| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 09.03.03 09:38l 252 Lines 10327 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 989-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 4/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<7M3TJZ<ON0AR<N2BQF<VK3TE<ZL2BAU<
ZL3VML
Sent: 030307/1101Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:61136 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:989-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:15:03 -0500
X-Message-Number: 23
Actually, the issue with the Garmin 12 was hardware revisions that led to
different upgrade paths and capabilities.
In fact, there were certain Garmin products that could be upgraded
only based on what your previous revision was.
Overall, though, I'd rate Garmin as an A+. Not perfect by any means,
but in their attempt to appear perfect. They fall down sometimes. They
may fall down a lot in some cases. But at least they're trying.
That's why I have 3 Garmins sitting here....
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:17:24 -0500
X-Message-Number: 24
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:50:52 -0600, Mark Fellhauer wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>>>Garmin provides free firmware upgrades to improve their GPS'es. So do many
>>>other companies that value their customers and don't desire to put it
>>to them
>>>every time they can.
>>>
>>>Stop making excuses for what is obvious to everyone on the list...
>
>And boy has Garmin screwed up so many times.
Mark Mark Mark..
Sure Garmin has had firmware bugs. But they allow the users to upgrade the
firmware and don't charge the user for this.
TenTec, a amateur radio manufacturer, has had firmware bugs, but they allow
the users to upgrade the firmware and don't charge the user for this.
Beyond that, if you can't connect the dots, I give up. Go ahead and make your
excuses for poor customer service. I just don't buy it.
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend:
From: "Mark Fellhauer" <sparkfel@qwest.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:29:38 -0600
X-Message-Number: 25
At 12:57 PM 3/4/2003, Alex wrote:
>Bob indicated that Kenwood had to chose this arrangement because the FCC
>would otherwise not type accept the radio. Certain (perhaps all?) VHF
>and up radios need to be type accepted. It has nothing to do with the
>transmitter or amplifier, but with the receiving capabilities. They have
>to be type accepted in order to make sure that they can not be easily
>modified to receive certain frequencies (read: cell phone coverage).
And what's interesting is that Government agencies can hold
people/companies/manufactures to a HIGHER standard than current law or
rulemaking dictates...especially if they've had compliance problems in the
past. I've seen this dozens of times with companies I've worked for and
with. And oftentimes you'll have different goverment agencies with
differing agendas at odds with each other over law and rulemaking. It can
be a nightmare...
73,
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:00:41 -0500
X-Message-Number: 26
Alex wrote:
>The FCC does put constraints on the technology that
>can be used, which depends on the usage and frequency coverage of the
>radio.
Just to substantiate that claim (and please note the "replacing a plug-in
semiconductor chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special
access codes or an external device, such as a personal computer."-part):
<QUOTE>
Sec. 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with
scanning receivers.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning
receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with
scanning receivers, shall:
(1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by
the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the
Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22 of this chapter (cellular
telephone bands). Scanning receivers capable of ``readily being altered
by the user'' include, but are not limited to, those for which the
ability to receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be
added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component such
as a diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor
chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or
an external device, such as a personal computer. Scanning receivers, and
frequency converters designed for use with scanning receivers, also
shall be incapable of converting digital cellular communication
transmissions to analog voice audio.
</QUOTE>
Yes, the D700 and I assume the D7 also are also considered scanning
receivers. Don't take my word for it, read Part 15:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/47cfr15_01.html
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:02:18 -0500
X-Message-Number: 27
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:57:56 -0500, Alex wrote:
>Jeff King wrote:
>
>>True, but that wasn't my point Alex. The question poised for the group was
>>should manufacturers fix their software bugs for free? TenTec happens to do
>>this, and regardless of if they make HF or VHF radios, then do believe in
>>this level of customer service. That was my point.
>
>Bob indicated that Kenwood had to chose this arrangement because the FCC
>would otherwise not type accept the radio. Certain (perhaps all?) VHF
>and up radios need to be type accepted. It has nothing to do with the
>transmitter or amplifier, but with the receiving capabilities. They have
>to be type accepted in order to make sure that they can not be easily
>modified to receive certain frequencies (read: cell phone coverage).
And Bob also indicated flash technology did not exist in the mid 90's...
All unintentional radiators (receivers) in the U.S. have to be certified
under part 15. This was never in question. Regardless of firmware, the TH-D7x
cannot receive the cell bands so this firmware cellular blocking provision
would not apply to it. This might be an issue with the D700. But I'd like to
see the specific rules that deal with this as all I have heard is third hand
info.
>The TenTec radios do not carry this burden.
TenTec radios also have to be certified under Part 15. You incorrectly assume
TenTec does not carry this burden yet I just got off the phone with them and
relayed this thread to them. They have the same issues that Kenwood does,
that people could modify their radios for illegal usage. Yet they solve them
by only distributing free bug fixes and enhancements that fall under the
current amateur radio/fcc rules. If a amateur wants to operate the radio out
of band under MARS he/she has to send a copy of the license and TenTec will
only provide the flash chip for this (no user software update).
><quote>
>So obviously there is not a FCC legal issue with end users updating
>firmware in modern transceivers.
></quote>
>
>You say there is no FCC legal issue here because TenTec builds radios
>with flash technology. I say that they were able to do that because they
>don't have to deal with that issue because of the frequency coverage
>offered. Kenwood does have to deal with that with their D700 radios.
OK, please cite the FCC rules then. I'm willing to fall on my sword here,
just not on your word. Also, please explain the identical policy with regards
to the TH-D7x, as it appears to be amateur band only coverage.
It also might be something less tangible here....do Kenwood radios have a
history of being easily user modifiable for out of band operation? I seem to
recall seeing quite a bit of this stuff on the mod sites, like putting your
Kenwood on the CB band, yet don't recall seeing much regarding the TenTec in
this regard. Maybe they FCC just doesn't trust certain manufacturers and as
such, the end users have to pay the price for this?
But we digress...
Bottom line, it is my opinion that it is good customer service for a
manufacturer to provide a means to provide free software/firmware updates for
bug fixes, in particular if the unit is under warranty. TenTec and Garmin do
this. Kenwood we are told here does not. At the very least, if they lack a
means (legal or technical) for the user to do it themselves, they should
offer in warranty repair for these items.
If your willing to accept or make excuses for poor customer service, then
that is your right. Just don't try to convince me otherwise. I've heard way
to many horror stories here.
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:03:29 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 28
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>>I assume that the FCC has some requirements on modern transceivers about
>>what you can and can not flash on the user end.
>
>This has been stated in the past by others as fact. I refer everyone to the
>following website:
>
>http://www.tentec.com/rfsquared/
>
>So obviously there is not a FCC legal issue with end users updating firmware
>in modern transceivers.
Duh... geeze, jeff... it depends on what the FIRMWARE can do!!!!
If the user field programabilty can affect eveything about the radio
making it not TYPE accepted, then DUH, it cannot be user programmed. The
D700 and D7 were designed back in mid 90's and only have one CPU for radio
control. What you are citing are RECENT radio designs that have
recognized that if they limit the USER FIELD programability to only making
frequency changes, then OF COURSE, it can be left to the users. But DUH,
the radio has to be designed from the ground up that way...
But if the firmware has software control over the FCC type acceptance
parameters, such as Bandwindth, emission, out-of-band operation, then duh,
it CANNOT be field programmable by users or what good is type acceptance!
Jeff, you can't just compare apples and oranges. You have to compare the
whold enchelada..
Comparing a 1996's design to a 2003 design is APPLES and ORANGES...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
