Aerial Photography and Video Discuss the growing field of aerial photography and aerial video right here!

NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Reply

Old 12-27-2003, 12:32 AM
  #1  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Dave did not mention the exact frequencies that this system transmits on, and that they are illegal to transmit on in the United States.
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2003, 01:56 PM
  #2  
reznikvova-RCU
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 131
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

This is not true. These systems are completly leagal. They operate on 1.2 ghz which is in the HAM band.
reznikvova-RCU is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2003, 06:16 PM
  #3  
closetflyer
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: None, OR
Posts: 92
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

I did some research on the PLL 1.2ghz systems and they operate on four very stable frequencies.

Here is the quote I see on www.microcameras.com:

"There are two types of 1.2GHz transmitters being sold.

The first type would be a four channel phase-lock-loop (PLL) transmitter. The four channels are 1080MHz, 1120MHz, 1160MHz, and 1200MHz. None of these channels fall within the legal amateur band of 1240-1300MHz."


I am not complaining just pointing to the truth. Sorry.

David
closetflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2003, 09:37 PM
  #4  
mr.rc-cam
Senior Member
 
mr.rc-cam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: West Coast, CA
Posts: 536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

These systems are completly legal. They operate on 1.2 ghz which is in the HAM band.
Please post the exact frequency that the tinywireless system uses. Your web site does not mention these specs.

Also, the "legal" 1.2Ghz systems still require a ham license to operate. I did not see this info on the web site either. It would be good to state this so that users are aware of the federal requirements.
mr.rc-cam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2003, 12:43 AM
  #5  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

If these systems operate on any frequency below 1240mhz in the 1200mhz band they are not legal even with a Ham license. The next lower legal frequency would be 910.1mhz. This is why most retailers have pulled them from the US market and why they are being sold on ebay for less than $50.00 brand new. A call to the FCC is now in order.

Why is the review locked to replies?

reznikvova-RCU Date 12/27/2003 1:56:58 PM
This is not true. These systems are completly leagal. They operate on 1.2 ghz which is in the HAM band
.

The review should clearly state that the frequencies are not legal and even a ham license would not make there operation legal. It is very irresponsible for RCU to allow this review to remain on the site.
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2003, 10:03 AM
  #6  
Spanky1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My place, MI,
Posts: 138
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

I've emailed the fcc for an explaination as to why we CAN use this stuff.

Common sense says ebay can't sell illegal stuff by the hundreds every day without someone shutting them down.

My guess is either old technology and they don't worry about it or the output isn't enough to worry about.

If they don't email I'll call.

Spanky
Spanky1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2003, 12:35 PM
  #7  
mr.rc-cam
Senior Member
 
mr.rc-cam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: West Coast, CA
Posts: 536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

I've emailed the fcc for an explanation as to why we CAN use this stuff.
It's best to call them (the various contact numbers are on the FCC web site). They do not do a good job responding to email.

FWIW, the FCC laws are not aimed at the seller, so that is why you see these "illegal" and/or licensed-required systems everywhere. All the regulations are aimed at the user. In other words, there is nothing illegal about selling wireless video devices, even if they use unauthorized freqs or require a license.

An exception involves the privacy laws. Wireless video gear that has a microphone (audio) in it, that is marketed for eavesdropping and spying, cannot be legally sold or used in the USA. That is one of the reasons why you will find a lot if audio-less video systems.

Most of the eBay RF gear originates from the Far East, and is shipped to end-users and resellers via Postal in small packages, so it easily slips through customs. I hear that the US custom's inspection budgets are too small to support a more thorough coverage of stuff that comes into the USA. So, that is why it is so easily found here.

The bottom line is that it is up to the user to ensure that they are following the laws (assuming that they care to do so). So, always ask questions at the time of purchase. Good sellers will be thoroughly educated on the FCC Regs and will go out of their way to tell you about any operating restrictions. For example, if you look through a SuperCircuits catalog, you will see exactly what license is needed for each of their wireless devices. Furthermore, when I placed an order they told me a ham license was required to use the device I wanted (I am licensed). Many ham radio retailers will often refuse to sell to a customer that does not have a valid ham license (they do need the backlash from a customer that may get caught transmitting illegally). On the other hand, some sellers are totally unaware of the federal restrictions or are more concerned with making a sale.
mr.rc-cam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2003, 08:42 PM
  #8  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Spanky,

Most equipment below 25mw doesn't require a fcc license, unless it is in a ham band. If it is over 25mw it will more than likely require some type of license, either ham or special user or it is illegal to use.
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2003, 09:16 PM
  #9  
yb2normal
Senior Member
 
yb2normal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO,
Posts: 344
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Actually all 'intentional radiators' require a license, the question is who is responsible for getting the license.

Consumer devices are licensed under FCC "Part 15" rules. These devices are submitted to the FCC for testing to insure they meet Part 15 rules, and are then assigned an FCC ID number. The number will be clearly displayed on the outside of the device. Take a look at the wireless remote for your car...you'll find an FCC ID on it. These type of devices do not require the consumer to have a license obviously.

Devices aimed at the amateur radio market do not need an FCC ID, however the purchaser is responsible for getting a license from the FCC ("HAM" license), and is responsible for making sure the device operates within FCC guidelines for power output and frequency. These are the best to use since HAM operators are allowed to use much higher power levels.

Regards,
Bill
yb2normal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 10:21 AM
  #10  
Spanky1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My place, MI,
Posts: 138
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Just talked to the FCC.

She said if the plane is a toy and not a large state to state aircraft, there are no FCC issues.

Spanky
Spanky1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 12:45 PM
  #11  
yb2normal
Senior Member
 
yb2normal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO,
Posts: 344
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

My experience with most government organizations is that any individual you talk to is perfectly willing to state their opinion, but ask them for something in writing that represents the opinion of their organization and you'll find that their answer changes.

Spanky1, if the absolute worst happened and you were charged with doing something illegal, you can be sure that the verbal opinion of the gal that answers the phones at the FCC are not going to protect you. But let's be pragmatists here... the power of these systems ARE very low, and there is likely very little impact to using them or even getting caught. It's like speeding... everyone makes their own choice about doing it, most of us don't get caught, and everyone goes on living their lives.

Let's just be honest though about the legality of these systems so each person can make their own informed choice.

Cheers,
Bill
yb2normal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 02:35 PM
  #12  
lvspark
Senior Member
 
lvspark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: WALLA WALLA, WA,
Posts: 349
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

ORIGINAL: Spanky1

Just talked to the FCC.

She said if the plane is a toy and not a large state to state aircraft, there are no FCC issues.

Spanky
Just like there are no FCC issues with our RC control transmitters... So it's no big deal that I put an RC aircraft radio on my kids toy rc car and let him run it within a mile or so from the local flying field????? Maybe your getting FAA and FCC mixed up because there are definitely FCC issues on anything that transmits RF.

BTW, my HK tx is at 1108mhz

I am surprised RCU supports illegal RF devices.

I have a freq counter, and I will gladly videotape the test and measurement of the "review" camera system for all to see.
It's not a secret these things do not follow the rules. Pull your heads out of the sand.
lvspark is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 04:08 PM
  #13  
Spanky1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My place, MI,
Posts: 138
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Whats interesting is this; you have a verified low power output, not enough to bother anything. You have a comment from the fcc saying they are not worried about it (I asked specifically "is there anyway to use this on my radio controlled airplane that would make you come and take my first born?") You have in your hands one of the coolest pieces of technology to fiddle with.

Common sense. It's almost as if some people WANT a problem. I believe if you want a problem you can find it. Dig deep and throw a stink to the fcc and you will get your problem and halt forward movement.

All things considered, the fcc's comment works for me. This stuff is WAY to cool to worry about insignificant things.

Spanky
Spanky1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 06:35 PM
  #14  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Hey Spanky1,

Where do you fly?

Your comments are way off base. Black widow sells equipment that is legal as do others.

The whole point of this thread was to have the review modified to let people know about the legalites.
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 06:39 PM
  #15  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Spanky1,

If the FCC has not put a sticker on this equipment then nothing is verified, that is the problem.
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 08:16 PM
  #16  
yb2normal
Senior Member
 
yb2normal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Broomfield, CO,
Posts: 344
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Brian, I think the value of this thread is eroded when we resort to name calling.

As frustrating as it is to hear people say "I don't care", it really is their choice. We can only make sure that the truth is known so that everyone makes an informed decision.

Regards,
Bill
yb2normal is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2003, 10:36 PM
  #17  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Agreed.
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 08:31 AM
  #18  
Spanky1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My place, MI,
Posts: 138
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Agreed.
We can only make sure that the truth is known so that everyone makes an informed decision
FINALLY! The truth is; the almighty fcc that we are worried will make us kneel on popcorn kernels said they don't care!

Forget what's buried in writing somewhere. Ask the people that make the difference.
What more do you want?
Spanky1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 11:36 AM
  #19  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Spanky,

Where do you fly with your video system?
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 11:48 AM
  #20  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

Spanky,

I just got off the phone with the FCC, they most certainly do care.

Who did you speak to, their name and phone number?. Did you call 301-362-3000?
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 12:17 PM
  #21  
Spanky1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My place, MI,
Posts: 138
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

I called the techical support issues number on the bottom of the fcc wireless telecommunications bureau.

But.......you made my point; if you want a problem you will find it. When you convince them there is a problem you might as well give them all your area/info so they can monitor the self imposed illegal activities in your area, thus halting any further enjoyment for anyone else wanting to fool with this fantastic technology.

Well, I tried.

Spanky
Spanky1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 12:58 PM
  #22  
mr.rc-cam
Senior Member
 
mr.rc-cam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: West Coast, CA
Posts: 536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

... thus halting any further enjoyment for anyone else wanting to fool with this fantastic technology.
There is another side to the enjoyment factor that we seem to be ignoring. There is a growing group of hams that are involved in ATV (Amateur TV) communication. They are hobbyists, just like us. Most of the innovative wireless video stuff we see today is a result of their activities over the last few years. Many of the best RF product designers are ham hobbyists in their spare time.

These licensed ham enthusiasts can have their enjoyment reduced by the unlicensed users. The unlicensed users do not follow the operating procedures, which can affect the ham folks' transmissions. Operating a wireless video system requires a license and has operating procedures that involve the types of communication, station ID, protocols, etc. Because the RF spectrum is shared, the procedure attempt to help reduced communication conflicts.

Amateur Radio Operators (hams) are hobbyists, just like us R/C'ers. They have invested serious dollars in their equipment (probably more than most R/C'ers have spent). They took the time to educate themselves on the technical and operating issues, passed the FCC required tests, and follow the regulations. All in an effort to ensure enjoyment for their hobby group.

They deserve our respect at what they do, just as we deserve their respect at the local field where we fly our models. Putting it another way, how would we like it if the flying field was visited by rule ignoring dudes that did not care to follow the rules posted at the flight line?

I would like to encourage everyone that uses wireless video gear to take the time to earn the ham license. It is VERY low cost, the things you learn in order to take the tests will directly help you improve your video results, and the license is good for 10 years.

I am constantly amazed at the clandestine operation of radio gear. If the same amount of effort that was used to avoid the ham license, was directed at getting it, these discussions would be totally unnecessary. Anyone that thinks getting a license is too difficult should keep in mind that little old grandmothers are doing it. You do not need to have interest in the other areas served by a ham license. Instead, you can just utilize those that will increase the enjoyment of your R/C efforts (6-meter R/C Tx operation and wireless video ATV systems).

Have questions about the Technician Class ham license? Answers can be found here: www.arrl.org
mr.rc-cam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 03:08 PM
  #23  
BGR
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 31
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

It seems to me that this issue is way out of hand. There are millions of cordless phones, toy rc cars, boats, and planes among other radio communications devices. There are walkie talkies that you can buy off the shelf for peanuts that transmit over a mile and more. I use these to keep in touch with my kid while camping, am i supposed to call the FCC to make sure that it is ok to use every radio device I may purchase for enjoyment.

In my opinion this issue with these flea watt powered camers is just not worth worrying about. If you keep pushing the issue then eventually someone will pick up on this and find some crazy reason to protest their use and destroy the enjoyment of this wonderfull technology. Too often we are saddled with laws that are created due to some fanatic that has for what ever reason made it their mission to impose restrictions on the general public, many times they themselves are not affected by it in the slightest.

So go ahead and keep calling the FCC, maybe you will be the infamous one that drew the attention of some wierdo that has nothing better to do than feed his own control fettish. Maybe someone will find a rare species of bug in your yard and prevent you from mowing your lawn for all time. I am sorry if I seem rude but this thread hit my fanatic alarm, you scare me.
BGR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 04:41 PM
  #24  
mr.rc-cam
Senior Member
 
mr.rc-cam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: West Coast, CA
Posts: 536
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

... am i supposed to call the FCC to make sure that it is ok to use every radio device I may purchase for enjoyment.
As mentioned earlier, the RF based consumer goods purchased at the local electronics store have FCC Registration ID's on them that allow for license-free use. These consumer devices are handled by the FCC Part 15 regs. FWIW, model R/C control is governed by Part 95 (also license-free). The cheap imported wireless video systems do not have the the license free registration, so for authorized use most can be operated under the Part 97 rules (a.k.a. ham radio).

There are ways to enjoy this aspect of the hobby and steer clear of the FCC. To do so a person could buy Part 15 registered video gear (it's available), get a ham license, obtain Part 90 commercial broadcast approval, etc. Or, stick a cheap video camera on the model and use its AVI mode to film the video clips. This non-RF method is gaining steam due to the low cost of the latest consumer cameras.

I agree that contacting the FCC is not the best avenue. The point of this discussion, at least from my perspective, is to help educate those interested in this cheap imported RF video gear. Knowing what you are buying can help make informed decisions.
mr.rc-cam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2003, 08:21 PM
  #25  
PlaneKrazee
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (14)
 
PlaneKrazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Gales Ferry, CT
Posts: 4,877
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson

The review has been pulled off the site.
PlaneKrazee is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service