| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 09.03.03 09:41l 241 Lines 9477 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 993-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 8/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<WB0TAX<W7NTF<VK3TE<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030307/1116Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:61140 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:993-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:05:49 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 53
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>>They could have designed it so those constants and routines were in a
>section of the flash that can't be altered, like where the loader code should
>be sitting.
>
>Which I believe is exactly what the ICOM PCR-1000 does, or something
>very similar (they had a update to personalize the units with country
>codes). It is from around the same time period as the radios in
>question.
But that is a RECEIVER only!
Big difference... with respect to letting the user program the transmitter
specs...
bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: "Ramon F. Kolb" <ramon@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:10:24 -0500
X-Message-Number: 54
The regulating bodies in Europe (at least in the Netherlands) do not
require type approval for HAM radio equipment. There is also no
restriction on having the technical ability to "receive" in the
cellphone bands: in principle, it's the transmitter's issue to block
your access to signals they don't want you to see. Remember, you didn't
ask to be exposed to signals in the 800 (or whatever) MHz band, they
bombard you with the EM waves without you asking for it.
However, the HAM Radio regulations clearly restrict the USE of the
signals you receive. If a signal you receive is not meant for you
(either for you alone, or for you as part of the intended audience), you
are NOT allowed to "make note" of this signal by any form or means. This
means, no recording or actively use or disseminate the information.
As for transmission, also here things are not as close regulated. There
are rules about "as little bandwidth as necessary for the experiment you
are performing", but in general you can do whatever you want, as long as
you stay within the alotted frequency band, do not exceed the permitted
PEP transmitter output power, and do not cause interference to other
band users. Bandplans, etc. are "gentlemen's agreements" and not
regulation. The "general" rule is, that transmitters and amplifiers
should not be able to work beyond the Amateur Bands, but again-- no type
certification needed. If I'd want to do 25-kHz wide FM on 21.100 MHz
when this frequency band is "closed" (no propagation beyond the ground
wave), go right ahead... it's legal. You don't interfere with anyone, do
you? (How 'bout that for "freedom", huh?)
As for Jeff... I don't know about him being active in APRS, but he's
certainly entitled to his opinion, and that doesn't warrant a "hit below
the belt" by Bob on his APRS activity. That was wrong, Bob, and it makes
it seem that you can't beat him on merit of the arguments. Especially in
a case where I think that Jeff's arguments are less than convincing.
YMMV.
--Ramon
Ramon F. Kolb, AB1CE, PA3EUG, Boston, MA, USA [FN42KI]
ICQ:77117744; MSNMGR:legalalien30@hotmail.com
http://ab1ce.webhop.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:43:32 -0500
X-Message-Number: 55
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:31:27 -0500 (EST), Bob Bruninga wrote:
>The last time Jeff so lambasted Kenwood, remember, that he didn't own a D7
>nor a D700,
Still don't, doubt if I ever will. And lambasted? I expressed an opinion that
it is poor customer support not to cover software bugs when a product is in
warranty. That comment doesn't just cover Kenwood, it covers any company that
does that. I just happen to have a opinion here and am not will to take any
cr*p that a company wants to try and shovel down my throat.
>and also remember that if you check on FINDU.COM, you wont
>find his call, because he doesnt do APRS either.
Not that I'm that concerned what you think, but I just typed my call in and
there I am. Amazing.
http://db.aprsworld.net/datamart/switch.php?call=wb8wka&table=pos=
ition&search=
Search
>He just likes to bash things...
I just don't agree with you here. I think there is a minimal level of
customer service companies should provide. I don't believe in corporate
welfare.
>And you have to go back a few hundred messages to even find his call on
>Email because he never uses it.
I use my callsign when I am transmitting radio waves on amateur radio, Bob.
Would this be a good time for me to say "duh"?
>I had to go back to sept 2001 to
>find his call: "73's, -Jeff wb8wka, American, Libertarian "
Interesting date also.... I imagine someone here must have been suggesting we
give up our rights because of 9/11 or otherwise roll over and play dead.
Seems fitting in the context of this discussion. Anyways....
Since for some reason me not using my callsign on e-mail upsets you so much,
what do you think is worse, a couple of hundred e-mail messages on APRSSIG
without a callsign or a couple of hundred messages on APRSSIG pushing a
product without disclosing one has a financial arrangement with that same
company?
I think it would be best to let this fade away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Linux soundcard modem performance and refernces
From: Rich Osman <Rich@osman.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:52:55 -0600
X-Message-Number: 56
How well does this work (on a fast enough machine) when compared to a
TNC-2 or KPC-3?
Can anyone provide pointers to current docs? I've found a bunch of
fragments, but nothing complete.
--
mailto:Rich@Osman.com http://www.rich.osman.com
Rich Osman; POB 93167; Southlake, TX 76092 (Near DFW Airport) ARS: N1OZ
If you receive something that says "Send this to everyone you know,"
PLEASE pretend you don't know me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:55:11 -0500
X-Message-Number: 57
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:02:03 -0500 (EST), Bob Bruninga wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>>But the real issue here is what is good customer support. It is my
>>contention for a company not to upgrade known bugs within warranty is
>>poor customer support, regardless of their reason.
<snip>
>And is it really a bug? or just an inconvience on some GPS units, that you
>have to tell them to output in version 2.2 NMEA (I think). If I were in
>the business of selling radios, and trying to keep alive in today's dying
>HAM radio market, It would not make sense to me to recall 10,000 radios
>for a rare quirk that has a workaround...
If you will review some postings from others, you will see that it is a bug
as well as other issues that did not meet spec.
>Have you ever looked at the BUG list in some of the other Ham company
>Satellite Radios? As long as your arm.. and they dont even offer an
>upgrade
So, are you saying if other companies offer poor service, then we should
accept poor service? Post their name on here, the best way to keep these
companies in line is to vote with our pocket books.
>>Whatever. I'm not acting as a shill here. My views are my own and no-one
>>is paying me to defend their products.. I happen to have a TS-430's and
>>I like it..
>
>I see, but you dont own a D7 or a D700...
That is correct. I had briefly considered it but since it was reported here
the built in TNC's where not AX.25 compliant, I decided against it. Also,
they really have no right to call them 9600bps data radios (and that also
applies to Alinico).
>Hummh...
Does that mean you find it surprising I own Kenwood equipment? I own a TS-430
and a 7950, a very nice radio. I ran my PBBS on it for years and it held up
very well. One may be a GM man, but even GM has lemons once in a while. I
don't see why it is any different with radio manufacturers. Cavet Emptor.
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:04:16 -0500
X-Message-Number: 58
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:05:49 -0500 (EST), Bob Bruninga wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>>Which I believe is exactly what the ICOM PCR-1000 does, or something
>>very similar (they had a update to personalize the units with country
>>codes). It is from around the same time period as the radios in
>>question.
>
>But that is a RECEIVER only!
Yes, it is. So far, we have only identified 15.121 as the only thing
restricting firmware updates by the end user, and then only on receivers
capable of covering the cellular bands. Be aware that all unintential
radiators (receivers) must be type accepted under part 15, and that includes
amateur radio transceivers.
>Big difference... with respect to letting the user program the transmitter
>specs...
But that is exactly what TenTec allows to be done. It has already been stated
here there are no certification rules for amateur radio, save certification
for external amplifiers.
It is not that I don't want to believe you, you have just failed to provide
any citations with regards to the FCC rules to support your position.
I'm capable of admitting I'm wrong, give me a reason to. I'm listening.
73
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
