ad: elecraft

Bad Baby Monitors on 50.125 FM

Discussion in 'General Technical Questions and Answers' started by W7PM, Aug 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: FBNews-1
  1. K8RI

    K8RI Ham Member QRZ Page

    Just under 6-meters is a common frequency for older baby monitors *AND* cordless telephones. I had both well within range. It only took telling them I could hear them as clearly as I could while we were talking and both were replaced the next day. I took the informative approach: "I just thought you might like to know I can hear everything you can hear on the baby monitor or anything you say that it can pick up." and " I thought you'd like to know I can hear every word you say on your telephone so any one else in the neighborhood could too". I think it would be unusual for new devices to show up on that frequency range. When most people find everything they say in range of the device(s) can be heard anywhere in the neighborhood, they are quick to replace them.
     
  2. W7PM

    W7PM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Today I took posession of the Baby monitor in question. It's made by Safety 1st and is Model # MO043
    It clearly states it operates on one of two channels: CH 1: 49.850 and CH 2: 49.870 MHz

    This unit was being sold at KMARTS as a close out sale according to the people I got it from. There may be many more out there.

    Just FYI, the FCC Filed Office has asked my team to donate this device to the FCC LAB, so they can trace it defective problem (if any) and go after the Safety 1st Baby Moniotor Comapny.

    I should say this system is made in China and distributed by www.djgusa.com (800) 544-1188 Columbus, IN.

    I have permission now from all parties tpoo post the FCC's actual audio file. responses from the defendents have been removed.

    014.jpg
    73's W7PM 011.JPG 011.JPG

    014.jpg 014.jpg
     
  3. KC9VFO

    KC9VFO XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I remember around 15 yrs ago I used set my radio shack scanner to scan all freq to see what was out there and fill my scanning memories. I could hear baby monitors and cordless phones around the neighbor hood sometimes 3 -4 blocks away and I was only using a small telescopic antenna. I threw my cordless in phone in garbage after that. I could hear one apartment building 6 blocks away like they were next door.
     
  4. KF5FEI

    KF5FEI Ham Member QRZ Page

    About 15 years ago, we bought a cheap pair of 49 MHz radios to use on the motorcycles when we were on a road trip. One day, while rolling though a small down, we hear a baby giggling and cooing. In my best baby talk, I said "mama, daddy, poo-poo." Mom came running in, excited that the kid could talk.
     
  5. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm not sure posting much of the "audio file" in necessary, now that the equipment owners have agreed to comply, even if it took FCC action; that seems a bit vindictive, since the general public doesn't understand FCC rules, and their jurisdiction and authority.

    I'd rather summarize the exchange(s), and let your emotional involvement go. The issue has hopefully been resolved, (granted, painfully and frustratingly so) but I'd suggest trying to rebuild an amicable relationship with the neighbor for the benefit of all.

    I hope you will be able to reestablish a friendly relationship with the neighbor.


    As an aside, the "49 MHz" band in years WAS available for unlicensed Part 15 devices, including "so called" baby monitors. One evening I just happened to accidentally tune below 50 MHz, and detected a strong signal. Switching to FM mode, I identified and recognized familiar voices (my neighbors in an apartment adjacent) and heard conversations ANYWHERE in their domicile, not just in the baby's room.
    I informed them the next day, and rather than telling them that I picked up their conversations on "ham radio," I informed them that their conversations could inadvertently be picked up by ANYONE with a regular "police scanner." and their most private conversations could be overheard. They found a different "baby monitor" the next day. Methinks a bit of diplomacy in not emphasizing ham radio (since that wasn't an issue) went a long way in solving a problem of which the neighbors were not aware, but Ham Radio helped identify and solve their problem of a security and privacy breach.
     
  6. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    Oh PULEEEZE!!! look at the date of the first post!!!!!!!!!!

    they knew exactly what they were doingwas NOT legal ... and the LAW was explained to them.

    a SUBSTANTIAL fine is in order!
     
  7. WA9SVD

    WA9SVD Ham Member QRZ Page

    OH, PULEEZE! Someone came to their door and said their baby monitor was causing a problem and they had to stop using it. Under what authority? Until the FCC actually stepped in, there was no verified authority involved. it's unfortunate they didn't take previous steps and attempts at resolution seriously.

    With all due respect, anyone can approach a "neighbor" and claim some activity is "illegal." Some will try to comply in a spirit of cooperation, and others will be belligerent, until they are informed by authorities (local or federal) that they are violating a law.
    When the latter occurs, it makes for a poor relationship with the neighbors in an area, overall.
     
  8. K6TEP

    K6TEP Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I see from your note that the monitors were supposed to be out of "our" 6m band. My question would be, where was the signal, really? Were these mistuned into the 6m band (50.125) as you saw, or where they just emitting very wide band?

    Anyone thrown these on a spectrum analyzer to see where the signal was actually centered?

    Mis tuned is one thing, being way too wide band is another. Both are bad, obviously, but one might be a design flaw and the other a manufacturing defect (or process failure). Might help us guess how many of these things we're going to run into...
     
  9. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    SVD:

    However, the owners of the baby monitor were "officially" informed by the FCC, by mail, fairly early in the process, that they were in violation of 47 CFR Part 15 concerning the operation of the device. Unfortunately, it did take a physical visit from FCC engineers to finally get things resolved. Also, I believe that a replacement monitor, operating on a much higher frequency, was offered and refused.

    Also, from the earlier posts, I believe that the husband was open to replacement of the device and was willing to cooperate, but, it was the wife who "dug in" and refused to cooperate.

    Most people would take notice of an official document from the Federal Government and take action to comply. Having a couple of Federal Officials "show up" at one's door is not something that most people would like. But, there are those who openly violate regulations just to be contrary and thus "dare" the officials to take action.

    Glen, K9STH
     
  10. KH6AQ

    KH6AQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Are these bad baby, monitors or bad, baby monitors?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: w3ff