MPM is a problem, well here in the USA. As the airwaves are held in the public interest. Those that use the airways (transmit) are subject to the FCC rules. For the 2.4 gHz band this means that ALL transmissions device are subject to 'Type Certification', through proper test and certification procedures. This means that some entity must pay and submit these certifying test to the FCC.
My understanding is that NO MPM has passed these type certification. Yes, one of the on-board protocols has been tested but only at 1/10 the possible power rating. If true this means that no RF output is allowed (certified) in the USA at any operational power level.
Some say so what! Well, the sale of the MPM puts those that have followed the rules and gotten the proper FCC type certifications for their 2.4 gHz transmitters at a disadvantage. As the competition Radiomaster Jumper and TBS have not had to incur the expense of proper and legal certification.
Konrad.
Again your research has not found the following below.
I would not use the MPM module myself, I think it is low quality etc, however.
I can tell you with a good level of certainty that the Jumper 4-in-1 module DOES have FCC approval:
FCC ID: 2ANTI-JP4IN1
https://fccid.io/2ANTI-JP4IN1
That is the document I found. And as I read it is does not meet the statutory requirement of protecting the airways for the whole module operating range. (Not even one protocol. As the testing for the one protocol, was done at 1/10 the power that would be used in the real world). This certification was done using the same model of deception that Boeing used to get the certification for the 737 Max.
Certification is done to prove that the public interest is protected. In the case of the FCC, that the radiated energy does not produce interference outside the approved RF band. To do that with the MPM, all RF chips, need to be tested at the full power rating allowed by the protocol. By 'MY' read this was not done in that FCC application!
I'm not saying the the MPM doesn't meet the operational requirements. I'm just saying that by that document the MPM has not been tested to prove that the MPM meets the FCC requirements for type certification. I'm sure that if someone wanted to they could get, through the Freedom of Information Act, get the full un-redacted documents and build a case against the current FCC type certification of the MPM.
I also see that folks often don't understand what these terms mean; reverse engineering, patent protection, copyright protection and theft. Having been involved in reverse engineered many a turbine part and received FAA PMA authority, I know a bit about the topic. As I didn't have the rights to the information on the print. So I had the reverse engineer the part (Form, Fit and Function).Fit and Function was easy. But that 'form' part meant, I had to deriving the materials used, manufacturing processes and testing procedures. That meant that I spent a lot of time on a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope). Then hopefully I could interpret what I found to derive all the manufacturing processes used to define the form.
I would have loved to have used a print (stolen) to gather the information needed to manufacture the parts. But that would have been illegal and unethical. As it is, some would think reverse engineering is unethical as the original OEM would loose out on the sale of the parts I made. There maybe some truth to that. But the threat that I would reverse engineer the part drove the OEM to lower the price of the parts so as to make my efforts uneconomical. These reverse engineering efforts kept the OEM from price gouging.
Quality is another issue. All this squarely goes to my concern about the second tier branding of Vantec. I as a customer can't trust the products. Particularly if the OEM (FrSky) doesn't trust the product enough to risk the corporation's reputation on the products that they themselves manufactured. Specifically those that require certification.
All the best,
Konrad
