GMRS vs. FRS

[12dbsinad]

It is because the manufacturers of this bubble pack junk are all engaged in a 22 channel 36 mile marketing war and they want to legitimize stomping on GMRS channels at the peril of licensed GMRS operators.

There is no reason for users of bubble pack radios to need the additional GMRS channels. Further the push to license all by rule forces the FCC to rethink the power levels of mobiles and portables because they can't have innocent and ignorant little Bobbie and Buffie using a 5 watt radio in front of their little heads nor a 50 Watt mobile on Buffies little Pink Barbie Corvette.

This was all hashed out in an NPRM several years back and the FCC and others seeing actual licensed GMRS operators push back had them shelve the NPRM waiting for the smoke to clear. This issue is not dead.

But they already have their 22 channel bubble packs with GMRS mixed in that EVERYONE uses anyway regardless of getting licensed or not. I can't see where the license restriction is stopping ANY sales of bubble pack radios as most don't even know what GMRS or FRS are.

Maybe to increase the FRS channels to 2 watts? Even so, they probably could do better with a GMRS activation code to unlock 4 watt channels after obtaining a license.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

But they already have their 22 channel bubble packs with GMRS mixed in that EVERYONE uses anyway regardless of getting licensed or not. I can't see where the license restriction is stopping ANY sales of bubble pack radios as most don't even know what GMRS or FRS are.

Maybe to increase the FRS channels to 2 watts? Even so, they probably could do better with a GMRS activation code to unlock 4 watt channels after obtaining a license.

The NPRM which is attached has many provisions, license by rule, GMRS power and bandwidth reductions , etc. which spell the demise of GMRS as we know it.

These are driven by ex-parte meetings by the manufacturers and FCC (ex-parte means manufacturers privately meeting FCC in a smoke filled room)

I have attached the agenda of the recent one from Uniden for example. Any "consumer confusion and non-compliance" that Uniden speaks of is of their own making.

There is also another NPRM in 2016 that proposes encroaching on the band edges of GMRS.

 

[12dbsinad]

The NPRM which is attached has many provisions, license by rule, GMRS power and bandwidth reductions , etc. which spell the demise of GMRS as we know it.

These are driven by ex-parte meetings by the manufacturers and FCC (ex-parte means manufacturers privately meeting FCC in a smoke filled room)

There is also another NPRM in 2016 that proposes encroaching on the band edges of GMRS.

Yeah, I've read this hog wash before.

But again, what is the true motive for these manufactures to press the issue (or non-issue). They would not spend the time do do this if there wasn't something to be gained on their end.

They would be better off developing a walkie talkie with GMRS/FRS and WIFI to connect to zello. Wait, maybe that would be to much RF exposure??

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Yeah, I've read this hog wash before.

But again, what is the true motive for these manufactures to press the issue (or non-issue). They would not spend the time do do this if there wasn't something to be gained on their end.

They would be better off developing a walkie talkie with GMRS/FRS and WIFI to connect to zello. Wait, maybe that would be to much RF exposure??

I had a boss once who had one bit of smart advice: "Never let a camel get his nose into a tent". Who knows what the end game is.

Look above at the ex-parte letter I attached (on edit), they are trying to legitimize existing illegal use of their current radios. They are also trying to allow voice inversion. I recall some manufacturers had their hands slapped for selling this feature.

Also they bring up the issue of standardizing the marketed claimed range. If I were a bored class action attorney I would go after the purveyors of all these FRS and GMRS radios for their claims of 20 to 36 miles coverage distance.

Maybe some attorney in Alabama with a brother in law who is a disgruntled hunter will file on his behalf.

 

[12dbsinad]

If I were a bored class action attorney I would go after the purveyors of all these FRS and GMRS radios for their claims of 20 to 36 miles coverage distance.

You didn't know that if you bought the 39.99 bubble pack it has 18 mile range, and if you got the 79.99 one it has 36 mile range??

Shame on you!

 

[KD8DVR]

What you are doing is obsoleting GMRS which is a high power, high performance service. Why would you (a manufacturer) do this?

If you follow the present GMRS rules, obtain a license for the cost of $1 per month, you can operate up to 50 watts, enjoy a repeater, operate at full 20 KHz bandwidth (much better coverage) and what could possibly be wrong with letting GMRS exist as it has for many decades?

Why would anyone operating an FRS radio need more than 14 channels and a hundreds of privacy codes?

If you want to market GMRS radios, market radios with higher performance (including proper 20 KHz bandwidth and repeater mode) and demand a higher price point. This "creative marketing 22 channels and 36 miles" all arrives on the back of licensed GMRS operators.

If you must put 22 channels in these radios then make some provision that they are locked out unless a buyer presents a legitimate GMRS callsign to a website. Provide an activation code for the radio that is unique to it.

Don't go messing with GMRS rules to satisfy a corporate agenda.

Corporate greed.

2 watts ERP? Come on...

Why would you petition the FCC to further reduce higher power (available for all) spectrum?

Doesn't make sense to me either.

Corporate greed. Nothing to do with public interest.

AntiSquid Disclaimer: All posted content is personal opinion only and may not imply fact or accusation.