All Activity

I'm currently running a TYT TH-8600, Comet 2x4SR antenna and a Midland SPK100 20 watt speaker. Before switching to the TYT TH-8600 I was running a Wouxun KG-XS20G. I have a modified expanded metal hitch rack mounted on the back of my Honda Pioneer which provides a good ground plane for the 2x4SR. The reason for the Wouxun KG-XS20G and TYT TH-8600 is that they are IP rated for dust and water. The Midland SPK-100 allows me to hear the radio over the engine and road noise even when cruising at 35 MPH down gravel roads.

Yes, part A applies to all of the other subparts. Part A says that radios must be certified specifically in accordance with the requirements of the subparts but that there may be exceptions to that requirement. Part A goes on to say that the exceptions must be listed in the subparts and gives two linked examples. But if you click on the link to the example of the exception listed for GMRS, that exception no longer exists. Thus, there is no longer an exception that allows transmitters certified for other services, such as 90, to be used for part 95E.

I don't understand what the confusion is. 95.335(a) clearly says that an exception must be listed in the applicable subpart and Subpart E for GMRS does not have any exceptions listed. How is this a debate?

We were in silty mud this past June.

The exceptions are is listed in the respective subparts. Also, subpart A applies to all subparts of Part 95. What exactly are you expecting on how that the respective certain exceptions are to be worded in order to be warm and fuzzy about the use of Part 90 LMR radios on GMRS freqs?

Got it... don't tow the trailer near an airforce base!

There’s a very good reason why references must made and that’s because of the risk of having conflicting information in different places. Incorporating by reference allows a regulator to state a requirement once. I do agree that requirements should be stated as simply as possible. Unfortunately, that’s still not as simple as many people would like.

One of the bad things about people writing manuals to operate things, they are the people who know how to operate them already. They forget about the simple little things that they take for granted that clueless new operators don't even know about. So to the guy who has made this and operates it on a daily basis and he goes to write it all down to explain it to someone who's never operated it and they miss little in between steps that they've just taken for granted that everyone knows how to do. I've seen it in lots of manuals where to get from one step to the next there's something missing. And that something missing is often really simple but you can't get from here to there without it. And because you've never operated this thing before you are clueless as to what this simple in between step is that the guy who is writing the manual takes for granted. This is what I mean by stupid people. You can't have the guy who is fully experienced on something write instructions about it because they take for granted that everyone knows what they know and eventually skip steps to do the process. Where as the "stupid" person is clueless and when they would right a manual they include everything to the point it's annoying to a person who knows how to do it. But manuals should be written to the lowest denomination in most cases.

Well said, and I agree; this discussion should be taken to a separate thread so the OP can get what he needs.

Steve, I am interested in doing this to a couple of Motorola M1225 LS radios and would like to find info on doing that and the software. I know this is an older post but just beginning to research these 1225 LS radios.

What communication are you all running for utvs. My current setup is just the simple HA1G. I'm wanting to set up my current setup. Let's see them

I once had a professor in a technical writing course ask the class "do you know why all your user manual and instruction manuals for the things you buy are by and large all terrible? It's because the person they get to work with the technical writers to put together the manuals is the guy the shop foreman or engineering manager can most stand to do without for a couple weeks. And do you know who THAT is? Literally their worst and / or dumbest employee." Which is a long way of saying "no, I don't think getting stupid people to write regulations would actually be an improvement" Should they be written in plain language instead of legalese and spell things out? Oh absolutely.

This is why you need stupid people to write the actual regulations. They'd spell it out instead of referring to this which refers to that which in turn refers to something else. Reminds me of reading the NEC regulations where you need to look at the whole book every single time because nothing is stated in a sentence that doesn't refer to some other part of the book.

This could be the subject of a whole other thread since this seems to be an area of some dispute. The disagreement is how and why attorneys exist and make their money, arguing over the law. I once read the following that was told to recently licensed attorneys. "If the evidence is against you, bang on the evidence." "If the law is against you, bang on the law." "If both are against you, bang on the table."

YES. Unfortunately the FCC allows a bunch of other crap to operate there as well. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR2f2e5828339709e/section-15.240 Some examples: https://hackaday.com/tag/433-mhz/

I don’t agree. Although the numbers of two examples of exceptions are listed, one from subpart C (RCRS) and from part E (GMRS), the actual exception belonging in the GMRS subpart no longer exists and thus cannot apply. 95.335(a) clearly says that an exception must be listed in the applicable subpart.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's probably worth the effort to test it and see.

I think this is what saves us here that use LMR radios on GMRS. Plus also why the FCC hasn't made a fuss over people using such radios on GMRS. I would say the majority of repeaters used on GMRS are repurposed Part 90 equipment. FCC isn't making a fuss over those either. This is likely, my guess, why the FCC hasn't specifically authorized Part 90 radios on GMRS, it is basically implied in Part 95.335(a). Before the 2017 rule changes it was legal, and possible, for a business to get a GMRS license and operate. So, it made sense for manufactures at the time to get certification for both Parts 90 and 95. It was a sizable market. Now, post 2017 rule changes, only grandfathered business, no new applications, can operate on GMRS. The manufactures just don't bother anymore getting dual certification, just Part 90, since that's where the business market is at. I have some radios that in fact are dual certified for Parts 90 and 95. However I have a bunch that are Part 90 only. This is reassuring it's they're very likely legal to use. Given the above I wouldn't hesitate recommending a Part 90 radio in place of the specifically manufactured GMRS radios to new GMRS users. While most LMR, Part 90, radios can't be front panel programmed like the specifically manufactured GMRS radios, some can. This is one such example. https://forums.mygmrs.com/gallery/image/290-nx-1300duk5/?context=new NX-1300 FPP.pdf

A quick google shows a handful of instances of interference if you're sitting right on 433 (either the TPMS light on the dash coming on when you transmit, or occasional noise when receiving. At least 1 seems to have fixed it by moving the antenna. https://kq4afy.xyz/blog/2022/12/tpms-uhf-interference/ https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/1l732o2/today_i_learned/

Thanks for the quick responses.

Yes, they’re allowed. We share portions of the 70 cm amateur allocation with other users, including TPMS.

Short answer: yes. I don't know what brand you're looking at, but the OEM giant in this space is Continental and: https://fccid.io/KR5TIS-09DL

I was looking for TPMS sensors for my trailer. I found the following on Amazon with good reviews: RV TPMS Sensors Something in the product description caught my attention; the sensors transmit at 433.92MHz, which is in the 70cm amateur band. That raises a couple of questions. First, does the FCC allow for these low-powered short-range devices to operate in the 70cm band? I assume that given the fact they last 6 months of run-time on a set of CR2032 batteries, and obviously couldn't have much of an antenna, that they are very short range and unlikely to cause interference at more than 150 feet. Does the FCC allow them to operate in an Amateur band? Second, will they cause interference to me; if I'm monitoring repeaters within the 70cm band, typically a little higher up in the band, would these interfere? I suppose to answer that question one would have to test. The ARRL band plan shows: 433.00-435.00 Auxiliary/repeater links ...so if these are well behaved they would not interfere with reception of a repeater itself, since they are usually in the 442-445 and 447-450 range. And the only way to be sure these are well behaved is to test with a spectrum analyzer or SDR. As an example, though, I've found that one of the USBC-to-HDMI dongles I use at my home office causes interference in the 440MHz range when I'm within about 30 feet of it -- enough interference with enough tertiary spikes that some of the 70cm band is unmonitorable to me when I'm too close to this adapter.

Thanks.

It does not say that it is permitted. It says if there were exceptions, they would be listed, and they aren't. Insults from people like you are meaningless to me.