(888) 569-9499CONTACT US
0Item(s)

You have no items in your shopping cart.

Product was successfully added to your shopping cart.

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.

88 thoughts on “FCC eliminates GMRS regulatory fee”

  • Jay Fleming

    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.

    Reply
  • Steve

    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.

    Reply
  • 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 mygmrs.org 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.

    Reply
  • no fee

    Reply
  • david

    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!

    Reply

Items 81 to 85 of 85 total

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Leave a Reply