NWHov

Right! I just don't like basing my understanding of the rules from a consensus of experienced users saying the rule is not longer on their license. If I was to go this alone (without this forum) how would I come to understand all this? marcspaz did a great job explaining in above post. If § 95.309 wasn't there, I would be satisfied with concluding Line A is not a GMRS thing anymore, but it's there and a GMRS user should not have to research treaties and international agreements to get yet another indirect answer to a poorly written rule.

§ 95.309 Coordination procedures and other restrictions for operation in certain locations. The operator of a Personal Radio Service station may be required to coordinate operation in advance and/or may be subject to operating restrictions if the station is to be operated in certain locations, described in the following paragraphs in this section. (b) Near a U.S. border or in an area that is or may be subject to an international treaty or agreement. Treaties and agreements may be viewed or downloaded from the FCC Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/. What's "straight forward" about this?

And that source needs decoding!

What sources do you use that you consider "factual?" Wikipedia? I'm new to GMRS and trying to learn it. What "factual" sources do you recommend I use to research these topics?

Agree. I hope you didn't take offense or think I was trying to call you out with using AI to research further. I'm in the zone and feel I better understand it all. Not just trivia for me.

Who's treating IA as factual? I even pointed out an AI flaw. It cited me old codes. I used it as another opinion/source. Would it be right to only use what I heard on a forum? Now that would be concerning.

That was the point I was trying to make is that after reviewing those old codes that AI cited about Line A, the new codes said nothing of Line A except for § 95.309 (see below) which changed its text. AI also claims the GCA agreement doesn't supersede the Above 30MHz agreement therefore both agreement are still in act. But if that's correct, that would mean that the FCC took out all the text from part 95 regarding Line A and hid it in those agreements I can't find nor should have to find. 95.309 (b) is the only code I see that pertains but does a GMRS user need to read through agreements and treaties to figure it all out? § 95.309 Coordination procedures and other restrictions for operation in certain locations. The operator of a Personal Radio Service station may be required to coordinate operation in advance and/or may be subject to operating restrictions if the station is to be operated in certain locations, described in the following paragraphs in this section. (b) Near a U.S. border or in an area that is or may be subject to an international treaty or agreement. Treaties and agreements may be viewed or downloaded from the FCC Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/.

My first thought it's just an inefficient government system. They are too lazy to go back and notify older licensees of an update.

That's good info. Was it only channel 19 and 21? AI cited the below codes to me but when I looked them up, nothing about Line A. If it were still affect, I guess my local reliance NET peeps would not be such a reliable source since they use channel 17, 18, and 22 within Line A. The FCC Part 95 sections relevant to Line A restrictions for GMRS operations near the U.S.-Canada border are: 47 CFR § 95.309: Defines Line A as a line ~120 km (75 miles) south of the U.S.-Canada border and prohibits certain GMRS channels (462.550–462.725 MHz and 467.550–467.725 MHz) north of it. 47 CFR § 95.1767: Specifies GMRS power limits, including ≤5 watts ERP for handhelds and ≤50 watts for mobiles on allowed channels (e.g., 462.5625–462.7125 MHz) north of Line A. 47 CFR § 95.1705: Prohibits GMRS fixed-base stations north of Line A and outlines general operational rules. 47 CFR § 95.1763: Lists GMRS channel frequencies, clarifying which are restricted (channels 15–22) or permitted (channels 1–14) north of Line A. 47 CFR § 95.1733: Prohibits interference with Canadian systems, reinforcing Line A restrictions.

In the Waiver/Conditions it says: NONE, in all capital letters. Towards the bottom, I suppose to keep me confused, it has a box with this written in it... Conditions: Pursuant to §309(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §309(h), this license is subject to the following conditions: This license shall not vest in the licensee any right to operate the station nor any right in the use of the frequencies designated in the license beyond the term thereof nor in any other manner than authorized herein. Neither the license nor the right granted thereunder shall be assigned or otherwise transferred in violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. See 47 U.S.C. § 310(d). This license is subject in terms to the right of use or control conferred by §706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. See 47 U.S.C. §606. That does not look like NONE. Any lawyers out there?

In my short GMRS life time I chose to understand Line A rules that pertain to GMRS (in the absence of CLEAR FCC policy) to just stay off channel 19 and 21 and I'm good. A couple weeks ago, a local self reliance net I began to engage with, hosts peeps like me (that have no other radio friends) through some of the repeaters in my area for practice and to learn your radios capabilities. They ended the session with the reminder of Line A and to stay away from channel 19 and 21. The big mistake I made was I just read through some old threads here to learn more about it. Sorry for the click bait but now I'm confused. The latest replies on those threads seem to indicate the GMRS (UHF) frequencies are no longer a problem to use north of Line A? I scrolled through some of them gov't codes you all talk of and the only thing I seemed to find was the Line A definition and contract with Canada. I bypassed the contract link because that has to be way out my GMRS scope of practice and I saw nothing about Line A and frequencies.

That reminds me of the weird kid across the street when I was growing up used to brag to me about how he just got some new crystals for his radio.

Right, that's why experienced input and research is important so there are no unintentional consequences.

Ok, more good points. It's not just because of the radio for me. They are cheap enough to buy the right one. It's more of a quest, in what appears to be a rare opportunity, to give the gov't ideas on deregulation. I feel the need to be part of it. I don't know if you saw the above conversation I had with UncleYoda, but his thought for the radio cert is "to enforce the distribution and sale aspect" which if true, is a problem that should be addressed.

This is a good point, but are they not already certifying the user by making one read/understand government code? Maybe a better user certification process would be in order?