GMRS: Use of Part 90 radios on Part 95

[bill4long]

Got back another reply from BridgeCom:

Part 90 is a more stringent requirement than the GMRS Part 95a. In the end it is up to the user to accept the fact that we meet Part 90 requirements and with them being more stringent, the 95A would fall under it.

He's misguided here. And a little comical (although I'm sure didn't intend to be.) But it's puzzling that they do have a 95A accepted FCCID for their repeater, and they don't realize that that's what they should provide when asked for the FCCID. (Shrug)

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

List price for a new NX-800H (30 watt) $725.00. The NX-800HK (45 watt) $850.00
Easy to get something lower than list price.

The NX-300 portables are $684 for the basic keypad and $734 for the full keypad, list prices.

TK-3180 is $560 list and the TK-8180 is $604 for the 30 watt and $735 for the 45 watt, list.



On the UHF models, yes. They are narrow band across the board. On the VHF models, if you wanted to use on on 2 meters, they will do wide from 136-150.1



NX-300 = ALH378500 = https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo..._id=htp5xmdwJXz5oSNen96O/A==&fcc_id=ALH378500
NX-800 = K44378700 (30 watt) K44378702 (45 watt) = https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo..._id=EEu279uMCW03W5nvpmk6ZQ==&fcc_id=K44378700 https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo..._id=SKxE/0j7JzcXoWTvXnw+bw==&fcc_id=K44378702
TK-3180 = ALH37333110 = https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo...d=1ipBVkldMGhDuW3Zmoybgw==&fcc_id=ALH37333110
TK-8180 = K4437313110 (30 watt) K4437313210 (45 watt) = https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo...d=mQJdXuk4NgS25wdTS+jTOA==&fcc_id=K4437313110 https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo...d=2htwbvTNWxlzdajKZ5ggAw==&fcc_id=K4437313210
TKR-850 = ALH31113110 = https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/repo...d=cJmO5ihXxlnd1a6ufTBAoA==&fcc_id=ALH31113110



That's a newer grant than the one I used. Same radio, different certification dates. So it looks like Kenwood changed something and put the radio in for new certification with a new FCC ID.



See above.



I got saddled with a couple of those at work. I lost my photos I took when I was working on them. I do know they had TecNet mobiles inside. Running those TecNet mobiles through OET shows -NO- 95A certification, only Part 90.

However, if you run the FCC ID for the Bridgecom repeater itself, which has a completely different FCC ID than the individual mobiles, you do get 95A:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo...id=M+a/Y/A/8YvcfWlT+VYtEg==&fcc_id=SK4MPTM40U
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/repo...id=M+a/Y/A/8YvcfWlT+VYtEg==&fcc_id=SK4MPTM40U

Thanks for the research mmckenna; I have saved these to my list of part 95A radios.
It is very important to have the correct FCC ID for equipment when making a determination. Most users just jump to Amazon and click BUY.

There needs to be a central depository for this stuff as it is found, because the FCC database is a PITA to scour. So we have Kenwood and Bridgecom as GMRS friendly. My definition of GMRS friendly is being actually Part 95A certified AND having correct 16K0F3E +/- 5 KHz deviation. I wonder if MyGMRS has a place for this. hmm.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Got back another reply from BridgeCom:



He's misguided here. And a little comical (although I'm sure didn't intend to be.) But it's puzzling that they do have a 95A accepted FCCID for their repeater, and they don't realize that that's what they should provide when asked for the FCCID. (Shrug)

Imagine how confusing this is to the average licensee. Bridgecom should be posting the FCC ID on their website and spec sheets. You should tell him the correct FCC ID.

 

[bill4long]

Imagine how confusing this is to the average licensee. Bridgecom should be posting the FCC ID on their website and spec sheets. You should tell him the correct FCC ID.

I did

The saving grace here, is that the FCC doesn't give a rat's rear-end in practice about any of this, as long as the equipment is not causing issues.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I did

The saving grace here, is that the FCC doesn't give a rat's rear-end in practice about any of this, as long as the equipment is not causing issues.

That's probably true given the quality of the Grants they have been cranking out for the Chinese radios. Some of the emission designators make no sense at all. I think it is all these low parts count radios where the entire radio is on one chip.

I bet if you went to FCC HQ during any given day and asked for a showing of hands for "Engineers", you would see a couple of old guys crammed in one corner. Ask for "lawyers" and it would be nearly the entire place save for some MBA types.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk