All Activity

I wrote the FCC in favor of this petition and also suggested in my letter if the FCC favored this proposal they should also use this opportunity to clean up the exisitng GMRS rules and clarify existting rules. I.e. Limit GMRS repeater ownership to 3 or less, do not permit cross state GMRS Repeater ownership, clarify rules related to 'charging for use of a repeater". Rewrite current rules on Linking so that it is clear the practice is simply illegal and take the confusion of other networks out of the rules. .. This wold be a great opportunity for the FCC to clean up all the gray areas with the rules.. One of my buddies in Riverside (FCC) office says this proposal actulliy has some traction.. The more we write in favor of this the better chance it has.

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/spectrum-management-telecommunications/en/official-publications/policies/spectrum-utilization-policies-sp/sp-462467-mhz-spectrum-utilization-policy-permit-licence-exempt-devices-land-mobile-frequency-sub

Back in my ASA/INSCOM days we used to mess with the poor hams on 6m when we were practicing ECM. Most were pretty cool once we explained that A, we weren't governed by any FCC regulations and B, we were the primary users of the band. Some got a bit "Sad Hammy" on us, but 1500 watts does wonders on VHF.

It looks like GMRS is limited to 0.5 watts on some channels and 2 watts on others and they aren't allowed to use repeaters. GMRS shares some channels with FRS and it's limited to 0.5 watts on those channels. FRS has 6 channels shared with GMRS and 9 that are FRS only and FRS is limited to 0.5 watts. It makes me wonder why they have two separate services. It seems they could just lump them all together with designated power limits on each channel.

its got a way better chance of happening then Linking on GMRS.. You might be wrong on this one.. I woild give it a better chance though. maybe in 2 years.. Lets Bookmark that comment... Looser buys the other a ice cold tall beer

I agree..

The Talk Around Feature is selected from the menu and you have to follow the procedure to enable the feature. I don't recall if you select and enable the feature if it is global to the radio on the RP channels or just channel specific on the selected channel.

I think it would be a good idea to have some lowband VHF channels allocated for the Personal Radio Service with repeater operation like GMRS. Finding vault and tower space and services for a lowband VHF remote repeater will be challenging and may discourage such a project. The geographical lowband plan still exist and requires frequency coordination, pursuant to Part 90 rules and regs. At this time, it doesn't appear there are any lowband VHF spectrum allocated/available for the Personal and/or Amateur Radio Services. 30 - Business Radio 31 - Forestry Conservation and Business Radio 33 - Fire 35 - Business Radio 37 - Police 39 - Police 42 - State Police Only 43 - Business Radio 44 - Some Police and Some Business Radio 45 -Police 46 - Fire 47 - Highways & Roads 48 - Utilities 49 - Business Radio 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, and 41 - These freqs are not regulated by Part 90 and the FCC. They may be allocated to and regulated by NTIA.

I kinda recall that Canada allows GMRS, but not with repeaters and I don't remember what the RF power limitations were.

My Surecom will only test up to 525MHz so I can't get a power reading at 900MHz but I did test all the other frequencies. There's plenty of videos on YouTube about the RT-900 you can watch and I plan on doing one tomorrow to post to my channel. I'm also getting some properly tuned antennas for 900MHz to use because nothing I currently have is tuned for that frequency. Also, without actually getting one you can't just presume that it's junk. It's actually worked very well at 2M, 1.25M and 70cm hitting repeaters over 20 miles away with the Nagoya 320a antenna I have on it. I'd say pick one up and give it a try, what have you got to loose? At the most you've dropped $25 bucks on something that will work on several different bands and would be a good beater radio to keep in the truck or as a back up to your other radios.

I was trying to reach a repeater that should have been nearby (in reference to it's mapped location) but not in sight by any means on my an older model MXT-400 (NOT programmable). I had spoken on another repeater (different frequency) that overlaps the signal of the one I was looking for and see if anyone could hear my transmission after changing frequencies. They could see my signal (Repeater busy) but could not heard any output from the repeater. I did some research on my unit and was reminded of the "Talk Around Function" allows one to talk to a group of other radios in case the repeater is temporarily out of range or no longer activated. This function allows "you to continue" using the RX/TX frequencies, PL, code to communicate with the group. That is how I understand it. I checked my Operations Manual and went thru the motions to insure this was not set for Talk Around on the frequency I was using and it wasn't. Could this function be set on another frequency and affectioning all the other frequencies? I wouldn't think so but.... Maybe I just need to reboot the whole kit & caboodle.

If you can put it on a scope and frequency counter to verify that. Then the next test is output power. That I expect to suck. Trying to design a tuned power amp stage to have that kind of bandwidth is going to cost a lot more than $25. I know many people thought their D878’s could do 1.25M since they could program in the frequencies. However the real results at the antenna port just wasn’t there to make it worth the trouble.

There is a 16 page thread on this subject over on the Radio Reference forum that got shut down today when someone involved with the proposal got snotty with everyone that pointed out the negatives about the proposal. I'm not saying that unused portions of the VHF low band do not have their uses. But it is not the beat all fix all solution to add it to GMRS as some think. All of us that have our amateur licenses know how fickle the 6m band can be even for local communications let alone long distance coms. I've used military FM radios on the 30-70 MHz all over the world. The VHF low band works in wide open areas with no local noise floor. But get into heavy forested areas and/or mountainous terrain and you will need some type of relay station to get out very far. And just like the 6m band, you would need a high power amplifier to get out over long distances. That isn't going to happen with hand held or mobile radios. Another issue is that law enforcement in some states still use that portion of the VHF low band as a backup system. I know Missouri still does. Again, I'm not against opening up a portion of the VHF low band outside of 6m. But we have to be realistic on how it will work and the downfalls of VHF low band.

The farz was not a big difference, but it was about a 1/4 mile to less than 1/2 mile better for FM.

I wasn’t challenging you specifically but the notion in general. Edited to add: Most people think of how far AM broadcasts carry compared to how far FM broadcasts carry, but the major difference between AM and FM broadcasts is frequency. AM broadcasts are Medium Wave, 650 kHz to 1640 kHz. At those frequencies the radio waves are much more likely to skip off the atmosphere. FM broadcasts are VHF and much less susceptible to skip. Also, AM is much narrower in bandwidth which makes it easier to be detected at farther distances. The difference in distance is not a function of modulation type. So, because they are using the same frequencies, AM CB and FM CB should not be greatly different in range.

I wrote "may" propagate further and if it doesn't so what. What I was conveying is that with FM modulation I was able to communicate further than I could with AM modulation.

@OffRoaderX I doubt it's going to happen, too. But, I do still support it.

Never gunna happen... Bookmark this comment and let's follow up in 5 years so I can say "told 'ya so!" ...

OK. I got some 16mm self-tapping screws from Amazon. On the left is a 11mm screw from the KG 1000G and on the right is a 16mm screw from Amazon. Same thread pattern. self tapping screws.tif

In my entire life, on any frequency, that has absolutely never been the case. From a scientific standpoint, it also doesn't make sense. The signal can travel the same distance, but you need more receive sensitivity (less noise) in order for the demodulator to extract the audio from the signal, compared to AM only needing peak amplitude above the noise floor.

What would allow an RF signal travel further if it’s AM rather than FM?

The point is to expand beyond short-range local comms, particularly for emergencies. 300w repeater systems would definitely help a lot in areas like what we are in here in the DC Metro area, the northern Mid-Atlantic and northeastern US. There was one 10m repeater that was at 100w that covered a huge amount of the area, but it's been off the air for years and GMRS isn't getting the job done for many families and EMCOMM volunteers. I support it and comfortably put it in the category of you don't have to use it if you don't want to. It certainly doesn't hurt anyone or the service to provide extra frequencies. Shoot... the biggest complaint I see/hear is that there are so few channels and the space is crowded in metro areas. Why not support it if it will reallocate unused frequencies and give users more options? (That was rhetorical, of course)

Plus the fact that 46 or 49 MHz won't do any better than the 6m band currently does. I know because I have used 30-70 MHz all over the world while in the military. Most of the time we had to have some sort of relay station setup to get any kind of useful range.

It makes a nicer stain.

Not needed for a personal radio service intended for local ccommunications