FRS/GMRS Radio Use at Sugarbush

**ltng92** · 03-06-2006, 07:16 PM

Many skiers are familiar with the two-way radios that many people use to communicate while skiing; however, many of them do not know that the FCC requires users of channels 15-22 to obtain an $80 FCC license before use. These two-way radios are very commonly used by individuals and businesses can be purchased at Radio Shack, Target and Wal-Mart and operate on the FRS (Family Radio Service) as well as the GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service). The FCC designated FRS for use by families, individuals and businesses to communicate over short distances using two-way radios, much like the former 27 Mhz CB radios. FRS channels (Channels 1-14 on most radios) are open to the public and do not require a license to use. Conversely, GMRS channels (Channels 15-22 on most radios) were designated by the FCC for use by licensees due to the higher power exerted by the radios on these channels.

Users of channels 15-22 on FRS/GMRS two-way radios MUST purchase a license and obtain a callsign at risk of a $10,000 fine by the FCC. I visit Sugarbush frequently and constantly hear unlicensed individuals operating on GMRS. For more information, please consult the owners manual which came with your two-way radio or visit www.gmrs.net.tc or wireless.fcc.gov/services/personal/generalmobile.

**Plowboy** · 03-06-2006, 10:31 PM

Does anybody read the owners manual

**Lostone** · 03-07-2006, 07:49 AM

It also says that license is required on the package... which I doubt people look at, either.

But I got my license.

It is too cheap not to bother with, should anyone ever check.

I doubt this will ever rise to the level of checking by the FCC, but should they check, the cost becomes invisible.

Oh... and I read the owner's manual, too.

Total geek.

**daevious** · 03-07-2006, 08:09 AM

Why does the FCC require a license to use these radios?

**Tin Woodsman** · 03-07-2006, 10:37 AM

Seems like unnecessary govt intervention to me. Why should I have to pay to use the airwaves when I'm not exploiting them for personal gain? Try finding me if I use those channels. Good luck.

**freeheel_skier** · 03-07-2006, 01:20 PM

A friend of mine works at a outdoor co-op. He always has customers buying GMRS radios. He says that 60% (conservative) of the people who buy these radios never intend to buy an FCC license. If the FCC is so concerned about governing the GMRS, make it so you need a license to purchase one of these radios. Not the other way around. It almost seems like they are encouraging illegal use of the GMRS the way it is set up now.....my worthless .02!

**ltng92** · 03-07-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by daevious

Why does the FCC require a license to use these radios?

Originally Posted by Tim Woodsman

Seems like unnecessary govt intervention to me. Why should I have to pay to use the airwaves when I'm not exploiting them for personal gain? Try finding me if I use those channels. Good luck.

http://www.gmrsweb.com/gmrsfaqa.html

Read the answer to the 5th question

**ltng92** · 03-07-2006, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by freeheel_skier

A friend of mine works at a outdoor co-op. He always has customers buying GMRS radios. He says that 60% (conservative) of the people who buy these radios never intend to buy an FCC license. If the FCC is so concerned about governing the GMRS, make it so you need a license to purchase one of these radios. Not the other way around. It almost seems like they are encouraging illegal use of the GMRS the way it is set up now.....my worthless .02!

I agree with you. I'm surprised that this hasn't been done yet.

**castlerock** · 03-08-2006, 08:32 AM

95%+ have no intention of getting an FCC license for the GMRS band, me included. (and I am probably in the "most likely to apply" group due to demographics and the fact I am an RF engineer)

The reason that the license isn't required for purchase is: There would be no purchase if it was! Trust me, Motorola has people all over the FCC and they weren't about to allow a mandatory licensing process for this frequency. People aren't going to fork over $80 to use something they spent $50 on!

If there was a real need for licensing, there would be real licensing. As I read the well crafted text on "why licensing is good" I was impressed that so many creative, but intangible benefits could be conjured up. But in reality there is no licensing required. They should just end the charade.

**Tin Woodsman** · 03-08-2006, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by ltng92

Originally Posted by daevious

Why does the FCC require a license to use these radios?

Originally Posted by Tim Woodsman

Seems like unnecessary govt intervention to me. Why should I have to pay to use the airwaves when I'm not exploiting them for personal gain? Try finding me if I use those channels. Good luck.

http://www.gmrsweb.com/gmrsfaqa.html

Read the answer to the 5th question

I read it, and I still call BS. I'm not some wahoo interfering with legit enterprises or activities. I'm just trying to keep in touch with friends and family within a 5 mile radius. If the FCC was really serious and concerned about this, then either the license would be required at the point-of-sale or they would mandate that those radios can't access channels 15-22. Since they've done neither, I have a hard time understanding why I should go out of my way to comply when my activities impact a grand total of no one and are not for commercial/financial gain.

Regardless, what's the difference between licensed users utilizing these channels for weekend skiing and unlicensed users doing so? How exactly does this create additional, if any, chaos? It's a ridiculous statute and state of affairs, and happens to be quite unenforceable. I applaud your efforts to keep the limited bandwidth we have free of interference etc.., but the skiing population who uses GMRS radios is really the wrong group to be targetting with this information campaign. I think most people will just laugh at it.

**ltng92** · 03-08-2006, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman

Regardless, what's the difference between licensed users utilizing these channels for weekend skiing and unlicensed users doing so? How exactly does this create additional, if any, chaos?

In most cases, licensees display better operating behavior over the air and are easily recognizable by their callsign usage and professional operating protocol. Licensees are educated about GMRS. Licensees wouldn't normally sing or yell over the radio and they typically don't use the annoying "call" bells (which I heard a lot of on GMRS during my trip to Sugarbush).

I am fed up with unlicensed users on GMRS at ski resorts. You claim that this is unenforceable; however, I disagree. Thanks to a newly formed organization called the PRA (Personal Radio Association), GMRS enforcement is becoming stricter. If you visit www.praweb.org, you can see a list of a few people who were penalized by the FCC for illegal use of GMRS. During my trip to Sugarbush, I also got on the air a few times and spoke to the unlicensed users. Most were actually very cooperative and moved to an FRS channel.

GMRS licensing is very necessary. Unfortunately, FRS/GMRS radios were marketed incorrectly, and the PRA is working to discontinue the sale of FRS/GMRS radios to the public. I strongly urge you to abide by the law and join the millions of other GMRS licensees.

**ltng92** · 03-08-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by castlerock

People aren't going to fork over $80 to use something they spent $50 on!

Not true!

Although I must admit that there is little respect for GMRS licensing in this country, there are millions of people who have chosen to abide by the law and get their license. I cannot stress the importance of licensing enough!

**Abe Froman** · 03-08-2006, 05:10 PM

I am sorry. I read everything and just don't get it! I DON'T GET IT! Maybe it is just me and people like me who abuse this service. I don't understand why you need a license to use GMRS? If the gov't thinks it is so important to regulate, then they should require a license at the point of purchase. Otherwise, don't complain!

Also, it appears that there are approx. 87k licenses are out there(total including expired). Not millions. That was according to the pra link provided.

**Tin Woodsman** · 03-08-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by ltng92

In most cases, licensees display better operating behavior over the air and are easily recognizable by their callsign usage and professional operating protocol. Licensees are educated about GMRS. Licensees wouldn't normally sing or yell over the radio and they typically don't use the annoying "call" bells (which I heard a lot of on GMRS during my trip to Sugarbush).

So again, who exactly is this impacting or harming, given the extremely short range of these radios? It might be annoying to you as a hobbyist, but is there any actual harm done here?

I am fed up with unlicensed users on GMRS at ski resorts. You claim that this is unenforceable; however, I disagree. Thanks to a newly formed organization called the PRA (Personal Radio Association), GMRS enforcement is becoming stricter. If you visit www.praweb.org, you can see a list of a few people who were penalized by the FCC for illegal use of GMRS. During my trip to Sugarbush, I also got on the air a few times and spoke to the unlicensed users. Most were actually very cooperative and moved to an FRS channel.

Good luck finding and fining me. Unless we're on the chairlift together, you simply have no hope of enforcing this statute (not that you personally could anyway). Even if it were enforceable, it's hard to imagine a less important use of taxpayer dolars than to pursue unauthorized users of channels 15-22 at ski resorts. Do you realize what a PR debacle this would be for the enforcing agency?

GMRS licensing is very necessary. Unfortunately, FRS/GMRS radios were marketed incorrectly, and the PRA is working to discontinue the sale of FRS/GMRS radios to the public. I strongly urge you to abide by the law and join the millions of other GMRS licensees.

I have yet to see any convincing argument that licensing those Talkabouts is necessary or important. Your point on marketing is the only thing I've seen here with validity. Perhaps the FCC should work with Motorola and its competitors to ensure that products for professional (licensed) and recreational (unlicensed) are separate. Alas, that isn't the case today and absent such changes, this seems like a strangely Quixotic quest.