| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 10.03.03 16:18l 269 Lines 10482 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 988-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 04, 3/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0ZWI<DB0HST<ON0DXC<WA7V<RZ6HXA<SP7MGD<7M3TJZ<ON0AR<VK3TE<
ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030307/1053Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:61135 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:988-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:50:52 -0500
X-Message-Number: 16
Jeff King wrote:
>http://www.tentec.com/rfsquared/
>
>So obviously there is not a FCC legal issue with end users updating firmware
>in modern transceivers.
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.
A while ago someone corrected me when I too thought that HF transceivers
needed to be type accepted and therefor one should always be able to find
them in the FCCID database.
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 13:16:02 -0500
X-Message-Number: 17
On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:50:52 -0500, Alex wrote:
>Jeff King wrote:
>
>>http://www.tentec.com/rfsquared/
>>
>>So obviously there is not a FCC legal issue with end users updating firmware
>>in modern transceivers.
>
>Please correct me if I'm wrong but HF transceivers do not have to be
>type accepted. VHF and higher radios do.
Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day, give a man the FCC rules, and
he will eat for life:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/
External amps need to be certified (97.315), I do not see any provisions for
transceivers, and that is what I was responding to.
>The TenTec transceivers you pointed at, are all HF transceivers.
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.
-Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:30:43 -0500
X-Message-Number: 18
Glad to correct you, Alex.
Only "certain external RF amplifiers" require type acceptance (an obsolete
term, BTW).
See Part 97.
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: "Mark Fellhauer" <sparkfel@qwest.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:50:52 -0600
X-Message-Number: 19
>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. 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.
You also mentioned that 12XL's from 1995 are firmware upgradable. Just
plain wrong. I had an original 12XL v 1.1 (bought about 3 months after
initial release) and it's firmware was not and is not upgradable. There
were significant changes made internally to the 12XL line at least twice
(requiring separate confusing firmware update paths). Furthermore, Garmin
does offer firmware upgrades on the newer 12XL's, but you make it sound as
if ongoing development of these products continues. That is not the
case. Looking at their website, the most current firmware is dated 9/19/00
and 4/3/98.
Another thing you fail to acknowledge is that Garmin products have a far
broader user base than say a single Kenwood Amateur Radio product and
operate under different economies of scale. I seem to recall a great
number of people on the sci.geo.satellite-nav newsgroup were/are
bellyaching that Garmin was/is engaging in price fixing and in general
overcharging for their products. Although, I do not agree with this
position, I'm sure the profit margins for CE GPS units are higher than a
specialty UHF/VHF amateur radio product. What's also funny is that many
people complain about Garmin's excessive firmware updates...
Someone mentioned European Kenwood Units. If I recall correctly many
people in Europe who've bought certain Garmin products do not have access
to these "free" firmware upgrades.
At 11:00 AM 3/4/2003, Bob Bruninga wrote:
>Thus it has to go back to the shop, and partially disassembled, connected
>to a programmer, and then it takes 20 minutes to reburn the PROM, then
>reassemble... At current labor rates, you'd go broke if you didnt charge
>for that process...
But a lot of people seem to want Kenwood to go broke...or to pull out of
the Ham Radio market. I believe Kenwood has struck a reasonable
compromise here, allowing people to get the most current firmware, for what
amounts to an hour of benchtime. I wonder if anyone remembers what
Kenwood's position was on the orginal TH-79, which had many oversights in
the original firmware release (include a skip scan feature)... it was BUY a
new radio.
How about Kantronics? I seem to recall the last firmware upgrade I got
from them was half the price of the original product!
>And as for me, I'd like to see the only manufacturer of APRS radios stay
>in business!
Agreed. But again, there are a number of people on this SIG who feel that
people who buy turnkey APRS solutions aren't "worthy" of the hobby. I
bought my TH-D7 just before the G upgrade, and despite the problems I had
with Kenwood getting the radio back to me, the upgrade was truly worth the
time and expense.
Having worked for the complaint department of a major computer OEM, I
learned that every nutjob with a pen writes a complaint letter (it didn't
matter if they were actual customers) and thinks they know how to run a
corporation better than the people who are actually on the inside...even if
their complaint was they can't find the "any" key on their keyboard.
73,
Mark
KC7BXS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 13:57:56 -0500
X-Message-Number: 20
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).
The TenTec radios do not carry this burden. Whether or not that answers
the original question about the offered service is not important. You
used the Tentec radios as an argument to support your point. Again I
quote:
<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.
Look up some recent HTs in the FCCID database. You will see that quite a
few of them had to be rectified because certain technologies were not
allowed anymore because it made the radio too easy to modify (has
something to do with that black epoxy material that they put on chips if
I'm not mistaken). The FCC does put constraints on the technology that
can be used, which depends on the usage and frequency coverage of the
radio.
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: APRS Urban Legend: FCC firmware upgrades, was Kenwood blah blah
From: Alex <kr1st@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:04:51 -0500
X-Message-Number: 21
Ronald Reams wrote:
>
>Glad to correct you, Alex.
I know you do.
>See Part 97.
Let's not all make the mistake that everything we do falls under Part
97. That's simply not true! Part 15 applies also to us, as do many other
regulations. Don't fool yourself into thinking that if it isn't in Part
97 then it must be allowed.
73,
--Alex KR1ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Kenwood redefines Warranty
From: "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:05:43 -0500
X-Message-Number: 22
----- Original Message -----
>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...
>
>Jeff King, jeff@aerodata.net on 03/04/2003
I also am INCREDIBLY pleased with Garmin! I bought 2 closeout
GPS-III units at a real cheap price. Got home, and found one of the
boxes had a GPS-II+ in it. But not the latest firmware. I called
Garmin, since there was a 'hardware rev' that unit needed, and when
I told them what happened, they said just send it back and they would
check it out. I did, and got a BRAND NEW GPS-II+ in return. AND
they told me my 'el-cheapo' GPS-III was 'under warrantee' from the
'current date'. How can you beat support like that?
But you can certainly go the other way... But Kenwood isn't alone.
Ever price what Kantronics wants for firmware upgrades? That KPC-3
you buy used may cost you MORE than a new one to bring it up to
current (or even NEAR current) for firmware! They've essentially made
the older units have a ZERO value on the used market unless you
pirate updated firmware. I'll never buy another Kantronics product.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
