Why is the Icom M802s not available from vendors?

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I don't think characterizing this as a quirk of governments helps much. The units don't meet the current international specs that these countries base their requirements on. As far as functionality, the units are just fine for cruiser use. It is unlikely that as a cruiser you will ever bother to use the DSC capabilities of the 801. I have used the DSC once in 7 years of cruising and that was to test it out. It isn't why a cruiser has these radios or part of any normal usage. Even as an emergency call, the DSC functionality of the radio is fine. It just no longer, if ever, meets the ITU specs.

Can't answer anything about the Canadian regulations. Maybe this is far enough down on the list of things to care about that they haven't gotten to it. If you aren't within a year or so of actually needing the SSB, not sure I'd invest in it. You might change your mind before you leave and use some other communications method.

But is not "the quirk of governments" a large part of this issue and the concern, if not the only one? I do not know the answer, but would like to learn if the non-compliance by the 802, and similar, is significant, at least sufficiently to provide some sort of meaningful issue as to safety or interference, or something of which I am unaware. Or is it simply it does not meet ITU standards by 1/100 of one second, so we now we want to ban it. I'd really like to know if this is a bureaucratic power play or something actually having a meaningful effect as opposed to a measurable difference from the requirement.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

But is not "the quirk of governments" a large part of this issue and the concern, if not the only one? I do not know the answer, but would like to learn if the non-compliance by the 802, and similar, is significant, at least sufficiently to provide some sort of meaningful issue as to safety or interference, or something of which I am unaware. Or is it simply it does not meet our standards by 1/100 of one second, so we now we want to ban it. I'd really like to know if this is a bureaucratic power play os something actually having a meaningful effect as opposed to a measurable difference from the requirement.

Other than the Internet rumor of a poster here who said he heard at a boat show, you have no evidence the issue is that it only misses one item by 1/100 sec. There was a reference to another site that showed a number of more involved issues.

It isn't like these standards are written without industry input. I've been involved in international standards making (nothing to do with SSB) and the industry drives these regulations in the end. Eventually the soup is made, the final words come out and are agreed upon - usually by vote. Then in some cases the hard part starts with actually engineering the products. But in many cases the standards are developed to match what has already been engineered and it is just time to productize.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I don't think characterizing this as a quirk of governments helps much. The units don't meet the current international specs that these countries base their requirements on. As far as functionality, the units are just fine for cruiser use. It is unlikely that as a cruiser you will ever bother to use the DSC capabilities of the 801. I have used the DSC once in 7 years of cruising and that was to test it out. It isn't why a cruiser has these radios or part of any normal usage. Even as an emergency call, the DSC functionality of the radio is fine. It just no longer, if ever, meets the ITU specs.

Can't answer anything about the Canadian regulations. Maybe this is far enough down on the list of things to care about that they haven't gotten to it. If you aren't within a year or so of actually needing the SSB, not sure I'd invest in it. You might change your mind before you leave and use some other communications method.

I didn’t mean to denigrate anyone or anything with my term of “quirky”. And I’m not dissing international standards. I’m simply trying to figure out how this affects the typical cruiser, so I thank you for your answer on that.

I have not bought an SSB for exactly the reasons you suggest Paul; I don’t know if I actually need one. My approach has been to get out there (which we are doing … slowly) and see what our actual needs are. But this whole discussion around the future of the 801/802 has led me to wonder if I should buy now if there is a risk of them disappearing from the market due to some quirky noncompliance issue.

[SV THIRD DAY]

I'm glad to see everyone's support for the Rule of Law, one second is after all one second. Do we now expect some intellectual consistency to be applied to the Country's Immigration Laws....

CQ....CQ....CQ.....

73s

W6GKY

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I didn’t mean to denigrate anyone or anything with my term of “quirky”. And I’m not dissing international standards. I’m simply trying to figure out how this affects the typical cruiser, so I thank you for your answer on that.

I have not bought an SSB for exactly the reasons you suggest Paul; I don’t know if I actually need one. My approach has been to get out there (which we are doing … slowly) and see what our actual needs are. But this whole discussion around the future of the 801/802 has led me to wonder if I should buy now if there is a risk of them disappearing from the market due to some quirky noncompliance issue.

There's always the used market. With boats turning over and people going to Sat connections, I would expect used 802s to remain somewhat available. Even if that might be a quirky way to purchase

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Other than the Internet rumor of a poster here who said he heard at a boat show, you have no evidence the issue is that it only misses one item by 1/100 sec. There was a reference to another site that showed a number of more involved issues.

It isn't like these standards are written without industry input. I've been involved in international standards making (nothing to do with SSB) and the industry drives these regulations in the end. Eventually the soup is made, the final words come out and are agreed upon - usually by vote. Then in some cases the hard part starts with actually engineering the products. But in many cases the standards are developed to match what has already been engineered and it is just time to productize.

Spoken like a true regulatory devotee. I take it this means you do not know the answer to the question I posed either.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

I'm glad to see everyone's support for the Rule of Law, one second is after all one second. Do we now expect some intellectual consistency to be applied to the Country's Immigration Laws....

CQ....CQ....CQ.....

73s

W6GKY

True, but engineering should never be confused with (or by) law or politics.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Spoken like a true regulatory devotee. I take it this means you do not know the answer to the question I posed either.

Did you read the referenced site from the posts above that listed a number of issues with the ICOMs failure to meet the international standard for DSC support? And no it is not because of a 1/100 of second difference in timeout, no matter how much people want this to sound that way to make a silly anti-gov argument.

I have no dog in this fight. I already own an 802 and Pactor 4. It has run just fine for my uses.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Spoken like a true regulatory devotee. I take it this means you do not know the answer to the question I posed either.

The answer to your question is the 802 fails to meet ITU-R M.493-13 (plus the newer -14 being recommended by RTCM). Go read the specs....

[CarinaPDX]

Originally Posted by DotDun

and this...

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1072912...07-29-2016.pdf

I wonder how many posters actually read this. It does explain the situation quite nicely. To summarize, the radio under discussion (not the M802 but by extension including all recreational DSC radios) was designed for the recreational market (Voluntary carriage) and the Class D standard, which is a lesser standard than for Compulsory carriage. When the FCC standards were upgraded to reflect newer versions of the international standard it was done without the normal rule-making process, effectively sneaking in an upgrade without review on the manufacturers. Icom argued that some of that, such as a dual receiver (VHF, the M802 does have 2), were not necessary for the recreational market, and in any event should have been reviewed publicly first.

It seems from reading this that the international standard is for compulsory radios, not recreational, and the standards for recreational are open to national standard-setting. If so, what a mess. But the specific failings posted earlier should be easy to remedy with a firmware update, which at best would meet the de-tuned Class D specs (if those can be changed to not require the recent updates that were sneaked into it without public review). It is my understanding that the M802/1 never met the more rigorous Class A GMDSS spec for compulsory carriage, which is why there was a specific GMDSS version in Europe.

Does any of this really matter? I don't think so. The M802 works just fine for recreational SSB use. My complaint about the radio, aside from it being less convenient to use on ham bands than it could be, is that it is quite easy to damage with salt moisture. My transceiver is mounted in a place that is very hard for water to reach, and yet a single dollop caused corrosion on the main board (the case is vented with lots of openings). The cost of replacing the board is around $1k, and Icom will not do component level repair (about a half dozen components were affected). The lack of durability along with the poor repair policy are worth thinking about...

Greg

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

I wonder how many posters actually read this. It does explain the situation quite nicely. To summarize, the radio under discussion (not the M802 but by extension including all recreational DSC radios) was designed for the recreational market (Voluntary carriage) and the Class D standard, which is a lesser standard than for Compulsory carriage. When the FCC standards were upgraded to reflect newer versions of the international standard it was done without the normal rule-making process, effectively sneaking in an upgrade without review on the manufacturers. Icom argued that some of that, such as a dual receiver (VHF, the M802 does have 2), were not necessary for the recreational market, and in any event should have been reviewed publicly first.

It seems from reading this that the international standard is for compulsory radios, not recreational, and the standards for recreational are open to national standard-setting. If so, what a mess. But the specific failings posted earlier should be easy to remedy with a firmware update, which at best would meet the de-tuned Class D specs (if those can be changed to not require the recent updates that were sneaked into it without public review). It is my understanding that the M802/1 never met the more rigorous Class A GMDSS spec for compulsory carriage, which is why there was a specific GMDSS version in Europe.

Does any of this really matter? I don't think so. The M802 works just fine for recreational SSB use. My complaint about the radio, aside from it being less convenient to use on ham bands than it could be, is that it is quite easy to damage with salt moisture. My transceiver is mounted in a place that is very hard for water to reach, and yet a single dollop caused corrosion on the main board (the case is vented with lots of openings). The cost of replacing the board is around $1k, and Icom will not do component level repair (about a half dozen components were affected). The lack of durability along with the poor repair policy are worth thinking about...

Greg

It is very frustrating!

Thanks for paraphrasing!

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by DotDun

The answer to your question is the 802 fails to meet ITU-R M.493-13 (plus the newer -14 being recommended by RTCM). Go read the specs....

Like they politely said, the changed requirements, adopted without hearing, and no suitable devices in sight for the hoi polloi (such as I am, although I am unsure of the correct spelling) is just not right. My opinion remains after I re-read the paper. It is bureaucratic imperialism and you are a devotee. As far as reading the specs, they are above my capabilities, but I do know a railroad job when I see one. "Recommendations" seem to be tantamount to adoption with the FCC in its present configuration.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Buzz....I'm note sure what you just said but I'm going to La Paz Mexico tomorrow...so I don't really care other than to say, I'll raise a Taco to your Anti-bureaucratic tome while I'm down where it's safe eating off a taco cart without a City Health department inspection sticker...that's called living on the edge mi Amigo...la vida loca

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Like they politely said, the changed requirements, adopted without hearing, and no suitable devices in sight for the hoi polloi (such as I am, although I am unsure of the correct spelling) is just not right. My opinion remains after I re-read the paper. It is bureaucratic imperialism and you are a devotee. As far as reading the specs, they are above my capabilities, but I do know a railroad job when I see one. "Recommendations" seem to be tantamount to adoption with the FCC in its present configuration.

Excuse me? I have yet to express an opinion about the merits of either the proceeding nor the technical aspects. Just because I understand the process and you don't, it makes me a devotee??? Do explain!

[SV THIRD DAY]

I think you have been painted with the brush called broad....