NWHov

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?

hhmm, suspicious. Maybe a conversation for X?

If so, deregulation of FCC GMRS radio certifications sound like a great place to start.

So, regulatory oversight, compliance, and control mechanisms? Socialism?

I may be unqualified to speak for the GMRS community, but one thought comes to mind is to deregulate the GMRS radio certification. Cars don't break speed limits, it's the operator of the car breaking the speed limit. Why can't I use my UV-5RM (HAM radio) if I'm within GMRS guidelines? My understanding is the only thing making me a rule breaker, (if I use it), is that it is not FCC GMRS certified. Is this a good start or just scratching at the surface?

You may be right but "Bad policies force compliance, destroying freedom.” Ayn Rand (Philosopher)

I don't get into tech much but I have to say, AI is very impressive. One could probably attach Title 47 to AI and ask it to sum it up in 5-10 pages and get more from that reading than the current. That might take a paid version of AI and not the free one I use. After working for a state gov't for over 30 years, I believe things are written gray on purpose to be able to interpret as they see fit. It may seem and look "simply stated" if you look at just that sentence, one dimensional, but when you read on, other statements counter that "simply stated" sentence creating confusion, debate, fights, protests, and anarchy. Ultimately people then conclude there own interpretation. It may not be they are looking to cheat, but choosing an interpretation that works for them.

If it was efficient (clear and understanding), I think these debates and this forum would not exist. Maybe the FCC should decode all the rules on to 5-10 pages. Just tell us like it is vs letting everyone interpret 1 rule, 10 different ways. I wasn't going to bring it up on this thread, but I had Grok interpret some rule 95 for me and he had a whole different conversation from what we had here. He turned our one dimensional conversation into multiple dimensions. I'm still trying to understand one dimension so I had to dismiss his interpretations.

Ahhh yeah, the I Understand All The Rules checkbox above the esignature with the link to Title 47 next to it. I almost forgot I read all that...anyways, how bout them Dodgers?

I believe in order to be a "rule breaker" you first need to know the rules, otherwise you're just ignorant. I like all your input and discussions on the matter so I can make informed decisions if I want to "break the rules" or remain ignorant. I see some value to breaking rules because some FCC rules are limiting and may impede ones ability to reach a contact. But I guess if you don't understand what your transmissions are doing or capable of doing (interfering with emergency radios, etc...) someone should school you. Another thought is how could FCC enforce any GMRS when you only have to pay $35 for a "license" without a general knowledge test. A drivers license requires a general knowledge test. Could ignorance possibly be a defense from any FCC enforcement actions since no one required you to know to even get the license in first place? I'm pretty sure in the eyes of the law, ignorance is not a defense but could this why enforcement is so low?

What I gather from some posters of this forum is they believe there is less than a 1% chance of any GMRS operator to be charged with an FCC violation. If so, who would be the ones to find those violators? Does FCC monitor GMRS? Do disgruntle HAM operators report GMRS violators to FCC? Are there any other monitoring programs beside the VM? Just asking for a friend.

Well this may be another thread to start but I am curious about the FCC Volunteer Monitor (VM) Program being a formal partnership between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the American Radio Relay League (ARRL). hhhmmm HAM enforcers only? I wonder.

I'm good. These conversations are giving me some info/questions I didn't even know I might need (even though I have no idea what it's about). Continue on. BTW...I already got what I needed here!

So I'm in a hilly area. Will a higher watt radio help my transmissions or is the hill going to do what hill do and block it no matter what kind of power I have? I'm referring to only the UHF GMRS frequencies.

Copy that! What sparked my confusion was in section (b) & (c) when talking about the interstitial frequencies it specifically mention "hand-held portable" radios but in section (a) when talking about the main frequencies it didn't say "hand-held portable".

I'm trying to understand the maximum power output for an FCC certified GMRS hand held. This section is pretty clear except for (a) (1) "The transmitter output power of mobile, repeater and base stations must not exceed 50 Watts." It doesn't mention the hand held maximum on the 462/467 MHz main channels. While looking at FCC GMRS certified hand held radios on Amazon, they all seem to have a maximum power output of 5 watts. Anything over 5 watts were advertised as HAM. I am assuming an FCC GMRS certified hand held must not exceed 5 watts on ANY GMRS frequency? Is this correct or is it that no one make a GMRS radio with anything higher than 5 watts? § 95.1767 GMRS transmitting power limits. This section contains transmitting power limits for GMRS stations. The maximum transmitting power depends on which channels are being used and the type of station. (a) 462/467 MHz main channels. The limits in this paragraph apply to stations transmitting on any of the 462 MHz main channels or any of the 467 MHz main channels. Each GMRS transmitter type must be capable of operating within the allowable power range. GMRS licensees are responsible for ensuring that their GMRS stations operate in compliance with these limits. (1) The transmitter output power of mobile, repeater and base stations must not exceed 50 Watts. (2) The transmitter output power of fixed stations must not exceed 15 Watts. (b) 462 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of mobile, hand-held portable and base stations transmitting on the 462 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 5 Watts. (c) 467 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of hand-held portable units transmitting on the 467 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 0.5 Watt. Each GMRS transmitter type capable of transmitting on these channels must be designed such that the ERP does not exceed 0.5 Watt.

It's exciting. Almost like getting to the prize in a box of Cracker Jacks. I can't wait to find out what it is.

The older GM-30.

I am thinking to go lugit and get the GM-30 plus. Some of the recent reviews dog it because it is not supported by CHIRP. I opened your link and can not figure it out. Is there a CHIRP update that supports the the GM-30 or did someone just figure out a different profile that works?

Here is the Amazon link. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0D7PYT1XS/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_3?smid=A3ND7E64AZOQU8&psc=1 It does call it a HAM radio in the title, but farther down in the description it says "Connectivity Protocol - GMRS". If interested, I attached the .img file to upload to CHIRP to see what the frequencies plan looked like when I first opened it up out of the box. Frequencies originally programmed on Baofeng radio.img

Ok. No specific interest. I actually have a set of Midland LXT-600 (FRS) radios. They are pretty useless. Used them once when moving as a travel channel between me driving the truck and wife following in car. I could still see my wife in mirrors behind me and the static was so scratchy she became unreadable until she was the vehicle right behind me. That's why I became more interested in GMRS.

You are correct about my misunderstand of the regulations. So if I have an FRS radio (station type) it must meet § 95.587 FRS (FCC subpart B ) requirements? But if I have a GMRS radio (station type) I can use those (FRS/ 467 MHz frequencies) under GMRS (FCC subpart A) requirements which allow for that radio with removable antenna?