Part 95 rule changes. Finally.

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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.

These bubble pack radios being advertised as GMRS or combo FRS/GMRS radios is deceptive advertising as the GMRS channels use +/- 5 KHZ deviation. The cheap radios are only 2,5 KHZ deviation because they are based on an FRS bill of materials. Midland is guilty of this in peddling their new GMRS mobile line up.

I too am concerned that there will be relabeling and repacking of the same old radios in same way to unsuspecting public.

Some of the early FRS only radios were superb. The Icom IC-4008a for example. Since that era, it has been an ever cheaper variety of products.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[n1das]

These bubble pack radios being advertised as GMRS or combo FRS/GMRS radios is deceptive advertising as the GMRS channels use +/- 5 KHZ deviation. The cheap radios are only 2,5 KHZ deviation because they are based on an FRS bill of materials. Midland is guilty of this in peddling their new GMRS mobile line up.

GMRS can legally use narrow (2.5kHz) deviation on the GMRS primaries. Having no wide (5 kHz) deviation capability and only 2.5 kHz deviation capability with a correspondingly tighter receiver does not disqualify a radio from being a (legal) GMRS radio. No deception going on here.

Midland's new GMRS mobile lineup leverages a Part 90 design which is required by FCC rule to be narrow-only after a certain date. Applications for Part 90 type acceptance will be denied after that date if the equipment contains any wide bandwidth capability. Midland is not going to change their design for the GMRS market which is very small compared to the market for Part 90 equipment. If you want to continue to use Part 90 equipment on GMRS it will have to go narrow eventually. Part 90 equipment including dual certified Part 90/95 equipment has been required by FCC rule to include narrow capability since 1997. The tighter receiver in newer Part 90 equipment in narrow mode won't get hammered by local GMRS/FRS traffic on an adjacent channel 12.5kHz away from whatever GMRS channel you're operating on. I'll take newer Part 90 equipment with narrow capability any day over ancient wide-only pre-1997 Part 90 equipment.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

GMRS can legally use narrow (2.5kHz) deviation on the GMRS primaries. Having no wide (5 kHz) deviation capability and only 2.5 kHz deviation capability and with a correspondingly tighter receiver does not disqualify a radio from being a (legal) GMRS radio. No deception going on here.

Midland's new GMRS mobile lineup leverages a Part 90 design which is required by FCC rule to be narrow-only after a certain date. Applications for Part 90 type acceptance will be denied after that date if the equipment contains any wide bandwidth capability. Midland is not going to change their design for the GMRS market which is very small compared to the market for Part 90 equipment. If you want to continue to use Part 90 equipment on GMRS it will have to go narrow eventually. Part 90 equipment including dual certified Part 90/95 equipment has been required by FCC rule to include narrow capability since 1997. The tighter receiver in newer Part 90 equipment in narrow mode won't get hammered by local GMRS/FRS traffic on an adjacent channel 12.5kHz away from whatever GMRS channel you're operating on. I'll take new Part 90 equipment with narrow capability any day over ancient wide-only pre-1997 Part 90 equipment.

Unless you have inside information or are talking specifically about the MXT400 ( https://fccid.io/MMAMXT400) which is a 2.5 KHz (10K5F3E) on the certification, the other earlier models don't appear to have the form factor of any Part 90 radio model I have ever seen.

The FCC has never banned inclusion of wideband capability in any new model radios. Even Part 90 radios. Most have the capability of being programmed either way. Motorola requires a wide band entitlement key be installed in their CPS programming software as a measure to prevent unknowledgeble people from programming wide band into radios operating under part 90. There are a lot of existing wide band VHF and UHF applications where wide band is still permitted. I will be happy to list them. Part 22 Public Mobile Radio Service, Part 74 Broadcast Auxillary, MURS, certain UHF channels, T Band.

Use of narrowband equipment in GMRS is a personal choice. The FCC has already explained why wide band will persist on the GMRS main channels and the reasons for it. Personally I believe the 3 dB narrowband performance hit on the channel quality isn't worth the adjacent channel improvement when the adjacent channel radio has a TPO of 2 watts or 500 mw ERP.

And yes, advertising a radio that cannot operate +/- 5 KHz deviation as a "GMRS" radio is deceptive and should be clearly explained by the vendor. Especially if expected to be used on repeater service. I was excited about a small low cost repeater capable mobile until I paid attention to the specs.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

(snip)

1) ,,,,, Part 90 design which is required by FCC rule to be narrow-only after a certain date.

2) ,,,,,,,Applications for Part 90 type acceptance will be denied after that date if the equipment contains any wide bandwidth capability.

3) ,,, If you want to continue to use Part 90 equipment on GMRS it will have to go narrow eventually.

4) ,,,Part 90 equipment including dual certified Part 90/95 equipment has been required by FCC rule to include narrow capability since 1997.

,,,,, I'll take newer Part 90 equipment with narrow capability any day over ancient wide-only pre-1997 Part 90 equipment.

With exception of #4) which says "include", all of what you say above is wrong.

Example: Read the specs of Motorola's flashy and pricey APX7000

https://www.motorolasolutions.com/content/dam/msi/docs/products/apx/APX_7000_NA_Datasheet.pdf

 

[12dbsinad]

I see more Baofeng's in use for GMRS than anything else in my area. It is the price point of these Chinese radios that attract the user. Once one user gets one in a group, all of them end up buying one. I am more concerned about these than the invention of GMRS bubble packs, as far as illegal use, which includes being unlicensed. They are to easy to obtain and even program.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I see more Baofeng's in use for GMRS than anything else in my area. It is the price point of these Chinese radios that attract the user. Once one user gets one in a group, all of them end up buying one. I am more concerned about these than the invention of GMRS bubble packs, as far as illegal use, which includes being unlicensed. They are to easy to obtain and even program.

There seems to be endless numbers of model variations and firmware versions for these radios. The FCC certification process has some "catch all" codes which these radios seem to be exploiting as a loophole. I could never recommend such a nebulous product to anyone regardless of the cost. Is it a radio or a flashlight? I say buy a real radio!

 

[12dbsinad]

There seems to be endless numbers of model variations and firmware versions for these radios. The FCC certification process has some "catch all" codes which these radios seem to be exploiting as a loophole. I could never recommend such a nebulous product to anyone regardless of the cost. Is it a radio or a flashlight? I say buy a real radio!

I agree. But the fact of the matter is, these radios are becoming more widely seen in all kinds of services, legal or not. Heck, I saw my local Walmart employee's carrying UV-82's!

Anyway not to get off topic, I have seen (also heard on the air) many on the GMRS band in my area, most are the cheaper non certified (for anything) ones direct from China, because they are 35 dollars. This is what is said over local repeaters. Just my observation in my area...

 

[zikada]

I agree. But the fact of the matter is, these radios are becoming more widely seen in all kinds of services, legal or not. Heck, I saw my local Walmart employee's carrying UV-82's!

Anyway not to get off topic, I have seen (also heard on the air) many on the GMRS band in my area, most are the cheaper non certified (for anything) ones direct from China, because they are 35 dollars. This is what is said over local repeaters. Just my observation in my area...

That Pandora's box has been opened and is never going to be closed without some major intervention from the FCC.

Baofeng and even the cheap TYT analog/DMR radios are completely flooding the market. Everyone has them, they buy them for almost nothing, & most are Amazon prime and get to your doorstep in 2 days. I don't see how you can stop people from using these on GMRS.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I agree. But the fact of the matter is, these radios are becoming more widely seen in all kinds of services, legal or not. Heck, I saw my local Walmart employee's carrying UV-82's!

Anyway not to get off topic, I have seen (also heard on the air) many on the GMRS band in my area, most are the cheaper non certified (for anything) ones direct from China, because they are 35 dollars. This is what is said over local repeaters. Just my observation in my area...

I can buy a Motorola Systems Saber for less than $100, a new Lithium Ion aftermarket battery for $60 and program it for GMRS and be confident that I have a radio that meets all public safety specs and is Part 95A compliant. I have gotten so many of these radios, RF modules and parts donor radios, I am setting them up to hand to certain neighbors. Unfortunately the masses have no idea that you cannot build a radio to sell for $35 and have it tested to EIA-603D receiver specs and pass without a problem with spurious responses and IMD. The ARRL tested some of these radios and the transmit harmonics were excessive.

 

[AI7PM]

That Pandora's box has been opened and is never going to be closed..............

Yet another Pandora's box, and FCC has helped open them all through lack of action.

 

[zikada]

Yet another Pandora's box, and FCC has helped open them all through lack of action.

Pretty much my point exactly.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Back on the topic of Part 95 Rule Changes;

I am drafting a comment letter for the FCC pertaining to the following:

95.1773 GMRS authorized bandwidth
95.1775 GMRS modulation requirements

These two pertain to errata in the specifics of the 462 MHz interstitial channels. Historically these have been permitted a 20 KHz, +/- 5.0 KHz bandwidth and modulation. The rules as now stated limit these to narrowband. It was not the intention of the FCC to force narrow band on GMRS so these Errata conflict with intent.

95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses; (8) messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station.

This prohibition is related to a long since deleted section 95.127 so it confuses and conflicts with intent of new sections 95.1745, 95.1747 and 95.1749.

Also I intend to add some comments in support of Rich's comments regarding part 90/95 certification, digital voice, digital data etc.

If anyone has any thoughts or comments I will consider them. I hope to finish this before Sunday. I was surprised to find errors like these, so I may have missed something else.

 

[swen_out_west]

Thanks.
Can you point me to the current rule in Part 95 that says the 462.xxxx interstitial channels are narrow band for GMRS? I must be missing it.

Current rules do not require GMRS to be narrow band on those interstitial frequencies, just limits their effective power out to 5 watts. As another poster mentioned, unless they correct the wording it would effectively ban the use of currently compliant GMRS wideband radios on those freqs.

As a licensed GMRS user I don't have a problem with just never using those channels (1-7) on my part 95 compliant GMRS(Wideband) radio again. Except that now by allowing narrowband FRS radios to center on the existing GMRS channels I'll still get complaints by licensed HAMS complaining that I am over modulating their receive. I have tried to explain that I am transmitting wideband with a part 95 compliant radio, thus the reason why it sounds that way. on their non-compliant BaoFeng programmed to Narrow band, but since I am not a licensed HAM I must be wrong.

Another thing, allowing FRS users to center on the GMRS frequency, will cause even more proliferation of illegal simplex repeaters on FRS channels using Chinese crap by licensed HAMS who think their HAM license supersedes GMRS licensing

I also already have tried to explain that a wideband GMRS part 95 compliant radio will crossover onto the adjacent FRS narrowband interstitial channel and have even drawn a frequency spectrum chart for them, but as a non licensed HAM it must be my radio that's messed up and aren't willing to even digest the meaning of the picture I drew for them, (yes, I literally had to draw a picture for them and still they don't understand). I am tired of trying not to interfere with them so that people that buy a FRS radio at WalMart can have better coverage (their exact words). An illegal simplex repeater on let's say channel 1 transmitting at 5 watts effective power using no PL code WILL ( and I have proven this time and time again) rebroadcast the edges of any wideband transmission on Channel 15 (GMRS1) and Channel 16 (GMRS2). Compound this problem by 3 simplex repeaters on FRS channels and one legal GMRS repeater gives me no where on the spectrum that I won't cause interference, I am trying not to cause waves but am ready to just not care, they can call the FCC when I am interfering with their illegal simplex repeater.

I personally feel that the existing rules are fine, they just need to be enforced. If you want higher power and better range, get your GMRS license, for god's sake. it's only $15 a year. ($75 for 5 years)

 

[mmckenna]

Another thing, allowing FRS users to center on the GMRS frequency will cause even more proliferation of illegal simplex repeaters on FRS channels using Chinese crap by licensed HAMS who think their HAM license supersedes GMRS licensing

I hear you.
Unfortunately this isn't a GMRS/FRS issue, it's an amateur radio issue. 35 question multiple choice test that you only have to get a passing grade on doesn't always work too well.
Some of the statements I see on this forum from people with General and Extra class licenses make me realize that the current amateur radio licensing system is not adequately preparing amateur radio operators. I don't expect the licensing tests to cover all the questions, but more training on what the license allows (and in this case) what the licenses does NOT allow would be a good idea.

 

[N4GIX]

Another thing, allowing FRS users to center on the GMRS frequency, will cause even more proliferation of illegal simplex repeaters on FRS channels using Chinese crap by licensed HAMS who think their HAM license supersedes GMRS licensing .

What are "hams" even doing on FRS frequencies, and why should anyone care what they think?

 

[swen_out_west]

What are "hams" even doing on FRS frequencies,

it's a common problem throughout the U.S. from a lot of stuff I have read online, especially since the advent of cheap Chinese radios and cheap $40 simplex repeaters have hit the market (first hand knowledge from operating in three different areas throughout the U.S.)

and why should anyone care what they think?

Because some of the areas I operate out of are small, therefore anonymity is impossible. I try to not cause waves or interference wherever I go, basically as the FCC explicitly mentions, it is up to users to work out interference issues. But yes, you are right, I am done trying to be a good neighbor, as I mentioned in my first post, let them call the FCC on my legal transmission interfering with their illegal FRS repeater.

But it does make for a good laugh sometimes, I was on scan as I am typing this and hear the morse code ID on one of the FRS (Interstitial) channels, hey at least he is compliant with the station identifier regulation.

 

[amphibian]

I hear you.
Unfortunately this isn't a GMRS/FRS issue, it's an amateur radio issue. 35 question multiple choice test that you only have to get a passing grade on doesn't always work too well.
Some of the statements I see on this forum from people with General and Extra class licenses make me realize that the current amateur radio licensing system is not adequately preparing amateur radio operators. I don't expect the licensing tests to cover all the questions, but more training on what the license allows (and in this case) what the licenses does NOT allow would be a good idea.

How correct you are.... I've said the same before and I don't think anyone could have said it any better....


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

 

[insanity213]

Blaming hams for GMRS being the ball of confusion full of illegal users that it is? That's pretty far fetched. I specifically got my ham license due to the GMRS spectrum being polluted.

If you want to blame something, blame China for their cheap radios and the FCC for not enforcing the rules. Now that the 25hz wide GMRS channels are going to be FRS as well it'll only get worse.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[mmckenna]

Blaming hams for GMRS being the ball of confusion full of illegal users that it is? That's pretty far fetched. I specifically got my ham license due to the GMRS spectrum being polluted.

No, not blaming hams for the GMRS issues. Blaming hams when they get on GMRS and claim their amateur licenses give them permissions on GMRS, which it does not. GMRS is not an extension of the 70 centimeter band. Licensed amateur radio operators have precisely zero privileges on GMRS. If they happen to have a GMRS license, then they are operating under Part 95 rules with (hopefully) a Part 95 certified radio, not Part 97 rules with an amateur radio.
You should go back and read the previous threads to understand what my post was about.

GMRS is often a gateway to amateur radio, there are a lot of people that get started that way. When I couldn't get family members to get their amateur radio licenses, I got a GMRS license and put them under that. After awhile they got their ham tickets.

If you want to blame something, blame China for their cheap radios and the FCC for not enforcing the rules. Now that the 25hz wide GMRS channels are going to be FRS as well it'll only get worse.

There are a lot of issues with GMRS and there isn't only one cause. Cheap Chinese radios can be a problem, ignorant users can be a problem. Confused amateurs can be a problem. There'd be an awful long list if we all sat down and put in our 2¢.

 

[swen_out_west]

Blaming hams for GMRS being the ball of confusion full of illegal users that it is? That's pretty far fetched. I specifically got my ham license due to the GMRS spectrum being polluted.

If you want to blame something, blame China for their cheap radios and the FCC for not enforcing the rules. Now that the 25hz wide GMRS channels are going to be FRS as well it'll only get worse.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Since I seemed to have started that topic, let me reiterate. SOME idiotic hams (who, yes, are an exception) feel that they have full part 97 rights on FRS.

As part of my "discussion" last night with two here in this area, the fact that it is widespread and the FCC as of yet has not enforced does not make it okay. I kind of hope that if they do make these changes they will enforce it and take away their Amateur license as a result.

Yes, I also hinted to the fact that , yes, it is the fault of cheap chinese gear. Ie; for $100 you too can have a chinese junk simplex repeater. $25 for a UV-5r, $40 for a simplex repeater made in China and the only thing American made you have to get is a good 5.2 db gain dipole for $35, plus cabling and connectors.

However, how many non licensed Hams know this and would even attempt to put one together.

Of the 4 illegal simplex repeaters in the area on FRS freqs, 4 are run by licensed Hams who are not licensed for GMRS, thus the reason they stuck them on FRS but don't understand that each FRS (interstitial) channel straddles a GMRS channel. IE; too much ERP on FRS 1 will interfere with GMRS 1 (Common Channel 15) and GMRS 2 (Common Channel 16), FRS 2 wil interfere with GMRS 2 and 3, etc. etc. They really didn't understand how the so called 'FRS only' freqs would interfere with GMRS repeater inputs. 'But that's FRS only, if it's interfering then that's their problem". They couldn't even begin to grasp how the so called 'FRS only' channels straddle the GMRS Repeater Input Frequencies the same way.

Thus, the reason FRS was limited to 500 mWatts in the first place.