I want Bluetooth in Amateur Radio gear!

[mackmobile43]

And if the laws change that require mobile cb's to be bluetooth only and not be applied to mobile amateur radio should be considered as placing the rights of one class of American citizen over another which is exactly what obama is striving to accomplish in many other aspects of every day life.

Just because one has a license to operate a class of rig does not make him/her any less likely to be involved in distractive driving practices and immune from crashes due to distractive driving.

 

[QRPGUY]

Do it yourself!

Why don't you just add bluetooth capability to your existing gear? Check out the youtube videos on adding bluetooth to amateur radio equipment by Randy K7AGE. I've been looking at doing it to my rigs. No modifications to the radios it uses off the shelf equipment.

 

[Robb]

YouTube - Bluetooth Audio Radio Interface

 

[Moleculo]

Why don't you just add bluetooth capability to your existing gear? Check out the youtube videos on adding bluetooth to amateur radio equipment by Randy K7AGE. I've been looking at doing it to my rigs. No modifications to the radios it uses off the shelf equipment.

I've seen those videos. That's a good way to add it to the rig, but it only works for audio. I want the use of Bluetooth expanded to remote control, programming, keyboards, etc.

 

[C W Morse]

And if the laws change that require mobile cb's to be bluetooth only and not be applied to mobile amateur radio should be considered as placing the rights of one class of American citizen over another which is exactly what obama is striving to accomplish in many other aspects of every day life.

Just because one has a license to operate a class of rig does not make him/her any less likely to be involved in distractive driving practices and immune from crashes due to distractive driving.

AH, but here's where there is a difference! Using a CELLPHONE is DIFFERENT from a two way radio. A two way radio is not NEARLY the distraction that a cellphone is because their operations are FAR different from each other. A cellphone requres one to put a device up to one's ear and become involved in a TWO-WAY stream of information---ALL at once. This is what causes a "distraction" because one must REACT to this stream of info that is flowing in two directions. It causes one's mind to become focused on this activity and LESS focused on the job at hand: driving the car. A two way radio sends ONE stream of info in ONE direction at a time. The lapse in time permits the operator to LISTEN to this information while driving the car without a device held up to one's ear, THEN react (transmit) to that info with a MIKE. He can STILL operate the vehicle, still do so safely and it is not NEAR the distraction of a cellphone. Well-meaning, but mis (and under)-informed people who have no knowledge of how the two devices operate attempt to lump the two activities together, and it is just plain WRONG. Don't PUNISH the innocent along with the guilty, which is what such local rules are doing.

I think it can be shown that it is the CELLPHONE that is the culprit WRT "distracted driving", NOT a two way radio! If distracted driving was caused by two way radio use, it would have shown up in 1974 (or so) when CB radios were used in vehicles by the public by the MILLIONS!! WHERE was the "distacted driving" THEN? HUH? So-called "regulation" by states is BULL###T and I think it could be shown to be stupid and unwarranted in Federal court!!!!! The damned states have NO business "regulating" licensed two way radio services (including CB) in any form or fashion!

CWM

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

AH, but here's where there is a difference! Using a CELLPHONE is DIFFERENT from a two way radio. A two way radio is not NEARLY the distraction that a cellphone is because their operations are FAR different from each other. A cellphone requres one to put a device up to one's ear and become involved in a TWO-WAY stream of information---ALL at once. This is what causes a "distraction" because one must REACT to this stream of info that is flowing in two directions. It causes one's mind to become focused on this activity and LESS focused on the job at hand: driving the car. A two way radio sends ONE stream of info in ONE direction at a time. The lapse in time permits the operator to LISTEN to this information while driving the car without a device held up to one's ear, THEN react (transmit) to that info with a MIKE. He can STILL operate the vehicle, still do so safely and it is not NEAR the distraction of a cellphone. Well-meaning, but mis (and under)-informed people who have no knowledge of how the two devices operate attempt to lump the two activities together, and it is just plain WRONG. Don't PUNISH the innocent along with the guilty, which is what such local rules are doing.

I think it can be shown that it is the CELLPHONE that is the culprit WRT "distracted driving", NOT a two way radio! If distracted driving was caused by two way radio use, it would have shown up in 1974 (or so) when CB radios were used in vehicles by the public by the MILLIONS!! WHERE was the "distacted driving" THEN? HUH? So-called "regulation" by states is BULL###T and I think it could be shown to be stupid and unwarranted in Federal court!!!!! The damned states have NO business "regulating" licensed two way radio services (including CB) in any form or fashion!

CWM

Deja vu?? I could have sworn I heard this all somewhere before. Again. And again. And again.

 

[C W Morse]

Well, the TRUTH is the TRUTH....no matter WHERE you hear it. Facts are facts and don't change with the wind. Stupid politicians don't know the difference (sh## from shinola) between the two activities, and they ARE different. This "distracted driving" thing didn't come along until.........WHAT? The freakin' CELLPHONE. THAT was when people began wandering all over the road, "shying" other drivers out of the road to avoid them, rear-ending other cars, running into the ditch. For about 70 years, or at least since WWII people have been using two way radios in cars (lncluding ME for over 40 of 'em) without many problems with "distraction". With all the CB radios around alone, it should've shown up before now! Heck, some people can't even start their damned cars without a cellphone stuck up----I mean....:laugh: in their ear: its the first thing they do when they get in! I try to avoid these goons because they are the ones so absorbed in their "social" life they become distracted!

I don't know about Canada, but for those last 70 years, our FCC has not only allowed such unrestricted mobile use of radio, but has actively ENCOURAGED it, most recently (that I'm aware of) in their brief filed in the "scanner preemption" ruling case of a few years back. It would be hard to take BACK that support now as precedent has been long-established, and I think an aggrieved ham, stopped by old fat-bellied Bubba cop, COULD win a case in our Federal courts. That recently happened when a New York ham was stopped and ticketed for "using a cellphone". (See Steve Bozak in QRZ). He was not willing to sit still and take it lying down. The judge threw the ticket OUT!!! THiS judge recognized the difference between a "cellphone' and a ham radio, and, admittedly, it was apparently based on the way the New York law was written (Which proves the local yokels don't know sh## from shinola about what they are doing).

I am diametrically OPPOSED to local regulation of licensed two-way radio by states. I will make no bones about THAT! Commercial two way, CB and ham radio need to remain under Federal control and not by a bunch of fat Bubba that don't know sh## about what they are doing! (Y'all in a heap o' trouble fer usin' that 'cellphone in mah county, boy-ah!)

CWM

 

[Moleculo]

I am diametrically OPPOSED to local regulation of licensed two-way radio by states. I will make no bones about THAT!

No doubt, but that doesn't change that the states can regulate what you are doing while driving. That has nothing to do with radio, per se. In CA, if you get a ticket for reckless driving because you were distracted by fiddling with your ham radio, all of your pleading about the state not having jurisdiction over amateur radio isn't going to mean anything in court. The state has complete authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, which includes what you are doing while operating the vehicle.

 

[Happy_Hamer]

No doubt, but that doesn't change that the states can regulate what you are doing while driving. That has nothing to do with radio, per se. In CA, if you get a ticket for reckless driving because you were distracted by fiddling with your ham radio, all of your pleading about the state not having jurisdiction over amateur radio isn't going to mean anything in court. The state has complete authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, which includes what you are doing while operating the vehicle.

What if I am fiddling with my,,,,,,,,,

never mind, wrong forum

 

[Robb]

Why do some states extend this courtesy to Hams - and other states do not?

What is good for the goose - should be good for the gander . . .

Too many cell phones being used w/o bluetooth getting people citations from the law. States are collecting revenues from these penalties. How many Hams are out there driving and using radios and getting penalized? Certainly not enough to affect the the amount of revenues collected. Besides, they will want/need Hams if the poop should ever come in close proximity to a rotating oscillator. Extending this courtesy should be consistent from state to state. Hams SHOULD NOT be subject to these penalties and laws.

 

[depark]

At least in BC, Canada, an exemption has been given for:

"Two way radios are ½ duplex communication devices used principally
for commercial purposes and by amateur radio operators licensed
through Industry Canada under the Radiocommunication Act (Canada).
The devices consist of a microphone and receiver unit connected by a
wire that:
• Is operated by a push and hold to talk function, and
• Allows for oral communication, but not for the transmission and
receipt of oral communication at the same time; and
• The transmission of sound is over a set radio frequency."

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Well, the TRUTH is the TRUTH....no matter WHERE you hear it. Facts are facts and don't change with the wind. Stupid politicians don't know the difference (sh## from shinola) between the two activities, and they ARE different. This "distracted driving" thing didn't come along until.........WHAT? The freakin' CELLPHONE. THAT was when people began wandering all over the road, "shying" other drivers out of the road to avoid them, rear-ending other cars, running into the ditch. For about 70 years, or at least since WWII people have been using two way radios in cars (lncluding ME for over 40 of 'em) without many problems with "distraction". With all the CB radios around alone, it should've shown up before now! Heck, some people can't even start their damned cars without a cellphone stuck up----I mean....:laugh: in their ear: its the first thing they do when they get in! I try to avoid these goons because they are the ones so absorbed in their "social" life they become distracted!

I don't know about Canada, but for those last 70 years, our FCC has not only allowed such unrestricted mobile use of radio, but has actively ENCOURAGED it, most recently (that I'm aware of) in their brief filed in the "scanner preemption" ruling case of a few years back. It would be hard to take BACK that support now as precedent has been long-established, and I think an aggrieved ham, stopped by old fat-bellied Bubba cop, COULD win a case in our Federal courts. That recently happened when a New York ham was stopped and ticketed for "using a cellphone". (See Steve Bozak in QRZ). He was not willing to sit still and take it lying down. The judge threw the ticket OUT!!! THiS judge recognized the difference between a "cellphone' and a ham radio, and, admittedly, it was apparently based on the way the New York law was written (Which proves the local yokels don't know sh## from shinola about what they are doing).

I am diametrically OPPOSED to local regulation of licensed two-way radio by states. I will make no bones about THAT! Commercial two way, CB and ham radio need to remain under Federal control and not by a bunch of fat Bubba that don't know sh## about what they are doing! (Y'all in a heap o' trouble fer usin' that 'cellphone in mah county, boy-ah!)

CWM

My point Jerry was that you may as well as cut and paste your first diatribe about this (or almost anything else) because all you are doing is repeating yourself over and over and over again and again and again. Your views on this and export radios are EXTREMELY well known and seeing the same old thing over and over and over again and again and again is getting monotonous. No matter how many times you repeat your views things will happen as they happen. You nor I will ever change that.

:bdh:

Oh, and just because they talk like inbred hillbillies in North Carolina doesn't mean the rest of the country does.

 

[C W Morse]

No doubt, but that doesn't change that the states can regulate what you are doing while driving. That has nothing to do with radio, per se. In CA, if you get a ticket for reckless driving because you were distracted by fiddling with your ham radio, all of your pleading about the state not having jurisdiction over amateur radio isn't going to mean anything in court. The state has complete authority to regulate the operation of motor vehicles, which includes what you are doing while operating the vehicle.

Now I can modify my post a bit on that one. IF----and that is a BIG "if"---it is SHOWN that an accident was caused SOLELY by "fiddling" with a ham radio (or any other radio) per se, then I can agree with it. BUT, the point I am making is, two way radios have never been shown to have much of an effect of the operation of a motor vehicle simply because the act of using a mike or LISTENING to traffic on one's two way has NEVER been significant enough to warrant such draconian measures. Let's not punish the innocent along with the guilty. It is, again, the C E L L P H O N E that has caused an issue with "distracted driving", not two way radios. Like I have said (over and over to the aggravation of Cap't Kilowatt, IF this was going to cause a problem, it would have during the CB craze of the 70's. But it did NOT. ONLY when the cellphone and the overly-electronic age came along did it become a problem. People who USE two way radios usually are a bit more savvy about their driving, recognize that attention to THAT duty is first and foremost. I have, myself, thrown down the mike and ignored incoming traffic on the radio when things got a bit "sticky" or traffic became TOO much to handle, or just said, "Hey, I gotta go.....traffic". And then disappeared from the air for awhile until things got better. Cellphone users so often become absorbed in the duplex nature of their conversation they have forgotten about driving the car and they wreck because of it.

What I am saying is simply, let's point fingers where the blame lies: at the cellphone.

I thankfully, live in a state that has less restrictions on radio (and cellphones) than most. I wouldn't mind seeing some restrictions on cellphone use because I don't use my phone for social stuff; mostly business. People don't NEED to be yappin' on a phone the livelong day, IMHO. Restrict radios? H### NO!:angry:

CWM

 

[QRPGUY]

How about the using the Cat port?

Moleculo,
I don't know what kind of equipment you have, but it seems like a lot of the control functions you want to do could be interfaced through the CAT port that most modern rigs have. You might want to look into that.
There is an interesting article in the November, 2010 issue of QST that uses a t.v. remote and an infrared sensor to add wireless rig control of some functions. Same concept, just a different part of the spectrum. It may give you some food for thought.
I'm sure if you wait long enough you'll be able to buy a rig with the functionality you want, but where is the fun in that.

Dad always used to say " use your head for something besides a hat rack" HI-HI.

 

[Moleculo]

Moleculo,
I don't know what kind of equipment you have, but it seems like a lot of the control functions you want to do could be interfaced through the CAT port that most modern rigs have. You might want to look into that.

I currently DO use the CAT port for all of that. I just don't want the cables. I want CAT over bluetooth. Just about every other gadget on the planet has bluetooth built into it now to do exactly this type of thing. Why does amateur radio equipment have to lag so far behind the rest of the technological world?