Comment on Is Baofeng flagrantly lying to the FCC and endangering users? A deep dive
hertz_so_good@lemmy.radio 19 hours agoWell that’s exactly what I’m missing, thanks!
I looked up the Yaesu FT-60R, K6620175X20, and I see that it also only has part 15B in its grant, and only part 15 work in the test report. So it seems like you’re exactly right.
But that leaves me with more questions!
- Why did Baofeng do all of the emissions testing in 2012 and 2015? Maybe they just didn’t know it was optional?
- How are ham operators supposed to have control over the emission mask violations of their HTs? Even with a base station it only really seems reasonable to expect a Technician operator to be aware of their ERP with whatever antenna they set up. Does the FCC go after individual operators for spectral mask violations when they’re running COTS transceivers? I could see an Extra-class operator to do some spooky stuff and be expected to pay a lot of attention with a spectrum analyzer, but nearly anyone can get a Technician license and start blasting on an HT without really knowing much.
hertz_so_good@lemmy.radio 19 hours ago
I also dug into a different Baofeng rabbit hole and I followed the UV-5G GMRS certifications. It’s currently being sold under FCC ID 2AN62-UV5G from a Delaware corporation called SAIN3, but it turns out they inherited the Part 95E certification from Po Fung as attested in that filing. Po Fung had previously gotten it certified as 2AJGM-P51UV, and they did indeed perform proper GMRS emissions testing on it.
Thanks for helping me understand that ham
radiosscanning receivers are really quite different in the FCC’s eyes. I don’t fully get it, but at least I no longer think Po Fung is doing anything especially underhanded.InevitableWaffles@midwest.social 8 hours ago
This is reminicent of the 510k system for medical device clearance for medical devices. Using some other precursor tech to same I am similar in function to this so I don’t and you don’t have to test it.