Part 95 rule changes. Finally.

[unit417]

all total, new rules are ok.

 

[AK9R]

Folks, if you have a personal disagreement with another forum member, I suggest that you address the issue with that member in a private message. Do not bring your disagreements to the public forum.

 

[N9JIG]

I think putting FRS on 462/467 MHz. was a huge mistake originally. Continuing to allow and allowing higher power for FRS operations as well as operation on GMRS repeater output freqs is just going to make it worse.

I understand why the FCC proposed these changes, to legalize what they could not enforce and to cater to the manufacturers. This is similar to the "License by rule" situation on 27 MHz. CB; since no one is getting licenses just eliminate the need for them.

I had hoped that they would find some spectrum elsewhere for a new FRS service, perhaps at about 220 MHz., and prohibit new 462/467 MHz. FRS radios as to protect licensed GMRS operations but it was not to be.

At least GMRS operators used to have a legal leg to stand on when it came to interference from unlicensed operations but it looks like that will end. At least they retained existing GMRS operations and licensing.

 

[KC3ECJ]

Haha! Love it!

I just parted out my repeater.... The way I see it, the only way GMRS will be fixed is to turn all of the current spectrum into license by rule FRS and get a new chunk of spectrum for actual licensed GMRS users.

What about the GMRS repeater antennas and duplexers that are already tuned?

 

[mmckenna]

I had hoped that they would find some spectrum elsewhere for a new FRS service, perhaps at about 220 MHz., and prohibit new 462/467 MHz. FRS radios as to protect licensed GMRS operations but it was not to be.

A group tried to get 220MHz as a personal radio service quite some years back. It was blocked by the amateur radio operators that wanted to keep the 1.25 meter band.

Some time later, FCC took the bottom part of the 220MHz band for other uses, including FedEd who never really ended up using it as intended.

If any piece of spectrum was going to be had at this point, it would need to be somewhere that has been recently vacated by broadcast TV. Problem is that spectrum is way to valuable to the FCC since it can be auctioned off to the bottomless pockets of the cellular carriers. 600MHz will be auctioned off soon.

Spectrum is far too valuable when it can be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Average Joe users don't even come close to being on the radar of the FCC. Getting any more Part 95 spectrum would probably be unlikely. Given what's transpired here with this R&O, I think this is about the best we could have hoped for with keeping all users happy.

 

[insanity213]

What about the GMRS repeater antennas and duplexers that are already tuned?

After rereading your post I think you're talking about people in general and new spectrum vs. what I did with my repeater. Sorry for the confusion. The short answer - retune your gear! It's really not that hard as long as the new spectrum is somewhat close by.

 

[KC3ECJ]

Easier said than done.

 

[AK9R]

Some time later, FCC took the bottom part of the 220MHz band for other uses, including FedEd who never really ended up using it as intended.

Actually, it was UPS who had bought into a plan to use amplitude-compandered single sideband in the 220-222 MHz segment. That plan failed to work as intended and UPS went to the handheld devices they currently use.

The 220-222 MHz segment is now being used by the railroads for the Positive Train Control system that is being rolled out.

I agree that finding spectrum for FRS, or GMRS, at this point would be challenging. But, the cat is out of the bag. GMRS repeater owners are would be loathe to change the tuning of their systems and the FRS radio manufacturers won't want to have to redesign all of their products. I think GMRS and FRS are stuck where they are. Maybe GMRS will get digital voice sometime in the future, but only if the users make a helluva case for it.

 

[mmckenna]

Actually, it was UPS who had bought into a plan to use amplitude-compandered single sideband in the 220-222 MHz segment. That plan failed to work as intended and UPS went to the handheld devices they currently use.

I knew it was one of them.

I agree, make the best of what we've been given.
Considering they were looking at license by rule across the board and lowering all power to 2 watts, GMRS did pretty good.

Now the work should start on getting digital voice (not just DMR, there are other formats) on GMRS and hopefully getting FM allowed on CB. Add in the "MURS-ification" of some of the common UHF itinerant channels (464.500, 464.550, etc) and things can continue on for another 20 years.

 

[SpugEddy]

I do have 1 question. I know I've read through this
but I must have missed something.
Will GMRS still require the licensing fee or is
it going to be waived

 

[mmckenna]

I do have 1 question. I know I've read through this
but I must have missed something.
Will GMRS still require the licensing fee or is
it going to be waived

Still requires licensing and paying the fee.
The good news is that instead of a 5 year licenses term, it will go to 10 years, IF the R&O gets approved.

Don't renew or file for a new GMRS license if you can avoid it. If the R&O passes later on this month, there will be a 90 day wait and then it becomes official.

 

[N2DLX]

I submitted my comments from myGMRS.com to the FCC, just waiting for them to approve it before it appears on the Docket. I posted it on my forum in the meantime so everyone can see:

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/889-fcc-draft-report-and-order/?p=7441

I pushed hard for digital voice and data bursts for GMRS radios (other than bubble packs) now that the FCC made their case. I think a few things are still unfair despite the rest of the rules being much better than they ever were in the past. As N1DAS mentions, it could have been a lot worse.

Thanks to everyone who has been active on myGMRS -- while I never intended it to be a group with enough weight to sway the FCC's decision, it's clear that the survey many of you filled out, along with the repeater/user counts, made a big impact when they reversed their stance on gutting GMRS. With no need to license repeaters, they had no official record other than the data I provided on how many repeaters were out there. Great job, everybody!

If you want to submit a comment, the time to file is very short. If I understand correctly, they will not look at any filings which are posted within 10 days of the meeting date, which is May 18th. So May 8th would be the deadline to have your comments heard. I urge everyone to file a comment, however short, to get any last minute thoughts in.

 

[zikada]

I submitted my comments from myGMRS.com to the FCC, just waiting for them to approve it before it appears on the Docket. I posted it on my forum in the meantime so everyone can see:

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/889-fcc-draft-report-and-order/?p=7441

I pushed hard for digital voice and data bursts for GMRS radios (other than bubble packs) now that the FCC made their case. I think a few things are still unfair despite the rest of the rules being much better than they ever were in the past. As N1DAS mentions, it could have been a lot worse.

Thanks to everyone who has been active on myGMRS -- while I never intended it to be a group with enough weight to sway the FCC's decision, it's clear that the survey many of you filled out, along with the repeater/user counts, made a big impact when they reversed their stance on gutting GMRS. With no need to license repeaters, they had no official record other than the data I provided on how many repeaters were out there. Great job, everybody!

If you want to submit a comment, the time to file is very short. If I understand correctly, they will not look at any filings which are posted within 10 days of the meeting date, which is May 18th. So May 8th would be the deadline to have your comments heard. I urge everyone to file a comment, however short, to get any last minute thoughts in.

Is it still possible to file a comment through myGMRS or do individual commentators need to go through the FCC website?

I want to put a sticky post on the /r/gmrs subreddit to encourage everyone to put in their comment before May 8th.

 

[N2DLX]

Is it still possible to file a comment through myGMRS or do individual commentators need to go through the FCC website?

I want to put a sticky post on the /r/gmrs subreddit to encourage everyone to put in their comment before May 8th.

Given the short time frame, I didn't have time to start another survey and collect enough results in time. I wanted to get something out the door ASAP. I'm not convinced they are receptive to further comment, but they did release the draft R&O ahead of the meeting. So I'm not taking any chances. They listened before, it's imperative that we continue to comment if we have any major concerns about what they proposed.

I would keep the comment direct and to the point. If you want to refer to my comment and either support or disagree with what I said, feel free. That will keep the discussion on-topic so it will be easier for them to wade through.

I think overall we are all happy with the R&O, in my case I saw some discrepancies in their claims when they were denying some things and wanted to call it out while there was still a chance to do so.

There will be a live webcast on the 18th, so hopefully we can watch the proceeding. There are other items on the agenda and only a 2 hour scheduled window, so they might blow right past Part 95.

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2017/05/may-2017-open-commission-meeting

 

[zikada]

Given the short time frame, I didn't have time to start another survey and collect enough results in time. I wanted to get something out the door ASAP. I'm not convinced they are receptive to further comment, but they did release the draft R&O ahead of the meeting. So I'm not taking any chances. They listened before, it's imperative that we continue to comment if we have any major concerns about what they proposed.

I would keep the comment direct and to the point. If you want to refer to my comment and either support or disagree with what I said, feel free. That will keep the discussion on-topic so it will be easier for them to wade through.

I think overall we are all happy with the R&O, in my case I saw some discrepancies in their claims when they were denying some things and wanted to call it out while there was still a chance to do so.

There will be a live webcast on the 18th, so hopefully we can watch the proceeding. There are other items on the agenda and only a 2 hour scheduled window, so they might blow right past Part 95.

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2017/05/may-2017-open-commission-meeting

Where can I point members of the /r/gmrs subreddit to send their public comments?

 

[N2DLX]

They can submit a filing here:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=10-119&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

Click on "+ New Filing" in the left column. Fill out the contact info, optionally their GMRS callsign, and attach a document with the comment. Word Documents and PDF files work just fine. File it as a "Comment" or "Reply to Comments" if responding to someone else's comments.

 

[zikada]

They can submit a filing here:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=10-119&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

Click on "+ New Filing" in the left column. Fill out the contact info, optionally their GMRS callsign, and attach a document with the comment. Word Documents and PDF files work just fine. File it as a "Comment" or "Reply to Comments" if responding to someone else's comments.

Awesome. Thanks N2DLX. I'm posting this information on /r/gmrs now.

 

[Jimbiram]

I'm still unclear whether this clarifies the dilemma with Part 90 radios being used for GMRS. So many are doing it these days. Can a smarter guy determine that from this proposal?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[nd5y]

I'm still unclear whether this clarifies the dilemma with Part 90 radios being used for GMRS.

No. Nothing changed. Part 95 certification is still required for GMRS. Manufacturers can still get radios certified for both 90 and 95.

 

[n1das]

I'm beginning to wonder what sort of side effects or unintended consequences the new rules might create. Will we start seeing repeater-capable bubble packs transmitting at 5W and marketed specifically as GMRS? When was the last time anybody saw an FRS (only) bubble pack? New versions of the current crop of 22-channel bubble packs will have to be called FRS instead of GMRS or GMRS/FRS. A 5W repeater-capable GMRS bubble pack for example would allow manufacturers to continue to advertise "more power, more channels, more range than FRS" like they did before with the 22 channel GMRS/FRS combo bubble packs.