FRS evaluation and thoughts

[Hulk]

I borrowed a box of FRS radios from @Inukshuk for the Steamboat Color Cruise. We distributed them to several members of the group, and a bunch of guys had brought their own as well. These were all handheld units. Here are my thoughts.

My main reason for wanting to use the radios was to evaluate whether we should change the Cruise Moab requirement for a CB radio to an FRS radio. Based on my experience, the answer is no. Here is my reasoning:

• To start, here are the limits of my evaluation. If we changed the Cruise Moab requirement, I am thinking that we would not change the requirement to GMRS or Ham, even though these are clearly better options that CB radio. Right now, you can own & operate a CB radio with no license fee and no test. The only other similar option is FRS.
• Changing the requirement to GMRS is a different discussion, and we can start a thread for this topic... but that is not this discussion. Please do not muddy the waters.
• FRS handhelds are not any better than a CB handheld unit for transmit/receive capabilities. This is my unscientific opinion from using them for a few days.
• However, FRS radios are cheaper, they are arguably easier to use, they are smaller, and many people may already own a few.
• FRS handheld radios are not nearly as good as a decently-installed CB radio with an external antenna.
• While communication on FRS channels can be significantly improved by upgrading to a GMRS radio (which operates on the same 22 channels and can transmit with more power on all but 7 of them), operating a GMRS radio legally requires a $70 license from the FCC in addition to purchasing the radio and antenna. Some folks (like me) will have no problem doing this. Others might buy the GMRS unit anyway and skip the license, but we would certainly not encourage this behavior for Cruise Moab which is a big public event. I do not want to discuss this issue at all -- again, please start another thread if you want to advocate for using GMRS radios w/o a license.
• Right now, we have a good amount of the Toyota wheeling community who have decent CB setups, peppered in with those who own a cheap handheld CB.
• If we change to FRS, most people will buy a handheld. Or several. Or maybe they already own a drawerful of them. They are ubiquitous.
• While a handful of people will go the extra mile, pay the $70 GMRS license fee, and buy a decent GMRS radio, most will just buy the cheap handheld radios and call it good.

OK, so here is my conclusion:

• If we stick with CB radio, we get a mix of good installed CB radios w/ external antennas mixed in with guys with handheld CBs. I'm not sure what the proportions are, but let's call it 50/40/10 for sake of argument. That's 50% with decent setups, 40% with handhelds that work, and 10% with no radio or one that dies as soon as you hit the trail.
• With FRS, I'm thinking we'd end up with 20/75/5. That's 20% who have GMRS radios (legal or not), 75% with a handheld FRS radio, and 5% who forgot to charge the battery on their FRS radios or let the kids play with it until it broke.
• In other words, we'd lower the overall quality of communication by switching from CB to FRS, at this time.
• This argument hinges on a) the continued attendance of old timers who already own a CB setup, and b) the willingness of newer folks to continue investing in CB radios.

 

[Hulk]

One more comparison:

Good CB setup:
Decent quality radio (pretty cheap actually)
External antenna
Wiring to car electrical system, probably

Good FRS setup:
Really, there is no such thing. A good FRS setup is GMRS.

Good GMRS setup:
Decent quality radio (not as cheap as a mobile CB unit)
External antenna
Skip wiring to car electrical system, you can plug into the 12v lighter.
FCC license for $70

Good Ham setup:
Decent quality radio (the opportunity to spend money and geek out is unlimited)
External antenna
Wiring to car electrical system, probably
FCC license for $15 -- and you must pass the test

This is a gross simplification, but I think it works for this discussion.

 

[Hulk]

A final thought: there seems to be confusion with FRS vs. GMRS. I know this has been true for me.

• They used to be significantly different. Now they operate on the same 22 channels.
• GMRS gets the ability to use repeaters, which adds confusion. Marketers have said this means you get 30 channels rather than 22 channels. Ignore this -- we would use the same 22 channels as FRS for compatibility.
• The companies that market FRS and GMRS radios are not doing a good job making a distinction between the two.
• The companies that make these radios are adding gimmicks that really add to the confusion. 50 channels? That's pure BS.
• The companies that sell GMRS radios don't always tell you what the transmit power is, which means your handheld GMRS radio may be barely more powerful than an FRS radio.
• The only distinction that truly matters is transmit power. GMRS has a significant advantage here.
• Just think of GMRS as a more powerful FRS that requires a $70 license to operate.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Seems to me going to a FRS handheld requirement will require approaching communications in an organized way.

Perhaps you're familiar with the FEMA incident command system, in which case you might have run across their incident radio communication organization. That being the way communication during a wildfire is done, as one example. They have a uniform guideline for all potential responders and the parent organization (typically Fed Gov or state fire organizations) keeps a cache of command radios that are sent to incidents.

So every fire department that is certified will have purchased specific radios and have them programmed the same way such that the command staff will have mobile and base stations and portable repeaters that will work with them. The whole thing is supposed to be plug-and-play no matter who shows up. It's a problem that has long been and was brought to an obvious head at Columbine when cops and EMS from multiple departments couldn't talk to each other.

I know you don't want this discussion to veer off but I don't think FRS could ever be seen in a vacuum that does not include GMRS and probably ham radio in the mix. In a trip with a couple of trucks FRS is fine compared to CB. With 6 or a dozen it's being asked to do something it was never supposed to be good at doing. It's a toy radio being applied as an event communication system, so destined to disappoint.

The advantage to FRS is that GMRS can be used to extend their usefulness. The important link is from each individual truck to a responsible communication officer (so to speak) on the run. That person would I think need to have GMRS (or ham) to leverage an external antenna, improved reception (this being that even if all you do is use your ham radio and external antenna to listen to FRS it's going to be a marked improvement over an FRS HT on RX) and potentially higher transmit power. That individual trucks can't necessarily talk to each other isn't as important. All the firefighters and engines on a wildfire (or any incident, disasters, even in regular public service) are only aware of their area command or dispatch, not necessarily in direct communication with everyone, everywhere.

The communications officer (so to speak) could be the leader, gunner or even a third truck assigned to the run. But no matter that person would need to be net controller, in essence. Important communication is done through them and only them.

I think whether FRS works boils down to how much effort Cruise Moab wants to put into a communication plan. Even sticking with CBs has more-or-less forced CM to de facto implement some minimal communication plan with the InReach devices since CB has no infrastructure and doesn't work over any reliable distance either.

The obvious downside to formalizing communications more is that you impose some rules on the participants. It's the Catch-22. Informality is flexible but leads to confusion. Formality isn't as fun and requires planning and adherence to that plan.

It seems that if you want to strictly say FRS-vs-CB there is in fact no compelling advantage or reason to switch for all the reasons you cite. Smaller radios that are more likely to be working as well as they can being maybe the only one. But even minimal effort can have a decent performing CB and that'll be enough to make it overall better for the task.

 

[Romer]

Nice review Matt. Interesting that I bought what turns out to be a GMRS radio and there was no information on the vendors web site about requiring a license. Since I have never used them i guess I havent violated anything. I believe many of the people at the LCDC use FRS and use that or a similar radio (Where it was recommended to me) and I bet they are unaware it requires a license. Nice that a single license applies the whole family. Seems more like a tax than a License, but that is another discussion

 

[DaveInDenver]

The point of the 2017 FRS and GMRS revision was to bring harmony to the fine print on GMRS-capable radios. So are you sure the radio you bought is actually a GMRS radio, Ken? It's still a confusing mess.

The two services are basically the same as far as handhelds are concerned with the difference being 2W vs 5W limit on seven channels. On the seven 0.5W channels both FRS and GMRS must do 0.5W. The 15W and 50W options and detached antennas are only allowed with fixed base, mobile or repeater stations on eight of the channels. HTs in all cases have to have fixed antennas.

But one example, the Midland GXT1000, is a 2.85W transmitter on high according to the FCC test data. So it's just barely a GMRS radio. AFAIK there aren't any handheld GMRS radios on the market at the moment that legally do 5W.

 

[Inukshuk]

Nice review Matt. A lot of effort went into that. Glad you got a chance to try the radios.

I don't agree that the FRS are worse than CB in most cases. In trial groups not spread over miles I belive they are on balance superior.
No external antenna - the major drawback for vehicle use.
Less range than a well set up CB - certainly. Less power.
Not hardwired - of course but the USB cable takes care of that.

I think for general use by Rising Sun members - a dedicated bunch that hits trails all year long - people should continue to take the test and get their HAM license. And I'd be ok if we instead had a GMRS requirement because no test needed and you get a very effective long-range radio for similar or less cost than HAM.

I have CB, HAM, and GMRS so its all good with me!

 

[Romer]

The point of the 2017 FRS and GMRS revision was to bring harmony to the fine print on GMRS-capable radios. So are you sure the radio you bought is actually a GMRS radio, Ken? It's still a confusing mess.

.

It says it is

https://midlandusa.com/product/gxt1000vp4/

 

[DaveInDenver]

It says it is

https://midlandusa.com/product/gxt1000vp4/

I just mean from a technical standpoint Midland didn't take full advantage of the GMRS expanded privileges, IOW I don't see a reason to spend $70 getting a license for an extra 0.5 watts nominal (0.85 watts at most) for the GXT1000 or GXT1050 models over an FRS. GMRS is allowed 5 watts on a handheld while FRS is 2W.

The FCC documentation: https://fccid.io/MMAGXT1050G

They even acknowledge this on the website.

 

[Romer]

Thanks Dave, so you are saying I don't need a license to use that radio? My work wont let me go to the link

 

[DaveInDenver]

Thanks Dave, so you are saying I don't need a license to use that radio? My work wont let me go to the link

If you use it on high power it will apparently be radiating as much as 2.8 watts so yes you do technically need a GMRS license. But if you use mid I believe no license would be necessary as it would likely be under 2W, although I haven't been able to determine the actually design power of mid. Low appears to be 0.5W.

My point is just economic really. You pay a premium for the radio as targeted for GMRS and buy the license for what seems to me to be a pretty modest improvement. Going from 2 watts to 5 watts is a 2.5x gain (about 4 dB) or a 58% signal strength (essentially range) improvement. Going from 2 watts to 2.8 watts is an 18% increase.

The basic rule of thumb here is the inverse square law. To double your effective range you must increase power by a factor of 4 or 6 dB.

This is also, FWIW, why GMRS mobile is such an advantage. Putting a 3 dB or 6 dB gain antenna on the roof makes a very big difference even with 5 watts. Antenna gain works on both ends, too. A 6 dB of transmit antenna gain talking to a radio with a 6 dB gain receive antenna gives you a free 200% improvement in range regardless of the transmitted power. This is the main principle for repeaters and why they work well with handhelds. They do a lot of the work being able to use a fixed, high gain antenna to listen to relatively weak signals.

 

[Inukshuk]

GMRS license fee now $35, down from $70.

"a GMRS license will now cost significantly less than before. Up to now the application fee for a GMRS license was $70. With this Report and Order, the new GMRS license fee will be only $35, which is $15 less than the proposed fee and half the cost of the fees previously charged by the FCC. The license is still valid for 10 years and covers an entire family."

FCC approves new ham and GMRS license fees

The FCC has just approved new license fees for Amateur Radio and the GMRS. These fees are actually lower than the original fees proposed in August, which were highly contested by hams, but welcomed by GMRS licensees.

www.buytwowayradios.com