TWRS-126 - The Baofeng UV-5R V2+ Cited by the FCC

5 Comments

1. 

   Edward Yancey Jr

   March 15 2021 at 4:39 am

   I have a HAM ticket and a GMRS license and I feel I should have 1 radio to cover what I am licensed for. Can you imagine how you would feel if you were hiking and hear some kids on FRS radio in trouble and couldn't offer assistance simply because your HAM radio will only moniter FRS and GMRS channels? If you could hear them, that would mean that they were near by due to the low power limits. That could be my wife, daughter or son in trouble. Just to hear someone's voice knowing you made contact will bring stress levels down and will have a calming effect on the person or people in trouble. Maybe the FCC should re-visit that rule. If I provide proof that I am licensed, my radio should be able to transmit on those frequencies. I don't understand it, but the rules are the rules regardless of how I feel about it.

   Reply ↓
2. 

   Bruce

   October 4 2018 at 4:44 pm

   Thanks for the discussion on the FCC's strange citation against Amcrest. It seems to me that something is fishy in Maryland (FCC HQ).
   
   The FCC certified the radio.
   The federal government allowed the radio to be imported.
   
   Unless Amcrest modified the radio, the radio isn't actually the one the FCC certified, or the radio doesn't have the proper FCC ID on it, then Amcrest should have zero liability.
   
   As an Amateur Extra and a VE, I find this to be nothing short of an abuse of power by the federal government. I further believe it is most likely an attempt by the FCC to placate other manufacturers who have lost a lot of revenue to "cheap Chinese imports". On the other hand, there are a lot of radios being sold online that show up without any FCC ID on them. In the Baofeng case, my research indicates that such radios are most likely "fake". The day is now here that the "cheap Chinese knockoffs" are being knocked off.
   
   Thanks for discussing the issues on this.

   Reply ↓
3. 

   Stacy

   September 1 2018 at 12:09 am

   I think the terms you guys are looking for in your discussion about the UV-5R and other such radios is 'channelized' (always required under part 90 rules) versus 'frequency agile' (front-panel programmable) radios allowed under ham radio rules (not allowed under part 90 rules). Business radios can be CTCSS or DPL agile but the transmit frequencies must be programmed by a licensed technician and then locked in by firmware or hardware (a jumper on the circuit board for example) and inaccessible to the operator.

   Reply ↓
4. 

   Randy

   August 31 2018 at 9:44 pm

   They are going after the retailer and not the manufacturer since the retailer is in the US. The mfg is in china why out of the FCC reach.

   Reply ↓
5. 

   Bob Witte

   August 25 2018 at 7:17 pm

   Thanks for the useful discussion of the Baofeng radio and the FCC. I see this as a great example of how the FCC really isn't paying attention to their own rules combined with some manufacturers that are not always understanding or being careful with meeting FCC rules. Its kind of like Dumb and Dumber!
   
   This may be the source of the original complaint to the FCC:
   http://lmcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/LMCC-Ltr-FCC-EB-Re-Non-Comp-Devices-2-13-18.pdf
   
   Bob K0NR

   Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Name

Email

Website

Comment

Leave a comment

Please wait...