| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 09.03.03 09:43l 332 Lines 12667 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 990-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 5/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OE5XBL<OE3XSR<OK0PCC<OK0PHL<OK0PPR<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<
WB0TAX<W4JAX<KD4GCA<N2BQF<VK3TE<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030307/1105Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:61137 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:990-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: "Gregg G. Wonderly" <gregg@skymaster.cytetech.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:05:39 -0600
X-Message-Number: 29
>Yes, the D700 and I assume the D7 also are also considered scanning
>receivers. Don't take my word for it, read Part 15:
The simple solution is to use two different technologies for frequency
control and user interface/control/TNC facilities. The frequency control
should use a technology that folows 15.121, and everything else should be
user programmable.
The issue with HTs is that you don't want more components sucking more
battery power. But the mobile radios that do 30watts+ have much less
concern associated with a second uP or other technology. Put an SPI or I2C
bus between the processors, and let the user interface processor send
frequencies over to the frequency control uP. That would make it much
easier to let the radio be user programable for upgrades...
-----
gregg@cytetech.com (Cyte Technologies Inc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:06:57 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 30
Someone wrote...
>Then why can you "field program" most Motorola Land Mobile Radios, including
>the NEXTEL IDENS using a PC? Those radios are type accepted... I can "field
>program" my Yaesu FT-51R and my Kenwood FD-7. All it takes is a change to
>the basic ROM programming to allow additional GPS changes...
But can you change the TYPE accceptance parameters? THe Bandwidth, the
Modulation limiting Deviation? I doubt it. In the D700, they can...
because it only has one CPU and so FIRMWARE can destroy the type
accceptance of the radio..
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:09:28 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 31
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>http://www.garmin.com/products/gps12/download.html
>
>Amanufacturer providing flash updates for a GPS from 1995, wow what a
>concept!!
>
>>The D700 and D7 were developed in the mid 90's before FLASH was
>>mainstream
>
>Flash was mainstream in the early 90's.
Duh, but it wasnt in HAM radios. What's your beef? Shucks, they had full
color TFT LAPTOP screens back then, so why not COMPLAIN that your Kenwood
doesn't have that either!
Geeze...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:13:33 -0500
X-Message-Number: 32
OK, thanks for finding 15.121. That might explain part of it.
But there is a important word in there.
The word "Or"
It says, "Be incapable of operating (tuning) OR blah blah.
Do we agree a radio designed for 144mhz and 430mhz is incapable of tuning to
800mhz? (it should be )
That doesn't explain the policy on the TH-7x
I think Mark might have it right, they are being held to a higher standard
because of there past easy to modify radios (and put out of band).
Still, doesn't justify charging money to fix software bugs.
--
Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 03/04/2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was K enwood blah blah
From: Miller Scott Contr 30SCS/FTI <Scott.Miller@vandenberg.af.mil>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:13:36 -0000
X-Message-Number: 33
There's always code signing. With signature verification built into your
flash bootloader, you can ensure (to a reasonable degree) that no one
distributes hacked code. And even without that, I don't see how the
possibility of a user disassembling and modifying the code makes a unit
capable of 'readily being altered by the user'. It takes a considerable
amount of technical ability, and even if you then distribute hacked code, I
don't think the manufacturer should be held liable for that. It's the same
as distributing an illegal hardware mod kit.
And no, a code verification system doesn't have to be a big bulky PKI thing.
You could use a lightweight symetrical encryption algorithm (TEA comes to
mind), with a fixed private key specific to each hardware version hardcoded
in a protected portion of the bootloader. Extracting data from a protected
internal FLASH memory is not impossible, but the difficulty and expense
should raise the bar beyond what anyone would bother with for such a device.
Scott, N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: "Mark Fellhauer" <sparkfel@qwest.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:17:47 -0600
X-Message-Number: 34
At 01:15 PM 3/4/2003, Mike Yetsko wrote:
>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.
I like Garmin products and have owned several, but comparing a CE device to
a limited-production limited-distribution product is comparing apples to
oranges.
Yaesu has offered me free firmware updates in the past, but have charged me
for parts that were clearly inferior in the original and were upgraded in
later production runs - like the side/PTT switches in my FT-51R. There
were also several issues whith their very expensive (outsource developed)
programming packages. And RT Systems wanted you to BUY a whole new
programming package if you wanted the updates... Yaesu hasn't updated
their website in umpteen months, and they still don't make their manuals
available online (AFAIK).
Let's see:
Yaesu offers free firmware upgrades (on some products in certain
instances), but charges for programming software/interface, and manuals.
Kenwood offers free manuals (online), free programming software, but
charges for firmware upgrades.
ICOM offers free manuals (online), but charges for their (VHF/UHF mobile)
programming software and cable. I do not know what Icom's current policy
on firmware upgrades is, but I know a few years back they were charging for
this service on HT's. ICOM's current flagship dual-band mobile lacks
alphanumeric naming - DUH!
I think all three companies require the unit to go back to the factory or a
service center for firmware upgrades. Yaesu and Kenwood have you pay
shipping both ways for such upgrades. I do not know what Icom's shipping
policy is.
So it seems to me that Kenwood offers service levels similar to the other
two manufacturers it closely competes with, but beats both on the front end
with both free manuals and free programming software/low-cost easily-made
interface cable. I consider programming software to be all but mandatory,
especially when you are dealing with 200 plus memory channels on modern
transceivers.
73,
Mark
KC7BXS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:23:20 -0500
X-Message-Number: 35
I earlier noted, in another post, that Part 15 certification is required,
Alex.
However, ONLY certain external RF amps need what was formerly known as
type acceptance. (That sounds like the name of a colored performer :-) )
It is a far different process than certification.
Hams are allowed to experiment (a purpose of the service), therefore other
than some Part 15 requirements about unintended radiation, spurious
emissions, etc. there aren't asny restrictions, other than on certain
external RF amplifiers.
Ask anyone that deals with commercial radios.
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:30:45 -0500
X-Message-Number: 36
Parts 1, 2, and 17 among others also come into play, too, Alex.
KL7s also deal with a frequency in the Disater Radio Service, Part 99, if
memory serves, but it may not.
I don't fool myself
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend:
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:37:29 -0500
X-Message-Number: 37
Hey folks, the FCC does not type accept radios any more.
They have a new name which escapes me. HOwever, only certain external RF
amps were type accepted.
Look at your ham radios. If it was type accepted you would se a data
plate. For example my 10 meter MOCOM 10 has: TRANS TYPE CC1065
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:41:41 -0500
X-Message-Number: 38
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:03:29 -0500 (EST), Bob Bruninga wrote:
>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!!!!
Ahhhhh....... duhhhhh??? .... it depends on what the radio can do. Firmware
can do anything, but the radio can politely ignore it. The TenTec radios
cannot tune to 800mhz, hence 15.121 is complied with. The TH-Dx cannot
physically tune to 800mhz either, at least according to the specs on the web
site.
>If the user field programabilty can affect eveything about the radio
>making it not TYPE accepted, then DUH, it cannot be user programmed.
duhhhhh??? the TenTec's are user programmable.
>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
The Pegusus was designed in the late 90's. AFAIK, they only have one CPU for
radio syn control.
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...
duhhhhh??? , the free firmware changes to the TenTec radios affect both
frequency and user functionality.
>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!
duhhhhh??? , might want to call TenTec up on that as that is how they are
marketing their- radio. Even claim users can upgrade the band's it operates
on if and when we get more bands.
>Jeff, you can't just compare apples and oranges. You have to compare the
>whold enchelada..
Your right, a company with good customer service and a company with poor
customer service. That is what I am comparing. I take it your still a paid
consultant of Kenwood?
>Comparing a 1996's design to a 2003 design is APPLES and ORANGES...
What radio was designed in 2003? All the stuff I have been referring to is in
that time period. I'm looking at a review dated Feb 2000 for the TenTec
Pegasus and the clear implication it has been out for some time, add to the
fact QST has about a 3 month lead time. It wouldn't surprise me if the
Pegasus dates from 1998 or earlier (at least the design). BTW, the review of
the Kenwood D7 in QST was dated August 1999 and the D700 -after- the TenTec.
So these guys are right around the same time period and technology. Apples to
Apples in my eyes.
Apples and Oranges would be comparing something from 2000 to 1985. Not much
changed between 96 (your claim) or 99 compared to 2000.
Anyways, Henk was right. This is beating a dead horse. There are those on
this SIG who will forever make excuses for poor customer service, and not
fixing bugs in warranty is poor customer service. All the "duh's" in the
world from you won't convince we otherwise.
I vote NO to poor customer service with my pocket book.
Thanks
Jeff
Senior Embedded Software engineer, current project is 900mhz frequency
hopping radio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
