[FCC action that may affect GMRS users and repeaters.]

my best guess is that they will be using P25 equipment, most likely kenwood since Nexedge can do 6.25Kc's. by the same token I don't know who is doing their coordination b/c there are freq's out there you just have to spend the time listening to them. the last 4 time I have had to get channels for someone I was given a list of 20-30 pairs to listen to, it takes time a lot of time.

IMO there is no reason at this time to have to infringe on our small piece of spectrum. I really believe they have not weighed all their options here. I live and work in what I pretty much call the RF capital of the world. there isn't a building residential or commercial pretty much in this city that doesn't have a or multiple repeaters or simplex radios of some sort.  I just find this request out of touch w/reality for now.

making the exception once will open the flood gates. as an analogy look what happened to oil prices once the speculators got in.

 

I am surprised I haven't seen more comments on this topic as in the end it has a direct impact on how the FCC treats GMRS. If you recall the NPRM 10-106 in 2010 (Comments still open by the way), what happened then was the FCC got a floodgate of responses, mostly knocking down the proposed rules. I don't think the FCC was prepared, and rather expected a non showing of interest. Had that been the case, the NPRM would have essentially eliminated GMRS and in its stead, an FRS like environment of low power bubble pack radios and no repeaters. It is no doubt to me that the big names in industry (the ones who no longer type accept their high power radios for GMRS) would like GMRS to fade away so that a few more channels would be come available for commercial customers.

 

I don't think it is any coincidence, the FCC eliminated station licensing for repeaters. To the FCC the repeaters don't exist. If they don't exist, the FCC does not have to protect them. If GMRS becomes "refarmed", nobody will get a check for moving to a new frequency band.

 

This NPRM is equally important, both from the standpoint of interference, and from the showing of continued interest in GMRS and GMRS repeaters.

[FCC action that may affect GMRS users and repeaters.]

The fallacy in this comment (quoted below) is that regardless of whether CTCSS or DPL/DCS is being used, a significant degradation will occur to the reception of the GMRS signals. Yes, having CTCSS or DPL/DCS will eliminate the probability (in most cases) of hearing the interfereing signal, but valid signals will be subjected to noise interference. This could be a very distant signal just noticible at 3 dB of degradation, to the extreme of a repeater being entirely blocked by the signal 12.5 KHz off the channel center from a mobile transmitter in the same City..

 

Back in the 1980's, I was responsible for UHF repeaters on the Sears (Willis) Tower rooftop. We had a room full of UHF community repeaters which were fed from a master receive antenna at the very top of one of the wjite pylons. This was a tremendous receiver system. On one occasion,. I found a repeater that was totally deaf. The culprit was a hospital cardiac telemetry transmitter of less than 10 milliwatts, inside a hospital room, operating 12.5 KHz offset from the repeater input frequency.

 

Bottom line is you don't want these part 90 folks inside GMRS bandwidth any more than they want us.

 

"In conclusion:

 

Will this affect GMRS services who use 550 and 725? YES, if they are wideband and trying to use simplex or duplex on 550 and 725 without CTCSS or DPL codes.

 

However, one thing I would like to note: How many users of GMRS use these channels without CTCSS or DPL codes? I am thinking very few."

[FCC action that may affect GMRS users and repeaters.]

After reading the text, I can say that because of the band separation and their narrowband request as presented, there would be no affect to GMRS operations.  That being said, since there are MANY VHF Part 90 frequencies available again because of users going to 700 and 800 systems before January 01, 2013, the petitioner would be well served to look at VHF High Band where more space is available now - for even VHF trunking.

 

The petitioner would better serve the Part 90 industry by forcing the FCC to revamp the VHF band plan to segregate repeater inputs and outputs and move high power paging channels away from low power use. If this had been done 20 years ago in conjunction with the narrow banding rule making, licensees, particularly public safety would have been well served.

[FCC action that may affect GMRS users and repeaters.]

This does affect existing GMRS users. The FCC left a 12.5 KHz guard band at the lower and upper edges of the GMRS band for good reason. Receivers of existing 25 KHz bandwidth GMRS subscribers and repeaters will be affected by transmissions on those proposed channel centers. I urge GMRS'ers to take a position on this issue or two GMRS repeater channels will be demolished in major urban areas.

 

If you are of the opinion that 12.5 KHz narrowbanding is a good and useful mode for GMRS, you should take note that there is a serious performance impact with 12,5 KHz NB, one that can not be resolved by going digital as many Part 90 licensees find themselves doing. Part 95 cannot use digital mode. Further there is the interference from the proposed rulemaking.

 

If the FCC allows this, be prepared to endure MotoTrbo or NXDN digital interference within your repeater (and subscriber) receiver bandwidth.