GMRS License extends to immediate family members

[k7jqm]

According to FCC, GMRS license extends to immediate family members. I just got my license and I have my own callsign, but what about those immediate family members? What will they use as a callsign? Is it callsign-1, callsign-2...?

 

[12dbsinad]

They would use the same callsign that is assigned to you by the FCC

 

[mmckenna]

Right, the FCC issued GMRS call sign is your call sign. For each member of your immediate family operating under the license, they use the same call sign.

If you want to assign "unit numbers", you can do that, but don't change the call sign. When I was active on GMRS, I used PL tones on all the radios, so it was as simple as just calling people by name, and just providing the GMRS license at the periodic intervals.

 

[k7jqm]

Thanks for the quick reply guys! I really appreciate it.

 

[N4KVE]

So I have a question. Joe, who lives in NYC applies for a GMRS license. He gets it, & his friend who has an up, & running GMRS repeater gives him permission to use it In NYC. Joe, his wife, & kids use the repeater. Joe tells his brother Mike in LA how great GMRS is. Does Mike who lives thousands of miles away need his own GMRS license, or can he use Joe’s callsign since they are brothers? Since they live thousands of miles apart, they will never talk to each other on the radio.

 

[littona]

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

AboutRule Part47 C.F.R, Part 95 Subpart ERadio Service Code(s)ZA - GMRS

www.fcc.gov

eCFR :: 47 CFR Part 95 -- Personal Radio Services

www.ecfr.gov

Any individual who holds an individual license may allow his or her immediate family members to operate his or her GMRS station or stations. Immediate family members are the licensee's spouse, children, grandchildren, stepchildren, parents, grandparents, stepparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and in-laws.
The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license.

 

[CaptDan]

The key phrase is . . .

". . . The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license."

That is kinda hard to do from 3,000 miles away.

 

[N4KVE]

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

AboutRule Part47 C.F.R, Part 95 Subpart ERadio Service Code(s)ZA - GMRS

www.fcc.gov

eCFR :: 47 CFR Part 95 -- Personal Radio Services

www.ecfr.gov

Any individual who holds an individual license may allow his or her immediate family members to operate his or her GMRS station or stations. Immediate family members are the licensee's spouse, children, grandchildren, stepchildren, parents, grandparents, stepparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and in-laws.
The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license.

But Joe does not own the GMRS repeater he uses in NYC. It belongs to his neighbor. And his brother in LA doesn’t own a repeater either. So while I understand if both brothers were in NYC, they could use the same GMRS license, but since both brothers live thousands of miles apart, they can never talk to each other on GMRS.

 

[Citywide173]

But Joe does not own the GMRS repeater he uses in NYC. It belongs to his neighbor. And his brother in LA doesn’t own a repeater either. So while I understand if both brothers were in NYC, they could use the same GMRS license, but since both brothers live thousands of miles apart, they can never talk to each other on GMRS.

Unless each has their own GMRS license and an IP linked repeater system that they can each access (distance and permission) from opposite ends is in place.

 

[FiveFilter]

It would be interesting to learn how the FCC actually monitors and regulates this "immediate family" specification, or any other such restriction related to the spectrum.

Kind of like, how does the FCC monitor and regulate the CB's restrictions on the specific maximum distances that are allowed on the band, which was greatly elongated not too long ago.

Are they smiling when they specify such things?

 

[cg]

Perhaps they expect the users to follow the rules without handholding or the need for strict enforcement?

chris

 

[CaptDan]

The FCC is “reactive” in regard to enforcing their Rules and Regulations. They just don’t have a budget to be “proactive” and go out and patrol for violations.

They would most likely need to receive a specific complaint about a violation, and the violation would have to be serious enough to warrant a response. I doubt a simple complaint that I was allowing my girlfriend’s, daughter’s boyfriend to use my GMRS radio and my call sign for identification would draw a much of a response, if any, from the FCC.

Now if he was violating other regulations, creating a problem while operating under my license, then they might lump on the charge of him being unlicensed.

As I have posted elsewhere, the key phrase is:

". . . The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license."

Someone brought up repeaters. The truth is the repeater owner/operator falls under the same basic rule:

". . . The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license."

In reality, we as individual licensee’s or operators of a GMRS radio are only transmitting to the repeater, we are responsible for the proper and legal use/operation of our radios, the transmissions we make, or the radios we allow people to use under our license.

The repeater licensee is responsible for what his/her repeater transmits. An occasional offensive word or term received and repeated most likely not receive much attention from the FCC. While on the other hand, someone who connected a scanner to a GMRS radio and was transmitting the scanner feed to a repeater for broadcast over a wide area, the FCC might be interested in that, especially if it was a complaint that the local police radio was being rebroadcast. Or, daily tirades degrading people because of their nationality, skin color, marital status, sexual orientation etc., may draw the attention of the FCC. The repeater operator would be responsible, as he is the one transmitting, his repeater.

We, as license holders, are responsible for what and where our radios transmit, not necessarily what they receive.

Of course, if the FCC, or other agency, locate the source of the transmission to the repeater, that person(s) could be held responsible for their actions.

The bottom line is the FCC regulation is somewhat clear, and the requirement pretty much is included in all of the radio services, ". . . The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license. . ."

So if I live in Montana and my Brother lives in South Florida it’s kinda difficult to explain or demonstrate how his radios are under my control.

 

[MTS2000des]

We, as license holders, are responsible for what and where our radios transmit, not necessarily what they receive.

Of course, if the FCC, or other agency, locate the source of the transmission to the repeater, that person(s) could be held responsible for their actions.

The bottom line is the FCC regulation is somewhat clear, and the requirement pretty much is included in all of the radio services, ". . . The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license. . ."

So if I live in Montana and my Brother lives in South Florida it’s kinda difficult to explain or demonstrate how his radios are under my control.

Which begs the question how an IP linked GMRS repeater system can ensure compliance if user A on site A, geographically separated from user B on site B isn't keying up over other repeaters/licenses? No repeater coordination exists on GMRS. Everyone must share and ensure a frequency is clear before keying up, simplex or repeater. I would love to hear how one would articulate they are being mindful of the 8 shared repeater pairs with a linked system where all sites key up when a user is on one single site. That's plain piggish and one the FCC should put a stop to.

GMRS isn't a replacement for part 90 or part 97, though many believe it is.

 

[jonwienke]

You never know if you're stepping on someone. Repeater frequencies are shared by bubble pack radios, and there's no way to coordinate that. Linking repeaters doesn't make the problem any worse, because if a and b are linked, a user on a will hear when someone is using b, and vice versa. If b is on the same pair as a close neighbor, that's the same problem whether a and b are linked or not.

 

[MTS2000des]

But how does one effectively monitor ALL frequencies they are intending to transmit on in a linked environment every time before transmitting? They can't. If a subscriber is programmed with transmit inhibit on busy (the way it should be to allow for proper use of shared frequencies) on a single frequency/pair, then one can ensure they aren't stepping on anyone. The argument about bubble packs, bootleggers, et al isn't the issue as they aren't compliant anymore than IP linked repeaters hogging up all 8 repeater pairs linked together. Both are violating the rules as written.

 

[tweiss3]

^^^^ For what it's worth, someone located 10 miles east of a repeater they want to use will never hear the FRS, or even the simplex base stations that are 10 miles west of the repeater.

 

[jonwienke]

But how does one effectively monitor ALL frequencies they are intending to transmit on in a linked environment every time before transmitting? They can't. If a subscriber is programmed with transmit inhibit on busy (the way it should be to allow for proper use of shared frequencies) on a single frequency/pair, then one can ensure they aren't stepping on anyone. The argument about bubble packs, bootleggers, et al isn't the issue as they aren't compliant anymore than IP linked repeaters hogging up all 8 repeater pairs linked together. Both are violating the rules as written.

It's easy. Repeater links go both ways, so if you're listening to any linked repeater, you're effectively listening to all the frequencies used by the linked repeaters. If anyone keys up on any of the remote input frequencies being used by the network, you'll hear it. The only thing you'll miss is simplex comms on the remote repeater outputs. But stepping on those has nothing to do with repeater coordination, so your entire premise is a red herring / strawman.

 

[MTS2000des]

It's easy. Repeater links go both ways, so if you're listening to any linked repeater, you're effectively listening to all the frequencies used by the linked repeaters.

How so? You're ASSuming that a repeater is setup for carrier squelch. 99.9 percent aren't. They're PL/DPL access. So how is one aware of activity on said frequencies if they aren't monitoring. Answer, they aren't. Example, my repeater on 462.600 has a PL of 141.3 and yours is PL 162.2. Unless your linked repeater is monitoring in CSQ mode on it's uplink, nothing is going to activate it and therefore unless one is monitoring the input and output in CSQ, you aren't aware.

If anyone keys up on any of the remote input frequencies being used by the network, you'll hear it.

Again, if the remote system isn't running CSQ or the same PL/DPL, one isn't gonna hear a peep and just blast out their transmissions. Again, the rules say such operation is illegal. Nothing straw man about it. And it's just being a LID and a hog. Go put up a coordinated part 90 or part 97 (for non-commercial use of course) and link all you want where there are plenty of repeater pairs and coordination to ensure interference isn't likely to occur.

But stepping on those has nothing to do with repeater coordination, so your entire premise is a red herring / strawman.

it has everything to do with the fact that in GMRS, there is no repeater coordination, and per part 95 rules, everyone must share and not intentionally interfere with each other. It's called not being a lid and a rule breaker. In case you missed it, the sharing of channels is addressed in CFR title 47, chapter 95.359:
§95.359 Sharing of channels.
Unless otherwise provided in the subparts governing the individual services, all channels designated for use in the Personal Radio Services are available for use on a shared basis, and are not assigned by the FCC for the exclusive use of any person or station. Operators of Personal Radio Service stations must cooperate in the selection and use of channels in order to avoid interference and make efficient use of these shared channels.

So articulate to me how a linked repeater system operating with controlled access (e.g. PL, DPL, etc) can foster a proper compliance with 95.359 as written?

 

[12dbsinad]

I think I get where MTS is coming from. You can't monitor the frequency as a whole in a given area, even if it's not "your" own repeater. Meaning, if someone is co-existing on the same frequency as you but on a different repeater, you have no idea of knowing and could potentially key up and talk over someone else using a linked system.

 

[jonwienke]

How so? You're ASSuming that a repeater is setup for carrier squelch. 99.9 percent aren't. They're PL/DPL access. So how is one aware of activity on said frequencies if they aren't monitoring. Answer, they aren't. Example, my repeater on 462.600 has a PL of 141.3 and yours is PL 162.2. Unless your linked repeater is monitoring in CSQ mode on it's uplink, nothing is going to activate it and therefore unless one is monitoring the input and output in CSQ, you aren't aware.

Again, if the remote system isn't running CSQ or the same PL/DPL, one isn't gonna hear a peep and just blast out their transmissions. Again, the rules say such operation is illegal. Nothing straw man about it. And it's just being a LID and a hog. Go put up a coordinated part 90 or part 97 (for non-commercial use of course) and link all you want where there are plenty of repeater pairs and coordination to ensure interference isn't likely to occur.

it has everything to do with the fact that in GMRS, there is no repeater coordination, and per part 95 rules, everyone must share and not intentionally interfere with each other. It's called not being a lid and a rule breaker. In case you missed it, the sharing of channels is addressed in CFR title 47, chapter 95.359:
§95.359 Sharing of channels.
Unless otherwise provided in the subparts governing the individual services, all channels designated for use in the Personal Radio Services are available for use on a shared basis, and are not assigned by the FCC for the exclusive use of any person or station. Operators of Personal Radio Service stations must cooperate in the selection and use of channels in order to avoid interference and make efficient use of these shared channels.

So articulate to me how a linked repeater system operating with controlled access (e.g. PL, DPL, etc) can foster a proper compliance with 95.359 as written?

You're assuming that whoever sets up a linked system won't bother to coordinate frequencies with their neighbors, and will deliberately configure the network in a manner guaranteed to cause problems.

If a repeater isn't coordinated, it's going to step on its neighbors regardless of whether it's linked or not, particularly if tones are used. So you're ranting about an irrelevant issue. If it is coordinated, it's not going to cause problems, regardless of whether or not it's linked.