Northern California GMRS Spectrum Needs Exceed Supply

[intermod]

Due to the large number of emergency groups and individuals that have deployed new repeater systems over the past few years, GMRS repeater spectrum has become overloaded.  What makes this a particular problem here are the hills and mountain ranges - repeaters must be placed on high-elevation sites to provide reasonable coverage; this worsens interference potential and limits how often a channel can be reused in a region.  Should there be a regional emergency, there is a risk that many systems would not be usable due to interference from other nearby repeaters.  These groups often coordinate nets and training times today to avoid each other - but this would not be possible during an emergency.

We need to get more use out of our spectrum, obtain additional spectrum, or both.  

How can this be fixed?   

 

[KAF6045]

Persuade the emergency groups to move to LMR/Business band...

[SteveShannon]

18 minutes ago, KAF6045 said:

Persuade the emergency groups to move to LMR/Business band...

Or (@Intermod) lead your people to a different service or band. 

 

 

[WRKC935]

Well, I am NOT going for the short answer.  And this reminds me of something said about ham radio operators. 

I there were 2 ham operators in a city, that city would have 3 ham clubs so each of them belonged to a club that the other one didn't.

That being said.  I fully agree with what has already been said.  Problem is that these groups are the self appointed types that have little to no outside support and do little to support government entities.  Reason I say that is simple, if they were working FOR some agency, the agency would provide them the ability to communicate.  If they have setup shop on GMRS, then they are one step removed from ham radio and wanted to go their own way and not deal with hams either. 

Which brings about the second possible cure that will never work due to mentality.  And that is SHARED resources.  One big repeater that multiple groups use for communications.  And if you run a community repeater controller that is multi-PL enabled, then they don't even hear each other talking.  We did this for YEARS in the LMR business.  Put a few high profile repeaters up that were setup as community repeaters and sold air time on those repeaters.  Not real common any more but it was effective.  But we are back to the problem of getting people to SHARE.  And that is where you are gonna get stuck. 

The third way to begin to deal with it is system design with limits on coverage area in mind.  Directional antenna systems, down tilt, decreased power (which ALWAYS pisses people off when you mention it) and getting the system owners and users to spend money for real radio people to design and install their systems.  Problem here is again money.  Ham radio is by far the cheapiest way to communicate for SAR and similar groups.  You are using repeaters that are typically owned by others, the license are cheap and the radios are just as cheap.  But unless it's YOUR ham repeater, you can't have exclusive use of it.  GMRS does get you a bit closer, has no test to pass and can be a cheap.  But again, if it's not YOUR repeater, no exclusive use.  So they spend as little as possible to put up as much repeater as they can so they have exclusive use of it.  And I know that's how they treat it because if they were sharing use with other groups, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Actual designed and implemented systems that are tailored to cover a specific area are expensive.  Not so much the hardware as the design of it.  That requires knowledge that a typical GMRS operator frankly doesn't posses.   And that's not a dig on GMRS operators,,, it's just a fact.  So by the time you pay for all the design and increased cost for the antenna system you could have dropped 500 bucks and gotten a LMR license and been done with it.  Then you have exclusive use of your own repeater pair and can do what ever you want.  But they are too cheap to pony up the 500 bucks for coordination and a license fee. 

 

You are NOT gonna get more frequencies for GMRS.  And license holders have equal access to the allocated frequencies.  And contrary to popular belief, putting up a repeater with a different PL or DPL on the same frequency is NOT purposeful interference. By putting a different PL on it, you have shown effort to mitigate interference and you have just as much right to use that repeater pair as the other guy does.  Now this of course requires that the other repeater is closed access.  But at that point, you are left with no other choice.  So letters to the FCC are pointless. 

 

 

 

[WRKC935]

I forgot to mention something.  And this WILL draw the attention of the FCC and get new rules put into place.  Long abut the time that a situation does occur that puts these guys in harms way and the repeaters are overloaded and a group can't communicate out on their repeater because of the others the FCC will step in.  Not to help, but to create a ruling that bans the use of GMRS for these types of groups.  It's gonna require a group getting up on a mountain somewhere and someone getting killed for it to happen but it will happen.  GMRS is NOT for public safety and is NOT to be relied on for life and death communications.  It's a shared resource that we are provided by the government for personal and family communications.  Go read the rules and see where it says anything different.  Using the service for SAR is stretching it and using it for fire fighting or other life safety activities is certainly not what it's for.  Those activities are clearly meent for the public safety bands of the LMR allocations.  And if the groups are accredited and registered, I am not sure that there is even a licensing fee for them to get frequencies.  But there again, these are most likely self appointed groups that aren't serving any specific agency or jurisdiction.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

I forgot to mention something.  And this WILL draw the attention of the FCC and get new rules put into place.  Long abut the time that a situation does occur that puts these guys in harms way and the repeaters are overloaded and a group can't communicate out on their repeater because of the others the FCC will step in.  Not to help, but to create a ruling that bans the use of GMRS for these types of groups.  It's gonna require a group getting up on a mountain somewhere and someone getting killed for it to happen but it will happen.  GMRS is NOT for public safety and is NOT to be relied on for life and death communications.  It's a shared resource that we are provided by the government for personal and family communications.  Go read the rules and see where it says anything different.  Using the service for SAR is stretching it and using it for fire fighting or other life safety activities is certainly not what it's for.  Those activities are clearly meent for the public safety bands of the LMR allocations.  And if the groups are accredited and registered, I am not sure that there is even a licensing fee for them to get frequencies.  But there again, these are most likely self appointed groups that aren't serving any specific agency or jurisdiction.

My wild guess why this happens is due to the fact no license test is required, like Ham Radio where the above type of groups and activities are commonly found. Then, if some members are too cheap to even pay the $35 GMRS fee they try and use FRS radios.

I agree with the points above with LMR radios. I'm, again guessing, that getting permission to use already licensed LMR frequencies by "affiliated" groups wouldn't be a big problem. 

I do not agree completely with GMRS "NOT to be relied on for life and death communications" in the event that local communication infrastructure is destroyed due to fire, floods etc. GMRS might be one of the very few ways the general public has available to maintain communications in a local area. In fact I think that was mentioned some time back in another thread.

[WRUW886]

The current licensing and band planning done by HAM operators & volunteer coordinators is 100% necessary for the cooperative use of the HAM bands. I think many probably don't realize it, but this website is doing a decent job of that for GMRS, whether intended or not. Allowing us to post our frequency use and coordinate with others around us does some of the job of those frequency allocation volunteers, be it passive or active, either way we tend to not want to step on each other. GMRS is a small band and there's not much room on it so this serves a really important roll. I've noticed even on CB; people will use self-appointed handles and even have use specific channels, there are unspoken rules. Seems like those who use radio have a tendency toward coordinating and cooperation, similar to what is followed by ham operators. 

All that said, I think GMRS users should agree that GMRS use should be limited to one of if not the final circle in your encompassing circles of communication. Meaning GMRS should be used in and around your community. In my head this basically looks like this: GMRS/FRS Simplex around the neighborhood, GMRS Repeaters for the community, 2M/70cm for community to community, 10m/CB/6m for county wide, and you're looking at a general ham license for anything beyond that. 

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant, I've been thinking about this for some time and needed to get it out. 

[cfa]

15 hours ago, intermod said:

How can this be fixed?   

 

By communicating and working with each other. Hams set up groups for handling the coordination of repeater pairs. See https://w2xq.com/bm-repeaters.html

If the groups wont work with each other then another option would be for a group to license their own LMR frequency from the FCC. Then the frequency, location, and power will be somewhat coordinated. 

And a third option would be to just get the members to get their Tech license. The test isn't that hard and then you will be using ham repeaters that are already coordinated. 

The FCC isn't going to give away any spectrum to GMRS. There is none to give away in UHF anyways. 

 

[cfa]

dupe

[WRKC935]

7 hours ago, Lscott said:

I do not agree completely with GMRS "NOT to be relied on for life and death communications" in the event that local communication infrastructure is destroyed due to fire, floods etc. GMRS might be one of the very few ways the general public has available to maintain communications in a local area. In fact I think that was mentioned some time back in another thread.

OK, I agree that for PERSONAL use, and non-public safety use it CAN be relied upon for life safety.  Hell my repeaters are as stable and redundant as the public safety rack two rows over in the same building and they aren't on the battery plant right now since the rest of their system isn't either.  So my stuff is actually better covered then theirs.  But that being said.  If you are a actual public safety organization with access to real public safety exclusive use repeater pairs and you are instead using GMRS AND having interference issues due to the number of repeaters on the air in your operational area, shame on you.  Spend the money and do it right.  And here's the real truth.  License for GMRS is 35 bucks.  EVERYTHING else being equal.  If you have 20 members, that's 700 bucks in GMRS licenses.  Which would pay for the coordination and license fee's for LMR.  Or at least get REAL close.  Pool the money, and again, do it right.  Then put the thing on the air, in a BIG way and charge access to the other groups putting MOU's in place for how access gets handled, or just do your own thing on your own pair, away from everyone else.  A UHF repeater is just that..  Programed for GMRS, or programmed for a Public safety freq or LMR freq.  All the same stuff.  And all the same cost.  And again, if you are running some GMRS portables in a plastic box repeater for life safety level crap.  Well we covered that.

And here's the issue with GMRS.  It's shared spectrum.  Meaning everyone can be there with a license.  And YOUR emergency traffic is no less important than their emergency traffic.  But if you are interfering with each other then NO ONE's traffic gets passed.

But for personal use.... yes, it can be more than good enough

 

[WRKC935]

5 hours ago, WRUW886 said:

The current licensing and band planning done by HAM operators & volunteer coordinators is 100% necessary for the cooperative use of the HAM bands. I think many probably don't realize it, but this website is doing a decent job of that for GMRS, whether intended or not. Allowing us to post our frequency use and coordinate with others around us does some of the job of those frequency allocation volunteers, be it passive or active, either way we tend to not want to step on each other. GMRS is a small band and there's not much room on it so this serves a really important roll. I've noticed even on CB; people will use self-appointed handles and even have use specific channels, there are unspoken rules. Seems like those who use radio have a tendency toward coordinating and cooperation, similar to what is followed by ham operators. 

All that said, I think GMRS users should agree that GMRS use should be limited to one of if not the final circle in your encompassing circles of communication. Meaning GMRS should be used in and around your community. In my head this basically looks like this: GMRS/FRS Simplex around the neighborhood, GMRS Repeaters for the community, 2M/70cm for community to community, 10m/CB/6m for county wide, and you're looking at a general ham license for anything beyond that. 

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant, I've been thinking about this for some time and needed to get it out. 

Not a rant.  This is the solid truth and thank you for saying it. 

I have moved repeater pairs due to a pair being occupied I was not aware of when I put the gear on the air.  And I put stuff up that covers several COUNTIES.  Not just cities  or townships.  But I am willing to work with people and resolve interference issues.  I am also very open about people using my repeaters because they DO cover several counties.  Hell, I an in process of setting up meetings with 6 ARES (ham radio) groups to setup an MOU with all of them so they have reliable communications from county to county on ham because my coverage footprint is that big.  But coordination of those frequencies is KEY to not causing interference with other repeater owners using those frequencies.

 

[intermod]

Possible solutions so far:

 - Use a different service and/or band (business)  

 - Use a different service and/or band (amateur)

 - Multi-user/shared repeater using different codes (community repeater)

 - Lower site/directional antennas

 - GMRS repeater/frequency coordination

These groups are not performing firefighting or law enforcement, but they help out when there is no other option, so low-cost radios are a good solution.  Many of the groups can only get 10-20% to license in amateur, so this is an issue.   Community repeater use won't work during a local or regional problem when more than one group is using it (they can't figure out that "MON" button).  GMRS repeater coordination worked in the past, but demand has outstripped supply.  

Agree on the  lower site/directional antennas - since we usually don't have control over what site we get handed, I would use directionals on the higher sites; vert effective, but unenforceable.  

Agree on business band - one "organizational license", somewhat dedicated channel, and they can also operate other modes (NXDN, DMR, P25, etc.)  and even encrypt it if they felt the need.

I will add the following:

 - Public Safety spectrum - they are performing work for government (exceeding NGO status), so they qualify, and the PS spectrum is super clean and coordinated.  Most agencies here have moved to 700/800 trunking, leaving their 453, 460 and even VHF somewhat clear.  

 - Use NXDN 6.25 narrowband digital repeaters; you can place 2-4 of those in one current GMRS channel (FCC work required)

 - Use DMR repeaters; two DMR channels=4 timeslots can fit in one GMRS channel today (FCC work required)

 - Narrowband DMR or NXDN interstitial repeaters (462.5625 MHz, etc.)  (FCC work required)

The digital options above would simply allow greater use of what we already have.  NXDN would allow each groups to have their own system, where each DMR would provide shared use to two groups (slot 1 and slot 2).  With DMR each group would only have to fund 1/2 the repeater costs.   

What about targeting unused/lightly-used spectrum:

 - 450/456 Broadcast/fake media band

 - 454.7/459.7 Air-to-ground telephone - remember those back in the 90's (does anyone use these today???)

Other lightly-used bands?  We won't go after an entire band; just 10-20 repeater channels worth. 

[WRKC935]

Well, if there is 'FCC WORK REQUIRED' forget it.  And DMR or NXDN is gonna tear up the analog guys.  P25 will as well but not to the degree.

If you are 'issued' area's of operation, then very little to any of the lower power, limited coverage stuff applies, unless it's in place and running all the time and used as needed.

If you can't get the users to license for ham, that's a training / group requirement thing that needs enforced.  You set down rules for training and other certifications and REQUIRE it to be a member.  It they don't comply, let them be someone else's problem to deal with.

Using the MONITOR button.  No, program the radios to check for activity on the frequency BEFORE they transmit.  Most radios will monitor for a carrier on the repeater output and bonk the user when they attempt to transmit.  Second, the monitor button, that is a TRAINING ISSUE.  You train for first aid and other skills to certify and then participate in group functions and activation.  Train on radio operation.  If they don't want to train, again, make them someone else's problem. 

I am gonna be as honest and frank as I can be right now. 

YOU HAVE ZERO OPTIONS

There is NO OPTION to get others to operate in a proper manner.

There is NO OPTION to get a system built that will support what you are trying to do.

There is NO OPTION to get cooperation from the other groups to get this ironed out.

And there is NO FUNDING to do it right if you can't even get people to take a damn ham test.  Of course they will not want to train for anything else either, so why bother with them to begin with.

 

SO, here is what YOU and YOUR group does.  Follow what others have said here.  Forget GMRS all together for communications during an activation and get an LMR pair and figure out a portable repeater on that pair.  AND screw the rest of the clowns that don't want to fall in line and work together to get a communications plan together so these problems go away.

 

[cfa]

If there are 2 groups that are like minded then the cost of a real good repeater on a LMR pair can be split by using DMR or NXDN. 1 group uses one time slot the other uses the other time slot. 

IMO there just isn't enough room on GMRS for digital and FM to live side by side. If you think the interference issues are bad now on GMRS just imagine what would happen to the FM users if everyone started putting up DMR repeaters all over and a few guys start running chatty things like automatic GPS telemetry. It will happen because data features like that are cool and useful. 

 

[Photoman5k]

On 11/10/2022 at 8:56 PM, WRKC935 said:

No, program the radios to check for activity on the frequency BEFORE they transmit.  Most radios will monitor for a carrier on the repeater output and bonk the user when they attempt to transmit. 

 

You wouldn't be suggesting people use the busy channel lockout function on their radios would you? 

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who actually uses that function on their radios lol.

Seriously though, I'll sit and listen to 4 or five or more people shoot the shit on any given night and always hear people walking on one another and it annoys the crap out of me because it doesn't have to happen.

I'm the keeper of the radios for my little group of people and every single one of our radios is programed the same and every single one is set up with BCL on every single freq on GMRS for repeaters AND Simplex channels that we use. There should be no reason anyone is walking over anyone else's transmission because the radio has a feature built into it to keep that from happening. Why people don't use it is mind boggling to me.  (ETA: It annoys me more than people using roger beeps and call functions)

On 11/9/2022 at 8:21 PM, intermod said:

Due to the large number of emergency groups and individuals that have deployed new repeater systems over the past few years, GMRS repeater spectrum has become overloaded. 

What types of groups? When I read that I pretty much read it as people using GMRS for purposes outside the scope of what the service is intended for. Oddly I think a lot of GMRS use by most people (myself included) is outside the scope of what GMRS was intended for.

Quote

The GMRS is available to an individual (one man or one woman) for short-distance two-way communications to facilitate the activities of licensees and their immediate family members.

Yes most of my use is also outside that scope as I mainly use it with friends more then family however it's used to facilitate our activities, on fishing trips, backpacking, hunting, camping, hiking, road trips, things of that nature. We don't use it for long conversations that are better had over the phone. We still use phones while doing those things if we need to talk to someone about something and that conversation is going to be more then something quick like hey were jumping off at this exit or need help dragging a deer or hey everyone come back to camp lunch is about ready, things like that. About the only time we use them for more then that were doing something like paintball or airsoft. But that's the type of stuff that it was meant for. It wasn't/isn't meant for nets and fat chewing sessions and a lot of the stuff that it's being used for.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Photoman5k

[SteveShannon]

Here’s what the regulations say:

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). A mobile two-way voice communication service, with limited data applications, for facilitating activities of individual licensees and their family members, including, but not limited to, voluntary provision of assistance to the public during emergencies and natural disasters. 

[WRKC935]

9 hours ago, Photoman5k said:

You wouldn't be suggesting people use the busy channel lockout function on their radios would you? 

 

I'm the keeper of the radios for my little group of people and every single one of our radios is programed the same and every single one is set up with BCL on every single freq on GMRS for repeaters AND Simplex channels that we use. There should be no reason anyone is walking over anyone else's transmission because the radio has a feature built into it to keep that from happening. Why people don't use it is mind boggling to me.  (ETA: It annoys me more than people using roger beeps and call functions)

Actually this is one of the times that MDC is actually a really good thing.  If you hear the MDC burst, then you know they unkeyed letting you key up and talk and POSSIBLY not be talking on someone else in the process.

Yes, I too run my busy channel lockout on SOME repeaters.  Unfortunately, I can't run it on the MIDWEST link due to the fact that when a discussion gets going the repeater may be transmitting for 5 or 10 minutes without a break.  But my local repeaters that aren't linked, I do use it. 

 

[WRUQ758]

In the early 1980's business band channels were very crowded in the NY metro area. if you had PL (tone) enabled taking the mic off the hook disabled it so you had to monitor the channel for use before transmitting. Granted keying up a repeater is a longer duration transmission than a simplex transmission so "monitoring" isn't practical. Point is people just dealt with crowded bands. With current non-coordinated repeater rules and limited channels, we have to make do the best we can with what we've got, and work with other repeater users as much as possible. 

[Lscott]

51 minutes ago, WRUQ758 said:

... we have to make do the best we can with what we've got,

Hummm... That sound a bit familiar.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/theodore_roosevelt_100965

[weaverrm]

On 11/19/2022 at 8:13 AM, Sshannon said:

Here’s what the regulations say:

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). A mobile two-way voice communication service, with limited data applications, for facilitating activities of individual licensees and their family members, including, but not limited to, voluntary provision of assistance to the public during emergencies and natural disasters. 

My feeling is that the GMRS band is FIRST AND FOREMOST… for individuals and their families for those kinds of activities.  It is not, again, in my opinion, for “primary emergency use.”  Having said that, (some) groups are formed, or otherwise exist, for the purpose of some sort of an (community or area wide) emergency response.   The problem is… the logistics involved with reliable point-to-point, mobile and/or hand-held communications is simply way too much for [some “rag-tag” bunch of fireman want-a-bees] an organization, both administratively and cost, to acquire, install and manage.  Therefore, rather than do it correctly (by setting up a “local government affiliated emergency response organization” that can access “official emergency comms”, groups form and jump on GMRS and over-run it in the process.  
 

Not trying to bash anyone here… just attempting to point out that… before even getting to the issue of ‘comms requirements’ in those organizations, the purpose and/or point of and/or function, of the organization might outta be looked at first.   Bottom line is… GMRS is not, and was not… set up to be an emergency services band.  Now, how much trouble do you think I got myself into by saying this??

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, weaverrm said:

My feeling is that the GMRS band is FIRST AND FOREMOST… for individuals and their families for those kinds of activities.  It is not, again, in my opinion, for “primary emergency use.”  Having said that, (some) groups are formed, or otherwise exist, for the purpose of some sort of an (community or area wide) emergency response.   The problem is… the logistics involved with reliable point-to-point, mobile and/or hand-held communications is simply way too much for [some “rag-tag” bunch of fireman want-a-bees] an organization, both administratively and cost, to acquire, install and manage.  Therefore, rather than do it correctly (by setting up a “local government affiliated emergency response organization” that can access “official emergency comms”, groups form and jump on GMRS and over-run it in the process.  
 

Not trying to bash anyone here… just attempting to point out that… before even getting to the issue of ‘comms requirements’ in those organizations, the purpose and/or point of and/or function, of the organization might outta be looked at first.   Bottom line is… GMRS is not, and was not… set up to be an emergency services band.  Now, how much trouble do you think I got myself into by saying this??

Not a bit of trouble, at least with me.  I agree with you. 

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, weaverrm said:

My feeling is that the GMRS band is FIRST AND FOREMOST… for individuals and their families for those kinds of activities.  It is not, again, in my opinion, for “primary emergency use.”  Having said that, (some) groups are formed, or otherwise exist, for the purpose of some sort of an (community or area wide) emergency response.   The problem is… the logistics involved with reliable point-to-point, mobile and/or hand-held communications is simply way too much for [some “rag-tag” bunch of fireman want-a-bees] an organization, both administratively and cost, to acquire, install and manage.  Therefore, rather than do it correctly (by setting up a “local government affiliated emergency response organization” that can access “official emergency comms”, groups form and jump on GMRS and over-run it in the process.  
 

Not trying to bash anyone here… just attempting to point out that… before even getting to the issue of ‘comms requirements’ in those organizations, the purpose and/or point of and/or function, of the organization might outta be looked at first.   Bottom line is… GMRS is not, and was not… set up to be an emergency services band.  Now, how much trouble do you think I got myself into by saying this??

I see increasing references made to GMRS as a hobby. You correctly pointed out the primary use is for private communications between family members. While many people certainly use it as a hobby, and many for personal use, the FCC did specifically mention voluntary assistance to the public during emergencies.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E/section-95.1703

[weaverrm]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

I see increasing references made to GMRS as a hobby. You correctly pointed out the primary use is for private communications between family members. While many people certainly use it as a hobby, and many for personal use, the FCC did specifically mention voluntary assistance to the public during emergencies.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E/section-95.1703

I totally understand the specific language used by the FCC.  I tend to want to zoom-in on the, “…voluntary provision of assistance to the public during…”.  It’s that ‘provision’-ing thing that tells me, …

…“hey dude, don’t make this your primary means for reliance on emergency communications…but, if crap hits the fan and it winds-up being the only method available that isn’t otherwise knocked-out for whatever reason… then, by all means, use it for your/the emergency at hand.”…

Now, as an old retired dude that has had a career in communications-electronics and all of it’s associated complicated electrical do-dad stuff, they HAIN’T NOT NO WAY () I’d pick a band or frequency for even back-up emergency comms that would / could possibly be busy with a bunch of young-ens playing on a bunch of walkie-talkies.  Remember, it’s them kids’ pappy that has the GMRS license and he didn’t activate that ‘busy channel lockout’ feature on the dozen or so walkie-talkies he has for them to play with while they are visiting him and playing on the dirt bikes and four-wheelers all over his 100 or so acres…

At least, that’s the way I put it when someone suggest (planning on) using GMRS for anything even remotely associated with an emergency.  It’s the “planning” thing, see…  To make GMRS a component of your “plan” (if / when formulating any kind of emergency response) is the mistake.  But, in the event that ALL OTHER planned methods failed first, then, and only then, should someone in an emergency response role consider GMRS.  

Now, that’s my [(retired) comms professional] interpretation of that language used by the FCC.  Does that get me into any trouble with any of y’all.??

[SteveShannon]

32 minutes ago, weaverrm said:

I totally understand the specific language used by the FCC.  I tend to want to zoom-in on the, “…voluntary provision of assistance to the public during…”.  It’s that ‘provision’-ing thing that tells me, …

…“hey dude, don’t make this your primary means for reliance on emergency communications…but, if crap hits the fan and it winds-up being the only method available that isn’t otherwise knocked-out for whatever reason… then, by all means, use it for your/the emergency at hand.”…

Now, as an old retired dude that has had a career in communications-electronics and all of it’s associated complicated electrical do-dad stuff, they HAIN’T NOT NO WAY () I’d pick a band or frequency for even back-up emergency comms that would / could possibly be busy with a bunch of young-ens playing on a bunch of walkie-talkies.  Remember, it’s them kids’ pappy that has the GMRS license and he didn’t activate that ‘busy channel lockout’ feature on the dozen or so walkie-talkies he has for them to play with while they are visiting him and playing on the dirt bikes and four-wheelers all over his 100 or so acres…

At least, that’s the way I put it when someone suggest (planning on) using GMRS for anything even remotely associated with an emergency.  It’s the “planning” thing, see…  To make GMRS a component of your “plan” (if / when formulating any kind of emergency response) is the mistake.  But, in the event that ALL OTHER planned methods failed first, then, and only then, should someone in an emergency response role consider GMRS.  

Now, that’s my [(retired) comms professional] interpretation of that language used by the FCC.  Does that get me into any trouble with any of y’all.??

In a true emergency situation any form of communication is better than none at all. So, even though I wouldn’t make GMRS my plan A, B, or possibly even C, I would make sure that I have several GMRS and probably even FRS radios available as backups. But I wouldn’t wait for everything else to fail  before teaching my kids and grandkids to use them.