Unlicensed GMRS Operators

[K4DPA]

Of the 5 illegal simplex repeaters in the area they are all run by licensed Hams who use the fact that they are licensed Hams to harass and intimidate others on the PRS bands. They use their ham license as an excuse to bully non-hams and think that GMRS/FRS is their private spot where they can do what they want. Other Hams in the area in my opinion are complicit in ignoring the abuses because it gets them off their precious frequencies.

When I got into radio 3 years ago I really tried to adhere to all the rules, even the 4 watt CB requirement. All I kept hearing from internet Hams is 'that's against FCC regs' etc, etc. It is very disheartening to find out that around here 50 percent of CB violations are by licensed Hams and .other than the GMRS license (which doesn't even matter anymore with the new rule change) which very few people adhere to, that most of the GMRS/FRS violations are committed by licensed Hams who think their Amateur Radio license makes them special.

As for the FCC, I file a complaint every 6 months starting 1 1/2 years ago. I have fully realized that the FCC does not care about GMRS, but I still file just so that I myself don't become complicit,.

The FCC does indeed care and the agents take their job very seriously. However, the FCC has suffered some of the biggest budget cuts with in the past few years. Today FCC has a fraction of the field offices and agents that they had 15 years ago. Unfortunately, the Enforcement Bureau has no choice but to triage each case based on its level of priority. Cases involving public safety, government, critical infrastructure, and etc are given the highest priority. Cases involving any of the public radio services like GMRS and Amateur Radio come last. Like I stated in my previous post, once in a blue moon the FCC will have the chance to take a lower priority case and actually investigate it. The local field office for one of the areas I’m at frequently is In Gwinnett County, GA. It’s a small office that the FCC leases and they only have two older Chevy Tahoe’s sitting in the back of the building. The last time I drove by, one of them had a flat tire and looked to have been sitting for awhile.

 

[Dantian]

The FCC should never put FRS and GMRS together in the same radio.

That train left the station a long time ago.

No legitimate GMRS users wanted FRS in the GMRS spectrum. None. We fought FCC tooth and nail on it. But the FCC listens to large corporations in any field. Radio Shack Corporation wanted FRS and so they got it.

 

[Dantian]

I file a complaint every 6 months starting 1 1/2 years ago. I have fully realized that the FCC does not care about GMRS, but I still file just so that I myself don't become complicit,.

If you are really doing this, tweet it repeatedly to the FCC Commissioners. All of them are on Twitter every day. They do notice and react.

It is not a magic solution. Due to funding cuts the Enforcement Bureau is a shadow of its former self. Monitoring stations, field offices and investigations have long been cut back except for three main areas: 1) Interference to public safety comms 2) Pirate radio FM stations 3) Interference to mobile phone carriers.

However, documenting your situation and filing repeated requests for enforcement are necessary. Communicate too with your regional FCC director. The FCC can't ignore any radio service completely.

 

[Dantian]

You are right to ask the question 'why even have the license?'. Still waiting on the answer to that very question from the FCC, as that is in my last complaint.

GMRS license is required because the Communications Act requires it. The FCC is not free to ignore the law; in fact, every FCC Commissioner swears on a holy book that they will enforce the Communications Act.

Now - the FCC hates that GMRS licenses are required. That means they have to lobby Congress to re-classify GMRS as CB, and try to slip delicensing into proposed legislation. They have tried to do this several times. Once the FCC called this "abolition of repeaters and licenses." As you can imagine, legitimate GMRS users did not welcome this insanity and let FCC and Congress know about it.

FCC later withdrew, saying that it had "calibrated user sentiment." But they tried again, somewhat more meekly, in the recent GMRS rules rewrite. In the end, the licenses were retained.

Lack of enforcement and the mistake of commingling GMRS and FRS in the same unit have led to many unlicensed users. But with a license you know the rules, you know what is permitted conduct and you can make enforcement requests and demand an answer. The nutbars and commercial users on the channel may ignore you, it is not a perfect world, but there are strategies you can use.

 

[Dantian]

GMRS license is required because the Communications Act requires it. The FCC is not free to ignore the law; in fact, every FCC Commissioner swears on a holy book that they will enforce the Communications Act.

Now - the FCC hates that GMRS licenses are required. That means they have to lobby Congress to re-classify GMRS as CB, and try to slip delicensing into proposed legislation. They have tried to do this several times. Once the FCC called this "abolition of repeaters and licenses." As you can imagine, legitimate GMRS users did not welcome this insanity and let FCC and Congress know about it.

FCC later withdrew, saying that it had "calibrated user sentiment." But they tried again, somewhat more meekly, in the recent GMRS rules rewrite. In the end, the licenses were retained.

Lack of enforcement and the mistake of commingling GMRS and FRS in the same unit have led to many unlicensed users. But with a license you know the rules, you know what is permitted conduct and you can make enforcement requests and demand an answer. Interfering with licensed and compliant users is not allowed. The nutbars and commercial users on the channel may ignore you, it is not a perfect world, but there are strategies you can use.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

N0iop;
There is nothing unlawful about a licensed GMRS operator setting up a repeater. Where did that notion originate?

GMRS permits up to 50 watts transmitter power output. Anything over 2 watts or with a removable antenna requires a license. FRS and unlicense users cannot use the 467 MHz repeater inputs.

 

[UPMan]

As mentioned above, all 22 channels in "bubble pack" radios are now considered FRS channels and are license-by-rule. You do not need to have a GMRS license to legally operate on any of the channels in those radios (assuming all are <2W ERP, which is the case in nearly all radios in production, today). If you are attempting to interfere with their comms and asking that they move to other channels, then they are actually on the higher ground.

 

[VE1GAT]

GMRS license is required because the Communications Act requires it. The FCC is not free to ignore the law; in fact, every FCC Commissioner swears on a holy book that they will enforce the Communications Act.

Now - the FCC hates that GMRS licenses are required. That means they have to lobby Congress to re-classify GMRS as CB, and try to slip delicensing into proposed legislation. They have tried to do this several times. Once the FCC called this "abolition of repeaters and licenses." As you can imagine, legitimate GMRS users did not welcome this insanity and let FCC and Congress know about it.

FCC later withdrew, saying that it had "calibrated user sentiment." But they tried again, somewhat more meekly, in the recent GMRS rules rewrite. In the end, the licenses were retained.

Lack of enforcement and the mistake of commingling GMRS and FRS in the same unit have led to many unlicensed users. But with a license you know the rules, you know what is permitted conduct and you can make enforcement requests and demand an answer. The nutbars and commercial users on the channel may ignore you, it is not a perfect world, but there are strategies you can use.

".. swears on a holy book.." well that's the problem

 

[Hans13]

If you are attempting to interfere with their comms and asking that they move to other channels, then they are actually on the higher ground.

It's kind of ironic that a licensed user might be unwittingly interfering with a legitimate license-by-rule user in an effort to incorrectly inform the latter that they are violating the rules. In a perfect world, the FCC would caution the licensed user to cease interfering with the license-by-rule user's radio operations.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

It's kind of ironic that a licensed user might be unwittingly interfering with a legitimate license-by-rule user in an effort to incorrectly inform the latter that they are violating the rules. In a perfect world, the FCC would caution the licensed user to cease interfering with the license-by-rule user's radio operations.

I am wrapping my head around this because virtually all the license free stuff I own has a disclaimer that I might receive interference and must accept that, and that if it causes interference to licensed services I must discontinue operation.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[Hans13]

I am wrapping my head around this because virtually all the license free stuff I own has a disclaimer that I might receive interference and must accept that, and that if it causes interference to licensed services I must discontinue operation.

Because, AFAIK, licensed GMRS hasn't been given priority over license-by-rule FRS, and that the OP would essentially be interfering with the FRS user; it should be a polite advisement to leave them be.

Put another way, under that circumstance, the license-by-rule users wouldn't be the one's doing the interfering. The licensed user would be the one interfering with lawful legitimate use of a service by interupting them to advise them of non-existent regulation.

Of course, details matter and I'm only referring to the general hypothetical. No doubt the OP had good intentions and was not aware of the rule changes.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Because, AFAIK, licensed GMRS hasn't been given priority over license-by-rule FRS, and that the OP would essentially be interfering with the FRS user; it should be a polite advisement to leave them be.

Put another way, under that circumstance, the license-by-rule users wouldn't be the one's doing the interfering. The licensed user would be the one interfering with lawful legitimate use of a service by interupting them to advise them of non-existent regulation.

Of course, details matter and I'm only referring to the general hypothetical. No doubt the OP had good intentions and was not aware of the rule changes.

I just went over the rules and they fall into the General PRS section, there are no words in the GMRS or FRS sections. The FCC basically wants everyone to play nice. I am OK with that except for those damn rodger beeps. what is with that non stop kerchunking of those things.

§ 95.325 Interference.
Operators of Personal Radio Service
stations experiencing or causing
interference must first attempt to
eliminate the interference by means of
mutually satisfactory arrangements. If
the operators are unable to resolve an
interference problem, the FCC may
impose restrictions including specifying
the channels, maximum transmitting
power, maximum antenna height and
geographic area or hours of operation of
the stations concerned

§ 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

 

[Hans13]

I am OK with that except for those damn rodger beeps. what is with that non stop kerchunking of those things.

lol! (It's kids, of any age... even big-uns, having fun.) ETA: Remember, a large swatch of the adult population aren't all that bright. Think Bell curve. They are easily amused. Because you fall outside that part of the curve, you have difficulty understanding what they see in the behavior.

Yep, there doesn't seem to be a primary vs secondary user status between FRS and GMRS in the regs. That's why I was figuring it the way I was.

 

[Hans13]

In essence, the GMRS license is all about repeater use and having our own repeaters for many of us. That's about the extent of the license's purpose these days. But, it's a huge purpose for my friends, family, and me.

 

[Hans13]

No legitimate GMRS users wanted FRS in the GMRS spectrum. None.

I am a legitimate licensed GMRS operator. I manage our own repeater. We have very healthy and active FRS usage in my community. I have absolutely no problem with FRS sharing the spectrum.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I am a legitimate licensed GMRS operator. I manage our own repeater. We have very healthy and active FRS usage in my community. I have absolutely no problem with FRS sharing the spectrum.

The unintended consequence of this is that the FRS rules do not prohibit business use of FRS and by extension, the 8 GMRS 462 MHz repeater output frequencies.

 

[Hans13]

The unintended consequence of this is that the FRS rules do not prohibit business use of FRS and by extension, the 8 GMRS 462 MHz repeater output frequencies.

Yep. I like the lack of business prohibition. It is useful for many.

But, the "no true scottsman" assertion was false.

 

[bill4long]

There are people in my neighborhood who do not have a License for using GMRS channels and they use it like CB radio. I try to explain this to them on the air and they ignore me altogether and laugh.

1. Not your job to inform them of anything.
2. They may have PL or DCS enabled on their receivers, in which case they won't hear you unless you are transmitting the right code.
3. They may be using perfectly legal FRS radios.
4. See number 1 again.

The FCC should never put FRS and GMRS together in the same radio.

They did, so that is that. The FCC recently changed Part 90 to allow FRS radios to be used on all the FRS/GMRS channels.

You are entirely free to use CTCSS or DCS on your radios to avoid hearing them. Or switch frequencies. Life is too short to worry about it.

 

[bill4long]

The unintended consequence of this is that the FRS rules do not prohibit business use of FRS and by extension, the 8 GMRS 462 MHz repeater output frequencies.

What's wrong with businesses using those frequencies? Are they stopping you from using FRS/GMRS successfully? And who said it was an unintented consequence? If the FCC didn't want businesses using them, the rules would have been written that way. And there has never been the tiniest hint that they would ever put such a restriction in the rules.

As for FRS radios interfering with GMRS repeaters, perhaps this is a legitimate gripe. All I can say is that I know of several GMRS repeaters around here, and they are all owned by Amateur Radio operators/clubs, who also have repeaters elsewhere. I don't think this was the intent. The FCC had in mind, from what I can tell, family businesses such as farms, where most of the users would be in the same family. Pseudo-ham-radio was probably not the intention. Unless some FRS radio is right on top of you, it's not going to interfere with a 50 watt repeater (plus antenna gain) output anyway.

There's an easy solution if you really want a non-ham repeater, and don't want to worry about FRS interference: put up an LMR repeater, or get your ham license and put up a ham radio repeater or use other existing repeaters. Any chimp can easily get a Technician class ham license these days.

 

[bill4long]

I am OK with that except for those damn rodger beeps. what is with that non stop kerchunking of those things.

Why don't you use CTCSS or DCS squelch? Then you won't hear them. That's what they are there for.