The FCC is now seeking comment on a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that was issued earlier this week that seeks, among other things, to either relax the GMRS licensing requirements or do away with them altogether.
The proposal, which can be downloaded in its 92-page PDF entirety here, seeks to “simplify, streamline, and update the Part 95 rules to reflect technological advances and changes in the way the American public uses the various Personal Radio Services.”
The NPRM goes on to say, “Implementation of the rule changes proposed below should result in clearer, more consistent rules, benefiting Personal Radio Service users, equipment manufacturers, and the Commission.”
At a glance, the NPRM explores these main topics for the GMRS, FRS, and CB radio services:
- Eliminate GMRS licensing (aka “license by rule”), similar to the FRS and CB spectrum, or extend licensing term from five to ten years.
- Relax eligibility requirements. Under the current GMRS licensing regulations, only those aged 18 years or older are eligible to apply for a GMRS license. According to the FCC, if licensing is eliminated, it will be very similar to the FRS service, which has no such age restriction, so they don’t find a reason to continue the age eligibility requirement.
- Move to narrowband 12.5 kHz spacing. Currently GMRS uses 25 kHz spacing. Moving to narrowband FM would provide better spectrum management.
- Decrease GMRS handheld radio output power from 5 to 2 watts.
- Eliminate the use of repeaters in the GMRS service.
- Consideration of a petition from Garmin to allow the transmission of GPS location information and user-generated text messages on certain GMRS channels. These emissions are already authorized on FRS channels, but Garmin would like the FCC to consider allowing it in the GMRS spectrum. An example of such a radio that is on the FRS service is the Garmin Rino 110.
- Prohibition of approval of dual VHF Marine/FRS radios.
- Clarification of regulations to explicitly allow hands-free microphones to operate in the CB band.
- Decrease the allowable output power or prohibit the use of directional antennas for CB radios.
General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)
Prohibition of repeaters
Perhaps one of the more harrowing components of the NPRM to GMRS enthusiasts is the possibility of prohibiting repeaters on GMRS.
…we note that the personal communications environment has evolved substantially since the Commission adopted the rules allowing repeater operation for GMRS. For
example, most wide-area personal communication needs are now met by commercial communication providers. We seek comment on whether repeater and base station operations are still needed in the GMRS given the availability of commercial alternatives that allow for more efficient use of the spectrum.
Double the licensing term or eliminate licenses altogether?
Licensed GMRS operators have become increasingly frustrated with the flood of users on dual FRS/GMRS “bubble-pack” consumer-grade portable radios, who are unfamiliar with the licensing requirement to use the GMRS channel. Even more frustrating for the licensees has been the apparent lack of enforcement by the FCC. The commission acknowledges the problem, and is a leading factor in their proposal to eliminate licensing:
We also note that there are reports that most purchasers of portable FRS/GMRS combination radios (as well as purchasers of portable GMRS-only radios) use the licensed GMRS channels, while only a small percentage obtain the required license. Although the Commission has made several regulatory changes over the years to enhance the GMRS, the basic regulatory structure remains.
Another reason for the FCC exploring de-licensing is to decrease the administrative burden on the commission.
Furthermore, we believe that licensing GMRS by rule would reduce administrative and other burdens on GMRS users, as well as on the Commission. For example, users would no longer be subject to application and regulatory fees, and would not be at risk of losing their authorization to operate for failing to file a timely renewal application.
If the FCC decides to keep licensing, the commission would possibly extend the licensing term from the current five years, to ten years.
Alternatively, if we were to maintain the individual licensing requirement for all or some types of GMRS operations, we propose to extend the GMRS license term from five to ten years, to conform with most other wireless services, where the license terms have been extended from five to ten years. Extending GMRS license terms to ten years would decrease the administrative burden on both the general public and the Commission without, we believe, any adverse impact. It also would promote standardization of general licensing rules and streamlining of administrative requirements.
Business use of GMRS vs. FRS
Under the current system, businesses may operate in the GMRS spectrum, only if all employees possess individual licenses, which is $85 for five years. The commission is taking comments on whether this is still acceptable, noting that businesses use FRS radios (although with lower transmit power) with success without causing congestion in the FRS band.
Consideration of transmit power, RF exposure, and uncoordinated stations
The FCC is concerned, with the increase of popularity of GMRS/FRS radios, about RF exposure to users. The GMRS service was originally categorically excluded from routine RF exposure evaluations because use of GMRS was typically done with a mobile installation, e.g. the antenna was away from the body. Many commercial-grade GMRS handhelds are capable of transmitting from 1 watt to 5 watts, and the NPRM seeks to reduce the allowed transmit power to 2 watts.
Along those lines, the NPRM notes that the allowed 50 watts on GMRS is “relatively high power for stations that are not coordinated.” It questions whether more stringent height and antenna requirements are needed to reduce interference in GMRS.
Family Radio Service (FRS)
New dual VHF Marine/FRS radios may bring unfamiliar users to maritime frequencies
The FCC is also seeking to clarify the policy on dual radios. In recent history, radios with dual VHF Marine/FRS frequencies have been found on the market. The commission is concerned that the inclusion of the VHF Marine channels on consumer-grade FRS bubble-pack radios with users unfamiliar with maritime radio use may hinder the United States Coast Guard’s response to distress calls.
Citizens Band (CB)
The NPRM seeks to modify the continuous transmission duration for the CB band. Currently, each CB station must limit its conversations to no more than five continuous minutes, and that after each conversation, CB stations must not transmit again for at least one minute. This regulation was introduced at the inception of CB to reduce congestion, and the FCC asks if this regulation is still necessary with the sharp decline of CB use.
Section 95.413(a)(6), which prohibits “the transmission of music, whistling, sound effects or any material to amuse or entertain,” and 95.413(a)(7), which prohibits “the transmission of any sound effect solely to attract attention,” has been proposed to be amended or completely eliminated.
Surface wave vs. sky wave propagation (click to enlarge)
“Is there harm in allowing CB operators to communicate in sky wave mode, or would such an allowance tempt the use of illegal amplifiers which cause interference? We seek comment on how best to deal with section 95.413(a)(9) and other challenges in permitting a “commons” band regulatory structure in the HF band,” the NPRM states.
GMRS and FRS are a perfect fit for CERT communications. Only if you retain repeater use for GMRS and do not change the power requirements. Remember, 1000′s and 1000′s of radios are already in use with output power that is greater than two watts. Will you make owners of old radios outlaws with these rule changes?
Having failed to properly enforce GMRS rules, this simply appears as if the FCC logic is noncompliance can be eliminated by doing away with the rules. I guess crime rates would go down if there were no criminal offenses in statutes either. Either way, it looks like another case where those who would not follow the rules have impacted those of us who have. GMRS would be of little to no use to me whatsoever without the ability to use a repeater, and only have access to bubble pack radios.
Just a quick comment to clarify things slightly. The term “freeband” is incorrect and inappropriate. License-free does not mean regulation-free. The correct terminology is “license by rule”.
I support keeping GMRS licensing for high powered operations and repeaters. I am a licensee and a repeater owner and I would be impacted if GMRS became a bubble pack only service. At the same time, license by rule needs to be done to accomodate the 22-channel bubble pack radios. I’m wrestling with how to recommend rules that works for both and I believe it can be done. The bubble packs absolutely MUST NOT have any repeater capability. I’m in support of narrowbanding GMRS as part of efficient spectrum management and I already went narrowband years ago with my equipment. All of my adjacent channel interference problems from bubble packs 12.5kHz away from GMRS primary channels went away as soon as I switched the GMRS primary channels to narrowband. My equipment is Part 90 commercial gear that also has Part 95 type acceptance. The rules propose to eliminate dual certification of good commercial gear used by GMRS licensees. I don’t want to have to use a repeater-capable bubble pack to access a GMRS repeater. I believe the bubble packs can be accomodated without having to make GMRS a bubble pack only service but I’m concerned it may happen anyway.
wow, is this free country really getting that restrictive. i can not imagine a 2 watt c.b. or not being able to put up my antenna on c.b. of what i choose. are we really becoming that communist in this country? it is a hobby of talking on the radio. give it a break government. enough is enough.
PRSG posted a helper on responding to these bizarre FCC proposals:
http://www.provide.net/~prsg/issues10-119.txt
I think WQED459 nailed the situation. I hope everyone will file their comments with the FCC.
I just got my gmrs liscense a few mounths ago searched for ever for legal radios I could use. finaly found a good base antenna. paid a fortune for low loss coax. got a couple mobiles and got my family geared up to use it , try as I do to be legal, what would I do if all these changes go into effect ? and where would we find (legal) radios
This is simply wrong. I must say first that I am currently NOT licensed for GMRS, however I respect the service. I do have a few bubble pack radios, but I ONLY use them on the FRS low power channels. I wanted FRS only radios, but I could not find them at any of the stores. Tempting as it may be I NEVER use them on the GMRS or GMRS/FRS shared frequencies. Personally I prefer the MURS radio service (VHF band of five “channels”) thing is with MURS though is that radios for the most part are rediculously high priced and extremely hard to find.
Anyway, I am drifting from the point….this is NOT RIGHT!!!! I have considered going GMRS for my family myself. I have been pricing repeaters, mobiles and the tools to make it work great for us. I was just about to make a purchase and get licensed when these rules changes were brought up a couple of months ago. So, I am holding off for now. I would hate to spend a couple of thousand dollars only to have to give it all up. MURS is GREAT for simplex operation where I am at, but I want a little more range and the convinence of repeater operation for my portables so I was wanting to go with GMRS. I will be waiting now to see how this goes. Another option I might go with is licensing a buisiness frequency for my farm, however my family and I will not be able to chit chat just for fun that route. I am of the firm beleif that they should go ahead and do the license by rule for low power bubble packs, but continue to license High Power and Repeater GMRS users. At the very least let current GMRS users be grandfathered to use their equipment (much like they let businesses be grandfathered in GMRS). They should also allow a 5-10 year timeline for the forced narrowband thing. This would allow users time to upgrade their equipment. Anyway…..just thoughts from an outsider to the GMRS world. I wonder how long before hey close the wide band gap in MURS…..154.6 and 154.57 are still wide or narrowband with no suggested changes. I am sure it wont be long.
I am a single user who uses these radios mostly for volunteer purposes. Among them, I had purchased a bunch of so called “bubble pack” radios for the benefit of a Christian youth service program. We used it for communications between caravaning vehicles. It was the only affordable means of setting up communications between the vehicles that wpuld work with hand held units. My memory of CB use from years ago, was that the hand helds did not have a very good range at all when inside the vehicle, which then required the installation of radios in the vehicles, or the use of external antennas with the hand helds if that was even possible. Years ago, we did do that , but most of the vehicles had radios installed, and for the ones that didnt’, it was a royal pain. Yes, I know that the licensing for GMRS is individual, but I figured having at least 1 license was better than none. I think they should go back to a more regulated set up with the GMRS frequencies, and just eliminate the “bubble pack” radios, unless they are FRS only. I also think that they should go back to group licensing for the radios. This would be a great boon to those organizations that can’t afford the high cost of business licenses. I have a friend that has used radios, (I’m guessing VHF) and because of several groups using the same frequency, there was a coordinating system that assigned everyone on that frequency either a two digit call sign. I’m not sure if that was part of the frequency coordinating requirements of the fcc, or something that they “hammered out”. He has had experience (professionally) in radio communications and systems. BTW, I remember him telling me some time ago that what is now GMRS, use to be the old Marine version of GMRS, and they moved those to other frequencies.
These changes sound great! It’s too bad for the small number of radio elite (snobs) who are finding their turf overrun, but the public has spoken and said loud and clear that we want usable, affordable FM radio. It is about time!
As far as repeaters, I think they should leave 4 of the repeater channels as inputs and make the other 4 the outputs (simplex) and let the GMRS license holders live here. But it doesn’t sound like what they are thinking.