Part 95 rule changes. Finally.

[amphibian]

There's not that much traffic on it now, it would be nice to reclaim it from the idiots.

Not much traffic on CB now for several reasons - one main reason being because over the last ten years (or more since the Amateur test became a ham test that was changed to make it easier to obtain a license) those that you call "idiots" have learned how to memorize answers to questions and are now ham operators and then some of the others have saved for their license fee and became licensed GMRS users. All one have to do is listen to most any ham channel and some GMRS channel conversations to see that.... Not all hams and GMRS people came from the CB world (about an estimated 20-30%) which is good as those people generally know how to have a conversation without sounding like a CB'er...or getting attitude and being radio police.....

Expecting any enforcement on the 11 meter band this day and time, I think, would only happen in a dream.....

Unless a person is being a real jerk, acting like an outright total idiot and causing massive interference
it's not likely that FCC will enforce anything because of a lack of monies and/or man power to do so. All one have to do, again, is to look at how much enforcement and fines have been done over the history of the FCC....

The best options are to let the CB'ers be (you leave them be and they generally leave you be), police our own bands that we are licensed for and work with everyone to advance the education and proper use there of and work to further the advancement and availability to new standards and equipment.

Lets face it, if you only need to talk to a friend or neighbor down the street ---- use a FRS radio ---- cleaner communications (FM) all the way around and less hassle..... and no skip....

Thanks,

William R Howell,
GMRS License Call Sign: WQYX489
CEO, USGMRS Repeater & Users Group Association
USGMRS Repeater & Users Group Association (usgmrsgroup.club)
FB Group Page: USGMRS Repeater & Users Group

 

[KC3ECJ]

• Ability to have mobile units with detached antennas at up to 50W
• Ability to operate through a repeater for greatly enhance real range

Those two are pretty significant advantages over the FRS "walkie-talkie" only service.

Handhelds are rarely above 5 watts. What would a casual FRS user who is not even aware of what GMRS is care about licensed GMRS users? What kind of discretion would they give when repeater outputs are being used?

 

[KC3ECJ]

Why dont manufacturers who market radios to the general public come out with an industry standard for an ISM band radio?
Why not have a 900mhz ISM FHSS digital radio that is similar in technology to a Motorola DTR, simple and intuitive like a CB?

 

[nd5y]

Why dont manufacturers who market radios to the general public come out with an industry standard for an ISM band radio?

900 MHz band usage is not the same worldwide.

Why not have a 900mhz ISM FHSS digital radio that is similar in technology to a Motorola DTR, simple and intuitive like a CB?

There was. Ever hear of TriSquare? They are no longer made. Probably because there was no demand.

 

[AK9R]

I will generalize by saying that you sure do like your sweeping generalizations.

...and then some of the others have saved for their license fee and became licensed GMRS users.

You really think that a radio hobbyist who already flaunts the FCC rules on CB is going to spend money for a GMRS license? I don't think so. My opinion is that anyone who operated illegally on CB and then moves to GMRS is probably going to continue to do so illegally.

In my area, there are only one or two GMRS repeaters, so there's nothing to stop an unlicensed person from putting up repeater on a GMRS frequency and inviting all his friends to join him there. If his friends are close enough, they can all put up base stations (45-50 watt UHF radios, whether Part 95 certified or not, are widely available) and talk among themselves. If a GMRS licensed person complains to the FCC about it, the same lack of funding that keeps the FCC from enforcing the CB rules will result in the same lack of enforcement that we currently see on CB.

All one have to do is listen to most any ham channel...

Really? I listen to lots of amateur radio frequencies and the number of "CB idiots" I hear on the ham bands is really quite low in my opinion. That includes the traffic net I'm currently listening to on 75m, the RTTY contests I participate in, and the public service activities I'm involved with. Sure, there are always examples of bad behavior, but there really is no way to measure the "sounding like a CB'er" activity that someone might hear on amateur radio because it's a subjective standard and the activity on amateur radio varies so much depending on one's location.

Not all hams and GMRS people came from the CB world (about an estimated 20-30%)...

And, how did you arrive at that estimate?

All one have to do, again, is to look at how much enforcement and fines have been done over the history of the FCC.

Seems like most of the enforcement activity I see in the CB worlds is the FCC going after those selling and operating illegal amplifiers. In general, it seems that most of the FCC enforcement actions are against illegal FM broadcasters.

 

[amphibian]

Why dont manufacturers who market radios to the general public come out with an industry standard for an ISM band radio?
Why not have a 900mhz ISM FHSS digital radio that is similar in technology to a Motorola DTR, simple and intuitive like a CB?

Other than possibly you.....there's not enough demand......

Not enough money in it for them to do so...... simple common economics.... The "bottom line" that drives every company doesn't show them making a profit by doing so.....

It always gets down to the same reason in the end.... It's always about the money..... follow the money.....
In a perfect world it wouldn't be about the money.....


William R Howell,
GMRS License Call Sign: WQYX489
CEO, USGMRS Repeater & Users Group Association
USGMRS Repeater & Users Group Association (usgmrsgroup.club)
FB Group Page: USGMRS Repeater & Users Group

 

[KC3ECJ]

Other than possibly you.....there's not enough demand......

Not enough money in it for them to do so...... simple common economics.... The "bottom line" that drives every company doesn't show them making a profit by doing so.....

It always gets down to the same reason in the end.... It's always about the money..... follow the money.....
In a perfect world it wouldn't be about the money.....


William R Howell,
GMRS License Call Sign: WQYX489
CEO, USGMRS Repeater & Users Group Association
USGMRS Repeater & Users Group Association (usgmrsgroup.club)
FB Group Page: USGMRS Repeater & Users Group

It can be based on tech already used in cordless phones and WiFi.

 

[KC3ECJ]

900 MHz band usage is not the same worldwide.
There was. Ever hear of TriSquare? They are no longer made. Probably because there was no demand.

FRS is not used worldwide.
Trisqure was not a standard.

 

[tj20]

900 MHz band usage is not the same worldwide.
There was. Ever hear of TriSquare? They are no longer made. Probably because there was no demand.

And they were junk. They would lose sync, and you would end up talking to yourself. I did not expect them to work as well as the expensive dtr550 but still.

 

[n1das]

900 MHz band usage is not the same worldwide.
There was. Ever hear of TriSquare? They are no longer made. Probably because there was no demand.

It's not that there was no demand for them. The TriSquare 900MHz FHSS radios were junk. Total junk and horrifically bad compared to the Motorola DTRs and DLRs. No comparison at all. The only thing the TriSquare radios had in common with the DTRs and DLRs is they operated on 900MHz and used FHSS. That's where the similarities end.

Motorola appears to be committed to keeping the DTRs on the market and recently added the DLRs to their line of 900MHz digital on-site business radios. The DTRs and DLRs don't appear to be going away anytime soon.

OK back to topic of Part 95 rule changes.....finally. IMHO the Part 95 final rules are about the best we could have hoped for. The result could have been a LOT worse.

 

[KD8DVR]

And they were junk. They would lose sync, and you would end up talking to yourself. I did not expect them to work as well as the expensive dtr550 but still.

I never had a synch issue. Still use mine in areas with high FRS and GMRS traffic.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

 

[stmills]

Have the new rules gone into effect yet?

 

[nd5y]

Have the new rules gone into effect yet?

I don't think they have been published in the Federal Register yet. At least I can't find it. https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ications-commission&order=newest&per_page=10#

 

[mmckenna]

Once published in the federal register, it's usually 60 - 90 days before it becomes the law.

You've still got a few weeks to go.

 

[swen_out_west]

Handhelds are rarely above 5 watts. What would a casual FRS user who is not even aware of what GMRS is care about licensed GMRS users? What kind of discretion would they give when repeater outputs are being used?

Interestingly enough the people around here that don't care about interference issues on GMRS are actually licensed Hams (w/o a GMRS license) and CERT.

They even are boasting how now it will be legal to use a local GMRS repeater without having to get their GMRS license. The fact that by even using a radio that is repeater capable or their precious Baofengs is in violation of the old and new regulations doesn't matter to them in the least.

As you mention the handhelds on an interstitial channel really don't cause a problem unless it is picked up by a simplex repeater (run by two local licensed Hams with no GMRS license so they put it on a FRS shared channel) and blasted out from 30 feet up with an effective radiated power of over 5 watts. The fact that it has no PL code makes the use of the two adjoining GMRS Channels out of the question.

By their own words they did it so that people that buy the bubble wrap radios and don't have a license can get better range. I have tried to explain to them the illegality of their actions but it pretty much ended in threats and LEO getting involved, the fact that I am not a licensed Ham makes me insignificant in their eyes.

Not directing this to the poster I quoted, but I also ask (as other posters have made disparaging remarks about CB and GMRS users) not to make generalizations about non licensed Hams until your house is in order. The CB diehards and GMRS licensed individuals around here are a lot more knowledgeable and courteous than those licensed Hams are.

 

[prcguy]

Where is this simplex repeater located and what freq is it on? Its unfortunate that a couple of idiots with ham licenses are making you think that all hams are bad, which is obviously not the case.

On the other hand, there are some GMRS users in my general area that are complete and total clueless morons, but I know that is not the general rule. There are a couple of licensed hams that hang with them and share in their stupidity and maybe they are the same ones you have encountered.
prcguy

Edit: I'm sorry I called some of my local GMRS users clueless morons. That was the best word I could come up with at the moment but they are actually worse and I don't want to include words in my post that will get me banned.

Interestingly enough the people around here that don't care about interference issues on GMRS are actually licensed Hams (w/o a GMRS license) and CERT.

They even are boasting how now it will be legal to use a local GMRS repeater without having to get their GMRS license. The fact that by even using a radio that is repeater capable or their precious Baofengs is in violation of the old and new regulations doesn't matter to them in the least.

As you mention the handhelds on an interstitial channel really don't cause a problem unless it is picked up by a simplex repeater (run by two local licensed Hams with no GMRS license so they put it on a FRS shared channel) and blasted out from 30 feet up with an effective radiated power of over 5 watts. The fact that it has no PL code makes the use of the two adjoining GMRS Channels out of the question.

By their own words they did it so that people that buy the bubble wrap radios and don't have a license can get better range. I have tried to explain to them the illegality of their actions but it pretty much ended in threats and LEO getting involved, the fact that I am not a licensed Ham makes me insignificant in their eyes.

Not directing this to the poster I quoted, but I also ask (as other posters have made disparaging remarks about CB and GMRS users) not to make generalizations about non licensed Hams until your house is in order. The CB diehards and GMRS licensed individuals around here are a lot more knowledgeable and courteous than those licensed Hams are.

 

[luckygecko]

When one has a license for one radio service, for example Amateur Radio, it generates an implied relationship to the other services. That is, violation in another service, can be tied back to the unrelated, but licensed service. Thus, any Ham who violates another service is violating their Ham license:

47 CFR § 1.903(a): “Stations in the Wireless Radio Services must be used and
operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as
set forth in this title and with a valid authorization granted by the
Commission…”

You can see this recent 'Notice of Violation' for the legal argument the FCC uses: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2017/DOC-345096A1.html

Thus, if they are using radios that can be used in Part 97 also, then the argument the FCC uses is solid.

 

[swen_out_west]

When one has a license for one radio service, for example Amateur Radio, it generates an implied relationship to the other services. That is, violation in another service, can be tied back to the unrelated, but licensed service. Thus, any Ham who violates another service is violating their Ham license:



You can see this recent 'Notice of Violation' for the legal argument the FCC uses: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2017/DOC-345096A1.html

Thus, if they are using radios that can be used in Part 97 also, then the argument the FCC uses is solid.

I fully understand that part 97 radios are not allowed on GMRS that is my reasoning behind spending so much on a type approved repeater, to the laughter of other Hams(not Frick and Frack who I have mentioned above) in the area. Heaven forbid I actually want to be as FCC compliant as possible.

In fact the AARL themselves published the ruling 6 years ago about using 'Ham' gear on FRS/GMRS. Even though I am not licensed I either seem to be the only one around here that knows this or cares. The fact that other places have FRS simplex repeaters as well, is one of the reasons behind them thinking it's okay. In my travels around country I have even seen some use their Amateur license Morse code as an identifier on a FRS Interstitial channel to identify their 'illegal' FRS repeater.

Your example of a 'Notice of Violation' is LPFM, not FRS/GMRS, with their low resources this seems to be the area they are focusing on in the last few years. I know firsthand that the FCC has all but wiped it's hands of FRS/GMRS, much in the same way that they have with CB.

It took me over a month to find a freq that I could be left alone on. Now I'm being told that a CERT duplex repeater is going up on that channel, regardless of the fact that there already is two 'illegal' simplex repeaters already being used by these guys. So when you figure that a simplex repeater interferes with the legal use of 2 GMRS channels, there is already 6 of the 8 GMRS channels interfered with, now the CERT guys are going after the only one that is currently free. They want me to go and share the channel with the only legal repeater around here.

There is a really good reason I have spent hundreds of dollars on type specific gear, even at the humiliation of licensed Hams trying to talk me in to other non compliant radios. There's gonna come a time that I leave this area and no longer have to try to get along. Then I will take it all the way to my congressman if I have to in order to get anything done.

I apologize beforehand, because of what I have experienced, that I'm going to target any and all licensed Hams who think they are above FCC regs on FRS/GMRS/CB or generalize non-licensed Hams when they have 'bad apples' themselves. At that time, I am sure I myself will come under scrutiny.

 

[AK9R]

Folks, this thread is about the Part 95 rule changes. Bashing hams or bashing GMRS users is a bit off topic for this thread.

 

[luckygecko]

Self edited.