Baofeng UV-5X GMRS

[wayoverthere]

12 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Nope. You had better luck than me. When I checked it didn't find anything. Yeah it looks like its certified for GMRS.

I think I've mentioned it a couple times, but I've backed off of trusting fcc.io much due to inconsistencies in the data. One of my vertex HT shows on there as being certified for "part 9" Actually looking on fcc.gov shows it as part 90.

Edited October 20, 2021 by wayoverthere
typo and clarify

[Lscott]

8 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

I think I've mentioned it a couple times, but I've backed off of trusting fcc.io much due to inconsistencies in the data. One of my vertex HT shows on there as being certified for "part 9" Actually looking on fcc.gov shows it as part 90.

FCC.io is good for a quick check. But as you discovered the FCC database is the "gold standard". If it isn't there it's not real.

[Mindmaster]

24 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

I think I've mentioned it a couple times, but I've backed off of trusting fcc.io much due to inconsistencies in the data. One of my vertex HT shows on there as being certified for "part 9" Actually looking on fcc.gov shows it as part 90.

If experience is anything worrying about it is irrelevant. No one has a way to see your hardware other than being able to tell you are overpowered on transmission or w/e, other than if you had blatantly told them. Personally, I don't care if you hacked your UV-5R to work as a UV-5X/G as well, as long as you have the license. (They're hardware-wise identical, there is only a firmware difference, etc... You would still be 'operating' your radio at an acceptable limit on repeater frequencies, etc...) I'm not aware of the FCC chasing ANYONE down for radios provided that they aren't using bands they're not authorized to use and not doing something that interrupts other users. Not that I'm advocating it... These radios are so cheap you can own quite a few of them, and just buy them for all the bands. Baofeng got in trouble for the UV-5X, fined by FCC, and this is why it was rebadged, etc... We know at least the GMRS radio is compliant, lol.

 

Also, the FCC ID right off my UV-5X box:

https://fccid.io/2AJGM-P51UV

So, looks good to me.

[MichaelLAX]

10 minutes ago, Mindmaster said:

If experience is anything worrying about it is irrelevant. No one has a way to see your hardware other than being able to tell you are overpowered on transmission or w/e, other than if you had blatantly told them. Personally, I don't care if you hacked your UV-5X/G to work as a UV-5R as well, as long as you have the license. (They're hardware-wise identical, there is only a firmware difference, etc... You would still be 'operating' your radio at an acceptable limit on repeater frequencies, etc...) I'm not aware of the FCC chasing ANYONE down for radios provided that they aren't using bands they're not authorized to use and not doing something that interrupts other users. Not that I'm advocating it... These radios are so cheap you can own quite a few of them, and just buy them for all the bands. Baofeng got in trouble for the UV-5R, fined by FCC, and this is why it was rebadged, etc... We know at least the GMRS radio is compliant, lol.

I agree, but I would have said it with the model numbers as I have outlined in RED

[Lscott]

1 minute ago, Mindmaster said:

I'm not aware of the FCC chasing ANYONE down for radios provided that they aren't using bands they're not authorized to use ......

Until it happens. Just because you don't see anything in the FCC enforcement logs doesn't imply there hasn't been any "unofficial" contact with a strong suggestion to stop what they are doing. While the probability is low it's not zero.

People are free to chose however it wouldn't be ethical not to mention it. At least they can make a more informed decision. Maybe at some point the FCC will get around to allowing Part 90 radios to be "officially" used on GMRS even if they never had any Part 95 certification. One can hope and keep sending the FCC petitions to that effect.

[Mindmaster]

Just now, MichaelLAX said:

I agree, but I would have said it with the model numbers as I have outlined in RED

TBH, the FCC really isn't in the business of policing the radio bands they leave that up to the sad hams. They're basically only getting into it if you're doing something that qualifies as abuse and poor radio etiquette / repeated complaints. 

[MichaelLAX]

[deleted by poster]

[wayoverthere]

18 minutes ago, Mindmaster said:

If experience is anything worrying about it is irrelevant. No one has a way to see your hardware other than being able to tell you are overpowered on transmission or w/e, other than if you had blatantly told them. Personally, I don't care if you hacked your UV-5R to work as a UV-5X/G as well, as long as you have the license. (They're hardware-wise identical, there is only a firmware difference, etc... You would still be 'operating' your radio at an acceptable limit on repeater frequencies, etc...) I'm not aware of the FCC chasing ANYONE down for radios provided that they aren't using bands they're not authorized to use and not doing something that interrupts other users.

Yeah, I'm not particularly worried about it. I figure if I choose to take a risk, it's one thing....I've made my choices.

It's a little different to hand out advice to others, especially if they're not aware of the risks...therefore, I try to keep up on where the line is, so I can give a good representation/explanation of the right way to do things. If someone chooses another route from there, they've made their own choice as well, but I've done what I can to help it be an informed one.

[Lscott]

5 minutes ago, Mindmaster said:

TBH, the FCC really isn't in the business of policing the radio bands they leave that up to the sad hams. They're basically only getting into it if you're doing something that qualifies as abuse and poor radio etiquette / repeated complaints. 

That seems to be the current practice. More than one poster has mentioned the FCC is mainly reactive, complaint driven, enforcement action. They don't have the staff to hunt down every minor rules infraction.

[Mindmaster]

2 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Until it happens. Just because you don't see anything in the FCC enforcement logs doesn't imply there hasn't been any "unofficial" contact with a strong suggestion to stop what they are doing. While the probability is low it's not zero.

People are free to chose however it wouldn't be ethical not to mention it. At least they can make a more informed decision. Maybe at some point the FCC will get around to allowing Part 90 radios to be "officially" used on GMRS even if they never had any Part 95 certification. One can hope and keep sending the FCC petitions to that effect.

 

I basically always look at the situation as follows:

Follow all the rules unless there is a life or death reason not to. In which case, even the FCC tells you to break the rules, as emergency traffic has priority over everything.

I'd love an all-in-one radio, because since I'm going for my ham Tech next I'd just love to carry around one HT but I know that's impossible. If I was in a true emergency I'd have to carry the ham-only radio just due to the transmission distance of VHF being so much greater from an HT. Right now you get forced to either carry two radios, or pick which one... There are probably way more GMRS users, but ham transmits further and you might need that. There is no ionospheric skip with UHF, not even a little, lol. So, my solution is carry two radios that use the same batteries and hope for the best.

[MichaelLAX]

12 minutes ago, Mindmaster said:

I'd love an all-in-one radio, because since I'm going for my ham Tech next I'd just love to carry around one HT but I know that's impossible...

For $30 and free shipping Let's Get Ready sold me the TYT-UV88 Ham Radio HT and told me the codes to open up transmission on other bands.

It is very similar to the Radioddity GM-30 (and the Pofung P15UV GMRS only HT, which I purchased from Amazon previously)

I initially purchased both for the ability to use it to scan CTCSS and DCS tones.

[Mindmaster]

10 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

For $30 and free shipping Let's Get Ready sold me the TYT-UV88 Ham Radio HT and told me the codes to open up transmission on other bands.

It is very similar to the Radioddity GM-30 (and the Pofung P15UV GMRS only HT, which I purchased from Amazon previously)

I initially purchased both for the ability to use it to scan CTCSS and DCS tones.

You had me at codes.

I love programming and tinkering with my little radios. 

[WROA675]

48 minutes ago, Mindmaster said:

I'd love an all-in-one radio, because since I'm going for my ham Tech next I'd just love to carry around one HT but I know that's impossible.

Looking at purchasing the extended pack of BaoFeng UV-5R radio with 2pcs 1800 mAh Batteries + BaoFeng Programming Cable + TD-771 High Gain Antenna + Radio Mic on Amazon for $45. I've been hearing that this is the radio to have...

I believe this radio would be nice to add to my already growing surplus, as one that will be useful once I get my HAM ticket. Getting it now would give me time to become familiar with it's functions even though I won't be allowed to use it, yet.

Please, someone talk me out of this, if you can...(feeling like I'm turning into a radiohead !!!)

 

[MichaelLAX]

Be careful: Newly manufactured Baofeng UV-5Rs do not allow transmission outside of the Ham bands.  That is why they came out with the UV-5X(G) for GMRS.

[WROA675]

9 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

Newly manufactured Baofeng UV-5Rs do not allow transmission outside of the Ham bands.

How would I tell if it is a newly manufactured one or not?

This one is advertised as 2AJGM-UV5R

[Mindmaster]

39 minutes ago, Papatree said:

Looking at purchasing the extended pack of BaoFeng UV-5R radio with 2pcs 1800 mAh Batteries + BaoFeng Programming Cable + TD-771 High Gain Antenna + Radio Mic on Amazon for $45. I've been hearing that this is the radio to have...

I believe this radio would be nice to add to my already growing surplus, as one that will be useful once I get my HAM ticket. Getting it now would give me time to become familiar with it's functions even though I won't be allowed to use it, yet.

Please, someone talk me out of this, if you can...(feeling like I'm turning into a radiohead !!!)

 

 

You _ARE_ allowed to use it to receive just not transmit on it. Also, again if the purchase is for emergency use realize none of the rules matter then. Ham or not ham if your life or property are in danger you can use the ham radio. You just have to remember the rules: "Identify you have the emergency, identify yourself via callsign or name if you don't have one, and ask for the direct assistance you need."

RE: UV-5R  - You will have to upgrade the antenna/batteries it's not even optional... The default battery is too small especially after you stick that whip on there. You will never be able to put it down on it's base without it flipping over.  You may, however, want the higher wattage models if you're not doing VHF only (UV-5R is gold in 2m band, OK in 70cm but these radios are a bit noisy in that band.)
 

[Mindmaster]

14 minutes ago, Papatree said:

How would I tell if it is a newly manufactured one or not?

This one is advertised as 2AJGM-UV5R

2AJGM are all the new versions of the firmware for these radios. In fact, I don't think you can even get (or would even want) the old firmware besides. They were buggy as all hell having problems saving channels and settings, etc. You want the old one you're going to have to get it on the bootleg at ebay, craigslist, or something. (or maybe someone around here. :D)

[wayoverthere]

One plus of the upgraded batteries, though you trade the small size, is there's a USB chargeing pigtail available for them.

Looking here: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm with 2ajgm in the first box, and -uv5r in the second, I see a part 90 grant, and a bunch of 15b.

[Mindmaster]

1 minute ago, wayoverthere said:

One plus of the upgraded batteries, though you trade the small size, is there's a USB chargeing pigtail available for them.

Looking here: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm with 2ajgm in the first box, and -uv5r in the second, I see a part 90 grant, and a bunch of 15b.

Baofeung already got the slap, I doubt they're going to sell any non-compliant radios anymore. Seriously, they updated the firmware on every model since then. None of these radios will TX on the channels that are outside of the license of the product anymore.

[MichaelLAX]

1 hour ago, MichaelLAX said:

For $30 and free shipping Let's Get Ready sold me the TYT-UV88 Ham Radio HT and told me the codes to open up transmission on other bands.

It is very similar to the Radioddity GM-30 (and the Pofung P15UV GMRS only HT, which I purchased from Amazon previously)

I initially purchased both for the ability to use it to scan CTCSS and DCS tones.

Snap up the $30 TYT-UV88 while they are still available!

Compatible battery with your Radioddity GM-30!

[IanM]

3 hours ago, wayoverthere said:

Yeah, I'm not particularly worried about it. I figure if I choose to take a risk, it's one thing....I've made my choices.

It's a little different to hand out advice to others, especially if they're not aware of the risks...therefore, I try to keep up on where the line is, so I can give a good representation/explanation of the right way to do things. If someone chooses another route from there, they've made their own choice as well, but I've done what I can to help it be an informed one.

I'm of the same mind; as I understand the certification rules, both 90 and 95, they're mostly directed at/enforced against manufacturers and distributors, and the intention seems to be aimed at preventing LMR/GMRS users from accidentally stepping over on other bands—both services are under the assumption that (most) end-users are less-than-savvy utility users, and the radios should be idiot-proof. As you said, if you're behaving, there's really no noticeable difference to other users of the service if you're not technically on a GMRS set. A bigger problem seems to be people buying business-band radios on Amazon and having no idea they're stepping on other licensed users.

I've posted here about some software hacks on several models, and give out the disclaimer that they do violate certification; on another forum I got burned mentioning that I used a ham radio model on a GMRS channel (incidentally from someone who encouraged some more questionable practices on a different thread that nearly amount to jamming. I'm taking the risk legal but it's on others as well.

 

But I digress; on the UV-5 series:

I've read a number of reports of people upgrading antennas and ending up with worse reception, which seems to be owing to the front end being overwhelmed, but that obviously is dependent on how much RF is floating around in your area. A real 1/4 wave will definitely make a huge improvement on TX though. The battery for sure is a nice upgrade just for handling sake as well—I was shocked out how small the UV-5G was out of the box. Pocketable but almost hard to hold.

Re: the external charging socket, Miklor has a neat hack for building a USB charger for it.

 

And another side note: I did like how the GMRS-V1 handled, but not how limited it was on programming repeaters. There's a couple places around the web, both sellers and reviewers, who have suggested the parent UV-82 has some improved guts over the 5R on the front end, but I'm not sure I believe it. The UV-5G/X is definitely an improvement on programmability over the V1, and on the ham front, I'd guess some of the newer Baofengs probably add a lot of features over the getting-long-in-the-tooth UV82. That said, I don't know if the UV82 is frequency-hackable or has if it's been locked down the way the 5R has. What's $30 to experiment? (again, caveat emptor re: part 95.)

[wayoverthere]

15 minutes ago, Mindmaster said:

Baofeung already got the slap, I doubt they're going to sell any non-compliant radios anymore. Seriously, they updated the firmware on every model since then. None of these radios will TX on the channels that are outside of the license of the product anymore.

I believe it...I just didn't go through all of the docs in the grants at the moment, as reading and navigating them on a mobile screen is....challenging.

I did see some lines listing frequencies up to 480mhz, but that would seem not too out of line with part 90 on the surface...not sure if they license business frequencies up in that range.

[Mindmaster]

4 minutes ago, wayoverthere said:

I believe it...I just didn't go through all of the docs in the grants at the moment, as reading and navigating them on a mobile screen is....challenging.

I did see some lines listing frequencies up to 480mhz, but that would seem not too out of line with part 90 on the surface...not sure if they license business frequencies up in that range.

These are currently the 'grey area' frequencies. Businesses are using 900mhz products these days, honestly.

[SteveW]

10 hours ago, Lscott said:

Not from what I see at that link. While the top section might show Part 95E but scroll all the way to the bottom and you'll see it's ONLY certified as Part 15B. That last part is they only thing that counts, the grant the FCC issues to the manufacture.

This looks like the certification for Ham equipment, which typically only gets Part 15. Likely they applied for Part 95E, top of web page, but haven't received it as yet.

This link shows what you should see. It's for one of the favorite commercial radios people buy for GMRS. These are really nice radios for GMRS by the way, built like a brick, fairly light and fit in a shirt pocket. I have a few.

https://fccid.io/ALH34713110

http://www.swscomm.com/kenwood/TK-2170_3170.pdf

If you look at the brochure's last page near the bottom left area the FCC ID's for the different models are conveniently listed.

If you look at the bottom of the page for the issued grant you'll see it has Part 95A, which at the time was the section for GMRS until the FCC revamped the rules a few years ago.

I have no idea what you were looking at, but it's plain as day...

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, SteveW said:

I have no idea what you were looking at, but it's plain as day...

That’s not the FCC grant sent to the manufacturer. As other people have discovered the fccid.io site has shown inaccurate information at times.