Futaba 3PDF converted to 2.4 Ghz.

[SweetAccord]

Well then I'll stand corrected. I will also contact them to ask how this squares with 47CFR Part 95.222.

Go for it and let us know.

[Bill-SOCAL]

Well I too just had a long chat and as I suspected it is not nearly as cut and dried as it may appear to be. He did say that if you were to call back and talk to a different person you would likely get a different opinion.

He also said that the use of the Assan modules as approved is really meant more for an OEM type of use as opposed to a consumer end user. The module needs to have a very specific set of instructions with it that detail exactly how it is to be used and installed, etc.

One confusing point is what the FCC calls a "transmitter" and what we call a "transmitter". To them it is only the part that actually emits RF that is the transmitter. The rest is just what is called an incidental radiator.

So the way it seems is you can change out the entire RF deck which to them is the transmitter, but you could not open that up and make changes to that part.

He also noted the sections in the approval letter where it is stipulated that the transmitter must be a "stand alone device" and not installed as part of another device so that may be a problem.

He also made clear to me that they are just the group that does engineering approvals and that the people who do the interpretations of the regulations may in fact view it differently. They certified it as a standalone device.

So it is definitely not black and white and the fact that these are being marketed to end users rather than to OEM may make a difference. I know that XPS for instance uses the XBEE pro "transmitter" chip in their module and that is OK. But for instance you could not buy that chip and slap it inside the Assan module.

So a very interesting discussion I think.

[G Doggett]

DING
Round 3 ( or is it 4 ? )

Sorry if I stirred up a hornets nest, but this is quite fascinating to watch.
I can kind of understand the FEE being concerned about the general public modifying their transmitters by soldering wires etc, but really what harm could result other than it not work. The power output of our transmitters is so small it's hardly going to result in commercial planes falling out of the sky.

What I find really unbelievable is to learn that within the USA you cannot change the transmitter crystal to a different frequency !
The radio manufacturers provide plug in crystals for that very purpose !!!!!!
If you were to compete in a regatta outside of the US you would be asked on your entry application for your radio frequency, and an alternative frequency if your first choice clashed with another competitor.
Most of us have a bag of selected crystal pairs to quickly swap over if needed.

I guess if everyone eventually switches over to 2.4 Ghz ( legally or illegally ) this will no longer be a problem.

The only boat in my fleet that still used crystals is my 1 meter yacht and I am considering buying a $30 HobbyKing 4 channel 2.4Ghz radio for this so I can forget about frequency problems forever.

Graham.

[Bill-SOCAL]

I guess if everyone eventually switches over to 2.4 Ghz ( legally or illegally ) this will no longer be a problem.

That pretty much sums it up!!

[Flying Scotsman]

That pretty much sums it up!!

Look at the German SAW 2009 video and see what they are using

Douggie

[SweetAccord]

This takes this topic to a new level of discussion.

Is there anything illegal about removing a FCC transmitter board and using the rest of the radios features, display, trim knobs etc, (which is not FCC controlled or based) as a host device where you may use another FCC approved transmitting device.

If it's a stand alone unit which the ASSAN is, as far as FCC is concerned it is and how it was registered to be used. I have to agree even though others may not, but not everything is always black and white. Many laws are specific and as of now ASSAN breaks none of them with the FCC to take any formal action.

The fact this has been brought to their attention they can now address it and review how this unit is and may be utilized and address it. If violations are found we won't be about to purchase the unit like in Australia where it can't be shipped, due to their laws and regulations.

Now, I can agree where there can be violations where people are adding this device to their existing main board cause they do not have a break out board to remove, or they are adding it to the existing breakout board and are not removing the crystal and adding a switch. In these two situations I agree they are in violation of the FCC as you are modifying or adding to the existing FCC transmitter board which is NOT how the unit was designed to be used.

In ASSAN's case, it's an upgrade/replacement not an ADD-IN to the existing FCC board which is what people are doing with it to get the best of both worlds or just don't have a choice as there is no break out board to remove but want to have 2.4Ghz. In my case, and I can't speak for how other have, are and will use theirs, my Futaba has a break out board that has been removed. So all I'm left with is a pistol radio with not transmitter board or antenna.

So talking in general, modifying a radio seems like it's not legal or is in some type of violation, but when you really get down to the details, you are not using the FCC transmitter board if you remove it and replace it with the ASSAN and utilize it as is it's own stand alone device with it's own antenna. If you are using a transmitter that only has one board and you add it and just remove the crystal, that is a violation I would think and or want to have both frequencies and you are adding a switch which I see people doing.

Just a thought to where all these FCC violations are pointing to, and should be focused at.

[Flying Scotsman]

Look at the German SAW 2009 video and see what they are using

Douggie

Answer the question.

Douggie

[SweetAccord]

Answer the question.

Douggie

Maybe needs a little help?

https://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/...d.php?p=115145

[EPower]

Answer the question.

Douggie

Who cares different topic

[Bill-SOCAL]

One final comment, both of us have spoken with the engineering group. He was very clear that this was wide open to interpretation and in fact encouraged you to submit it to enforcement for them to render an opinion. It is also critical for us to understand terms. What we call a transmitter and what the FCC calls a transmitter are two very different things.

They have a very narrowly defined use of transmitter. Ours is much broader. I can also say that he told me that changing crystals was not illegal on 75 band, but the legal folks at the FCC say it is prohibited.

It seems to me that the appropriate path is as I mentioned before, using the plug in modules is likely not an issue. Using the "hack" module is open for far more interpretation.

Another thought he mentioned was that it matters how the original device was certified. If you look at Futaba for instance, they certify the entire "transmitter" and that is what is labeled with the FCC ID. Modules based systems get a different label. So this is why you find two separate FCC ID values for the 10CG and the TM-10. One being the integrated 2.4 transmitter and the other being the module alone.

Nothing is ever clear, simple and easy with the FCC .

[SweetAccord]

Update: After years of using the ASSAN, never one glitch in a boat or car and they are still the smallest receivers you can get hands down! Great in smaller hulls where there is not a lot of room or if weight is a priority! You can't get smaller than this!

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...Receiver_.html

They are also super easy to water proof as all the connecting pins are exposed, all you have to do it dip in Rust-Oleum Leak Seal rubber coating and wait 24 hours.