BEWARE Yaesu VR-500
Bruce & Robin
don't care very much about the cell band gaps, which I can live with,
but I was a bit concerned about various reports that this radio had some
mysterious coverage gaps OUTSIDE of the normal cellular gaps. It has
been reported here and elsewhere of gaps in the low 800 MHz range as
well as in various locations in the 600 and 700 MHz ranges. Hmmm...this
seemed kinda strange since the Yaesu advertisements and web site all
claim that this unit has "continuous coverage except cellular
frequencies."
Well I emailed Yaeus tech support and got an eye-opener response back.
It seems that, in order to comply with the FCC's new (as of March 99)
-80 dB standards for rejecting cell images, Yaesu had to take the extra
step of blocking various frequencies OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL CELL
BANDS!!! Apparently, these frequencies had too much cell imaging, so
FCC type approval wasn't possible. I guess Yaesu decided that better
filtering wasn't an option, so it decided instead to just block the
offending frequencies.
Of course, Yaesu does not explain this in ANY of its literature on the
VR-500 radio. Everything I've ever seen on this radio from Yaesu claims
"continuous coverage." Now, I understand that Yaesu has to do what it
has to do in order to receive FCC type approval for its radio, but it
should not attempt to sneak this past unsuspecting customers who think
they are getting a "continuous coverage" receiver. What exactly did
they expect to happen--customers wouldn't notice all of these missing
frequencies??
It's bad enough having to shell out for a scanner that is missing the
cell bands. Now they expect us to shell out for a scanner that's
missing a bunch of other frequencies as well??? It wouldn't be so bad
if Yaesu disclosed the extra gaps in their advertisements, so customers
could make their own decisions about whether the blocked frequencies
were that important. But trying to sneak this past customers strikes me
as being an extremely distasteful business practice.
FWIW, I emailed Yaesu again asking for a complete list of the
frequencies that are blocked on the VR-500. Have heard absolutely zip
back from them so far.
Bill Crocker
the entire 800.0000~899.9999 MHz portion of their IC-R1, IC-R100, IC-R7000,
and IC-R7100, because they didn't know how to block only the cellular
portion of the spectrum.
From what I'm hearing from others, the remaining portion of the 800 MHz
band, on the Yaesu VR-500, doesn't perform as well as the other bands, on
that radio. Maybe Yaesu will re-program them soon.
Bill Crocker
"Bruce & Robin" <b...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
news:383B730E...@gowebway.com...
Gary P. Fiber
wrotf:
Your are likely going to find that happening on more and more scanners
of various manufacturers. The cell image is now required to be at
-38db on any possible frequency the radio can receive. Many companies
are now resubmitting existing products for re Type Certification from
the FCC.
Also you are going to find they can not be modified for cell coverage
either, most cases the ability is no longer in the CPU otherwise the
manufacturer will have to apply a potting compound to the frequency
determining components. Most were considering an epoxy substance for
this. Potting would render, in some cases, the product non
repairable.
It is very difficult to build " filters " for images as the signal is
there and the filter would likely render the frequency range
un useable anyway.
Don't like it.. write your congressman they are the one who did this
not the manufacturers of the scanners.
Gary
Washington State Resident
Scanman
Advertising..... Any Lawyers listening?....
Bruce & Robin wrote in message <383B730E...@gowebway.com>...
Jake Brodsky
>It's bad enough having to shell out for a scanner that is missing the
>cell bands. Now they expect us to shell out for a scanner that's
>missing a bunch of other frequencies as well??? It wouldn't be so bad
>if Yaesu disclosed the extra gaps in their advertisements, so customers
>could make their own decisions about whether the blocked frequencies
>were that important. But trying to sneak this past customers strikes me
>as being an extremely distasteful business practice.
Ohhhh that's nasty. Deceptive advertising and all that. If you
purchased one of these things I wouldn't wait too long for Yaesu to
fix it. A class action lawsuit may be in order...
/* FLAME ON */
Changing the subject: GENTLE READERS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU
DON'T WRITE LETTERS TO THE FCC!
I posted the comments I wrote to the FCC concerning Docket 98-76 on
this news group over a year ago. I can bitch about this regulation,
knowing I did my civic duty to keep it from happening.
You should also know that Tandy posted comments against that Notice of
Proposed Rule Making as well.
This regulation happened because Uniden petitioned the FCC. That's
right: This bullshit regulation was actually proposed by a scanner
manufacturer!
So although we have every reason to be angry with Yaesu, the real
guilty party here is Uniden AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU WHO SAT ON
YOUR HANDS WITHOUT WRITING A SINGLE COMMENT AGAINST THIS REGULATION!
Politicians will do whatever they want until enough people squawk at
them. You all complain about this, yet when it comes time to actually
do something, most of you just sit there.
The Ancient Greeks had a word for people who opt out of the democratic
process: they're called "idiots."
/* FLAME OFF */
I'm sorry, folks. This pisses me off more than I can say.
It's time to go underground. Psst, anyone wanna buy a cable TV
converter?
Jake Brodsky, AB3A mailto:fru...@erols.com
"Beware of the massive impossible!"
Gary P. Fiber
wrotf:
>I agree! That's almost as bad as when Icom initially started blocking out
>the entire 800.0000~899.9999 MHz portion of their IC-R1, IC-R100, IC-R7000,
>and IC-R7100, because they didn't know how to block only the cellular
>portion of the spectrum.
>
>Bill Crocker
Actually this was done to keep on selling these radios. Icom could
not just remove the cell frequencies in that design as the microcode
in the CPU was not programmed and product engineering was not designed
for the removal of just the cellular bands. Remember the 2SRA, 4SRA
and W2A were removed from the market all together shortly after the
ban took effect in 1994.
The R1, R100 and R7100 sales were virtually stopped until Icom could
make the change, the R7000 wand R9000 went onto Government sales only
in the US.
What eventually happened all these products were replaced by newer
products. With the R100 being the last one to be recently
discontinued. Icom figured it was better to spend engineering monies
on new products. Also the R7000 never was blocked for United States
versions, it was just not sold to the consumer market place after the
last before April 27,1994 in stock radio ran out. During that time so
long as you could prove the products were imported before 4-27-1994
you could still sell them after the ban. Those products ran out pretty
quick after that date though.
Gary
Washington State Resident
Cortland Richmond
Letters to the FCC had no chance of success in this case; Congress was PO'd
at folks leaking their calls, TOLD the FCC what to do, and the FCC had no
choice but to obey
Now I'll take my turn at flaming:
Flame is ON:
We hobbyists proved we couldn't be trusted to keep private matters private.
Do you think a sane Congressman would trust us after that?
Flame is OFF.
Cheers,
Cortland
Jake Brodsky
wrote:
>Letters to the FCC had no chance of success in this case; Congress was PO'd
>at folks leaking their calls, TOLD the FCC what to do, and the FCC had no
>choice but to obey
And I wrote to both the FCC and Congress. However, I should point out
that the FCC Docket 98-76 came first. I wrote to the FCC first. Then
I wrote to the committee where this mess was perpetrated, and my own
congresscritters.
The reason it didn't help is because very few others did the same.
>Now I'll take my turn at flaming:
>
>Flame is ON:
>
> We hobbyists proved we couldn't be trusted to keep private matters private.
>Do you think a sane Congressman would trust us after that?
>
>Flame is OFF.
There will always be those who abuse tools. Murders have been
committed with Axes. Does that mean we should outlaw all axes?
The scanner is no different. We need good public relations for
scanner users. People know what axes are good for. People don't know
what scanners are good for.
Do you really think your local cops will act the same if they know
there is no chance that someone could be listening to their
conversations on the air?
Len
wrote:
Actually I hope the local cops where I live don't stop talking on their
cell phone, a friend heard a cop that was having phone sex with his
girlfriend, best he could figure was a couple nights before that he had
sex with her in his police car and this night he was doing himself while
talking to her on the phone.