Legalish Question

[ThomasMcKean]

I am getting conflicting reports about FRS and GMRS regarding voice inversion. Can anyone more in the know sort this out for me?

My own understanding (which I am beginning to doubt) is that voice inversion is allowed on FRS provided that yew are transmitting at .500 watts or lower. There are very few FRS radios (I know of only one) that allow inversion at anything higher. But I was told this is illegal. Say if yew wanted to transmit at 5 watts, scrambling would not be allowed. Apparently there were problems with drug dealers, etc. and they changed the rules.

Also I am curious about the GMRS channels, and if inversion is allowed there, even on the 50 watt channels. I do have a GMRS license, and inversion capability, but I don't really see myself needing it very often.

More curiouslity than anything else I suppose. I just can't seem to find a straight answer. Does anyone know? *Blink*

 

[quarterwave]

I feel that the GMRS community has reached a consensus that encryption or scrambling is not accepted by the rules, however, some rules were written so long ago, they reek of swiss cheese. The sticking point about licensed users is that they identify with a call sign. If you give your call in scramble mode, no one can understand it. So, since that would be a good way to hide, I think it is generally unaccepted to use. Professional systems should be provisioned to auto-id or give the call in the clear by voice as directed by the FCC. However, I don't think it would work out to trust people to do that in GMRS.

As far as FRS....I know there have been radios that could do that...and given the minimum to no enforcement on this free-for-all service....I'm not sure how anyone would track you down to begin with using .5 watt radios, etc. Seems to me there are many things worse going on with FRS, heck if someone was scrambled that would be mild to me.

Between all the screaming, singing, playing cops, noises, music, cursing, guys re-transmitting their scanners, etc...I don't know how you could make a bigger mess anyway.

 

[ThomasMcKean]

I feel that the GMRS community has reached a consensus that encryption or scrambling is not accepted by the rules, however, some rules were written so long ago, they reek of swiss cheese. The sticking point about licensed users is that they identify with a call sign. If you give your call in scramble mode, no one can understand it. So, since that would be a good way to hide, I think it is generally unaccepted to use. Professional systems should be provisioned to auto-id or give the call in the clear by voice as directed by the FCC. However, I don't think it would work out to trust people to do that in GMRS.

As far as FRS....I know there have been radios that could do that...and given the minimum to no enforcement on this free-for-all service....I'm not sure how anyone would track you down to begin with using .5 watt radios, etc. Seems to me there are many things worse going on with FRS, heck if someone was scrambled that would be mild to me.

Between all the screaming, singing, playing cops, noises, music, cursing, guys re-transmitting their scanners, etc...I don't know how you could make a bigger mess anyway.

I had not considered that bit about the ID. Yew are right and to me that pretty much rules it out on GMRS.

At .500 watts it is allowed anyway so it doesn't matter. As for "all the screaming, singing, playing cops, noises, music, cursing, guys re-transmitting their scanners, etc." - well, at least it isn't quite as bad as CB, at least where I live. I will scratching my head over why the FCC allowed these combo devices to be made and sold in stores. FRS and GMRS should have been kept separate. They were just asking for trouble. Sigh.

 

[gewecke]

I had not considered that bit about the ID. Yew are right and to me that pretty much rules it out on GMRS.

At .500 watts it is allowed anyway so it doesn't matter. As for "all the screaming, singing, playing cops, noises, music, cursing, guys re-transmitting their scanners, etc." - well, at least it isn't quite as bad as CB, at least where I live. I will scratching my head over why the FCC allowed these combo devices to be made and sold in stores. FRS and GMRS should have been kept separate. They were just asking for trouble. Sigh.

Tom, most government agencies have a increased tendency to make poor decisions in the public's best interest including the fcc because it has nothing to do with making the correct decision but only politics. YOU are probably going to see a lot of this in the future.

73,
n9zas

 

[n5ims]

I am getting conflicting reports about FRS and GMRS regarding voice inversion. Can anyone more in the know sort this out for me?

My own understanding (which I am beginning to doubt) is that voice inversion is allowed on FRS provided that yew are transmitting at .500 watts or lower. There are very few FRS radios (I know of only one) that allow inversion at anything higher. But I was told this is illegal. Say if yew wanted to transmit at 5 watts, scrambling would not be allowed. Apparently there were problems with drug dealers, etc. and they changed the rules.

Also I am curious about the GMRS channels, and if inversion is allowed there, even on the 50 watt channels. I do have a GMRS license, and inversion capability, but I don't really see myself needing it very often.

More curiouslity than anything else I suppose. I just can't seem to find a straight answer. Does anyone know? *Blink*

How about getting your answer direct from the FCC's Enforcement Bureau as to how serious they are about FRS/GMRS radios that use any kind of encryption or scrambling. They fined Midland $21,000 for making and selling radios that used voice inversion scrambling. See this link for specifics, but I'll copy a few passages below. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1390A1.html

Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules prohibits GMRS operators from transmitting coded messages and messages with hidden meanings. The Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") received information indicating that Midland was marketing GMRS transmitters that have a voice scrambling feature. After its receipt of this information, the Division began an investigation. In pursuance of the investigation, the Division conducted internet research on February 24, 2009, on the website Midland Radio | Communication Solutions For Your World. During the internet research, Division personnel observed that Midland was offering for sale the following GMRS transmitter models described as having a "Voice Privacy Scramble" feature: GXT900VP4 and GXT950VP4.

Although Midland's voice scrambling technology differs from Garmin's technology, it has an analogous effect - the transmission of messages that are undecipherable to many GMRS users. In both circumstances, the undecipherable messages are coded messages within the meaning of Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules.

Midland requests that, if the Commission decides that voice scrambling is prohibited in GMRS devices, this should be done "prospectively, with time allowed to update product design and to dispose of existing inventories." We will not rule prospectively. Section 95.183(a)(4) of the Rules has been previously construed to prohibit voice scrambling in the GMRS.

 

[quarterwave]

I agree with N5IMS in principle.

On one hand I would like to see the FCC update it's 1940's minded rules saying things like "Coded or with Hidden Meaning" to also include verbiage like "Scrambled, Encrypted, or Otherwise made electronically undecipherable" so that there is no question as to what you can do. "Coded or Hidden Meaning" in reality refers to plain language that is manipulated to have another meaning, like...The fat cow has brown spots...actually meaning... The enemy has retreated past X line. It's left over "war" talk.

I also think it is good they stopped the manufacturer, rather than chasing some individual users for using what they bought. (IE the fireworks theory...you can buy them here, you just can't light them here).

On the other hand....the government should stick to spending our money on something that matters....like the economy, industry, crime and a DC that can do something....rather than wasting it on things that are not going to make a difference in 99% of the peoples lives. In other words, find something to do and leave GMRS alone.

...and I'm sure someone will take issue with that opinion too.

 

[ThomasMcKean]

Tom, most government agencies have a increased tendency to make poor decisions in the public's best interest including the fcc because it has nothing to do with making the correct decision but only politics. YOU are probably going to see a lot of this in the future.

73,
n9zas

IEEEE think I already have!

 

[ThomasMcKean]

On the other hand....the government should stick to spending our money on something that matters....like the economy, industry, crime and a DC that can do something....rather than wasting it on things that are not going to make a difference in 99% of the peoples lives. In other words, find something to do and leave GMRS alone.

...and I'm sure someone will take issue with that opinion too.

No, Sir. I am in full agreement!

 

[ThomasMcKean]

N5IMS.

Looks like yew answered my question. Thank yew.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I agree with N5IMS in principle.

On one hand I would like to see the FCC update it's 1940's minded rules saying things like "Coded or with Hidden Meaning" to also include verbiage like "Scrambled, Encrypted, or Otherwise made electronically undecipherable" so that there is no question as to what you can do. "Coded or Hidden Meaning" in reality refers to plain language that is manipulated to have another meaning, like...The fat cow has brown spots...actually meaning... The enemy has retreated past X line. It's left over "war" talk.

I agree with you there. The language needs updating.

I also think it is good they stopped the manufacturer, rather than chasing some individual users for using what they bought. (IE the fireworks theory...you can buy them here, you just can't light them here).

Another good point. It is often the manufacturer's marketing that persuades people to buy products that will violate the rules, while making no mention of said rules.

On the other hand....the government should stick to spending our money on something that matters....like the economy, industry, crime and a DC that can do something....rather than wasting it on things that are not going to make a difference in 99% of the peoples lives. In other words, find something to do and leave GMRS alone.

...and I'm sure someone will take issue with that opinion too.

You are right in general but your specific application of your thesis is illogical. The FCC was not set up to deal with "the economy, industry, crime..." and so forth. Its job is to regulate communications. Making and enforcing rules for use of radio equipment is exactly what the FCC should be doing. The other social issues are beyond the scope of its authority or responsibility.

 

[ThomasMcKean]

You are right in general but your specific application of your thesis is illogical. The FCC was not set up to deal with "the economy, industry, crime..." and so forth. Its job is to regulate communications. Making and enforcing rules for use of radio equipment is exactly what the FCC should be doing. The other social issues are beyond the scope of its authority or responsibility.

Then I would submit that when they allowed these combo FRS/GMRS radios to be sold inplaces like walmart, they failed miserably in their jobs.

 

[SteveC0625]

Then I would submit that when they allowed these combo FRS/GMRS radios to be sold inplaces like walmart, they failed miserably in their jobs.

I would point out that the FCC has no responsibility in this regard. They are not regulators of the marketplace. Again, it is not part of their responsibility. You are wrong to link the FCC to retail sales like this.

I think we all can agree that type accepting radios that work in both FRS and GMRS has turned out to be a very wrong move. If you want to claim a miserable failure on the FCC's part, focus it on that aspect, not WalMart..

 

[ThomasMcKean]

I would point out that the FCC has no responsibility in this regard. They are not regulators of the marketplace. Again, it is not part of their responsibility. You are wrong to link the FCC to retail sales like this.

I think we all can agree that type accepting radios that work in both FRS and GMRS has turned out to be a very wrong move. If you want to claim a miserable failure on the FCC's part, focus it on that aspect, not WalMart..

I stand corrected.

 

[Dantian]

I will scratching my head over why the FCC allowed these combo devices to be made and sold in stores. FRS and GMRS should have been kept separate. They were just asking for trouble. Sigh.

That has been extensively covered in the comments submitted to the FCC on the pending GMRS docket 10-119.

Allowing the combo devices was a walking talking disaster.

It happened because the part of the FCC that makes rules for the service is a different part from that which authorizes radios. On occasion the right hand knows not what the left hand is doing.

Now the monster is out of the bottle and there is little appetite for ordering him back in, especially since he has been making boatloads of $ selling combo radios since like forever.

Here's an FRS example of similar dumbth:

When FRS started, manufacturers produced, and the FCC duly authorized, FRS radios that had detachable antennas.

This was brought to the attention of those responsible for authorizing radios.

The excuse they gave was that people need to replace the antenna when it breaks and that FRS was a Part 15 product like cordless phones, and some of those have replaceable antennas.

So thank you for contacting the FCC. Anything else we can help you with? Have a nice day.

In fact:

1. The FRS rules (developed in a public legal proceeding) don't allow detachable antennas. The antenna must be an "integral part of the transmitter" (95.647).

2. FRS is a Part 95 service, not merely a Part 15 product (Part 15 is not a radio service).

The distinction may be lost on average Joe, but it is meaningful for deciding what hardware can and cannot be sold to Joe.

It took a Major equipMent Maker to Make an official coMplaint that their competitors gained an unfair advantage selling gear that didn't comply with the rules.

Suddenly the authorization folks got religion and fixed the problem.

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

I wonder who that Major equipMent Manufacturer May have been?

 

[Dantian]

I wonder who that Major equipMent Manufacturer May have been?

Not Midland.

 

[Logan005]

a company like midland has great potential, they just need to hire some radio users to help them design new models, they could Dominate the market. but they need help.

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

I could use some extra income And I have some definite ideas about GMRS and MURS (meaning specifically Part 95 certified for each service individually) mobiles and portables. Where do I apply?

 

[Logan005]

must be willing to relocate to factory living facility in China. oh the chain link fence with razor wire is to keep people out. no in.

 

[KB7MIB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

I'll share my ideas, I didn't say I'd be a part of their labor force to build the radios...lol