I am part of a group that owns and operates over six GMRS repeaters here in SoCal. They work GREAT and we’ve had very little interference from “bubble pack radios”.
I have GMRS so I can communicate with my wife back at home in the event of an earthquake or other disaster. I own several HAM repeaters as well, but my wife does not have the time or motivation to get her license at this time so GMRS is a wonderful alternative.
It’s a shame that many of us have spent thousands of dollars on repeater systems and and have followed all the rules and they are going to make us go away because there are many more people unlicensed and the FCC doesn’t think it’s “cost effective” to maintain licenses? How much can it cost them to process an online form and assign a callsign? To me it seems like $85 every five years for 5 minutes of their time.
Many services that become unregulated become garbage…i.e. most Part 15 equipment. The argument “most people have no licenses” and “I can just use ham” will not do justice to those of us that have spent thousands of dollars on repeaters and enjoy the benefit of reliable emergency communications our repeater systems offer.
After just lurking on this forum for some time, I’ve come up with a question regarding the proposed FCC changes that I can’t seem to find an answer for. If the FCC does establish a power limit on GMRS radios, what happens to the 5 watt radios that are already in service. Would the new rules simply disallow any new units from being manufactured/sold?
It seems like a simple question, and because I haven’t found the issue addressed anywhere I fear that I must be missing something obvious, but my limited logic is just not coming up with an answer.
Until actual new rules are decided on, and posted, no one can answer your question.
They may make the ‘limit’ 5 watts. They may only limit FRS/GMRS handhelds with fixed antennas. We can’t know the exact rules to be adopted yet.
Almost all actual 5 watt units now available are also Part 90 commercial use, and they will continue to be fine in that service. The ‘bubblepacks’ are already almost universally 2 watts or less, for battery reasons, and to be legal in Canada, which has a 2 watt limit already.
The FCC may ‘grandfather’ older radios. It may not, in which case, they would simply be illegal to use. The FCC doesn’t particularly care about making consumer gear unusable and making you buy new gear.
Bet on grandfathered in if necessary. There are a lot of radios out there, and 99% of the people will not care one bit about the legality of using them. I also doubt the FCC will put much effort into chasing down people over it. The do not even enforce licensing unless they get a lot of complaints or someone does something stupid and gets their attention (hello there illegal marine radio users).
When this is all over, I might be able to share an anecdote of what the FCC told one of the large manufacturers how they truly felt about GMRS licensing.
The FCC is involved in much bigger things, they are in a major fight with the Senate and all of the major telecom providers right now over broadband internet standards. Then there is the narrow banding mandate, and the complete mess that is becoming. Oh, and the fight over rights management with every TV and movie company. They most likely want this GMRS radio stuff done and out of the way, and will probably forget about it.
I oppose any association with Amateur radio… This could open the door for “watering down” Amateur regulations. FRS/GRS and Amateur radio are separate services and should be kept that way.
Second point: With equipment requirements as you propose, it is likely the cost of radios would be outside of the budget of many members of the general public. FRS was created as a low cost short range service (The FCC made a major error including some FRS channels to comingle with GMRS, and then allowing the “Dual service” radios, which has ruined GMRS with all the unlicensed “pirates”) for the general public. With new equipment requirements, a basic FRS radio could cost over $100 per unit. This harms the public interest.
Las point: It seems to me, your proposal is now letting commercial interests, and public safety interests into services designed for the average citizen. This will crowd “consumers” out of services originally designed for them, and allow other interests to drive the “average Joe” off the bands. In some areas people talk over each other, cause interference, and the like. Try using FRS/GMRS at a large amusement park… overcrowding. Do not add to the mess.
My conclusions:
What you propose (MY opinion only)will likely fail. Why? It is overcomplicated. The FCC wants to get itself out of the FRS/GMRS regulatory business and let users fend for themselves. They enforce no rules and probably wouldn’t even with the Auto ID feature proposed. The Auto ID could be used to put in “false” or “stolen” call signs and could result in floods of fake complaints against an innocent licensee. There is no provision for verification.
The solution for this would be an FCC-issued “ID chip” Which won’t happen.
I absolutely love your proposals for auto-ID (other than previously mentioned issues) and other data capabilities. There is a great coolness factor.
We will see what happens. Who knows? What comes of this could be either good or bad.
In the '70s, CB’s were regulated down to 4 watts from 5 watts. Whoever still had 5 watt radios continued to use them (legally) but all new radios produced had to be 4 watts. There were always those who built their own (illegal) linear boosters to 50 watts or so when things got crowded and this never bothered me. Then it seems like the FCC added new SideBand and SSB frequencies due to the crowding. People went out and bought the new radios, years went by and the CB craze went away, and after a few years we went back to where we started. I haven’t heard or read the words “SideBand” or “SSB” in 25 years.
I have no significant understanding of how consumer and commercial frequencies have been allocated by the FCC. It would be nice however if the FCC could increase the number of frequencies allocated for GMRS. It would also seem practical to promote new technologies relevant to newly added frequencies (such as what was done with spread-spectrum at 900 MHz).