Buy Two Way Radios
› Cobra
› Garmin
› Kenwood
› Midland
› Motorola
› Olympia
› Uniden
› BlackBox
› Hytera
› Icom
› Kenwood
› Midland
› Motorola
› Olympia
› Vertex Standard
› Accessories
› Articles
› Base Stations and Repeaters
› CB Radios
› General
› Ham Radios
   › Baofeng
   › Tytera
   › Wouxun
› Intercoms and Call Boxes
› Marine Radios
› Mobile Radios
› News
› Special Offers
› Two Way Radio Show Podcast
› Two Way Radios
   › Business Radios
     › BlackBox
     › Icom
     › Kenwood
     › Midland
     › Motorola
     › Olympia
     › Vertex Standard
   › Consumer Radios
     › Cobra
     › Garmin
     › Kenwood
     › Midland
     › Motorola
     › Olympia
     › TriSquare
     › Uniden
› Videos
   › Radio 101
› Weather Radios

› November 2017
› October 2017
› September 2017
› August 2017
› July 2017
› June 2017
› More...

Blog Resources
› RSS Feed
› Two Way Radio Show RSS Feed

FCC eliminates GMRS regulatory fee

The FCC has eliminated the regulatory fee required to obtain a license for the GMRS.
In a Report and Order released May 21, 2015 as part of the FCC's notice of proposed regulatory fees for fiscal year 2015, the commission issued a Report and Order to eliminate the regulatory fee for the General Mobile Radio Service effective this year.

The fee, which was previously assessed at $5 per year, added $25 to the total cost of a GMRS license, which has a term of five years. While it does not eliminate the cost of a license altogether, the complete elimination of the regulatory fee brings the total cost of a General Mobile Radio Service license from $90 down to $65.

According to the FCC, the fee simply wasn't worth the cost. in the Report and Order, the commission stated:
"After analyzing the costs of processing fee payments for GMRS, we conclude that the
Commission's cost of collecting and processing this fee exceeds the payment amount of $25. Our costs have increased over time and now that the costs exceed the amount of the regulatory fee, the increased relative administrative cost supports eliminating this regulatory fee category."

The GMRS license required two fees, the application fee and the FCC regulatory fee. The total cost of a GMRS license has risen through the years, mostly due to automatic, scheduled increases in the application fee. In 2014 the total cost of a GMRS license rose again, from $85 to $90. The cost of a GMRS license is currently greater than the cost of most higher end GMRS radios for which the license is required to operate, and more than double the cost of an entry level radio.

The disproportionately high cost of GMRS licensing compared to other types of radio service licenses and to the GMRS radio equipment itself has been a growing complaint among GMRS users, and is a primary reason why many who are aware of the license requirement do not purchase one.

The FCC, acknowledging the problem, gave it as another reason to remove the fee. "Once eliminated, these licensees will no longer be financially burdened with such payments and the Commission will no longer incur these administrative costs that exceed the fee payments.", the commission added in the report.

This is not the first time the FCC has considered the costs and caveats of licensing the GMRS. In 2010, the commission proposed to do away with the requirement for individual licensing altogether and instead license by rule. However, backlash from the community of licensed GMRS users helped stall the decision and as the FCC has since noted on their web site, "the proposal is still pending".

Is the elimination of the GMRS regulatory fee the beginning of the end of the individual GMRS license requirement? If not, will the application fee remain and continue to rise automatically on its own until it even surpasses the previous $90 fee?

Tell us what you think. Enter your comments below.


In my opinion, I think the only bands that should be paid licenses should be amatuer radio and commercial bands! Iam a amatuer radio operator, and my thoughts are, if you can by the gmrs/FRS radios at any retail store, then a license should not be a requirement. Gmrs is another reliable resource just like the ham bands are, so what iam getting at, if the radios are purchase able anywhere, and families wanted to use them, that would be illegal use, so why make them pay for a safety reason!

no fee

I'm happy to see this. GMRS should remain a licensed service, and by lowering the fees, maybe we will soon see more people willing to obtain a license and more people willing to install GMRS repeaters in areas like we have in Southern Oregon. Check out to see just how many GMRS repeaters are active in this country, and see the advantages to keeping GMRS licensed with the ability to have both GMRS repeaters and Mobile Radios with up to 50 watts of power.

People should also check and see which commercial UHF radios are in fact Part 95 certified. Many Kenwood, Motorola, Midland, and Icom radios have carried part 95 certification for a long time unknown to most amateur and GMRS users.

If people do not wish to get a license, then the FRS, and interstitial FRS/GMRS frequencies offer that at .5 watts with inexpensive radios readily available at many large chain stores across the nation.

It is idiotic for the FCC to require a $65 or $90 license to operate a GMRS radio that costs less for a pair than it does for a license. You can buy these radios anywhere, with no restrictions. You can use them anonymously and never face any kind of penalty. The license does not guarantee that operators will follow any known rules, any more than it does for the Amateur Radio community. The difference between GMRS and Amateur Radio is that Amateur Radio operators can operate up to 1500 watts, enough power to do physical harm to other people, and disrupt radio communications around the world. A handheld GMRS radio cannot. You're lucky to talk five miles. Too bad for the folks who shelled out money for a license. It's no different than the amateur radio operators who are angry because the Morse Code requirement went away. Things change. Fees go up. Fees go down. Life moves forward. I can't understand why the folks who make GMRS radios are not the ones lobbying heavily AGAINST licensing. I would buy a pair of their radios if there were no license requirement. But since my Amateur license was much cheaper and I can communicate much farther, I'll wait until there is no license.

This is a good decision. I live in a very rural area with few ham radio operators for emergencies. Many people including my wife, have no interest in getting her ham license. GMRS is a good alternative for rural ares with few resources.

You know there is no fee for an Amateur Radio License, right? It's free . . .

Also, as of 6/18 FCC is still charging this fee, so the article jumped the gun a bit. It's going to take a while for it to trickle into effect.

Is this real?

Ham radio is not an expensive license, but it is not free. The most important thing about the radio is the test you must take to get the right to talk on these frequencies. HAM radio is a great resource. We need to keep it a licensed service with an exam to get in. GMRS is also a great service but everyone can get a radio very cheaply and there are no test to get the license. The license should be absolutely free.

John Willis KC5EVC

Years ago CB Radio required a license but the channels rapidly became useless due to abuse. I predict FRS & GMRS will end up the same. What really scares me is now that inexpensive Chinese transceivers that operate on several Amateur Bands are available to ANYONE, this will infect the ham frequencies and we will spend most of our time tracking down illegal stations rather than enjoying decent worldwide communication. Drop the fees BUT enforce the rules this time so everyone can use the airwaves! Make the penalties so severe that it isn't worth violating the rules.

The FCC does not charge for ham radio licenses. Until this fall, there is an FCC fee for vanity calls, but that is going away and other than that the license is free.

There is a fee allowed to be charged for the Volunteer Exam Coordinators for administration of the license exam to cover the expense of processing the test and application. Most, but not all, VEC's charge this fee to sit for an exam.

Once you pass the exam, the FCC issues the license for free and renewals are free if you do them yourself with the FCC.

Doesn't make sense, who cares about $25, I thought the purpose was to allow people to use a 1 or 2 watt bubble pack without getting a license.

This did not solve anything, do you really think someone is going to buy their kid a walkie talkie for $20 and pay $65 for the license.

$95 is fine for getting to use 50 watts of power, but to pay $65 to talk around the block.

Others are saying no fee for using ham radio, how many thousands of watts they can use for free and you have to pay to use 1 watt.

What a waste of tax payer money to talk it over for years and then to not do anything at all. You will not see a license increase just because it got reduced by $25

I'll stick with CB Radio, you can talk farther on that frequency than you can with a bubble pack GMRS radio.

There is a gmrs repeater that, I use, it is at 9000' between two valleys. It will communicate as far as the 2m and 70cm repeaters that are on the same ridge/mtn. Yes there are amateur freqs that will allow more distant comms when, the conditions are right. But, at uhf, gmrs will communicate just as far as amateur.... Keep the license! I hold Amateur and GMRS licenses as, do many others in my area.

No fees! But limit repeaters in metro areas.

Make the application an online form: You fill in the requested information and within seconds the FCC's Web site emails you the automatically-generated license form, which you can print on your own printer, cut out, laminate and put into your wallet on your own dime. All fees can go away, or at least be reduced to a small, nominal amount. If any application fee is charged for the online application, it could be a small, nominal amount, such as $10, or less, payable online with a credit card or PayPal.

Only if someone is computer-impaired and cannot complete the process online should a substantial application fee be charged to defray the cost of someone physically handling a mailed-in form and having to key in the information.

I'm really glad the fee has been reduced, but I think it should have been lowered much more. I'm going to omit discussion about the "bubble pack" issue, and just mention that we ought to be very careful that we don't push the FCC to get rid of the service all together. The FCC charges premiums for bandwidth, bandwidth which is only going to grow in demand.

The GMRS service is unique in the USA and we should keep it that way, 5W on some channels, 50W on others, and repeaters! Not to mention you can adjust antennas. Oh and it can be used for business related purposes (within licensee)

As a GMRS repeater user I am very interested in keeping this service alive, given that it is a family license makes it perfect for those not wanting Ham Radio licenses but still have interest. GMRS is a unique service, lets protect it. I agree with a license, but think we should do a 10 year license like ham radio and reduce the fee to as low as we can.

That is what the licenses is for. Any Radio above .5watts which is the max a GMRS radio can transmit on without a licenses, which is why you don't need a license to operate one that you buy from walmart, but if i wanted to use a highpowered gmrs radio or even a 50watt mobile GMRS radio then i would need the license. But i see you have a Call Sign for Amituer radio i ass-u-me you knew this and i may be wrong on my part, Square me away if i am thanks

There should be no license requirements for GMRS usage. Why was there a fee imposed in the first place? There is no test or exam requirements to operate the radio. Makes no logical sense to pay for a license????

I see no problem with licensing the GMRS service. If it is not licensed, it will become overly crowded with abusers just as the 11 meter band has become. I have no problem paying the $65 application fee for the ability to use this bandwidth.

I am a HAM and GMRS user. I'm in Northern California where PAVE PAWS has shut down the 440 MHZ or 70CM band. The only alternative is 220MHZ or GMRS. Some have gone to GMRS. My suggestion is do away with licenses for the "Bubble Pack" radio's that kids use or mom and pop use camping. It is a joke to even pay $65 for a license for those. For repeater users that transmits long distances the License is fine in my opinion. The radio's needed for repeater operation are far more expensive and detailed than just a couple radio's a Big 5. It isn't enforced anyway. Sure they can use the FRS side of the radio but who does? I hear plenty of families using GMRS without any license. In my opinion it was a mistake to create FRS/GMRS radio's.

Back in the 70's, CB radio was a licensed service that got so big the FCC could barely keep up with license demand among other issues concerning CB radio so the FCC deregulated or stopped the requirement for CB radio license. The FCC knew "IMO" that by deregulation the user's of the service would ruin the CB radio band because of silliness from non licensed operators. And that's exactly what happened. The band was not fit to use any more. We had 8 uhf channel pairs available for use in the GMRS band back when business were aloud to obtain a license for a channel
pair and a spare , Radio's were of commercial grade ie. Uniden built the SMU300k series at 30 watt's of power, Motorola had there versions, Midland, GE, etc. Most were mobils and repeater packages allowing 50 watts maximum power output. This allowed for a very clean usable signal
and was governed by the license requirements and restrictions.Then the FCC was lobbied by the Tandy Corporation and subsequently Radio Shack for a change from business class license to an individual or family level license and the business license was stopped by the commission.
Tandy now floods the market with FRS very low power walkie talkie family radio service UHF frequency radios. Next comes the combination of FRS GMRS low end radios for sale/use on the GMRS band at higher power allocations including license applications knowing full well that most will never fill out let alone pay for a license that illegal operation of said equipment will most assuredly not be able to be tracked .Now the original license ees that have invested in good equipment and put up stations legally including repeaters which are allowed for family use are having to deal with hundreds of non-licensed cheap GMRS FRS radio users which always show up on the Licensed part of the GMRS band rather than using the FRS side of the band. We have no way of tracking a blatant violation or malicious interference . Thanks Tandy Corporation, I'm pretty sure they have made lots of money at the expense of the legally licensed and thanks FCC for always caving into special interest. The honest people get the shaft again!

I cannot believe that you are a HAM. With all of the public service and emergency communications that HAM's do, you want to charge them for a license on top of it?

David William,

You're parroting the breathless PSRG who blames all ills on Tandy. But Tandy has nothing to do with the problems GMRS faces.

Tandy did (with the backing of Motorola et al, mind you) propose FRS. And everything Tandy promised about FRS has been true: the original FRS radios and users didn't harm the GMRS at all. I recall when the FRS radios came out. By design their transmitters and antennas couldn't propagate a signal outside a very small area. They also shared only half of the GMRS channels (the simplex channels at reduced power and deviation, putting them at an enormous disadvantage to GMRS users on those channels), and none of the GMRS repeater input or output channels.

To the extent that anyone is to blame for the rampant flaunting of GMRS licensing and operating regulations, it is the FCC, who blithely created rules that they had neither the ability nor the intention to enforce.

And if it were true that manufacturers contributed to this problem, guess who was conspicuously absent (in any effective way) as a source of these cheap high-power GMRS/FRS bubble-pack radios? Tandy/Radio Shack.

No, it was the companies that you speak of fondly, namely Motorola, Uniden, and Midland, who opened the floodgates with the cheap high-power bubble-pack GMRS radios that the people have used to take over the GMRS, and the sheer popularity has overwhelmed the FCC's ability to enforce the rules (or even track abuses). But are you suggesting that the FCC should make sure that useful radios are not affordable? How in the world would you suggest that that promotes the public interest?

GMRS' growing pains are indeed similar to what happened to 27MHz Citizen's Band in the '70s. But you have the cause and effect wrong: in both CB and GMRS, massive popularity of the service overwhelmed the FCC -- the "silliness" you speak of was committed both before and after the FCC gave up policing CB, and it's going to be the same with GMRS. The only difference is that with CB, the FCC was forced to admit that licensing did nothing to help policing and was merely red tape routinely ignored by both honest citizens and malicious antisocials alike, whereas they have simply not yet admitted the same thing about GMRS.

But what's really got your pants in a bind is that as a result of GMRS' exploding popularity, you've lost something you never had a right to in the first place: exclusivity. You felt that by paying your GMRS licensing fee, you had a right to keep others off of "your" channels. Or at least, keep enough of them off that you didn't have to notice that you share the airwaves. You'd be just as annoyed if millions of lawfully-licensed GMRS users were occupying "your" channels. But the truth is that you never had the right to empty channels to use as your own. You just got to pretend that you did while GMRS was relatively unknown.

In implementing the FRS, the FCC wasn't caving to Tandy's corporate greed. They were recognizing that the public at large had just as much right to a useful section of the radio spectrum as the elitist GMRS users like you.

What followed was that the masses, recognizing how useful UHF FM radios are, wanted more capability than FRS gave them. More specifically, they wanted what people in several other countries (think Europe's PMR446 and Australia's UHF CB) already had: handheld radios with practical range and reliability. So they turned to your precious GMRS.

In retrospect Tandy asked the FCC for too little. The FCC should have simply split GMRS in half, and allowed half of the channels to be a genuine modern unlicensed UHF FM CB service with around 5-10W power limit, and the other half to be a strongly-enforced UHF BRS with allocations, fees, and other such regulations. Then the people like you who want to keep "their" channels to themselves could have paid for the privilege in elevated licensing fees and expensive low-volume radios, and the public could have had the useful and modern radio service it demanded. The public is going to take it anyway once they know it's there (they already have), and there's nothing the FCC can do about it.

Nor should it: the FCC answers to the American public, not the other way around. If it recognizes that, and gets off its butt, the FCC can at least enforce effective type-acceptance rules so GMRS radios are of decent quality and have fair power limitations to minimize the impact to other nearby radio services. But that's really all you can reasonably expect.

Arguably, had the PSRG been more reasonable, and willing to work with those who wanted a more "democratic" unlicensed UHF service, everyone might have gotten enough of what they wanted to be happy. But no, from the beginning the PSRG and GMRS licensees wanted the bulk of the 460MHz pie to themselves. Well, now they have to share everything they had with the proles.

You can still get a license and radios that allow you a degree of exclusivity. Go get a part 90 LMR license and assignment on UHF or VHF frequencies. What, you don't like the fact that you can't tell your friends to go to Walmart and get a $25 radio to talk to you on "your" channels? Take the bad with the good. Then buy a bunch of $30 Chinese part-90 radios, program them to your licensed frequencies, loan them to your friends when they need them, and move on.

Or, said less snarkily, maybe the FCC should abandon all of GMRS to license-free use, but outlaw repeaters. Then, make it much easier for existing GMRS repeater operators to coordinate and license frequencies in the UHF and VHF LMR pool. I suspect that is behind some of the noise from the FCC that they are considering a future ban on repeaters and new limits on power and antennas, and why those changes, unpopular as they may be with long-time GMRS licensees like you, may be the best thing the FCC can actually offer you.

One parting thought. When you say "Tandy" and "lobby" in the same breath with such obvious distain, you really need to be slapped with a little reality: What is PSRG?

A lobbyist organization.

What's the fuss ? I hear nothing on the GRMS for FRS frequencies, and it doesn't look like there is any real interest. Where Amateur Radio continues to grow (thanks to no code requirement that served no purpose other than to discourage), GRMS and FRS will continue to fade like some hairstyle fad. I have a couple walkies but they only serve in limited situations such as when my wife and I relocated talking from vehicle to vehicle. Otherwise these walkies sit in the closet waiting for their next long in the future use.

So I was just on the FCC GMRS page ( ) which was last updated Dec of 2015 and it appears to me that the maximum power for GMRS is now limited to 5 watts. Nowhere does it mention repeaters or the 50 watt limit which I understood to be the ERP limit for a GMRS station. Is this a change or am I missing something? Hmmmm. Anyone? ~Tom: WQLE490

Eliminate the license. It would be impossible to locate and prosecute every single GMRS operator without a license. Furthermore, even those with a license don't always broadcast their call signs. Therefore, how does the FCC know if the person broadcasting is indeed licensed?

I'm a licensed ham and eliminating the license agreement may possibly get others interested in radio. Yes there is that undesirable "element", like in CB, who do really stupid things on the air. However, we should be trying to introduce people into radio instead of people just using their cell phones to chat (yes, actually radio transmissions).

As a new ham am a little confused. Do licensed ham need to get a separate license for gmrs other than frequencies shared with frs?

Not much to add to all of the comments...
I've been a Ham since the late 70's.
I was a licensed CB operator until the license was no longer required.
I was licensed in CB Class A before it became GMRS.
I let that license lapse during some tough financial times.
We had a GMRS repeater in South Bend throughout the 80's.
I would renew it if it were $25, just to be able to be legal, but I'd not pay more than that.
A small fee might prevent frequency congestion by keeping down the number of applicants. FRS still works well for short range traffic. As someone else mentioned, there's little enforcement in GMRS licensing, it's just a money-maker. Automate it and cut the cost way down for those of us who feel a need to be legal.

I think when John Willis said that the ham license wasn't "free", he meant that there was a cost involved with getting one and that cost was having to pass a test.

I do have a question, is this 100% true? I just entered the FCC site and it still indicates on reports as of December 2015 that there is a $65 fee.

I am in favor of no charge, but I do think all GMRS users must be licensed and/or registered. This will keep the frequencies more cleaner, give some space for illegal activities prosecution and give the FCC a measure of how the system gets crowded over time.

Thanks Rick, I did not understand that part completely. Thanks for clarifying the point.

They will eventually drop the license requirement just like they did for CB and Marine radios. They are just waiting until I pay my money.

I wouldn't pay half the current cost as it is. I'm certainly not going to pay $90, $85, $65, or anything above $25. The fee shouldn't be that high. There's no justification for it. Furthermore, if you're going to charge a fee and require a license for the frequency, then manufacturer's should be required to take them off the shelves. As it is, I returned my radios because no where on the package did it say I required a license. Instead, I had to open the pack and read the manual that stated that.

I don't see a point of having a gmrs license if I'm only using it to talk up to 2 miles and not use a repeater. I mean do I really need a gmrs license if I'm using a handheld radio and not planning on going through a repeater.

I'm a licensed ham radio operator and believe the the fees associated with my ham radio are appropriate. That said, why would I purchase $50 FRS/GMRS radios when I'm expected to pay $65 FCC license fee. (just checked on the FCC website today 06/16/2016). Here is the deal, anybody can go to any electronics store, hell grocery store for that matter, and buy these radios with zero knowledge that they have to be licensed. If I wasn't a licensed Ham I wouldn't know that I need to get a license. I want to buy these for my teenaged kids to be in contact with me during a camping trip, but the fee is just plain absurd. Makes more sense to purchase some cheap CB handhelds. (If anybody has used a CB then you know that your range is significantly greater).

Plain and simple, the FCC needs to chalk this one up to being too reactive. There are way to many citizens running around using the FRS/GMRS radios without a license to police. These radios should fall under the same prevue as CB & MURS and be license free.

I believe that the GMRS license fees should be eliminated or greatly as there are so many of those GMRS/FRS Radios being sold any many folks are clueless. After all the average person that purchase these radios for a kids walkie-talkie or community emergency services (CERT) looks and the manual and sees "FCC blah, blah, blah" and says I do not care. I just want to know how I use this stupid thing. Also consider the following, it may have been a child's gift, or a CERT team may have provided/suggested radios to its members for use in case of disaster.

Case in point I was talking to the president of a local CERT team that told me they simply decided to use channel 2 (462.5875) on the radios that the team provided. He informed me that he was not aware it was a licensed service and would talk to his communications person. Also note, this team has NO licensed hams. Time for me to put on my volunteer instructor hat and teach a class so that any interested parties can get a HAM ticket. (there is interest in the team)

Having free/reduced license or a free individual/group license for emergency service (CERT) would then make it so much easier for other volunteer Emergency Service groups to pickup the radios and start using them for aid in a disaster. This exposure could lead to more people becoming interested in Amateur radio. After all in a real disaster they may indeed be interacting with HAMS to support the event. At the same time we need to keep the Amateur License fees where it is at otherwise that could drive people away from wanting to use Ham radio, and everybody that is a ham has to admit we are crucial in times of a disaster.
Arguments to reduce or eliminate the FMRS fees.
- No test is required
- There are so many FRS/GMRS radios out there
- Very Few People read the manuals.
- Radios are cheap and given to kids as Walkie-talkies
- FRS is license free
- CB is license free (it used to require a license)
- Higher power great for disaster use, your team may be scattered
- Introduction to radios may lead to interest in ham radio.

Arguments against having it be free
- Brings in to many abusers to the air (but many do not know it is a licensed service)
- For existing user base... I have been paying for a license for years, this is not fair.
- I have an established repeater I do not want just anybody using it!
- other?

I could go on but will leave it here for folks to chew on.

Who cares? The bigger question is why shouldn't Part 90 certificated radios be allowed on GMRS and why can't digital voice emissions also be used? Other than nosy eavesdroppers and snoops, who else would be effected by F1E emissions on GMRS? As it is, you can speak any language you want - our frequencies sound like Mexico in my state - so why can't you use digital, like you can on Part 90?

If GMRS is for families and individuals to communicate, then why does the pedophile up the road need to listen to us in analog?

The fee should be eliminated or reduced to a nominal level. All of the fears about what would happen if GMRS became an unlicensed service are groundless because GMRS already IS an unlicensed service! Probably 95% of GMRS users do not have licenses, and probably 90% of them don't even know they are supposed to have a license. Whatever is going to happen to GMRS repeaters because of unlicensed users has already happened. Lowering the fee greatly would increase the number of licensed users and provide the FCC with an opportunity to educate users about the proper use of the GMRS service.

For any penalty to be a deterrent it must be sever, swift and certain. Unfortunately our rules and regulations do not meet this in America, this is to protect our liberties.

The cost of the GMRS license shown here are wrong. I just bought mine and it was $70.00 and I got my license in about 10 hours if not less. One thing is you have to register with FCC first with no cost.

I like the fact you can run up to 50 watts. With the right antenna you can reach out a good distance.


Amateur Radio licenses are indeed free except for club licenses. The VEC's charge an exam fee of free to $15. I have been involved with over 3,000 exams through the Laurel VEC and every exam and license was free. Note only the W5YI and ARRL are club license managers so their fees apply.

As a ham, I wanted to get my GMRS license as an extra resource, but would be more apt to apply if the fee was, say, $25 payable online with any major card, AND good for TEN YEARS, instead of only 5.

Just bought the GMRS license. The price is now $70.
About the same as taking a couple of kids to the movies or treating a couple friends to lunch. .. Horrific.
Having said that, I feel the fee is a bit high but the licensing leads to (or should anyway) a much better understanding of the rules and regs.
Considering what you will pay for a commercial site license and the associated equipment, this is a screaming bargain. And yes you can use these bands for your business. The fact that the FCC made this available and organized it in the first place is another example of why we live in the best country on the planet.
Stop whining and enjoy what your taxes are paying for.

I agree. w4lgw

As a trained CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) instructor/member, I expect to work on channel 18.0. CERT is a fully volunteer program sponsored by FEMA. Charging for a license to operate a device that everyone hopes will not be needed adds to the already burdensome costs of properly equipping myself for community emergency response. I strongly favor eliminating this fee.

If there was any kind of training/testing involved use of a GMRS device then, perhaps, a license would make sense. Since the license requirement is merely a lip service registration of untrained and unregulated individuals, the license requirement is totally useless. There are no enforceable standards for GMRS use and no auditing of user knowledge or skills. There is no purpose to the license.

As an active licensed Amateur Radio operator I advocate eliminating the GMRS license, and folding the GMRS regulations in with those for FRS. Some of the frequencies are shared, so OTHER THAN THE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS NEAR THE CANADIAN BORDER I see no issue. Abuse by miscreants should not increase.
Current GMRS licensees should let go of their resentment at paying in the past. Free is better for everybody, and it saves government expense!

Generally speaking, C.B. aka 11m band, at the,legal limit of 5watts and a 102" whip, is limited to around 20 miles, with skip carrying further.

Comercial GMRS can push that distance easily.

I agree with Sammie Smith. The fee for an amateur license is only $15. How is the higher cost for a GMRS license justified? A license fee and a test of knowledge similar to the amateur radio license would be appropriate and enforceable.

Now that I have a TYT MD390 that is GMRS capable. I'm considering renewing a very very old GMRS license. I think that either the FCC or an independent organization should keep track of users like on DMR and D Star. I think it should be free, however costs are what they are for labor so up to $25.00 for10 years for administration fees would be ok.

U people need to get a realty check. Ham radio license fees. Give me a break. Gmrs should be fee to. The FCC is not enfirxung either bands. All these opinions here are worth what u pay to get them. NOTHING

We will be travelling with two vehicles - a 26' UHAUL truck, followed by a pickup pulling a camper trailer. All we want is hands free option using two-way radios between us, so we can let each other know if we run into trouble, or need to pull off highway. Do I need to purchase license just for this purpose? Any help and advice from experienced people would be most welcome. Thanks in advance, Kris

My GMRS license came up for renewal and the FCC site said it was $70. Nope, will use it without a license. Just another tax.

I wouldn't mind as much if the non-licensed GMRS violators were punished, but no one is looking for them. We pay $70 just to say we're licensed. Typical gov service.

Ill I want is to be able to talk across town, or get just a few more miles then 1.2 when out in the filed. I have rules when I use the GRMS band to pay 70 bucks for how much I use the frequency I run is just ridicules. when they lower it to say 25 bucks at lest then maybe pay it but inmo its another gov tax on a working man making under 30k a year

Leave a comment