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*
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.
