NWHov
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by NWHov
-
-
4 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:
A person should never request more regulation.
Right, that's why experienced input and research is important so there are no unintentional consequences.
-
41 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:
For everyone whom you authorize to use your GMRS radio? Remember, your GMRS radio may be used by every one of your direct relatives and some in-laws.
If what you really want is to be able to use the same radio for GMRS and ham radio, get rid of the rules that prohibit certifying a radio for GMRS if it can be used on the ham bands.
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.
-
12 hours ago, SteveShannon said:
You either certify the equipment or the users.
The reason why nearly every service requires certified transmitters is so typical users don’t have to have expertise in all of the requirements. It’s a service for users, not people who have to prove some level of expertise.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?
-
46 minutes ago, WRYS709 said:
Yet, Ayn Rand utilized Medicare towards the end of her life...
hhmm, suspicious. Maybe a conversation for X?
-
1 hour ago, NWHov said:
I think the main reason is they want to enforce the distribution and sale aspect rather than cop on the beat individual use enforcement becuse they don't have the manpower (or the desire) to do the latter well.
So, regulatory oversight, compliance, and control mechanisms? Socialism?If so, deregulation of FCC GMRS radio certifications sound like a great place to start.
-
7 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:
I think the main reason is they want to enforce the distribution and sale aspect rather than cop on the beat individual use enforcement becuse they don't have the manpower (or the desire) to do the latter well.
So, regulatory oversight, compliance, and control mechanisms? Socialism? -
1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:
Here’s your chance. The FCC is asking for people to make suggestions for how to improve the regulations:
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?
-
1 hour ago, UncleYoda said:
I think you haven't been here long enough yet.
You may be right but "Bad policies force compliance, destroying freedom.” Ayn Rand (Philosopher)
-
7 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:
I don't know who Grok is (AI I suppose - hate that stuff). But the problem would be what we see here all the time - people cannot comprehend the meaning of even simply stated rules, and/or they only want to look for ways to cheat. And, preconceived notions of what one thinks the regs say often can't be overcome just by reading the wording.
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.
-
39 minutes ago, LeoG said:
I actually read it so I didn't perjure myself. By the time I was done doing the license I had 8 tabs open. Nice efficient govt website eh?
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.
-
On 8/1/2025 at 9:44 AM, SteveShannon said:
No. Not to parrot someone who has thankfully moved along but when you submitted your application to the FCC you “signed” saying that you understood and agreed to obey the rules. Lying there is also punishable, perhaps even more easily than noncompliance with the rules.
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?
- SteveShannon and marcspaz
-
2
-
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?
-
6 hours ago, SteveShannon said:
The MOU between the FCC and ARRL only support monitoring of amateur radio operators.
https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Volunteer Monitor/2019 ARRL MOU - final 3-12.pdfWhat 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.
-
8 hours ago, WSED611 said:
You can program any radio you want to frequencies to your liking, but again transmitting on frequencies your not licensed is against the law / FCC regulations. I am not promoting to transmitting with more Power but I have yet to see the FCC knock on your door because you were transmitting instead of 0.5 watts you hit 2 watts. FCC has better things to do. The FCC will come knocking if there are multiple complaints of you interfering with neighbors ( alarm system, TV, and possible other electronics).
Just my 2 cents..
Have fun.
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.
-
On 7/30/2025 at 8:51 AM, SteveShannon said:
Well said, and I agree; this discussion should be taken to a separate thread so the OP can get what he needs.
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!
-
17 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:
As @SteveShannon, certified & anointed H.E.R.D. mentioned, there is no limit specific to handhelds. And if you look hard you will find several 8W units, and if you really apply yourself, you might even find a 10W or two..
But it is important to understand that in most cases, on-average, usually, most of the time and in most situations, most people will not notice any difference between 4 or 5 watts and 8 or 10 watts other than noticing the battery draining much faster.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, marcspaz said:
Under FCC Definition, handheld radios are mobile radios.
Straight from § 95.303 Definitions.
Hand-held portable unit. A physically small mobile station that can be operated while being held in the operator's hand.
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.
-
1 hour ago, amaff said:
It also has a Special Feature, so you've got that going for you!
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.
- SteveShannon, amaff and WRTC928
-
3
-
1 hour ago, WRYS709 said:
Do you have the older GM 30 or the newer GM-30Plus?
The older GM-30.
-
2 hours ago, WRYS709 said:
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?
-
1 hour ago, UncleYoda said:
Do you have an Amazon page link for the model and vendor you have? (I don't use eBay anymore.)
On the power issue, that's questionable; low power is likely more than 0.5W, but it also varies by frequency. I think 220 was the lowest. (There's a post on here somewhere that gives their test results.)
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.
-
2 minutes ago, WRYS709 said:
If you’re specifically interested in Channels 8-14; only certified HTs can transmit on these channels. Not mobiles, for example.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:
You’re misunderstanding the regulations. All of the FRS frequencies are also GMRS frequencies and may be used by GMRS radios as long as the regulations regarding power, bandwidth, and station type are obeyed.
There’s nothing wrong with following the rules.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?
"Illegal" radios
in FCC Rules Discussion
Posted
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.