Lbt or fcc is the wrong choice!

[azg86519]

Often, lbt is put against fcc for firmware compliance with American or European standards, oversimplifying that european rules requires lbt. Which is however inaccurate. The European counterpart of FCC is ETSI which stands for European Telecommunications Standards Institute. And the European standard does not require lbt. It is a possibility to adhere to the European standard. Fhss can be allowed with certain restrictions. The radiolink protocols for example adhere to these restrictions while using non adaptive fhss. Unfortunately, this makes Europeans think they are restricted to the lbt firmwares only. I would like to see a category ETSI. Analysing the program should be able to give an answer if the protocol complies with the european ETSI standard etsi en 300 328 v2.2.1. The description of the standard is downloadable for free at the etsi website. Also, when a manufacturer has only one type of transmitter with 1 type of firmware and they have a certificate for the transmitter for the etsi standard, this protocol is then de facto compliing with the standard. This is the case with all radiolink protocols available for the multimodule. It is also the case for at least some of the flysky protocols. And probably for a whole lot of other brands/transmitters/protocols too.