rdunajewski

Also, are you comparing the repeater range by activating the repeater or are you directly keying up the repeater's transmitter to do the test? If you're having any kind of receiver issue or desense issue then you're going to see that as either poor range or a fast keyup and an immediate drop of the input. Best way to make sure the TX side is good is to have someone physically key up the transmitter and verify its range independent of the repeat functionality. If that's good, start looking at the RX side for issues. If not, maybe you're slightly off-frequency and once you go out of the 500 yard range you're no longer picking up the transmitter anymore bleeding over onto the right frequency.

Here is our reply in the Docket, posted today: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1061939433150/FCC%20Comment-MSI.pdf

Here's my letter acknowledging the meeting with the FCC, per their request, to keep a record of the communication: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1060628686973/FCC-Letter-2018-06-06.pdf We'll be drafting a reply to the petition shortly.

The FCC made it clear that they wanted quality comments, not a large quantity. So I don't necessarily want to flood them with comments. I think it would be a good idea for people to only submit a filing to the FCC if they strongly disagree with the position I put forward. No need for everyone to file just to say the same things or to go off the reservation with other issues. Regarding the duration of the data burst -- it really depends what modulation and baudrate they want to go with. If it's low speed, 5 seconds might be reasonable. If it's high speed, 5 seconds may be completely unnecessary. But I also don't want to sit here and argue over numbers. As long as there's some sane limit to the number of these bursts, and most importantly, busy channel lockout, I'm fairly happy. If you do want to file now, the docket is here. Click "+ New Filing" or "+ Express" to get started: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC&proceedings_name=10-119 Topics the FCC wanted feedback on specifically: Would automatic data transmissions cause interference with other GMRS operators? How so? (Strong arguments needed) Should these be restricted to certain channels? Why? Motorola seemed okay with avoiding repeater inputs for now, to avoid interference. What should the duty cycle limits be? Proposal so far was no more than every 2 minutes with less than a 5 second burst. What other restrictions might be needed to avoid disruption of other GMRS operators?

To all GMRS licensees: I have just spoken with the FCC regarding a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Motorola regarding automatic GPS and data transmissions on the GMRS band. Motorola would like to allow automatic transmissions on the 462 MHz frequencies which includes repeater outputs (Channel 15-22) and the interstitial 462 MHz channels (Channels 1-7). The repeater inputs are not presently mentioned, however we will articulate our position to the Commission that these input frequencies should be prohibited due to the potential of interference to repeaters. myGMRS.com (and it's parent company RepeaterFinder, LLC) will be filing an ex parte response in the docket with the following requests: A Busy Channel Lockout (BCL) feature be mandated for any radios which are to operate in an automatic fashion. The devices must inhibit transmission if there is co-channel activity to prevent interference to other users of the shared frequencies. Blind periodic transmissions are going to be very problematic and will almost certainly cause interference. Limit automatic transmission to the 462 MHz GMRS channels only. Repeater inputs must be excluded to mitigate potential interference. Duty cycle limits of the bursts must be set by the FCC. I believe Uniden America proposed no more than once every 2 minutes and no more than 5 seconds per transmission. This sounds reasonable to cover longer text messages and location updates without constantly trashing the band. The FCC plans to respond to Motorola and issue a decision in the next couple of weeks, so anyone who would like to submit comments to the record is encouraged to do so as soon as possible. No exact deadline was given, but they expressed a desire to have this hammered out within the next week or two. I will provide further details later today. Original Petition for Reconsideration from September 2017: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10928247080350/Ready%20For%20Filing_Motorola%20Part%2095%20Petition%20for%20Recon.pdf Further Comments from Motorola from January 2018: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/101081822912433/Motorola_Part%2095%20Recon_Further%20Comments.pdf Letter from Motorola Detailing their Discussion with Members of the FCC from April 2018: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10420845023222/April%202018_GMRS_FRS_ex%20parte%20notification.docx

What kind of IG system? Itinerant or a repeater/base system? I hear the itinerant is relatively easy to get but the latter is the pain in the butt.

Done!

David, The seller is asking about the subaudible tones that are used to unsquelch the speaker of the radio. If you've used an FRS/GMRS radio these are the privacy codes. Motorola uses PL for "Private Line" and DPL for "Digital Private Line". If you're having this programmed for repeaters, you'll need to provide the receive and transmit frequencies of each repeater, plus the tone information the repeater requires. If you're a member of this site, you can look up the repeater information once you're logged in. Provide this information to the seller and they will program the channels for you. Remember that the radio will need to transmit on 467.xxx MHz and receive on 462.xxx MHz for repeater operation. If you want to create simplex (non-repeater) channels in the radio (always a good idea in case no repeater is around), TX and RX will be on 462.xxx MHz.

According to the manual, you need to hit the Menu button until you get "rP" on the screen, then select "On" to enable duplex mode. Sounds like they (thankfully) turned this off by default. https://midlandusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/MXT115-Owners-manual-Final-24Oct16.pdf

Private Members-Only systems are sometimes listed to A) try to attract new members or B ) advertise the repeater exists to help with frequency coordination. If someone checks this site to see what frequencies may be open, they'll see the listing even if it's a private system.

Please check your callsign closely. Your callsign is actually WRAI450. That's 4 letters and 3 numbers, the 4th letter is the letter "I". Here's the license in our system: https://www.mygmrs.com/callsign?callsign=wrai450

I disagree with their interpretation of DSL as being interconnected. I'd say dial-up is a bit more nebulous, but also not quite "interconnected" in the way the rules are meant to prohibit. The idea isn't to prevent linking between repeaters, it was to prevent a phone line from being hooked up to the repeater (i.e. an autopatch) where an unlicensed user could dial the phone number (intentionally or unintentionally) and begin making transmissions on the GMRS side. This is the reason for telephone interconnection being banned. When you use DSL, you're using the phone line but your DSL modem is sending a digital signal on the phone line concurrent with any analog phone traffic. The phone company at the office end demodulates the signal and patches you into the Internet via their fiber trunks. At no point can someone dial your phone number and gain access to the repeater. When you use dial-up it's a similar story except you're using the analog phone line to dial the remote office and send the data stream over the normal audio path. So yes, you're making a phone call over the phone line but someone can't just ring your phone number and gain access to the repeater. So even this, technically, should be allowed. I wouldn't test the FCC on it, but for technical reasons it should be permissible. Their point about VoIP is spot-on though. A VoIP system like we use with Asterisk and app_rpt is basically a private PBX system. You're making phone calls between internal extensions, not connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network. There's no phone number for someone to dial, and no way for someone who isn't authenticated in the system from being able to activate a repeater. By restricting to GMRS licensees only (and keeping Ham operators off of the network), there is controlled access only to licensed individuals which meets the FCC's rules. Now if this VoIP system had a public phone number, it would be considered interconnected and would be in violation of the FCC rules. Again, someone could just ring that number and begin transmitting on a licensed service, which is what this aims to prevent in the first place.

Line A and Line C restrictions were removed from the GMRS rules proposed in the WT 10-119 Report & Order. Next Thursday is the FCC meeting to consider the R&O. GMRS operators still are not allowed to communicate with foreign stations, so I asked the FCC to exclude Canada from this restriction just like they did for CB radio in the same R&O. Basically there is the same service on the Canadian side (slightly different rules, no licenses) so there's no actual interference anymore. Back in the day these frequencies were for public safety and/or business use in Canada so it would have caused problems. Now, it's almost the same service and type of users so there's no reason to keep the ban in effect.

The forum registration is tied to your myGMRS account. So in order to create a forum account, you would have a full myGMRS account as well with access to the repeater listing information. We opened up guest access to allow new and prospective members to be able to ask questions and decide whether they wanted to participate in the community. Once they have a valid GMRS license they are free to sign up and have full forum access. To answer the poster's question about contacting a repeater owner, you may look up the repeater listing and click on the owner's username. That will bring up their profile with the mailing address attached to their GMRS license with the FCC. We don't expose their email address to non-members for obvious security reasons. In fact, the only reason we show the address is because it's public record with the FCC, so it's already available to the public.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?proceedings_name=10-119&sort=date_disseminated,DESC

Here's the officially posted version: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/105032447715358

I just submitted my comment to the FCC, just waiting for them to approve it and post it on the site. Then I'll share the link. In the meantime, I'm attaching it here so everyone can read what I submitted. I found some inconsistencies in their Report & Order so I tried to drive the point home on a few issues. Overall I am very happy with the rules they proposed as they're a lot simpler when you consider how bad the current set is. They also were thinking about destroying GMRS as we know it, and they backpedaled on virtually all of those ideas. I re-read their report and they seemed to use the survey I submitted back in 2010 in their decision to continue allowing the repeaters. I think they weren't aware there we so many still in use, and over the past several years there have been many more added to this site. So thank you to all the repeater owners who posted here, that definitely made a difference! I don't think they will really consider many changes if any this close to the meeting (May 18th), but they did release the draft ahead of time so I wanted to fight as hard as I could to sway them in any way possible. If they were going this far with digital data, there was little reason not to allow digital voice in my opinion. Also, the data emissions were limited to bubblepack radios anyway, which is completely unfair. Hopefully we get some of what I asked for, but either way I'm content that the service hasn't been completely trashed like it almost was. I urge everyone else to post a comment, however short it is. The FCC did listen to your prior comments, and the proceeding is still technically open. Feel free to reference my comment, agree or disagree with what I had to say (but please consider the reasons I gave for my opinions before outright disagreeing with them). I believe we have until May 8th to have our comments read by the FCC for this meeting. There seems to be a 10-day sunshine period where they won't consider any new filings before the meeting. So please post a comment ASAP. Click on "+ New Filing" on the left side of the page. Fill out your contact information, optionally your callsign, type is "Comment" or "Reply To Comments", and attach a document (Word, PDF, etc) with your comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/filings?sort=date_disseminated,DESC&proceedings_name=10-119 FCC Report and Order Comment.docx

Another link in case people are having trouble accessing it: https://www.fcc.gov/document/part-95-reform

I thought so too, until you read that it's only for units with non-removable antennas. Basically it's the Garmin waiver being codified and allowed on both FRS and GMRS. Also, can't use it on any of the repeater inputs which would be a good way to collect the GPS locations in a central location. Think about Search and Rescue, wouldn't you want a repeater (fixed or portable) to be receiving every unit's GPS location and keeping track rather than some other HT having to be the contact point? I'm going to post a formal comment about these draft rules to argue for digital voice and the removal of the non-removable antenna provision. Just about every other rule seems clear and useful in my opinion. They're still muddy on Part 90, but I think they still want the revenue from having to accept Part 95 radios. Doing away with the requirement hurts their revenue stream from the manufacturers. If they drop the antenna requirement then it looks like you can use any nearly digital modulation you want for texting and GPS, so long as it's under 1 second in TX length. That means P25 and NXDN, for example would be allowed. TDMA is another emission designator so that appears to be out, but I'm wondering about single-slot DMR. Does that fall under one of the permissible emission types as long as the second slot isn't being used (meaning the transmitter is keyed continuously, and not yielding for a second slot)? That would be useful to the majority of us who aren't using Garmin bubblepack radios with GPS on them. Otherwise this rule serves only a small group of users.

Just saw this today. I will formally pick through the rules later but wanted to share with the group and get your take on these. http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0427/DOC-344617A1.pdf If I'm reading this right, this is the high-level summary for GMRS: FRS/GMRS combo radios prohibited going forwardLinking permissible, even using the PSTN (although telephone calls not allowed)Digital emissions allowed for short text messaging and location purposes, but apparently not digital voice (some strict restrictions)Allowed to use the FRS interstitial channels at 2 WattsRepeaters still allowedPower limits unchangedCertification for hand-held radios to be dropped

Please feel free to pressure the FCC to revise the rules to allow digital voice transmissions on GMRS. Emphasis on voice, not data. The rules are just out of date with the state of technology, so it'd be nice to bring GMRS up to the Ham standard, so to speak.

If both users are licensed, they may use GMRS for business purposes as long as the remaining rules are followed. So yes, you and your coworker, if both have a license, may use GMRS for commercial use but are still subject to, for example, the rules that require identification, cooperative channel use, prohibits explicit language, etc. If a business holds a grandfathered license still (very few left), they may issue radios to their employees for business purposes. The other rules still apply, but the terms of their license may specify some special usage or restrictions (i.e. only authorized for certain frequencies). Since only individuals can get a license today, you're probably asking about the first case.

I and others on here are of the opinion that any Part 90 gear that meets the technical requirements in Part 95 (which virtually all do today) is okay to use on GMRS when operated within the appropriate limits. I know you mentioned Part 95 specifically, and there is still a legal gray area on what I just said above. The issue is that there isn't a lot of equipment available that is certified for GMRS to the extent that the Part 95 rules are a major hinderance to the service. Following the letter of the law, then you should only use Part 95 equipment. However the rules exist to set minimum technical requirements and modern Part 90 radios are compliant and worthy substitutes (in many cases also exceed the specifications of Part 95). From an enforcement standpoint, it's really a non-issue. I've seen no reports of the FCC taking issue with a Part 90 radio, being operated correctly (i.e. within proper power limits), on GMRS. There is no way to tell aside from a station inspection that the radio is not Part 95 compliant. I'll stress once again that this is opinion, but it is a prevailing opinion in the community it seems.

What is your callsign? I'll check and see what's going on.

Thanks for the heads-up guys. I made some changes that should fix that for you. There's still a chance emails could end up in your Spam folders, so please check in there, too.