Jeff wrote:

Even for an American in the UK, that would be the best approach, as
radios not specifically approved for PMR 446 are not covered by the
class licence.

That is not the case, type approval went out of the window some years
ago now. The radio but just meet the relevant Interface Requirement.
Specific approval is not required.

Unless Ofcom has failed to update their information, it also has to have
things like a permanently attached antenna, absolute power limits, etc.,
basically to make it non-trivial to modify outside of the specification.
As pointed out elsewhere, the proposed equipment doesn't comply with
those conditions, so wouldn't have been legal for PMR 446 use.

I used approved loosely, to mean designed to meet the conditions of the
licence exemption.

On 19/06/12 9:30 PM, David Woolley wrote:

Unless Ofcom has failed to update their information, it also has to have
things like a permanently attached antenna,

Where in the current interface requirement does it say anything about a
permanently attached antenna?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...nts/IR2009.pdf

Laurie

In message m, Laurie
writes
On 19/06/12 9:30 PM, David Woolley wrote:

Unless Ofcom has failed to update their information, it also has to have
things like a permanently attached antenna,

Where in the current interface requirement does it say anything about a
permanently attached antenna?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...m-policy-area/
spectrum-management/research-guidelines-tech-info/interface-requirements
/IR2009.pdf

That seems to be a fairly brief summary. More detail is in the older RA
document:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...info/ra357.htm

"5. RADIO EQUIPMENT
PMR 446 radio equipment must be handportable, have an integral antenna,
have a maximum ERP of 500 mW and be compliant with ETS 300 296."

I doubt if they have changed the technical specs.
--
Ian

On 20/06/12 9:55 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message m, Laurie
writes
On 19/06/12 9:30 PM, David Woolley wrote:

Unless Ofcom has failed to update their information, it also has to have
things like a permanently attached antenna,

Where in the current interface requirement does it say anything about
a permanently attached antenna?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...m-policy-area/
spectrum-management/research-guidelines-tech-info/interface-requirements
/IR2009.pdf

That seems to be a fairly brief summary. More detail is in the older RA
document:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...info/ra357.htm

"5. RADIO EQUIPMENT
PMR 446 radio equipment must be handportable, have an integral antenna,
have a maximum ERP of 500 mW and be compliant with ETS 300 296."

I doubt if they have changed the technical specs.

But change the specs. is exactly what they have done.
ra357 is only there as an archive and is no longer the applicable
document. The current interface document is IR2009.

Laurie

On Jun 21, 7:18*am, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:35:53 +0100, Laurie
wrote:

Where in the current interface requirement does it say anything about a
permanently attached antenna?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...trum-policy-ar...

http://tinyurl.com/66pyfxa

Which is the document that I have continually referered to on here
many time, but no one listens ;-)

Specifically -

Converted radio equipment

If modifications are made to the equipment, such as adding an antenna
connector, the overall maximum ERP or other technical parameters must
not exceed the permitted levels set out in the Interface Requirement.

---

Problem solved.

In message
,
Analogue Lettuce writes
On Jun 21, 7:18*am, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 21:35:53 +0100, Laurie
wrote:

Where in the current interface requirement does it say anything about a
permanently attached antenna?

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...trum-policy-ar...

http://tinyurl.com/66pyfxa

Which is the document that I have continually referered to on here
many time, but no one listens ;-)

Specifically -

Converted radio equipment

If modifications are made to the equipment, such as adding an antenna
connector, the overall maximum ERP or other technical parameters must
not exceed the permitted levels set out in the Interface Requirement.

Problem solved.

I've only glanced through it, but I get the distinct impression that
there is a tacit acceptance that the original 'only built-in aerial'
rule is being broken.
--
Ian