Can Non-Licensed Friends Transmit Legally on a GMRS Licensee's Radio?

[mrgmrs]

It is nice that a GMRS license permits its licensee to allow their immediate family members, in-laws, and some other cases to operate a GMRS radio using the license holder's call sign.  But what about friends?

If I'm visiting non-GMRS-licensed friends and one or more of them would like to transmit using my radio and call sign, would this be legal if done while they are in my presence?  Amateur radio allows for this provision if this is done with the ham acting as a real-time control operator.  But what about GMRS?

If this is not legal, a handy avenue for getting potential new GMRS users interested is not open.

[BoxCar]

As long as a licensed operator is "in control" of the station it is permissible for an unlicensed person to use your radio. In other services, the licensed operator would establish contact and then hand the mic to the other person. While the rules are a little vague, the use of a call sign is limited to the actual person holding the license. That does not preclude an unlicensed person calling your call sign and identifying themselves as "Unit X."

[n4gix]

Until I got my GMRS license, I never realized just how many 'relatives' I had... 

[JLeikhim]

It is nice that a GMRS license permits its licensee to allow their immediate family members, in-laws, and some other cases to operate a GMRS radio using the license holder's call sign.  But what about friends?
If I'm visiting non-GMRS-licensed friends and one or more of them would like to transmit using my radio and call sign, would this be legal if done while they are in my presence?  Amateur radio allows for this provision if this is done with the ham acting as a real-time control operator.  But what about GMRS?
If this is not legal, a handy avenue for getting potential new GMRS users interested is not open.

Your freinds can use FRS equipment and you can communicate with them on a shared FRS/GMRS channel. But no, they cannot use your license. Even temporarily. They need their own license as GMRS licenses the individual and immediate family, not the station itself.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[JLeikhim]

Until I got my GMRS license, I never realized just how many 'relatives' I had... 

Same as when I won the lotto..

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

[mrgmrs]

As you can see by the replies, interpretations/opinions are divided.  As a reminder, my question was specifically regarding GMRS from a legal perspective.

Before starting this post, searching the web for an answer to the question yielded no answers.  Also, I had looked at the GMRS portion of the Part 95 rules, and it didn't seem to support use of one's license by a friend under normal circumstances.  There was a provision for emergency use.

According to Part 95.1705 subpart (c), the following people can operate a GMRS station under the authority of an individual license:

  + the GMRS licensee

  + a list of the license holder's immediate family members, defined as spouse, children, grandchildren, stepchildren, parents, grandparents, stepparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and in-laws

  + anyone if necessary to communicate an emergency message

  + a partnership

  + a corporation

  + an association

  + a governmental unit

Since it appears that the Part 95 rules don't support GMRS use by a friend (except for an emergency), I figured I'd create this post anyway in case anyone was aware of a rule to the contrary and could cite the rule.  I also figured that other folks might search this forum for an answer to this question, so it was worth posting.

Therefore, since nobody was able to cite a specific GMRS Part 95 rule which supports use by a friend, I'm going with the approach that it is not legal.

Even though amateur radio makes a provision for use by a friend if the licensee acts as a control operator, this does not appear to apply to GMRS by extension.  Since my question was from a strictly speaking legal perspective, that is what I wanted an answer to.  If a GMRS licensee chooses to let a non-licensed friend transmit on the holder's license, this appears to be illegal based on everything I've seen in the GMRS portion of Rule 95.

Bottom line: It appears that it is illegal to let a non-licensed friend transmit under the authority of your GMRS license, except for an emergency.

[mbrun]

Your conclusion is fundamentally my conclusion as well.

I look at it this way. A person can use one of my stations (HT, Base or Mobile) and my call sign if they are an immediate family member, with permission. If they are an immediate family member but not living with me and operating their own equipment, they need their own license. A separately licensed individual may borrow and use one of my stations, but they need to use their own callsign. Friends need their own equipment and callsign, or just use FRS.

While not expressly or permitted, I do seriously doubt the FCC would take exception to third party traffic so long as the licensee is in complete control of the station (i.e. the licensee is adjacent to the third party while they are operating under permission of the licensee). … But I have been wrong before.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

Edit: Correct phrasing.

[WRNA236]

[deleted]

[gortex2]

Not sure why this is even being discussed. Its been in the rules for years. Ran into this for SAR work 25 years ago. each operator needs a license. Simple. 

[MichaelLAX]

2 hours ago, kb2ztx said:

Not sure why this is even being discussed. Its been in the rules for years. 

Cite please.

[Radioguy7268]

Yesterday, while transmitting to my wife, a neighbor's kid heard us talking, and said "What is THAT!?" while I was still keyed up. My wife heard the kid, and answered young neighbor kid, so obviously his question went out over the air.

Which one of us broke a law? Asking for a neighbor...

[WyoJoe]

12 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

Yesterday, while transmitting to my wife, a neighbor's kid heard us talking, and said "What is THAT!?" while I was still keyed up. My wife heard the kid, and answered young neighbor kid, so obviously his question went out over the air.

Which one of us broke a law? Asking for a neighbor...

My guess is that neither of you broke the law. Rules of courtesy, perhaps, but not the law. The kid she heard was probably on an FRS radio, and perhaps he wasn't even able to hear you on the radio. I would expect that a kid on an FRS radio wouldn't necessarily know to check for traffic on that channel/frequency before transmitting, so may have just blurted something into the radio intending to send a message to a friend.

[MichaelLAX]

37 minutes ago, WyoJoe said:

...The kid she heard was probably on an FRS radio...

You misunderstood his question.

The "kid" was standing near the husband and the kids voice went over the air, heard by the wife on her radio, and was answered by the wife by radio.

I can't imagine there is any violation of anything under these facts presented!

[WyoJoe]

33 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

You misunderstood his question.

The "kid" was standing near the husband and the kids voice went over the air, heard by the wife on her radio, and was answered by the wife by radio.

I can't imagine there is any violation of anything under these facts presented!

You're right, I misunderstood what they were saying. I didn't realize the kid was in the same place.

[wayoverthere]

39 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

You misunderstood his question.

The "kid" was standing near the husband and the kids voice went over the air, heard by the wife on her radio, and was answered by the wife by radio.

I can't imagine there is any violation of anything under these facts presented!

agreed. regardless of the incidental chatter, the licensee was still in control of the radio...it wasn't someone outside the permitted list being allowed to operate under your license, it was the licensee(s) operating under their license, and there happened to be someone else talking in the vicinity at the same time.

[haneysa]

MBrun stated that immediate family members not living with the  license holder and using  their own  equipment  need to get their own license.  I see no such requirement in the FCC rules for GMRS. Common Sense says that the immediate family member must get the license holder's permission to operate under his/her license. The license holder is responsible for those persons using his/her license. 

[pcradio]

Seems it would be a benefit to allow a friend to use a radio, so I could encourage them to buy a license. "Try before you buy".

[wayoverthere]

5 hours ago, pcradio said:

Seems it would be a benefit to allow a friend to use a radio, so I could encourage them to buy a license. "Try before you buy".

I don't disagree...I'd have loved to be able to say the same codes about "control operator" apply to gmrs, but no such luck. (it's in part 97, not 95)

[WyoJoe]

5 hours ago, haneysa said:

MBrun stated that immediate family members not living with the  license holder and using  their own  equipment  need to get their own license.  I see no such requirement in the FCC rules for GMRS. Common Sense says that the immediate family member must get the license holder's permission to operate under his/her license. The license holder is responsible for those persons using his/her license. 

I believe there is a statement somewhere that says family members may operate under the license when using the license holder's equipment... I don't recall the exact wording, but I had the same understanding as MBrun - if using their own equipment, then the user (family member) would also need their own license.

[Radioguy7268]

Unless I've really missed something in the rules, there's no titling or registration involved with GMRS equipment, so "proof of ownership" isn't going to get you far as proving what equipment belongs to whom. Everyone in my extended family is using "my" equipment, even though I gave it to them, and some of them live a few states away.

[mbrun]

Your conclusion is fundamentally my conclusion as well.

I look at it this way. A person can use one of my stations (HT, Base or Mobile) and my call sign if they are an immediate family member, with permission. If they are an immediate family member but not living with me and operating their own equipment, they need their own license. A separately licensed individual may borrow and use one of my stations, but they need to use their own callsign. Friends need their own equipment and callsign, or just use FRS.

While not expressly or permitted, I do seriously doubt the FCC would take exception to third party traffic so long as the licensee is in complete control of the station (i.e. the licensee is adjacent to the third party while they are operating under permission of the licensee). … But I have been wrong before.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

Edit: Correct phrasing.

MBrun stated that immediate family members not living with the  license holder and using  their own  equipment  need to get their own license.  I see no such requirement in the FCC rules for GMRS. Common Sense says that the immediate family member must get the license holder's permission to operate under his/her license. The license holder is responsible for those persons using his/her license. 

To be clear I said ‘I look at it this way’, intending to clarify how I personally interpret and put the rules into practice. But let me explain how I get there.

First, I believe most would agree the FCC is pretty clear that GMRS licenses are granted to individuals. I also believe it is equally clear that immediate family members may operate under that individual’s license (the operative word here being “may”).

Article § 95.1705 of the regulations uses the term ‘may’ many times. Upon reading, one will see it that ‘may’ in is referring to discretionary permission of the licensee, such as “Any individual who holds an individual license may allow his or her immediate family members to operate his or her GMRS station or stations. “. Upon further reading one will see the FCC identifies who the licensee may grant (by extension) to use their station(s). In other words, 95.1705 clarifies who the licensee is permitted to grant permission too. In practical terms and by example this means that, in part, I can grant permission to my son or daughter to use my license if I choose, but I am not obligated to. If one child is responsible and the other is not, I might not choose to grant it.

The next part is the use of the ‘station’. A station is the apparatus necessary for transmitting (aka ‘operating’). In its simplest definition this is a transmitter. Each transmitter is a station. In its most popular form, a handheld portable transceiver is a form of ‘station’. If I purchase a twin pack of GMRS radios I have purchased two stations. Again, in 95.1705 it states “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 “The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license. “

So, if a licensee purchases, and thus owns, four (4) handheld transceivers they may grant permission to select (or all) family members to operate those four stations, so long as the licensee has access to and can exercise control over those stations. This is easy to do when the family members live with them and or are attending an event in which the licensee is also present. Not so easy to do in the licensee is in New York and the radio is in California.

Further, I have zero authority to give permission to anyone to use your station equipment. Only you have the authority to do that. In a similar way, I have no authority to give my children permission to use station equipment that is owned by their aunt or uncle, nor can I grant permission to their aunt and uncle to use the transceivers they have purchased on their own. They are not mine to grant permission to.

Bottom line, I can grant permission to use only stations I own and have control over, nothing more.

Here is link to complete 95.1705 text for any that care to read it.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/95.1705

Hope this provides some clarification.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[WyoJoe]

How each person interprets these rules is up to them. The way I look at it is summed up by this question: "would I be able to defend my position if challenged by the FCC?"

I interpret the rules the same way that Michael (mbrun) does. While the terms "access to" and "control over" are somewhat ambiguous, I feel that I can defend my position if I allow a family member to use one of "my stations" to communicate with another one of "my stations" (directly or through a repeater) when I operate the latter, or it is operated by someone in my household.

For instance, I have a sister that lives about four miles away from me. If I give (lend) her a radio and she uses it to talk to my wife at my house, in general, I believe that would be permitted. Of course, in order for me to maintain "control over" those two stations, I would have to instruct them on proper use of the radio, and monitor their usage to ensure that the rules are followed. If I found them using the radios improperly, I would also need to have the means to stop them from using them. The most extreme of these means would be confiscation of the equipment, which I would only be able to do if I could access it. That's not too difficult at four miles, but is much harder at four hundred miles.

On the other hand, my other sister lives across the country, nearly 3000 miles from me. If I "lend" her two radios, and she and her husband use them to talk to each other, in general I don't believe that would be a permitted use. In other words, I don't think I could defend the position that it is a permitted use of my license. I would not normally be able to monitor their use of the radios, and I would not have (reasonable) access to them to maintain "control over" them.

In the second example, however, there is an exception. If I were across the country from my home, visiting my sister and her husband, and I had "access to" and "control over" the radios, I believe it would be permitted. That, of course, begs the question, "would my wife, who stayed home, still be able to use my home station to talk to my other sister while I was across the country?" My thought on this is that it would not be permitted, since I would no longer have access to, and control over, those stations.

The easiest solution to these situations would be to have each of my sisters (or their husbands) get licenses of their own.

[mbrun]

How each person interprets these rules is up to them. The way I look at it is summed up by this question: "would I be able to defend my position if challenged by the FCC?"
I interpret the rules the same way that Michael (mbrun) does. While the terms "access to" and "control over" are somewhat ambiguous, I feel that I can defend my position if I allow a family member to use one of "my stations" to communicate with another one of "my stations" (directly or through a repeater) when I operate the latter, or it is operated by someone in my household.
For instance, I have a sister that lives about four miles away from me. If I give (lend) her a radio and she uses it to talk to my wife at my house, in general, I believe that would be permitted. Of course, in order for me to maintain "control over" those two stations, I would have to instruct them on proper use of the radio, and monitor their usage to ensure that the rules are followed. If I found them using the radios improperly, I would also need to have the means to stop them from using them. The most extreme of these means would be confiscation of the equipment, which I would only be able to do if I could access it. That's not too difficult at four miles, but is much harder at four hundred miles.
On the other hand, my other sister lives across the country, nearly 3000 miles from me. If I "lend" her two radios, and she and her husband use them to talk to each other, in general I don't believe that would be a permitted use. In other words, I don't think I could defend the position that it is a permitted use of my license. I would not normally be able to monitor their use of the radios, and I would not have (reasonable) access to them to maintain "control over" them.
In the second example, however, there is an exception. If I were across the country from my home, visiting my sister and her husband, and I had "access to" and "control over" the radios, I believe it would be permitted. That, of course, begs the question, "would my wife, who stayed home, still be able to use my home station to talk to my other sister while I was across the country?" My thought on this is that it would not be permitted, since I would no longer have access to, and control over, those stations.
The easiest solution to these situations would be to have each of my sisters (or their husbands) get licenses of their own.

You bring up an interesting scenario. I suspect somewhere in some prior legal proceedings “control over” and “access to” have have already been settled. But all we the general public have ready access is what they put in the rule book, not how some judicial body has ruled in case law.

You know what, in 10-20 years or so we will look back and see that FCC shifted to a licensed by rule methodology for GMRS and this will all be a mute point anyway.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[wayoverthere]

Another thought occurred to me on the logic behind why the users you can authorize are limited in gmrs compared to amateur bands; since gmrs doesn't have the same prohibition on business use, limiting who you can authorize prevents a loophole for a business owner to get a gmrs license and then authorize their employees, rather than actually paying for a proper business license.

[mbrun]

Another thought occurred to me on the logic behind why the users you can authorize are limited in gmrs compared to amateur bands; since gmrs doesn't have the same prohibition on business use, limiting who you can authorize prevents a loophole for a business owner to get a gmrs license and then authorize their employees, rather than actually paying for a proper business license.

Good point.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM