Baofeng Im at a loss & could use some advice

[kc2asb]

15-22 are GMRS simplex which can be used with a mobile GMRS Radio up to 50 watts with the appropriate license. Rather than offering illegal advice with outdated information you could have advised the OP look into a GMRS license. It's $35, good for ten years and the only test is navigating the FCC website.

The OP was a looking for a way to communicate with his friend in the event of a medical emergency, in case cellphones were not an option. He has health issues, is not working, and was already in possession of two Baofeng radios. I did not want to send him on a shopping spree for new radios or advise him to get a GMRS license, which would also require his friend to obtain one as well.

FRS seemed like a better fit for his puposes, provided his friend was nearby. The OP never shared how far away his friend lives.

I have already conceded the point that it was poor advice, and advised him in a subsequent post to purchase a pair of FRS bubblepack radios.

Yes, they are GMRS (50W) and FRS (2W) simplex. From the RR Wiki, 15-22 are also repeater outputs, as previously stated.

FRS/GMRS combined channel chart - The RadioReference Wiki

wiki.radioreference.com

Current (2017) FRS/GMRS Channel Table

FRS Channel	Frequency	FRS Power	FRS Bandwidth	GMRS Power	GMRS Bandwidth	Notes/Usage
01	462.5625	2 W	12.5 kHz	5 W	20 kHz	(1)
02	462.5875	2 W	12.5 kHz	5 W	20 kHz	(1)
03	462.6125	2 W	12.5 kHz	5 W	20 kHz	(1)
04	462.6375	2 W	12.5 kHz	5 W	20 kHz	(1)
05	462.6625	2 W	12.5 kHz	5 W	20 kHz	(1)
06	462.6875	2 W	12.5 kHz	5 W	20 kHz	(1)
07	462.7125	2 W	12.5 kHz	5 W	20 kHz	(1)
08	467.5625	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	(1)
09	467.5875	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	(1)
10	467.6125	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	(1)
11	467.6375	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	(1)
12	467.6625	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	(1)
13	467.6875	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	(1)
14	467.7125	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	0.5 W	12.5 kHz	(1)
15	462.5500	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2)
16	462.5750	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2) (4)
17	462.6000	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2)
18	462.6250	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2) (4)
19	462.6500	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2)
20	462.6750	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2) (4)
21	462.7000	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2)
22	462.7250	2 W	12.5 kHz	50 W	20 kHz	(1) (2)

• (1) Shared FRS and GMRS simplex.
• (2) GMRS repeater output.
• (3) GMRS repeater input only.
• (4) Color frequencies on some business radios, 462.575-White, 462.625-Black, 462.675-Orange

There has even been some chatter that the FCC is ok with part 90 radios being used for GMRS as long as the user is licensed and using the radio within the confines of the legal limits although I have not found any official statement to that effect.

Yes, this has been discussed before in a number of threads in the GMRS forum. I have also not seen any official statements cited in these threads or anywhere on the FCC's website. Definitely a source of some uncertainty, which hopefully the FCC will clarify.

I'm sorry you're so offended by my dislike that you had to stalk my posts and dislike my clearly accurate information from 7 months ago... It did give me a bit of a laugh though so I do appreciate that!

OK!? Whatever.

 

[mmckenna]

There has even been some chatter that the FCC is ok with part 90 radios being used for GMRS as long as the user is licensed and using the radio within the confines of the legal limits although I have not found any official statement to that effect.

The only valid/legal information is what is currently listed in Part 95. No chatter, rumors, "my neighbor said" matters.

There is nothing in Part 95 that says or suggests Part 90 radios are legal for use on GMRS. The FCC is quite clear that Part 95 is -required-.

Yes, many, many ignore that and use Part 90 radios. Many use hacked ham radios, which is even worse….

 

[kc2asb]

The only valid/legal information is what is currently listed in Part 95. No chatter, rumors, "my neighbor said" matters.

There is nothing in Part 95 that says or suggests Part 90 radios are legal for use on GMRS. The FCC is quite clear that Part 95 is -required-.

Yes, many, many ignore that and use Part 90 radios. Many use hacked ham radios, which is even worse….

Excellent points. If you want to be completely legal, use only type-accepted equipment. I understand that when asking for permission to use a repeater, some repeater owners will inquire as to the equipment the operator intends to use. They could deny access to those using non-type accepted gear.

And for the record, again, I apologize for the advice given to the OP in my original post in this thread. I should not have advised him to use non-type accepted radios on FRS.

 

[mmckenna]

Excellent points. If you want to be completely legal, use only type-accepted equipment. I understand that when asking for permission to use a repeater, some repeater owners will inquire as to the equipment the operator intends to use. They could deny access to those using non-type accepted gear.

The point I was making is that there's a lot of bad information on the internet. There's a lot of hams, GMRS users, MURS, FRS, and CB users that have never seen the FCC rules, never read them, and couldn't tell you what they say. Yet those same users will spread misinformation on the web.
Others that have never cracked the rulebook will take that misinformation as gospel truth and keep spreading it.

Just the nature of the internet. A vicious cycle that is unstoppable.

Some of us attempt to counteract misinformation with factual information backed up by links to the rules. Unfortunately there's less of us than there are of the others, and it's an uphill battle. And then there's those that don't want to know or understand the rules. They only want to be told that what they choose to do is OK, even when it's not. It's one of the reasons I stay off QRZ or MyGMRS, those sites are occupied by an overwhelming amount of people that don't want to understand the rules, they just want to do their thing. No way to battle that level of ignorance.

At one time, years ago the GMRS section under Part 95 had some unclear wording that some took to mean that Part 90 radios were OK. FCC fixed that and updated the rules section to clarify. But the bad info seems to persist.

Same thing happens on Part 97, where hams like to claim that they can legally use (some even claim 'required to use') Part 90, GMRS, marine VHF, pretty much any frequency they want in a self determined emergency. But the rules say nothing at all like that. Yet hams keep spreading that excrement and other hams keep gobbling it up.

And for the record, again, I apologize for the advice given to the OP in my original post in this thread. I should not have advised him to use non-type accepted radios on FRS.

It's cool, man, don't worry about it.

 

[kc2asb]

The point I was making is that there's a lot of bad information on the internet. There's a lot of hams, GMRS users, MURS, FRS, and CB users that have never seen the FCC rules, never read them, and couldn't tell you what they say. Yet those same users will spread misinformation on the web.
Others that have never cracked the rulebook will take that misinformation as gospel truth and keep spreading it.

Just the nature of the internet. A vicious cycle that is unstoppable.

Understood. Throw in AI overviews, and this will only get worse. Many people stop at the overview and quote it as gospel.

Some of us attempt to counteract misinformation with factual information backed up by links to the rules. Unfortunately there's less of us than there are of the others, and it's an uphill battle. And then there's those that don't want to know or understand the rules. They only want to be told that what they choose to do is OK, even when it's not. It's one of the reasons I stay off QRZ or MyGMRS, those sites are occupied by an overwhelming amount of people that don't want to understand the rules, they just want to do their thing. No way to battle that level of ignorance.

At one time, years ago the GMRS section under Part 95 had some unclear wording that some took to mean that Part 90 radios were OK. FCC fixed that and updated the rules section to clarify. But the bad info seems to persist.

Thanks for clarifying. Thinking back, this was the point made in one of the threads in the GMRS forum. In actual practice, non type-accepted equipment is used all the time. Obviously, that does make it right. Admittedly, as an amateur operator, I was far from being up on all of these rules.

(snip)
It's cool, man, don't worry about it.

Thanks. Just wanted to set the record straight in this multi-page thread.

 

[mmckenna]

Understood. Throw in AI overviews, and this will only get worse. Many people stop at the overview and quote it as gospel.

Yeah. AI has it's place and it can work well, but it still requires some knowledge and a functional B.S. filter on behalf of the user. The issues I've run across with hobbyists using AI is that they often will submit questions in such a way that results in flawed data being returned.

In other words, the trouble with the internet is that you can find confirmation of any whackjob, conspiracy theory, wrong information that you want to confirm. Flat earth, smart meters, brain worms, the list goes on and on….

While the FCC rules are not super easy to read, most of the consumer oriented (Part 95, 97) rules are pretty straightforward.

In actual practice, non type-accepted equipment is used all the time. Obviously, that does make it right.

Not uncommon at all. Back 20 years ago, it was a bit easier to find radios that had both Part 90 -and- Part 95 certification. Many Motorola, Kenwood and Icom radios had it. I exclusively used Icom UHF radios since they had it.
As Part 95 migrated from both business and consumer use to just consumer (not counting the grandfathered licenses), the big radio manufacturers have not pursued the Part 95 type acceptance on their radios. It's made it difficult for those that want good GMRS radios and not the current crop of Chinese crap.

Admittedly, as an amateur operator, I was far from being up on all of these rules.

Neither was I when I got my ham ticket. I did eventually start to read the rules, as well as some other sections. It wasn't until I started working in the industry and got my GROL license that I really started to pay attention. My job requires me to follow FCC rules. Getting fined would result in my employer rethinking my position. My duty is to make sure we abide by the rules and not cause more issues.
GROL license requires knowledge of FCC rules and are part of the test questions.

ARRL and others could help the hobby by reinforcing this. Unfortunately ARRL has done a poor job of this, and as of the last time I was an ARRL member, done zero to address the issue.

Thanks. Just wanted to set the record straight in this multi-page thread.

Totally cool.

 

[WRTF671]

Neither was I when I got my ham ticket. I did eventually start to read the rules, as well as some other sections. It wasn't until I started working in the industry and got my GROL license that I really started to pay attention. My job requires me to follow FCC rules. Getting fined would result in my employer rethinking my position. My duty is to make sure we abide by the rules and not cause more issues.
GROL license requires knowledge of FCC rules and are part of the test questions.

I went the other way, I had my GROL before my ham. All my coworkers are hams and bullied me into getting my ticket but I honestly don't use ham or GMRS much. I'm glad you were able to clarify things and I apologize if I muddied the waters at all.

 

[KK4JUG]

Back in the early 60s, when I first got into commercial radio, I had to have a Third Class Radiotelephone license. I was just a DJ. I think I still have the license. I had to sign papers saying I wouldn't cuss on the air and wouldn't broadcast a false mayday or SOS and I think that was about it. I'm still not sure what the license was for unless it was because we had to read the meters on the transmitter and log the information for FCC inspections (that I never, ever saw).

(Yes, I'm old but I haven't grown up yet. My age is a good excuse when I do stupid stuff.)

 

[mmckenna]

I went the other way, I had my GROL before my ham. All my coworkers are hams and bullied me into getting my ticket but I honestly don't use ham or GMRS much.

I've been a ham for a few decades now. Back in 2019 we had some excess training funds and I was able to get work to pay for the GROL courses and testing. I should have had it before that because of some of the work I do, but was nice they paid. Handy in case I ever decide to go somewhere else since it's a common requirement around here for the good radio jobs. GROL while not usually required for these jobs, it is a good filter to find those that are serious and have some essential knowledge. "Looks good on a resume".

I rarely use my ham ticket either. Usually by the end of the day the last thing I want to do is mess around with radios. I do periodically get on the air, though. I had a GMRS license going back to around 1997, but let it lapse. When they lowered the fee, I got a new one, just because. Rarely use GMRS either.

I'm glad you were able to clarify things and I apologize if I muddied the waters at all.

I don't think you muddied the waters. Just good discussion and the newcomers learn from reading this sort of stuff.
That's what it's all about. Who knows, maybe we are training our replacements and just don't know it yet.

 

[AK9R]

I'm still not sure what the license was for unless it was because we had to read the meters on the transmitter and log the information for FCC inspections...

I've heard old radio guys talk about this. If any aspect of your job involved control of the broadcast transmitters, I believe that you had to have an FCC radiotelephone license. Nowadays, it's all remote control and the designated transmitter engineer for the station can probably sit at home on their patio and monitor the transmitter remotely. I spent yesterday afternoon at a major TV transmit site and the engineer was showing us all the electronic whiz-bang controls on their latest transmitter.

GROL while not usually required for these jobs, it is a good filter to find those that are serious and have some essential knowledge.

The GROL is a level playing field. You passed, therefore it can be assumed you know This Much. I think the smart ones realize that the license is not so much the end of the learning but a license to learn even more.

 

[nd5y]

"Looks good on a resume".

Only to pointy-haired bosses and HR people who don't know that all you have to do is memorize the question pool. Just like ham radio licenses.

 

[nd5y]

I've heard old radio guys talk about this. If any aspect of your job involved control of the broadcast transmitters, I believe that you had to have an FCC radiotelephone license.

It was like that at one time. Then in the 1980s when they changed the rules and eliminated 1st, 2nd, 3rd class licenses that required passing a writtent test and having a Broadcast Endorsement to operate and maintain commercial broadcast stations so all you needed was a Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit (RP). Back then the RP license/application was a yellow post card that you filled out and the FCC stamped their seal and issue date on it and mailed it back to you.

Sometime I think in the 1990s the FCC elimiated the RP requirement decided that commercial broadcast licensees should be responsible for determing that their engineers and operators are competent.

 

[kc2asb]

Sometime I think in the 1990s the FCC elimiated the RP requirement decided that commercial broadcast licensees should be responsible for determing that their engineers and operators are competent.

Correct. I remember reading this in Popular Communications magazine in the mid-late 90's.

 

[KevinC]

I think we can give this thread a break for a while. The OP hasn't visited in over a week now and you guys probably scared him off.

How about we give him/her a chance to return and stop posting stuff that has nothing to do with his original reason for posting.