The never-ending Part 90/95 debate, and my discussion with the FCC

[axorlov]

Next time I'm given another "Performance Award" from California Highway Patrol, I'm going to say: "Your beef, officer, is with Kawasaki. These darn Ninjas are too darn fast. I did not do anything that was not in the manual! Just merely kept it at wide-fooking-open!" I'll report here how it went.

[MichaelLAX]

35 minutes ago, axorlov said:

Next time I'm given another "Performance Award" from California Highway Patrol, I'm going to say: "Your beef, officer, is with Kawasaki. These darn Ninjas are too darn fast. I did not do anything that was not in the manual! Just merely kept it at wide-fooking-open!" I'll report here how it went.

I sincerely believe that you feel that an analogy where people's lives are put in danger on our highways is the same "danger" as a licensed Ham using a Part 95 GMRS transceiver on the Ham radio bands!

That being said, I will now ignore these types of comments from you in the future, as they add nothing of value to our discourse!

[axorlov]

You were talking about compliance to the rules, and how sometimes it does not matter if one knows what she is doing. I just provided an illustration. I'm curious, will 779-UV allow you to tune to 406.0 MHz and transmit?

But have a good day, sir.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, MichaelLAX said:

I sincerely believe that you feel that an analogy where people's lives are put in danger on our highways is the same "danger" as a licensed Ham using a Part 95 GMRS transceiver on the Ham radio bands!

I was at my Ham Radio coffee break last night. One of the topics for discussion concerned a local CB operator running hugely excessive power. The interference was so bad that a nearby hospital had the FCC track down the source because it was buggering up some of the heart monitors they used on patients causing them to malfunction.

[MichaelLAX]

In the "old days" we would get out our portable "T-antennas" and rabbit hunt until we triangulated the location and were sure to bring a heavy coax cutter with us!

[Lscott]

3 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

In the "old days" we would get out our portable "T-antennas" and rabbit hunt until we triangulated the location and were sure to bring a heavy coax cutter with us!

A small stick pin in the coax up out of the way and sniped flush works good too.

[kirk5056]

Why do so many people come to my beloved GMRS and then try to find ways around the rules?  Even if YOU dont like them or YOU think you are so special you need not follow them, those rules are what makes GMRS the best option for the two-way radio community that uses it.

 

Maybe you need to be on ham, where they seem to accept out of the box ideas.  Or maybe you need to join the yahoos on CB 6, where rules dont apply.  But, I feel, GMRS is well crafted for what it does.  I know you will never get caught but you could just accept our rules and be a good radio citizen.

[Lscott]

On 8/7/2021 at 12:09 AM, kirk5056 said:

Why do so many people come to my beloved GMRS and then try to find ways around the rules?  Even if YOU dont like them or YOU think you are so special you need not follow them, those rules are what makes GMRS the best option for the two-way radio community that uses it.

 

Maybe you need to be on ham, where they seem to accept out of the box ideas.  Or maybe you need to join the yahoos on CB 6, where rules dont apply.  But, I feel, GMRS is well crafted for what it does.  I know you will never get caught but you could just accept our rules and be a good radio citizen.

Unfortunately the attitude exhibited by some people doesn’t change until they personally experience the negative consequences of somebody else who feels the rules don’t apply to them. And even then they still might not get it. 

[MichaelLAX]

On 8/7/2021 at 9:56 PM, Lscott said:

Unfortunately the attitude exhibited by some people doesn’t change until they personally experience the negative consequences of somebody else who feels the rules don’t apply to them. And even then they still might not get it. 

How right you are: If more unvaccinated people felt the way you do, we would not be having this resurgence of the unvaccinated! And now it may be too late to stop the next disastrous variant!

[MichaelLAX]

On 8/6/2021 at 9:09 PM, kirk5056 said:

I know you will never get caught but you could just accept our rules and be a good radio citizen.

Get caught breaking which of your rules?

[oneeyeross]

While I agree that the FCC will probably not go hunting someone down just to see what kind of a radio they are using, as others have said, the rules exist for a reason.

Now, with that out of the way, there are reasons I have radios that I could, should a need arise, use on both GMRS and ham frequencies.  I don't currently have them set up that way, but a few minutes work on my computer and I could change my older Baofeng and Leixen radios from ham freqs only over to ham, FRS, GMRS and MURS.  Having these radios is an asset.  I hope to never have to use these radios out of their "legal" service, but it is nice to have the ability.

Same with having the 779UV.  It is an asset to be able to make it do other work.

Hopefully, I will never need to do these things, but being able to do them is not a bad thing.

 

[MichaelLAX]

Let me review with regard to some of the other posts on this and other threads to me:

I purchased a radio that has FCC Part 95 certification: the Anytone AT-779UV.

Using the software supplied by the manufacturer (and presumably supplied by Anytone during the certification process), I did the following:

1) Programmed additional GMRS repeaters on the same frequencies but using different CTCSS/DTS codes.

2) Programmed the "power up" screen to say my callsign and phone number

3) Added "DIY" GMRS Repeater channels, so that I could easily change the CTCSS/DTS tone (using the onboard keys) when confronting a new GMRS repeater while mobile.

4) Changed the Frequencies selection from one of the 10 presets available to another one.

5) Added channels for 2 meters and 70 cm local repeater pairs and simplex frequencies.

Now at all times, I made these changes using the supplied Anytone software with their easy to use selections; the same software supplied to the FCC.

"Aggrieved" operators all aghast at my posts, have bombarded me with unsolicited posts about the FCC Part 95 Rules and THEIR interpretation of the rules!

Certainly one would have to agree that if I changed the software to only transmit on 2 meters and 70 cm and not on GMRS would not violate FCC Rules.

And, one would have to agree that if I changed the software back to default to transmit on GMRS only, it would not violate the FCC Rules.

So the only point in dispute is my ability (using the selections available to me with the Anytone supplied software) to transmit on either GMRS or Ham radio during the same "power up" session; BUT obviously I cannot transmit on both at the same time.  

While the receiver can monitor two receiver frequencies, it cannot transmit on two frequencies at the same time.

I maintain that how I operate my Anytone is consistent with how Anytone presented the AT-779UV to the FCC and hence how the FCC interprets Part 95 with regard to THIS radio, and until I hear from the FCC to the contrary, that continues to be my operating position.

YMMV: If others disagree; they do not have to purchase the AT-779UV and allow it to transmit on both GMRS and Ham frequencies during the same power up session.

[n4gix]

WFC?

[Lscott]

36 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

"Aggrieved" operators all aghast at my posts, have bombarded me with unsolicited posts about the FCC Part 95 Rules and THEIR interpretation of the rules!

The only people whose interpretation of the rules that matters is the FCC's. To cut out all of the debate have you taken this up with your local FCC field office? If they say you're right then that's end of it. Same if they say you're wrong. The safe play is get the official interpretation of the rule(s) in question straight from them. Perhaps nobody on the forum is right. That would far more to useful to everyone than any raging debate here.

[BoxCar]

Don't assume the FCC checks a radio for anything other than the requirements to meet the certification requested. They don't even test most units; they leave it up to independent but certified labs. The FCC is also not interested in any software provided for a radio, so it isn't included in the testing as it doesn't generate any RF from itself. If the radio's output deviates from those submitted for acceptance, then the radio no longer meets certification -- period. Most radios that are type accepted for parts 90 and 97 are also Part 15 which is where the radio does meet it certification as amateur radios are all Part 15. I'll lay odds that any GMRS certified radio also carries a Part 15 certification as part of the FCC ID.

[MichaelLAX]

2 hours ago, Lscott said:

The only people whose interpretation of the rules that matters is the FCC's. I agree with you there.

To cut out all of the debate have you taken this up with your local FCC field office? Have you forgotten the name of this thread?

If they say you're right then that's end of it. Same if they say you're wrong. The safe play is get the official interpretation of the rule(s) in question straight from them. Perhaps nobody on the forum is right. With all due respect, it is not my obligation to satisfy you or any other "nobody on this forum!" All I need to do is satisfy myself as to the interpretation of my using my Anytone for GMRS and Ham. 

That would far more to useful to everyone than any raging debate here. That's easy for you to say, yet you are probably the one most likely on this thread to rebut what I have to say... Seems like you enjoy it! 

If you talk to me on-the air knowing that I am using my Anytone on GMRS/Ham, are you an accessory after the fact?

[MichaelLAX]

32 minutes ago, BoxCar said:

Don't assume the FCC checks...

OK: I will not!

[Lscott]

3 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

 

I can read very well. Your issue has nothing to do with Part90/95 debate but is about a dual service radios, Part 97/95. The statement stands as I wrote it. To end the debate over the issue you mentioned was getting the FCC's interpretation of the rules.

You seem to be intent on proving your point, well back it up with the FCC's point of view. Either they agree with you or they don't. In the later case you may have the opportunity to help pay down the national debt by $10K or so. It's really that simple.

At least one other poster did exactly as I suggested to you and contacted the FCC about using Part 90 equipment on a Part 95 only service, at least its on topic. We now know what the FCC thinks about Part 90 equipment being used on GMRS, he included their response in his post, regardless of how one reads the rules. 

[MichaelLAX]

I am not intent on proving my point: I only am intent on operating consistent with how I interpret the FCC Rules as they apply to the FCC certification of the Anytone AT-779UV.

Everyone else seems intent on proving me wrong: feel free to consult with the FCC, if that is your desire.  It is not mine.

PS: You didn’t answer my question?!

[axorlov]

Matthew 7:6 is very fitting here, I suppose.

[MichaelLAX]

On 8/6/2021 at 12:10 PM, axorlov said:

I'm curious, will 779-UV allow you to tune to 406.0 MHz and transmit?

Interesting, that you would pick a frequency that is covered by FCC € 80.1061 for Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons, in the hope that I might interfere with such an important service.

Your comments do not deserve a response!

Good bye to you, Sir!

[axorlov]

1 hour ago, MichaelLAX said:

Interesting, that you would pick a frequency that is covered by FCC € 80.1061 for Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons, in the hope that I might interfere with such an important service.

Your comments do not deserve a response!

Good bye to you, Sir!

I was replying to your "think-of-the-children" remark. Of course my comments do not deserve a response from you! Just put me firmly on your ignore list and be done with me. And no peeking!

[MichaelLAX]

Once again you make obscure remarks about me that have no basis in fact. At least you're consistent about it.

I don't believe in "ignore lists" but I will be happy to be done with you, as you suggest!

[WRPQ991]

Here is kinda how I se it, a GMRS radio can not be modified to operate (transmit and receive) on Ham bands, But a Ham radio can be modified to operate on GMRS bands.  Some CBs can be modified to operate in Ham Bands, (free bands)  and that is highly illegal but Ham operators often use the CB frequencies, and it's OK.

I will admit I did NOT google all of the radios mentioned in this thread, I don't always understand the acronyms used in the forum, but the more I read, the more I learn. 

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, WRPQ991 said:

Here is kinda how I se it, a GMRS radio can not be modified to operate (transmit and receive) on Ham bands, But a Ham radio can be modified to operate on GMRS bands.  Some CBs can be modified to operate in Ham Bands, (free bands)  and that is highly illegal but Ham operators often use the CB frequencies, and it's OK.

I will admit I did NOT google all of the radios mentioned in this thread, I don't always understand the acronyms used in the forum, but the more I read, the more I learn. 

You really have that all screwed up.

I would HIGHLY suggest you go and read in detail Part 97 for the Armature Radio Service and Part 95E for GMRS. If it doesn't make sense the first time through then read it again, and again ... Most, if not all, of the answers are there. It might take awhile for it to sink in.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-97

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/part-95/subpart-E

If you have specific questions about any of the rules parts members here are glad to help in that area.