Jump to content

kc9pke

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kc9pke

  1. New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, intermod said:

    Lots of it going on.  I have not identified that one rule...maybe I will dig around.   The Commission routinely grants licensees requests to split the channel down the middle and licenses them to separate entities.   Presumably they have waived that particular restriction.  

    G 

    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 

  2. New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    6 hours ago, intermod said:

    The Part 22 channels are wideband (like GMRS) and can support two DMR channels like I proposed on the original post.   

    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

  3. New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

    More than 20 years ago, I got involved in an FCC Auction & made an honest effort to get some VHF channels in my economic area. The economic area I was interested in went for over $2.5 million for what amounted to about 8 possible channel pairs.

    Part 22 channels from back in the IMTS days were gold. Most of them around my area are being used for linked DMR wide area systems. There's even still some wide area Paging on the old VHF Part 22 channels. Not sure how much availability there would be if the FCC protected incumbent operations.

    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

  4. New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    On 7/2/2023 at 10:33 AM, Radioguy7268 said:

    QFT!  Talk with a frequency Coordinator, tell them that you want to put up your own Private Carrier system for "Part 90 eligibles" and license your DMR system as FB6 repeaters. Yes, it will cost you more than $35 up front, but now you have the keys to your DMR kingdom, and you can DMR to your heart's content, because every user on your FB6/M06 system now runs under your fancy Private Carrier license. You can (but don't have to) even collect user fees for the use of your system.

     

     

    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

  10. University using GMRS without license...

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, WRKV917 said:

    I know... A major university with way deeper pockets then most. They could justify and spend $50,000 on a system of their own and no one would bat an eye..

    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

  13. Got a GMRS app informally requesting a vanity call offlined for manual review

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, rdunajewski said:

    No, I think there's no real reason to get vanity callsigns on GMRS. We'd probably all change our callsigns if we could, but it's just going to be chaos. Plus, don't forget, we share our callsign system with the Part 90 licenses (maybe others?). Just because it's vacant in GMRS doesn't mean you can pick it if it's assigned to a Part 90 station. I'm not sure if they are interleaved together by the FCC or if there's some "safe" ranges for GMRS use only, but I doubt that. 

    We have a lot higher priorities that could use a Petition for Rulemaking like sorting out the Part 90 vs. Part 95 type certification and allowing digital voice emissions, in my opinion. 

    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

  15. Got a GMRS app informally requesting a vanity call offlined for manual review

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    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

     

    191608796_264309238818179_4139007397687082650_n (1).jpg

  18. Got a GMRS app informally requesting a vanity call offlined for manual review

    in FCC Rules Discussion

    Posted

    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...

    Screen Shot 2021-05-19 at 7.39.49 PM.png

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept