Proposed Changes to GMRS - Comments Link

[mirayge]

Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (BREW; Opera Mini/6.0.3/27.2338; U; en) Presto/2.8.119 320X240 LG VN530)

I also would like to see the hybrid FRS-GMRS radios decertified, or at least have any future models not be certified, and just allow the current ones to deplete stock and eventually break. And have the manufacturers introduce better produced GMRS-only radios, instead of cheap bubble packs.

It would be great if they made FRS radios that were the full half watt also. I think that is what makes many think they are junk, the 200 or 300 milliwatt output.

 

[dhughes20]

hello Does Findlay Ohio have a severe weather net on Gmrs thnk you

 

[dhughes20]

I would like for the FCC to put Severe weather nets on gmrs if they have not already assign channels to each city in the state some of us weather hobbiest like keeping updated in advanced when we can

 

[PACNWDude]

I must agree with other posters on how GMRS has become like CB radio. I work in an emergency response communications role and I see it every response.

CERT teaches everyone to use FRS radios to respond in their communities. But most bubble pack radios operate on FRS and GMRS frequencies. So in order to eek out a little more range, they often switch from FRS to GMRS.

It would be nice to separate the two so after all the older cheaper radios wear out, you must be licensed and buy more expensive hardware to operate on GMRS. Increase the "cost of doing business" and you may get more honesty.

In several cases I have recommended and put local businesses on Motorola DTR radios on the un-licensed ISR band in order to have reliable comms and not be in violation of FCC rules. This also keeps them off of local GMRS repeater I know are in the area.

 

[quarterwave]

I would like for the FCC to put Severe weather nets on gmrs if they have not already assign channels to each city in the state some of us weather hobbiest like keeping updated in advanced when we can

I don't think the FCC does that....the HAM clubs setup the nets in their service area.

If you want to host a GMRS weather net, then put up a repeater and get your buddies on to talk about the weather. Otherwise, get a 2m rig and a ham license and join theirs....

 

[Jaxco]

There is nothing whatsoever that prevents you from starting your own gmrs club, hold nets, installing repeaters, you just have to remember that you never own the frequency.

 

[nanZor]

It would be nice to separate the two so after all the older cheaper radios wear out, you must be licensed and buy more expensive hardware to operate on GMRS. Increase the "cost of doing business" and you may get more honesty.

Would be nice, but that is not ever going to be the case. With shared frs/gmrs channels, I try not to get upset when I hear a kid from a family in the family-radio-service not being professional. Neither do I get upset when I don't hear 10-codes and CERT like operations coming from adults in a general-purpose service like GMRS. An undefined general-purpose style of operations that don't fit into any other service group is what this service was created for!

The people that want to act professionally can do so, but GMRS was not designed to be professional in the first place. Follow the rules, and you can do what you please without any sort of operating style attached to it.

Once I came to that realization, I enjoyed it much more and stopped worrying too much.

Also note that security through obscurity doesn't really work. An unlicensed bubble-pack user, or an unhappy adult using an APX7000 causing interference is the same. Unfortunately, the former usually goes away when they get bored, but the guy using the APX7000 might stick around much longer than you want.

 

[ron36]

GMRS / FRS Solutions !

Since Family radio service suppose to be free...i say they should rename it ...give it under same or even make it apart of Murs Part 95 J...!! allowing 2 watts. !!!!Frs 8-14 .. And GmRS 1-7 15-21 remain GMRS. Then letting Licensed users use it or Ham back up. All i get on mine is Kids on 1-7 ....iam previously Gmrs Licensed....!!! call it the day !! forbid bubble packs being made if users are not suppose use 15 thru 21 at all. Seperating Frs and GmRs would be the wiser choice Fcc could do. They Should take Frs portion reassigned them to Murs side in my oppinion !!! not only you extend MURS , with six more channels...part 95 J 2 watts and PL tone useable. Also make it common use like the rest of Murs. Gmrs..1-7 kids and businesses try using , other than recreation and channel 9 is flaggers...i often tell anyone in range they illegally using it as a business on 1-7 and 8 thru 14. i still get it the transmissions... Thats my solution in the services .... i think making FRS a UHF MURS extention with Two watts max!! and taking them 8 thru 14 off GMRS make the service more commericial GMRS is License Required Regardless,,, so take FRS off the assignment transfer it to MURS UHF would some solving some issues to com plaining GMRS users... making it two seperate services......or replace Gmrs freqs on the bubble packs with MURS..combinations to FRS.

 

[KB7MIB]

There is NO prohibition against using the FRS or the GMRS for business communications. Business communications are legal on both services.
What is illegal is unlicensed useage on the GMRS channels, which includes channels 1-7 if the radio is capable of more than 0.5 watts ERP and/or has a detachable antenna.

And increasing the power output on the FRS channels 8-14 will only cause more interference to the inputs of GMRS repeaters on either side of them. (FRS channel 8, 467.5625, is in between the GMRS inputs on channel 15 at 467.550 and channel 16 at 467.575. FRS channel 14, 467.7125 is in between the GMRS inputs on channel 21 at 467.700 and channel 22 at 467.725.)

John
WPXJ-598
Peoria, AZ

 

[12dbsinad]

And increasing the power output on the FRS channels 8-14 will only cause more interference to the inputs of GMRS repeaters on either side of them. (FRS channel 8, 467.5625, is in between the GMRS inputs on channel 15 at 467.550 and channel 16 at 467.575. FRS channel 14, 467.7125 is in between the GMRS inputs on channel 21 at 467.700 and channel 22 at 467.725.)

Narrowbanding of GMRS would also alleviate this problem. A wideband GMRS repeater would easily hear interference from a narrowband FRS radio, the same thing occurred on part 90 frequencies when a close adjacent narrowband user was killing someone on wideband... this isn't rocket science.

 

[N2ICV]

I say give GMRS more Freq pairs that FRS can't use. Since we (GMRS) pay for our licenses!

 

[KB7MIB]

Narrowbanding of GMRS would also alleviate this problem. A wideband GMRS repeater would easily hear interference from a narrowband FRS radio, the same thing occurred on part 90 frequencies when a close adjacent narrowband user was killing someone on wideband... this isn't rocket science.

GMRS repeater owners can voluntarily go narrow FM if they so choose, provided there is Part 95A compliant narrowband equipment available of course.
But, how many owners of private systems can afford to change out their entire system? Not to mention the individual users of repeater systems. And how well would a mix of normal and narrowband FM radios play with each other, if some can afford to make the switch, and some can't? And what happens to the GMRS if too many licensed users cannot switch to narrowband, and we lose them from our ranks? That could give other interests an excuse to gut the GMRS.
The TPO or ERP on FRS channels 8-14 cannot be raised, until/unless the GMRS channels go narrowband. but forcing users to go narrowband, if they can't afford it, could potentially hurt the GMRS, and therefore, ALL users.

John
WPXJ-598
Peoria, AZ

 

[Project25_MASTR]

GMRS repeater owners can voluntarily go narrow FM if they so choose, provided there is Part 95A compliant narrowband equipment available of course.
But, how many owners of private systems can afford to change out their entire system? Not to mention the individual users of repeater systems. And how well would a mix of normal and narrowband FM radios play with each other, if some can afford to make the switch, and some can't? And what happens to the GMRS if too many licensed users cannot switch to narrowband, and we lose them from our ranks? That could give other interests an excuse to gut the GMRS.
The TPO or ERP on FRS channels 8-14 cannot be raised, until/unless the GMRS channels go narrowband. but forcing users to go narrowband, if they can't afford it, could potentially hurt the GMRS, and therefore, ALL users.

John
WPXJ-598
Peoria, AZ

Best overall option would be to allow (not force) use of digital modes such as DMR or NXDN. Running digital eliminates interference issues with bubble pack users. With analog radios being so cheap these days, the likelihood of QRMer's jumping on the digital band wagon is minimal as it's a larger initial investment and takes a little more information to prepare for use.

Some complain about GMRS needing more channels...others just don't care if more channels were to be acquired as they are lucky if they have a repeater withing 100 miles of them. Just like amateur radio the band will be crowded in some areas but dead in others. Just throwing out the fact we could simulate adding more channels by using DMR.

Those who have a problem with interference or who already run digital in other services would probably be some of the first to upgrade. Given enough time, legacy wideband repeaters will be replaced with newer commercial surplus (which at some point will be narrow analog or narrow digital only) and with all the available (commercial grade) equipment being forced now...wideband would eventually phase itself out...

 

[KB7MIB]

First, the FCC would have to allow digital in the GMRS, while, hopefully, continuing to disallow it in the FRS.
This may encourage bubblepack manufacturers to discontinue manufacturing the 22 channel hybrid FRS/GMRS radios, and return to 14 channel FRS-only radios, if the cost of manufacturing radios that are digital-capable in the GMRS while being analog-only in the FRS, would push the price point above that which the consumer public is willing to pay.

Second, the manufacturers would have to either get their commercial/professional offerings co-Part 90 and 95A certified, or (my preference) bring certified, high power and repeater-capable GMRS-only models to the market.
How many current models, manufactured within the past ~5 years, have co-part 90/95A certification? How many GMRS-only models are there? I know Midland just introduced a 5 watt non-repeater capable mobile at the CES.

I feel that this is something that could potentially kill the GMRS. As the used market dries up, and older radios fail and become unrepairable, if no new models are certified for Part 95A, what are users supposed to do? Risk their license, and their bank accounts, by using non-certified equipment, even if said equipment could easily pass the certification process? Or will the users fade away, giving other interests a chance to have the GMRS reallocated to their use?

Both the FCC and the manufacturers need to step up.

John
WPXJ-598
Peoria, AZ

 

[UPMan]

"Enquired about the status of the proceeding, just last week. The answer from the FCC is the decision is 'awaiting internal review'."

Any updates on the status?

I notice the other thread is now closed, so it's impossible to ask there...

New reply to an old post.

FCC is now moving on the proceeding and has had several ex parte discussions with manufacturers with more likely.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=10-119

 

[KD8DVR]

New reply to an old post.

FCC is now moving on the proceeding and has had several ex parte discussions with manufacturers with more likely.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=10-119

Well, let's wait and see.... Now there is a lot of ideas people are coming up with.

 

[quarterwave]

The comments from Motorola are just about what I would suggest. I hesitate to ask that digital modes be allowed, as anyone in commercial radio knows what happens then you mix modes on same frequency, even at some distance...no one wins. I agree there should be NO narrow banding required, GPS and Text may be ok on low power devices, and other limits left alone. I'm not sure about the licensing, if there is no real enforcement, then we should not be paying what we are paying, but I have never had an issue with licensing and some cost. Pay to play.

What really needs to be done, is clean up the mess the FCC made when it let manufacturers talk them into bubble pack dual service radios. That's where the licensing issue begins. If there were no bubble packs, and people wanting real GMRS radios had to do a little more than just walk into Walmart to get them...there would be no problems to complain about.

I have always appreciated having GMRS available to me. I have 2 repeaters and lots of equipment. (well maintained and professionally install)

I also see the continued trend (go ahead throw eggs, but I am saying SOME not all) that SOME Hams take the arrogant road and speak as if they are entitled to use GMRS without a license or any fees BECAUSE they are Hams...and want more space just to play and use non-type accepted equipment. I enjoy this hobby, and am looking to get my Ham license so I can enjoy that side too. I have too much respect for any of the services to say that I should just be allowed to use it, because I am me. I am sure the local Hams would not like it if I played on their repeater, but I have a had some play on mine with no remorse, as if they owned it and could.

And lastly...funny that Motorola Solutions commented at all...as they do not manufacture GMRS or FRS radios themselves...they just license their name out to another company to make and sell them as Motorola's.

 

[Dantian]

Very unfortunately the corporations are pushing the FCC much the opposite direction from "cleaning up the mess". Take this record of a recent visit to the FCC from a radio manufacturer:

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001077843 .

The result of their efforts would be to further muddy the differences between FRS and GMRS, make this spectrum unlicensed as much as possible, boost power for unlicensed users and permit wider use of voice scrambling so as to isolate users and reduce the likelihood of their self-enforcement, organizing and mutual cooperation.

In other examples of dark humor or verbal judo, another manufacturer told the FCC that a 2 W FRS is "lower power" and that combo FRS/GMRS radios should continue on the market because of "no evidence that indicates that FRS/GMRS combination radios cause interference to GMRS or other services."

 

[tj20]

I do like the part about more unified testing for radio range as part of the certification. I hate seeing the bs that says 1000000 mile range on the package 😂

 

[Project25_MASTR]

I do like the part about more unified testing for radio range as part of the certification. I hate seeing the bs that says 1000000 mile range on the package

Apparently Uniden backs up those claims by testing them out of the DFW area…

I'm still thinking, maybe a push to DMR Tier 1 for the unlicensed stuff and letting the rest of us run DMR Tier 2/3 for licensed. Only way that would really work though is to physically force the entire service over to digital.