Jump to content

NavyBOFH

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

NavyBOFH last won the day on June 18 2021

NavyBOFH had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Name
    Alexander
  • Unit Number
    0
  • Location
    RDU NC

Recent Profile Visitors

327 profile views

NavyBOFH's Achievements

  1. Amateur modes will not exist in Part 90 or 95 - that is the first thing most people need to understand. The FCC will go by "emissions designator" and things like YSF and DSTAR are not validated anywhere by the FCC - they're amateur modes purely for "amateur experimentation and hobbyists". The concern I have is that Midland will find some proprietary mode to use, which will dilute the effects of this rule change. With that said, the common digital modes in the US are P25, DMR, and NXDN. NXDN is licensed via Kenwood/ICOM, so good luck with that becoming an "open standard" in a way that is meaningful to this conversation. That leaves P25 and DMR. DMR was created as an ETSI "open standard" for business/commercial use, and has very much flourished in the US. P25 is the predominant digital mode for public safety/utilities, but is on an order of magnitude more expensive and lacks things like TDMA (in a way that can be easily implemented) to allow for the continued growth of the service. All of these digital modes for commercial use are already narrowbanded, to the point that most radios simply will not program as "wideband" and digital at the same time - so narrowbanding of the service will become a de facto standard just off emissions... so might as well embrace it and shape it via NPRM. As you said, the concern I have with this is without a truly unified voice, Midland will end up being allowed to create a proprietary format to sell to people which will in turn become "Midland vs legacy analog" for the end user. I would much rather put a line in the sand with the FCC saying "do not allow them to re-invent the wheel", however I also know a good subset of this community will start screeching if GMRS is anything past wideband analog in an era where EVERYTHING is digital.
  2. Lets put how our legal system works... or SHOULD work: Does your action have a direct effect on someone else's life or wellbeing/living? Is your action able to be construed as malicious or harmful? Is your action only going to affect YOU? If you cannot answer "no, no, yes" to the above - the rule exists for good reason. The FCC exists because while you can gnash your teeth about "laws" and "natural phenomena" or whatever else... it boils down to simply this. There is only so much EM spectrum in the current technical realm - and anything YOU can do with it will directly affect someone else's non-malicious use of it as well. The decision will come down to that - pure and simple. The FCC acts as a traffic director more than a law enforcement agency so the idea of "enforcement" doesn't have much weight behind it on its own - but that is not to say the FCC is "useless" or "toothless". TL;DR: Don't be a prick and do things that will affect how someone else uses the same spectrum you think you have the "natural right" to use. Problem with that is - there's way more people spewing this "sovereign citizen" take than not - which makes me think the FCC's enforcement bureau needs to step up their game instead of taking a knee. I pay good money for my licenses, equipment, and my "time is money" for doing all of it as well, and I will gladly move everything I own 100% to Part 90 coordinated if it means having the ability to go after malicious interference with actual legal precedent at my back as well. The only reason I even care to comment at this point is because THIS type of BS is what the FCC looks at while an NPRM is open, and will laugh their way to the bank as Midland gets to vendor-lock an otherwise "self regulating" service. So please, either get with the program or find another service like CB that has been relegated to being an RF trash can.
  3. I posted this on my old thread, but I am posting it here for visibility as well. TL;DR: I don't care at all about "GMRS+" but some of what is being said in other comments needs to be validated and discussed in a holistic view past the half-baked responses thus far... With the newest NPRM out, I think it is time that I re-visit this before submitting a public comment... if I end up choosing to do so. The NPRM needs to address that 95.335(a) should fully codify Part 90 radios into the rule, as all of them meet or exceed technical standards for Part 95 use. Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR. On that end, narrowbanding would become mandated with a transition period, and interstitial frequencies assigned to the service to further leverage the narrowbanding "side-effect". Using all of the above, then in-band GPS signaling along with cadence-based GPS and other "data" functions become "tolerable" in the service since there would be more channels, more talk paths, and more opportunity to use the service that has grown exponentially. I am only writing this here because I want to see if the GMRS groups can even remotely come to some sort of agreement... because to be fully blunt Midland is the only one putting a compelling argument out with no one coming out with an actual comment to the proposal short of a long-winded "yes" or "no". I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.
  4. With the newest NPRM out, I think it is time that I re-visit this before submitting a public comment... if I end up choosing to do so. The NPRM needs to address that 95.335(a) should fully codify Part 90 radios into the rule, as all of them meet or exceed technical standards for Part 95 use. Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR. On that end, narrowbanding would become mandated with a transition period, and interstitial frequencies assigned to the service to further leverage the narrowbanding "side-effect". Using all of the above, then in-band GPS signaling along with cadence-based GPS and other "data" functions become "tolerable" in the service since there would be more channels, more talk paths, and more opportunity to use the service that has grown exponentially. I am only writing this here because I want to see if the GMRS groups can even remotely come to some sort of agreement... because to be fully blunt Midland is the only one putting a compelling argument out with no one coming out with an actual comment to the proposal short of a long-winded "yes" or "no". I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.
  5. Raising this thread from the dead - RDU-area NC folks chime in! I have seen there's a wonderful "Raleigh 700" repeater finally up - I would love to see some more repeater density in the area!
  6. I put it in my original post: 95.335 (a) which states: (a) Exceptions. Under certain exceptions, non-certified Personal Radio Service transmitters, or transmitters certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated. Any such exceptions applicable to stations in a Personal Radio Service are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.735 and 95.1735. 95.735 is for CB, and 95.1735 is currently not codified and "reserved for future use". The part in 95.335 specifically saying "certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated" points RIGHT AT PART 90. Hence my 90 minute phone call years ago - and that further discussion is still ongoing to push that somewhere in 95.1735 this is codified in literal black-and-white for everyone to quit debating this.
  7. Started with some Kenwood TK-350 handhelds, then went to Motorola HT/CDM1250s, then to some XTS/XTL/XPR radios and a single APX7000 which is also my work radio.
  8. That is essentially where I am at right now - except if you look at an NC map I have Garner/Raleigh, Smithfield, and Princeton to cover at minimum. I have one family member in Smithfield (almost towards Clayton) that I could bribe to throw a repeater in the attic and mount an antenna to like a 10ft piece of conduit, but that still likely will not cover the area appropriately... otherwise it would already be done. I work full-time in RF systems integrations and have every bit of infrastructure, test, and subscriber equipment I could ever need for either a GMRS repeater or Part 90... but without a decent spot to put it up it seems pointless. As I said before - I chose to go GMRS instead of my Part 90 license just because I feel like it would provide a better service to my family and surrounding community. Otherwise, I will just set it to a coordinated pair and run P25 with AES.
  9. Ham transceivers are not certified by most definitions - Part 97 doesn't hold a technical certification standard for equipment. The Amateur Radio motto is just "operate as efficiently as possible within these guidelines". Part 90 (and others like 87 and 80, etc) have specific requirements for emissions standards which can be quantitatively measured and analyzed. Which is why its easy to be said Part 90 is allowed - but not expressly worded within the current rules.
  10. My issue is making contacts in the area. When I was in SC it was easy to find a tower spot for free and put up a repeater... sometimes with a feedline and antenna already there. In the RDU area - not so lucky. I am trying to use contacts at my work to make an introduction, but with me constantly traveling getting to ham meetings and such to possibly make other connections is limited. Ideally it would be nice to get a repeater up on one of the building rooftops, or one of the many water towers in the area. Getting there is the hard part. Otherwise I already have the repeater and duplexer ready, and would gladly spend on antenna/feedline/NEMA outdoor enclosure to make it a reality. I want it up for family/friend use - but as an open repeater as well for community use. My goal reaching out on here was to make that introduction if there is one to be made. Otherwise it is a 50/50 split for me to just toss up a VHF Quantar on my Part 90 frequencies and run that instead... but I enjoy having the community use a GMRS repeater would provide.
  11. Nailed it - I spent 90+ minutes on the phone with their in-house counsel regarding how the rules were written and they agreed that enforcement is essentially out of the question because it can be thrown out so easily... unless they find a way to tack it onto another charge which in their own words "you'll be in deeper trouble for the reason we were out there in the first place before we examined any equipment".
  12. Hello all! I am a couple years late to posting this topic, but mostly because this discussion created such heated arguments on Facebook that I either left or was banned from certain communities. At the time I was working as a state frequency coordinator and LMR engineer, now working with "one of the big LMR brands". As a result, I had and still have access to discuss issues with the FCC Enforcement Bureau and their in-house counsel. This is a rundown of said conversation I had after the last rule changes... Specifically towards the Part 90/95 issue - I asked why in the new rules it loosely stated that Part 90 equipment was permitted, but then later in the same rules mentioned it was not permitted. The in-house counsel agreed the wording was ambiguous at best, which would result in a hard time in them enforcing the rule on its own. Essentially, the conversation was "If you are caught with a Part 90 radio in the process of us investigating an issue such as malicious interference, it will be an added charge... but we cannot and will not pursue it on its own". The wording specifically I mentioned was: 95.335 (a) - Which states that non-Part 95 equipment may be operated in the service if they are certified for use in land mobile radio services. With that said, the Enforcement Bureau and their legal counsel agreed that the wording was added because of a distinct lack of Part 95 licensed equipment being added to the list, but that the wording wasn't fully clarified to explicitly permit it either. The resolution to the issue is what I quoted above... that they will not be pursuing certification violations by end-users, and the end user will not be caught and fined unless it was within the investigation into other issues which will usually be your worse issue regardless. The biggest hurdle this presented was for manufacturers to comply with certification of devices, and the wording was created to make sure Baofeng and others would not market their radios as GMRS radios without proper certification. So in the end - enjoy your Motorola XTS/APX/XPR radios, your Harris P7100/7200/etc radios, and so-forth. Just be wise and safe! What I hope to accomplish by posting this here is a CIVIL and PRODUCTIVE discussion to petition the FCC for a clarification into the rules where 95.335 can be either refined or referred to elsewhere in the Part 95 rules to be the "one rule to rule them all" and state that if a radio is Part 90 compliant, it will be permitted. The end.
  13. Just moved from SC to NC and I am more than slightly disappointed. I see plenty of repeaters out in the mountains, and plenty around the beach... but where are my middle-state repeaters? Specifically the Johnston/Wake County area! Only listing I see is "Raleigh Fairgrounds"... and its long gone! And before anyone says "just put one up if you're that mad"... I will. If someone has a good spot in the Clayton area I think I could easy span Princeton to Raleigh without breaking a sweat. Show me the tower site, I'll buy the repeater and duplexer today.
  14. Bridgecom is the closest you can get to that idea. Unfortunately you won't get a "front panel programmable" since Part 90 and 95 still prohibit that for ANY transmitter in those services. Motorola, Kenwood, Vertex, Icom - they all had 50w "desktop repeaters" that can have a power supply built in and DC failover/backup in many... but now you're looking at a DMR capable model to do so. The issue isn't Part 95 compliance - the issue is that we the GMRS community need to get the FCC to explicitly ALLOW Part 90 equipment on GMRS. They made a step towards it with some ambiguous wording in the newest rule revisions - but still cannot get their Enforcement Bureau to agree the wording means "Part 90 is allowed" - to calm some peoples' nerves. In the end - Part 90 or 95 repeaters will always be an expensive proposition for a quality system. Even if Midland was to take one of their Public Safety line repeaters and offer it as a "GMRS package" - you won't be saving much over buying a TKR-850 for instance.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.