The FCC has recently adopted new rules to enable filing GMRS applications electronically (by computer). This rulemaking docket (WT 98-20, for implementing the "Universal Licensing System") also proposed allegedly to "simplify" the GMRS rules, but actually resulted in making substantial changes in GMRS policy.
Although we've known for nearly a year of the FCC's intent to modify the licensing process, only recently have we come to recognize some of the ramifications of these changes on day-to-day GMRS operations. The new rules, tentatively scheduled to go into effect on February 12, 1999, impose radical and wholly unanticipated (and perhaps unintended) changes, especially on those who are licensed for and currently operate on the GMRS "675 channel" (462.675 MHz and 467.675 MHz). The new rules would effectively prohibit all communications on the 675 channel except for those pertaining to emergencies and traveler assistance!
Many of the changes imposed by the rules adopted in the recent ULS docket probably come from a lack of understanding by current FCC staff of the details of current GMRS rules, procedures and common operating practices. The first suggestion of this lack of understanding was in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making of last March, in which the FCC made the following incomplete and misleading statements:
These may seem like minor inconsistencies, but in combination with subsequent statements, they reflect a lack of appreciation for detail and operational realities.
At paragraph 191 of the Report and Order of last October, the FCC said:
"Currently, a GMRS licensee may use seven 462 MHz interstitial channels, the 426.675 MHz/467.675 MHz nationwide channel pair for emergency communications and traveler assistance, and up to two of seven other GMRS channel pairs. ... Under the all-channel operation plan we adopt, we make all seven channels pairs available to GMRS licensees who are individuals (in addition to the already available interstitial channels and nationwide channel pair), which in turn permits each GMRS system licensee to use the best channel available for its stations at any given time or place." [Emphasis added.]
We assumed that this was again merely a misunderstanding of the current rules. However, the FCC retained certain language of the current 95.29(e) that restricts the use of this channel pair. The current language is:
"Mobile stations in a GMRS system licensed to an individual that is not specifically authorized for the 462.675 MHz/467.675 MHz channel pair may transmit on that channel pair with the following limitations: ..."The new language is:
"Mobile stations in a GMRS system licensed to an individual are authorized to transmit on the 462.675 MHz/467.675 MHz channel pair with the following limitations: ..."
Reflecting on the change in this language (especially to the reference to "seven" channel pairs that we emphasized in the third previous quotation above), we realized that the FCC does indeed intend to limit all use of the 675 channel solely to emergency and traveler assistance communications.
This would constitute a radical change in policy, and would force thousands of current users of the 675 channel pair to change to other frequencies merely to continue to conduct their presently lawful communications.
The new language also makes clear that the FCC thought and intended that the new rules would continue the existing restrictions on non-personal licensees. (More about this immediately below.)
Current FCC staff do not fully understand, appreciate or even sympathize with why the GMRS rules were changed more than a decade ago to limit eligibility and to prohibit further commercial licensing in this personal radio service. Moreover, current FCC staff do not understand how the rules achieve this limitation and how to continue this policy.
At paragraph 190 of the Report and Order of last October, the FCC said:
"For the benefit of PRSG, which opposes any expansion for non-personal licenses under the current rulemaking, we emphasize that we are not changing the Commission's rules with respect to eligibility for GMRS licenses, and we continue to prohibit non-individual licensees from making major modifications to their systems."
Under the current rules, a personal licensee may license for any two of the eight channel pairs. A personal licensee may change channels merely by relicensing for different pairs.
Non-personal licensees may not modify their existing licenses to change channel pairs. The rules as retained and adopted by the ULS docket fail to prevent these grandfathered licensees from changing channels. Under the new rules, commercial users could show up on the same channels as existing personal-use and public-service-use operations, and indeed on the very same repeaters! (Under the new rules, anyone could use anyone else's repeater even without the owner's permission! The FCC is yet further confused about the need for a rule specifically to prohibit such unauthorized use.)
Thus, the FCC's intent to allow personal licensees the capability to change to new operating channels without having to relicense has been inappropriately extended to non-personal licensees. (This is confirmed again by looking at the old and new language proposed for 95.29(e), which we discussed previously.) This is a major change that violates the FCC's policy prohibiting non-personal licensees from making major modifications to their systems.
Throughout the preparation and consideration of the ULS docket, the FCC has been confused.
On Protection of Mobile Operations:
The original proposal failed to maintain long-existing and popularly supported restrictions intended to protect low-power handheld operations from being overrun by high-power land stations. The big losers will be users of handheld radios trying to communicate through a local repeater.
In their comments formally filed in this docket, current GMRS users complained of this loss of protection. The FCC was confused about the need to retain this current requirement, and argued incorrectly (at paragraphs 199 through 201 of the R&O) that they were not removing these protections.
On the Unenforceability of the Rules
At paragraph 187 of the R&O, the FCC argued:
"The rules we are eliminating are largely unenforceable and hortatory" [lawyer-ese for: "merely advisory"].
The FCC is confused about how the GMRS user community promotes self-enforcement. The user community needs these rules, even the "merely advisory" ones, to seek the cooperation of other users. If the user community loses this mechanism of peer enforcement, the FCC could become overwhelmed with complaints.
On the Definition of a Repeater:
The FCC is confused about what a repeater is. They think that what characterizes a repeater is that it simultaneously retransmits signals.
Virtually all repeaters introduce some discernible time delay (even if small). Their retransmissions are not simultaneous in the strict sense. Moreover, with this new definition the FCC remains indifferent to the increasingly popular "time-delay" repeater. (This new style of repeater is much less expensive to build and operate, and the hardware is readily available from any local Radio Shack store. There are some of these new repeaters listed in our GMRS National Repeater Guide.) By defining repeaters as retransmitting "simultaneously" (rather than "automatically," as the current rules do), the FCC essentially exempts all non-simultaneous repeaters (perhaps even all repeaters!) from the rules governing repeater operations.
On the Availability of the Rules:
The FCC is confused about who has and who reads the rules. For the sake of a claimed "administrative efficiency," the FCC has moved rules common to multiple radio services to Part 1.
Under the new rules, you will no longer find rules pertaining to GMRS in the GMRS Rules (Part 95 Subpart A). Now you will have to sort through a completely different set of rules (Part 1, 99.9% of which does not pertain to GMRS) just to find those few niblets that concern GMRS.
The new GMRS Rules will not even cross-reference those other rules now relocated to Part 1.
On the Importance of Clear Station Identification:
The FCC is confused about the importance of clear callsign identification for encouraging cooperation amongst users. At paragraph 207 of the R&O, the FCC is confused about why a callsign must be clearly enunciated. The FCC even believes that somebody might think each letter and each number of a callsign must be made in a separate transmission! [Gimme a break!]
On the Requirement to Keep Station Records:
The FCC is confused about what constitutes stations records, and whether or not the rules should require users to keep these records. At paragraph 207 of the R&O, the FCC believes it has eliminated the requirement for station records, and yet the new rules at 95.33(a)(4) and 95.115 require maintaining these records and providing them on demand to FCC inspectors.
PRSG has filed a "Petition for Reconsideration" with the FCC. In our Petition, we request that the FCC reconsider the new rules in these important problem areas described above. Other GMRS licensees have also submitted petitions to docket WT 98-20. You can view these other petitions on the FCC's ECFS Web site. (Your computer must have the Acrobat software to read files from this ECFS Web site. This software is free for your downloading, as explained on that site.)
PRSG has also requested that the FCC delay implementation of the new rules until it can resolve these problem issues.
We welcome support from others in our request for reconsideration, and for postponing the date of implementation of the rules until the FCC can make that reconsideration. For more information, there is a separate page that describes what you can do.
FCC staff members may belatedly come to recognize some of their confusion and error. On the issue of 675 channel usage, they may even argue that they really just wanted to maintain current rules and policies (and they thought the current rules prohibited non-emergency and non-assistance communications on the 675 channel.)
The public may comment on the various petitions. You may file either paper or electronic comments. The deadline for FCC receipt of your comments will be not sooner than Tuesday, February 23, 1999. Any change in this deadline date will be announced here on the PRSG Web site.
This deadline date was recently extended because the notice in the Federal Register that triggers the comment period was initially published with incorrect information. A corrected announcement will be published in the FR not sooner than Monday, February 8. This corrected announcement will start the 15-day period for public comment all over again.
As with comments on FCC proposals, you must identify yourself, explain your interest in the docket, and supply a valid mailing address. In addition, anyone filing a comment or opposition to a petition must also send a copy of the comment or opposition to the petitioner, and must note in that comment that a copy has been sent. Requirements for filing and commenting upon petitions are in FCC Rule 1.429 (formally: 47 CFR 1.429), which you can review on line.
We will update the PRSG Web site with new information, and post this in our "What's New" link.