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

[gortex2]

Being the topic is completely off topic I'll bring it a bit further. Its not only radios and subscriptions. Vendors pay similar license fees for router licenses, firewalls and other devices used in P25 and other systems. Backhaul is huge money as well and depending on the system you pay for certain licenses as well. To add bandwidth they sell another license. End users normally do not see all of this as they are the ones using the subscriber but behind that system is alot of licenses. Heck even at home I pay for XYZ in bandwidth on my fiber but have multiple other options if I want them. 

 

So back to the part 90 debate. As said in the past I had the opportunity of an FCC technician to visit and audit one of my sites 15 years ago. I had him on site for other issues but had a great conversation on GMRS as he used it with his family. He looked over my repeater (MTR2000 at the time) and even reviewed my test data and last PM check on the repeater. While he never produced any documentation he had no issues at all with the unit. At the time there really was no one who made a Part 95 certified repeater. His comment back then was if he had the funds he would have the same setup. 

 

[PACNWComms]

On 4/8/2022 at 6:03 PM, Radioguy7268 said:

EID's - where the capability is built into the radio, and then you needed to buy a (lifetime) License to unlock that capability made sense to me.

As a system administrator for a nationwide Motorola radio network, made up of Motorola P25 Phase 1, Phase 2, legacy analog, and Trbo sub-networks, I see this all the time. While much of the programming, engineering, and installation and maintenance is done in house (very large corporation with a dedicated radio shop) we still do use many vendors, local radio shops across the country. And we all tend to complain en masse, especially for the new Trbo R7, Ion series radios, and push for PTT over LTE with the APX Next radios. 

For firefighting, confined space, and first response use cases, licenses are a problem. We have also had to inventory radios, triage them by firmware, options and EID status. Then, as you mentioned, making templates from that. Two counties in Washington State, King and Snohomish, are going through this right now. Too many templates to make and falling behind schedule, as they did not even know what they had end user wise, and have found they have more radios/license issues, and options that need updates. My fire departments are now sitting on APX6000XE radios, and awaiting the templates from the counties they must be interoperable with, to catch up. King and Snohomish counties are going P25 Phase 2, leapfrogging over FDMA Phase 1. They are now learning of the drastic changes in programming, entitlement ID's, CPS versus Radio Management, and other issues with TDMA P25 Phase 2. Then WAVE also gets pushed, with the monthly service cost being glossed over. 

All of this being typed as my old HT-1250 is being charged, the one I use for GMRS. 

[Adamdaj]

I can't really say that I understand the FCC rules and regulations about GMRS whether to use or not use, because I have used and I modified radios not authorized for Part 95 use. Right now, I wished I had not made the modification on my YAESU FT-60R, but it's done. However, getting back to using used or new old stock part 90 radios for GMRS shouldn't be a big deal, for three reasons. One, the majarity of those radios pulled from service due to the narrow banding requirements, should be able to be recertified Part 95A / 95E for GMRS. Two, I know even used or new old stock unopened can be pricy, but there are some great deals, especially if you are able obtain the programming equipment. Three, the quality of ICOM KENWOOD MOTOROLA and VERTEX can't be found in other price friendly brand, except MIDLAND.

[Lscott]

I have a number of commercial radios that are certified for both Part 90 and Part 95A, the later being the old part for GMRS. The radios haven't lost their certification. I have others as well like the NX-300(G), FM/NXDN, and the TK-5320, FM/P25, just have to restrict operation to FM until the FCC gets around to authorizing digital voice on GMRS.

For example I routinely use my Kenwood TK-3170 for Ham and GMRS. It has both Part 90 and 95A certifications. While the programming software complains it will accept frequency entries down in to the ham band low enough to cover the repeater section just fine. So I have one radio where I can use it for either service without any hardware or software modifications.

NX-200_300.pdf NX-300 FCC Grant - 1.pdf TK-2170_3170(K) Brochure.pdf TK-3170 Grant.pdf TK-5220_5320 Brochure - 2.pdf TK-5320 FCC Grant - 1.pdf

[nissanpu87]

the problem here is that FCC doesn't enforce any rules at all. so a question on FCC rules and regulations means nothing when Laura Smith and john Kuzma at FCC are useless as heck.  I've been dealing with FCC directly for years now and I'm at a point to file lawsuit on them.  just look me up on QRZ or Youtube under Rawlin Harrington KE8TIQ and you will see I'm their most hated. lol 

[Lscott]

12 hours ago, nissanpu87 said:

the problem here is that FCC doesn't enforce any rules at all. so a question on FCC rules and regulations means nothing when Laura Smith and john Kuzma at FCC are useless as heck.  I've been dealing with FCC directly for years now and I'm at a point to file lawsuit on them.  just look me up on QRZ or Youtube under Rawlin Harrington KE8TIQ and you will see I'm their most hated. lol 

Finally found somebody who has more look ups than I do on QRZ!

[MichaelLAX]

Looks close to defamatory, to me...

[WRKC935]

I guess the question at this point is WHY is there 5 pages of discussion on a topic that is simple to answer.

A radio that is PART 90 certified for commercial radio use is acceptable and legal for use on GMRS.

Modified ham radios are NOT PART 90 certified and therefore are NOT allowed to be used on GMRS Although the will 'work'.

This applies to repeaters as well as portables and mobiles.

We seem to want to beat this stuff into the ground here and I fail to understand why that is.  GMRS is in the middle of the UHF PART 90 frequency allocation.  So from a technical standpoint, there would be no reason to think they wouldn't be allowed.  Keep in mind that a ham radio for UHF (420 to 450Mhz) operated on GMRS is being operated 17Mhz outside of it's design parameters.  Where a commercial radio that is PART 90 (450 to 470/512Mhz) is running INSIDE the design bandwidth of the radio.

Now of course, there are considerations for power output that have to be followed.  Some frequencies are lower power and some mobiles and portables will NOT turn down far enough to be legal to operate on the simplex GMRS frequencies.  So you simply set those channels as receive only or don't program them in radios that can't turn down to a legal power output level. 

[BoxCar]

Without a written opinion from the FCC the use of a Part 90 radio in Part 95 is strictly conjecture and should be evaluated as a personal opinion only.

[wrci350]

8 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

I guess the question at this point is WHY is there 5 pages of discussion on a topic that is simple to answer.

I think you answered your own question.  We have "what the FCC rules say", then we have "what people THINK the FCC rules say", and finally "what people think the FCC rules SHOULD say".  Hence the ongoing debate.

8 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

A radio that is PART 90 certified for commercial radio use is acceptable and legal for use on GMRS.

Please provide the section of Part 95e that says that.  Oh wait; there isn't one.

For a radio to be "legal" on GMRS, it HAS to have a Part 95e certification.  Full stop.

The rules do allow for a radio to have dual certification (Part 90 and Part 95e) as long as it cannot transmit on frequencies that are part of a service that doesn't require transmitter certification (aka Part 97).  But nowhere does it say, "Part 90 radios are automatically certified for Part 95e".  Indeed, many Part 90 radios are 400-470 or 400-480 so they can be used for ham radio (which is perfectly legal) but that precludes them from being 95e certified.

As far as I know, there are NO currently-produced radios that are both Part 90 and 95e.

8 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Some frequencies are lower power and some mobiles and portables will NOT turn down far enough to be legal to operate on the simplex GMRS frequencies.  So you simply set those channels as receive only or don't program them in radios that can't turn down to a legal power output level. 

Not completely accurate.  Mobiles cannot be used on the low-power channels; those are restricted to HTs only.  Not a matter of "turning down to a legal power output". 

The bottom line is that the FCC doesn't care if you use a Part 90 radio on GMRS.  But that's not what the rules say.  It's up to each GMRS licensee to decide how important it is to use a Part 95e certified radio.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, wrci350 said:

The rules do allow for a radio to have dual certification (Part 90 and Part 95e) as long as it cannot transmit on frequencies that are part of a service that doesn't require transmitter certification (aka Part 97).  But nowhere does it say, "Part 90 radios are automatically certified for Part 95e".  Indeed, many Part 90 radios are 400-470 or 400-480 so they can be used for ham radio (which is perfectly legal) but that precludes them from being 95e certified.

As far as I know, there are NO currently-produced radios that are both Part 90 and 95e.

That's the interesting thing I noticed too with the FCC grants. Part of the documentation for each radio model I own is get the FCC grant info, which shows the frequency, power, modulation type and rules part the radio is certified under.

Where some of the UHF radios that have multiple ranges and have both Part 90 and 95 certifications are the models that DON'T cover the ham bands. For example the NX-300 models I have in my collection. See attached files and look at the FCC ID's in the brochure for the different band splits.

NX-300 FCC Grant - 1.pdf NX-300 FCC Grant - 2.pdf NX-200_300.pdf

[NavyBOFH]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:43 PM, wrci350 said:

I think you answered your own question.  We have "what the FCC rules say", then we have "what people THINK the FCC rules say", and finally "what people think the FCC rules SHOULD say".  Hence the ongoing debate.

Please provide the section of Part 95e that says that.  Oh wait; there isn't one.

For a radio to be "legal" on GMRS, it HAS to have a Part 95e certification.  Full stop.

The rules do allow for a radio to have dual certification (Part 90 and Part 95e) as long as it cannot transmit on frequencies that are part of a service that doesn't require transmitter certification (aka Part 97).  But nowhere does it say, "Part 90 radios are automatically certified for Part 95e".  Indeed, many Part 90 radios are 400-470 or 400-480 so they can be used for ham radio (which is perfectly legal) but that precludes them from being 95e certified.

As far as I know, there are NO currently-produced radios that are both Part 90 and 95e.

Not completely accurate.  Mobiles cannot be used on the low-power channels; those are restricted to HTs only.  Not a matter of "turning down to a legal power output". 

The bottom line is that the FCC doesn't care if you use a Part 90 radio on GMRS.  But that's not what the rules say.  It's up to each GMRS licensee to decide how important it is to use a Part 95e certified radio.

I put it in my original post: 95.335 (a) which states:

(a) Exceptions. Under certain exceptions, non-certified Personal Radio Service transmitters, or transmitters certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated. Any such exceptions applicable to stations in a Personal Radio Service are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.735 and 95.1735.

95.735 is for CB, and 95.1735 is currently not codified and "reserved for future use". The part in 95.335 specifically saying "certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated" points RIGHT AT PART 90.

Hence my 90 minute phone call years ago - and that further discussion is still ongoing to push that somewhere in 95.1735 this is codified in literal black-and-white for everyone to quit debating this.

[Lscott]

3 hours ago, NavyBOFH said:

I put it in my original post: 95.335 (a) which states:

(a) Exceptions. Under certain exceptions, non-certified Personal Radio Service transmitters, or transmitters certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated. Any such exceptions applicable to stations in a Personal Radio Service are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.735 and 95.1735.

95.735 is for CB, and 95.1735 is currently not codified and "reserved for future use". The part in 95.335 specifically saying "certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated" points RIGHT AT PART 90.

Hence my 90 minute phone call years ago - and that further discussion is still ongoing to push that somewhere in 95.1735 this is codified in literal black-and-white for everyone to quit debating this.

It would be great if they said so specifically in plain language. It would open up a lot of otherwise used very serviceable equipment.  

[WRKC935]

Small correction.  PART 95.735 is NOT for CB radio (40 channel CB radio between 29.965 and 27.405)

It IS for remote control devices, typically model aircraft, cars and boats that had radios that typically were used two frequencies that were between the assigned channels of CB radio.  Those transmitter units (remote controls) did NOT carry a type acceptance due to their low power not requiring one. 

Radio shack actually sold a car alarm that used one of those frequencies for a pager that was tied to the car alarm unit. 

There was also a Class A CB radio service that was between 460 and 470 Mhz that predated and ultimately became GMRS.  According to Wikipedia that occurred in the 70's so there is no telling if some of the regulations are still referring to GMRS as CB.  As mentioned before, it ain't written to be real understandable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_band_radio

Channels were

3A	26.995 MHz
7A	27.045 MHz
11A	27.095 MHz
15A	27.145 MHz
19A	27.195 MHz

[kc9pke]

In 2014 the FCC opened docket 14-180 to try and clean up Part 22 (the auctioned Paging & Radiotelephone Service, now popularly used by some governments as a supplement or substitute for Part 90 freqs when they're unavailable) rules

Interestingly a good number of the commenters there were screaming "let us use Part 90 cert'd stuff on Part 22" in unison

[Adamdaj]

This Topic of using FCC part 90 equipment on 95 A service seems like a never-ending saga. I'm guilty of using Motorola Maxtacs and HT 1000s on GMRS prior to the recent update in 2017 taking GMRS from Part 95A to Part 95 E.  Of course, someone who just get their GMRS License will tell me the GMRS was never Part 95 A. I know I probably right about that. I mean someone disagreeing from about GMRS use to be Part 95A. I wonder why the FCC changed it from Part A to E. FRS is still found in Part  95 B...

 

I apologize in advance for rambling on nonsense, but those same folks, sound like hall monitors. I mean when it comes to using used or new old stock radio that are part 90 certified for GMRS. 

[NavyBOFH]

With the newest NPRM out, I think it is time that I re-visit this before submitting a public comment... if I end up choosing to do so.

1. The NPRM needs to address that 95.335(a) should fully codify Part 90 radios into the rule, as all of them meet or exceed technical standards for Part 95 use.
2. Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR.
3. On that end, narrowbanding would become mandated with a transition period, and interstitial frequencies assigned to the service to further leverage the narrowbanding "side-effect".
4. Using all of the above, then in-band GPS signaling along with cadence-based GPS and other "data" functions become "tolerable" in the service since there would be more channels, more talk paths, and more opportunity to use the service that has grown exponentially.

I am only writing this here because I want to see if the GMRS groups can even remotely come to some sort of agreement... because to be fully blunt Midland is the only one putting a compelling argument out with no one coming out with an actual comment to the proposal short of a long-winded "yes" or "no".

I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.

[WRHS218]

18 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:

Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR.

I am not trying to argue but trying to learn...

Who decides what digital mode to use? Aren't there three main digital voice modes for amateurs? And aren't those modes used by different manufactures? I have an amateur license but don't use digital. It seems like Midland is trying to do in GMRS what Yaesu and the others have done on the amateur side. But, again, I don't know enough about it to know what is what in the digital world. 

Either way, I am still not in favor of making all of these changes to GMRS. Of course that is just my opinion.

[NavyBOFH]

14 minutes ago, WRHS218 said:

I am not trying to argue but trying to learn...

Who decides what digital mode to use? Aren't there three main digital voice modes for amateurs? And aren't those modes used by different manufactures? I have an amateur license but don't use digital. It seems like Midland is trying to do in GMRS what Yaesu and the others have done on the amateur side. But, again, I don't know enough about it to know what is what in the digital world. 

Either way, I am still not in favor of making all of these changes to GMRS. Of course that is just my opinion.

Amateur modes will not exist in Part 90 or 95 - that is the first thing most people need to understand. The FCC will go by "emissions designator" and things like YSF and DSTAR are not validated anywhere by the FCC - they're amateur modes purely for "amateur experimentation and hobbyists". The concern I have is that Midland will find some proprietary mode to use, which will dilute the effects of this rule change.

With that said, the common digital modes in the US are P25, DMR, and NXDN. NXDN is licensed via Kenwood/ICOM, so good luck with that becoming an "open standard" in a way that is meaningful to this conversation. That leaves P25 and DMR. DMR was created as an ETSI "open standard" for business/commercial use, and has very much flourished in the US. P25 is the predominant digital mode for public safety/utilities, but is on an order of magnitude more expensive and lacks things like TDMA (in a way that can be easily implemented) to allow for the continued growth of the service.

All of these digital modes for commercial use are already narrowbanded, to the point that most radios simply will not program as "wideband" and digital at the same time - so narrowbanding of the service will become a de facto standard just off emissions... so might as well embrace it and shape it via NPRM.

As you said, the concern I have with this is without a truly unified voice, Midland will end up being allowed to create a proprietary format to sell to people which will in turn become "Midland vs legacy analog" for the end user. I would much rather put a line in the sand with the FCC saying "do not allow them to re-invent the wheel", however I also know a good subset of this community will start screeching if GMRS is anything past wideband analog in an era where EVERYTHING is digital.

[AdmiralCochrane]

Agreed. Changing existing frequency use to narrow band is a fantasy because there is too much existing equipment that people will not discard just because the FCC changes rules. 

 

If the FCC allows any proprietary digital protocol in GMRS I would forever suspect bribes were paid. 

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, AdmiralCochrane said:

Agreed. Changing existing frequency use to narrow band is a fantasy because there is too much existing equipment that people will not discard just because the FCC changes rules. 

 

If the FCC allows any proprietary digital protocol in GMRS I would forever suspect bribes were paid. 

Are there any digital voice protocols that don’t require a proprietary codec at least? (If I’m saying that right…)

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, Sshannon said:

Are there any digital voice protocols that don’t require a proprietary codec at least? (If I’m saying that right…)

Here’s one example of an open source codec.

https://www.rowetel.com/wordpress/?page_id=452

Note that the open source mode dPMR has bits that tell the RX radio what codec is in use. The mode allows up to 4. One could be an open source version like the above. See attached file.

dPMR MoU tech lib Voc Bits V1 (2019).pdf

[Adamdaj]

I still standby what I have posted in December of 2023 about the use of uncertified radios and repeaters in the GMRS spectrum.

With that note, I did notice that I still refer to the General Mobile Radio Service as Class A Citizen Band Radio, which in recent years, the FCC has reclassified GMRS. I'm not too sure if I can refer GMRS as Class E Citizen Band Radio.

 

[nokones]

The FCC dropped the class designations decades ago. They are called Radio Services now and each Radio Service is governed by specific sub parts with in Part 95, Personal Radio Services, such as Subpart B, Family Radio Service; Subpart D, CB Radio Service; Subpart E, General Mobile Radio Service; and Subpart J, Multi-Use Radio Service; etc.