Jump to content

kc9pke

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    kc9pke reacted to OffRoaderX in Elimination of the FCC?   
    Congress gave the FCC the right to get involved in local wireless communications, as well as justification to exist as an agency when they passed the Communications Act of 1934.
    And just FYI, complaining/arguing/chest-beating about it in an online forum wont change anything - If you really want to change/eliminate the FCC start by contacting your congressman or an attorney.
  2. Like
    kc9pke got a reaction from pcradio in The never-ending Part 90/95 debate, and my discussion with the FCC   
    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
  3. Like
    kc9pke reacted to AdmiralCochrane in New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024   
    Duh, #1 Amazon and cheap stuff from China, #2 preppers and offroaders (and off road preppers, LOL).  
  4. Like
    kc9pke reacted to Sshannon in New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024   
    There’s no need. That’s part of being a ham, getting to try different things. 
  5. Like
    kc9pke reacted to intermod in New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024   
    But we have had two classes of users for almost 30 years - the "common folk" or bubblepack users (all direct-mode/simplex) and the more professional users that operate repeaters.    100% of our DMR users figured out their radios within about 1 day when first getting on.    
  6. Like
    kc9pke reacted to intermod in New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024   
    Is this problem limited to one city or state?  Or maybe neither of us really know.  Are you suggesting a "one size fits all approach" is the only way? 
    The FCC has created a list of "major metro areas" in Part 90 where different rules apply.  Why not apply this same concept to GMRS?
    It is highly unlikely that additional radio channels will be allocated for GMRS in specific regions.  So it seems logical that the best approach is to make better use of what we already have.  Digital provides 4X the capacity within the same spectrum.  It is not clear if this will actually increase perceived interference or reduce it since far fewer repeaters would be needed to support the same number of users.   
    For example:  I have two separate user groups operating simultaneously on a single DMR repeater today, as it provides for two simultaneous channels (slot 1 and slot 2).  If I were to lose the DMR license for this and have to go back to legacy analog operation, I now need to build a second repeater and use yet another GMRS channel for that second repeater.  I suspect this might increase interference to those on the new channel......
  7. Like
    kc9pke reacted to WRYZ926 in Easy use phonetics any suggestion   
    I'll stick with the phonetic alphabet that I learned in the military, which is the same as most amateur radio operators also use. It is not hard to learn. 
  8. Like
    kc9pke got a reaction from NavyBOFH in The never-ending Part 90/95 debate, and my discussion with the FCC   
    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
  9. Like
    kc9pke reacted to WRUU653 in Repeater Ops Interfering W/ Simplex Ops   
    This is a great question. I think if you are in an area where you have simplex frequencies open to use and you can use the lower power successfully for your contact it makes sense to do so.  It reduces your own exposure to interference.  Use what you need to get the job done and not more. 
    While some inadvertent interference is inevitable having a separate set of repeater frequencies would certainly help eliminate a lot of it. This is where I think linked repeaters is also an issue. You may be stepping on people you don't hear who are on simplex.  I don't know how successful you would be getting this done but separate repeater frequencies is the best reason I have heard for expanding GMRS frequencies  
  10. Like
    kc9pke reacted to OffRoaderX in The "Basket of Deplorables"   
    GMRS is not a "hobby" GMRS IS intended for people to bring their own audience (ie; your group while off-roading) GMRS is NOT for people that "want to make contacts" It seems you have been misinformed about what GMRS is for, and what its primary purpose is.  It sounds like amateur radio or the Grindr app are more of what you are looking for.
  11. Like
    kc9pke reacted to marcspaz in FCC Enforcement   
    This is local(ish) to me and i know some folks that are involved in this case. I would love to discuss this in detail, but it's not my story to tell. I will say that I do believe the pendulum is starting to swing the other way.
  12. Like
    kc9pke reacted to WRXD372 in FCC Enforcement   
    Those FCC agents must have read "Three Felonies A Day" !!!
    @marcspaz yes, I enjoyed it 😇
  13. Like
    kc9pke reacted to marcspaz in Why doesn't the FCC allow multi-service radios?   
    We don't have to imagine.  That is literally what GMRS is.
  14. Like
    kc9pke reacted to WRQC527 in Why doesn't the FCC allow multi-service radios?   
    It took the FCC years to discuss and implement a simple fee change just to drop the GMRS license fee to $35. I cannot imagine how long it would take to hash out rule changes that affect multiple radio services. 
  15. Like
    kc9pke reacted to marcspaz in Why doesn't the FCC allow multi-service radios?   
    I'm of 2 mindsets... either you have to stay off the internet (you, generally..  not you specifically) or you need to stir the pot and embrace the suck.
     
    Very little of my job is RF related; mostly computers. I haven't been on an IT forum or group in more than a decade. I gave up after someone with no standing in the industry was trying to tell me how wrong I was after answering a question and telling someone how to correctly configure a product I designed, built and took to market.  It was like a high school freshman with a 3.0 GPA telling Jeff Snover he was using PowerShell wrong.
  16. Thanks
    kc9pke got a reaction from RayP in University using GMRS without license...   
    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
  17. Like
    kc9pke got a reaction from PACNWComms in University using GMRS without license...   
    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
  18. Like
    kc9pke reacted to Sshannon in Are GMRS repeaters required to identify every 15 minutes?   
    Nothing in the regulations establishes priority for simplex users or repeater users.  We're all equal in the eyes of the FCC. ?
  19. Like
    kc9pke reacted to Sshannon in Midland Waiver Approval   
    I think that the original Garmin waiver became part of the current rules. So, currently, location data is already allowed to be shared, but the antenna must not be removable and digital data may not pass through a repeater. 
    Midland is stretching those boundaries. If they’re successful and nobody has problems, I would expect the waiver terms to become codified. 
    I haven’t followed what the Talkabout does. 
  20. Like
    kc9pke reacted to WRXD372 in Midland Waiver Approval   
    Midland is hit with some interesting conditions that will limit the use cases:
    "14. Conditions.
    5) Digital data transmissions may only be made when two or more users are actively linked together through a smartphone application.
    6) Digital data transmission may only occur when the channel is clear. Midland must: A. Ensure that its radios are able to detect when a channel is being used, and must not transmit data while the channel is being used;
    7) While Midland must comply with the duty cycle as required by section 95.1787(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules, it may transmit up to 50 ms of data every 10 seconds where it can confirm at the beginning of each session of use that the transmitter is in a rural area as evidenced by the following method, or via an alternate method deemed equivalent by the Bureau: A. The transmitting unit must use real time GPS data to confirm that the device is in a rural county or census tract i.e., with a population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile."
  21. Like
    kc9pke reacted to RayP in Why is Tennessee not connected to the GMRS Hub?   
    It happens in a lot of places.  Recently, on another site, I was reading about a guy in Georgia who was paying $150/month for a primo GMRS repeater site so he could communicate with his family.  He had the misfortune to be located where all eight pairs were clogged with repeaters that were part of a linked, mega wompus, system.  He noted that for large chunks of the day, all eight pairs carried the same people, having the same conversations, about the same thing.  IMHO, this goes against the original intent of Class A/GMRS and is just wrong.  In my area, two repeaters are linked to a four repeater system.  For the most part, it isn't too bad except for Sunday evenings when they are tied up with an inane regional or national net, or the occasional needy sounding guy mumbling on and on in broken English in the next state.  Then you add another guy piping in drivel from all over the country with the possibility of adding "nodes" to clog up other 50W simplex/repeater channels and soon you have a big, unnecessary, cacaphony, tying up those few pairs for people wanting to utilize them for local comms.  It just isn't necessary.
    If you are the only networked repeater in your area then Kudos for putting up a stand-alone for local comms.  
     
    I don't believe I mentioned simulcasted repeaters but it did cross my mind.  I am fully aware of how expensive they are and how tight tolerances have to be, therefore I did not mention it.  It just gets aggravating that most people I hear talking about putting up a repeater seem heck bent on either linking to other repeaters in their area or linking to a network, apparently just to keep noise going across the frequency, and not caring that they hinder people trying to use GMRS for its original intended use of local area communication.
  22. Like
    kc9pke reacted to WRKC935 in Why is Tennessee not connected to the GMRS Hub?   
    OK, and where is that happening exactly?  Certainly not on the MidWest system, or the MYGMRS system for that matter since that is specifically watched for and not condoned.  Now, true simulcast would be nice on GMRS. Where the same frequency pair is used at multiple overlapping sites to provide coverage to a larger area without taking up additional frequency pairs.   It's also quite expensive, requiring voters, simulcast audio controls that are GPS disciplined to enable the ability for it to work.  Not to mention that EVERY repeater on the system would need to match exactly, same model and even firmware so the delay internally to the repeater would all match. 
    Yes, that's possible, yes it works, and I have personally done it with public safety radio system on VHF / UHF and 800 Mhz.  But again, it ain't even close to being cheap. 
    I run two repeaters.  One is linked and the other is NOT linked.  Reason for the second repeater is simple.  It allows locals to chat without tying up repeaters in 4 to 6 states for a conversation that is happening in the coverage area of my single repeater.  The repeaters are all on the same antenna system and run the same power levels so the coverage is a dead on match.  These three antenna's (one receive and two transmit) have a total of 3 GMRS repeaters and a UHF ham repeater currently.  There will be an amateur radio packet data repeater added later this year.  But since I have a large coverage footprint, I of course run all my GMRS repeaters as OPEN repeaters for all to use that have a license to access them.  This keeps folks from needing to spend time and a lot of money to put up a repeater, but also leaves open pairs if they want to do so.
     
  23. Like
    kc9pke reacted to Sshannon in Repeater requests, but no reply   
    My admittedly poor attitude is that if a repeater owner doesn’t respond in a timely manner to access requests they probably won’t notice that you’re accessing their repeater unless you do something wrong. Do as Randy says and scan for the input tone. If they object to you accessing their repeater they can always say so. 
  24. Like
    kc9pke reacted to OffRoaderX in Repeater requests, but no reply   
    There may be other ways to get the repeater information such as the local ham/GMRS group or by scanning the input frequency with a radio that can scan for the tone, then connecting to the repeater and calling out/asking for permission, or just using it until someone tells you to not use it.
  25. Like
    kc9pke reacted to intermod in New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024   
    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.  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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