What's permitted close to the Canadian Border?

[Fionnbharr]

Howdy, all!

 

So glad the kids have taken to carrying their radios with them when they bike around town and are off with friends; getting the GMRS license is a no-brainer for active families.

 

I'm looking to add a mobile unit to my car -- I'm looking at the Midland MXT400 -- and since we live in a rural area near Lake Erie and the Canadian Border, I'm confused as to what's permitted from a power standpoint North of Line A.

 

Are mobile units limited to 5, 15, or 50 Watts?  Is the MXT400 legal for use if the Power output can be reduced?  Can it be reduced?

 

Aside from well-known frequency restrictions, what are the power requirements north of Line A?

 

Thanks in advance!

[Robinson]

when I lived North of line A as recent as Nov 2016. the rules stated:

 

Effective 2/16/99 the GMRS rules have been amended and you may operate on any of the primary or interstitial channels shown in section 95.29. Exception: Licensees who operate North of Line A and East of Line C may not operate on channels 462.650 MHZ,467.650 MHZ, 462.700 MHZ and 467.700 MHZ unless your previous license authorized such operations.

 

This is clearly stated on my copy of licenses in Waivers/Conditions. 

There appears to be no further restriction on RF power outside of those already existing for the GMRS service.

 

I interpret the rules as saying you are allowed the 50 watts for mobile use.

The terms of base and control stations is changing this summer so please look to the FCC documents and rules outlined. 

[SteveC7010]

Howdy, all!

 

So glad the kids have taken to carrying their radios with them when they bike around town and are off with friends; getting the GMRS license is a no-brainer for active families.

 

I'm looking to add a mobile unit to my car -- I'm looking at the Midland MXT400 -- and since we live in a rural area near Lake Erie and the Canadian Border, I'm confused as to what's permitted from a power standpoint North of Line A.

 

Are mobile units limited to 5, 15, or 50 Watts?  Is the MXT400 legal for use if the Power output can be reduced?  Can it be reduced?

 

Aside from well-known frequency restrictions, what are the power requirements north of Line A?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

James, I just looked up your license, and it contains the same restrictions that Robinson pointed out: Licensees who operate North of Line A and East of Line C may not operate on channels 462.650 MHZ,467.650 MHZ, 462.700 MHZ and 467.700 MHZ unless your previous license authorized such operations. That seems pretty clear to me.

 

If you'll read Part 95a, you will find that there's no limitation on power beyond the standard 50 watts mobile or base, and 5 watts handheld.

 

In the proposal that the FCC just released, they clearly admit that the "small base station" and "small control station" rules are antiquated and no longer apply to today's equipment and operations so any lower power restrictions in that section are meaningless. Those rules were applicable back when you had to list control locations on your 605 application. Since we are no longer required to list specific transmitter locations on GMRS license applications, the low power restrictions can not be applied to us.

[mainehazmt]

Well up here north of the line... I hear no Canadian traffic anyway on ANY freq....but I'm just talking about New Brunswick. Ps I'm 1500' if that from Canada

[Fionnbharr]

The terms of base and control stations is changing this summer so please look to the FCC documents and rules outlined. 

 

Fascinating; I had no idea things were being updated/changing.   Other than slavishly following FCC press releases, would licensees be notified (by email?) of changes to license terms?

[Fionnbharr]

Well up here north of the line... I hear no Canadian traffic anyway on ANY freq....but I'm just talking about New Brunswick. Ps I'm 1500' if that from Canada

 

So long as trees aren't in the way, we've got a clear view of Port Colborne, Ontario due north of us across the lake.

[rdunajewski]

Line A and Line C restrictions were removed from the GMRS rules proposed in the WT 10-119 Report & Order. Next Thursday is the FCC meeting to consider the R&O. GMRS operators still are not allowed to communicate with foreign stations, so I asked the FCC to exclude Canada from this restriction just like they did for CB radio in the same R&O. Basically there is the same service on the Canadian side (slightly different rules, no licenses) so there's no actual interference anymore. Back in the day these frequencies were for public safety and/or business use in Canada so it would have caused problems. Now, it's almost the same service and type of users so there's no reason to keep the ban in effect.

[SteveC7010]

Line A and Line C restrictions were removed from the GMRS rules proposed in the WT 10-119 Report & Order. Next Thursday is the FCC meeting to consider the R&O. GMRS operators still are not allowed to communicate with foreign stations, so I asked the FCC to exclude Canada from this restriction just like they did for CB radio in the same R&O. Basically there is the same service on the Canadian side (slightly different rules, no licenses) so there's no actual interference anymore. Back in the day these frequencies were for public safety and/or business use in Canada so it would have caused problems. Now, it's almost the same service and type of users so there's no reason to keep the ban in effect.

 

Just a short comment that R&O will not go into effect until 90 days after it is accepted by the FCC. I live right on Line A so I've still got .650 and .700 flagged in my radios as a reminder not to use them if I go north. There's very little GMRS traffic to be heard up here anyway.

 

I do wonder if the restrictions will be magically removed from our licenses after the R&O goes into effect.

[mainehazmt]

Line A and Line C restrictions were removed from the GMRS rules proposed in the WT 10-119 Report & Order. Next Thursday is the FCC meeting to consider the R&O. GMRS operators still are not allowed to communicate with foreign stations, so I asked the FCC to exclude Canada from this restriction just like they did for CB radio in the same R&O. Basically there is the same service on the Canadian side (slightly different rules, no licenses) so there's no actual interference anymore. Back in the day these frequencies were for public safety and/or business use in Canada so it would have caused problems. Now, it's almost the same service and type of users so there's no reason to keep the ban in effect.

Across from me they speak a lot of French so I won't be talking to them anyway...

[k2zs]

Line A and Line C restrictions were removed from the GMRS rules proposed in the WT 10-119 Report & Order. Next Thursday is the FCC meeting to consider the R&O. GMRS operators still are not allowed to communicate with foreign stations, so I asked the FCC to exclude Canada from this restriction just like they did for CB radio in the same R&O. Basically there is the same service on the Canadian side (slightly different rules, no licenses) so there's no actual interference anymore. Back in the day these frequencies were for public safety and/or business use in Canada so it would have caused problems. Now, it's almost the same service and type of users so there's no reason to keep the ban in effect.

I just recieved a VXR7000 repeater and duplexer pre-tuned to 462.650/467.650 and live north of Line A. I have the software to re-program the repeater but would have to send the duplexer out for tuning. Are you saying it's ok to use this frequency pair north of line A now? That would be great if I can. My license lists the restriction so I feel bound to that...

[gortex2]

Depending on the type of the duplexer it should work fine on 462.625 with no issues. I tune my "mobile duplexers" to the middle (650) and have all three frequencies in my GR1225 in my Motor home. That way when i get someplace I can change if there is interference on the channel. 

[pilondav]

I know this is an old topic, but I wanted to report on what I researched in case someone else finds this topic in the future.  In the WT Docket No. 10-119 Report and Order released in April 2017, the FCC declined to take up the issue of removing the restrictions on GMRS repeater pairs 462/467.650 MHz and 462/700 MHz inside of Line A.  Therefore the restrictions still stand.  Unfortunately these restrictions are still not well-documented in Part 95A. 

 

When or if the FCC opens a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Part 95A, I would encourage anyone reading this to file comments about removing the Line A restrictions. Previously Canada allocated these frequencies to police service, which clearly justified the restriction.  However, Canada reallocated those frequencies to its FRS band, which reasonably makes these restrictions obsolete.

[BoxCar]

I know this is an old topic, but I wanted to report on what I researched in case someone else finds this topic in the future.  In the WT Docket No. 10-119 Report and Order released in April 2017, the FCC declined to take up the issue of removing the restrictions on GMRS repeater pairs 462/467.650 MHz and 462/700 MHz inside of Line A.  Therefore the restrictions still stand.  Unfortunately these restrictions are still not well-documented in Part 95A. 

 

When or if the FCC opens a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Part 95A, I would encourage anyone reading this to file comments about removing the Line A restrictions. Previously Canada allocated these frequencies to police service, which clearly justified the restriction.  However, Canada reallocated those frequencies to its FRS band, which reasonably makes these restrictions obsolete.

You could also file a petition to have the restriction reviewed. It doesn't have to be a formal document, just a document on the ECFS site stating what you have said here and asking the FCC to review if the restriction is still required. 

[berkinet]

...Unfortunately these restrictions are still not well-documented in Part 95A. 

 

When or if the FCC opens a new Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) on Part 95A, I would encourage anyone reading this to file comments...

You could also file a petition to have the restriction reviewed. It doesn't have to be a formal document, just a document on the ECFS site stating what you have said here and asking the FCC to review if the restriction is still required. 

 

One note... If you do file a petition, it would probably be best to refer to: Rule Part 47 C.F.R, Part 95 Subpart E.  The section numbering was changed in 2017.  And, before doing that, make sure the rule is still there.  It used to be in Part95-A § 95.25 Land station description.  But, I do not see any such reference in the new Part95-E.

[haneysa]

I am looking at the "Line A and Line C" restrictions in part 95E rules. They cite a treaty for the reason for those restrictions. They provide a link to the treaty agreements with Canada. No where in any of the agreements shown on that page do I find an agreement regarding GMRS or FRS frequencies. I know that the Line A and Line C are still shown on the license, but perhaps the actual agreement lapsed or was rescinded, and someone forgot to update the license language? The closest frequencies to GMRS that I found listed were 454-459Mhz and 470-806Mhz. Line A begins 5 miles north of my house, hence the interest. So are these restrictions still in effect?

[axorlov]

10 minutes ago, haneysa said:

I am looking at the "Line A and Line C" restrictions in part 95E rules. They cite a treaty for the reason for those restrictions. They provide a link to the treaty agreements with Canada. No where in any of the agreements shown on that page do I find an agreement regarding GMRS or FRS frequencies. I know that the Line A and Line C are still shown on the license, but perhaps the actual agreement lapsed or was rescinded, and someone forgot to update the license language? The closest frequencies to GMRS that I found listed were 454-459Mhz and 470-806Mhz. Line A begins 5 miles north of my house, hence the interest. So are these restrictions still in effect?

I'm far from Lane A and Line C, but my take on it, if license states the restriction, and this restriction was never specifically rescinded, it is still active. Just two channels lost, should be no biggie.

Line A, B, C detailed description (you're likely aware of it): https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/frequency-coordination-canada-below

For GMRS, my license updated in 2020 still states the restrictions: no transmission on 462.650, 462.700, 467.650, 467.700. There is no mentioning about this restriction in Part 95.

For ham, no transmission in 420-430MHz segment, 97.303(m): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97#p-97.303(m)

 

 

[tweiss3]

33 minutes ago, haneysa said:

I am looking at the "Line A and Line C" restrictions in part 95E rules. They cite a treaty for the reason for those restrictions. They provide a link to the treaty agreements with Canada. No where in any of the agreements shown on that page do I find an agreement regarding GMRS or FRS frequencies. I know that the Line A and Line C are still shown on the license, but perhaps the actual agreement lapsed or was rescinded, and someone forgot to update the license language? The closest frequencies to GMRS that I found listed were 454-459Mhz and 470-806Mhz. Line A begins 5 miles north of my house, hence the interest. So are these restrictions still in effect?

 

6 minutes ago, axorlov said:

I'm far from Lane A and Line C, but my take on it, if license states the restriction, and this restriction was never specifically rescinded, it is still active. Just two channels lost, should be no biggie.

Line A, B, C detailed description (you're likely aware of it): https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/frequency-coordination-canada-below

For GMRS, my license updated in 2020 still states the restrictions: no transmission on 462.650, 462.700, 467.650, 467.700. There is no mentioning about this restriction in Part 95.

For ham, no transmission in 420-430MHz segment, 97.303(m): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97#p-97.303(m)

 

 

Agreed, it is still in effect, especially since it is listed on your license. I'm 1000' north of the line, so it does affect me.