Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is crossbanding between Amateur / GMRS legal?  (Read 13328 times)
KB2VUQ
Member

Posts: 111


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2012, 06:33:55 AM »

"Transmitting without being answered is considered to be broadcasting--which is illegal on the amateur band, and,  if I'm not mistaken, the GMRS band as well".

Or is it?

So, if I call another ham on the local repeater and they don't answer, should I turn myself into the nearest FCC  field office immediately or just wait for the enforcement letter in the mail?  Grin

GMRS requires a license which would cover the entire immediate family members of the licensee anyway, so it would be simpler for the family to stay on GMRS and have the ham buy a part 95 approved radio...or, as others have said, have the XYL get a ham ticket.   
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5885




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2012, 08:56:24 AM »

"Transmitting without being answered is considered to be broadcasting--which is illegal on the amateur band, and,  if I'm not mistaken, the GMRS band as well".

Or is it?

So, if I call another ham on the local repeater and they don't answer, should I turn myself into the nearest FCC  field office immediately or just wait for the enforcement letter in the mail?  Grin ....

No, it isn't--but you're not broadcasting, you're calling--and you're calling a specific licensee even if he/she does not answer.  That is not broadcasting at all. 

This gentleman, if he does transmit on ham frequencies and his wife answers on GMRS frequencies, would be transmitting information--not calling--without getting any response on the ham frequencies at all.  As I had said, it could be done even though it is bending the rules, but if he's caught and the authorities (the FCC) want to force the issue, he could be in for some pretty heavy penalties as well as loss of his ham ticket--and the GMRS license as well.
Logged
K0JEG
Member

Posts: 638




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2012, 09:15:05 AM »

Calling CQ and ARRL bulletins are the only broadcasting we're allowed to do. Why are we making this so difficult?

If you want to use GMRS legally, get a license. It covers everyone in the house. Don't use a radio that's not type accepted and don't bother with trying a goofy work around. If you want to only have one radio, get a Motorola or other commercial radio that's OK for GMRS use and have ham frequencies put in.

Why has this thread gone on for a week? Huh
Logged
NI6G
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2012, 05:58:49 PM »

Holy-freaking-hell!!

NK7Z et al, you do the research.

Apparently, are too lazy too do so. A simple search engine query will demonstrate what happened to the two hams that used the San Mateo County Sherif's Department frequency during a so-called "emergency".

Their Motorola HTs were seized and despite pleas of mercy, the FCC affirmed that the Sherif's Department was justified. They did not get their radios back. In addition, they each received a huge-ass, multi-thousand dollar citation from the Sherif's Office, which was also upheld by the FCC.

Don't shoot the messenger ... especially Magnum 257. No, I have no need of meds. Are you a gun enthusiast or an Magnum 257 CB radio aficionado or both? Why can't we be friends? We can discuss my California-Legal, Barrett .501 Caliber rifle someday, perhaps. No need for acrimony.
Logged
KS4VT
Member

Posts: 141




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2012, 05:07:10 PM »

Holy-freaking-hell!!

NK7Z et al, you do the research.

Apparently, are too lazy too do so. A simple search engine query will demonstrate what happened to the two hams that used the San Mateo County Sherif's Department frequency during a so-called "emergency".

Their Motorola HTs were seized and despite pleas of mercy, the FCC affirmed that the Sherif's Department was justified. They did not get their radios back. In addition, they each received a huge-ass, multi-thousand dollar citation from the Sherif's Office, which was also upheld by the FCC.


I do remember the story and out of curiosity I did a search of San Mateo County Sheriff's Department and ham radio and found some very interesting information.
http://www.fcares.org/Test%20Site/SMSO%20Ham%202011-06.pdf
http://smso-scu.org/Ham_Radio.html

It seems that the SO has taken over a lot of the ham radio frequencies in the general area.

Do you have the calls or some web articles of the incident with the 2 hams and the SO as you describe?
Logged
KB2VUQ
Member

Posts: 111


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2012, 09:02:37 AM »

"Calling CQ and ARRL bulletins are the only broadcasting we're allowed to do. Why are we making this so difficult?"

Misinformation, that's why....

So, now it's illegal to: Test your transmitter? Send command / control functions to a repeater? Remote control  an R/C plane on 6m? Satellite Control? Operate a propagation beacon? Transmit an ATV signal? Rebroadcast NASA audio? Newsline? The list goes on....provided you I.D.

Had the original question been worded differently, perhaps the answers would have more relevant?
Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5885




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2012, 04:46:31 AM »

'VUQ,  Why are you nitpicking and citing examples that are plainly and fully covered by the regulations?  This is the second time you're doing so. 

If a situation that is involving transmitting one way signals is covered by the regs, it isn't considered broadcasting.  How on earth did you get your ham ticket if you didn't and don't know the regulations covering the amateur radio service?  You better brush up on your knowledge.
Logged
NI6G
Member

Posts: 35




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2012, 08:19:37 AM »

Quote from: KS4VT
It seems that the SO has taken over a lot of the ham radio frequencies in the general area.

It's blatantly obvious that the Foster City Amateur Radio Emergency Services has self-appropriated an insane number of amateur frequencies in San Mateo County for their messianic agenda. I seriously doubt that the Sheriff's Office cares much about ham radio; nor do they use our Part 97 frequencies on or off-duty as a substitute for their Part 90 communications system. Foster City ARES got a little more than "carried away". Sheesh.

http://www.fcares.org/Test%20Site/SMSO%20Ham%202011-06.pdf

The other URL that you posted (re-typed below for ease) simply seems like any other after-hours, non-pecuniary, recreational amaterur radio club. For instance, Tandem Computers has their own amateur radio club; as well as Hughes, Lockheed, Tektronix, and on and on it goes. It appears to be a net non-connected to the Foster City ARES Group: just some officers of the law that happen to be hams and get together for comradery.

http://www.fcares.org/Test%20Site/SMSO%20Ham%202011-06.pdf

Quote from: KS4VT
Do you have the calls or some web articles of the incident with the 2 hams and the SO as you describe?

My whole point, directed to a certain other(s) within this thread was to get them to look it up themselves. It was on the ARRL website and plastered elsewhere throughout the internet. Honesly, I don't care whatseover what the calls were of the two individuals.

It is lame-brained of numerous posters in this thread to think that I, having been licensed continuously since 1979 at age 10, whom passed both the General and Advanced [written and code] exams during a single day on the first attempt before an FCC Examiner at the Federal Building in SF at age 11; and, passed the Extra at age 13 on the first attempt at same location -- to be so presumptuous, mentally ossified, inert, self-deluded, and filled with overweaning hubris and undeserved pride -- to actually believe (and accuse) me of not knowing the subtle shades of difference in the spirit of the interpretation of Part 97 -- it is utterly laughable and incredulous.

The Foster City ARES amaeur frequency list that you posted is absolutely a prime example of how our hobby has been destroyed. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Restructuring or the dropping of the code requirements. Some of the nicest people I've met passed their tests post-Restructuring.

What I despise is the over-the-top, sucking of the governments' teat for Federal Funds, wasting tax payer's dollars, unnecessary studies written into an Omnibus regarding the feasibility of Amateur Radio for Emergencies, the ARRL's twisted "makeover" of ham radio (I am an ARRL Life Member; so everyone QFO!) in a vomit-inducing attempt to turn all of us into FEMA workers and Civil Servants (we are not; nor have we hams ever been FEMA employees), and the false claims of the ARRL to the DHS regarding the lack of EMS interstitial capabilities. The cable shows and YouTube videos of Doomsday Preppers are absolutely moronic. All of the SHTF-types promote using ham radio w/o a license constantly. Agencies do have interstitial frequencies to talk to each other.  Their are voting receivers that saturate metro areas and redundant repeaters throughout with long-term back up energy sources.

I'm not going to argue or debate this; nor will I respond any more to this thread.

It concerns me that some of the folks in this thread are going to stroke out or have a coronary.

And I know some of the people here have presented false claims of military service, false valour, been banne permanently from other ham radio chat rooms and portals. Therefore, they have zero credibility and I just don't give a damn. I'd rather be working 144 MHz EME or 160 Meters CW than depleting my life-force debating the living dead on the internet.

"When you're runnin' down my ham radio, man, you're walkin' on the fightin side of me" - with all apologies to Merle Haggard
Logged
KB2VUQ
Member

Posts: 111


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2012, 07:00:17 PM »

I know the rules....

It's the questions and some of the answers that astound me on eHam.
Example: "Calling CQ and ARRL bulletins are the only broadcasting we're allowed to do".

WB6BYU got it right.
Logged
KI6HLD
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2012, 10:34:16 PM »

Actually, this is covered in Part 95 - which is the GMRS rules

95.183 (a) Prohibited communications.

   (13)  Messages (except emergency messages) to any station in the Amateur
         Radio Service, to any unauthorized station, or to any foreign
         station;

Why this is so I have no idea, or why do so many of the new amateur radios receive GMRS just fine.  I admit to listening to GMRS on my mobile radio during race events. 

Mind you, there's no rule in part 97 prohibiting hams from receiving said communications.  So the wife would be in violation, but you wouldn't. 
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12690




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: December 28, 2012, 04:59:12 AM »

You would be in violation if you transmitted a message on the ham bands intended to be received by her. Non emergency, cross-service communications is illegal for both parties.
Logged
WQCC256
Member

Posts: 23




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2013, 08:48:07 AM »

The best thing would be for you to both go on GMRS.

For what it's worth, the GU-16 radio is a Wouxun Part 90 radio that has been programmed to GMRS frequencies and re-certified as a Part 95 radio. 
Logged
WB5ITT
Member

Posts: 100




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2013, 09:09:55 PM »

I'm looking at a Wouxun Commercial radio for me and a Powerwerx GMRS rig for my wife. The powerwerx GU-16 is a GMRS radio Part 95 certified. It will recieve 406-470 mhz. If I transmit on 70 cm and she recieves it and then she transmits on GMRS and I receive it ( basically working split ) Is it legal?

Todd - KT0DD



NO
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!