"Illegal" radios

[NWHov]

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)

[NWHov]

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?

[UncleYoda]

4 minutes ago, NWHov said:

deregulate the GMRS radio certification.  ...  Why can't I use my UV-5RM (HAM radio) if I'm within GMRS guidelines?

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.

[LeoG]

1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:

Not unless you intend to make something mandatory. 
 

The single largest problem with regulations is that people don’t know how to read them. Words have very specific legal implications, no more and no less. Lawyers are trained in how to interpret those meanings. Most other people read something into them that doesn’t exist. 
I am a member of the NFPA Pyrotechnic Technical Committee. The amount of work and time it takes to add, subtract, or change a few lines of NFPA sample code is immense but the end goal is always that there be one and only one interpretation. 

Shall is a legal term without ambiguity.  Should has a lot of ambiguity.  You were reading the rules on my repeater and it said the repeater should be used with a 0dB gain antenna.  Which of course means you can use anything you want.  If it said you shall use it with a 0dB gain antenna there is no interpretation to that, it has 1 meaning.

Having so many regulations that can be interpreted so many different ways is close to meaningless.  And you can get into a lot of trouble when you think it says one thing and can explain why you think that and the FCC says they interpret it in a different way.

There should be no way to interpret it except in the way it was meant to be.

And it's nearly impossible because there are always groups of lawyers out there paid to find loopholes in regulations their clients want to get around.

[NWHov]

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?

[UncleYoda]

Some years ago, the liberals were pushing the mantra that "shall doesn't mean must".  I told one state agency head it was good enough for the 10 Commandments.

[UncleYoda]

1 minute ago, NWHov said:

control mechanisms?  Socialism?

SOP for fed gov and state/local too.

[LeoG]

Shall doesn't mean must.  It's more determinate than that.  Must has ambiguity.

[UncleYoda]

4 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Shall doesn't mean must.  It's more determinate than that.  Must has ambiguity.

Well, their argument was the exact opposite - that shall meant may/should and therefore wasn't mandatory.  We'll never get anywhere with simple wording when these kinds of wacky interpretations are applied.

[WRYS709]

1 hour ago, NWHov said:

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

Yet, Ayn Rand utilized Medicare towards the end of her life...

[NWHov]

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.  

[NWHov]

46 minutes ago, WRYS709 said:

Yet, Ayn Rand utilized Medicare towards the end of her life...

hhmm, suspicious.  Maybe a conversation for X?

[LeoG]

2 hours ago, UncleYoda said:

Well, their argument was the exact opposite - that shall meant may/should and therefore wasn't mandatory.  We'll never get anywhere with simple wording when these kinds of wacky interpretations are applied.

It's a legal term  Defined by legal means.

[UncleYoda]

14 minutes ago, LeoG said:

It's a legal term  Defined by legal means.

Maybe, to some people.  But that's the problem.  Law belongs to the people not to lawyers and judges.  These FCC regs that we're here to discuss are for us and should must (or is it shall) be understandable by us.

[WRYS709]

1 hour ago, NWHov said:

hhmm, suspicious.  Maybe a conversation for X?

Just wanted you to know the hypocrisy of whom you quoted

[SteveShannon]

5 hours ago, NWHov said:

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 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.