Re: [Repeater-Builder] Reminder - GMRS NPRM

[wd8chl]

On 7/6/2010 3:21 PM, Mike Morris wrote:
> Just an FYI reminder on FCC Docket NPRM 10-119 that totally
> restructures GMRS and wipes it out as we know it.
>
> Replies are due the 7th.
>
> That's TOMORROW.
>
> If you have a personal dog in that fight it's time to get moving.
>

Except that as Corwin pointed out the other day, it hasn't been posted 
to the Federal Register yet, so the comment period won't BEGIN until 
that happens, and then there is 30 days after that.
However, putting comments together NOW and sending them in is good-but 
if you were thinking that you don't have time, well, there's at least 30 
days, yet, and actually more...

[Repeater-Builder] Reminder - GMRS NPRM

[Mike Morris]

Just an FYI reminder on FCC Docket NPRM 10-119 that totally
restructures GMRS and wipes it out as we know it.

Replies are due the 7th.

That's TOMORROW.

If you have a personal dog in that fight it's time to get moving.

Major points:

GMRS channels become more FRS channels.

Power goes up to 2 watts on all channels.

Drop all licensing and age limits (can you say 27 Mhz CB-type mess ?)
Any experience you have with unsupervised small children playing
with FRS radios and how that would destroy what GMRS now is would
be helpful.
No licensing also would mean the end of the limits on commercial
businesses usurping or taking over GMRS for business band use.

One of the major points in the Docket is that there will be no more
repeaters - this is a major point to anyone that uses a GMRS repeater.
Everything will be simplex. - and it's a well known fact that UHF
ground-level simplex is useless at over about 30-40 miles due to the
RF horizon and earth curvature.  Back in the 60s the US Army
experimented with troposcatter at VHF and UHF, and discovered
that VHF would work, but UHF would not, even with 10kw at UHF.

No licensing would also result in the end of any meaningful way to
regulate or limit who uses a repeater.  If you operate a GMRS repeater,
or if you are part of a group that sponsors a GMRS repeater
this could destroy your ability to control who uses your system.  It's
vital to make the FCC aware of the absolute necessity for licensing
for shared use of repeaters.

Both call signs and any identification would be eliminated under
the proposed new rules.  But the FCC would still expect GMRS users
to "cooperate in the selection and use of channels, including limiting
communications to the minimum practicable time, to reduce
interference, and to make the most effective use of the facilities."
[Proposed rule 95.103(a).]
Yeah, right. You need to explain to the Commission that coordinating
with others in the absence of any identification is completely
unworkable and totally impractical.  (Note that in paragraphs
19 and 20, the FCC recognizes the importance of facilitating user
cooperation by proposing to continue specifically disallowing
voice scrambling.)

Drop all existing type acceptance - you will have to buy all new radios.

Docket 10-119 discusses somewhat that the development of cellular
telephone has lessened the need for GMRS.  You need to explain
to the FCC the types of communications that GMRS is used for ,
and can not carry out with cellular or any cellular-like system. (For
example communications between 3 or more units at a time or in
areas where cellular coverage is poor or non existent - like after a
disaster.  It's a well known fact to everybody but the Washington 
DC 
bureaucrats that cell phones DO NOT WORK in a disaster.)

More talking / writing points at 




Mike WA6ILQ