| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 09.03.03 09:45l 260 Lines 9884 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 991-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 6/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<OK0PPL<RZ6HXA<WA7V<W7NTF<VK3TE<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030307/1110Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:61138 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:991-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:44:11 -0500
X-Message-Number: 39
That's right. Now you're on the right track. Receivers have had to comply
with Part 15 for years and not just ham receivers.
The formerly known as type acceptance had to do with transmitters and RF
amplifiers.
Look at any older commercial transmitter and all y'all will see a TYPE or
TRANS TYPE plate on it.
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:49:47 -0500
X-Message-Number: 40
Jeff King wrote:
>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.
I'm not so sure if I'm incorrectly assuming anything here. I don't even
think that they have the same issues. Are we talking the same
modification issues here? There are different requirements for an HF
radio and a radio that also includes VHF/UHF coverage.
>Also, please explain the identical policy with regards
>to the TH-D7x, as it appears to be amateur band only coverage.
I don't have to do anything. I'm not defending nor attacking. That is
really ridiculous. I merely pointed out that there are legal FCC rules
of which you said there "obviously" weren't. I didn't say a word about
Kenwood's policy. If you had paid attention the past 25 times we
discussed this on here, then you know what my stand on this is. For some
reason you see my exploration of a fact as defending that fact,
defending Kenwood, approving their practices or whatever the heck you
can come up with.
Now you drop the D7 on me. Next you want me to explain why a certain
toaster isn't flash upgradable. I am more than willing to explore
positions in order to better understand things, but I refuse to be put
in a certain position by you.
>If your willing to accept or make excuses for poor customer service, then
>that is your right.
What can I say? Now I'm making excuses and I apparently accept poor
customer service. It's too bad that you get so caught up in a discussion
that you start to assume that someone has a certain motives. This has
nothing to do with a constructive discussion.
Over and out.
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:54:09 -0500
X-Message-Number: 41
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:09:28 -0500 (EST), Bob Bruninga wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Jeff King wrote:
>
>>http://www.garmin.com/products/gps12/download.html
>>
>>A manufacturer 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.
Sure it was Bob, may not have been user upgradable, but it was mainstream in
the industry. Your trying to speak like you have technical knowledge about a
subject when in reality you don't have a clue. I've been in the embedded
software industry since the early 90's
>What's your beef?
See above. My "beef", at least with regards to you and Kenwood, is you are a
paid Kenwood consultant and anytime anyone questions the company, here you
are defending them thru hell or high water. Don't you remember the debate we
got into about that radio and 9600 baud? Beat the horse black and blue until
you finally admitted they had some issues with there 9600bps design and it
would not perform to spec. And if I recall correctly, Kenwood changed their
brochure after that.
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. You can play your "Duh" game all you
want in an effort to defend your client, but that fact remains.
>Shucks, they had full
>color TFT LAPTOP screens back then, so why not COMPLAIN that your Kenwood
>doesn't have that either!
That would be a hardware upgrade, and I would fully expect someone to have to
pay for it. What was in question where bugs uncovered in warranty that caused
the unit not to perform to spec.
>Geeze...
>Bob
Whatever. I'm not acting as a shill here. My views are my own and no-one is
paying me to defend their products (and only my college ham club every owned
a TenTec.... I happen to have a TS-430's and I like it).
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:04:38 -0500
X-Message-Number: 42
Ronald Reams wrote:
>I don't fool myself
I'm sorry, Ronnie. I know you don't and I directed that comment unfairly
to you. My apologies.
It's just that I've heard people discuss Part 97 to no end as if that's
the only regulation out there that applies to what we do in the ham
bands or otherwise. I myself am just getting familiar with all the other
regulations out there.
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:02:44 -0500
X-Message-Number: 43
>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..
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.
I put > 1M terminals in the field with user upgradable firmware, and
nobody's made one into a brick yet, nor altered the parts that we decided
wouldn't be alterable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:59:27 -0500
X-Message-Number: 44
>And boy has Garmin screwed up so many times. They've "recalled" updates,
>have posted the wrong firmware in the wrong spots, which leads to units
>having to be returned to the factory, etc... I've seen firmware upgrades
>going out for some Garmin products on two or three week cycles. That is
>excessive. It means they are using the public for bug testing.
A proper loader program wouldn't allow wrong firmware to be loaded into the
unit. You ask the unit what model it is, and if it's not matching the
model # in the code, you just don't do it.
Proper code in the GPS wouldn't allow you to make it a "brick" either,
since you'd never be able to overwrite the loader code. It could always get
new firmware, no matter what you loaded..
But that's just how I write code :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:17:19 -0500
X-Message-Number: 45
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:49:47 -0500, Alex wrote:
>I'm not so sure if I'm incorrectly assuming anything here. I don't even
>think that they have the same issues. Are we talking the same
>modification issues here? There are different requirements for an HF
>radio and a radio that also includes VHF/UHF coverage.
15.121 does not differenate between the two. See:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=15&SECTION=1
21&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT
>>Also, please explain the identical policy with regards
>>to the TH-D7x, as it appears to be amateur band only coverage.
>
>I don't have to do anything. I'm not defending nor attacking. That is
>really ridiculous.
Your right, and I apologize.
>I merely pointed out that there are legal FCC rules
>of which you said there "obviously" weren't.
That is not a fair representation of what you said Alex. Here is what you
said:
->Please correct me if I'm wrong but HF transceivers do not have to be
->type accepted. VHF and higher radios do. The TenTec transceivers you
->pointed at, are all HF transceivers.
In reality, all of the above need to be type accepted under part 15. What I
said was that there were no rules against user's updating their radios, and
that was in response to a universal statement that users could not update
their firmware. In reality, it is very limited in scope and only if the radio
can receive the cell bands, which I might add, is NOT ham radio.
>Now you drop the D7 on me. Next you want me to explain why a certain
>toaster isn't flash upgradable.
But you dropped 15.121 on me? I was just pointing out the fact that 15.121
had the word "OR" in it, and that should allow both the TenTec and the
Kenwood D7 to be user upgradable. Yet for some reason, the TenTec is and the
D7 is not, even thought the D7 is not physically capable of receiving the
cell bands.
>I am more than willing to explore
>positions in order to better understand things, but I refuse to be put
>in a certain position by you.
Well, it was the former rather then the later, but I can see how you would
feel that way. I again apologize for coming down on you. No excuse, but I
have been in these discussions before, and it brings out the marketing
shills.
And just so it is clear, I apologize for misunderstanding your motives.
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
