Part 95 NPRM

[kv5e]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-106A1.pdf

Craig

 

[SkipSanders]

To expand a little:

The FCC NPRM requests comment and discussion of their proposed changes, which, among other things, propose to end the requirement for licensing in GMRS, LOWER the power allowed (to 2 watts for portables), potentially remove repeaters, firmly prohibit scrambling of any kind, and perhaps, prohibit use of radios dual/type accepted for part 90 and 95!

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-106A1.pdf

or, in doc form:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-106A1.doc

or, simple .txt:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-106A1.txt

 

[gmrsoutlet]

Anyone commenting on this to the FCC (which every GMRS License holder should do) needs to make it clear that things need to be clairified and enhanced, not completely changed like they are currently proposing.

Now is not the time for requesting outragious change - it is too late for that, we need them to pull back and streamline GMRS, but keep it fundamentally the same.

We need the rules to be updated to fit how "high-end" GMRS users are using the serivce. The way they are proposing this is in support of bubble packers and not the "power users" of GMRS that have repeaters, base stations - and that ACTUALLY GOT THEIR LICENSE!

Comments are due July 7th. I recommend that every license holder send comment to the FCC, recommend changes that offer clarification of the existing rules, and updates that make them easier to understand. Drastic changes and elimination of mobile, repeater, and high ERP is not what we want.

There are hundreds of repeater owners that will be impacted, and thousands of licensed users will not be able to use their "high end" equipment if this passes as proposed.

 

[burner50]

Not good....

 

[WQLU507]

Below is a copy of an email I sent to the FCC Commissioners regarding these proposed rule changes. The ECFS is down, and I hope to *maybe* draw some executive attention to the fact that there are, still, plenty of licensed, rule-abiding GMRS operators nationwide.

Copy of communication:


Dear FCC Leadership,

I am writing to express concerns over the proposed rule changes to FCC Part 95 rules governing personal radio services. Unfortunately the ECFS appears to be down, and I feel that this particular set of rule changes demands the attention of the executive leadership.

Before I comment on the rule changes themselves, I’d like to provide a little background information about myself. I work in public safety as both a Police Communications Officer and an Emergency Medical Technician. I am also a member of a local CERT, radio enthusiast, and awaiting the July changes to the amateur radio testing pool to sit for my technician class amateur licensing. I am a licensed GMRS operator, WQLU507.

In reading the proposed changes to Part 95, it would appear that the changes to the rules will effectively eliminate the GMRS, if not in nomenclature, at least in spirit. Currently there are many licensed operators, such as myself, who enjoy the local, and sometimes regional communication freedom offered by the current GMRS rules. I am a member of the North Georgia GMRS network, which is an advanced network of repeaters constructed and maintained by GMRS users in Georgia. The proposed changes to the rules would eliminate this valuable network as a whole, and negate all of the hard work by members of the group who strive to maintain and grow the resource as a means of communications. Living in rural northwest Georgia, this repeater network is a valuable resource to those of us who live in areas not easily serviced by todays cellular offerings. At my residence in Paulding County Georgia, I am barely able to maintain a GSM signal with my local provider, however, I get full quieting on one of the North Georgia GMRS repeaters, allowing me to keep in contact with family in the area as well as friends who are also members of the network. I am enjoying teaching my 11 year old younger brother about two-way radio, and always being able to get in contact with him via use of the repeater network.

As a CERT team member, I can tell you that all of the senior members of our group are licensed GMRS operators, and many are amateur operators. Utilizing both the repeater network available and simplex operations, we are able to communicate anywhere within the county at any time. As I stated earlier, cellular coverage in my, and many rural Georgia counties, is simply not reliable enough to be considered appropriate for emergency communications. The proposed rule changes would effectively eliminate this as a means of communications for our group during an emergency, as a 2 watt transmit power limit would render mobile unit to mobile unit simplex operations useless. Utilizing GMRS as one means of communications for our group is a valuable resource that simply couldn’t be replaced by any other current offerings in the spectrum.

I do support a rewrite of the rules to streamline and simplify certain aspects of the radio service as a whole. I feel the proposed changes banning “hybrid mode” radios that operate on both GMRS and FRS frequencies, often sold with greatly exaggerated coverage claims and little to no mention of licensing requirements would be a step forward for GMRS. I feel the move to eliminate licensing requirements altogether would destroy the valuable resource provided to current GMRS license holders, and greatly bolster the profits of companies selling inexpensive radios without regard to their impact on licensed operators. I feel the current transmit power restrictions are appropriate for the service and effective at eliminating unwanted emissions and interference. Being a “Personal Radio Service”, I feel the needs of the licensed operators of the service should be the driving force for rulemaking, not the wants and profit margins of the radio manufacturers. More strict control of radio types, licensing enforcement and stricter control over manufacturing guidelines could go a long way in improving the licensed GMRS, negating the need to effectively abolish it.


I appreciate your taking the time to listen to my concerns. When the ECFS is operational again, I will post this same information there to allow for public review and comment in the spirit of the rulemaking process.

Thank you for your time,

Dreagon “Dre” L. Gilley, NREMT-I, NAEMD-A
WQLU507

 

[jimbr1]

I can understand that the FCC wants to take the easy path and eliminate the GMRS license- probably due the the large numbers of bubble pack radios that combined GMRS and FRS services and the probable lack of significant numbers of people actually getting their GMRS licenses. ( I should have waited- could have saved 85 bucks). It really is unfair to those who have 5 watt portables and 50 watt units and repeaters. Something more feasible would be to keep the bubble packs (2 watts and under) license free while allowing the existence of higher watt GMRS radios (5-50watts) available to those who are licensed or wish to be licensed in order to use higher wattage and repeater systems.

 

[dnoyeb]

What is the point of the license?

 

[redneckcellphone]

Below is a copy of an email I sent to the FCC Commissioners regarding these proposed rule changes. The ECFS is down, and I hope to *maybe* draw some executive attention to the fact that there are, still, plenty of licensed, rule-abiding GMRS operators nationwide.

Copy of communication:


Dear FCC Leadership,

I am writing to express concerns over the proposed rule changes to FCC Part 95 rules governing personal radio services. Unfortunately the ECFS appears to be down, and I feel that this particular set of rule changes demands the attention of the executive leadership.

Before I comment on the rule changes themselves, I’d like to provide a little background information about myself. I work in public safety as both a Police Communications Officer and an Emergency Medical Technician. I am also a member of a local CERT, radio enthusiast, and awaiting the July changes to the amateur radio testing pool to sit for my technician class amateur licensing. I am a licensed GMRS operator, WQLU507.

In reading the proposed changes to Part 95, it would appear that the changes to the rules will effectively eliminate the GMRS, if not in nomenclature, at least in spirit. Currently there are many licensed operators, such as myself, who enjoy the local, and sometimes regional communication freedom offered by the current GMRS rules. I am a member of the North Georgia GMRS network, which is an advanced network of repeaters constructed and maintained by GMRS users in Georgia. The proposed changes to the rules would eliminate this valuable network as a whole, and negate all of the hard work by members of the group who strive to maintain and grow the resource as a means of communications. Living in rural northwest Georgia, this repeater network is a valuable resource to those of us who live in areas not easily serviced by todays cellular offerings. At my residence in Paulding County Georgia, I am barely able to maintain a GSM signal with my local provider, however, I get full quieting on one of the North Georgia GMRS repeaters, allowing me to keep in contact with family in the area as well as friends who are also members of the network. I am enjoying teaching my 11 year old younger brother about two-way radio, and always being able to get in contact with him via use of the repeater network.

As a CERT team member, I can tell you that all of the senior members of our group are licensed GMRS operators, and many are amateur operators. Utilizing both the repeater network available and simplex operations, we are able to communicate anywhere within the county at any time. As I stated earlier, cellular coverage in my, and many rural Georgia counties, is simply not reliable enough to be considered appropriate for emergency communications. The proposed rule changes would effectively eliminate this as a means of communications for our group during an emergency, as a 2 watt transmit power limit would render mobile unit to mobile unit simplex operations useless. Utilizing GMRS as one means of communications for our group is a valuable resource that simply couldn’t be replaced by any other current offerings in the spectrum.

I do support a rewrite of the rules to streamline and simplify certain aspects of the radio service as a whole. I feel the proposed changes banning “hybrid mode” radios that operate on both GMRS and FRS frequencies, often sold with greatly exaggerated coverage claims and little to no mention of licensing requirements would be a step forward for GMRS. I feel the move to eliminate licensing requirements altogether would destroy the valuable resource provided to current GMRS license holders, and greatly bolster the profits of companies selling inexpensive radios without regard to their impact on licensed operators. I feel the current transmit power restrictions are appropriate for the service and effective at eliminating unwanted emissions and interference. Being a “Personal Radio Service”, I feel the needs of the licensed operators of the service should be the driving force for rulemaking, not the wants and profit margins of the radio manufacturers. More strict control of radio types, licensing enforcement and stricter control over manufacturing guidelines could go a long way in improving the licensed GMRS, negating the need to effectively abolish it.


I appreciate your taking the time to listen to my concerns. When the ECFS is operational again, I will post this same information there to allow for public review and comment in the spirit of the rulemaking process.

Thank you for your time,

Dreagon “Dre” L. Gilley, NREMT-I, NAEMD-A
WQLU507

+1

 

[rescuecomm]

GMRS update

It is time for GMRS technology to make the leap to digital narrowband. Even requiring 12.5 khz narrowband on the repeater frequencies is not going to free much spectrum up. It would be far better to go directly to 6.25 khz digital channels (on a mandated platform of IDAS or similar). This would give about 62 channels and could allow 10 pairs for repeater use instead of 8. With digital, texting could also be added.

The situation is that the so-called power users of GMRS frequencies are a small minority of the total although they use their radios very often. There are only two users of our county wide repeater in upstate SC versus thousands of so-called bubble pack users that operate them on an admittedly infrequent basis. The bubblepack users constitute the real money and sales opportunities for a newly laid out radio system. Anything short of this is going to be only a white wash of a legacy system based on old technology and limited capabilities.

Bob

 

[WQIR683]

It is time for GMRS technology to make the leap to digital narrowband. Even requiring 12.5 khz narrowband on the repeater frequencies is not going to free much spectrum up. It would be far better to go directly to 6.25 khz digital channels (on a mandated platform of IDAS or similar). This would give about 62 channels and could allow 10 pairs for repeater use instead of 8. With digital, texting could also be added.

Why is digital even necessary in this service?? Why should I go out and buy a new radio just because a manufacturer just came out with something new?

 

[rescuecomm]

Why is digital even necessary in this service?? Why should I go out and buy a new radio just because a manufacturer just came out with something new?

You would have several years grace period to use up your old stuff if the FCC goes its usual path. I would like to see repeaters retained in the service. There is no other personal radio service that allows repeater use by family groups. The amatuer radio service requires a operators license per individual user. I think adding a couple of repeater channels in the future by going to a next generation narrowband system is a plus. I am worried by the talk of "uncoordinated repeaters" with 50 watt power limits. Someone might be trying to open another GMRS cash register.

Bob

 

[joen7xxx]

One fine point, If you have GMRS license, you are not a licensed operator, you are te holder of a station license.

Unfortunately the GMRS, or as we old timers knew it Class A Citizen's Band Radio Service was doomed with the advent of the bubble pack radios. Probably less than 1/2 % of folks who purchased them, paid the license fee.

Once again, the FCC's solution to mis managing a service and losing control is to deregulate it.

BTW I do have a GMRS ststion license and am a licensed Amateur and Commercial radio operator, (T-2 with RADAR endorsement).

 

[newsphotog]

There is no other personal radio service that allows repeater use by family groups. The amatuer radio service requires a operators license per individual user.

Very true. Plus, in most regions, amateur radio repeater pairs are hard to come by.

 

[Jake7757]

With these new proposals in mind would I be pushing my luck if I bought a couple of Cobra Marine MR-HH425LI-VP ?
It has Marine VHF/GMRS 5 watt and a removable antenna, any replies would be appreciated.

 

[wuzafuzz]

Lots of changes!

One proposed change I find particularly bothersome is the requirement for GMRS portable radios to have integral antennas. That would effectively outlaw GMRS use of all our professional quality portables (did I miss anything allowing us to continue using existing radios??). By extension that could negatively affect repeater use, unless anyone knows how to reprogram a bubble pack radio for repeater pairs.

Licensing? Licensing by rule probably won't change much since bubble pack bee-boop radios are already everywhere.

Narrowbanding? Ha ha ha! Hoooo, that's rich. As if the unlicensed masses are going to abandon their existing GMRS "hi-power" radios. The FCC is smoking some wacky weed on that count. Older radios will just interfere with 2 "new" channels at a time.

Jeez. My soon to be useless GMRS license wasn't cheap either. Good guys finish last once again!

 

[radioprescott]

Looks like a repeat of the "CB" deregulating scenario. Can't control it so let's deregulate it altogether...LOL

 

[b7spectra]

OK, so they want to "open" it up. Sure. GMRS repeater operators can ask for a UHF pair on business band and license it for X number of users for their "business". All the people who are on the GMRS repeater can "become" part of the "business" and still be able to communicate without having to listen to the children on the old GMRS frequencies. Am I wrong?

 

[SkipSanders]

You can only get a business radio license if you actually ARE a business, and no communications allowed that aren't directly related to the business licensed for. Personal chat not allowed.

I believe there are rules about channel loading, and you have to go through an (expensive) coordination process.

 

[hockeyshrink]

Sounds like another step in the plan to remove the tools of liberty from the citizens. In this case, it is communications capability to coordinate activities of people beyond a block or 2. And the whole bit about outlawing directional antennas on 11m to reduce dx'ing...gimme a break. Just makes enforcement easier - for when they decide it is actually time to enforce the rules, and these new ones are a doozy.

Pass the KoolAid

 

[b7spectra]

You can only get a business radio license if you actually ARE a business, and no communications allowed that aren't directly related to the business licensed for. Personal chat not allowed.

I believe there are rules about channel loading, and you have to go through an (expensive) coordination process.

Ever listen in on a "business" frequency? Sounds more like CB than it does anything else. Poor old Uncle Charlie has cut so many field personnel from their budget that unless you are doing something so radically bad, they most likely wouldn't do much more than to send you a warning letter.