"Illegal" radios

[UncleYoda]

1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:

Are there any regulations regarding distribution and sale?  I don’t know of any.  If I’m correct, that would mean an addition of regulations.  A person should never request more regulation.

Yes.  All the regs that refer to what is required for certification (bandwidth, deviation etc).  (Assuming of course that no radio nuts are building their own GMRS radios.)  Although it's the manufacturer that controls that, vendors have to sell radios that meet U.S. requirements.  Enforcement against Baofeng radios targeted vendors or importers.  Our responsibility is to just use certified radios and not modify them in a way that breaks the rules so we don't negate the certification .

[marcspaz]

1 hour ago, OffRoaderX said:

I'm old enough to remember when this thread was about pre-programmed frequencies and settings.

I'm reading this thread, thinking the same thing.... while wearing this shirt...

 

[SteveShannon]

55 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

Yes.  All the regs that refer to what is required for certification (bandwidth, deviation etc).  (Assuming of course that no radio nuts are building their own GMRS radios.)  Although it's the manufacturer that controls that, vendors have to sell radios that meet U.S. requirements.  Enforcement against Baofeng radios targeted vendors or importers.  Our responsibility is to just use certified radios and not modify them in a way that breaks the rules so we don't negate the certification .

Please provide specific citations about distribution and sales.  Certainly regulations prohibit operating non-certified transmitters for GMRS, but I see nothing in part 95 about distribution and sales. I might have missed it. 

[UncleYoda]

43 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

Please provide specific citations

My initial reaction was hell no, do your own research; I'm just here for discussion, not to provide legal documents or research papers.  But anyway, this is the most obvious and other sections supply details about specific requirements:

 

§ 95.391 Manufacturing, importation, and sales of non-certified
equipment prohibited.
No person shall manufacture, import, sell, or offer for sale non-certified equipment for the Personal Radio
Services except as provided for in §§ 2.803(c)(2)(i) and 2.1204(a)(11) of this chapter. See § 302(b) of the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)). See also part 2, subpart I (§ 2.801 et seq.) of this chapter for rules
governing marketing of radiofrequency devices; part 2, subpart K (§ 2.1201 et seq.) of this chapter for rules
governing import conditions.
[86 FR 52100, Sept. 20, 2021]

 

And besides what in the regs, it's how FCC chooses to enforce some things.  They did go after a vendor in Texas and I think an importer in California over the UV5R and similar radios, probably back around 2017 give or take.  It even affected BTWR; they stopped selling them, then started back briefly and quit again for other reasons.

[SteveShannon]

4 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

My initial reaction was hell no, do your own research; I'm just here for discussion, not to provide legal documents or research papers.  But anyway, this is the most obvious and other sections supply details about specific requirements:

 

§ 95.391 Manufacturing, importation, and sales of non-certified
equipment prohibited.
No person shall manufacture, import, sell, or offer for sale non-certified equipment for the Personal Radio
Services except as provided for in §§ 2.803(c)(2)(i) and 2.1204(a)(11) of this chapter. See § 302(b) of the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)). See also part 2, subpart I (§ 2.801 et seq.) of this chapter for rules
governing marketing of radiofrequency devices; part 2, subpart K (§ 2.1201 et seq.) of this chapter for rules
governing import conditions.
[86 FR 52100, Sept. 20, 2021]

 

And besides what in the regs, it's how FCC chooses to enforce some things.  They did go after a vendor in Texas and I think an importer in California over the UV5R and similar radios, probably back around 2017 give or take.  It even affected BTWR; they stopped selling them, then started back briefly and quit again for other reasons.

Thank you!  I agree that existing regulations should be either enforced or repealed. 

[marcspaz]

2 hours ago, UncleYoda said:

My initial reaction was hell no, do your own research; I'm just here for discussion, not to provide legal documents or research papers.  But anyway, this is the most obvious and other sections supply details about specific requirements:

 

§ 95.391 Manufacturing, importation, and sales of non-certified
equipment prohibited.
No person shall manufacture, import, sell, or offer for sale non-certified equipment for the Personal Radio
Services except as provided for in §§ 2.803(c)(2)(i) and 2.1204(a)(11) of this chapter. See § 302(b) of the
Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 302a(b)). See also part 2, subpart I (§ 2.801 et seq.) of this chapter for rules
governing marketing of radiofrequency devices; part 2, subpart K (§ 2.1201 et seq.) of this chapter for rules
governing import conditions.
[86 FR 52100, Sept. 20, 2021]

 

And besides what in the regs, it's how FCC chooses to enforce some things.  They did go after a vendor in Texas and I think an importer in California over the UV5R and similar radios, probably back around 2017 give or take.  It even affected BTWR; they stopped selling them, then started back briefly and quit again for other reasons.

 

Rugged Radio got a NoNo letter from the FCC for selling 6 different radios that RR advertised as being compliant and were not.  Even with such gross disregard and massive exposure, they still did not get a fine.  

 

I don't know how bad you have mess up before the FCC gives a damn about GMRS violations, but the bar is obviously very high.

[WRTC928]

15 hours ago, marcspaz said:

I don't know how bad you have mess up before the FCC gives a damn about GMRS violations, but the bar is obviously very high.

That's why I don't get worked up over anyone using a ham radio on GMRS. If they keep to appropriate power and bandwidth, I don't care what radio they're using. I'm not the radio police, and if FCC doesn't consider it worth enforcing, neither do I. (TBH, I don't get worked up over someone in the mountains of Montana using 5 watts and wide bandwidth on FRS 10 either. They're not going to interfere with anyone else. Before I could get worked up about it, I'd have to be able to hear it. )

[Lscott]

On 8/4/2025 at 9:44 AM, WRTC928 said:

TBH, I don't get worked up over someone in the mountains of Montana using 5 watts and wide bandwidth on FRS 10 either. They're not going to interfere with anyone else. Before I could get worked up about it, I'd have to be able to hear it

Except for the people a mile or so away using their 0.5 watt FRS radios that’s getting hammered by your 5 watts. You can’t hear them, but they’re very likely can hear you. Does that still make it OK? You didn’t hear it.

Given equal radio receiver sensitivity then range can be limited by the square root of the ratios of the transmitter powers. So 5 watts verses 0.5 watts could result in a range increase of 3.16 to 1 in favor of the 5 watt radio.

[OffRoaderX]

14 minutes ago, Lscott said:

range can be limited by the square root of the ratios of the transmitter powers. So 5 watts verses 0.5 watts could result in a range increase of 3.16 to 1 in favor of the 5 watt radio.

Well when you put it that way, it makes all the difference! We are all very impressed!

But if you REALLY want to impress us, show us that you are smart enough to know your audience and make your point like a normal person.

[Jaay]

1 hour ago, OffRoaderX said:

Well when you put it that way, it makes all the difference! We are all very impressed!

But if you REALLY want to impress us, show us that you are smart enough to know your audience and make your point like a normal person.

I don't think impressing anyone was his intent. But Proven Science is what it is, and L. Scott was correct in that formula. 

[WRYS709]

It’s so typical on this forum to see the Gang of One, Two, Three, Four dump on the guy making a scholarly presentation instead of the one who suggests 5 watts on WBFM on FRS 10!

[marcspaz]

I must be missing something.. I run 300w WB-C4FM on FRS 10 all the time, so when my wife is in the kitchen and I'm in the garage, she can hear my signal okay.  Are we not supposed to do that?

[WRYS709]

Ah, click bait!

[WRTC928]

9 hours ago, Lscott said:

Except for the people a mile or so away using their 0.5 watt FRS radios that’s getting hammered by your 5 watts. You can’t hear them, but they’re very likely can hear you. Does that still make it OK? You didn’t hear it.

Given equal radio receiver sensitivity then range can be limited by the square root of the ratios of the transmitter powers. So 5 watts verses 0.5 watts could result in a range increase of 3.16 to 1 in favor of the 5 watt radio.

I didn't say I'm going to do it. I have said many times that I think it's important to be considerate. I said I don't consider it my job to enforce things that don't affect me. My point was that someone using 5 watts in the middle of a 12,000 acre ranch in Montana isn't going to interfere with someone else. 

[WRTC928]

Error

[WRTC928]

5 hours ago, WRYS709 said:

It’s so typical on this forum to see the Gang of One, Two, Three, Four dump on the guy making a scholarly presentation instead of the one who suggests 5 watts on WBFM on FRS 10!

Go back and read what I said. I didn't suggest doing it. I said it's not likely to cause someone else problems so I'm not going to get worked up about it.

[WRYS709]

15 minutes ago, WRTC928 said:

Go back and read what I said. I didn't suggest doing it. I said it's not likely to cause someone else problems so I'm not going to get worked up about it.

You’re not part of the Gang I was referring to…

And, shouldn’t you be making Oklahoma hypocriticals?

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, WRTC928 said:

Go back and read what I said. I didn't suggest doing it. I said it's not likely to cause someone else problems so I'm not going to get worked up about it.

I think his statement was directed towards Randy, not you.