News
Business-industrial LMR licensing struggles during first half of 2023, public-safety activity similar to 2022
Land-mobile-radio (LMR) licensing activity through the first of the year has occurred at a pace that is similar to last year in the public-safety arena and behind in the business-industrial sphere—so far behind that it could establish a new all-time low for the enterprise space at the end of the year.
One aspect of the statistics from the FCC’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) that should be noted is that the online database of spectrum licensing activity was down for several days in the middle of June. However, the ULS has been operational online for more than two weeks
Public-safety LMR licensing activity through July 10 includes 1,657 applications being filed—658 of which are seeking new licenses, with the rest representing modifications to existing licenses—with 1,589 being approved and 68 pending consideration.
If all applications are granted and the same pace was realized the rest of the year, the projected total of public-safety LMR licenses for the year would be 3,166.5. That figure would be similar to last year’s total of 3,151 licenses granted (one other public-safety application remains pending).
Last year’s public-safety licenses granted was the highest total since 2018—when 3,194 license were approved—but it was the fourth-lowest mark since the ULS online database completed its first full year in 2001.
As has often been the case in recent years, projections for business-industrial LMR licensing activity has been even more disappointing this year. Through July 10, the FCC claimed receipt of 4,950 business-industrial LMR license applications—3,111 of which were for new licenses—and had approved 4,493 of them, with another 457 still pending a decision.
If all of these applications were granted and the same pace was realized the rest of the year, the projected total of business-industrial LMR licenses for the year would be 9,459.4. This figure would be less than last year’s total of 9,697 licenses granted (one other application remains pending). Given a typical approval rate for the 457 pending business-industrial applications, the current LMR licensing pace likely would fall noticeably below the all-time low record of 9,425 applications granted in 2021.
Whether business-industrial LMR licensing activity will set its third all-time low mark in the last four years remains to be seen, but the first-half pace almost certainly will mean that less than 10,000 business-industrial LMR licenses will be granted for the fourth consecutive year.
As a point of comparison, the FCC issued at least 11,200 business-industrial LMR licenses during each of the first 16 years of the ULS online database. This would be the seventh consecutive year that threshold will not be reached, barring an unforeseen glut of LMR licensing activity during the second half of the year.
The projected 2023 business/industrial licensing total would represent a 68.0% decrease from the all-time high of 29,569 licenses granted in 2012—at the peak of the narrowbanding bubble—and a 48.8% drop from the 18,475 licenses approved in 2014.
Aside from this record-low 2020 figure, public-safety licensing has been very consistent during the past five years, with the annual total ranging between 3,000 and 3,200 in the four other years—3,194 in 2018, 3,059 in 2019, 2.098 in 2021, and now 3,151 (with 1 pending) in 2022.
The current projected figure of 3,166.5 would be within that range, although it would be somewhat lower with a normal approval rate for pending applications, but the past two years of growth in the public-safety space is certainly in jeopardy.
While the two consecutive years of public-safety licensing growth can be viewed as a sign of encouragement for the LMR industry, the figures still are near the bottom historically. In fact, these last five years of public-safety LMR licensing represent the five lowest annual totals in the 22-year history of the online ULS database.
The projected 2023 public-safety licensing figure of 3,166.5 would represent a 70.1% drop from the all-time high of 10,602 licenses granted in 2012—the prime year for narrowbanding activity—and a 37.7% decrease from the 5,082 licenses approved in 2014.
So is anyone actually interested in increasing LMR licensing numbers or are we all supposed to watch LMR die a slow death?
What are the reasons for low licensing numbers? Cost? Paperwork? Moving to other technologies?
Does LMR licensing need to be cheaper and easier to register?
How about dropping the cost down to near GMRS/FRS licensing?
Narrowbanding degrades the audio quality to a much less intelligible signal and with the lack of usage there is no need for narrow bandwidth. Also the high cost of the license has casued a lot of users to drop out Also the problem of going through coordination in some cases, I’ve seen cases where two users in the same vicinity are on the same channel, who coordinated that? Many digital formats now occupy channels with a signal that is not doing anything so when humidity goes up the ducting begins and you get digital junk pulsing or continuous on a channel, there is no coordination or segregation of trunked from push to talk. most just use FRS for the last mile and thats it.
Finally cellular costs have dropped over the years despite the massive license “tax” charged by FCC when it auctions frequencies. These FCC fees go into general fund what does that tell you
We’ve seen this over and over again and now it’s starting to show up in larger numbers. Reasons for not licensing; 1. Cost [the FCC plus frequency coordinator fees] 2. Complicated forms [as the vendor, we are the only ones that decipher the forms and therefore do it for the licensee] 3. Excessive paperwork [CORES — not necessary, frequency coordinator — no necessary, at least in our case because we know more about our local area than any coordinator could possibly know and finally, Schedule K]. What brilliant person thought anyone really needs a confirmation that a station has been “constructed” after paying the exorbitant license costs in the first place? I am guessing that 30%-50% of business/industrial licensees fail to file Schedule K within the first year…and their license is auto terminated by the FCC. They were successfully licensed by the FCC and that’s all they care about. GET RID OF THE USELESS SCHEDULE K.
Narrowbanding was done for one purpose–to sell expensive new radio systems! Many were told that analog systems could not be narrowbanded and that an expensive trunked system was the only way to go. They were told that your birthday would be taken away if you didnt narrowband. After the new systems were sold, the FCC didnt even care if you narrowbanded or not as there is now so much less use of the spectrum It was all a ploy to sell expensive radios, Same thing happened with Television. People weren’t clamoring for digital TV, but it was forced upon us to sell TVs. Now, many places no longer have free TV as the digital signal does not reach where the analog one could. Guess signs of the times! Its all about lobbying the government and sales!!
That is not 100% accurate. There are plenty of markets where spectrum was extremely limited. Most radios sold in the 10 years prior to narrow banding just needed to be reprogrammed though many dealers and manufacturers did push people into updating to DMR. It wasn’t done becuse the FCC wanted a lot of new radio systems sold so much as they wanted to free up spectrum. Motorola, Kenwood…and many dealers really pushed new systems/new technology and maybe created a sense of urgency that wasn’t there but to ignore that in some cities it was difficult to get a good frequency would be disingenuous.
Eventually they will get rid of analog all together. Do you think it is because the FCC wants to do the bidding of Motorola or might they just want to maximize the available spectrum?
1. I’d argue that many ‘new’ licenses over the past decade were existing users who licenses had lapsed.
2. I haven’t found the costs associated with getting a new license as being a deal breaker and the cost for renewal(10 years) is affordable. I’m sure plenty of people are operating illegally though but guessing apathy is a bigger reason than cost.
3. I doubt that it is as high as 30-50% who aren’t filing their schedule k. Most dealers take care of this, don’t they? A lot of dealers have opted to work with 3rd party companies to take care of all of this for them.
All this being said, as a dealer and someone who does a fair amount of new licenses as well as renewals each year, I will admit that it is frustrating dealing with the FCC in that they have made some changes that result in having to jump through more hoops. There is a lot of room for error as well. With the Schedule K’s, it was SIMPLE to make sure it was all done because the FCC sent letters in the actual mail. Now you get nothing.
I’m guessing fewer systems are being sold to new customers. I’m running into users who use POC for applications they shouldn’t. It is easy and believe it or not they aren’t always eager to pay a little more up front to avoid the monthly fee’s. I’ve seen school districts switch to POC as well. They have decided to just budget for the recurring costs rather than maintaining their own system. people are buying the RD4100 from some online retailer or a hardware store preprogrammed. They aren’t doing it for any other reason than it is easiest. They don’t know that they should be licensed or even know that they had options.
What I’m wondering is how many radios using WiFi are being sold. It will be a product that a will be sold by IT companies (or people maintaining phone systems) Another avenue people can communicate without an FCC license.