RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Aerial Photography and Video >> RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 12/31/2003 5:42:21 AM   
mithrandir



Posts: 683
Joined: 7/16/2003
From: adelanto, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Does the stuff have "FCC Certified" stickers on it? Besides, a lot of the stuff I have seen, has modified antennas, that alonwe would void the FCC cert. I think that they were right when they said that the equipment is not illegal, the operation of it is. Regardless of freq, if you are in the 1/2 watt power range, (and not a threat to national security) who cares... I have an FCC Tech license. so I could go to the ATV freq and run power, but I can't imagine anyone really going after guys putting out little more power then a garage door opener!!

(in reply to PlaneKrazee)
       Post #: 26

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 12/31/2003 6:05:28 AM   
yb2normal



Posts: 344
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: Broomfield, CO,
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mithrandir
I think that they were right when they said that the equipment is not illegal, the operation of it is.


I think this is a grey area. For example, cell phone jammers are illegal in the USA because they serve a single purpose: to deny access to the rightful owners of those frequencies.

The VCO controlled Hong Kong video transmitters could be considered more legal than these 4 channel PLL units because you could argue that the HK units were designed with the intention of being legal, but manufacturing tolerances and voltage differences cause the units to dip down into no-no land... an honest mistake, wink wink, nudge nudge. These PLL units however are very well designed to operate precisely on a frequency on which we shouldn't be transmitting. While the power is low enough not to cause a problem on the ground, a friend of mine from the FAA made a valid point; he said that the FAA worries more about the equipment consumers operate on a commercial airplane than what they are operating on the ground. This is a situation where these transmitters could certainly have an impact (no pun intended). Would an RC enthusiast intentionally light one of these systems up on a commercial airplane? Of course not. But someone else might. The fact that these units operate so reliably on the wrong frequencies makes it very hard to justify the continued availability of the units.

Regards,
Bill

(in reply to mithrandir)
       Post #: 27

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 12/31/2003 7:39:58 AM   
IA-Flyer


 

Posts: 305
Joined: 8/29/2003
From: Whiting, IA, USA
Status: offline 		I can’t believe the FCC hasn’t done anything to fix the problem, isn’t it their job?
I mean come on, you can’t import and sell guns, drugs or even cloths unless they pass customs and import checks.
These transmitters are apparently on illegal frequencies and being imported and sold in large quantities with the FCC looking the other way?
The number of these units used on RC planes is insignificant, think of the baby monitors, cameras in dorm rooms, offices and every other place imaginable.

If a (favored nation) started dumping illegal high power equipment on 72MHz (our RC frequencies) in to the US and selling them in mass on ebay, how long would it take the FCC to do something about it? And how many years would it be before it was safe for us to fly again?

Just my two cents.
<end rant>

< Message edited by IA-Flyer -- 12/31/2003 2:56:36 AM >

(in reply to yb2normal)
       Post #: 28

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/10/2004 4:38:29 PM   
RebarDWG


 

Posts: 226
Joined: 8/17/2003
From: dallas, TX, USA
Status: offline 		We break laws everyday. Some you are fully aware of, some you are not. Opening someone else's mail, fudging your tax returns, knowingly driving with broken taillight... all illegal

I'm absolutely positive police officers have better things to do than to stop me from driving 21mph in a 20mph school zone. I hope noone's out there making sure I'm only opening my mail and not my wife's mail...b/c I can be charged with a federal offense. And am I going to call in sick b/c my tail light is broken?

Same with the FCC and microwatt transmitters. Some people really do scare me.

_____________________________

Famous last words,
Hey watch this!!

(in reply to IA-Flyer)
       Post #: 29

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/10/2004 4:53:24 PM   
reznikvova-RCU



Posts: 128
Joined: 12/20/2002
From: Loganville, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mithrandir

Does the stuff have "FCC Certified" stickers on it? Besides, a lot of the stuff I have seen, has modified antennas, that alonwe would void the FCC cert. I think that they were right when they said that the equipment is not illegal, the operation of it is. Regardless of freq, if you are in the 1/2 watt power range, (and not a threat to national security) who cares... I have an FCC Tech license. so I could go to the ATV freq and run power, but I can't imagine anyone really going after guys putting out little more power then a garage door opener!!


It has the FCC certified logo printed on the box.

(in reply to mithrandir)
       Post #: 30

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/10/2004 6:37:52 PM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

It has the FCC certified logo printed on the box.

It will need to have a valid FCC Registration number (printed on on the Tx itself). FWIW, a "FCC logo" is not the way approved products are identified.

< Message edited by mr.rc-cam -- 1/11/2004 1:11:00 AM >

(in reply to reznikvova-RCU)
       Post #: 31

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/10/2004 9:19:41 PM   
IA-Flyer


 

Posts: 305
Joined: 8/29/2003
From: Whiting, IA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RebarDWG

We break laws everyday. Some you are fully aware of, some you are not. Opening someone else's mail, fudging your tax returns, knowingly driving with broken taillight... all illegal

I'm absolutely positive police officers have better things to do than to stop me from driving 21mph in a 20mph school zone. I hope noone's out there making sure I'm only opening my mail and not my wife's mail...b/c I can be charged with a federal offense. And am I going to call in sick b/c my tail light is broken?

Same with the FCC and microwatt transmitters. Some people really do scare me.



I agree with most of what you are saying. Going 10mph over the speed limit on the interstate isn’t much of a problem for most people but catch someone doing it in front of your house with your kids in the yard and all of a sudden it is.

Want to see something really scary?

http://www.performanceaudio.com/cgi/pages.cgi?buildPage=item&ProductID=001401

The 57 channels could come in handy if you use it close to a RC field.

As RC pilots we depend on clean frequencies for safety. Right now we have the worst possible thing happening, some people say they are ok and some say they aren’t. A simple statement from the FCC could end all the controversy and people wouldn’t have to worry about the possibility of being flamed by posting a video on this site. If they are not legal it wouldn’t take much effort for the manufacturer to change the frequency

_____________________________

Jim (IA-Flyer)
KC0RIV

(in reply to RebarDWG)
       Post #: 32

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/10/2004 10:23:27 PM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

If they are not legal it wouldn’t take much effort for the manufacturer to change the frequency
I don't think the importers care enough to do so. Most of this stuff is made in Hong Kong. I tried to get Spylinker (a popular China based eBay seller) to consider shifting the frequency to a legal Ham 1.2Ghz spectral area. The basic response I got was that the product was OK to use in their country. They did not care that they were illegal in the USA.

_____________________________

Best Regards,
Mr. RC-CAM

(in reply to IA-Flyer)
       Post #: 33

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/11/2004 1:35:40 AM   
mithrandir



Posts: 683
Joined: 7/16/2003
From: adelanto, CA, USA
Status: offline 		HOLY COW.... **** is the AMA doing to solve this!!!???

http://www.performanceaudio.com/cgi/pages.cgi?buildPage=item&ProductID=001401


That scares me to death... thank GOD I have HAM ticket and fly channel 08!!!!!

(in reply to mr.rc-cam)
       Post #: 34

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/11/2004 3:34:02 AM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

That scares me to death... thank GOD I have HAM ticket and fly channel 08!!!!!
Thank goodness it is a low power device. Its 72Mhz transmit RF power is about 100dBuV/m @3 meters. That makes it a fraction of a milliwatt in practical terms.

So, despite being a 72Mhz device, it's not much of a threat to R/C'ers. Unless you fly inside a church or theater while these sort of gadgets are being used. In case you are wondering... It is Part 15 approved, so it is legal for use in the USA.

_____________________________

Best Regards,
Mr. RC-CAM

(in reply to mithrandir)
       Post #: 35

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/11/2004 4:17:03 AM   
IA-Flyer


 

Posts: 305
Joined: 8/29/2003
From: Whiting, IA, USA
Status: offline 		Their LT-800 stationary base station is rated at, 8000uV @3m, still not a lot of power but HOW did they get a FCC ID for a device on our frequency?
You should be ok unless you fly around the University Of Wisconsin, looks like they have loads of them, and really like the quality they get using 72MHz.
http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/accessibility/aldwebpg.htm

I've been looking for one of these 4-watt units on ebay. Don’t get excited they have a “not for U.S.A.” disclaimer at the top of the web page.
http://www.4cellular.com/cordless/ct3000.html

I was searching google for a 72MHz +wireless +antenna when I ran across this stuff, Somehow it seemed relevant to the topic.
Sort of like letting your dog to do his thing in your neighbors yard (not my yard not my problem), but when their cat stands on your car!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

Jim (IA-Flyer)
KC0RIV

(in reply to mr.rc-cam)
       Post #: 36

RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Joh... - 1/11/2004 5:00:20 AM   
mr.rc-cam



Posts: 536
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: West Coast, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

HOW did they get a FCC ID for a device on our frequency?

It is allowed under FCC 15.237 (auditory listening devices). They are allowed RF powers of up to 80,000uV/m @ 3meters. In practical terms, that is under 1mW. They are considered short range. These devices have been around for awhile.

_____________________________

Best Regards,
Mr. RC-CAM

(in reply to IA-Flyer)
       Post #: 37

Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Aerial Photography and Video >> RE: NEW REVIEW: Tiny Wireless Video Camera by David Johnson
Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]





Jump to: