Dump GRMS license fee since FRS only radios are not available anymore.
Why should we have to pay $85 for a license to use an FRS radio when all you can buy today is an FRS/GMRS radio that nobody is getting a license for anyway?
Dennis Carr
shared this idea
14 comments
-
Eric
commented
Tim, there are already many frequencies dedicated to license only use. 2m is great and the range is also great. throw in repeaters and it is awesome. the problem, as i see it isfrs
1 - The radios are cheap and easy to get.
2 - The radios have both a FRS GMRS frequency spectrum. the frs than gmrs so people will automatically want to use it.
3 - a lot of the time the license will be more than the radio
4 - policing would be a pain. you dont have call signs so it would be hard to know who the violator is and who is legit.there are other reasons but i'm on a phone and getting tired of typing
either drop the fee, get rid of it, and/or extend the license duration.
-
Bob
commented
I would like to see the license requirement dropped for public volunteer groups such as CERT, ARES, etc. Furthermore, allow licensed amateur radio operators to operate GMRS radios without a GMRS license.
Also, drop the license fee to $10 so it will encourage others to get licensed.
-
Nelson Sievers
commented
I let my GRMS license expire after 5 years because of the fee, especially since I so infrequently use it, and yet it is a useful service at times. Since radio manufacturers are combining FRS bands, it is inevitable that many will ignore the licensing requirement, rendering it unusable where there is a high concentration of users. I propose that the licensing requirement remain intact, but at a lower fee, and that unlicensed users and abusers be prosecuted with stiff fines. Because the FCC hasn't the resources to police the band, it should be monitored by licensees. They in turn should attempt to identify offenders and report them to the FCC . If enough are caught and fined, the word will get out that this is not the new CB band.
-
John Willis Jr
commented
I am a general class HAM. I do not hold GMRS. Since the FCC allowed the service to be corrupted by FRS the fees should be removed. This merger has destroyed a good service. Drop the fees and call it a CB.
-
Stephen
commented
I just made a change.org petition for this, please check it out: http://www.change.org/petitions/fcc-remove-the-licensing-requirement-for-gmrs-two-way-radio
-
Chris
commented
As an amateur radio extra class operator, I have to agree with Eric. $85.00 for five years is a bit extreme. A ham license is $10 and lasts ten years. Since the radios don't cost all that much, it sould not be such a burden. Since the manufacturers have decided to merge GMRS and FRS into the same radio, make a license and fee for FRS as well. If you don't want to pay the fees, use CB walkie talkies. They have better than line of sight propagation and are relatively inexpensive to buy. Everytime the FCC opens bandwidth, it turns out to be a waste of spectrum. Maybe the Commission should enact a test and put in all the regulations in place for these band as well. Nothing like a good ole violation to lighten yor wallet and get your privileges revoked. Since CB is now such a joke let them have that.
-
Tim Dwyer
commented
The GMRS Fee should not be eliminated. Keeping the fee is a benefit to those wishing to use it by slightly limiting access, thus preserving a few frequencies. There are already other license free "services" e.g. CB, FRS, and MURS. The current fee of $85 for a term of 5 years amounts to $17 per year which is far from outrageous, and should not be beyond the reach of anyone who can also afford the equipment to use it. Reserving a few frequencies for more responsible and reliable use is a benefit to the public. Making them free would degrade the overall usability, particularly in heavily populated areas.
-
Dr. Leo Marnell
commented
I concur with the majority view that the fee for gmrs users should be eliminated or substantially reduced. Either that or manufacturers should discontinue selling integrated frs/gmrs radios; not a very practical solution. Whoever allowed this delimma to develop (FCC?) created a predictable trainwreck. I see (and hear) people using gmrs channels all over Montana and I'd be willing to bet 90% of them are unlicensed. Those who believe most people will or should follow the rules (and lay out $85 in the process when so many others refuse to comply) need a reality check. Eighty five dollars is a lot of money for most middle class Americans (if any are still left). Which legislators should one contact to get this mess resolved?
-
Eric
commented
I sell FRS/GMRS and talk about the license requirement for the GMRS part of the radio. People email me asking why I require that when they can go to another site and buy it without the requirement. I tell them that it is required by the FCC not me, and that, no matter where they buy it, they are supposed to get a license. I used to be in ham radio (only a tech no code) and understand why they want it to be licensed. Especially with the longer and longer range that the newer GMRS radios are getting. But how can you put together a non-license Family Radio Service (FRS) that does NOT require a license, and a GMRS radio that does? The word Family implies that kids will be using the radio. Does the FCC really think kids are not going to use the longer range channels just because they shouldn't? Plus these radios are cheap enough that kids can easily afford them, not at all like the expensive radios (relative) you had to buy for ham. The FCC should drop the license requirement or lower the price ($10) and make it 10 years (like my ham license). I would love to see how many of these radios sold last year nationwide and also see the number of FCC licenses that were purchased. Trying to enforce the law would cost the FCC a lot more than just dropping the license!
-
texboyer
commented
I believe that the FCC should reduce the GMRS license fee and then begin enforcing the licensed use of the spectrum.
-
heybuzz
commented
Dropping the GMRS license is a staggeringly bad idea. Unlike the FRS, the GMRS incorporates repeaters with metro-area coverage. Without licenses, interference and on-air competition for spectrum will go out of control. Moreover, it's not clear that GMRS licenses or fees have anything to do with the question posted by the Commission, which is about the FCC.gov redesign.
-
James Compton
commented
I am concerned that by creating another license free service we are creating an atmosphere of entitlement. A sort of nobody cares area, where anything goes. I dislike the idea of an uninformed consumer purchasing a device, baby monitor, cordless phone, ect. And getting all upset when they discover they’ve been broadcasting their private business all over the neighborhood. Many people believe that if they purchase a device they have every right to use it. They never read the Part 15 disclaimers and probably don’t even understand the implications. So if their device is impacting a licensed service, the licensee if forced to educate the consumer and deal with the problem some cheap device caused.
I would support some minimal license fee along with something akin to the old Radio telephone operator’s license. Where the consumer would need to demonstrate some understanding of the FCC rules regarding the use of wireless devices, the problems these devices can cause and their responsibility for the proper operation of the device. Possession of such a license would be then required to purchase any consumer grade wireless device. -
MARTIN D. WADE
commented
Comments about changes to the GMRS systems has been mentioned, the elimination of the fees/elimination of requirements has some pratical use.
-
Nickolaus E. Leggett
commented
I agree with Mr. Carr's comments. The GMRS license fee should be dropped since the service has been merged with the FRS by the equipment manufacturers. It was probably a mistake to allow this to happen. But now that it has been done, we need to move ahead and allow all of this to be license-free. By the way, I do hold a GMRS license myself.
