Latest FCC Fiasco on Reducing License Cost

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

Mr. Knowles, wouldn't a better idea be to use the money for better enforcement of existing rules, and perhaps not allowing manufacturers to produce radios capable of transmitting on both FRS and GMRS frequencies? I can't see how enforcement is going to increase if you reduce funding.




Delta

 

[RandyKnowles]

Seven-Delta-FortyOne -

I agree with you that funding of enforcement is important, and that is why I have urged the Commission to eliminate the Regulatory Fee only as a preliminary TEMPORARY measure pending relief from Congress on the totally unjustifiable Application Fee of (as of June 6th) $65. I've also asked the Commission to recommend to Congress that the GMRS Application Fee be eliminated, or at least reduced to their true cost (probably less than $5). Such a recommendation would greatly facilitate GMRS licensees going to their elected representatives (especially thoses on the applicable Senate and House Committees, and especially Subcommittees) and demanding relief.

As far as certification of "dual band" FRS/GMRS radios, you must understand that the FCC is made up of different Bureaus and that OET is totally responsible for this fiasco. As a practical matter, it's now so well established that I very much doubt any significant change is likely. The WT Bureau of the Commission suggested possible elimination of radios with both FRS and GMRS in WT Docket 10-119, and absoutely nothing happened.

Bear in mind that, prior to FRS and before 1987, GRMS was theatened with take-over by "commerical" radio interests and potentially being absorbed by Business Band Radio. If I had to choose between FRS or Business Band operations in GMRS, FRS has far less impact and potential for complete usurpation of the 8 main GMRS channels to the exclusion of personal users. That's just my personal viewpoint based on experience from the bad old days before 1987.

I'd also point out that there is FAR MORE enforcement of CB Radio by the FCC Field Offices every year than GMRS, and CB Operators have paid no Regulatory Fee at all for decades.

The best permanent long term solution is elimination of the Application Fee and reinstatement of the Regulatory Fee. Then the total cost of a GMRS license would be $25 for 5 years. That is why I have asked the Commission to only temporarily SUSPEND collection of the Regulatory Fee until the Appilcation fee component can be corrected.

I hope this answers your questions. Randy Knowles, KAA 8142.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

It did. Thanks for taking the time to post that.

Good point on the CB thing, too.





Delta

 

[techguru]

IMHO half of GMRS should be de-licensed.

This is how I think it should be set up.

Keep the 8 FRS 0.5w channels as is (license free)

Remove the license requirement for the 462mhz GMRS channels and allow up to 5 watts.

Keep GMRS license requirement for 467mhz GMRS channels and allow up to 50 watts simplex only (forbid the use of GMRS repeaters going forward).

The reason I see this as the sensible solution is it would inadvertently make most bubblepack radios license free as most do not have the ability to transmit on the 467mhz repeater input GMRS channels thus licensed GMRS would require buying REAL GMRS radio's that do transmit on these frequencies.

I also feel that in the process the FCC should allow part 90 commercial radios to be used for the 467mhz licensed GMRS frequencies.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

IMHO half of GMRS should be de-licensed.

This is how I think it should be set up.

Keep the 8 FRS 0.5w channels as is (license free)

Remove the license requirement for the 462mhz GMRS channels and allow up to 5 watts.

Keep GMRS license requirement for 467mhz GMRS channels and allow up to 50 watts simplex only (forbid the use of GMRS repeaters going forward).

The reason I see this as the sensible solution is it would inadvertently make most bubblepack radios license free as most do not have the ability to transmit on the 467mhz repeater input GMRS channels thus licensed GMRS would require buying REAL GMRS radio's that do transmit on these frequencies.

I also feel that in the process the FCC should allow part 90 commercial radios to be used for the 467mhz licensed GMRS frequencies.

That will really screw things up. In fact, many people (me included) have no interest in GMRS without the use of repeaters as it would only be another useless CB band. The other downside to using the repeater inputs for simplex operatons, it would make a couple of GMRS radios that are setup to be user programmable all but useless to most of the owners.

 

[quarterwave]

IMHO half of GMRS should be de-licensed.

This is how I think it should be set up.

Keep the 8 FRS 0.5w channels as is (license free)

Remove the license requirement for the 462mhz GMRS channels and allow up to 5 watts.

Keep GMRS license requirement for 467mhz GMRS channels and allow up to 50 watts simplex only (forbid the use of GMRS repeaters going forward).

The reason I see this as the sensible solution is it would inadvertently make most bubblepack radios license free as most do not have the ability to transmit on the 467mhz repeater input GMRS channels thus licensed GMRS would require buying REAL GMRS radio's that do transmit on these frequencies.

I also feel that in the process the FCC should allow part 90 commercial radios to be used for the 467mhz licensed GMRS frequencies.

Says a person who obviously does not use, have interest in, and certainly has not invested money in a repeater.

 

[techguru]

The reason I say that is if one can afford a repeater they can afford to just get a licensed frequency and repeater.

If there if available space to move the repeater outputs somewhere else then keep them. is 472mhz available?

The problem is the bubblepacks are already out there in the masses like a cockroach infestation. There is no getting rid of them. All off the common bubblepack abilities need to become license free and GMRS needs to start over from almost scratch.

I suppose it might be doable to add only the FRS/GMRS mix channels to license free at up to 5 watts. That would allow bubblepacks to use ch 1-14 at any wattage it can do instead of only being able to use 8-14 because of many radios automatically using higher wattage on 1-7.

15-22 would still need a GMRS license to use. Since 15-22 is the repeater outputs just crank up your repeaters to 50 watts and it should over power any bubblepack pirates using 15-22 without a license.

So in this I am proposing that the 1-7 shared channels become license free at up to 5 watts because this would allow any bubblepack to use 1-14 license free at any power setting it offers (none offer higher power at 8-14).

 

[Project25_MASTR]

The reason I say that is if one can afford a repeater they can afford to just get a licensed frequency and repeater.

If there if available space to move the repeater outputs somewhere else then keep them. is 472mhz available?

The problem is the bubblepacks are already out there in the masses like a cockroach infestation. There is no getting rid of them. All off the common bubblepack abilities need to become license free and GMRS needs to start over from almost scratch.

I suppose it might be doable to add only the FRS/GMRS mix channels to license free at up to 5 watts. That would allow bubblepacks to use ch 1-14 at any wattage it can do instead of only being able to use 8-14 because of many radios automatically using higher wattage on 1-7.

15-22 would still need a GMRS license to use. Since 15-22 is the repeater outputs just crank up your repeaters to 50 watts and it should over power any bubblepack pirates using 15-22 without a license.

So in this I am proposing that the 1-7 shared channels become license free at up to 5 watts because this would allow any bubblepack to use 1-14 license free at any power setting it offers (none offer higher power at 8-14).

You're assumption that having the money to have a repeater means you can afford to get Part 90 license is completely and utterly false.

Only my portable repeater (which is based off of mobiles) will narrowband. So that would be 3 new narrowband repeaters for me (at around $4000 an install). I'd have to then get frequency coordination in some manner or another to run across the states…not to mention I'd have to upgrade to narrow band compliant mobiles and run more than double the power out of the repeaters to get the same coverage I get with the wideband stuff. By the time it's all said and done, I'd probably be in the hole for around $15,000 (which is something this college student cannot afford) on systems I currently have less than $120 tied up in minus the GMRS license to get the same coverage.

Some people actually utilize GMRS. And like you said, the most power I've ever seen a bubble pack radio run is 1.3W…50W (probably 30 at the antenna) and a DB420 gives me over 400W ERP on a repeater. It's just much easier to step on them.

 

[poikaa]

I am sure the FCC treats this like a cash cow but keeping order on the GMRS frequencis is needed and wanted. With the FRS Fos stuck at the begining of the band, interference is always a potential problem, even more so on the border states, good luck with the cure!
Just watched a video on You Tube where combatents were using FRS style transceivers in the civil war in Syria, maybe not on the same Fos (frequencies) as Europe and other parts of the World are supplied with different band plans.
Paying for a license is a small price to pay for at least some regulation but too bad FRS is intertwined with GMRS. I do not have a GMRS license and I stay off those Fos but I can listen! I hear all sorts of non-license stations on GMRS! I find 2 meters more useful!

73 Rod KB8DNS

 

[KC8ESL]

W5pky - you speak of coordination? I've spent a few hours researching coordination on gmrs and couldn't come up with anything more than: "free for all."

 

[Project25_MASTR]

W5pky - you speak of coordination? I've spent a few hours researching coordination on gmrs and couldn't come up with anything more than: "free for all."

Exactly. There currently isn't coordination between GMRS repeaters. General rule of thumb (actually it's a common courtesy) if you're putting one up is scan for any repeater activity in the area. If there is another repeater 70 miles down the road that is on the split you want to use, contact the owner and coordinate the two systems however y'all feel necessary. But to have the coverage I have with commercial licensing, I'd have to apply for coordinated frequencies (generally a set of frequencies for cross state/country operation) and with the FCC you pretty much pay for each frequency you use.

 

[Craigmoe]

For gosh sakes let’s not eliminate the fee but lower it.
$25 - $35 would be in line and encourage more to license
up. Have been involved with GMRS more than 35 years
and would be extremely upset to have it ruined. Heck there
are numbskulls out there now linking repeaters, using
encryption, digital, etc. which I’m sure (at this point)
is not legal.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

For gosh sakes let’s not eliminate the fee but lower it.
$25 - $35 would be in line and encourage more to license
up. Have been involved with GMRS more than 35 years
and would be extremely upset to have it ruined. Heck there
are numbskulls out there now linking repeaters, using
encryption, digital, etc. which I’m sure (at this point)
is not legal.

The digital and encryption isn't allowed (currently). Nothing that says you can't link as long as you don't do it through the switched public telephone network.

Remember, we're dealing with a 25 year old set of rules that were really just slightly re-written 15 years ago by omitting some things.

 

[N1SQB]

Let's move on!

FCC might take exception to the remark that no license is required to operate on the FRS channels. Like the CB radio service, with FRS the license is implicit...or in the FCC's language, they are "license-by-rule" services. This broadly means that, as long as you obey the rules, you have a license to use the service. If you violate the rules, you can still be subject to fines and other penalties for violating the service rules, such penalties can include revocation of your implicit license to operate under any condition.

"If you violate the rules, you can still be subject to fines and other penalties"

Let me ask you something UPMan, exactly what fines and / or penalties are being levied against little Johnny or little Susie who are constantly violating the GMRS license requirement rules by illegally using the GMRS bubble packs that are commonly found in places like Walmart, Target, Radio Shack and others like them, without a license? Are they going after THEM or their parents who purchased them? Like it or not, sooner or later the FCC is going to have to face the fact that everyone else already knows, the FCC has no control of the GMRS frequencies. They may make an example of one or two people by fining them but guess what? Like it or not, licensed or not, the GMRS channels are out of the control ability of the FCC.THAT is the ultimate bottom line. I play by the rules so I have my legal license. But it is becoming more and more evident, that there are more people using this band than there are legal licenses in the FCC database. I personally don't care anymore whether they lower the price or not. I'm done with that band. I like to sleep in peace at night, so I play by the rules. But the fact is that everyday I turned to the legal GMRS channels that I am "licensed" to talk on, I was constantly interrupted, dead keyed, interfered with, etc. to the point of being unable to have any type of civil conversation with anyone in my family. We are arguing about fines that in the grand scheme of things, are not going to make any difference in the outcome. By outcome I mean that whether we pay $90 or $9.00, the band is out of control and I will STILL be interfered with, dead keyed, etc...I say just let it go and lets move on. I'm not advocating for people not to pay and just use the band. As I said, I play by the rules, regardless of who does or doesn't do the same. If it makes that much of a difference in your life to complain about having to pay $90 for a 5 year license, be my guest, file a complaint. It is well within your rights to do so. Truth be told, the FCC is going to do what they want to do in the end and that is that! Their asking the public's' opinion is just a matter of appearance. They have their mind made up well before they seek public opinion. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you, in Brooklyn, really cheap!

Manny

 

[UPMan]

My comments were specifically about FRS and CB services. I have seen (but not recently) enforcement action for unlicensed use of the GMRS band. I agree that as long as it is a service that requires an explicit, you should get said license prior to operation on those channels.

 

[N1SQB]

My comments were specifically about FRS and CB services. I have seen (but not recently) enforcement action for unlicensed use of the GMRS band. I agree that as long as it is a service that requires an explicit, you should get said license prior to operation on those channels.

I hope you understand that I was not personally attacking you, but more of just making a point. We are talking about license requirements and fees but nobody is talking about important things like regulating or controlling a band that is clearly out of control. 1 or 2 poster children fined by the FCC isn't going to change what is clearly evident by anyone who has ever monitored this band or used one of these falsely advertised bubble packs. Regardless of what the ultimate fee ends up being, it is not going to change the fact that the GMRS band is going the way of CB. Nothing against CB folks as I used to be one, but like CB radio, anyone and everyone can get one and simply talk in whatever way they see fit with nobody to say or do anything about it! That is the ultimate shame. My family and I go camping every year. I can't count on my hands how many people get on there and just start talking trash. Thankfully, I have simplex frequencies available to me in the Ham bands, and my wife, as well as one of my 3 daughters are licensed Hams.

Manny

 

[MTS2000des]

Manny,

Texting while driving is illegal in most states.
Yet everyday, I see scores of people driving down the road with their phones in hand updating their Facebook pages...doesn't change the fact that it is illegal.

 

[N1SQB]

Manny,

Texting while driving is illegal in most states.
Yet everyday, I see scores of people driving down the road with their phones in hand updating their Facebook pages...doesn't change the fact that it is illegal.

I hear ya! Regardless of the fee amount, the illegal mess will continue to find it's way to the GMRS bands!

Manny

 

[techguru]

I hope you understand that I was not personally attacking you, but more of just making a point. We are talking about license requirements and fees but nobody is talking about important things like regulating or controlling a band that is clearly out of control. 1 or 2 poster children fined by the FCC isn't going to change what is clearly evident by anyone who has ever monitored this band or used one of these falsely advertised bubble packs. Regardless of what the ultimate fee ends up being, it is not going to change the fact that the GMRS band is going the way of CB. Nothing against CB folks as I used to be one, but like CB radio, anyone and everyone can get one and simply talk in whatever way they see fit with nobody to say or do anything about it! That is the ultimate shame. My family and I go camping every year. I can't count on my hands how many people get on there and just start talking trash. Thankfully, I have simplex frequencies available to me in the Ham bands, and my wife, as well as one of my 3 daughters are licensed Hams.

Manny

Another option that does not require a HAM license or any other license is to buy some Motorola MURS radios to use camping.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1000247-REG/motorola_rmm2050_rmm3050_on_site_2_way_radio.html

MURS is still pretty much clean since the price of certified equipment has "priced out" the trash talkers plus most bubblepack buyers probably don't even know it exist.

 

[N1SQB]

I like MURS! With the price of good used commercial HTs these days being really reasonable, there is no reason why NOT to use MURS. I just use HAM because I already have the equipment and the license. But MURS is a good license-free choice for camping, I do agree with you.

Manny