FCC Draft Report and Order

[rdunajewski]

Just saw this today. I will formally pick through the rules later but wanted to share with the group and get your take on these.

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0427/DOC-344617A1.pdf

 

If I'm reading this right, this is the high-level summary for GMRS:

• FRS/GMRS combo radios prohibited going forward
• Linking permissible, even using the PSTN (although telephone calls not allowed)
• Digital emissions allowed for short text messaging and location purposes, but apparently not digital voice (some strict restrictions)
• Allowed to use the FRS interstitial channels at 2 Watts
• Repeaters still allowed
• Power limits unchanged
• Certification for hand-held radios to be dropped

 

[WQWI871]

I see good. But, there's bad, too. (And yay for the citizen band? It's not too useful for me, but, I still like my little CB base)

[Guest spd641]

 

Just saw this today. I will formally pick through the rules later but wanted to share with the group and get your take on these.

 

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0427/DOC-344617A1.pdf

 

If I'm reading this right, this is the high-level summary for GMRS:

• FRS/GMRS combo radios prohibited going forward
• Linking permissible, even using the PSTN (although telephone calls not allowed)
• Digital emissions allowed for short text messaging and location purposes, but apparently not digital voice (some strict restrictions)
• Allowed to use the FRS interstitial channels at 2 Watts
• Repeaters still allowed
• Power limits unchanged
• Certification for hand-held radios to be dropped

 

.I see the FCC trying to make both sides happy by providing a happy medium with a lesser work load for them...Do not forget the 10 yr license the FCC mentioned

[Guest spd641]

Looks like the document disappeared,hmmm what's going on here?

[FrankNY]

Looks like the document disappeared,hmmm what's going on here?

 

Try this:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344617A1.pdf

 

But do note that if you're interested in more than just the GMRS-related section, and want to stay "fully informed" and intend to read the entire document, be sure to set aside some time because it's 144 pages in length.

 

Regards,

 

Frank.

[JohnE]

AH, nothing like a good book.

digital for text and location, so I can use a digital capable radio but only for this part.

glad to see they are going to separate the FRS from "us" . that will be a relief from all the crap around here.

[rdunajewski]

AH, nothing like a good book.

digital for text and location, so I can use a digital capable radio but only for this part.

glad to see they are going to separate the FRS from "us" . that will be a relief from all the crap around here.

 

I thought so too, until you read that it's only for units with non-removable antennas. Basically it's the Garmin waiver being codified and allowed on both FRS and GMRS. Also, can't use it on any of the repeater inputs which would be a good way to collect the GPS locations in a central location. Think about Search and Rescue, wouldn't you want a repeater (fixed or portable) to be receiving every unit's GPS location and keeping track rather than some other HT having to be the contact point?

 

I'm going to post a formal comment about these draft rules to argue for digital voice and the removal of the non-removable antenna provision. Just about every other rule seems clear and useful in my opinion. They're still muddy on Part 90, but I think they still want the revenue from having to accept Part 95 radios. Doing away with the requirement hurts their revenue stream from the manufacturers.

 

If they drop the antenna requirement then it looks like you can use any nearly digital modulation you want for texting and GPS, so long as it's under 1 second in TX length. That means P25 and NXDN, for example would be allowed. TDMA is another emission designator so that appears to be out, but I'm wondering about single-slot DMR. Does that fall under one of the permissible emission types as long as the second slot isn't being used (meaning the transmitter is keyed continuously, and not yielding for a second slot)? That would be useful to the majority of us who aren't using Garmin bubblepack radios with GPS on them. Otherwise this rule serves only a small group of users.

[rdunajewski]

Another link in case people are having trouble accessing it:

 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/part-95-reform

[gatekeep]

Its quite possible I'm reading into it /far/ more then necessary. However, the new wording of 95.1749 is perhaps still confusing. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but, the rule literally states "for the sole purpose of operation by remote control", AFAIK the FCC defines "remote control" as: "Under remote control, the licensee has implemented a means by which the repeater’s control operator(s) can monitor and control its operation by some form of control link from one or more distant locations."

 

This says nothing about rebroadcast of voice or other transmissions, which would /seem/ to say that 95.1749 stipulates that using POTS or any network connection for linking where the sole purpose is /control/ is okay, but because of the lack of wording, may or may not mean that use of that link for rebroadcast of voice is legal.

[jwilkers]

I think if they meant for it to be legal, they would say "operate" instead of "Control". Seems to me, linking would be illegal.

 

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

[quarterwave]

I don't see much of an issue with any of it. Might simplify things a little, doesn't affect me at all from what I can tell. 

[jwilkers]

I think if they meant for it to be legal, they would say "operate" instead of "Control". Seems to me, linking would be illegal.

 

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

Reading into it more....I reverse my previous statement.

 

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk

[SteveC7010]

Doesn't it just figure? My license expires at the end of May '17, and it's highly likely that they'll adopt the 10 year license period sometime in the fall. I'm wondering if I should just let the license expire and re-apply when the new rule goes into effect, or take a chance that they'll include recent renewals.

[WRBK701]

I think it's a pretty good improvement over what we've had for years. It was a long time coming. Guess it's time to dust off the gear after I move. Hi all. Been awhile...

[FrankNY]

Mine wasn't set to expire until mid-July, however I renewed it a couple of days ago, just prior to reading WT Docket No. 10-119.

 

I suspect that the proposed doubling of the license period from five years to ten years will be approved and go into effect about 90 days subsequent to the approval date, but I would also expect that the fee will also be doubled - from $70 to $140 - so I don't think, at least at this time, that I missed out on a potential $70 saving.

 

If one wishes to keep their currently-assigned call sign, I would think that it might be best to not allow their license to lapse.

 

Frank.

 

P.S. I do hope that everyone here has read the FCC Report and Order document by now. MyGMRS.com is mentioned several times therein!

[mainehazmt]

 

P.S. I do hope that everyone here has read the FCC Report and Order document by now. MyGMRS.com is mentioned several times therein!

Well we are good... and a voice of the service... look at all the frequent posters and their skill level

[WQWI871]

I'm kind of one of those lonely friendless guys with no life outside the worldwide web, and, I want to say that receiving the email notifications of new posts in this thread oddly keeps me company.

[JohnE]

 

I'm going to post a formal comment about these draft rules to argue for digital voice and the removal of the non-removable antenna provision. Just about every other rule seems clear and useful in my opinion. They're still muddy on Part 90, but I think they still want the revenue from having to accept Part 95 radios. Doing away with the requirement hurts their revenue stream from the manufacturers.

I have to disagree w/being able to use digital modes on GMRS. my argument being that one can not monitor other traffic on the frequency in digital mode.

I am glad to see the re farming of the GMRS/FRS freq's. hopefully this will keep the crap out of our receivers from here on out. also removing the 50W capability from the interstitial channels should keep the adjacent channel noise to a minimum too. 

as to the GPS location I find this to be a double edge sword, w/respect to being used as a tool in the field or in a situation of dire need all well and good, the cravat is its just another button for the "kids" to play with.

just my thoughts keeping in mid that I am in a large metro area and the majority of the "bubble pack" radios here are used as toys.

JE

[rdunajewski]

I just submitted my comment to the FCC, just waiting for them to approve it and post it on the site. Then I'll share the link. In the meantime, I'm attaching it here so everyone can read what I submitted.

 

I found some inconsistencies in their Report & Order so I tried to drive the point home on a few issues. Overall I am very happy with the rules they proposed as they're a lot simpler when you consider how bad the current set is. They also were thinking about destroying GMRS as we know it, and they backpedaled on virtually all of those ideas. 

 

I re-read their report and they seemed to use the survey I submitted back in 2010 in their decision to continue allowing the repeaters. I think they weren't aware there we so many still in use, and over the past several years there have been many more added to this site. So thank you to all the repeater owners who posted here, that definitely made a difference!

 

I don't think they will really consider many changes if any this close to the meeting (May 18th), but they did release the draft ahead of time so I wanted to fight as hard as I could to sway them in any way possible. If they were going this far with digital data, there was little reason not to allow digital voice in my opinion. Also, the data emissions were limited to bubblepack radios anyway, which is completely unfair.

 

Hopefully we get some of what I asked for, but either way I'm content that the service hasn't been completely trashed like it almost was.

 

I urge everyone else to post a comment, however short it is. The FCC did listen to your prior comments, and the proceeding is still technically open. Feel free to reference my comment, agree or disagree with what I had to say (but please consider the reasons I gave for my opinions before outright disagreeing with them).

 

I believe we have until May 8th to have our comments read by the FCC for this meeting. There seems to be a 10-day sunshine period where they won't consider any new filings before the meeting. So please post a comment ASAP.

 

Click on "+ New Filing" on the left side of the page. Fill out your contact information, optionally your callsign, type is "Comment" or "Reply To Comments", and attach a document (Word, PDF, etc) with your comments:

 

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC&proceedings_name=10-119

FCC Report and Order Comment.docx

[rdunajewski]

Here's the officially posted version:

 

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/105032447715358

[Logan5]

Thank You Rich for your attention to this. We are so fortunate to have you.

[WQPT412]

What is the FCC's link to view all the comments for the part 95 reform of rules?

[rdunajewski]

What is the FCC's link to view all the comments for the part 95 reform of rules?

 

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=10-119&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

[WQPT412]

Thank you.

[WQPT412]

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=10-119&sort=date_disseminated,DESC