There is a tendency to believe what you read if someone states something in an authoritative way. To distinguish among the various key fobs, one has to know the printed circuit board number. This FCC ID appears on numerous aftermarket alarm system remotes. They are not interchangeable! If you try to use remote 22733523 on a vehicle that originally used remote 15252034, it will not work!Īnother example, from the aftermarket alarm system world, is FCC ID H5LAL777A. To make the situation more complicated, they were both used on some of the same model applications, such as the 2006 Buick Lacrosse. Not only do these two 4-button key fobs have the same FCC ID, they are visually identical (except for the GM part number). Take two of the most widely used of these parts: GM remotes 1525203523. These 13 parts break down into 4 separate “families” of remotes that are not cross-compatible. There are more than 13 GM part numbers for these 13 remotes, but from a functionality standpoint, there are 13 unique key fobs. Remotes Unlimited sells 13 unique remote SKUs of GM parts with this FCC ID number.
Perhaps the best example is GM remotes with FCC ID KOBGT04A. There are numerous examples of remote transmitters with the same FCC ID that will not work in place of each other. An FCC ID is not specific to the information being transmitted. The FCC ID of a part relates only to aspects of a remote transmitter related to radio transmission characteristics that are important to the FCC for purposes of regulating and licensing. That guide says that as long as you match the FCC ID on your original remote with the one you are buying, you will get a remote that works for your vehicle. It is declared to comply with FCC regulations by the manufacturer or importer.' What this means is on your FCC form 740, the FCC ID field should be left blank, and the second box in Part II should be checked off. A certain ebay seller has a product information “guide” showing as part of the listing for a remote key fob. I saw something on an ebay product listing that was so wrong I just have to write an entry here to refute it.