Kids comm across the neighborhood?

[chuckn]

You are free do do as you please. But what you cannot do is change the rules of the radio service (GMRS) you operate under. A condition of your license, that you agreed to, is to follow the rules.  

Part 95E § 95.1705

 

( Individual licensee responsibility. The holder of an individual license to operate GMRS stations is responsible at all times for the proper operation of the stations in compliance with all applicable rules in this part.

 

and

 

(d) Individual licensee duties. The holder of an individual license:

(1) Shall determine specifically which individuals, including family members, are allowed to operate (i.e., exercise operational control over) its GMRS station(s) (see paragraph © of this section);

 

It is no different than operating non-GMRS certified equipment. People are free to do as they please. But, it is not ok to tell others that is an Ok thing to do.  And, by the way, why not teach your grand-children about proper radio use? They might not only find it interesting, but they might also take the use of the radios more seriously, and even develop their own interest.

 

The point of having a radio is to be able to communicate. I'd rather pay a fine than cause a child not to reply out of fear. If you want to focus otherwise or if you think rule keeping is the reason to own a radio, as you say, you're free to think otherwise. 

[axorlov]

But again, if kids are equipped with FRS radios, the they do not need to identify. The only rule is to not cause malicious interference, i.e. do not jam other people. To practice common courtesy, in other words. GRS-to-GMRS communications are perfectly legal.

 

You may still research roof antenna for your V1. Because from inside the house the range will be abysmal. And if house is stucco, then forget it, it's pretty much a Faraday cage.

[Lscott]

As to what is appropriate, expected, or a FCC rule, the point of having the radio is communication, not complying to a rule. Sure, if you are an adult trying to talk to a stranger 100 miles away, by all means use your expected call sign. When it is my grand children, that is the least of my concern

As the license holder of record you're responsible to insure those operating under it follow the rules. Kids have to learn rules for everything as they grow up. GMRS shouldn't be any different.

 

As far as paying a fine the FCC, when they issue one, they don't screw around. Somehow getting one for $7,500 to $10,000 is sort of scary. They want to get your attention and make a point. And yes they most certainly have in other radio services for failure to ID, unlicensed operation, willful interference etc. I don't know about GMRS but it wouldn't be any different.

 

A number of the cases I've seen the FCC contacted the party informing them of the rule violation(s) first. The fine(s) get issued when they party continues to ignore the rules and the FCC notices. Oh, they also have a habit of taking the equipment too in some cases along with issuing the fine(s).

 

I remember years ago asking somebody at the local FCC field office here what they do with all of the confiscated equipment. I was told it goes to a local junk yard straight into the crusher. None of it ever gets sold or returned to the owner.

 

[chuckn]

As the license holder of record you're responsible to insure those operating under it follow the rules. Kids have to learn rules for everything as they grow up. GMRS shouldn't be any different.

 

As far as paying a fine the FCC, when they issue one, they don't screw around. Somehow getting one for $7,500 to $10,000 is sort of scary. They want to get your attention and make a point. And yes they most certainly have in other radio services for failure to ID, unlicensed operation, willful interference etc. I don't know about GMRS but it wouldn't be any different.

 

A number of the cases I've seen the FCC contacted the party informing them of the rule violation(s) first. The fine(s) get issued when they party continues to ignore the rules and the FCC notices. Oh, they also have a habit of taking the equipment too in some cases along with issuing the fine(s).

 

I remember years ago asking somebody at the local FCC field office here what they do with all of the confiscated equipment. I was told it goes to a local junk yard straight into the crusher. None of it ever gets sold or returned to the owner.

 

I am not making light of the rules. The topic is using radios in a neighborhood with children. 

[chuckn]

But again, if kids are equipped with FRS radios, the they do not need to identify. The only rule is to not cause malicious interference, i.e. do not jam other people. To practice common courtesy, in other words. GRS-to-GMRS communications are perfectly legal.

 

You may still research roof antenna for your V1. Because from inside the house the range will be abysmal. And if house is stucco, then forget it, it's pretty much a Faraday cage.

That's true. My grandchildren will only have the FRS type which appear to be more durable. I remember using a CB back in the '70's. I was one of the few that stated my license. 

 

I am reading there are ham operators with repeaters for FRS and ham operators not having GMRS license. 

 

There is much discussion about annoucing call signs on other forums. Like I said, I am not opposed to the rules, but I do not expect a 4 year old to remember to annouse his call sign every 15 minutes. 

[berkinet]

I am reading there are ham operators with repeaters for FRS and ham operators not having GMRS license.

 

There is much discussion about annoucing call signs on other forums. Like I said, I am not opposed to the rules, but I do not expect a 4 year old to remember to annouse his call sign every 15 minutes.

First of all, repeaters are neither allowed nor possible on FRS. There is no provision for repeater inputs in a separate band segment. There might be operators in other radio services using FRS as an input to a cross-band repeater. But, that is distinctly and strictly prohibited by the rules. As to ham operators who do not have GMRS licenses. If they are talking on the GMRS frequencies, they are doing so illegaly. Otherwise, there is nothing compelling a ham operator to have a GMRS license. And, yes, there are no doubt hams operating on GMRS using ham equipment. However, they typically do not go around announcing that is what they are doing, and they certainly do not claim that they have some special need or right to do so. But, regardless of examples of others who might be flouting the rules, their indiscretions do not in any way change the licensing requirements you agreed to to get your GMRS license.

 

And, to be blunt. If someone is unwilling or incapable, regardless of age or other reason, of correctly operating under your GMRS license. Then you, as the license holder are responsible and you must prevent them from using the station. If your grand children cannot comply with the rules, they cannot use a radio operating under the GMRS rules. Period.

 

By and large, the people on this forum support the GMRS service and want to see it remain useful and relevant. Arguing publicly that the rules do not apply to this or that special case is counter to those ends. If you still think you know better, or that your needs are special, or whatever, then go ahead and do whatever you want. Nobody will ever know anyway. But, please do not claim that your special needs come first and expect others to support you.

 

And, please have a little more faith is your grand-children and children in general. They learn quickly and like to do things right.

[chuckn]

First of all, repeaters are neither allowed nor possible on FRS. There is no provision for repeater inputs in a separate band segment. There might be operators in other radio services using FRS as an input to a cross-band repeater. But, that is distinctly and strictly prohibited by the rules. As to ham operators who do not have GMRS licenses. If they are talking on the GMRS frequencies, they are doing so illegaly. Otherwise, there is nothing compelling a ham operator to have a GMRS license. And, yes, there are no doubt hams operating on GMRS using ham equipment. However, they typically do not go around announcing that is what they are doing, and they certainly do not claim that they have some special need or right to do so. But, regardless of examples of others who might be flouting the rules, their indiscretions do not in any way change the licensing requirements you agreed to to get your GMRS license.

 

And, to be blunt. If someone is unwilling or incapable, regardless of age or other reason, of correctly operating under your GMRS license. Then you, as the license holder are responsible and you must prevent them from using the station. If your grand children cannot comply with the rules, they cannot use a radio operating under the GMRS rules. Period.

 

By and large, the people on this forum support the GMRS service and want to see it remain useful and relevant. Arguing publicly that the rules do not apply to this or that special case is counter to those ends. If you still think you know better, or that your needs are special, or whatever, then go ahead and do whatever you want. Nobody will ever know anyway. But, please do not claim that your special needs come first and expect others to support you.

 

And, please have a little more faith is your grand-children and children in general. They learn quickly and like to do things right.

 

Get off your rule soap box and making conjectures and references about my family and the amount of faith that I may not have in them. No need to be old and contentious about everything. 

 

The essence of the thread was allowing 4-5 year old children to use radios. Adults, with technical know how and the means to purchase high powered units, do more harm and break more rules than a little children talking to their friends. This was true in the 1970's when CB was popular with many running way over the watt limits. I hope the OP hasn't been discouraged in allowing his children to enjoy using walkie talkies during this difficult time of separation because you scared them. 

 

. 

[rdunajewski]

I think this thread has run its course.