|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMRS WEB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August, 2000
In My ViewEditorial Opinion |
 |
"Excuse us Radio Shack, but the Family Radio Service is not a Baby Monitor Band."
Excuse us Radio Shack, but FRS was never intended to be a baby monitor band. FRS, like GMRS, was intended to be a radio service for directed communication. FRS Users expect to communicate with a particular person in their family or in a group. FRS was never intended for one-way baby-monitor transmissions. Despite clear FCC rules prohibiting such operation, as well as their assurances to PRSG and the FCC the that they would not market FRS radios as Baby Monitors, Radio Shack now advertises their new FRS table-top radio as a terrific way to "listen in on the baby's room." We at GMRS Web magazine applaud the entrance of table-top FRS radios into the market but we are absolutely opposed to Radio Shack continuing to market FRS radios as baby monitors. In a few simple words -- it is just a dumb thing to do.
Any radio savvy company, presumably radio Shack, understands that a one-half watt FRS radio left to continuously transmit from a high altitude location will broadcast its signal over a very large area. This can only cause severe interference (spectrum pollution) to others using the same radio channel. If the band is full of baby-monitors FRS could become hopelessly useless in our residential communities. The idea that FRS is suitable for such a purpose is beyond ludicrous. It is incomprehensible that an international company with as much market influence as Radio Shack would even begin to set public expectations in this fashion. Remember that the general public does not understand the physics of radio. They take a company's word at face value that the product is designed to do what it says it will do.
The FCC made a serious engineering error when they told the GMRS community that FRS operations in-between GMRS repeater inputs posed no threat to GMRS. We know that GMRS repeaters everywhere are being falsed on by FRS radios. Repeater owners have been plagued by this intermittent scourge for years now. FRS baby monitors could hold GMRS repeaters open continuously until the repeaters time out or just break.
Radio Shack and many other companies already market inexpensive baby monitors that use the 49 MHz band. This band was also used at one time for cord-less phones. These channels were specifically created for these purposes. Since cord-less phones have mostly migrated to 900 MHz and above for security reasons, we think that very low power (100 milliwatt) baby-monitor operation has its own spot at 49 MHz and doesn't need FRS.
The general public doesn't know it, but there are far more FRS hand-held radios than 49 MHz hand-held radios. The 49 MHz band never caught on for two-way radio use because the radios were very-low power models. You were lucky if you could go a couple of hundred feet and still hear anything. FRS, on the other hand, HAS caught on. Many families own these radios. If people do as Radio Shack hopes, FRS baby-monitors are going to be a new and very entertaining entertainment medium. (To some extent 49 MHz baby-monitors already provide this entertainment but only a very localized area and not nearly the area covered by a one-half watt FRS radio.) Those enjoying the entertainment can even walk around their neighborhood to get a stronger signal and even find out which house the activity is in. Picture a crowd of children or maybe even adults at the street corner holding their FRS radios and laughing and pointing at your house!
I have known more than one family that has lost a baby to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. An FRS radio with the transmit button clamped down with a rubber band is no substitute for hospital provided breathing alarms! There is no substitute for frequently looking in on baby. Don't rely on baby monitors.
Corwin Moore of the Personal radio Steering Group said in the GMRS Web FRS Forum, that Tandy vehemently denied during the FCC's consideration of FRS, that Tandy intended to market FRS as baby monitors. Tandy is said to have asked the FCC to throw out PRSG's objections to Tandy's intent to market FRS for baby monitors, saying that such use would be clearly contrary to the FRS rules. Clearly Tandy understood at the time marketing FRS as a baby-monitor service was contrary to the Commission's intentions, so why the sudden change of heart? Did radio Shack figure that since enough time had lapsed since FRS was created that no one would notice? Is Radio Shack attempting to to change the character of the service in order to improve its sales objectives? They promised they would not do this.
FCC Rule: Sec. 95.193 (FRS Rule 3) Types of communications. (a) You may use an FRS unit to conduct two-way voice communications with another person. You may use the FRS unit to transmit one-way communications only to establish communications with another person, send an emergency message, provide traveler assistance, make a voice page, or to conduct a brief test. (You will note that the operation of a baby-monitor does not fall in to any of these definitions.)
GMRS Web readers want to know Tandy's side of this issue. Was this a marketing error? Was it intentional? Is your interpretation of the rules different than ours? Just what prompted the company to market an FRS table-top radio in this fashion? Our readers would like to know why you have placed FRS and GMRS in such peril. Send your response to editor@gmrsweb.com.
| Doug Smith |
Last updated October 29, 2000
GMRS Web Magazine / gmrs@gmrsweb.com
