CP185: how did this slip by the FCC OET?

[MTS2000des]

A customer of mine bought several CP185's, in the process of assisting them with narrowband, their new VHF channels are splinters. Guess what, the CP185, despite being certified part 90 in 2008, will NOT do 2.5KHz steps, it won't even do 6.25! When I contacted product support, they basically said tough cookies, it's an "entry level" radio, nevermind the fact that this customer had CP200's which were narrowband compliant despite being older radios, and when they went to their local MSS, this is what they were sold when they wanted additional portables. So now they are stuck with NEW radios that aren't narrowband capable. And Motorola thumbs their nose.
How does the FCC allow this kind of crap to go on? The same thing happened when they slipped up and let those Wouxun road apples which don't even do 2.5KHz steps get part 90. I guess they are asleep at the wheel. The CP185 seems like a decent radio for an entry level portable, but if it cannot do the 6.25 and 2.5 synthesizer steps there will soon be a ton of them flooding the market and angry customers.

Looks like I'm gonna have to spec up a quote for replacement, and the customer will most likely NOT be buying Motorola.

[Jim202]

A customer of mine bought several CP185's, in the process of assisting them with narrowband, their new VHF channels are splinters. Guess what, the CP185, despite being certified part 90 in 2008, will NOT do 2.5KHz steps, it won't even do 6.25! When I contacted product support, they basically said tough cookies, it's an "entry level" radio, nevermind the fact that this customer had CP200's which were narrowband compliant despite being older radios, and when they went to their local MSS, this is what they were sold when they wanted additional portables. So now they are stuck with NEW radios that aren't narrowband capable. And Motorola thumbs their nose.
How does the FCC allow this kind of crap to go on? The same thing happened when they slipped up and let those Wouxun road apples which don't even do 2.5KHz steps get part 90. I guess they are asleep at the wheel. The CP185 seems like a decent radio for an entry level portable, but if it cannot do the 6.25 and 2.5 synthesizer steps there will soon be a ton of them flooding the market and angry customers.

Looks like I'm gonna have to spec up a quote for replacement, and the customer will most likely NOT be buying Motorola.

Another happy customer from a slick Motorola sales job. Slick work and poor responsibility by a fading company. If they keep this type of sales and product support up, they won't last another 5 years. Are we starting to see Motorola go the way RCA did?

Jim

[escomm]

First the CP185 is capable of frequencies divisible by 5 or 6.25KHz so let's get that out of the way.

Second narrowbanding doesn't require a frequency change and the election by the customer to go to new channels is not anything Motorola had any control over

Third the CP200 is a Commercial Series radio and the CP185 is a Business Series radio so they are not comparable in any apples to apples fashion. CP200 also supports MDC1200 and QCII neither of these features are anywhere near a Business Series radio. The CP185 is the dealer channel's equivalent to an RDV/RDU which replaces the XTN which was the wholesale channel's equivalent of the CP110

What do narrowbanding and 2.5KHz channel steps have to do with one another? Nothing. Narrowbanding is 12.5KHz or 6.25KHz or some equivalent thereof and nothing more. Narrowbanding does not require a move to a new frequency, indeed any licensee can modify their own license within ULS to add the narrowband designator and need not pay anything to a coordinator or anyone else for a new license since a new license is not needed, only a modification to the existing license

Now that our product and regulatory education i s out of the way, let's get down to business.

The catalog pages for this radio state which frequencies the radio can operate on.

If someone sold the radio to the customer without verifying it was capable of operating on their frequencies, well that's the customer's problem and they should have a chat with their salesman and find out what he's doing to justify the markup on the product.

And if someone narrowbanded the license and selected the 2.5KHz divisible frequency from the coordinator without verifying the equipment was compatible, well again that's the customer's problem and they should have a chat with whoever decided to move to the new frequency without doing their homework and verifying the equipment was compatible

At the end of the day it's evident an assumption was made about the radio's capabilities and the assumption was wrong. It happens. But it isn't Motorola's fault that someone didn't do their homework

[ard099]

Well I ran into the same issue with the CP185 when I bought one for my personal use. I called Motorola and they basically said I needed to upgrade to a cp200. I didn't like that answer so I returned the radio and decided to go with another vendor. The icom f3011 is a great comparable radio and the vertex vs 231 is great too. If you aren't buying xts or apx radios Motorola could give a crap less about what you think or want, and that's speaking from 12 years experience working at a mss.

[MTS2000des]

First the CP185 is capable of frequencies divisible by 5 or 6.25KHz so let's get that out of the way.

Second narrowbanding doesn't require a frequency change and the election by the customer to go to new channels is not anything Motorola had any control over

Third the CP200 is a Commercial Series radio and the CP185 is a Business Series radio so they are not comparable in any apples to apples fashion. CP200 also supports MDC1200 and QCII neither of these features are anywhere near a Business Series radio. The CP185 is the dealer channel's equivalent to an RDV/RDU which replaces the XTN which was the wholesale channel's equivalent of the CP110

What do narrowbanding and 2.5KHz channel steps have to do with one another? Nothing. Narrowbanding is 12.5KHz or 6.25KHz or some equivalent thereof and nothing more. Narrowbanding does not require a move to a new frequency, indeed any licensee can modify their own license within ULS to add the narrowband designator and need not pay anything to a coordinator or anyone else for a new license since a new license is not needed, only a modification to the existing license

Now that our product and regulatory education i s out of the way, let's get down to business.

The catalog pages for this radio state which frequencies the radio can operate on.

If someone sold the radio to the customer without verifying it was capable of operating on their frequencies, well that's the customer's problem and they should have a chat with their salesman and find out what he's doing to justify the markup on the product.

And if someone narrowbanded the license and selected the 2.5KHz divisible frequency from the coordinator without verifying the equipment was compatible, well again that's the customer's problem and they should have a chat with whoever decided to move to the new frequency without doing their homework and verifying the equipment was compatible

At the end of the day it's evident an assumption was made about the radio's capabilities and the assumption was wrong. It happens. But it isn't Motorola's fault that someone didn't do their homework

When I tried to program 154.8625, CPS V2.0 rounds to 154.825. So how does one get the CP185 to accept 6.25?
Second, interest note, if the unit isn't capable of MDC, why does the SAMPLE codeplugs installed with CPS clearly show the capability?

So you did a great job of defending the product, but at the end of the day, the FCC is licensing VHF channels divisible by 7.5KHz and has been since 2001. If the CP185 is the replacement for XTN "Dot" radios, why is it programmable across the entire VHF frequency band and UHF band? Should have never gotten certified if you ask me.

I didn't sell the customer the radios, an MSS did. One of the larger ones in the southeast. The customer has CP200's, and wanted to buy more, Motorola discontinued them. They were sold these radios. They contacted the same MSS for frequency coordination when narrowbanding their license. Then this happened. I got contacted as a third party consultant. So I guess my answer will be they will have to buy new radios again or try to get another frequency (which isn't likely to happen, as they've already changed their infrastructure for the new frequencies).

Looks like they'll be buying Kenwood TK-2160's or Icom F3011's.
I stand by my comment, these should have never been certified for part 90. The FCC is the one pushing narrowbanding, and it is their failure to ensure that equipment made in the last few years be capable of accepting programming on the new standards.

[escomm]

.8625 is not divisible by 6.25. If the CP185 has MDC1200 in the feature set it is news to me, the brochures don't say anything about. Honestly I don't sell CP185s, Motorola wants me to pay $300 for the CPS and the RDV users get their CPS for free on motorola.com. Motorola now has a MURS CPS for the CP185 but I still don't sell them.

The CP200 has not been discontinued. The CP150 was canceled but that was 2 watt CP200 with no signaling. There is also a CP200XLS available, 128 channels with a display for the same price as a CP200 with no display or keypad.

Why Motorola has these limitations on the radio I don't know. It's dumb but they have been doing that forever. All kinds of radios are missing features that force you into a higher tier radio. We come to accept it with the high tier Astro25s but low tier I guess things get taken for granted.

You still don't seem to get that part 90 narrowbanding and being capable of operating on splinter frequencies are unrelated. There is no part 90 requirement that a radio accept any given frequencies within the part 90 spectrum. That the FCC is allowing splinter frequencies to be licensed has absolutely nothing to do with requiring 12.5KHz or less channel spacing or the equivalent thereof

[MTS2000des]

I get it, believe me. The FCC forces a narrowband mandate, forcing perfectly useable equipment into obsolescence for some "spectrum crisis" that (at least around here) doesn't exist. Equipment manufacturers (not just Motorola) make subscriber hardware that barely lasts the warranty period to keep the revenue stream flowing. I guess they are taking a lesson from cellphone and consumer electronics makers.

The first entry level Professional series (ala CT250/450) were stripped down HT750's, and they did all synthesizer steps. So I guess to cut costs further Ma M contracts with someone in China (FYI, the CPS for Entry Level Pro series looks AWFULLY FAMILIAR to us Hytera users!) to build a cut rate price radio and omits something like 2.5KHz synth steps. What is funny is how they brag about it's "superior performance and -70dbM IMD rejection" but leaves off the capability to tune splinter steps in a repeater capable radio. Retarded.

In the end my client/customer will have to replace these barely 1.5 year old radios. My recommendation is to replace them with something else such as the Kenwood TK-2160 and recoup their loss by selling the CP185's on Ebay. Hopefully they will be able to recover something.

Lesson learned for all involved.

[MTS2000des]

First the CP185 is capable of frequencies divisible by 5 or 6.25KHz so let's get that out of the way.

Second narrowbanding doesn't require a frequency change and the election by the customer to go to new channels is not anything Motorola had any control over

Third the CP200 is a Commercial Series radio and the CP185 is a Business Series radio so they are not comparable in any apples to apples fashion. CP200 also supports MDC1200 and QCII neither of these features are anywhere near a Business Series radio. The CP185 is the dealer channel's equivalent to an RDV/RDU which replaces the XTN which was the wholesale channel's equivalent of the CP110

Just an observation but Motorola must have told a fib then, because they told the FCC the CP185 was marketed and used by "occupational operations such as Federal and Public Safety agencies, e.g. police, fire and emergency medical etc" when they submitted the radio for part 90 certification.

Hardly a BUSINESS radio as you imply- though I agree it is not the same caliber of say, and HT750 or MT1500.

See for yourself (select the cover letter, tried to link directly but their site forbids it):

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ ... 9FT3822%27

[RadioSouth]

I was looking up some stuff a few years back on OET. While viewing original applications there were many instances of required fields that were left blank yet the applications were approved. A few E-mails back and forth didn't go any better, seemed pretty lax.

[MTS2000des]

I've come to the conclusion that the OET is a complete joke. So long as the check enclosed is good, they could care less what is on the application. You could sign it Mickey Mouse and they wouldn't bat an eye.

the FCC is broken, scary part is these people make decisions that have a great financial impact on many of us (like narrowbanding).

[mike m]

Does anything questionable that the FCC does surprise anyone ?

Look at GPS and Light-squared, how about the past BPL mess, how about the 220-222 MHz mess, how about the 800 MHz public safety and next-hell mess, how about excessive emission levels emitted from part 15 devices, cheap Chinese radios that claim to be part XX certified, have you ever tried to operate any type of HF radio within 1/8 of a mile of a plasma TV ?

I can go on and on about the FCC and their incompetence but they are just another government bureaucracy that will do anything for the manufacturers, right or wrong, forget about the consumer and forget about any rational technology decisions or standards they don't exist with that organization.


OK I'm now off my rant about the FCC, sorry everyone I just had to get it out, the neighbors plasma S$%T tv is driving my HF radio crazy, I think I need to fire up a KW and a Half and fix the problem myself.


Mike

[RADIOMAN2002]

If the FCC is so disorganized then maybe I can apply for an OET for a modified to narrow band Spectra. I have 200 of them, it sure would beat the price of having to replace them all.

[MTS2000des]

If the FCC is so disorganized then maybe I can apply for an OET for a modified to narrow band Spectra. I have 200 of them, it sure would beat the price of having to replace them all.

you might try that! heck, with products like this:

http://www.holzberg.com/products/dbandy.html

Which is nothing more than a rebadged Wouxun 80 dollar road apple, all Holzberg did was apply for their own FCC ID.

So for that matter just go an buy a Kenwood TM-281 and submit it as the "insert your name here" badge and model number, enclose a check, and watch you'll get a valid FCC ID number too!

[DavidJ]

What narrowband has to do with splinter channels is simple, FCC 90.203(j)(1) says
(1) Applications for certification received on or after January 1,
2005, for mobile and portable transmitters designed to transmit voice
on public safety frequencies in the 150-174 MHz band will be granted
only if the mobile/portable equipment is capable of operating on the
nationwide public safety interoperability calling channel in the
150-174 MHz band. (See § 90.20(c), (d) of this part.) ...

That channel is 155.7525, VCALL1, and 5 or 6.25 kHz steps won't get you there.

So, right, OET was asleep. Now, can a radio that got a grant be used even if
the grant was issued erroneously?

[DavidJ]

If the FCC is so disorganized then maybe I can apply for an OET for a modified to narrow band Spectra. I have 200 of them, it sure would beat the price of having to replace them all.

It has been done before (for a Wulfsberg RT-9600, not a Spectra), see FCC ID N3H-ERS96000NB. Holzberg, Infinity Radio and some of the other relabelers got a simple assignment using the same test data, with the manufacturer's approval. You would have to get a whole new grant, as Motorola is not likely to give you their blessing.

I'm not sure how you would get a Spectra to make 2.5 kHz steps without rewriting their synthesizer code.

[MTS2000des]

What narrowband has to do with splinter channels is simple, FCC 90.203(j)(1) says
(1) Applications for certification received on or after January 1,
2005, for mobile and portable transmitters designed to transmit voice
on public safety frequencies in the 150-174 MHz band will be granted
only if the mobile/portable equipment is capable of operating on the
nationwide public safety interoperability calling channel in the
150-174 MHz band. (See § 90.20(c), (d) of this part.) ...

That channel is 155.7525, VCALL1, and 5 or 6.25 kHz steps won't get you there.

So, right, OET was asleep. Now, can a radio that got a grant be used even if
the grant was issued erroneously?

Thanks for posting this, I knew I wasn't crazy. Motorola then indeed told a fib when they submitted the CP185, as the specifically said in their cover letter that the radio was marketed to PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, yet it CANNOT be programmed or used on said interop channels on 2.5KHz steps.

That's a good question. Maybe some of these customers who bought equipment in good faith can approach the FCC and ask if said erroneously issued certifications void the certification altogether.

Would be interesting the see the answer.

[RADIOMAN2002]

"I'm not sure how you would get a Spectra to make 2.5 kHz steps without rewriting their synthesizer code."

Don't need to, the Fed version of the Spectra has that capability, and type II trunking. The Fed version also has the stability requirements to meet the narrow banding rules, and a simple IF crystal change takes care of the receiver.