An interesting proposal for GMRS+

[SteveShannon]

While I was on the FCC site today trying to decide what (if anything) to enter into the public record about the Midland proposal for digital mobile GMRS radios and digital voice on GMRS, I stumbled across this document:

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/121859354063/1

Here's the filing details: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/121859354063

 

[nokones]

It won't pop up for me.

[SteveShannon]

9 minutes ago, nokones said:

It won't pop up for me.

Hmmm, the document link works for me on both my phone and my laptop.
If you click on the second link, which is the filing, then you can click on the link to the PDF near the top.

 

[AdmiralCochrane]

Popup blocker stopped me from reading it live, but it was downloadable. 

 

My comment:   New enforcement nightmare.  Just because people should be licensed to be legal doesn't mean they will be.  If this was approved, within 2 months a new Baofeng GMRS+  would be on Amazon and about 3% of users under the new rules would hold + licenses. 

[WRHS218]

I read the document. Wow, there is a lot going on there and I'm not talking about the technical aspects.

I am not sure I understand why anyone with an amateur license would need or want to make all these changes to GMRS. Everything the document proposes is available in the amateur bands and is not relegated to the small number of frequencies given to GMRS even with going narrow band to add channels.

The most disturbing paragraph to me was proposing people holding an amateur radio license could volunteer to be the radio police for both GMRS and the proposed GMRS+ services. I guess having an amateur license makes one superior to the folks on GMRS. I have a "HAM" license and a GMRS license and I am not better than anyone. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that gig.

 

[WRUE951]

been some chatter for awhile on WIN..   Many HAMS feel the FCC will consider the proposal.  I like the idea...... 

[gortex2]

Yup hams trying to inter-fear in yet another service. My hopes are the FCC laughs at this one. 

 

[tweiss3]

9 hours ago, WRHS218 said:

The most disturbing paragraph to me was proposing people holding an amateur radio license could volunteer to be the radio police for both GMRS and the proposed GMRS+ services. I guess having an amateur license makes one superior to the folks on GMRS. I have a "HAM" license and a GMRS license and I am not better than anyone. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that gig.

Must be one of those with a stopwatch that jumps in at 10 min 3 seconds to yell at other about identifying. Must really drive him nuts that FRS has no obligation to acknowledge GMRS rules.

[WRQC527]

I can honestly say that as a GMRS and ham radio license holder, I want exactly no part of this proposal to ever see the light of day. The FCC has already made a mess of the FRS/GMRS portion of the UHF band, and is contemplating even more mayhem with Midland's digital nonsense. Also, us hams have enough work to do already, what with posting reams of FCC regulations, technical service bulletins and doctoral dissertations for simple questions like "How do I ID" on MyGMRS. We can't be expected to police GMRS+ too. 

[WRXB215]

17 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

I want exactly no part of this proposal to ever see the light of day.

I agree. I intend to get my ham license soon and have no desire to use that to police or otherwise screw up GMRS.

[nokones]

14 hours ago, Sshannon said:

Hmmm, the document link works for me on both my phone and my laptop.
If you click on the second link, which is the filing, then you can click on the link to the PDF near the top.

 

I tried the second link which did take me to a summary looking like page and I also tried the download link and it just played stupid. I'll try it on a real computer and see what happens.

[WRXB215]

Here is the PDF.

eb8ecdb4-dd29-4556-b6f5-6e260a31350e.pdf

[UncleYoda]

Nevermind.   Are y'all sure this isn't a hoax/joke?

[nokones]

Personally, on the surface of this proposed rule making, I'm not opposed to it if it is technically feasible and will not cause harmful interference to any existing Part 95, Subpart E channel. I am a proponent of narrowbanding for the purpose of frequency efficiency. Wide-Band channel users need to embrace frequency efficiency is more important than audio fidelity.

I'm not sure why the Amateur Radio Service hobbists want to encroach in the midst of the only channels that GMRS hobbyists have for their use when the Amateur Radio Service has a gazillion of seldom used frequencies throughout the Country. I'm still trying to wrap my arms around that subject.

It appears that the proposal is one-sided and a little greedy, and only addresses the benefits for Amateur Radio Hobbyists. What about allowing the GMRS hobbyists enjoy the same scarce spectrum resource too? I think the proposed rule making should include the possibility of allowing the licensed GMRS hobbists to apply for this proposed GMRS+ license without taking a test, that only proves the Amateur Radio hobbyists have a better memory in remembering the published test question answers than a looked-upon lowly GMRS hobbyists. The GMRS+ license should also grant the GMRS licensed user with the Plus license access to the 2 Meter and 33 & 70 Centimeter bands as a restricted Station Operator without taking any written examination.

Wouldn't it be best if we all can share and enjoy the hobby together rather than be segregated?

[Guest]

"[...] ensure that the additional channels are only available to GMRS+ Licence Holders [...]

[...] preventing any non + users from legally gaining access to these Channels.[...]

[...] Secondary Basis and with Immediate Revokation of use if and when a Primary User is Allocated [...]

[...] Hams could act on a Volunteer Basis as monitors in their geographic areas [...]

[...] freeing up FCC enforcement recourses to attend to more pressing matters. [...]"

In related news: Scientist found a family of unicorns in an enchanted forest having a cup of tea with reformed hunters and a yeti ... 

Edited December 29, 2023 by WRXD372
spelling

[WRHS218]

7 minutes ago, WRXD372 said:

family of unicorns in enchanted forest having a cup of tea

I might believe this if they were drinking coffee...

[Guest]

... and just a sideline about the FCC's processing speed in regard to another petition Robert (the author of the proposal) has submitted:

In Jan of 2023, he petitioned to the FCC for his UK license to be "transferred" into an US Extra class license. Presently, he is still listed as Tech...

=> documents can be found under his FCC / ULS ham call or FRN listing ...

[wayoverthere]

14 hours ago, WRHS218 said:

I read the document. Wow, there is a lot going on there and I'm not talking about the technical aspects.

I am not sure I understand why anyone with an amateur license would need or want to make all these changes to GMRS. Everything the document proposes is available in the amateur bands and is not relegated to the small number of frequencies given to GMRS even with going narrow band to add channels.

The most disturbing paragraph to me was proposing people holding an amateur radio license could volunteer to be the radio police for both GMRS and the proposed GMRS+ services. I guess having an amateur license makes one superior to the folks on GMRS. I have a "HAM" license and a GMRS license and I am not better than anyone. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that gig.

 

Well put, and putting it nicely. It sounds like making more of a mess to me, and there's definitely an overtone of "hams are superior" in that document

While I wouldn't mind seeing digital voice come to gmrs, it'd probably be best relegated to a new channel or two (maybe require narrowband there), and for simplicity go with one set standard...there's already a good variety of radios out there with DMR, from cheap to LMR. Along that line, how about explicitly making part 90 gear a-ok too?

The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing that's definitely a concession to hams (and I'm not seeing any corresponding downside to gmrs, but let me know if I'm missing something) would be a pass on the 95e certification requirement IF the user holds both a gmrs license and a ham license, i.e. the ability to also use your ham gear for gmrs, subject to the usual power, mode and bandwidth requirements for gmrs.

Hey, a guy can dream.

 

[WRQC527]

1 hour ago, UncleYoda said:

Are y'all sure this isn't a hoax/joke?

I seriously doubt it. It's written by a ham. Hams are notorious for having zero sense of humor. In fact, "Hams have a sense of humor" is one of the true or false questions I answered on my Technician exam. 

[SteveShannon]

2 hours ago, UncleYoda said:

Nevermind.   Are y'all sure this isn't a hoax/joke?

I wouldn’t think that the FCC would be in on the joke…

 

[WRXB215]

2 hours ago, WRXD372 said:

In Jan of 2023, he petitioned to the FCC for his UK license to be "transferred" into an US Extra class license.

Another example of the "entitlement" attitude.

[WRYZ926]

3 hours ago, wayoverthere said:

The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing that's definitely a concession to hams (and I'm not seeing any corresponding downside to gmrs, but let me know if I'm missing something) would be a pass on the 95e certification requirement IF the user holds both a gmrs license and a ham license, i.e. the ability to also use your ham gear for gmrs, subject to the usual power, mode and bandwidth requirements for gmrs.

Hey, a guy can dream.

That would be nice if that would happen. As it is, there are plenty of people who have both licenses that are unlocking/modifying their radios to work on amateur and GMRS bands.

[UncleYoda]

3 hours ago, wayoverthere said:

... a pass on the 95e certification requirement IF the user holds both a gmrs license and a ham license, i.e. the ability to also use your ham gear for gmrs, subject to the usual power, mode and bandwidth requirements for gmrs.

Yes, I think that would be one of the most important things for a serious rule change proposal.  I'd like to also see GMRS added for free to those with a HAM license who request it (obviously I already have mine so that's for newcomers).  It can't cost $35 just to have software assign an extra alphanumeric string to an existing licensed user.  But at least let us use our UV-5Rs, dang-it, instead of buying one with a different label; there's no need for duplication.

[SteveShannon]

Personally, I think it's sloppily written with inaccurate premises and illogical conclusions.  I see absolutely no reason why a ham radio licensee should be excused from paying for a GMRS license and arguing that equipment that requires no certification should be allowed on a service that requires certified equipment is ridiculous.

But it's interesting what people will ask for.

[UncleYoda]

1 hour ago, Sshannon said:

Personally, I think it's sloppily written with inaccurate premises and illogical conclusions.  I see absolutely no reason why a ham radio licensee should be excused from paying for a GMRS license and arguing that equipment that requires no certification should be allowed on a service that requires certified equipment is ridiculous.

But it's interesting what people will ask for.

What's the "it" you're referring to as sloppily written?  If you mean the original rule change referenced in your OP, then yea, that's obvious.  And it's hard to believe a lawyer wrote that, thus my comment about a hoax/joke.

 

There's a very good reason to eliminate the extra payment IMO: it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to process, and HAM used to be free at the FCC end.