kc9pke

Carr is too busy whining on Twitter about how the FCC didn't hand Elon Musk's Starlink a blank check for broadband subsidies don't expect that clown to care about 8 shared narrowband channels

My 3.45 GHz license doesn't authorize me to transmit in the 850 MHz cellular band

It's actually Joever

47 USC 310(a) establishes no foreign government or representative of such may hold any FCC license 47 USC 310(b) only says common carrier licensees are subject to foreign ownership restrictions GMRS is a non-common carrier service, so long as he isn't a governmental rep somewhere else he's fine holding a license, but ULS will not accept an international address - if he can't accept mail here but has someone willing to accept on his behalf stateside he can use that person's address

Used to be a Part 94 on the books for microwave radio services, and GMRS users used to be allowed to license a fixed point to point link in P94 somewhere in the 31 GHz band I have a feeling if the FCC wanted GMRS repeaters to be linked they wouldn't have axed that decades ago

Back in the 80s/90s(?) GMRS licensees used to be permitted to have an additional fixed, point to point license in the 29 to 31 GHz band in Part 94, long stricken from the Code of Federal Regulations I've taken that to think the FCC has long not wanted linking in GMRS, even if they didn't outwardly say so

Now that I looked at it it’s not its own rule, the rules just say under every frequency “Unless otherwise indicated, all channels have a bandwidth of 20 kHz and are designated by their center frequencies in MegaHertz [sic]” The rule that permits disaggregation is a way to split offsets and bypass that nonsense, don’t think you need a waiver for that in particular

There's a proceeding from 2014 to clean up P22 rules (cannot remember the docket number offhand) and still remaining a rule that completely prohibits offset channel usage in Part 22 (I'll have to look that up as well) An experimental license configured that way on P22 channels could definitely end up being the impetus to get rid of the rule

In my neck of the woods there are very few site-based paging licenses still active (and they are protected from those who won auctioned licenses, yes) and some of the EA-based ones have been sitting unallocated Indiana Paging Network has most of their operations on the shared 900 MHz ones

yeah not a bad idea Me personally, I'd prefer for the FCC to reauction unused Part 22 licenses No site based filings, just construct your base station in the license market and go to town

Is it? They keep renewing the license and it's still active

In 2014 the FCC opened docket 14-180 to try and clean up Part 22 (the auctioned Paging & Radiotelephone Service, now popularly used by some governments as a supplement or substitute for Part 90 freqs when they're unavailable) rules Interestingly a good number of the commenters there were screaming "let us use Part 90 cert'd stuff on Part 22" in unison

I've seen one license state "farming and s**t spreading" listed as their justification for a frequency

This is correct, applications for new Part 90 licenses on itins only can be directly submitted to ULS without coordination

Dismissed, because of course it was Reason given is because a formal process doesn't exist to allow it

Yeah, and it’d be relatively simple if they were simplex only. They could make it even easier if they used those DTR 900 MHz units if they want no license for simplex only, I’m sure any number of dealers would be willing to sell a pallet of those to them. Lots of good options out there really

Yeah it’s channel 17 on the bubble packs, shared with GMRS, treated as FRS if under 2 watts

Personally (and I emphasize that) I’d call their IT director and tell them to man up and apply for a Part 90 license but that’s just me

I understand you're opposed to a PFR, which honestly, now that I consider it, seems doomed to go nowhere as do most - in the ham service, it wasn't a PFR that got them access to vanities, it was straight up Congressional intervention, shoehorned into a budget bill (because of course it was!). I can live with saving the PFRs for other matters like you mention, maybe I could use Congressional assistance for this specifically ? Codified at 47 CFR 2.302 is a table listing ranges of call signs assignable to licenses in each service. It's woefully out of date, but one row allocates the ranges of KAA0001 to KZZ9999, WAA0001 to WPZ9999, and KAAA0001 to KZZZ9999 to licenses in the personal radio services. As far as other services, a GMRS callsign is the same format as my Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service auctioned licenses (WREV459, 460, and 461) and my 3.5 GHz (also auctioned). I'd have to double check, but I think the only call signs that don't follow what GMRS and Part 90 do are ship and aircraft licenses

Got a voicemail from a WTB staff saying they can’t do it because the process doesn’t formally permit it. Kind of what I expected, but they asked for me to withdraw the application myself so they could process a refund. Not really interested in the money lol Anyone aside me interested in crafting a petition for rulemaking on this?

Over the last week I dumped all the GMRS application data and sifted through it to see if anyone else has tried what I'm aiming at here I found a guy who filed a Renewal Only with the Waiver question answered "yes" wherein he informally asks the FCC for a "waiver to allow him to use his old call sign," and the attachment doesn't identify the supposed rule he was asking for a waiver of (hint: it's none of them. A waiver isn't the appropriate mechanism for this) The FCC denied the waiver, misinterpreting it as a request for the waiver of the requirement to ID Aside that RO app, I found less than a dozen others who submitted AU apps with attachments like mine that predictably auto-granted, of course those never got manual attention I also got this letter in response to my PFR yesterday, so WTB staff absolutely understand what I'm going after... let's pray they grant it

It’s been pending since 5/19. Wonder how long it’ll take for them to grant or deny… usually see anywhere from a week to a couple months on applications with waiver requests attached

If they dismiss it, they dismiss it... There's nothing saying they can or can't do this at their discretion

For a while I've looked at the call sign the FCC gave me for my GMRS license and thought "eh, it's a mouthful, I'll deal with it" Regardless, I figured I'd try something to see the disposition I'd get from the FCC. Turns out, you can force the ULS to allow you to submit a modification (MD) app simply by using Inspect Element and changing the AU to MD in the Update link off to the right. I did this, changed none of the name and address data on the license, and attached a PDF where I state my case for a vanity call.. Initially the system auto-granted the application 2 days later, but I filed a petition for reconsideration specifically asking for the grant to be reversed and the application be returned to pending status for review. They did! My argument is paper thin, but we'll see what happens...

Just tried keying in a "New" application in just to see what number it'd spit it out. It's still showing $70 as of 10 minutes ago