Licensing

[Lscott]

30 minutes ago, pcradio said:

Heading (a) refers to a Station. Heading (9) expands on that.

What this means, in practicality, is that if you operate a GMRS station (you have a license to do so), then the equipment and area you operate this station from (vehicle, on person, or shack) must not be used to contact an Amateur station.

If you also have an Amateur station (and license), the GMRS station supersedes that, and you must not communicate from within the GMRS station to an Amateur station. You will need a separate Amateur station in another vehicle, separate room in your home, etc.

I come to these forums so that I make sure I'm in compliance. The FCC regulations are clear, buy more stuff because it makes more sense.

The section of the rules quoted refers to over the air communications. It's very common to have multiple sets of radios grouped together which operate on different radios services. It makes no difference on the location or proximity of the equipment. It's not uncommon to find Ham, GMRS, FRS, CB, police, fire etc. radios all in one location. The communications are maned by people with the appropriate licenses and or agency authorizations for transmitting. You don't need a license to just monitor, a very important point.

To further clarify what's going on is the following. When a GMRS user communicates to another station he does so under GMRS rules. If the other station replies they also must operate under GMRS rules. 

For example if a GMRS user contacts myself on the air, using GMRS certified equipment and legal frequencies, and I respond I must also be using the same. I'm in fact dual licensed for both Ham Radio and GMRS. That doesn't preclude me from turning around and now using my Ham Radio to forward the message on legal Ham frequencies. When I do so I'm now operation under my Ham license and rules.

[pcradio]

8 minutes ago, Lscott said:

For example if a GMRS user contacts myself on the air, using GMRS certified equipment and legal frequencies, and I respond I must also be using the same. I'm in fact dual licensed for both Ham Radio and GMRS. That doesn't preclude me from turning around and now using my Ham Radio to forward the message on legal Ham frequencies. When I do so I'm now operation under my Ham license and rules.

Lscott,

You are a smart individual. We need people like you on the side of common sense.

The height of absurdity would be separately purchasing the KG-1000G, KG-1000M, and then the KG-UV980P, and actually feeling good about oneself after installing them in the same vehicle. No person should be applauded for this behavior or encouraged to carry out such ridiculous suggestions. Instead, they should be spared from following such thinking and made to feel good about common sense. If everyone jumps off a bridge, will we do likewise?

[Lscott]

14 minutes ago, pcradio said:

The point of this exercise it to show the FCC says many things that are not practical and logical. What amazes me is the amount of online posters who genuinely suggest that one must purchase three radios for their truck to use services they are licensed for.

That's petty much exactly what the rules say and requires. You would be surprised by how many people do in fact have multiple radios for the various services. It's common.

We have one or more individuals on this form who feel that's rather inconvenient and look for creative ways to circumvent FCC regulations. Are they likely to get away with it? Yes, but if they do get busted I have some very serious doubts the administrative court would agree with their arguments. Paying attorney fees, court costs and the likely $10,000 FCC fine is an expensive way to test their arguments where it really matters.

[pcradio]

33 minutes ago, Lscott said:

That's petty much exactly what the rules say and requires.

Thank you for the discussion.

Here is an official link to the office of the Governor of California. If we don't resist such thinking, more like this will come. I'm new to radio, and was not aware how an important marker had been crossed. There really is a spirit behind this, and it has big consequences for our future.

A quote from the link:
Don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites.

I know it hard to stand up for right thinking. Much easier to just go with the flow. We can uphold the law, and still reject tyranny.

[MichaelLAX]

That is a link to an outdated year old Tweet.

Let's keep our discussion to the GMRS and other radio services rules, so that we do not lose perspective. 

[pcradio]

5 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

That is a link to an outdated year old Tweet. Let's keep our discussion to the GMRS and other radio services rules, so that we do not lose perspective. 

Understood.

I was just trying to show how shocking something can be in perspective. I'm new to radio and I'm stunned at some of the regulations. We need some perspective on what makes sense and how logical arguments benefit society, not hinder it.

[MichaelLAX]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

... Yes, but if they do get busted I have some very serious doubts the administrative court would agree with their arguments. Paying attorney fees, court costs and the likely $10,000 FCC fine is an expensive way to test their arguments where it really matters.

Do me a favor, @Lscott since I am rushed this morning: please link me to the FCC Rules & Regs that makes your hypothetical a fine punishable event.

I am not talking about some company manufacturing and/or importing a non-Certified Part 95 radio into the US for sale;

I am talking about a GMRS licensee using a radio on GMRS, within the power, bandwidth limits, etc., that is either not Part 95 certified or was Part 95 certified and lost its certification, and, according to you, is subject to a $10,000 fine.  Thank you.

[axorlov]

3 hours ago, pcradio said:

How can equipment hardware itself be foreign? That is a reference to location. Equipment that is authorized can suddenly be not so, when it is in a different location. You can't say two different things at the same time.

I say a little different thing. I say that there is no requirement that equipment for different services must be in a different rooms or separated anyhow. You can operate your  TK-880-1 under Part 90 license and be station in LMR service, and then operate the same (or another one) TK-880-1 sitting on the same chair under Part 95e license and be a station in GMRS.

Equipment itself can be foreign, when it is under jurisdiction of the foreign rules and laws. It is not related to physical separation of stations intended for different services.

And regarding buying 3 radios, yes, that's the letter and the spirit of the law. Want to be clean in the eyes of the law, then buy three radios, because the terms of your license require that you operate within the rules. If you think you're above the rules, it's fine with me too, I'm not your mom or your neighbor or cop. Just do not mislead others, like Lscott pointed out above. I'm a little irritated by some people (we will not point fingers here) who suggest that it's perfectly ok to have GMRS<->Amateur communications when it's very clearly not allowed, or use 18W AT779UV on MURS.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Do me a favor, @Lscott since I am rushed this morning: please link me to the FCC Rules & Regs that makes your hypothetical a fine punishable event.

I am not talking about some company manufacturing and/or importing a non-Certified Part 95 radio into the US for sale;

I am talking about a GMRS licensee using a radio on GMRS, within the power, bandwidth limits, etc., that is either not Part 95 certified or was Part 95 certified and lost its certification, and, according to you, is subject to a $10,000 fine.  Thank you.

Ask your nearest FCC field office. I'm sure they would be delighted to point things out for you. If anybody has a question about their radio a simple check on he following site should be enough to answer the question.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Enter in the FCC ID for the radio as required, search, then check the grant and see what parts it's certified for by the FCC. If Part 95A (old rules) or  Part 95E (new rules) is not shown then technically it can't be used. There is no wiggle room. People are using Part 90 radios on GMRS and so far the FCC has ignored it. However if they so choose to fine somebody, well, by the rules it never was legal so they took their chances.

[n4gix]

3 hours ago, Lscott said:

For example if a GMRS user contacts myself on the air, using GMRS certified equipment and legal frequencies, and I respond I must also be using the same. I'm in fact dual licensed for both Ham Radio and GMRS. That doesn't preclude me from turning around and now using my Ham Radio to forward the message on legal Ham frequencies. When I do so I'm now operation under my Ham license and rules.

That describes precisely how we have ARES District 1 set up here in NW Indiana. Our ARES "group" has both ham and GMRS members. Some hams (such as myself) are dual licensed.  Any GMRS operator can forward a message to one of us with dual licensed stations and we will then in turn forward that message to our Incident Command Center.  The same operates in reverse as well of course.

[axorlov]

3 hours ago, pcradio said:

A quote from the link:
Don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites.

Haha, sorry for the off tangent. But that bolded remark is very much needed, and this very thread is a proof of it. We have people here (we will not point fingers) who might go to Starbucks with the shiny macbook in hand and say: "Oh cool! I'll take my first bite at 8am, and then blabber till noon with no mask. Because noon is when I'm taking my next bite".

[WRPZ296]

On 10/15/2021 at 12:37 PM, Lscott said:

That's petty much exactly what the rules say and requires. You would be surprised by how many people do in fact have multiple radios for the various services. It's common.

We have one or more individuals on this form who feel that's rather inconvenient and look for creative ways to circumvent FCC regulations. Are they likely to get away with it? Yes, but if they do get busted I have some very serious doubts the administrative court would agree with their arguments. Paying attorney fees, court costs and the likely $10,000 FCC fine is an expensive way to test their arguments where it really matters.

Can you provide a citation for "$10,000 fine"?

Going 5 over the speed limit is illegal. However, you don't go to prison for 15 years on your first offense.

Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's a severe felony.

The FCC's actions towards individuals who improperly use radios are all public and there is not a single example of a person being fined for using a ham radio to transmit on GMRS in a manner that would otherwise be legal. Sure; just like the cop who dings you for the lanyard over the rear view mirror 'obstructing your vision' when they stop you for speeding; there are examples of people who were also doing other illegal things being dinged, yes. And the FCC is definitely going after / cracking down on vendors and manufacturers who sell radios capable of both. But no; it is not a priority for the FCC to aggressively prosecute people who use the GMRS service with a ham radio or vice versa, who are otherwise licensed to do so, and who are doing so in a manner that is otherwise legal (non-disruptive, not causing interference, transmitting at appropriate frequencies and powers, etc.)

I use two radios myself; mostly just because I want the performance of a proper GMRS antenna and the easiest way for my smooth brain to figure out how to do that was two antennas and two radios in my truck. There's probably a way to get my ham radio to transmit over GMRS; I dunno. Haven't figured it out if there is. And generally speaking, I prefer to follow the rules and I'm pretty by the book. But there is this bizarre internet disconnect happening where folks thing that something that violates a regulatory bodies statute is the same thing as a felony; or would ever warrant a $10,000 fine. People get fined by the FCC when they intentionally cause problems, or when they use their equipment to deny other people the right to use their equipment (such as jammers, something the FCC really does go after hardcore). 

[OffRoaderX]

18 minutes ago, WRPZ296 said:

Can you provide a citation for "$10,000 fine"?

I approve this message.

[Lscott]

6 hours ago, WRPZ296 said:

Can you provide a citation for "$10,000 fine"?
 

Check the FCC enforcement logs to see what kind of fines they issue. And if you still don’t believe it then all you have to do is ask them. 

[Lscott]

6 hours ago, WRPZ296 said:

The FCC's actions towards individuals who improperly use radios are all public and there is not a single example of a person being fined for using a ham radio to transmit on GMRS in a manner that would otherwise be legal. 

Yeah, same crappy logic the 11M crowd used to explain away their actions running excessive power and running out of band. A few them don’t think it’s so funny or an academic issue when the FCC was finished with them. When they get annoyed enough they will make an example out someone. You’re betting it won’t be you. 

If you want to play the game of twisting the dragons tail don’t start crying when it gets annoyed enough to turn around and flame you. 

[OffRoaderX]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

Check the FCC enforcement logs to see what kind of fines they issue. And if you still don’t believe it then all you have to do is ask them. 

I have checked the last ~9 years of the FCC enforcement database, and the FCC has issued 0 fines or enforcements of any kind against anyone for simply using a non part-certified radio.  So thank you for yet another example of "some people" that keep spreading lies/misinformation in some lame/sad/pitiful attempt to make the use of radios more special than it actually is. But it is always fun to have examples of these fairy-tales for people to laugh at/make fun of, so I thank you for that.

Of course, you can easily prove me wrong by simply leaving a link to the FCC enforcement entry for any one of these multiple enforcement fairy-tales you keep spinning..  But you already avoided that once when @MichaelLAXchallenged you, and again when@WRPZ296 challenged you, so I predict you will come up with some other way to deflect the actual truth yet again.

[marcspaz]

I searched the database and found tons of very expensive fines for stuff like Pirate Radio. I guess I'm gone scratch that one off the bucket list now.

[BoxCar]

There are several releases of fines against companies for selling noncertified radios and equipment. There are also reports of individuals being cited and fined for use of illegal transmitters causing interference to other services. While I haven't been active in radio licensing for several years there are multiple reports of CB shops and truck stops selling noncertified equipment, primarily 10 meter and uncertified CB gear. The reports for individuals are primarily for using jammers affecting airport radars, public safety and cellular communication. Hobby King was fined over a million for selling noncertified RC transmitters. 

[Lscott]

16 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

I have checked the last ~9 years of the FCC enforcement database, and the FCC has issued 0 fines or enforcements of any kind against anyone for simply using a non part-certified radio.  So thank you for yet another example of "some people" that keep spreading lies/misinformation in some lame/sad/pitiful attempt to make the use of radios more special than it actually is. But it is always fun to have examples of these fairy-tales for people to laugh at/make fun of, so I thank you for that.

Of course, you can easily prove me wrong by simply leaving a link to the FCC enforcement entry for any one of these multiple enforcement fairy-tales you keep spinning..  But you already avoided that once when @MichaelLAXchallenged you, and again when@WRPZ296 challenged you, so I predict you will come up with some other way to deflect the actual truth yet again.

Show me a PDF scanned correspondence on FCC letter head stating they won’t.

[MichaelLAX]

8 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Show me a PDF scanned correspondence on FCC letter head stating they won’t.

Person A makes an assertion.

Person B disagrees with Person A's assertion and Person B asks him to provide a citation (or link) that substantiates Person A's assertion.

Person A responds to Person B: "You, Person B, prove me wrong!" 

Ah, thank goodness, the world does not work this way!  (At least in the United States of America!) 

[OffRoaderX]

3 hours ago, Lscott said:

Show me a PDF scanned correspondence on FCC letter head stating they won’t.

As predicted ...

We dont need a letter from them because their previous & public record says it for them.

Stop telling boogy-man stories - people are laughing at you.

[Lscott]

31 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

I’m not wasting my time when the agency that has the final say on the matter, is a simple email or phone call away, and you won’t make the effort to find out exactly what their stand is on the subject for yourself as a responsible radio operator. 

[OffRoaderX]

"some people"...

[WRPZ296]

20 hours ago, Lscott said:

Yeah, same crappy logic the 11M crowd used to explain away their actions running excessive power and running out of band. A few them don’t think it’s so funny or an academic issue when the FCC was finished with them. When they get annoyed enough they will make an example out someone. You’re betting it won’t be you. 

If you want to play the game of twisting the dragons tail don’t start crying when it gets annoyed enough to turn around and flame you. 

There’s a pretty substantial difference between what you’re describing, and using a ham radio to transmit on GMRS. That’s why I offered the “otherwise legally” caveat.

The FCC’s primary concern is interference, whether malicious or otherwise. The FCC is not going to “make an example” out of someone for using GMRS in that manner. In the example you offered of 11m band misuse; those individuals are doing things that interfere with other users and limit their ability to use it. In the example of a non-certified radio that is being used “otherwise legally” (correct frequencies and power outputs, etc.); there is absolutely no interference/disruption happening. In fact the majority of the “GMRS” type certified radios which are in the same class as the kind of radios we’re talking about; they are themselves 100% identical to the ham version. It’s the exact same radio. The only difference is firmware; which the FCC requires as a part of the type certification (a software lockout from ham bands).

[Lscott]

6 minutes ago, WRPZ296 said:

There’s a pretty substantial difference between what you’re describing, and using a ham radio to transmit on GMRS. That’s why I offered the “otherwise legally” caveat.
 

You can frame it anyway you like. You’re still rolling the dice that nothing is going to happen. You might get away with it, until you don’t. And yes the FCC issues $10k fines. They have done it before, in the following case for simple unlicensed operation on GMRS.

https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-157A1.html
 

Note that nothing else was mentioned as the cause for the fine, no interference etc., just unlicensed operation. They were even using purpose built GMRS radios, from Midland no less, not even modified Ham gear as you suggest. Further on the FCC said that simple ignorance of the necessity of getting a license does warrant any reduction in the fine. They aren’t screwing around. 
 

You should also read this too. The FCC might have mercy on the unlucky, but then again maybe not. The government is running a big deficit, I guessing they won’t be in a charitable mood. Small staff in the enforcement section, they need to set some examples.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/95.313