Part 95 rule changes. Finally.

[N9PBD]

Here is my summary of the proposed changes:

...
[*]Scrambling/encryption will not be allowed...

Rich,

Actually, the language in part 95.381, and 95.391(c) states only that new radios incorporating scrambling/encryption will not be allowed. Existing radios manufactured/imported/sold prior to the phase-in period (18 months after adoption) of the rule will still be allowed, but no certifications for new radios with voice obscuring features will be granted after 90 days post adoption. The Commission is hoping that users of voice obscuration capabilities will voluntarily stop using them over time (item #26 on page 11). This is to avoid the Commission putting too much of a burden on the users to replace their non-compliant radios.

Greg

 

[KB7MIB]

Here is a blip about Part 90 on GMRS:
135 Several commenters are concerned that the proposal to prohibit combination radios would prevent GMRS
licensees from using surplus Part 90 equipment in GMRS. See, e.g., Comments of Jerry Scott Parham at 3. This is
not our intent. We will continue to certify equipment that meets the respective technical standards for Part 90 (land
mobile) and Part 95 (GMRS) in both services, if requested. However, we are amending the language in new section
95.1761(c) to clarify the requirement in old section 95.655(a) that Part 95 GMRS radios will not be certified if they are equipped with the capabilities to operate in services that do not require equipment certification, such as the Amateur Radio Service.

It looks like that manufacturers still have to request the dual Part 90/95 certification. It still doesn't look like that new Part 90 certified radios will be Part 95 legal, even if they do meet the technical specifications, unless the manufacturer specifically requests that the FCC give the radio dual certification.
So, if you want to use a newer radio that is only Part 90 certified, you'll have to convince the manufacturer to pay to get it certified for Part 95 as well. Or at least convince them to get all future models dual certified for Parts 90 & 95.

John
WPXJ598
Peoria, AZ

 

[n9mxq]

Tones for selective calling have always been legal.

Well, last time I read part 95, I was in Grade school.. and I turn 50 in a couple weeks.. Didn't even know what selective calling was.. Knew enough to know my setup was legal.. :lol:

 

[KD8DVR]

I wonder if our GMRS licenses will automatically be extended past our current 5 year expiry.

All information constitutes personal opinion only and doesn't imply fact or aaccusation.

 

[nd5y]

I wonder if our GMRS licenses will automatically be extended past our current 5 year expiry.

No. That didn't happen when they changed amateur and other services from 5 to 10 years.

What will happen (if any of this is approved) is a date will be established when all new licenses or renewals after that date will be good for 10 years.

 

[ChitheadDeSo]

"(c) 467 MHz interstitial channels. The effective
radiated power (ERP) of hand-held portable units
transmitting on the 467 MHz interstitial channels
must not exceed 0.5 Watt. Each GMRS transmitter
type capable of transmitting on these channels must
be designed such that the ERP does not exceed 0.5
Watt. "

Does this mean that if I am using a repeater, I have to use my handhelds accessing it at .5 watts???

 

[ChitheadDeSo]

nvm figured it out haha sorry about that

 

[ecps92]

"(c) 467 MHz interstitial channels.

Nothing to do with Repeater inputs.

"(c) 467 MHz interstitial channels. The effective
radiated power (ERP) of hand-held portable units
transmitting on the 467 MHz interstitial channels
must not exceed 0.5 Watt. Each GMRS transmitter
type capable of transmitting on these channels must
be designed such that the ERP does not exceed 0.5
Watt. "

Does this mean that if I am using a repeater, I have to use my handhelds accessing it at .5 watts???

 

[nd5y]

Looks like they changed the URL again.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/part-95-reform

 

[N2DLX]

Also, looks like the Line A and Line C wording is removed. No more restrictions near the Canadian border, other than the existing rules of not communicating with a foreign station.

To quote Canadian Bacon, "...if you can call Canada foreign."

 

[amphibian]

Possible DMR and other newer technology may be in the works also.....

It's gonna come sooner or later.... at least they are mentioning now..... lets hope it's sooner than later....



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

 

[gatekeep]

They completely removed the Interconnection Prohibited, and replaced it with more general language.

The problem is the new language, seems to directly prohibit connection of a GMRS station to a network for any purpose other then remote control. This would seem to practically limit "linking" via a network (i.e. the internet) for the sole purpose of repeater rebroadcast (since this would be automatic control).

 

[n1das]

I filed comments during the comment period for the original NPRM in 2010. I was pleasantly surprised to see myself listed in the footnotes in a few places.

I am still digesting this but it looks like several steps in the right direction.

 

[coryb27]

My Thoughts

Linking is remote control, you are reading more into it then is needed. I didn't see any language that says linking repeaters is not allowed. Pressing a button to talk is not automatic.

As far as the comment above "Possible DMR and other newer technology may be in the works also" no that was denied as I was one of the people that petitioned it. It was clearly written as shown below.

We also note that seven parties filed petitions for rule making requesting that we allow a time division multiple access (TDMA) modulation technique (i.e 7K60FXE 2 slot DMR TDMA) on GMRS frequencies to facilitate digital emissions and narrow banding to increase capacity on GMRS channels.

We deny these petitions. As explained above, the ability of GMRS licensees to communicate with each other is essential for the “listen before talk” etiquette, self-policing, and emergency calls that occur on these shared channels, and introducing a new modulation technique that is inconsistent with existing equipment would complicate the shared environment of GMRS channels.

 

[chief21]

Well, it was a punishing read, but I thought I read that FRS radios would be allowed 2 watts ERP on most FRS channels (EXCEPT the seven 467 pairs, which would still be limited to 500 mw).

(BTW, I just now tried to pull up the document again and the link would not work.)

John

 

[gatekeep]

Linking is remote control, you are reading more into it then is needed. I didn't see any language that says linking repeaters is not allowed. Pressing a button to talk is not automatic.

Its quite possible I'm reading into it /far/ more then necessary, I do admit. However, the new wording of 95.1749 is perhaps still confusing. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but, the rule literally states "for the sole purpose of operation by remote control", AFAIK the FCC defines "remote control" as: "Under remote control, the licensee has implemented a means by which the repeater’s control operator(s) can monitor and control its operation by some form of control link from one or more distant locations."

This says nothing about rebroadcast of voice or other transmissions, which would /seem/ to say that 95.1749 stipulates that using POTS or any network connection for linking where the sole purpose is /control/ is okay, but because of the lack of wording, may or may not mean that use of that link for rebroadcast of voice is legal. Which still leaves linking for the purpose of transmission rebroadcast in this legal-gray-limbo area.

 

[zikada]

Linking is remote control, you are reading more into it then is needed. I didn't see any language that says linking repeaters is not allowed. Pressing a button to talk is not automatic.

As far as the comment above "Possible DMR and other newer technology may be in the works also" no that was denied as I was one of the people that petitioned it. It was clearly written as shown below.

We also note that seven parties filed petitions for rule making requesting that we allow a time division multiple access (TDMA) modulation technique (i.e 7K60FXE 2 slot DMR TDMA) on GMRS frequencies to facilitate digital emissions and narrow banding to increase capacity on GMRS channels.

We deny these petitions. As explained above, the ability of GMRS licensees to communicate with each other is essential for the “listen before talk” etiquette, self-policing, and emergency calls that occur on these shared channels, and introducing a new modulation technique that is inconsistent with existing equipment would complicate the shared environment of GMRS channels.

I'm glad you're saying that. I was wondering this myself. The language doesn't explicitly prohibit linking and that really gives me some hope. Although, I wish the language was a bit more clear.

 

[iMONITOR]

FCC Part 95 Personal Radio Service Reform DOC-344617A1.pdf (642.4 KB)

 

[coryb27]

Yes

FCC Part 95 Personal Radio Service Reform DOC-344617A1.pdf (642.4 KB)

This is what we are talking about.

 

[iMONITOR]

This is what we are talking about.

I realize that. Some people were having trouble with the link, so I downloaded the actual document (.pdf) file, so they can read it, and/or download it themselves.