Problems at ARRL?

[CJay]

ef.

If that is the case, then it seems pretty straightforward to crack down on the illegal operators. The whole "x can be used for bad, so let's outlaw x" can be dangerous. Sometimes it is justified, but the same reasoning can be applied to just about everything on earth. [/quote]

There's an obvious logical step here, radios aren't designed to kill things but that's strayubg into an area that's contentious enough already so let's not dwell on that.

I do think having a radio in the hands of someone who knows nothing about how to use it is a risky proposition, at leas the YaeKenCom radios which are limited to the ham bands (unless someone has done the MARS mod which seems very common over in the US) only allow those who know nothing to interfere with us hams and not some critical service.

There are certain Baofengs that bear an FCC mark (mine is one of them) and as such it'd be interesting to see how they're dealt with or if indeed they're carrying that FCC mark legally!

The FCC have stated, informally, that if you're using a Baofeng legally on bands you're licensed for then they're unlikely to take issue with it.

[Beamin]

ef.

If that is the case, then it seems pretty straightforward to crack down on the illegal operators. The whole "x can be used for bad, so let's outlaw x" can be dangerous. Sometimes it is justified, but the same reasoning can be applied to just about everything on earth.

There's an obvious logical step here, radios aren't designed to kill things but that's strayubg into an area that's contentious enough already so let's not dwell on that.

I do think having a radio in the hands of someone who knows nothing about how to use it is a risky proposition, at leas the YaeKenCom radios which are limited to the ham bands (unless someone has done the MARS mod which seems very common over in the US) only allow those who know nothing to interfere with us hams and not some critical service.

There are certain Baofengs that bear an FCC mark (mine is one of them) and as such it'd be interesting to see how they're dealt with or if indeed they're carrying that FCC mark legally!

The FCC have stated, informally, that if you're using a Baofeng legally on bands you're licensed for then they're unlikely to take issue with it.
[/quote]

I saw video on youtube where they did their own testing of the boafung handhelds in a way similar to what the FCC does and it was over powered and way over modulated and had harmonics all over the place. The FCC approval is probably just a sticker. You can transmit on the weather bands with mine and everything that you can receive you can transmit less the FM Broadcast bands.

They are good if you need a cheap two way radio and you need more range then those junk "business band/MURS?" radios they sell for hikers and skiers etc with "2 mile range* _{*2 miles was line of sight no obstructions in ideal conditions} That's actually what it says on the box. Any obstruction and those radios don't work, even if you are 20 feet below a hill they won't go to the other side, they are basically toys. I'm not saying you shouldn't use them without a license, I don't, but if you needed a short term solution and were mindful of the rules, say hiking in a really remote area where no one is for miles or cell phones don't work, then no harm no foul since no one will even hear you let alone interfering with others.

Using them around critical infrastructure even with a license can cause problems. But for me the cost of entry was huge, while I got into the hobby when I was a kid and had money back then, I can't afford a nice radio now, I'm still saving up for a SW rig but that might not be possible now due to cost and not being able to work. Sucks because now that I have time, lots of time and I have no money.

[coppercone2]

well I won't defend shitty analog front ends, sounds like standard chinese design optimizations.

I don't support control system restraints but I also don't support control systems which don't do what they are supposed to do.

[djacobow]

I saw video on youtube where they did their own testing of the boafung handhelds in a way similar to what the FCC does and it was over powered and way over modulated and had harmonics all over the place. The FCC approval is probably just a sticker. You can transmit on the weather bands with mine and everything that you can receive you can transmit less the FM Broadcast bands.

...

Using them around critical infrastructure even with a license can cause problems. But for me the cost of entry was huge, while I got into the hobby when I was a kid and had money back then, I can't afford a nice radio now, I'm still saving up for a SW rig but that might not be possible now due to cost and not being able to work. Sucks because now that I have time, lots of time and I have no money.

It's worth pointing out is that the FCC has said nothing about the spectral quality of this radios. The radios might be causing all kind of violations, but that has not been the FCC's story thus far. And, by the way, though I suspect that some of the Chinese radios are splatter disasters, I think most of them are not. I've seen analyses that show they pretty well-behaved, with, some with spurs that are sometimes several dB higher than than the -40dB they ought to be -- definite violations, but hardly QRM bombs:

https://kd8twg.net/2015/10/17/a-quick-and-unscientific-spectral-analysis-of-two-baofeng-radios/

https://imgur.com/a/up2ne

https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/45oq81/baofeng_vs_yaesu_spurious_emissions_test_results/

https://hamradiohawaii.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/most-baofeng-and-a-few-wauxon-do-not-comply-with-part-97-standards/

I also notice that most people performing these measurements measure the radio's output wired directly into an SA through an attenuator, without taking into account the antenna.

97.307(e) states:
(e) The mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency between 30-225 MHz must be at least 60 dB below the mean power of the fundamental. For a transmitter having a mean power of 25 W or less, the mean power of any spurious emission supplied to the antenna transmission line must not exceed 25 µW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission, but need not be reduced below the power of 10 µW. A transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement.

I just checked 97.3 to see if they define "transmitter". They don't. But one could interpret as meaning the whole radio, not just up to the connector, in which case the performance of the antenna system should be included. Clearly, in the case of HTs with captive antennas, this would be the only way to do it.

It seems that the Baofangs in particular fail spectral purity tests pretty often, but I don't see much evidence that this applies to the TYT's, Anytones, etc.


The FCC approvals, by the way, are not just stickers. You can look them up in the FCC's own database. They came from labs that were certified by the FCC. I've been in compliance labs and will happily agree that the test procedures can be gamed a little, but no, they're not just stickers.

[Beamin]

I saw video on youtube where they did their own testing of the boafung handhelds in a way similar to what the FCC does and it was over powered and way over modulated and had harmonics all over the place. The FCC approval is probably just a sticker. You can transmit on the weather bands with mine and everything that you can receive you can transmit less the FM Broadcast bands.

...

Using them around critical infrastructure even with a license can cause problems. But for me the cost of entry was huge, while I got into the hobby when I was a kid and had money back then, I can't afford a nice radio now, I'm still saving up for a SW rig but that might not be possible now due to cost and not being able to work. Sucks because now that I have time, lots of time and I have no money.

It's worth pointing out is that the FCC has said nothing about the spectral quality of this radios. The radios might be causing all kind of violations, but that has not been the FCC's story thus far. And, by the way, though I suspect that some of the Chinese radios are splatter disasters, I think most of them are not. I've seen analyses that show they pretty well-behaved, with, some with spurs that are sometimes several dB higher than than the -40dB they ought to be -- definite violations, but hardly QRM bombs:

https://kd8twg.net/2015/10/17/a-quick-and-unscientific-spectral-analysis-of-two-baofeng-radios/

https://imgur.com/a/up2ne

https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/45oq81/baofeng_vs_yaesu_spurious_emissions_test_results/

https://hamradiohawaii.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/most-baofeng-and-a-few-wauxon-do-not-comply-with-part-97-standards/

I also notice that most people performing these measurements measure the radio's output wired directly into an SA through an attenuator, without taking into account the antenna.

97.307(e) states:
(e) The mean power of any spurious emission from a station transmitter or external RF power amplifier transmitting on a frequency between 30-225 MHz must be at least 60 dB below the mean power of the fundamental. For a transmitter having a mean power of 25 W or less, the mean power of any spurious emission supplied to the antenna transmission line must not exceed 25 µW and must be at least 40 dB below the mean power of the fundamental emission, but need not be reduced below the power of 10 µW. A transmitter built before April 15, 1977, or first marketed before January 1, 1978, is exempt from this requirement.

I just checked 97.3 to see if they define "transmitter". They don't. But one could interpret as meaning the whole radio, not just up to the connector, in which case the performance of the antenna system should be included. Clearly, in the case of HTs with captive antennas, this would be the only way to do it.

It seems that the Baofangs in particular fail spectral purity tests pretty often, but I don't see much evidence that this applies to the TYT's, Anytones, etc.


The FCC approvals, by the way, are not just stickers. You can look them up in the FCC's own database. They came from labs that were certified by the FCC. I've been in compliance labs and will happily agree that the test procedures can be gamed a little, but no, they're not just stickers.

That seems like common sense to test the antenna and to not is just lazy. What if the great engineers who proudly stick  "Engineered in China!_{made in china}" stickers on the box, know the radio is noisy but have tuned their antenna to cut out the harmonics that fall out of the band, or perform some other such magic? A radio is only as good as it's antenna and while many take the antenna of right away you are now modifying the product in a way not intended by the manufacture and then it that case you are causing the problem by altering their carefully engineered systems! In china they are just stickers. Always check for the FDD seal of approval!

[Howardlong]

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/10/06/0356254/its-ham-vsham-as-radio-amateurs-are-in-conflict-at-arrl

What do you guys think of this?

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party on this. I was an ARRL member for quite some years, but not for about the last five.

I didn't know anything about this ARRL "problem" until I saw this thread, but as soon as I saw who the main protagonist was, it does not surprise me. Quick bio: he's is the original writer of BusyBox, and an open source advocate in extremis: he's a clever chap.

I happened to meet the him at a conference dinner where I was speaking some years ago, and again once at Dayton where, unsolicited, he confronted me about a piece of hardware I'd designed. As far as I could tell he didn't agree with some of the design decisions. While he's welcome to his opinions, he wasn't ever part of the design team, nor was he under no obligation to use my design, but he felt he had some sort of God given right to dictate his requirements to me in a rather harassing way.

It was difficult to have a two way conversation with him, on the contrary, it was very much one way. He didn't seem capable of tolerating my answers about the design, or accept that some might have slightly different opinions and priorities to his. It was quite uncomfortable to say the least.

It was a bit like trying to hold a conversation with Mr Logic from Viz. While I am sure he's well-meaning, I found that his absolutism, brashness and apparent inability to compromise or respect others' opinions makes him a divisive figure. I have no doubt he's exceptionally talented, but needless to say I would avoid sharing a dining table with him again.

[bd139]

That’s about right. Basically he’s an extremist.

[CJay]

I saw video on youtube where they did their own testing of the boafung handhelds in a way similar to what the FCC does and it was over powered and way over modulated and had harmonics all over the place.

I can similarly point you at a few where they seem to be absolutely fine and over modulaton is not a common complaint, it's way more common to find they don't have wide enough deviation, in fact I had to drill out the hole in front of the microphone element to get enough deviation on mine and even now the deviation is a little low...

I've tested mine with the gear I have (CMU200 test set, power meter, Rb locked frequency counter) and I have no problem using the radio as it seems to meet or exceed all regulations, the frequency accuracy out of the box is better than the Yaesu gear I have.

On a couple of the videos I've seen where they claim to test them and find them lacking, there are significant failings in the testing methodology, including overloading the input of the spectrum analyser which causes it to produce some terrible spurious responses.

There's a lot of prejudice against these cheap little radios and I find it difficult not to come to the conclusion that some videos were made with the express purpose of rubbishing them.

The FCC approval is probably just a sticker. You can transmit on the weather bands with mine and everything that you can receive you can transmit less the FM Broadcast bands.

They are good if you need a cheap two way radio and you need more range then those junk "business band/MURS?" radios they sell for hikers and skiers etc with "2 mile range* _{*2 miles was line of sight no obstructions in ideal conditions} That's actually what it says on the box. Any obstruction and those radios don't work, even if you are 20 feet below a hill they won't go to the other side, they are basically toys. I'm not saying you shouldn't use them without a license, I don't, but if you needed a short term solution and were mindful of the rules, say hiking in a really remote area where no one is for miles or cell phones don't work, then no harm no foul since no one will even hear you let alone interfering with others.

I've no idea about the FCC sticker, it's not applicable here so I don't particularly care if it's genuine or not.

As for the rest of your statement, that's exactly the kind of use the FCC are trying to crack down on, the hikers, casual users etc. who have no clue about legal frequencies and will just buy radios and transmit wherever they find themselves. The casual users won't limit themselves to legal frequencies, they won't give a damn if they're smack bang inthe middle of the air band or wherever else as long as they can hear each other so from that point of view, the FCC have a valid case.

Using them around critical infrastructure even with a license can cause problems. But for me the cost of entry was huge, while I got into the hobby when I was a kid and had money back then, I can't afford a nice radio now, I'm still saving up for a SW rig but that might not be possible now due to cost and not being able to work. Sucks because now that I have time, lots of time and I have no money.

The point is that a licenced user is meant to be aware of the problems using a radio on the bands their licence allows them access to, that's kind of a major thing in the training for the licence isn't it?

[CJay]

It was a bit like trying to hold a conversation with Mr Logic from Viz. While I am sure he's well-meaning, I found that his absolutism, brashness and apparent inability to compromise or respect others' opinions makes him a divisive figure. I have no doubt he's exceptionally talented, but needless to say I would avoid sharing a dining table with him again.

You've described an awful lot of the hams out there, see my comments about FT/JS8call

[Howardlong]

It was a bit like trying to hold a conversation with Mr Logic from Viz. While I am sure he's well-meaning, I found that his absolutism, brashness and apparent inability to compromise or respect others' opinions makes him a divisive figure. I have no doubt he's exceptionally talented, but needless to say I would avoid sharing a dining table with him again.

You've described an awful lot of the hams out there, see my comments about FT/JS8call

I certainly won't deny that, although this individual did take it to the top level of the hierarchy IME!

FWIW, I don't think ham radio is alone as a pastime that collects its fair share of interesting characters: another pastime of mine is private aviation and it's pretty much the same there too, although the Darwinian risks are somewhat higher.

[Beamin]

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/18/10/06/0356254/its-ham-vsham-as-radio-amateurs-are-in-conflict-at-arrl

What do you guys think of this?

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party on this. I was an ARRL member for quite some years, but not for about the last five.

I didn't know anything about this ARRL "problem" until I saw this thread, but as soon as I saw who the main protagonist was, it does not surprise me. Quick bio: he's is the original writer of BusyBox, and an open source advocate in extremis: he's a clever chap.

I happened to meet the him at a conference dinner where I was speaking some years ago, and again once at Dayton where, unsolicited, he confronted me about a piece of hardware I'd designed. As far as I could tell he didn't agree with some of the design decisions. While he's welcome to his opinions, he wasn't ever part of the design team, nor was he under no obligation to use my design, but he felt he had some sort of God given right to dictate his requirements to me in a rather harassing way.

It was difficult to have a two way conversation with him, on the contrary, it was very much one way. He didn't seem capable of tolerating my answers about the design, or accept that some might have slightly different opinions and priorities to his. It was quite uncomfortable to say the least.

It was a bit like trying to hold a conversation with Mr Logic from Viz. While I am sure he's well-meaning, I found that his absolutism, brashness and apparent inability to compromise or respect others' opinions makes him a divisive figure. I have no doubt he's exceptionally talented, but needless to say I would avoid sharing a dining table with him again.

There are so many in this field with aspergers or high functioning autism. They need to wear signs around their necks warning normal people that they can't figure out social skills or how to talk to another human being. Theres a reason why  they put some engineers in the back and sales people up front.

[cdev]

What about the complaints about the (lack of) transparency issues in the ARRL leadership? From what I read, that would seem to be problematic at an organization which claims to represent all US hams (and also all hams, from what I read).

Availability of affordable, legal radios are a part of it but by no means the most important part.
 

[rhb]

The amateur radio organizations like the ARRL for example at least fight to keep our spectrum space, I say "our" spectrum space although I haven't got around to renewing my licence but you know what I mean. The weak signal digimodes have a lot going for them especially on HF and I'm just waiting to get the QRN sorted out at my location.
Maybe if you could use an Arduino shield running digimodes at 10mW in an ISM band that might spark a bit more interest in amateur radio.

Actually, in the US at that power level you can legally use pretty much everything except the radionavigation frequencies.  My personal main interest in amateur radio is being able to send a 2 KB text message point to point over long distances over a 24 hr period at 10 mW.

Of late, I've been wondering if you could do meteor scatter at 435 MHz using ISM modules over distances of a thousand miles or more.  You would need a GPSDO and a lot of DSP, but so far I don't see any reason one could not make that work.

People rejecting digital modes is likely dominated by those who learned CW at 25+ wpm.  RTTY fans are not likely to see digital modes as being any different.  It's important to remember that MOPA CW is as simple as radio communications gets technically.  And skilled operators have a long track record of communicating over very long distances at QPRP power levels.

I remember my dad telling me that when he was young (1930's), some expedition into remote Africa or similar maintained regular contacts at levels of a watt or two (battery powered tubes).  The old guys tend to admire that more because it is *all* human skill.  I think that's fair, but I'm too lazy to develop that level of skill.  I'd rather use my math and DSP skills to substitute for the many hours of practice that top level CW skills require.

But the ARRL is the primary defender and advocate for amateur spectrum allocations.  I'm currently unlicensed, but when I was last  (30+ years ago),  60, 30, 17 and 12 m were not authorized.  So the ARRL has done a good job of advocating for the amateur. I'm looking forward to getting licensed again, especially now that Extra doesn't require CW at 25 wpm.