"Fixing GMRS" - an Editorial (AKA everyone's GMRS ideas go here)

[mmckenna]

I strongly believe that all new radios need to include a small scuttling charge on the circuit board. Not to harm the user in any way, but so radios can be permanently killed remotely. We can start with all the CCR's that magically show up on systems where they do not belong. MDC kill codes already exist, should be easy enough to roll out. I figure something about 1/4 the size of a fire cracker should work.

And yes, I'm kidding. Maybe.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I do believe an excellent point was raised about type acceptance. Why couldn't the FCC specify in Part 95 that any radio that meets type acceptance under Part 90 and is capable of being programmed for wide band emissions on GMRS frequencies automatically meets type acceptance requirements for GMRS under Part 95?

There is absolutely no question that commercial grade Motorola, Vertex, Kenwood, GE/MaCom/Harris is as good (actually MUCH better, in my opinion) as the Chinese junk that barely passes Part 95 type acceptance and is only designed for GMRS and FRS.

This ought to be a very simple rule change that would have zero negative effect on the GMRS service. It would also stop the senseless hand-wringing of radio nerds that lose sleep over licensees using commercial equipment that isn't Part 95 type accepted.

I spent quite a bit of time researching the FCC enforcement bureau website for actions and NAL s directed toward GMRS operators. The only ones found were those directed at businesses misusing GMRS. There were no individuals cited for linking repeaters, a common point of contention by one individual who continually argues the rules prohibit it. And I found no action toward anyone using Part 90. Radios. In truth, the GMRS service gets very little negative attention by the FCC. Ham radio on the other hand, gets a lot as do pirate radio operators.

 

[mmckenna]

I spent quite a bit of time researching the FCC enforcement bureau website for actions and NAL s directed toward GMRS operators. The only ones found were those directed at businesses misusing GMRS. There were no individuals cited for linking repeaters, a common point of contention by one individual who continually argues the rules prohibit it. And I found no action toward anyone using Part 90. Radios. In truth, the GMRS service gets very little negative attention by the FCC. Ham radio on the other hand, gets a lot as do pirate radio operators.

Yeah, I think it's a non-issue and I agree.
However, I'm pretty confident that several people brought that up in the GMRS NPRM back several years ago. FCC had the opportunity to adopt it, and they didn't. Why? Who knows?
I can bet that there would be some concern over confusion of the requirements. Every part 90 radio that I've ever seen that also had Part 95 was not capable of more than 50 watts. There are obviously a lot of 100 watt UHF radios out there in Part 90 land. Of course nothing to stop someone from doing that now. And of course we have the experimental license that Nor Cal GMRS Users Group has that allows their 100 watt DMR repeaters on two GMRS pairs.

Something that could certainly be proposed to the FCC again with a really good justification. What's the worst that could happen?

 

[AK9R]

Every part 90 radio that I've ever seen that also had Part 95 was not capable of more than 50 watts. There are obviously a lot of 100 watt UHF radios out there in Part 90 land.

How much of a problem would a 100 watt radio be on GMRS?

 

[mmckenna]

How much of a problem would a 100 watt radio be on GMRS?

Little if any. 3dB isn't much and unlikely anyone would notice. I don't have an issue with it, or using Part 90 radios on GMRS. I think the FCC may be concerned. Maybe not. They didn't seem to mind granting the experimental license to Nor Cal GMRS users group. It shows 100 watts for their DMR repeaters.

 

[W8UU]

And, for how many years after the FCC changed the rules to prohibit baby monitors from operating in the upper end of the AM broadcast band did you still hear baby monitors there? Didn't happen over night, did it. People who have FRS radios made illegal by these proposals will either not get the message or they simply won't care. Yeah, sure, some of them will buy new radios. But, you'd just have to wait for the rest of them to fail and be discarded.

Ya gotta start somewhere. There's no other logical path. Maybe 10 years after the final deadline, you'll still have a handful of bootleg FRS radios operating on the GMRS overlay frequencies, but a BUNCH of bubble pack operators that used to be here will be gone. And the number will get smaller every year as equipment breaks and/or is replaced.

 

[Marine_Cotporal]

Ya gotta start somewhere. There's no other logical path. Maybe 10 years after the final deadline, you'll still have a handful of bootleg FRS radios operating on the GMRS overlay frequencies, but a BUNCH of bubble pack operators that used to be here will be gone. And the number will get smaller every year as equipment breaks and/or is replaced.

This.

 

[alcahuete]

Probably the same number of people that bought GMRS radios at Target and then dutifully went on line to get their GMRS license?

Or the ol' Red, Green, and Blue Color Dot radios that came with the license application in the box. The FCC just gave up and turned it into MURS, since almost everybody on those frequencies were not licensed.

FRS/GMRS is a wasteland just like CB. The FCC has given up on it long ago.

 

[bill4long]

Please don't "fix" it.

Agreed. The only "fix" I would like to see is Part 90 radios legally usable on GMRS. It is widespread anyway, it makes sense, the FCC doesn't seem to care about enforcement, but it would be nice to have it in writing.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

How much of a problem would a 100 watt radio be on GMRS?

Just program the radio for 50W TPO on the GMRS channels. Most modern radios have the option for a low or medium power setting per channel.

 

[Hans13]

the FCC doesn't seem to care about enforcement

Second best is if they continue not to care.

 

[W8UU]

Second best is if they continue not to care.

If you care about the future of GMRS, the FCC *not caring* is an issue.

As others have mentioned, GMRS sits dead square in the middle of prime real estate in the UHF business band. If there are no advocates for GMRS and if the number of licensees drops, other interests will petition the FCC to move in on GMRS frequencies.

What new electronic interference are you willing to tolerate? Unlicensed low power paging systems? Licensing the GMRS repeater output channels for nationwide itinerant base and mobile business operation? Maybe we become the new home for all those drive-thru wireless headset radios or digital clock syncing systems. Or maybe licensing full-blown high powered business repeaters outside major metropolitan areas (where all of the existing UHF business frequencies are likely to be in use).

You can say the bubble pack radios aren't a problem in your area and you'd like an FCC that barely notices that GMRS exists, but others are watching and many of these companies and organizations are actively involved with the FCC on other issues. All it takes is for someone else to develop a new electronic device that needs radio spectrum, or an industry lobby group that needs additional frequencies for their paying members, and GMRS frequencies may be offered up by these people as a solution to their problems. If GMRS is viewed as problematic, or worse -- a dead radio service that no longer serves a real purpose, we may find ourselves eventually evicted by a change in Part 95 or simply run off the air by unacceptable levels of legal interference.

Just something to consider.

 

[Hans13]

If you care about the future of GMRS, the FCC *not caring* is an issue.

As others have mentioned, GMRS sits dead square in the middle of prime real estate in the UHF business band. If there are no advocates for GMRS and if the number of licensees drops, other interests will petition the FCC to move in on GMRS frequencies.

What new electronic interference are you willing to tolerate? Unlicensed low power paging systems? Licensing the GMRS repeater output channels for nationwide itinerant base and mobile business operation? Maybe we become the new home for all those drive-thru wireless headset radios or digital clock syncing systems. Or maybe licensing full-blown high powered business repeaters outside major metropolitan areas (where all of the existing UHF business frequencies are likely to be in use).

You can say the bubble pack radios aren't a problem in your area and you'd like an FCC that barely notices that GMRS exists, but others are watching and many of these companies and organizations are actively involved with the FCC on other issues. All it takes is for someone else to develop a new electronic device that needs radio spectrum, or an industry lobby group that needs additional frequencies for their paying members, and GMRS frequencies may be offered up by these people as a solution to their problems. If GMRS is viewed as problematic, or worse -- a dead radio service that no longer serves a real purpose, we may find ourselves eventually evicted by a change in Part 95 or simply run off the air by unacceptable levels of legal interference.

Just something to consider.

Anytime a government entity is neutered or neuters itself, the better. I'll have a coke.

 

[a417]

Anytime a government entity is neutered or neuters itself, the better. I'll have a coke.

Ok, funny man...tell me another.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

If you care about the future of GMRS, the FCC *not caring* is an issue.

As others have mentioned, GMRS sits dead square in the middle of prime real estate in the UHF business band. If there are no advocates for GMRS and if the number of licensees drops, other interests will petition the FCC to move in on GMRS frequencies.

What new electronic interference are you willing to tolerate? Unlicensed low power paging systems? Licensing the GMRS repeater output channels for nationwide itinerant base and mobile business operation? Maybe we become the new home for all those drive-thru wireless headset radios or digital clock syncing systems. Or maybe licensing full-blown high powered business repeaters outside major metropolitan areas (where all of the existing UHF business frequencies are likely to be in use).

You can say the bubble pack radios aren't a problem in your area and you'd like an FCC that barely notices that GMRS exists, but others are watching and many of these companies and organizations are actively involved with the FCC on other issues. All it takes is for someone else to develop a new electronic device that needs radio spectrum, or an industry lobby group that needs additional frequencies for their paying members, and GMRS frequencies may be offered up by these people as a solution to their problems. If GMRS is viewed as problematic, or worse -- a dead radio service that no longer serves a real purpose, we may find ourselves eventually evicted by a change in Part 95 or simply run off the air by unacceptable levels of legal interference.

Just something to consider.

Maybe the best thing to do is encourage licensed operation and discourage interlopers. The more licenses, the more we "matter". Here is an idea, adopt a family. Buy a license for those family members too far down the family tree, or your neighbor who shows interest. Better yet, if you are in a jeep club or hunting club and the members are operating illegally, get them licensed.

As far as the part 90 radio thing, I am on the fence. If you ask the FCC to amend the way the rules are written and they say flat out no way, "Verboten" then, well we are on notice. If they say yes that is a great idea, we will get on it, that would be wonderful. But I can see Midland weighing in and arguing against it because it will erode their fat-dumb-happy market plan.

 

[mmckenna]

Maybe the best thing to do is encourage licensed operation ….. it will erode their fat-dumb-happy market plan.

Spot. On.

None of this is new. It has been going on for 3 decades now.
The FCC is only aware of licensed users. Of course they know there are unlicensed users, but the FCC does not have the staff, time or funding to quantify that. If you want GMRS to survive, the FCC needs to see that there are legal users. 2¢ a day isn't too much to ask.

As for poking the proverbial bear over the Part 90 thing, I agree. I do believe that's been brought up before and someone posted a reply from the FCC. No, please don't ask me to look it up and produce it for you. Like I said before, the subject was brought up in the last NPRM about 10 years ago, and the FCC chose not to change the wording of the rules. Doesn't mean that they wouldn't change it now.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Spot. On.

None of this is new. It has been going on for 3 decades now.
The FCC is only aware of licensed users. Of course they know there are unlicensed users, but the FCC does not have the staff, time or funding to quantify that. If you want GMRS to survive, the FCC needs to see that there are legal users. 2¢ a day isn't too much to ask.

As for poking the proverbial bear over the Part 90 thing, I agree. I do believe that's been brought up before and someone posted a reply from the FCC. No, please don't ask me to look it up and produce it for you. Like I said before, the subject was brought up in the last NPRM about 10 years ago, and the FCC chose not to change the wording of the rules. Doesn't mean that they wouldn't change it now.

I like that!

 

[W8UU]

I absolutely agree with licensed operation. Numbers help, and the more licensed users (and radio activity) that exist on our eight UHF frequency pairs, the more likely the FCC is to respect our turf.

I don't think you really want to see Federal jurisdiction over our airwaves go away. In certain circles, it's popular to hate the government and want all the rules and laws to disappear, but unless you want our frequencies to turn into an RF slug-fest with no binding redress available, you still want a licensed service and for the FCC to be here.

 

[mmckenna]

I don't think you really want to see Federal jurisdiction over our airwaves go away. In certain circles, it's popular to hate the government and want all the rules and laws to disappear, but unless you want our frequencies to turn into an RF slug-fest with no binding redress available, you still want a licensed service and for the FCC to be here.

Yep, reminds me of many years ago where some guy was attempting to abolish the FCC and pretty much make everything "white space". His idea was that everyone would just have a radio that would negotiate for available spectrum. After all, in his musings, police officers were not transmitting -all- the time, and that space could be reused.

Obviously he didn't get it, and didn't get his wish.

Can't remember if he wanted more space for unlicensed 2 way radio, or more space for wireless internet access.

 

[SigIntel8600]

Russ;

I think your historical "facts" are way incorrect. GMRS was Class A and Class B CB in the UHF band long before it became a public safety/business band. We are talking tube type radios and 6V electrical system vehicles. GMRS did not hijack anything. Why would you even say this? You might want to do some research.

Midland is part of the problem in that they have ignored the operational parameters of GMRS , the wide band system deviation, and have flooded the market with low tier product based on FRS parameters. Most of their customers end up on the forums asking if they made a good purchase or not. To be honest I like the mobile with the remote head. But the low deviation is a non starter. Midland knows that their radios don't work well on repeaters or talking to other wide band radios. The modulation is weak and the CTCSS/DCS fails because it is too low.

Midland needs fixing, not GMRS. Keep GMRS analog and wideband.