It is your butt and not mine so it is probably easier for me to say this,
however, I do have a little experience interpreting poorly written
government regulations (it is amazing the government can write pages and
pages of regulations and still not define anything concisly). If you look
at the whole paragraph it is talking about antennas, amplifiers... Staying
within the confines of the power and direction of radiation. The batteries
are a good point, it would be impractical to think that you had to use the
same batteries that were used during the FCC certification. The same would
apply to headphones. It explains in the instructions of FRS/GMRS units that
the accessory jack (if installed) is used for external ear buds and
microphone but it doesn't specify which brand or model. If a specific
headset was required to be used because it was a requirement of
certification it would be specified in the instructions and possibly
permanently attached like the antennas. I would interpret the requirment to
indicate you cannot add anything that would change the RF signature of the
radio.
On 12/1/05, Robotics_Job_Search <Robotics_Job_Search@Robo...> wrote:
>
>
> Dennis;
>
> >Hope you find a satisfactory out in your project.
>
> Throw the @#$%&* thing in a box and forget about it. :)
> Well then again, maybe I could do it in the middle of the night and
> not tell anyone. :)
> >(c) You may not attach any antenna, power amplifier, or other
apparatus
> >to an FRS unit that has not been FCC certified as part of that FRS
unit.
>
> I hate to say it, but you're probably right. That is exactly why I
> wanted to get someone else's point of view. Thank you.
<sarcasm>(Can I
> put batteries in the unit that the manufacturer didn't certify? Can
I
> "attach" a Happy Face Sticker?)</sarcasm>
>
> Okay, it looks like the next thing on the agenda is to start studying
>
> for the Ham Test!
> Good Luck!
> Ken_S.
>
> At 11:25 PM 11/30/2005, you wrote:
> >Ken,
> >
> >The key phrase, I believe is found here:
> >
> >"(c) You may not attach any antenna, power amplifier, or other
> >apparatus to an FRS unit that has not been FCC certified as part of
> >that FRS unit. There are no exceptions to this rule and attaching
any
> >such apparatus to a FRS unit cancels the FCC certification and voids
> >everyone's authority to operate the unit in the FRS."
> >
> >"or other apparatus" may be the defining prohibition. I
can't claim
> >to be an expert on these rules, but if the data sending capability
> >isn't built in (and certified by the manufacturer), then it
seems
> >that you can't add it. Certainly, soldering to the internals is
> >out. One might claim there is wiggle room in using an externally
> >connected earphone and microphone if there is a connector, but the
> >word "attach" seems to cover that together with the
prohibition of
> >anything the manufacturer didn't certify. Just my best guess how
the
> >FCC would look at it if you put it in their face and asked for an
> >opinion.
> >
> >I don't like to rain on anyone's parade, but that's just
how the rule
> >seems to be written. Yes, a FRS radio can send data within the
> >narrow confines of the rules, but it seems that capability is for
the
> >manufacturer to build in. I believe it was Trimble that went to bat
> >for this change to the rules so they could market the Rino with GPS
> >built in that would map other similar radio's locations on the
> >screen. The original rules prohibited any data transmission.
> >
> >Hope you find a satisfactory out in your project.
> >
> >Dennis
> ------------------------------
> >.
> ------------------------------
>
low-cost RF transeivers?
Started by ●November 19, 2005
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
Russell;
>I would interpret the requirment to indicate you cannot add
>anything that would change the RF signature of the radio.
I would interpret it that way too, but Authoritarians view the world
differently.
Does anyone know if there is someone from the FCC that I can ask and
get an official answer? Do they have local offices? Good Luck!
Ken_S.
At 10:13 PM 12/1/2005, you wrote:
>It is your butt and not mine []
>I would interpret the requirment to indicate you cannot add
>anything that would change the RF signature of the radio.
I would interpret it that way too, but Authoritarians view the world
differently.
Does anyone know if there is someone from the FCC that I can ask and
get an official answer? Do they have local offices? Good Luck!
Ken_S.
At 10:13 PM 12/1/2005, you wrote:
>It is your butt and not mine []
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
> ... I would interpret the requirment to indicate you cannot add
anything that would change the RF signature of the radio.
There is no question but that the FCC Rules and Regulations are founded
in sharing spectrum and minimizing interference, and other things. The
Commission has no concern about your headphones unless they radiate.
Pragmatically, no harm is likely to come from modifying an FRS radio if
it does not produce interference to any other users. If you have the
luxury of living in the middle of nowhere, for example, low power data
on an FRS frequency will draw no attention and affect no one, I'd bet,
even if it is a violation of the Rules; you will not go to jail.
Lots of people get away with being less then RF-angelic. I've been told
of a series of pseudo-government Alaskan radio links that use VHF Marine
channels across tundra; that's a violation of the Rules that matters
not-at-all since there is no navigable water anywhere nearby. You can
do these sorts of things legally, too, after being granted a waiver by
the FCC of a specific rule that you question. They are sometimes
reasonable.
Still, there already exists a number of perfectly legal data solutions,
some that don't cost much more than an FRS radio. Why not use them? Tom
anything that would change the RF signature of the radio.
There is no question but that the FCC Rules and Regulations are founded
in sharing spectrum and minimizing interference, and other things. The
Commission has no concern about your headphones unless they radiate.
Pragmatically, no harm is likely to come from modifying an FRS radio if
it does not produce interference to any other users. If you have the
luxury of living in the middle of nowhere, for example, low power data
on an FRS frequency will draw no attention and affect no one, I'd bet,
even if it is a violation of the Rules; you will not go to jail.
Lots of people get away with being less then RF-angelic. I've been told
of a series of pseudo-government Alaskan radio links that use VHF Marine
channels across tundra; that's a violation of the Rules that matters
not-at-all since there is no navigable water anywhere nearby. You can
do these sorts of things legally, too, after being granted a waiver by
the FCC of a specific rule that you question. They are sometimes
reasonable.
Still, there already exists a number of perfectly legal data solutions,
some that don't cost much more than an FRS radio. Why not use them? Tom
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
I would think that you could do the whole thing without cracking the
case,
in which case you're well within the bounds of the regs.
Plus, and maybe I'm wrong here, but surely the FCC has better things to do
than track down sub- 1 second DTMF bursts in the suburbs? If not then maybe
they are a bit overfunded.
DougM
[]
in which case you're well within the bounds of the regs.
Plus, and maybe I'm wrong here, but surely the FCC has better things to do
than track down sub- 1 second DTMF bursts in the suburbs? If not then maybe
they are a bit overfunded.
DougM
[]
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:38:10 -0800
> From: "Doug Metzler" <dougm62@doug...>
> Subject: low-cost RF transeivers?
>
> Anyone found a good source for low cost RF transceivers? I'm able to find
> good discrete transmitters and receivers, but as soon as I look for a
> transceiver the price jumps to $100.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DougM
Hi,
I haven't followed this thread so this may have already beeen mentioned.
Sparkfun has some trancievers that look promising. I haven't tried them.
http://www.sparkfun.com/shop/index.php?shop=1&catb&
(if that link doesn't work go to sparkfun.com and click on Wireless
Communication)
in particular the RF-24G for $19.95 each looks promising.
--
Jeff Sampson
http://tcrobots.org/members/jsamp.htm
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:38:10 -0800
> From: "Doug Metzler" <dougm62@doug...>
> Subject: low-cost RF transeivers?
>
> Anyone found a good source for low cost RF transceivers? I'm able to find
> good discrete transmitters and receivers, but as soon as I look for a
> transceiver the price jumps to $100.
>
> Thanks,
>
> DougM
Hi,
I haven't followed this thread so this may have already beeen mentioned.
Sparkfun has some trancievers that look promising. I haven't tried them.
http://www.sparkfun.com/shop/index.php?shop=1&catb&
(if that link doesn't work go to sparkfun.com and click on Wireless
Communication)
in particular the RF-24G for $19.95 each looks promising.
--
Jeff Sampson
http://tcrobots.org/members/jsamp.htm
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
Tom;
Since you haven't followed this thread from the beginning, see this
link for what I'm doing http://www.geocities.com/almost_there_weather_balloon/ >Still, there already exists a number of perfectly legal data solutions,
>some that don't cost much more than an FRS radio. Why not use them?
For one I've come this far, and I already have the radio (I went and
bought four of them actually.) I would be interested if you know of other
solutions that are not a grey area that will meet my needs. Thank you. Good Luck!
Ken_S.
[]
Since you haven't followed this thread from the beginning, see this
link for what I'm doing http://www.geocities.com/almost_there_weather_balloon/ >Still, there already exists a number of perfectly legal data solutions,
>some that don't cost much more than an FRS radio. Why not use them?
For one I've come this far, and I already have the radio (I went and
bought four of them actually.) I would be interested if you know of other
solutions that are not a grey area that will meet my needs. Thank you. Good Luck!
Ken_S.
[]
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
> ... interested if you know of other solutions that are not a grey
area ...
If you are planning on launching a balloon out to sea from Virginia
Beach and use FRS for a few hours of coded downlink you will probably
never be known, but it's not the right thing to do. I didn't read
that you've planned on getting FAA consent in a busy airspace, too.
From experience, I know it is hard enough to get the Commission to
find a blatent broadcast pirate, an illegal commercial station - on
the air 24 hours a day for months - that runs regular spots and takes
requests, some of them running kilowatts from several hundred feet in
urban Miami, let alone chasing a fading morse signal from the sea that
would be no more than a brief curiousity - if anyone heard it.
However, if you put even a weak unintentional signal on an aircraft
frequency, particularly a control tower frequency, you will very
likely be identified and silenced pretty quickly - and you will
probably hear from several agencies soon after.
Why don't you make a proposal to an RF link firm, get some donated
legal radios and write a series of articles? Building, launching and
tracking a balloon to it's inevitable loss should be a good read. Tom Tom
area ...
If you are planning on launching a balloon out to sea from Virginia
Beach and use FRS for a few hours of coded downlink you will probably
never be known, but it's not the right thing to do. I didn't read
that you've planned on getting FAA consent in a busy airspace, too.
From experience, I know it is hard enough to get the Commission to
find a blatent broadcast pirate, an illegal commercial station - on
the air 24 hours a day for months - that runs regular spots and takes
requests, some of them running kilowatts from several hundred feet in
urban Miami, let alone chasing a fading morse signal from the sea that
would be no more than a brief curiousity - if anyone heard it.
However, if you put even a weak unintentional signal on an aircraft
frequency, particularly a control tower frequency, you will very
likely be identified and silenced pretty quickly - and you will
probably hear from several agencies soon after.
Why don't you make a proposal to an RF link firm, get some donated
legal radios and write a series of articles? Building, launching and
tracking a balloon to it's inevitable loss should be a good read. Tom Tom
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
>Does anyone know if there is someone from the FCC that I can
>ask and get an official answer?
I called the FCC today; spoke to someone and explained what I was
doing. All they said was if the rules allow it, then I could do it. I
couldn't get a definitive answer. They wouldn't say one way or the other
whether I could connect equipment to the Mic-In Jack, send a short burst of
information, or anything else; in short, they wouldn't commit to
anything. Wow! Thanks a lot!!! (or is that thanks for nothin?) If I
can't ask them, then who can I ask? I did find that someone connected four GPS receivers to four FRS
radios and had a group of Boy Scouts split up in to groups and play some
sort of GPS based hunting games.
I also found that someone has connected a Mic-E to a GPS for teaching
an Orienteering Course (Mic-E converts GPS to AX.25, which is a protocal
intended for sending data over Ham Radio.) Good Luck!
Ken_S.
At 11:30 PM 12/1/2005, you wrote:
>Russell;
>
> >I would interpret the requirment to indicate you cannot add
> >anything that would change the RF signature of the radio.
>
> I would interpret it that way too, but Authoritarians view the world
>differently.
>
> Does anyone know if there is someone from the FCC that I can ask and
>get an official answer? Do they have local offices? > Good Luck!
> Ken_S.
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
Tom;
>I didn't read that you've planned on getting FAA
>consent in a busy airspace, too.
Yes, I absolutely will file a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen.) >you will probably never be known, but it's not the right thing to do.
The whole point of this thread is to make it clean and legal. (But I
agree, in all likelyhood nothing would ever happen.) >tracking a balloon to it's inevitable loss should be a good read.
See any of these links (I hope they come through the Forum okay)...
*
United States of America
* <http://www.ansr.org>Arizona Near Space Research
* <http://www.bsrg.org>Atlanta Balloonatics Home Page
* <http://fly.hiwaay.net/%7Ebbrown/>Bill Brown's Balloon Site
* Edge of Space Sciences
* <http://www.eoss.org/gpsl_2002.htm>Great Plains Super Launch 2002
* <http://www.post509.org/>JPL Space Exploration Post 509's High
Altitude Experimentation Project
* <http://habitat.netlab.org/index.shtml>Habitat - High Altitude
Basic Investigation Testing And Tracking
* <http://fly.hiwaay.net/%7Ebbrown/>HALO - High Altitude Lift Off
* <http://www.public.iastate.edu/%7Eisgc>Iowa Space Grant Consortium
* <http://www.ksu.edu/humec/knsp/>Kansas Near Space Project (KNSP)
* <http://members.cox.net/mconner1/nstar.html>Nebraska
Stratospheric Amateur Radio (NSTAR)
* <http://www.ntbp.org>North Texas Balloon Project (NTBP)
* <http://members.cox.net/hhm_74775/orb/>Oklahoma Research Balloons
(ORB)
* <http://www.rckara.org/project_traveler/>Project: Traveler
* <http://mail.gpacademy.org/%7Erochter/default.htm>Robert Rochte
at The Grosse Pointe Academy
* <http://www.tvnsp.org/>Treasure Valley Near Space Project (TVNSP)
*
Mexico
* TSat Project
* <http://www.xe1rcs.org.mx/globo>Homepage
* <http://www.xe1rcs.org.mx>Radio Club Satelite Home page
* <http://www.xe1rcs.org.mx/globo/rcs5>The latest balloon information
* Argentina
* <http://www.geocities.com/jcmcoppens/globo/>Experimento Globo
* Gustavo Carpignano's <http://www.qsl.net/lw2dtz>Balloon and Amateur Page
* Canada
* <http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/>High Altitude Glider Project
And trust me, there are many, many more. Good Luck!
Ken_S.
[]
>I didn't read that you've planned on getting FAA
>consent in a busy airspace, too.
Yes, I absolutely will file a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen.) >you will probably never be known, but it's not the right thing to do.
The whole point of this thread is to make it clean and legal. (But I
agree, in all likelyhood nothing would ever happen.) >tracking a balloon to it's inevitable loss should be a good read.
See any of these links (I hope they come through the Forum okay)...
*
United States of America
* <http://www.ansr.org>Arizona Near Space Research
* <http://www.bsrg.org>Atlanta Balloonatics Home Page
* <http://fly.hiwaay.net/%7Ebbrown/>Bill Brown's Balloon Site
* Edge of Space Sciences
* <http://www.eoss.org/gpsl_2002.htm>Great Plains Super Launch 2002
* <http://www.post509.org/>JPL Space Exploration Post 509's High
Altitude Experimentation Project
* <http://habitat.netlab.org/index.shtml>Habitat - High Altitude
Basic Investigation Testing And Tracking
* <http://fly.hiwaay.net/%7Ebbrown/>HALO - High Altitude Lift Off
* <http://www.public.iastate.edu/%7Eisgc>Iowa Space Grant Consortium
* <http://www.ksu.edu/humec/knsp/>Kansas Near Space Project (KNSP)
* <http://members.cox.net/mconner1/nstar.html>Nebraska
Stratospheric Amateur Radio (NSTAR)
* <http://www.ntbp.org>North Texas Balloon Project (NTBP)
* <http://members.cox.net/hhm_74775/orb/>Oklahoma Research Balloons
(ORB)
* <http://www.rckara.org/project_traveler/>Project: Traveler
* <http://mail.gpacademy.org/%7Erochter/default.htm>Robert Rochte
at The Grosse Pointe Academy
* <http://www.tvnsp.org/>Treasure Valley Near Space Project (TVNSP)
*
Mexico
* TSat Project
* <http://www.xe1rcs.org.mx/globo>Homepage
* <http://www.xe1rcs.org.mx>Radio Club Satelite Home page
* <http://www.xe1rcs.org.mx/globo/rcs5>The latest balloon information
* Argentina
* <http://www.geocities.com/jcmcoppens/globo/>Experimento Globo
* Gustavo Carpignano's <http://www.qsl.net/lw2dtz>Balloon and Amateur Page
* Canada
* <http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/>High Altitude Glider Project
And trust me, there are many, many more. Good Luck!
Ken_S.
[]
Reply by ●December 2, 20052005-12-02
