intermod

"On March 14, 2013, the Enforcement Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division (SED)received a complaint alleging that Baofeng radio model UV-5R was capable of (1) transmitting on landmobile frequencies using the equipment’s external controls and (2) operating at power levels above thosespecified in its Equipment Authorization. On October 30, 2017, SED issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI) toAmcrest, an authorized distributor of Baofeng radios, directing it to submit a sworn written response to aseries of questions relating to these allegations..." While Boafeng has some issues, it took the FCC over four years to respond to the initial complaint. WOW....obviously not a priority. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-801A1.docx

Here is some additional background on this from www.popularwireless.com (developed by the late Doug Smith, KAF9830, a true GMRS activist who passed away in 2012). web.archive.org/web/20130320034445/http://www.popularwireless.com/gmrs1413.html Greg KAF1291

Today the Northern California GMRS Users Group (NCGUG) reached a two-year milestone. Since July 2016, we have filed 84 specific complaints of ongoing and repeated interference related to unlicensed maritime traffic on our repeater uplink channel (affecting two repeaters). We have yet to receive anything significant from Commission other than their canned response, but we did receive some meaningful help from the local enforcement office. As a result, we were able to ID one of the shipping companies involved and reach out to them. Of course, this is truly a whack-a-mole situation as it is an international shipping problem. However, we noted that the local enforcement office is not tied into this system at all and were unaware of any complaints. We had to notify them directly. Obviously some improvements are needed here....but this allows DC to filter this stuff for them. But this information may be critical someday in defending the GMRS and our interests. I particularly encourage repeater owners to monitor their input frequencies for problems when possible as these are the most critical asset of a GMRS repeater system.

The Northern California GMRS Users Group (NCGUG) has filed our comments (generally supporting mygmrs/RepeaterFinder, LLC), adding a few more considerations. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10716026430701 Thanks to Rich for staying on top of this (10-119 has been open so long we got board and lost track of it...). Greg KAF1291

Here is the canned response that you will likely receive: FCC Consumer Help Center (FCC Complaints) Feb 21, 3:15 PM EST Hi Greg Your complaint provides valuable information and is shared among FCC bureaus and offices to spot trends and practices that warrant investigation and enforcement action. If the FCC needs more information about your complaint, we will contact you directly. Each year, the Enforcement Bureau takes hundreds of actions on behalf of consumers that result in tens of millions of dollars in penalties. These actions encourage companies and individuals to abide by the law and reduce future misconduct. Thank you for your help in furthering the FCC’s mission on behalf of consumers.

Please do..... G

The FCC’s Consumer Complaints page for reporting interference recently added a category for reporting interference to GMRS stations. Previously, there was no way to report issues specific to GMRS, but there was for Broadcast, Amateur, etc. This is a small but important development and may help combat the FCC’s recurring claim that “…we have received no reports of interference...”. This statement has been common in most all Part 95 and GMRS rule-making proceedings over the last few decades to help justify further encroachment of FRS and support other policies that licensed GMRS licensees generally opposed. We are not suggesting the Commission lied about the lack of complaints – they had not provided a way to report, categorize and centrally store them! The Northern California GMRS Users Group (NCGUG) encourages repeater owners and users to report recurring interference problems, such as unlicensed operation on repeater uplink channels, intentional jamming and abuse, and of course interference from FRS (co- or adjacent-channel). We have been reporting recurring interference from maritime operations on our repeater uplinks for some time. While the FCC rarely responds to such complaints, this may go a long way to eventually reducing the rising tide of interference sources that we all have to deal with. Brief instructions on how to use this site follow. ____________________________ https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us Create an account (different from your ULS account) File a complaint Radio Fill in Subject and Description Radio Issues: INTERFERENCE Radio Interference Sub Issue: TO LICENSED TWO_WAY RADIO SERVICES (LAND MOBILE, AVIATION, MARINE) Your Radio Method: PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES (CB, FRS, GMRS) Fill-in the remaining fields marked with “*”. The site provides a selection of “To Unlicensed Service (CB, FRS GMRS)” under Radio Interference Sub Issue. This incorrectly refers the GMRS as an unlicensed service, which it is not. While we have requested a correction, we recommend using the “Licensed….” selection noted above instead. Greg

Agree...I also have a business so this would work for me... G

All true - there are risks with everything. If one does use Part 90, they just need to be prepared to justify their rule interpretation with the Commission. Each year there is less FCC enforcement staff, less enforcement, and the trend is to only spend time on incidents that affect public safety systems (considering just Part 90). They are not seeking these things out, and normally do not currently respond for Part 90 business issues even if there is a formal complaint. A good part of NXDN and DMR communications are encrypted anyway (its included free with the digital radio now and enabled with a checkbox...), so there is no way for the FCC to know the message content - its virtually unenforceable. But could they drop in and listen to your radio's speaker - of course. Likelihood? Low. The activity needs to be a gross violation with limited grey area for a violation these days. Of course there is no grey area with §90.35's eligibility requirement of "....operation of a commercial activity..." Personally, I have yet to see an NOV for a Part 90 business eligibility issue, but I could have missed it. Not condoning this, just describing my observations over the years.

Good comment. But the fallacy here is that they already permitted DMR, NXDN, P25, etc. on shared 450 MHz business channels for the past 8 years. And 97% of business licenses are FB2 or FB6, which are effectively shared channel, or "best-effort" authorizations. As the FCC no longer gets involved in most interference cases on these channels, it is also "self-policed". The complaints of digital interference (IX) are usually related to the fact that DMR and NXDN system stay on the air longer than their analog counterparts. This is because owners are getting much more use out of them due to built-in GPS reporting, automatic roaming/beaconing, texting, etc. So on GMRS, you just need to be reasonable and responsible. Also, unlike most analog repeaters, DMR repeaters have built-in Transmitter Lockout (FCC's "Level II Monitoring") so that they will protect co-channel repeaters if they hear input traffic. All DMR user equipment also has transmitter lock-out features, and some are even coming with automatic analog/digital detection and switching, so that they will hear the co-channel analog traffic. Sigh.....

How do you know when a frequency coordinator is lying? Well........ Actually, they are not usually lying, but are often just incompetent. This is why you get five different answers from five different ones. Avoid applying for a FB/base station - makes no sense from many perspectives. As you would be applying for an FB2-class station (conventional repeater, shared channel), just do the following: - Go here to find channels you are eligible for by reading applicable footnotes (https://tinyurl.com/y7sqjhly) - Monitor all the channels (inputs and outputs) from or close to your proposed site for as long as possible, 24/7 (weeks if possible) - Identify 6-10 clear ones, apply for the clearest one, and work down the list. - FB2 stations can be licensed right on top of one another, so if the channel is not in use, you risk is lowered (and the coordinator's) - Remember - there are no interference problems in 450 MHz; these are simply "sharing problems". If you let them suggest a channel, many times they will say "nothing available" in the metro areas. Its true, but not true, which is why you pick the channel. If you request a specific channel, they will often go with it as long as your contours/signal don't overlap an FB8 (exclusive channel) station and you meet the footnote requirements. Should be no more than $350. Renewal every 10 years. $35/year - so its real low cost. But make sure the repeater site owner does not up your rent...because you could now run a for-profit service. Or, just place a label on the cabinet that reads "GMRS" even though it operates on 451.6875 MHz.... Greg

This is an excellent idea in for many reasons. It also has added benefit of allowing voice encryption. But here is the problem - affordable repeater site access is absolutely critical. Unless you own the site yourself, or are very close to the owner, once they see your are running commercial frequencies instead of GMRS or amateur, they then believe you are running a commercial operation and your site rent goes up 3X to 10X (this is not an exaggeration here in California). You also get much less community involvement since people interested in radio will never find you on the 300 to 400 commercial UHF channels available, versus the eight GMRS.

I second EBAY these days....limited selection however, and many look like trash. Many over-priced ones sit there month after month. I usually pay about $350 for a good Telewave or Sinclair bandpass/band-reject (BPBR) duplexer with 80-90 dB of TX to RX isolation. Most are about $1900 new. If you are not using it at a repeater site, maybe for a garage repeater, a $150 six-cavity notch-only duplexer works great. Greg

I feel your pain. The Zetron community tone panel we are using on both repeaters have a mode where it will repeat all traffic (like a carrier squelch mode). However, if the incoming tone is one that is enabled, it will encode that on the output. Otherwise it just uses no encode or a single encode code I set for carrier or "wrong code" traffic. This does not impact our users as most run tone squelch, but allows me to hear all the maritime trash. Or the unlicensed users... G

The likelihood of action is low, particularly since they may see this as an international issue that they can't directly control. But they may only need to contact a few of the communication groups at the dominant shipping companies. At least it might reduce the issue for a while. They still have some resources, but they seem to be focused on broadcast the last few moths. This is what they have been doing in the east lately (this is from one day of the Daily Digest): __________ SHANEKA N ABDUL-LATEEF. By this letter, and pursuant to the Bureau's existing delegated authority the undersigned clarifies that the NOUO was sent in error, is rescinded, null and void, and has no legal or other effect.. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by LETTER. EB . Contact Rizwan Chowdhry https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347910A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347910A1.pdf NESTOR SANANGO; ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM station on frequency 91.7 MHz in Orange, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347892A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347892A1.pdf MACKINSON DESNA; ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM station on frequency 88.7 MHz in Orange, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347890A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347890A1.pdf KACY RANKINE; WEST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM station operating on frequency 90.1 MHz in West Orange, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347889A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347889A1.pdf N12 REALTY, LLC; GREAT NECK, NEW YORK. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM station on frequency 90.1 MHz in Newark, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347891A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347891A1.pdf CHANDRA PAUL ARJUN; ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM station on frequency 95.1 MHz in Orange, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347886A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347886A1.pdf DERRICK POWELL; EAST ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM station on frequency 99.9 MHz in East Orange, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347888A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347888A1.pdf OAKWOOD AVENUE PROPERTIES, INC.; ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM station operating on frequency 91.7 MHz in Orange, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347893A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347893A1.pdf SANJIV JAIN, 439 MAIN STREET INC.; ORANGE, NEW JERSEY. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for FM stations operating on frequency 88.7 MHz, 107.7 MHz, and 96.9 MHz in Orange, New Jersey. Action by: Regional Director, Region One, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347880A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347880A1.pdf HANDSOME JIMMY FANNING, LEGENDZ TATTOO AND SMOKE SHOP; VERO BEACH, FLORIDA. Notice of unlicensed operation issued for radio signals on frequency 90.5 MHz in Vero Beach, Florida. Action by: Regional Director, Region Two, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 11/20/2017 by Notice. EB https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347882A1.docx https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347882A1.pdf

Thanks for these. Our input frequency is shown as "non-US use" but we know this is what is occurring anyway. We hear non-english speakers, and they sometimes use 88.5 Hz (confirmed by this list).

Thanks for the note - interesting that you are seeing them use tones, particularly Travel. Some of our maritime traffic uses 88.5, and some of their radios also have some type of tone "leak through" that can briefly false our Zetron panels. And it just not their voices. We are using a Motorola SLR5700 repeater at one repeater site and its provides a web-based application showing real-time signal strength of the input signal and noise. Very helpful. So we can monitor the input audio without having the transmitter activate, we are going to downlink the receive audio directly from the discriminator using one of the IP-based remoterig products. If you have an option to move channels, I found that 675, 700 and 725 to have fewer problems. Greg

All: We operate two repeaters on the same channel in view of a major shipping port. We have a recurring problem with maritime-related transmissions on our repeater uplink (input) most every week. These users operate in direct mode, usually with no CTCSS encode. Signal levels are often between -78 and -100 dBm, and are primarily from on-board handheld users. This is strong enough to cause destructive interference to most all of our users, even those using 45 watt vehicular radios. We installed a scanning receiver at one repeater site and found that maritime transmissions occur on one or more of the following channels, every day of the week: 467.550 467.575 467.600 467.625 467.650 If you are being affected by such traffic, please post or contact me here directly. We are compiling information on how widespread this issue is for possible later action. Thanks