95.1761 slightly confusing

[WSBZ540]

Preface:

So I really hate carrying more stuff than I need. I have a digital/analog business radio, which I use with encryption. And I also use that same radio for some digital amature stuff on 2m. I've setup a gmrs repeater and I've been listening to it to make sure it's behaving with its diy controller.

 

Talking to some ham people over the weekend, they think you can use a business radio on gmrs, and here's why.

Part 95.1761(c) says:

"No GMRS transmitter will be certified for use in the GMRS if it is equipped with a frequency capability not listed in § 95.1763"

Ok so my business radio is disqualified there, but, (and here is the confusing portion) it goes on to say this:

"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."

It sounds as though a business radio could be used on amature, and since part 90 also requires certification, you could also setup a part 90 radio to operate within gmrs confines (output and bandwidth)and use that as well.

One radio, cover all 3 bases? Is this how the Motorola radios are getting by with repurposing as GMRS repeaters?

Or maybe there's just a flaw in the understanding here.

[WSBZ540]

Disregard.. I think the answer is in the details for manufacturing. Not the end user. I believe the radio needs 90/95 certification, not that 90 radios can just already use 95.

[tweiss3]

The "by the rules" answer is the manufacturer has to ask for it to be certified for Part 95 for it to be certified. That other sentence is acknowledging that commercial UHF radios have the ability program more than just GMRS frequencies, and also the fact that the technical requirements of Part 90 meet and/or exceed the requirements of Part 95.

That being said, as some have said, and other have concluded, there isn't a currently sold new commercial radio that carries Part 95 certification, and meeting or exceeding the requirements of Part 95 (frequency accuracy, deviation, etc.), nobody is going to notice unless you do something stupid.

The asterisk here is that ham equipment is not certified for frequency accuracy, and not certified for use outside of the ham bands. UHF commercial radios are usually 380-470, 450-512 or 380-512, which just happens to have GMRS within it's certified limits of operation. Using modified ham equipment is problematic and should be avoided. 

 

[nokones]

47 minutes ago, WSBZ540 said:

Preface:

So I really hate carrying more stuff than I need. I have a digital/analog business radio, which I use with encryption. And I also use that same radio for some digital amature stuff on 2m. I've setup a gmrs repeater and I've been listening to it to make sure it's behaving with its diy controller.

 

Talking to some ham people over the weekend, they think you can use a business radio on gmrs, and here's why.

Part 95.1761(c) says:

"No GMRS transmitter will be certified for use in the GMRS if it is equipped with a frequency capability not listed in § 95.1763"

Ok so my business radio is disqualified there, but, (and here is the confusing portion) it goes on to say this:

"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."

It sounds as though a business radio could be used on amature, and since part 90 also requires certification, you could also setup a part 90 radio to operate within gmrs confines (output and bandwidth)and use that as well.

One radio, cover all 3 bases? Is this how the Motorola radios are getting by with repurposing as GMRS repeaters?

Or maybe there's just a flaw in the understanding here.

Are you forgetting about the second sentence in 95.1761(c)?

Technically, by rule you can use your Part 90 radio on HAM freqs but not on GMRS freqs if it has the capability of being used on HAM freqs. If the type-accepted Part 90 radio operating band range is 450-520 MHz you are good to go to use your Part 90 LMR radio in accordance with Parts 95.335(a) & 95.1761(c).

[Guest]

These debates are getting soo old.   If it says gmrs on it, it says part 95…. Or it’s locked to gmrs “channels” to tx on its a gmrs radio.  If it doesn’t or isn’t it’s not.  Pure and simple.   In the end who cares. It does not matter at all if you have an older, rare or different duel cert radio or not.    Just don’t be stupid.   No one will ever care or ever know as long as you don’t toss it up on some forum and talk about it.    I’d venture to say a HUGE majority of repeaters and radios that are used on gmrs are not certified.   

[OffRoaderX]

If the FCC doesn't even care (based on their contacts/enforcements), then why would I care?

[gortex2]

Id rather use a Part 90 certified radio on GMRS vs a CCR or other ham radio with no certifications. But as @OffRoaderX said the FCC doesn't care and most on this forum use ham radios on GMRS already.

 

 

[WSBZ540]

I just met up with a group of them over the weekend to discuss a repeater site and some equipment.

But while I was there, my repeater sent its morse id, and some random guy recognized it as gmrs. He knew my business radio wasn't a 'gmrs radio' so questions arose. A couple of other hams chimed in with 95.1761. I left them to debate it and read it myself. I wasn't sure so I just left it. Later I got to thinking about it and started digging around what I could find.

 

There are hams, sad hams, seasonal depressive hams, and manic depressive hams. If I don't need to moderate what I say around them then I don't. Just looking for clarification. But I found it (I think) in some cert documents on the fcc site.

I'm not stating anything, and I'm not advocating any specific actions. I was simply curious if there was credence to it. And it seems like (unfortunately) the manic depressive ham was correct.

[WRQC527]

1 hour ago, WSBZ540 said:

So I really hate carrying more stuff than I need.

This is the exact reason that I and all the people in my circle of amateur radio friends, which is quite a few, have made the MARS/CAP mod on all our mobile and handheld radios. Most of us use Yaesu radios. We're not interested in debating the nuances of FCC Parts 90, 95, and 97 and how they govern what device we carry. We're interested in communicating and not being stupid about it. 

[Lscott]

22 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

This is the exact reason that I and all the people in my circle of amateur radio friends, which is quite a few, have made the MARS/CAP mod on all our mobile and handheld radios. Most of us use Yaesu radios. We're not interested in debating the nuances of FCC Parts 90, 95, and 97 and how they govern what device we carry. We're interested in communicating and not being stupid about it. 

You won’t be the only one. So long as people understand the potential problems they make their own choices. I have some friends who have done the same thing. I gave them “the speech” and they make their choices. That’s the end of the topic. I wouldn’t feel right if I didn’t at least point it out.

[WQAI363]

I won't say that I use to be one of those individuals that didn't care what Radio I used, just as long as it works. To some extent, I still believe that, even though there will always be controversy using part 90 radios in part 95 Domain.  Even, modifying part 97 radios is constantly brought up in discussions among Amateur Radio Licensees and GMRS Licensees.

The late Russ Stafford W3CH-SK, he would preach to other HAMS about what not to do and yet, Russ himself did exactly what he advised others not to do.  Russ Stafford along his wife for many years organized the communications for the MS 150 City to Shore.

Russ would also claim that the use of Ten Codes was a violation of FCC Rules and Regulations, which isn't.

[WRXB215]

14 hours ago, Adamdaj said:

Even, modifying part 97 radios is constantly brought up in discussions among Amateur Radio Licensees and GMRS Licensees.

Like you, I'm dual licensed so I just argue with myself. 

[WQAI363]

Sometimes I confuse myself with my post on certain topics, but really try to sound intelligent.  I guess you can say I either think fast then I can write, or you certainly tell that I didn't really read the topic.