Lscott

Most radios are like that. Nothing new.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the permissions when it installs? I have it loaded an an 8 core AMD Ryzen laptop running Windows 10 home edition just fine.

GMRS is aimed for the non technical user. The idea is to just pickup the radio, pick a channel and press the button to talk. That's why the limited selection of channels and limited features available verses Ham radio that uses a "band" where one selects a frequency to use, different operating modes etc. The GMRS service is structured to facilitate communications between family members and to conduct family business. The idea wasn't for making random contacts or experimenting with equipment, however some do this. Yes you'll find a significant number of Hams using GMRS too. Not necessarily a bad thing. One just has to keep in mind the differences between the services. What would be an acceptable topic on the Ham band maybe of little to no interest to a GMRS user.

Just wear your CERT, RACES and ARES hats. If that doesn't work tell the LEO you won't be making that annual donation to the policeman's association, yeah the one that calls you up several times a year on the phone.

They take your radio. Problem solved.

Oops, didn't proof read before hitting the send key.

That I can believe could be a charge. It's not an area FCC had jurisdiction over, since their area is spectrum management and licensing.

Best advise I've heard is ensure the radio(s) are turned OFF when you're stopped. Some Hams have had their legitimate radios confiscated by stupid LEO's that don't know the law, particularly about exemptions for Ham radio license holders. If they can hear public safety traffic audio they could convince a judge they had "reasonable suspicion" a crime was afoot etc. Other than providing the required documents specified by the state's MVD you don't have to answer any of the LEO's questions. They are not trained communication professionals. While they still may take the radio(s) at least in court you can make the claim they had no expertise to make any determination as to the nature of the "device" they saw. Might even have recourse to recover damages.

Yeah, its right up there with the age old WTFM.

Having a license one should have a basic understanding of the rules. Where some ambiguous areas are found these forums are a resource to use to get some clarification. What is a bit distressing is when people ask questions before actually reading the rules FIRST. That would eliminate a lot of the more obvious questions.

I wonder if that law has been challenged in court? As I mentioned before you can program a radio for frequencies you're not authorized so long as you don't transmit on them. Back when over the air pay TV was the "thing" a lot of people built decoders to interface to their TV's in my area. I had one, built on a solder less breadboard. One of the services simply transmitted their signal on a microwave band and used a down converter connected to the TV, no scrambling or encryption. People were building simple two transistor converters in coffee cans or put up a simple BBQ grill type antenna on the roof with the simple down converter on the back. Radio Shack was selling the strip-line transistors. You could get the PCB layout and circuit off the fairly new Internet at the time. The company had teams driving around looking for those antennas and taking people to court. I don't believe they were very successful claiming theft of service since they did nothing to protect the signal from interception and use. I think the major legal option was if it's transmitted over the air there is NO expectation of privacy. The two companies using different methods soon went out of business. It was way to easy to get the programming for free.

The key point was “transmit”. You can have a radio programmed for other services which it’s not certified for by the FCC. Just as long as you don’t use the PTT button you should be fine. I believe some countries just having the wrong frequencies programmed in your not licensed to use, just RX only, is a violation of their radio regulations. Some foreign Hams visiting are shocked to discover here in the US it isn’t against the law. I think we’re lucky here, it could be changed by Congress at anytime. ? Ham radios are only certified for Part 15. The FCC’s concern is the ability to intercept cell phone transmissions. They also check for transmitter spurious emissions. There are limits the radios can’t exceed. That’s one of the major complaints about the low end CCR, cheap Chinese radios, like the much hyped UV-5R. The attached file shows a test somebody did on a sample. Also the schematic, source claims it for the above radio but I can’t confirm it, shows just some basic filtering on both the RX and TX paths. Both files are what I have in my technical library folder for this radio. I haven’t taken the time to see if there is anything more recent available. UV-5R VHF Harmonics Test.pdf SCHEMATIC Baofeng UV-5R.pdf

You need to reread the section of my post mentioning radio modification. I don’t recall saying anything about transmitting out of band much less what specific service. Personally I have a fleet of radios FCC certified for Parts 90, and 95. They are also legal to use under Part 97. As long as I hold a valid license for the particular service I don’t have a reason to worry about the FCC. I keep electronic files for every radio I own. That includes manufacturers brochures, operating manuals, service manuals, FCC certification grants etc. that I can locate. I know what I can and can’t do with a radio. You would be surprised by what shows up. Some of my commercial analog/digital radios have Part 95 certification. Until the FCC authorizes digital voice modes I just can’t use that feature. The radio is still legal to use on FM.

Check this link. Of course no guarantees the info is still correct but at least it a starting point. https://www.qsl.net/wd9ewk/xe-frs.html

It would be more professional if you simply stated Part 97. Then at least people have an idea where to go and look for the specifics. When I read comments like the above I have to question the posters agenda. I usually encounter this from people who have a dislike for Hams. There is nothing illegal about using radios that have their TX and Rx ranges opened up so long as the operator stays within the limits of their FFC license. Hams have gotten spoiled by modern radios with synthesized frequency generation and depend on the radios firmware to stay within the band limits. For decades that was never the case. Hams aways are required to know the band limits regardless of what technology is used. For example running 5KHz deviation, 25KHz bandwidth, FM on 449.995MHz results in part of the signal falling outside of the Ham 70cm band even if the unmodulated carrier doesn’t.

Nothing wrong with honest debate. ?

You have a point. Besides the strictly FCC violations I can see where possibly some local laws could apply. In the end it likely will be case specific so I wouldn’t go so far as making generalizations.

I’m not aware of any agency other that the FCC with the authority to enforce spectrum allocations or rule violations. IMHO if a local law enforcement agency attempted to take a violator to court it would likely get dismissed if it even got that far. I don’t see a local DA being that dumb, but surprises do happen. There is an awful lot of stupid going around the last few years.

So the point here is how would you present this to the FCC as a proposed rule change(s)? The FCC will likely take the path of the least resistance. That means if more of the work can be done by us ahead of time, anticipate possible objections etc. then have reasonable solid answers the more likely it will get serious consideration. In other words we have to do their job for them. Don’t forget there will be others out there who likely DON’T want to see any changes. There is always that crowd and that has to be taken into consideration too. Then you have the manufacturers that will likely chime in if they feel a competitor may gain an advantage depending on what selection is made, if any. Who knows the FCC could be persuaded to allow multiple digital voice modes. Based on how this is turning out I’m of the current opinion it was a mistake to even bring up the idea. The debate isn’t over personal preferences. There is nothing to be gained or to facilitate the goal here by trying to prove who knows more except to derail the idea. If others want to continue, fine. But I’m done with.

Yes I have a basic understanding of the concepts. I have some material on it in my personal library. The first photo is a section out of one of my books on digital satellite communications. It’s also allowed in amateur radio by the way. That’s the second photo.

My point, and goal, with this thread are possible rules that would allow digital voice to be used within the current confines of the spectrum currently allocated to GMRS operation. The chances of the FCC adding spectrum is nearly zero. The prior attached file shows the FCC has allowed splitting existing commercial channels into narrower allocations. The same could be done with GMRS all without adding additional spectrum. On the other hand there would be a gain of some extra simplex channels. The practicality of close by stations operating on adjacent 6.25KHz channels is another point. Of course if the stations are geographically separated it likely won’t be an issue. While DMR has some good points it does require coordination between radios utilizing the same frequency to take advantage of DCDM. The occupied bandwidth is still 12.5KHz regardless if one or two slots are used. The 6.25KHz is only an “equivalent” due to the dual slot nature of the transmissions. Trying to squeeze a DMR signal in between let’s say the main repeater channels is exactly the same as the current low power, and basically useless, FM 12.5KHz ones. I was thinking that a true very narrow band digital signal might be used there while resulting in even less interference and and maybe at a higher power for simplex operation. At the moment both NXDN and dPMR are both established digital protocols. There is no necessity to try and standardize a FHSS CAI. This is a necessity if there are going to be multiple manufacturers of these FHSS types of radios. And of course they will have to communicate among themselves too. Utilizing one of the above, NXDN dPMR, is a known standard with lots of field experience and one less item for the FCC to use as an excuse to claim it isn’t proven or accepted by the market place or can’t coexist with current FM technology. Now about DMR, I like it. Yes it can be used however I don’t see how without dedicating specific channels to it. That of course would tick off the FM only users. So the big question is where do you put it or just make it the Wild West and let the users fight it out. The other advantages are the reduced average power, great for hand held radios, and the single frequency repeater operations. Given the number of times you see people asking about setting up their own repeater this would make it almost brain dead simple to do, and no special equipment like tuned cavity filters to deal with.

Using 4FSK I think would be easier than a FHSS. A standard would have to be established so all radios could communicate with radios from other manufacturers. Then you need companies like Motorola to open up their proprietary design they use on their FHSS radios. I’m not confident they would entertain that idea. With 4FSK at least two standards already exist, NXDN (primarily USA) and dPMR (primary European Union). Both are “true” 6.25KHz technologies. Either one would be suitable to use. More than one company manufacturers radios for each of the above already. Also the FCC has moved into splitting 12.5KHz channels into two 6.25KHz. I would vote for NXDN since it widely used in the US already in various sectors. Used commercial radios are not terribly expensive either. In fact, for example, the NX-300’s in the 450-520 band split have FCC Part 95 certification already. They can do wide and narrow band FM along with narrow band digital (12.5 KHz) and very narrow band digital (6.25 KHz). NXDN White Paper.pdf DA-12-10A1.pdf

I hear similar comments from people about cell phones over two-way radios. The point lost on most people are VHF/UHF radios can be used for local communications without any dependency on infrastructure. If the cell sites go down you can communicate only as far as you can yell down the street.

Talking about expensive for the XPR7550e’s….. https://www.ebay.com/itm/354082232848?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=TlfnglliRoC&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=j_t98fioS_6&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

That’s not a bad idea. I was thinking along the line of using the nearly useless narrow band channels 8 to 15. Currently at 0.5 watts many GMRS radios don’t even include them. If the digital mode was restricted to those channels at 2 to 5 watts and 6.25KHz bandwidth the interference to the adjacent wide band repeater channels would be minimal.