Ape Answers 008: The Myth of FCC Certification

[@Rusty-Williams]

VERY GOOD explanation of what the FCC approval really means. Electronics are certified for part 15b and we are the certified in part 47, not the radios! BRAVO!!!

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@Rusty-Williams Thanks Rusty, glad you liked it 👍

[@talkpodtech]

Thank you for your explanation for the Rule, Ape!

[@TheSmokinApe]

Glad it was helpful!

[@WECB640]

Ape, this is one of your top 5 best videos of all time! Congratulations. It is accurate, concise, enlightening and demonstrates that we ALL have much to learn. I am literally applauding as I watch the last minute. Keep up the great work. 73

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks Hollywood, I really wanted to drive the point home... lol

[@eljuano28]

Ape does the proof AND shows his work. Just like we learned in skewl. Nice vid, dude.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks EJ, I appreciate you watching 👍

[@SmokeSignalsRF]

Another excellent video that debunks the myths and promotes the facts.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Howdy Izzo, thanks for the kind words bro 👍

[@redacted2763]

Thank you for testing these garbage radios and educating hams at large about this issue. I've been trying to educate hams local to me for years on this, but most just think I am poo-pooing their cheap radios. No, sir. I am trying to keep our RF neighbors from complaining about us so that we don't get kicked out of our repeater sites.

[@TheSmokinApe]

I run into the exact same thing. Thanks for watching 👍

[@bettersaferadio]

Great, simple video Ape, and spot on about there being no Part 97 certification. I constantly get questions about this subject. As I've been through the certification process a few times with my co-designed Wouxun (Chinese) radios, what I learned was that Part 15B, as someone else mentioned, is just for the receiver, but more specifically, what is often referred to in the equipment certification as a "scanning receiver." Apparently, no radio device that has a scanning receiver can be legally imported into the US, so this is the minimum FCC certification necessary for any receiver or transceiver. I'm not sure if there's really a distinction between a scanning receiver and any other unintentional radiator, but I hear the Chinese manus referring to this all the time. I don't think it was always this way though, as not long before I got into this business (about 2016), I would often see receivers imported that didn't even have Part 15B, but were technically legal, whereas now everything has to have at least 15B to be imported. Of course, there are plenty of brands that still do that (even Retevis sometimes - they were really bad before I educated them on the matter back when). Anyway, thanks for helping to clear this up. Things get even more interesting when you get into the various Part 95 certifications. To that one poster about the FCC testing things, I don't think they ever do unless they are auditing an EC based on complaints - it's up to the manufacturer and their hired lab to do the testing and present such in the EC application - and they don't always get it right, and yes, many of them send a compliant specimen to the lab and then churn out crap, and are rarely caught. :)

[@TheSmokinApe]

Hey BSR, thank you for watching 👍

[@KC5TGTRadiosNMore]

Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to do the Q&A videos.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Glad you like them, thanks for watching!

[@BrokenSignal]

You couldn't have made it any more clear! Good Job!

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks BS 👍

[@KC4NWK]

Ape, excellent video! I have tried to explain this to people in the comments, but it constantly comes up! I tell people it's the same type of FCC certification that my calculator has! I've even linked them to a Part 15 certification for an electric toothbrush. ;-) Hopefully hearing it from the Ape will help!!! 73s

[@TheSmokinApe]

LOL, I am not sure it will but lets keep the fingers crossed. Glad you liked the video 👍

[@KC4NWK]

@@TheSmokinApe Just had another one this morning! I hope you don't mind, after I told him he was wrong, I referred him to watch this video. :)

[@TheSmokinApe]

Nice!

[@houseofhamradio]

Once again Ape, Spot On! I looked at the FCC ID for another radio that both you and I reviewed and same thing, Part 15B from FCC. In fact that radio is classified as a CSR Scanning Receiver. Just because a radio is capable of transmitting does not mean it is legal to do so. I also looked up my Yaesu HT and low and behold, it also only has Part 15 grant from FCC. This aligns with your assessment that there is no Part 97 FCC certification. So as a ham, if you are concerned about the purity of your signal (and we all should be) I recommend staying away from these Chinese radios known for spurious emissions. You may have to pay more, but how much is your license worth to you?

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for watching HoHR 👍

[@jrjr1273]

Very simple and clear explanation. Great job on this video. Thank You and 73, JR

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks JR 👍

[@HOAHamRadio]

"...the only thing that is certified under Part 97, in the ham shack, is the operator..." BAM! Drop the mic!

[@TheSmokinApe]

It seems to be a surprise to some folks...

[@Plasmastorm73_n5evv]

@@TheSmokinApe Maybe they need to stop calling it a ticket and start calling it our part 97, like the FAA does with pilot certificates.

[@g0fvt]

Well done for laying this out clearly, many years ago I did a deep dive on a few radios that appeared to have an FCC ID but were known to be lacking in spectral purity. Part 15B would be more appropriate for a calculator than a transceiver. Here in the UK we had a standard where electrical appliances would achieve a "kitemark", the idea was that consumers buying a TV or a hairdryer could "trust" the product. Sadly that was undermined too, a TV set could for instance get a kitemark by simply using a fire retardant plastic for the case. 73

[@TheSmokinApe]

It makes you wonder why we have regulations at all

[@tamstutz921]

I love how some are completely convinced by their own ignorance, facts be damned. Good explanation of this particular certification.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Maybe they just are uninformed?

[@CharlesHuse]

One of the things I remember from getting my first tech license in 2002 was that even if you are operating your radio in compliance with your license privileges and the radio is functioning properly, and is producing a harmonic that is interfering with a neighbor's tv, you, as a licensed operator are not legally required to do anything because you and your radio are operating within the scope of the regulations. Rather it is the tv owner who needs to obtain and install the filter to block that harmonic. Aside from that, the Part 15 certification states "This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interferrence received, including including interference that may cause undesired operation." I have seen this on every electronic device from a tv remote to a digital alarm clock, and ham radio equipment. Now if your Bowel Thang UV5R throws out that one-time odd, out of approved tx range signal that manages to brick your neighbor's Tesla, and never produces that spurious emission again, are you actually responsible? Who knows....but your neighbor's Tesla definitely has that same Part 15 decal on at least a half dozen components and had to accept that one-off, one-time signal. Just another thing to consider when dealing with things that operate based on electrical and radio theories.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for the comment Charles.

[@N2EWSRadio]

I tested the Tidradio TD-H3 and found that it's clean. The funny thing, though, is that I looked up the FCC ID number and couldn't find anything in reference to "unintentional radiator" wrt transmitting. The ID did include comprehensive tests for the Bluetooth signal.

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@N2EWSRadio lol @ Bluetooth signal 🤣

[@robertmeyer4744]

Well done APE. As a HAM radio operator the reasonability is on US to have a CLEAN signal. This allows us to MOD a radio and build and experiment. Now part 95 is different. The MFG is responsible for sperios emminous coming from that radio. This IS CB/MURS/GMRS / FRS . some are license free outher just pay $35 USD . no test unless you count using the website. If us HAMS cause interference outside of FCC part 97 guidelines we are the one that gets in trouble . The RF exposure is our responsibility as well. What I would like is the FCC to set standards for the harmonics above 250 MHZ . Their is currently none. Lots of first responders have switched to higher bands .the harmonics from like 70CM can fall into that band. not very likely but a possibility. 73

[@TheSmokinApe]

Yeah, it has become apparent to me that folks don't seem to understand what exactly their license means.

[@robertmeyer4744]

@@TheSmokinApe When holding outher FCC license for Commercial and private broadcast we understand the importance of emissions coming from transmitter. The FCC does enforce them. They come and inspect .Well done video.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks Richard

[@hughpatterson1480]

Yeah, I can't figure out why ham radio folks can't see that part 97 is in regards to the person who got their license. I'm of the mind that if you are going to become licensed then you should use equipment that meets the spurious emissions standards. If I buy a radio and discover it creates problems when transmitting on it, I put the radio away and don't use it. I like to mod cheap radios but before I do, I do research to see if their within compliance ( part 15 NOT part 97, ha ha). At the end of the day, I think a lot of people don't care interference until it effects them. Then they throw a fit. I was in a studio once and someone's CB radio starting coming through my guitar amp. That cost the studio folks a few dollars having to stop everything and figure out how to stop the interference. The sad part was I just did a guitar part that was perfect and couldn't be used. Thanks for a really informative and clearly explained video.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for watching Hugh, just trying to do my part to help folks understand what their license actually means.

[@germanjohn5626]

Part 15b is the test that is done for the RECEIVER, not the transmitter. Type acceptance is not needed for handhelds in amateur service. To clarify, since compliance of the transmitted signal lies solely with the ham radio operator, the only thing manufacturers are responsible for is the receivers and thus all they have to do is part 15b testing.

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@germanjohn5626 in any event, it doesn’t cover part 97

[@richysradioroom]

Well done.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thank you 👍

[@mikesradiorepair]

Part 15B does not just cover unintentional radiators, it also covers intentional radiators and incidental radiators. Understanding Part 15b Radiation Types Intentional Radiation Intentional radiation is the most straightforward type of radiofrequency output that FCC Part 15 governs. It refers to radiation that your device deliberately produces to communicate with other devices. When you connect to a Wi-Fi network or call a friend, your phone or other device is acting as an intentional radiator. However, that same phone is also an unintentional radiator any time that it’s on. Unintentional Radiation Unintentional radiation is a bit more complex. When a device uses radio frequency energy as a means to function internally, it will still produce some amount of radiation that might affect other devices. Devices that use radio spectrum energy to operate but are not designed to affect other devices are referred to as “unintentional radiators.” These devices are governed by FCC Part 15B and need to be compliant with Part 15B regulations. What defines unintentional radiation and separates it from incidental radiation is that the output is key to the device functioning, but is not supposed to affect other devices. Incidental Radiation Incidental radiation is a type of latent EMI that isn’t relevant to the operation of the device that produces it. In this case, the radio frequency output of the device is purely accidental. Devices that may produce incidental radiation include light bulbs, DC motors, and simple mechanical products.

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@mikesradiorepair I think I said intentional and unintentional but you are right, there is more to that story. In any event, what it’s doesn’t cover are the rules defined in Part 97 👍

[@mikesradiorepair]

@@TheSmokinApe It gets very confusing for some people because they don't realize that the radio they are using, no matter what "part" it falls under is also covered under a lot of other regulations. There are a lot of other regulations under Title 47 that pertain to amateur radio, GMRS, etc...

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@mikesradiorepair Agreed

[@TheHandyHam73]

Well said Sir, Thank you.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thank you 👍

[@tumblw33d2]

RF devices do have to meet CFR 47 Part 2, those devices are described in CFR 47 Part 2 (J), and Amatuer Radio at para 2.1060. Not sure if this what our radios should show when you look up the FCC ID.

[@TheSmokinApe]

I don't think I've ever seen a Part 2 certification associated with a radio.

[@tumblw33d2]

@@TheSmokinApe I worked in aviation (retired) and we had some experimental radios that did not have a type certificate initially, when they got it, it said CFR 47 Part 2 (something) on the new tags.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for the info, I just haven’t heard of that before

[@tumblw33d2]

@@TheSmokinApe From what I read I believe this gives our radios a little more leeway than commercial rf devices but still requires the transmitter to meet tolerances for out of band transmissions, but this might be for importation to the USA if I read it right. I could be wrong.

[@jhill4874]

approx: 4:30 If I remember right, HAMs can build their own radio, or convert surplus gear (like the old days) and be perfectly legal. Yes, the radios have to meet specific requirements for transmitting, etc., but the FCC doesn't certify these experimental radios. So what's the difference if I convert a GMRS, CB, military surplus radio to operate on the correct amateur radio bands?

[@TheSmokinApe]

Sorry man, I can't answer that...

[@Plasmastorm73_n5evv]

Nothing. YOU as the licensed operator are responsible for making sure ANY radio you transmit with is withing the rules of the FCC for spurious emissions. Radios are not certified for amature use because we can use any radio that cane transmit and receive on the amateur bands. As long as it transmits clean you're good.

[@TheSmokinApe]

I’m not so sure of that Plasma: lucky225.medium.com/fcc-back-peddles-all-transceivers-capable-of-transmitting-on-frequencies-that-require-40377a3722c5

[@frankmckinley1254]

Your spot on. Why don't some of our hams pay more attention to part 97? 🤔

[@TheSmokinApe]

Beats me. Thanks for watching Frank 👍

[@GG-vx7gi]

Excellent info. Challenged allot of assumptions I'd held on the topic. How does for example the use of an unlocked RT95 by an operator holding both an amateur and gmrs license problematic? Assuming used meeting terms of each license.

[@TheSmokinApe]

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t work for the FCC but I think it’s a no-no

[@WR3ND]

Nice one. Cheers man.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Glad you enjoyed it 👍

[@junquecollector]

Well said Ape. I am amazed at the number of hams that are experts of FCC certification but can't understand the concept that it is against FCC regulations to use your ham radio gear on GMRS or publice service frequencies. Radio transmitters sold as Amateur Radio transmitters are not FCC type accepted for use on GMRS or emergency/public service frequencies.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Yeah man, that is a whole new can of worms...

[@Plasmastorm73_n5evv]

But they do go the opposite direction.GMRS can be hacked to work on amature bands.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Which means they loose the Part 95 type acceptance and are not legal to use on ham bands: lucky225.medium.com/fcc-back-peddles-all-transceivers-capable-of-transmitting-on-frequencies-that-require-40377a3722c5

[@bigjim55able]

This is what i learned 30 years ago Ape. Excellent analysis. 73 de KE4TEN

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for watching Jim 👍

[@TheGmr140]

Good overview 😊

[@TheSmokinApe]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Thump2030]

Great video Ape.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks Thump 👍

[@KS0JD]

Interesting would be to look at the GMRS radio certs and the business band radio certs as well which I think are Part 90. You can look at the better Chinese radios, say the Anytone 878UVII and see they have certifications for Part 90. This is a requirement for a commercial radio used in the US. By the way they also have a Part 15 certification as well. This means they shouldn't turn on your toaster or open your garage door when they are operating. Great video Ape! 73

[@Plasmastorm73_n5evv]

DMR is technically a business radio platform.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for watching Jeff 👍

[@KO4VNX]

Totally valid analysis. Also very revealing how their certification claims can be so wildly misleading, and I don't think by accident!

[@TheSmokinApe]

The vendors take advantage of that

[@K5YVY]

Next on "Change my mind" series :)

[@TheSmokinApe]

LOL, thanks for watching JoeBrett!

[@carlosroig5315]

Ape is 100% correct on this one. There is no such thing as FCC Type 97 Certification for amateur radio. Amateur Radio is, among many things, an experimental radio service. If the FCC establishes tight specifications for amateur radio equipment, they would kill the Basis and Purpose of amateur radio clearly stated in Part 97 under the five basic principles of amateur radio. There is a set of minimum applicable standards for amateur radio and these are lower than in all the other personal radio services ( CB, MURS, GMRS, FRS ) even LMR Part 90. If the FCC changes the technical standards or comes out with a Part 97 Certification, that is the end of the amateur radio service as an experimental service, it will then by illegal to build, modify or repair amateur radio equipment because once you tamper it, the FCC Certification is lost. Amateurs must ensure our stations are designed, installed and operated following " good amateur radio practices " and this includes spurious and harmonic radiation. Thank you for your explanation, there is a lot of confusion out there.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for the informative post Carlos 👍

[@WR3ND]

Not sure if you covered this already, but do you recommend RF shielding on your main shack ground lead(s) with "toe-roids" or similar? Could it cause an issue with impedance to ground in a lightening strike, or maybe that'd be a good thing from inside the shack. Any test results with noise isolation benefits? Cheers and 73.

[@TheSmokinApe]

I don’t know ow if I am right or wrong but no shield on the grounds

[@WR3ND]

@@TheSmokinApe Sorry, I meant RF choke instead of shielding.

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@WR3ND I wouldn’t put one on the ground

[@WR3ND]

@@TheSmokinApe OK, thanks.

[@WR3ND]

@@TheSmokinApe Yeah, I was thinking about it some more and it'd choke the RF away from ground, which is something I wouldn't want in this case, but might be useful for grounding on the antenna side of things. Cheers.

[@MikeN2MAK]

Part 15B is killing ham radio, LOL. Thanks for another good one, Ape.

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@MikeN2MAK lol, thanks for watching Mike 👍

[@mikeZL3XD7029]

That is it in a nutshell, Ape, I as an Amateur operator can buy the cheapest, shonkiest gear I like and I might like to do that. But, as you alluded to, you MUST keep all of your transmissions within the frequency allowances by law, it doesn't matter what part of the law we are talking about here. One other thing that some people don't realise is that you MUST have an accurate way of showing any Radio Inspector that might come to your QTH that your equipment is compliant within the given rules. If the display on your radio is inaccurate or there is an issue with the way the PLL of the radio has been set up, this can land you in hot water. Having an accurate frequency meter is the best thing any Ham can own.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Great point Mike 👍

[@briansauk6837]

Man, you are knocking it out of the park- grand slam! For those complaining about high cost of testing , you can get an RTL-SDR dongle and a few attenuators and do a decent analysis. Takes more effort and care than with a proper SA, but doable.

[@Plasmastorm73_n5evv]

The tinySA isn't that expensive when you compare it to most every mobile or HF radio.

[@briansauk6837]

@@Plasmastorm73_n5evvAgreed! Was just mentioning another inexpensive option, which some may already have and didn’t realize they could test with.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Hey Brian, thanks for watching 👍

[@technishn]

So, hypothetically, if a US manufacturer (based in the US) produced a transceiver that produces harmonic and spurious emissions that has spurious/harmonic levels at -10dBc would they be able to sell that?

[@TheSmokinApe]

Pretty sure they can...

[@grebulocities8225]

Just to be clear, nobody needs to spend thousands of dollars on fancy test equipment. A TinySA, a little bit of coax with SMA connectors, a couple adapters, and a 40 dB attenuator comes to less than $100 and is all that is needed. I've been using a TinySA for homebrew projects and it is a wonderful little device!

[@TheSmokinApe]

@@grebulocities8225 I would agree with this, but It d recommend the TinySA Ultra. I have a number of videos on both versions and have show how to do these tests with them.

[@grebulocities8225]

@@TheSmokinApe Yeah, I've actually been using the TinySA Ultra too. I just thought I'd cite the basic version to reduce the price tag. It may have been your channel that first introduced me to them along with the NanoVNA, actually.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Gotcha, glad to hear the channel has been helpful 👍

[@ammocraft]

It really comes down to the fact that if you want to be compliant but don’t or can’t test, don’t buy “cheap crap” (regardless of country of origin) and stick to the Japanese and US manufacturers and trust that they have almost certainly taken care with everything from design to QA to ensure their equipment complies. Otherwise, buy a TinySA!

[@TheSmokinApe]

Yeah, stick you reputable manufacturers👍

[@techjohnc3379]

One of your best! Wish I could give this one more than one thumbs up. John, k0ebc

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks John, glad you liked it 👍

[@LeeMcc_KI5YPR]

Remember, all, the FCC does not PERFORM tests for certification. Companies submit test reports and CERTIFY to the FCC with test results and documentation as to equipment used and calibration for that equipment. There are many labs around the world providing the service, and a manufacturer can use its own facility for testing.

[@TheSmokinApe]

Lee is telling the truth 😮

[@johnwest7993]

This video should make things clear to every ham. If you need a reminder, please read Part 97 of the FCC rules. They define ham radio. Here's the rant once more. For noobs it will explain a lot. In amateur radio in the USA it doesn't matter if there is or is not any sort of FCC ID or certification on any piece of gear. It simply doesn't matter. Amateur radio isn't a hobby of talking on the radio. It is a hobby ABOUT radio, everything from designing, building, experimenting, repairing, and tuning, to talking. A ham's gear, whatever it may be, commercially built, home-built, modified commercial or military gear, a brand new, in the box with a stack of paperwork included, $8,000 Icom base station transceiver with matching accessories, or someone else's old unidentifiable junk that you fixed up, it is ALL entirely the ham's own responsibility to ensure that it meets Part 97 regulations. Those are the rules we follow whether we buy an FCC certified transmitter of any sort, or we design and build our gear from scratch. Hams are NOT radio consumers. Hams are hobbyists with government licenses to play with RF. We are not CBers, or FRS or aircraft or marine band radio users. WE are legally responsible for this hobby. We are legally responsible for our transmissions, BECAUSE we are legally licensed to design, build, modify, tune, and operate our own transmitters without government review. That's what we AGREE to when we get our government license to play with RF. Anyone who does not want that responsibility should simply buy a CB or FRS radio, not apply for a ham license. BTW, a TinySA costs under $100. If you can't afford one then borrow one from another ham. If you don't know how to use it, ask another ham. Others can even test your gear for you using their equipment. But YOU are always the one who is responsible for the signals coming from your gear, not them. If you don't know another ham, look up a nearby ham club to visit, or watch any of dozens of videos explaining how to use one. There are always hams who are happy to help. Welcome to the hobby. An amateur radio license is a license to learn. If you simply don't want to learn anything at all about radio, ham radio isn't the hobby for you. Just go buy that CB or FRS radio. Enjoy your hobby. The Amateur Radio Service was created by the FCC so RF hobbyists could learn about radio, because the FCC realized that a pool of RF knowledgeable citizens would be very useful for the USA to have in times of war or national or regional emergency. As an incentive, they allow us to design, build, experiment, and operate whatever we want within the legal limits they set forth within the Part 97 rules. That includes multiple bands, shared or entirely ours alone, any modulation methods, including of our own invention, any antennas or antenna arrays we want to build or buy, repeaters, commercial or of our own design and construction, and as much as 1500 Watts of power on many bands, and there are bands from longwave to microwave, featuring a wide variety of appropriate equipment, antennas, and techniques. Those are the rights and responsibilities for the hobby. It's a great big sandbox to play in, in which to learn about radio. Yes, if you want, you don't have to learn anything. You don't have to do emergency communications work if your neighborhood get destroyed in a natural disaster. You don't have to learn how to hang up an emergency antenna, or learn net communications protocols to help in a disaster. You can just buy and use commercially-built radios. Yes, you can just talk as much as you like, as long as you like, to wherever you like who also has a ham license, using just commercially-built radios, and never learn any more than what you needed to to correctly answer 73% of the multiple choice questions on the exam to get your license, then forget the answer to every one of them. To just talk on the radio and ignore the rest of the hobby, the moon-bounce, satellite work, meteor-scatter, NVIS short-range skip, low-noise pre-amps, digital modes, high-gain, directional antennas, repeater networks, and everything else that makes ham radio ham radio, you just have to follow the rules and meet your responsibilities as a licensed ham. It's as simple as that.

[@TheSmokinApe]

💯 thanks John

[@pen25]

We need these questions as part of the tech test

[@TheSmokinApe]

It would be helpful 👍

[@WECB640]

Excellent suggestion! I hope the ARRL is reading this comment.

[@Plasmastorm73_n5evv]

Agreed. Maybe send that suggestion to onr of the VECs. They all combine to make up the quwstion pool.

[@fm71450]

Dear Ape, well done! Excellent video! I have questions whirling in my head, but, for now I just want to say, “Thank You” and - KEEP IT UP! KQ4IXD

[@TheSmokinApe]

Thanks for watching FM 👍

[@BigJohnsHamShack]

You can lead them to water but you can't make them drink.

[@TheSmokinApe]

You're right about that...

[@bassangler73]

Mic Drop :)

[@TheSmokinApe]

LOL, thanks for watching BA 👍

[@bassangler73]

​​@@TheSmokinApeThat topic seriously needed this video explanation! You did it well too bro!

[@TheSmokinApe]

THanks man, I tried!

[@daveengstrom9250]

I hope the FCC is run better than the Secret Service.

[@TheSmokinApe]

lol

[@hazer72]

REEE TEEE VUSSS 🤣

[@TheSmokinApe]

THant's what I said, roght?

[@Plasmastorm73_n5evv]

Funny, the sales girl from Retivis I deal with says RIT I VIS

[@hazer72]

@@Plasmastorm73_n5evv I like mixing up pronuciation of these brands. BOOFWANG! 😂