Programming your own radios, and front panel programming...

[Jones]

Question for discussion...

 

Programming your own Part 90 radios into Part 95 service, and front panel programming...  Is this legal?

 

This may be another area that needs further clarification from the FCC, or perhaps I just cannot find the rule that applies, but in the past, all type-accepted radio transmitters had to be set up and aligned by (or under supervision of) a licensed technician before they were legal to use.  Radio owners/operators were never allowed to modify their radios in any way.  A licensed technician used to be defined as "the holder of a valid Commercial General-Class Radio-telephone Operator's License."

 

Today, we are all programming our own radios for the frequencies we would like to use, and some even modify radios for front-panel programming.  Is this even legal?

 

The only laws I can find about this today are:

 

95.319 (b.) Internal repairs. Internal adjustments and repairs to Personal Radio Services transmitters must be performed by or under the supervision of an individual who is qualified to maintain and repair transmitters.

 

95.337 No person shall modify any Personal Radio Service transmitter in a way that changes or affects the technical functioning of that transmitter such that operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part. This includes any modification to provide for additional transmit frequencies, increased modulation level, a different form of modulation, or increased transmitter output power (either mean power or peak envelope power or both). Any such modification voids the certified status of the modified transmitter and renders it unauthorized for use in the Personal Radio Services. Also, no person shall operate any Personal Radio Service transmitter that has been so modified.

 

I had never really considered this before, since I do hold a Commercial GROL, and I am a qualified technician, but what about others programming their own radios with eBay cables?  What about those internal modifications that allow the front panel to essentially be used as a VFO? This is fine for ham use, but can that possibly be legal at all for GMRS?

 

Open for discussion.....

[apco25]

Yes, it's legal.  Pre-programmed GMRS radios didn't exist in years past.  Everyone used Part 90 radios.  YOU, the end user are responsible for knowing your license and programming what you're licensed for.  FCC tested radio techs are long gone i.e GROL. 1st or 2nd class radio telephone etc.  Qualified is a very broad term.  Most LMR techs and engineers don't hold the legacy technical licenses. As for FPP, the difference between end user and someone with the qualified technical ability is slight these days, going right back to my statement. 

Question for discussion...

 

Programming your own Part 90 radios into Part 95 service, and front panel programming...  Is this legal?

 

This may be another area that needs further clarification from the FCC, or perhaps I just cannot find the rule that applies, but in the past, all type-accepted radio transmitters had to be set up and aligned by (or under supervision of) a licensed technician before they were legal to use.  Radio owners/operators were never allowed to modify their radios in any way.  A licensed technician used to be defined as "the holder of a valid Commercial General-Class Radio-telephone Operator's License."

 

Today, we are all programming our own radios for the frequencies we would like to use, and some even modify radios for front-panel programming.  Is this even legal?

 

The only laws I can find about this today are:

 

95.319 (b.) Internal repairs. Internal adjustments and repairs to Personal Radio Services transmitters must be performed by or under the supervision of an individual who is qualified to maintain and repair transmitters.

 

95.337 No person shall modify any Personal Radio Service transmitter in a way that changes or affects the technical functioning of that transmitter such that operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part. This includes any modification to provide for additional transmit frequencies, increased modulation level, a different form of modulation, or increased transmitter output power (either mean power or peak envelope power or both). Any such modification voids the certified status of the modified transmitter and renders it unauthorized for use in the Personal Radio Services. Also, no person shall operate any Personal Radio Service transmitter that has been so modified.

 

I had never really considered this before, since I do hold a Commercial GROL, and I am a qualified technician, but what about others programming their own radios with eBay cables?  What about those internal modifications that allow the front panel to essentially be used as a VFO? This is fine for ham use, but can that possibly be legal at all for GMRS?

 

Open for discussion.....

[WRAF213]

Part 90 rules state you can load channels you are authorized for in other services and remain Part 90 compliant. A type-certified Part 95 radio won't have FPP capability (95.1761©) so you'd be operating under the "good enough" Part 90-on-95 generally accepted practice. Having access to FPP without an interlock of some sort wouldn't be Part 90 compliant (90.203(g)). That's why FCC FPP requires a dongle and Federal Government (not Part 90) FPP doesn't.

[haneysa]

If we are being picky on Part 95 rules...then no part 90 radios are type-certified for GMRS (unless they are certified for 90 AND 95). Nothing in the CFR authorizes 90 on 95, even though it seems to be a "generally accepted practice".  If you have gone into that area of a generally accepted practice, then user-programming and FPP would certainly fall under the same line of reasoning.

 

Personally, I believe that the most important thing, and the main purpose of the regulation is to ensure that your emissions match the limits for the band you are operating on. What if you built your own radio from a kit or from scratch (as Hams have done)? Programming your radio to operate in the same manner as a part 95 one would be complying with the spirit of the law, if not the letter. 

[WRAF213]

There's quite a few radios out there that are dual-service 90/95, with the forum frequently mentioning the Kenwood TK-880 and Motorola M1225. Those have no method of changing the frequencies loaded from outside the programming software, and is certified for operation in Part 90. It's fully eligible for certification in both services, and neither seevice precludes certification in the other. FPP exposes the frequency determiming internal to the radio, but it can easily be argued that the dongle Motorola uses on those radios is a service-only tool. Doesn't matter since radios that can do FPP aren't certified under 95 anyways.

 

Part 90 doesn't include provisions for barring certification in other services. Some equipment needs to be used both on Part 90 business licenses and Part 74 broadcast auxiliary licenses. Some use cases require both 90 and part 80 VHF marine radio. Radios certified for all three aren't hard to find. 90/95 certification is harder to get as it puts restrictions on the feature set, so you see fewer radios certified for both.

 

GMRS is not a radio hobbyist's band. Amateur already exists for that purpose. Type certification exists so we don't have to take technical tests of knowledge to use GMRS equipment; it's supposed to just work, and work with all other certified devices enough to exchange voice messages between different manufacturer's radios.

 

Remember that in a proper commercial radio environment, the user buys the radio from a radio shop, amd the radio shop manages what frequencies are in the radio based on what the user is authorized to use. Unlike Amateur, you see a marked separation between radio users and radio technicians. The user doesn't have to concern themselves with the intricacies o lf licensing, it's assumed that the trained service techs can properly interpret a license authorization and produce a codeplug that is compliant with the services the user and radio are authorized for, and can be held liable for rule violations that result from an incorrect codeplug. This also gives some flexibility in what the radio manufacturer can provide in a radio, since those bells and whistles can be turned off by the radio shop and the end user can't turn them back on.

[RCM]

Actually some Part 95 radios do have FPP. TK-880 is one of them. It must be activated via software and deletion of a zero ohm resistor, but it is described in the factory service manual. TK-805D (also Part 95) is even easier; just pop the top cover and move a jumper. Some other type 95 Kenwoods (and some Motorolas, I've heard) also have this capability.

 

In my opinion, here is why this is ok: you can't program while in operation mode. You have to power down the radio and power it back up with a certain key sequence to get it into programming mode. While in programming mode, the radio is inoperable. When you're finished programming you must power the rig down, then power back up into operating mode. That's the difference: you cannot directly choose the frequency while in operating mode.

[WRAF213]

Once you make that internal modification, you void the Part 95 type acceptance. The modification is strictly compliant with 90.203(g)(1).

 

You can make the modification to enable FPP and keep the Part 90 certification, but that would then equip the radio with a frequency capability outside the allotted GMRS channels accessible through operator action, voiding the Part 95 certification per 95.1755(c ). Operation would then violate 95.337 both directly through the modification and indirectly per the 95.1755 violation.

 

You can't have Part 90 FPP on a GMRS-compliant radio. It's simply not permitted under several rules.

[RCM]

Once you make that internal modification, you void the Part 95 type acceptance. The modification is strictly compliant with 90.203(g)(1).

 

You can make the modification to enable FPP and keep the Part 90 certification, but that would then equip the radio with a frequency capability outside the allotted GMRS channels accessible through operator action, voiding the Part 95 certification per 95.1755(c ). Operation would then violate 95.337 both directly through the modification and indirectly per the 95.1755 violation.

 

You can't have Part 90 FPP on a GMRS-compliant radio. It's simply not permitted under several rules.

Once again you are misreading the rules in an attempt to support your position. First, there is no 95.1755 rule.

I'm pretty sure you meant 95.1761 ( c ) which states:

 

© No GMRS transmitter will be certified for use in the GMRS if it is equipped with a frequency capability not listed in §95.1763, unless such transmitter is also certified for use in another radio service for which the frequency is authorized and for which certification is also required. No GMRS transmitter will be certified for use in the GMRS if it is equipped with the capabilities to operate in services that do not require equipment certification, such as the Amateur Radio Service. All frequency determining circuitry (including crystals) and programming controls in each GMRS transmitter must be internal to the transmitter and must not be accessible from the exterior of the transmitter operating panel or from the exterior of the transmitter enclosure.

(d) Effective December 27, 2017, the Commission will no longer issue a grant of equipment authorization for hand-held portable unit transmitter types under both this subpart (GMRS) and subpart B of this part (FRS).

(e) Effective December 27, 2017, the Commission will no longer issue a grant of equipment authorization under this subpart (GMRS) for hand-held portable units if such units meet the requirements to be certified under subpart B of this part (FRS).

 

I included ( d ) and ( e ) for clarification.

If what you claim were true, there would be no such thing as a radio with dual 90 and 95 certification. It's not true though, because of the wording "unless such transmitter is also certified for use in another radio service for which the frequency is authorized and for which certification is also required."

 

Also note that there is no use of the word "revoked" in the rule. If there were, existing radios that carried Part 95 classification and included FRS would no longer be legal to use on GMRS. That's not the case, though: those can no longer be produced as new radios, but if you have one or more they are still legal to use.

 

If your reasoning were correct, those Midland Micromobiles would be the only mobile radios that are legal to use on GMRS. Wait a minute... do you work for Midland?

[WRAF213]

Once again you are misreading the rules in an attempt to support your position. First, there is no 95.1755 rule.

I'm pretty sure you meant 95.1761 ( c ) which states:

 

© No GMRS transmitter will be certified for use in the GMRS if it is equipped with a frequency capability not listed in §95.1763, unless such transmitter is also certified for use in another radio service for which the frequency is authorized and for which certification is also required. No GMRS transmitter will be certified for use in the GMRS if it is equipped with the capabilities to operate in services that do not require equipment certification, such as the Amateur Radio Service. All frequency determining circuitry (including crystals) and programming controls in each GMRS transmitter must be internal to the transmitter and must not be accessible from the exterior of the transmitter operating panel or from the exterior of the transmitter enclosure.

(d) Effective December 27, 2017, the Commission will no longer issue a grant of equipment authorization for hand-held portable unit transmitter types under both this subpart (GMRS) and subpart B of this part (FRS).

(e) Effective December 27, 2017, the Commission will no longer issue a grant of equipment authorization under this subpart (GMRS) for hand-held portable units if such units meet the requirements to be certified under subpart B of this part (FRS).

 

I included ( d ) and ( e ) for clarification.

If what you claim were true, there would be no such thing as a radio with dual 90 and 95 certification. It's not true though, because of the wording "unless such transmitter is also certified for use in another radio service for which the frequency is authorized and for which certification is also required."

 

Also note that there is no use of the word "revoked" in the rule. If there were, existing radios that carried Part 95 classification and included FRS would no longer be legal to use on GMRS. That's not the case, though: those can no longer be produced as new radios, but if you have one or more they are still legal to use.

 

If your reasoning were correct, those Midland Micromobiles would be the only mobile radios that are legal to use on GMRS. Wait a minute... do you work for Midland?

I mistyped that rule number, I meant 95.1765; it was after midnight when I wrote that.

 

I'm just going to ask the FCC about the issue.

[RCM]

I mistyped that rule number, I meant 95.1765; it was after midnight when I wrote that.

 

I'm just going to ask the FCC about the issue.

95.1765 is about frequency accuracy. Again, 95.1761 is the one you're after. By all means though, ask the FCC.

[Jones]

Once again, I'll repeat this post:

 

95.337 No person shall modify any Personal Radio Service transmitter in a way that changes or affects the technical functioning of that transmitter such that operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part. This includes any modification to provide for additional transmit frequencies, increased modulation level, a different form of modulation, or increased transmitter output power (either mean power or peak envelope power or both). Any such modification voids the certified status of the modified transmitter and renders it unauthorized for use in the Personal Radio Services. Also, no person shall operate any Personal Radio Service transmitter that has been so modified.

 

That rule, combined with this one:

 

...All frequency determining circuitry (including crystals) and programming controls in each GMRS transmitter must be internal to the transmitter and must not be accessible from the exterior of the transmitter operating panel or from the exterior of the transmitter enclosure.

 

That is why some of us would assume that once you have made an internal modification for FPP, the radio is NO LONGER TYPE-CERTIFIED in Part 95, but may still be compliant with Part 90, and of course Part 97 (ham) which does not require type certification.

[RCM]

Once again, I'll repeat this post:

 

95.337 No person shall modify any Personal Radio Service transmitter in a way that changes or affects the technical functioning of that transmitter such that operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part. This includes any modification to provide for additional transmit frequencies, increased modulation level, a different form of modulation, or increased transmitter output power (either mean power or peak envelope power or both). Any such modification voids the certified status of the modified transmitter and renders it unauthorized for use in the Personal Radio Services. Also, no person shall operate any Personal Radio Service transmitter that has been so modified.

 

That rule, combined with this one:

 

...All frequency determining circuitry (including crystals) and programming controls in each GMRS transmitter must be internal to the transmitter and must not be accessible from the exterior of the transmitter operating panel or from the exterior of the transmitter enclosure.

 

That is why some of us would assume that once you have made an internal modification for FPP, the radio is NO LONGER TYPE-CERTIFIED in Part 95, but may still be compliant with Part 90, and of course Part 97 (ham) which does not require type certification.

And once again, I'll repeat this: "such that operation of the modified transmitter results in a violation of the rules in this part."

If it doesn't result in a violation, there's no problem.

 

And the rule about frequency determining circuitry is the current rule for radios newly submitted for Part 95 classification. It does not mention any revocation of existing classification on existing radios. If you read very many FCC rules you will find that they are not afraid of the word revocation; if that's what they meant they would spell it out.

 

A couple more points. First, I think it's incorrect to (at least in the case of the Kenwood radios) refer to enabling FPP as a "modification." It is described in the factory service manual. Therefore it is an option selection; not a modification. Especially in the case of the TK-805D. There are other options that are enabled in a similar manner. The original purchaser could have bought the radio with those options already selected; and in fact the TK-805D was indeed normally supplied with FPP enabled.

 

Last point: this wording "All frequency determining circuitry (including crystals) and programming controls in each GMRS transmitter must be internal to the transmitter and must not be accessible from the exterior of the transmitter operating panel or from the exterior of the transmitter enclosure."

By a strict definition, this precludes programming via computer. Perhaps this is why new radios from Alinco, Icom, Kenwood, Vertex, Motorola etc. do not carry Part 95 acceptance: they require external programming via computer. 

So, perhaps indeed the only legal new radios are those el cheapo (in construction, not necessarily purchase price) HTs and mobiles that come with GMRS frequencies permanently programmed and cannot be changed. That's true in practice; maybe it's true by design. Whatever. But I still don't see anything about revocation of type acceptance on pre-existing radios.

 

Bottom line: from the actual rules, if you do something to the radio and then break the rules with it, its former type acceptance is no longer in effect. If the operator knows what he is doing and doesn't break the rules, it's all good.

If you use your computer and programming software to add in some public service frequencies and subsequently transmit on them sans authorization, you have voided the type acceptance of your radio and in fact your license to transmit on any radio frequency.

 

Contrary to what some here seem to be claiming ("GMRS is not for the hobbyist or experimenter!"), GMRS is not exclusively for those who know nothing about radios and have no idea how to program them. If that were the case, repeaters and fixed stations would not be allowed. They're not allowed on CB, MURS or FRS.

[BoxCar]

One of the key points about programming the radio is no modification was performed on the transmitting or receiving components. Accessing the frequency table through an external cable or keyboard is allowed and does not constitute a change required by a licensed operator.

[Hans]

One of the reasons I preferred GMRS over amateur radio was that GMRS often tends to be a little more relaxed as a community. As long as someone isn't violating technical standards and baseline operating decorum, you rarely hear someone contacting the FCC. Granted, most I've spoken to would rather not let it go the way of 11 meter but they also wouldn't like to lose the comfortable, neighborly nature of GMRS. Most of those operators are also licensed amateur radio operators.

 

A good way to kill off GMRS participation would be to add an extreme "radio police" nature to the service. As it is, growing a healthy on-air GMRS community can be difficult enough. If it turned too frosty, the airwaves would go dead silent and then perhaps be filled with only unlicensed 11 meter operator types of yesteryear. I know that if our local community got that way, I would probably either go private with our repeater or shut it down and let the license lapse. I'm not alone in that opinion here locally.

 

When you contact the FCC, please make sure that you get the full part 95 citation for their opinion. Otherwise, it holds almost zero water.

[WRAF213]

My question to the FCC will basically read off like this:
 

 

Consider a 25-watt mobile radio capable of front-panel programmable capability in a manner consistent with 47 CFR 90.203(g)(1) and certified for operation both within Part 90 and Part 95, such as the Kenwood TK-805D (ALHTK-805-D-1). If the radio has been modified to enable front-panel programmable capability through methods consistent with Part 90 regulations, is the radio still compliant with 47 CFR 95.1761(a) and remain certified for use in Part 95?

[RCM]

My question to the FCC will basically read off like this:

 

How about instead of your wording "if the radio has been modified" which will get you an answer based on an untruth, be upfront about it and ask "if the radio is operated as delivered from the factory" since you are using the TK-805D as your example.

 

Actually, since you persist in using the term "modification" to describe a factory option set, perhaps you should say, "Did the FCC mistakenly grant Part 95 type acceptance to the TK-805D, or is the type acceptance valid only after the radio has been modified to remove the factory option set?"

 

Because according to the factory service manual, the TK-805D is delivered with the jumper in the FPP position. If moving the jumper constitutes a modification, the radio has FPP unless and until it is modified to remove that feature. I don't recall seeing a notice in the FCC ID lookup to the effect of such modification being a condition of its type acceptance.

[WRAF213]

The radio can't be shipped with the jumper in the FPP-Enable position if it is compliant with 90.203(g)(1). It can only be enabled by modification:
 

... transmitters with external controls normally available to the operator must be internally modified to place the equipment in the programmable mode.

 

The radio can't be sold in the US in the unmodified state from the factory. A radio shop can sell it in the modified state, but they would have to unmodify it before delivery to the user. End users on Part 90 don't need to study frequencies, licensing, and allocations; technicians handle the license requirements and provide radios that only operate within that license. End users aren't allowed to change their frequency set from the radio's front panel per 90.203(e); and all exceptions under (g) apply only to service/maintenance technicians. In an in-service state, radios in use under Part 90 cannot have front-panel programming accessible to the user. See also 90.427. Based on that, whatever the FCC has to say about the matter, I don't think you'll like.

 

Anyways, I'm not asking whether the TK-805 is Part 90 compliant, or whether it is Part 95 compliant. The FCC already did so by granting it type acceptance. It doesn't even matter what that jumper was set to from the factory, even if that violates 90.203(g)(3). My question isn't about the radio; it was only provided as an example. The question is about whether 90.203(g)(1) and 95.1761(a) are mutually exclusive under all circumstances. I'm not aware of any 90.203(g)(2) or (3) radios that are also Part 95 certified, so I'm not asking about the other exceptions to 90.203(e).

 

The other question that will come up is whether Part 90 regulations apply to, or influence, Part 95-only operation. The results of that conversation would be influenced by 95.335 and ultimately affect 95.1735.

[RCM]

Whatever. We already know that you can't correctly quote rules even after two tries (and leave out pertinent statements in those rules); that TK-805Ds are type accepted for part 90 and 95, that according to factory literature the TK-805D was shipped with FPP enabled (and that it is therefore not a modification), that the rules concerning GMRS were rewritten after production of most if not all Kenwood part 95 approved radios had ceased, and that part 95 type classification was not revoked on those existing radios.

Therefore, whatever conclusion you claim is irrelevant. If you want to come up with some kind of legal interpretation to prove that only Midland mobiles are legal on GMRS, so be it. Good luck convincing anyone else that they should give up their much better radios.

[Hans]

I hope that I didn't set an adversarial tone for this thread. That was not my intention.

[haneysa]

What is the purpose/intent of the FCC Part 95 rules? It appears that the FCC aims to create a uniform standard for transmitter emissions. Following the "spirit" of the rules regarding frequencies, power output, bandwith, deviations, etc. seems to be the important aspect that allows GMRS users to have a reasonably functional band. Why does it matter how you configure or construct your transmitter if it comports with the emission standards? To a reasonable person, the "letter" of the rule would seem less important than the "spirit". Obviously, the FCC missed the common sense boat during their last rule-making session. Since I am new to GMRS, does anyone know how often they consider making changes?

[RCM]

What is the purpose/intent of the FCC Part 95 rules? It appears that the FCC aims to create a uniform standard for transmitter emissions. Following the "spirit" of the rules regarding frequencies, power output, bandwith, deviations, etc. seems to be the important aspect that allows GMRS users to have a reasonably functional band. Why does it matter how you configure or construct your transmitter if it comports with the emission standards? To a reasonable person, the "letter" of the rule would seem less important than the "spirit". Obviously, the FCC missed the common sense boat during their last rule-making session. Since I am new to GMRS, does anyone know how often they consider making changes?

Good points.

I doubt the FCC will be revisiting GMRS rules anytime soon. They actually did a lot of good with their 2017 updates, and it has given the service a much needed infusion of new blood by easing some of the previous restrictions as well as making the license itself more affordable.

And yes, they did make a couple of rule changes that make little sense and pretty much (theoretically at least) kill the market for good quality new radios. But, then they compensated by making that statement about being aware of (and apparently not too concerned about) GMRS ops using Part 90 radios.

Which supports the points you made above.  I figure if they give a hoot about FPP-capable Part 95 radios (which they obviously don't on radios made before 2017, or they would not have granted type acceptance), they have thousands of users with non-type-accepted Baofengs to wade through before turning their attention to it.

 

I also figure anyone who contacts them to ask about it will get whatever answer they figure is most likely to make the questioner go away and leave them alone.

[Hans]

I wish there was a 100 likes button for that comment, RCM. I think it was spot on; especially the last sentence.

[Elkhunter521]

Hi, It would appear that the FCC is a force of nature. By that I mean that it will follow the path of least resistance. It will comply with what ever makes the problem go away.

[Hans]

“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend.”

― Bruce Lee

[quarterwave]

Oh give them 20 years or so... 

 

If you are new to GMRS and radio all together.... keep in mind many who have been at this for years in all forms of radio have a "common sense" approach to things...goes with that "spirit" of the rule type deal. There are 20 guys a day that get into GMRS and think they have found some incredible new discovery in capability that no one else has thought of....but it isn't practical, isn't legal, and doesn't meet the common sense test.