"Illegal" radios

[NWHov]

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.

[UncleYoda]

Probably the same as one of the several known features on other 5RMs.  Just because the radio can do something, like scrambling and frequency hopping, doesn't make it legal to use.  Stick to the basics - we don't need a lot of these new features being added to radios.

[nokones]

1 hour ago, UncleYoda said:

There aren't any exceptions specified in GMRS Subpart E for LMR/Part 90.  The things you list do not authorize other services; they are just limitations on GMRS.  The examples given are references for 2 selected services, not all services in Part 95, that's why it's e.g.  There's nothing I can do to make anyone understand what the wording means - you either get it right or you don't.

Obviously, it appears that you are not a SME on these types of matters or can demonstrated any professional expertise in the analysis and writing of legislative bills, statutes, policies, rules, regulations, ordinances, guidelines, and enforcing such rules, etc.  in a government bureaucratic or legal form.

My question still is, after the rule says it is permitted, where does it say that the operation of Part 90 radios are restricted or prohibited?

[WRYS709]

4 hours ago, NWHov said:

The older GM-30.

Watch this:

 

[UncleYoda]

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.

[Lscott]

14 hours ago, nokones said:

Pursuant to Part 95.335(a) - "non-certified Personal Radio Service transmitters, or transmitters certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated". This means a Part 90 certified radio programmed with Part 90 and Part 95 freqs may be operated/used as long as the radio operates within the power, bandwidth, freq accuracy, and emissions specs of the Part 95 rules for the freq being transmitted by the Part 90 radio.

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

[SteveShannon]

11 minutes ago, Lscott said:

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). 

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. 

[Lscott]

4 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

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. 

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."

[LeoG]

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.

[amaff]

1 minute ago, LeoG said:

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. 

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. 

[SteveShannon]

31 minutes ago, Lscott said:

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."

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

[LeoG]

20 minutes ago, amaff said:

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. 

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.

[SteveShannon]

30 minutes ago, LeoG said:

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.

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. 

[nokones]

1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:

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. 

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?

[marcspaz]

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?

[SteveShannon]

12 minutes ago, nokones said:

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?

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.

[Lscott]

51 minutes ago, amaff said:

Should they be written in plain language instead of legalese and spell things out? Oh absolutely. 

You think that's bad? Try reading technical patents!  What would take a few simple sentences in engineering speak to describe takes a couple of paragraphs once all the legal mambo-jumbo is added. 

[marcspaz]

22 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

Thus, there is no longer an exception that allows transmitters certified for other services, such as 90, to be used for part 95E.

 

Correct.  It went away in 2017 with the other rule changes.  Just to caveat this, though...

 

§ 95.1761(c) states that a transmitter that is certified in another service, but also complies with all other GMRS requirements except for frequency access, can be certified for use in GMRS, also.  So, while I am unaware of any LMR radios that are currently certified under Part 90 LMR and Part 95 GMRS, there is nothing preventing manufacturers from producing an LMR / GMRS combination radio that adheres to the rules that can be certified.  

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, marcspaz said:

 

Correct.  It went away in 2017 with the other rule changes.  Just to caveat this, though...

 

§ 95.1761(c) states that a transmitter that is certified in another service, but also complies with all other GMRS requirements except for frequency access can be certified for use in GMRS, also.  So, while I am unaware of any LMR radios that are currently certified under Part 90 LMR and Part 95 GMRS, there is nothing preventing manufacturers from producing an LMR / GMRS combination radio that adheres to the rules that can be certified.  

Correct, which i mentioned on the second page here:

20 hours ago, SteveShannon said:

I think it’s really saying that a radio may be made that’s certified for multiple services as long as it’s properly certified for each of those services and not capable of transmitting on non-certified services such as ham. So a radio could be certified for parts 90 and 95e and used for both by a properly licensed person. 

 

[nokones]

10 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

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.

You are absolutely correct. Although, Part 95.335(a) gives an exemption for Part 90 LMR radios to be operated in Part 95 radios services and there no rule or regulation saying differently in writing.

There are no expectations that any rule, regulation, or statute to have any e.g. and e.g.s are not binding or make it regulatory  to the rule where examples are giving.

As I previously stated, certain exceptions are given in each subpart regarding how a Part 90 LMR may be operated on the respective freqs.

Also, listing the two e.g. references was a mistake and should never have been written in 95.335(a).

[marcspaz]

@SteveShannon you don't think I read the whole thread, do you? LOL

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, marcspaz said:

@SteveShannon you don't think I read the whole thread, do you? LOL

Ha!  I just wanted my pedantry to be recognized.

[LeoG]

Recognized.

[Blaise]

1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:

Ha!  I just wanted my pedantry to be recognized.

"As I mentioned in my previous missive on the matter..."

[Lscott]

Gee, I wonder just how much deeper this rabbit hole is going to get?