Illegal Radios

[DaveInDenver]

This came down yesterday (9/24/18):

https://www.fcc.gov/document/enforcement-bureau-issues-advisory-two-way-vhfuhf-radios

Basically what the FCC said is that radios and operators must follow the rules. All those Baofengs are illegal, they always were illegal. The importer/distributor recently was notified by the FCC to stop breaking the law and he thumbed his nose at them. So they were left with no choice. The FCC is serious about this, issuing fines for using illegal radios beyond our authority.

 

[Squishy!]

Ouch.

 

[AxleIke]

Well, that is a bummer for the consumers, but not surprising, given that the rules predated the radios.

And, makes sense, since they are able to interfere with communications that, in the case of aviation, could pose real danger.

 

[Mendocino]

Wow! That is a big deal. I'm glad I only own compliant radios.

 

[DaveInDenver]

And, makes sense, since they are able to interfere with communications that, in the case of aviation, could pose real danger.

That's actually not really true, the U.S. air band is 108 to 137 MHz and most of these radios can't be tuned that low. The ones that get close will get down to 136 MHz and could technically interfere with some voice channels but all the navigational channels sit at the low end, 108 up to 117.95 MHz and the emergency channel is 121.5 MHz. So even if someone wanted to be disruptive they would perhaps upset some voice communication but wouldn't pose a serious risk to an aircraft losing navigation or data (which is done via L-band satellite, not VHF).

My speculation is this action is mostly driven by the big players (Motorola, Kenwood, Icom, Hytera, Yaesu) who are seeing these cheap radios seriously eat into their sales. Right or wrong, most of these radios are not even tested for anything other than Part 15 and are brought in via a loophole that we amateurs have (we essentially self-certify any radio we use on the air) and the seller knows full well that the radio will be used for business, GMRS, FRS and even public service without ever being tested for it. As hams we should be bothered by that exploitation because it will lead to the removal of our ability to tinker with radios and force manufacturers to lock radios down and be subject to specific Part 97 testing.

 

[SteveH]

I wonder if the FCC will put out a list of prohibited radios? I see nothing on the Beofeng site about this.

 

[DaveInDenver]

You can pretty much say that anything Amcrest Industries, LLC, touches is no longer under the radar. IOW, Baofeng.

https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2018/DA-18-801A1.html

https://amcrest.com/radios.html

 

[AxleIke]

That's actually not really true, the U.S. air band is 108 to 137 MHz and most of these radios can't be tuned that low. The ones that get close will get down to 136 MHz and could technically interfere with some voice channels but all the navigational channels sit at the low end, 108 up to 117.95 MHz and the emergency channel is 121.5 MHz. So even if someone wanted to be disruptive they would perhaps upset some voice communication but wouldn't pose a serious risk to an aircraft losing navigation or data (which is done via L-band satellite, not VHF).

My speculation is this action is mostly driven by the big players (Motorola, Kenwood, Icom, Hytera, Yaesu) who are seeing these cheap radios seriously eat into their sales. Right or wrong, most of these radios are not even tested for anything other than Part 15 and are brought in via a loophole that we amateurs have (we essentially self-certify any radio we use on the air) and the seller knows full well that the radio will be used for business, GMRS, FRS and even public service without ever being tested for it. As hams we should be bothered by that exploitation because it will lead to the removal of our ability to tinker with radios and force manufacturers to lock radios down and be subject to specific Part 97 testing.

Just going off the opening paragraphs of the document:

“Many of these radios violate one or more FCC technical requirements. For example, some can be modified to transmit on public safety and other land mobile channels for which they are not authorized, while others are capable of prohibited wideband operations.2 Such radios are illegal, and many have the potential to negatively affect public safety, aviation, and other operations by Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private users.”

 

[CO Hunter]

It seems this is limited to just the UV5R radios?

Thanks for posting this and the other thread, I had no idea this was going on. I just got two GT-3wp radios instead of water proof FRS.

 

[Oh_shift]

This came down yesterday (9/24/18):

https://www.fcc.gov/document/enforcement-bureau-issues-advisory-two-way-vhfuhf-radios

TL/DR; however, I found this youtube video that did a good job explaining one of the last rider clauses that might affect us more regardless of what radio we are using:

FCC DA 18-980 Chinese BaoFeng Radio Ban Will Regulate Amateur Operators

 

[DaveInDenver]

TL/DR; however, I found this youtube video that did a good job explaining one of the last rider clauses that might affect us more regardless of what radio we are using:

FCC DA 18-980 Chinese BaoFeng Radio Ban Will Regulate Amateur Operators

His video touches the main point in the directive. My assumption has been this directive is about protecting existing manufacturers, so why wouldn't Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood, etc. want to force Chinese radios to submit to expensive testing? This doesn't currently exist because there's no technical requirement in Part 97 to test against so it would take more lobbying. I wonder what the ARRL position here is.

 

[Oh_shift]

His video touches the main point in the directive. My assumption has been this directive is about protecting existing manufacturers, so why wouldn't Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood, etc. want to force Chinese radios to submit to expensive testing? This doesn't currently exist because there's no technical requirement in Part 97 to test against so it would take more lobbying. I wonder what the ARRL position here is.

I agree on the first point he brings up in this video and with you Dave. No argument there, and just as he says, if the FCC had stopped there, there wouldn't be anything to argue.

Here's the rub (and according to this video's interpretation):

"If a two-way VHF/UHF radio is capable of operating outside of the amateur frequency bands, it cannot be imported, advertised, sold, or operated within the United States without an FCC equipment certification."​

No longer using a HAM radio to listen to weather, police, fire frequencies. Maybe you're not a nerd and want to listen to fire, but I think we can all agree weather is important. And the last point he makes before ending the video (after he cuts himself off), we are aloud to us any frequency available in an emergency. If your radio is already limiting those bands, this second point kinda works against it. That's where my rub is.

I do have a Baofeng BF-F9 V2+, and I use it responsible/correctly. Now, I'm illegally transmitting even though I am using it on the ARF

This kinda sounds like the same regulations that are on guns...

 

[DaveInDenver]

To be precise about the 'use any frequency', it's not an explicit allowance rule but rather a non-prohibit. The wording is that you are not being told you can't use any means necessary to protect life or property but no one is telling you can either. There's nowhere in any FCC rules that ever actually gives anyone the privilege to transmit beyond their authority.

It's a nuanced thing, but the wording leaves the question open and if the FCC doesn't agree that there was no other option they can always punish you. This basic argument has been thrown around for freebanding your radio for a long time. My $0.02 is that at an individual level that you might be valid and justified but it'll never hold water legally. It is kind of the same Catch-22 if you defend yourself with a firearm. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as they say. You may save your life hailing a Coast Guard ship but you're going to get an FCC fine anyway.

The reason I would like to know what the ARRL's position here is because as far as I can tell there is no justification in the Rules nor in legal cases brought by the FCC to support punishing a ham for using any radio he wishes. Part 97 only has two technical rules and neither really applies. So even if the FCC said all commercial ham radios have to be tested there's nothing to test against, no technical specifications. All the wording is that it's the operator's responsibility to stay within the band edges, under the power, off certain shared use frequencies, etc. Administrative actions brought seems to punish a Part 95 user or reseller, e.g. illegally selling or using ham radios for CB. Which is a violation of written, specific rules.

I honestly wish I knew why the FCC said what they said and why now. I want to think it's really just a misstatement poorly worded to stop these suppliers from exploiting the ham exemption. Maybe in their way they are trying to protect the exemption. We really are given a lot of authority with our licenses and hams and the ARRL do assist the FCC in self policing. So I don't think, I really don't, that the FCC is trying to target us.

 

[J1000]

Awesome breakdown, Dave. I have been active in the UAV community since 2011 and in the early days there were no Part 15 drones so if we wanted to fly we got our HAMs. There was a similar "issue" with parts suppliers selling cheap video transmitters that operate on HAM bands to non-HAMs and poor quality radios bleeding into other spectrums they were not allowed, or being many times higher output power than they were supposed to.

In the last year or two, can't remember exactly, but the FCC issued a judgement and fines against several Chinese suppliers of this illegal equipment. That may have opened the door for more HAM equipment to be challenged.