...
so the FCC thinks they can stop the cheep stuff from coming into the USA ,dont think so, hasnt stopped anything else
What took so long. Maybe they are too busy taking care of the cell phone businesses they will be joining when they leave their FCC positions. Oh ya don't bother with adding more engineering and technical staff, why waist money.
That just means they are using somebody else's FCC ID on that product, probably that of the Chinese manufacturer.
