Ham Radio 2.0 Coverage of Low-band Channels for GMRS

[marcspaz]

 

As some of you know, my friend Mike submitted a petition for rule making to the FCC to expand GMRS into some low-band frequencies. Ham Radio 2.0 covered an article about it and does a good job explaining the basics...

 

 

 

 

[BoxCar]

Not needed for a personal radio service intended for local ccommunications

[WRYZ926]

Plus the fact that 46 or 49 MHz won't do any better than the 6m band currently does. I know because I have used 30-70 MHz all over the world while in the military. Most of the time we had to have some sort of relay station setup to get any kind of useful range.

[marcspaz]

The point is to expand  beyond short-range local comms, particularly for emergencies.  300w repeater systems would definitely help a lot in areas like what we are in here in the DC Metro area, the northern Mid-Atlantic and northeastern US. There was one 10m repeater that was at 100w that covered a huge amount of the area, but it's been off the air for years and GMRS isn't getting the job done for many families and EMCOMM volunteers. 

 

I support it and comfortably put it in the category of you don't have to use it if you don't want to. It certainly doesn't hurt anyone or the service to provide extra frequencies. Shoot... the biggest complaint I see/hear is that there are so few channels and the space is crowded in metro areas. Why not support it if it will reallocate unused frequencies and give users more options? (That was rhetorical, of course)

[OffRoaderX]

Never gunna happen... Bookmark this comment and let's follow up in 5 years so I can say "told 'ya so!" ...

[marcspaz]

@OffRoaderX I doubt it's going to happen, too. But, I do still support it.

[WRYZ926]

There is a 16 page thread on this subject over on the Radio Reference forum that got shut down today when someone involved with the proposal got snotty with everyone that pointed out the negatives about the proposal.

I'm not saying that unused portions of the VHF low band do not have their uses. But it is not the beat all fix all solution to add it to GMRS as some think.

All of us that have our amateur licenses know how fickle the 6m band can be even for local communications let alone long distance coms. 

I've used military FM radios on the 30-70 MHz all over the world. The VHF low band works in wide open areas with no local noise floor. But get into heavy forested areas and/or mountainous terrain and you will need some type of relay station to get out very far. And just like the 6m band, you would need a high power amplifier to get out over long distances. That isn't going to happen with hand held or mobile radios.

Another issue is that law enforcement in some states still use that portion of the VHF low band as a backup system. I know Missouri still does.

Again, I'm not against opening up a portion of the VHF low band outside of 6m. But we have to be realistic on how it will work and the downfalls of VHF low band.

[nokones]

I think it would be a good idea to have some lowband VHF channels allocated for the Personal Radio Service with repeater operation like GMRS. Finding vault and tower space and services for a lowband VHF remote repeater will be challenging and may discourage such a project.

 

The geographical lowband plan still exist and requires frequency coordination, pursuant to Part 90 rules and regs. At this time, it doesn't appear there are any lowband VHF spectrum allocated/available for the Personal and/or Amateur Radio Services.

30 - Business Radio

31 - Forestry Conservation and Business Radio

33 - Fire

35 - Business Radio

37 - Police

39 - Police

42 - State Police Only

43 - Business Radio

44 - Some Police and Some Business Radio

45 -Police

46 - Fire

47 - Highways & Roads

48 - Utilities

49 - Business Radio

32, 34, 36, 38, 40, and 41 - These freqs are not regulated by Part 90 and the FCC. They may be allocated to and regulated by NTIA.

[WRUE951]

21 minutes ago, nokones said:

I think it would be a good idea to have some lowband VHF channels allocated for the Personal Radio Service with repeater operation like GMRS. Finding vault and tower space and services for a lowband VHF remote repeater will be challenging and may discourage such a project.

 

The geographical lowband plan still exist and requires frequency coordination, pursuant to Part 90 rules and regs. At this time, it doesn't appear there are any lowband VHF spectrum allocated/available for the Personal and/or Amateur Radio Services.

30 - Business Radio

31 - Forestry Conservation and Business Radio

33 - Fire

35 - Business Radio

37 - Police

39 - Police

42 - State Police Only

43 - Business Radio

44 - Some Police and Some Business Radio

45 -Police

46 - Fire

47 - Highways & Roads

48 - Utilities

49 - Business Radio

32, 34, 36, 38, 40, and 41 - These freqs are not regulated by Part 90 and the FCC. They may be allocated to and regulated by NTIA.

I agree.. 

[WRUE951]

13 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

Never gunna happen... Bookmark this comment and let's follow up in 5 years so I can say "told 'ya so!" ...

its got a way better chance of happening then Linking on GMRS..  You might be wrong on this one..   I woild give it a better chance though.  maybe in 2 years.. Lets Bookmark that comment... Looser buys the other a ice cold tall beer  

[Davichko5650]

10 hours ago, WRYZ926 said:

 

I've used military FM radios on the 30-70 MHz all over the world.

Back in my ASA/INSCOM days we used to mess with the poor hams on 6m when we were practicing ECM. Most were pretty cool once we explained that A, we weren't governed by any FCC regulations and B, we were the primary users of the band. Some got a bit "Sad Hammy" on us, but 1500 watts does wonders on VHF.

[WRUE951]

14 hours ago, marcspaz said:

 

As some of you know, my friend Mike submitted a petition for rule making to the FCC to expand GMRS into some low-band frequencies. Ham Radio 2.0 covered an article about it and does a good job explaining the basics...

 

 

I wrote the FCC in favor of this petition and also suggested in my letter if the FCC favored this proposal they should also use this opportunity to clean up the exisitng GMRS rules and clarify existting rules.  I.e. Limit GMRS repeater ownership to 3 or less, do not permit cross state GMRS Repeater ownership, clarify rules related to 'charging for use of a repeater". Rewrite current rules on Linking so that it is clear the practice is simply illegal and take the confusion of other networks out of the rules.  ..   This wold be a great opportunity for the FCC to clean up all the gray areas with the rules..  One of my buddies in Riverside (FCC) office says this proposal actulliy has some traction..   The more we write in favor of this the better chance it has.  

[WRYZ926]

42 minutes ago, Davichko5650 said:

Back in my ASA/INSCOM days we used to mess with the poor hams on 6m when we were practicing ECM. Most were pretty cool once we explained that A, we weren't governed by any FCC regulations and B, we were the primary users of the band. Some got a bit "Sad Hammy" on us, but 1500 watts does wonders on VHF.

We got in trouble with the local TV station in Rolla, MO when I was stationed at Ft Leonardwood. We would have the basic trainees tune the PRC77 radios to the TV station and one trainee keyed up the mic. It didn't take long for the TV station to call the post commander's office to complain.

We would occasionally upset some sad ham within the 6m band. But as you stated, once we told them whoever we were and that we were the primary users, complaints stopped.

The PRC25 and PRC77, along with vehicle mounted radios have a low band (30 - 50 MHz) and a high band (51 - 70 MHZ). The SINCGARS frequency hopping radios use 30 - 88 MHz.

The state of Missouri still uses 42, 44, and 46 MHZ for public safety and emergency management. Granted these frequencies are more as a backup system now days. And other states still use the VHF low band also. So that will need to be taken into consideration with the propels to add VHF Low to GMRS or even to amateur radio.

[Davichko5650]

32 minutes ago, WRYZ926 said:

We got in trouble with the local TV station in Rolla, MO

When I was at Ft Devens learning the whys and wherefores of ECM/ECCM, we had a window of time to Jam the FM Audio on a local TV station. Using a Dummy Load running 1500w, we would still jam TV sets within a 1 mile radius of the Transmitter (AN/TLQ-17).  Lotsa of fun changing the dialog on the Soaps. That and SERE Training were the most fun I had before my PCS.

[marcspaz]

12 hours ago, WRYZ926 said:

There is a 16 page thread on this subject over on the Radio Reference forum that got shut down today when someone involved with the proposal got snotty with everyone that pointed out the negatives about the proposal.

 

That was probably Jack.  He has that effect on people. LoL  I was with him in the beginning of the project. It was his idea.  Mike is the one with the experience. So Mike is driving the proposal.  Jack is a nice kid and has good intentions, but he is very abrasive (can't accept being wrong) so it makes it hard to get along with him.  Sadly, while I like him, he is the #1 reason I dropped out of the project.

  

12 hours ago, WRYZ926 said:

I'm not saying that unused portions of the VHF low band do not have their uses. But it is not the beat all fix all solution to add it to GMRS as some think.

All of us that have our amateur licenses know how fickle the 6m band can be even for local communications let alone long distance coms. 

 

Agreed.  There is no one solution.  Personally, I like the idea because it has potential to do some good for Joe Q. Homeowner who doesn't need an experimental or business class radio license.  However, Amateur Radio 80m through 70cm, combined with Satellite and Cellular is the closest thing we can get to having a complete tool kit.

 

1 hour ago, Davichko5650 said:

Back in my ASA/INSCOM days we used to mess with the poor hams on 6m when we were practicing ECM. Most were pretty cool once we explained that A, we weren't governed by any FCC regulations and B, we were the primary users of the band. Some got a bit "Sad Hammy" on us, but 1500 watts does wonders on VHF.

 

I'm pretty sure that is not correct.  Everything I can find says that Amateur Radio is the primary assigned service, and the military and other federal agencies are authorized to utilize the 50-54 MHz band in the United States as a secondary or non-interference basis to amateur operations.  If there is something different, I would love to see if you can share it with us... I can't find anything.

 

https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/Spectrum_Use_Summary_Master-06212010.pdf#:~:text=The military agencies operate radio communication systems,in this band on a non-interference basis.

https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/4_2021_edition_rev_2023.pdf

[Davichko5650]

13 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

 

That was probably Jack.  He has that effect on people. LoL  I was with him in the beginning of the project. It was his idea.  Mike is the one with the experience. So Mike is driving the proposal.  Jack is a nice kid and has good intentions, but he is very abrasive (can't accept being wrong) so it makes it hard to get along with him.  Sadly, while I like him, he is the #1 reason I dropped out of the project.

  

 

Agreed.  There is no one solution.  Personally, I like the idea because it has potential to do some good for Joe Q. Homeowner who doesn't need an experimental or business class radio license.  However, Amateur Radio 80m through 70cm, combined with Satellite and Cellular is the closest thing we can get to having a complete tool kit.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that is not correct.  Everything I can find says that Amateur Radio is the primary assigned service, and the military and other federal agencies are authorized to utilize the 50-54 MHz band in the United States as a secondary or non-interference basis to amateur operations.  If there is something different, I would love to see if you can share it with us... I can't find anything.

 

https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/Spectrum_Use_Summary_Master-06212010.pdf#:~:text=The military agencies operate radio communication systems,in this band on a non-interference basis.

https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/4_2021_edition_rev_2023.pdf

This was a couple years  before there was an NTIA, so unsure. But what's done is done!

[nokones]

4 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

its got a way better chance of happening then Linking on GMRS..  You might be wrong on this one..   I woild give it a better chance though.  maybe in 2 years.. Lets Bookmark that comment... Looser buys the other a ice cold tall beer  

Where will the Lowband VHF freqs come from?  I doubt that the FCC will entertain any proposal at this time and I'm pretty sure that APCO will put up a great fight to keep the Public Safety freqs for Public Safety use for several more years, or maybe a decade or two more, until everyone has migrated off the lowband VHF spectrum.

Look how long it took to get the TV Broadcasters off of TV Channels 14-20 for public safety use in the T-Band in the large metropolitan cities/regions throughout the country; and then there was refarming of the UHF spectrum; getting public safety to change to narrowband missions; let alone getting Nextel to give up the 800 MHz spectrum for public safety use after getting public safety to give up the 2.1 GHz spectrum.

As the Queen stated, nothing will happen relatively soon and I suspect not less than 10 years, at the minimum.

[marcspaz]

54 minutes ago, nokones said:

Where will the Lowband VHF freqs come from? 

 

Mike already identified many frequencies that are in unused sections of spectrum with zero active licenses nor tech that would use the space. So, there is no one nor any company with valid grounds (standing) to contest the reallocation of the frequencies. 

[WRKC935]

From a technical and hardware standpoint.

Where are the radio's going to come from?  While some hams bought up the low band commercial gear for ham use, most of that has flushed through and is gone.

Repeaters..... There haven't been low band repeaters built since the days of the MICOR, at least by Motorola.  They had tube finals that are now obtainium.  Yes, I know 3 guys are gonna pop in here and talk about the 4 they have on the shelf.  So that's 12 tubes.  Where are the rest of them going to come from?

So then it's NEW radios.  From a new source.  No one on the commercial front is producing radios any more, and unless they ca see selling millions of them, none of the big commercial guys are gonna go back to that.  And even if they did, you're talking about radios that will be over a grand to purchase.

So then you have the chi-com stuff that will need to be filling the void.  They don't currently support the platform.  The dual band and single band chi-com radios that are in the pipeline are the same radio they produce as the UV-5R and other common chi-com radios.  They are HIGH BAND VHF and UHF.  And that appeals to a number of people.  Even they aren't producing VHF -LOW transceivers.  So new product for how many people?  Remember that you can decorate a Christmas tree with Baofengs for less than the purchase of the tree, on sale.  Everyone bought a number of them and they toss the guts in a new case, toss some better firmware at it and give it a new model number and they flock. 

If it's JUST a GMRS radio, and I am betting that the FCC will be watching, it's not gonna be 40 bucks for a portable and 125 for a mobile. 

And have you ever SEEN a duplexer for low band VHF?  Let alone priced one.  They are HUGE, and they carry a HUGE price tag.  I don't know that the GMRS community is going to take to repeaters costing 10 grand or more with a duplexer and antenna, and 500 dollar mobiles. 

Oh, and Low Band antenna's.... that's not going on a 1 1/4 inch mast pipe on the end of your house either.  And repeater / real base station antenna's are 40 plus feet of vertical real estate.  But the bare minimum 1/4 wave is still 8 or so feet.  And that's gonna be unity gain.

Honestly, I see this as an idea by someone for a radio service that doesn't really know radio.

 

 

[marcspaz]

1 hour ago, WRKC935 said:

I don't know that the GMRS community is going to take to repeaters costing 10 grand or more with a duplexer and antenna, and 500 dollar mobiles. 

 

This is almost all there is in the amateur community. If people want it, they will spend the money and find a way. 

 

Also, I doubt any companies will tool a new radio for low-band GMRS, because most HF amateur radios already transmit on all of these frequencies. I guarantee you, if the market opens, damn near every HF amateur radio manufacturer will spend the very few dollars needed to have their engineers write new code to limit existing radios to the low-band GMRS specs.

 

The duplexers are pretty big... about 86" tall. However, the bigger they get, the easier it is for a DIYer to make one.

[WRUE951]

51 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

From a technical and hardware standpoint.

Where are the radio's going to come from?  While some hams bought up the low band commercial gear for ham use, most of that has flushed through and is gone.

Repeaters..... There haven't been low band repeaters built since the days of the MICOR, at least by Motorola.  They had tube finals that are now obtainium.  Yes, I know 3 guys are gonna pop in here and talk about the 4 they have on the shelf.  So that's 12 tubes.  Where are the rest of them going to come from?

So then it's NEW radios.  From a new source.  No one on the commercial front is producing radios any more, and unless they ca see selling millions of them, none of the big commercial guys are gonna go back to that.  And even if they did, you're talking about radios that will be over a grand to purchase.

So then you have the chi-com stuff that will need to be filling the void.  They don't currently support the platform.  The dual band and single band chi-com radios that are in the pipeline are the same radio they produce as the UV-5R and other common chi-com radios.  They are HIGH BAND VHF and UHF.  And that appeals to a number of people.  Even they aren't producing VHF -LOW transceivers.  So new product for how many people?  Remember that you can decorate a Christmas tree with Baofengs for less than the purchase of the tree, on sale.  Everyone bought a number of them and they toss the guts in a new case, toss some better firmware at it and give it a new model number and they flock. 

If it's JUST a GMRS radio, and I am betting that the FCC will be watching, it's not gonna be 40 bucks for a portable and 125 for a mobile. 

And have you ever SEEN a duplexer for low band VHF?  Let alone priced one.  They are HUGE, and they carry a HUGE price tag.  I don't know that the GMRS community is going to take to repeaters costing 10 grand or more with a duplexer and antenna, and 500 dollar mobiles. 

Oh, and Low Band antenna's.... that's not going on a 1 1/4 inch mast pipe on the end of your house either.  And repeater / real base station antenna's are 40 plus feet of vertical real estate.  But the bare minimum 1/4 wave is still 8 or so feet.  And that's gonna be unity gain.

Honestly, I see this as an idea by someone for a radio service that doesn't really know radio.

 

 

right now relatively easy and kind of cheap.   I'm sure everyone will be building repeaters but if this approves current off the shelf will  be just that.  "off the shelf'  Gone..  Like Mark says, the duplexers are giants and i remember a time whan they were thrown away as junk..  I can lithely remember Placer County tossing them after trying to give them away..   Those days are gone.  Now you can't find them.   

[nokones]

I'm not sure what happened to the hundreds of the conventional (non-simulcast) GE Master IIs that were taken out of service several years ago in California and what make stations that replaced them a few years ago.  The replacement stations may take a while until they are taken out of service because of migration to 700 MHz system. Also, there are almost a hundred Micors Simulcast and about 50-60 Quintron Simulcast stations that were taken out of service.  However, these simulcast stations do not have the local CTCSS encoding modules for these stations because the CTCSS was centrally generated from the control point.  Good luck in trying to obtaining the parts. These stations were not repeater stations.  The mobile inbound (voted audio) traffic was rebroadcasted from the control point and the receivers used a separate antenna than the transmitter antenna with vertical separation. 

The stations were either 39, 42, 44, or 45 MHz transmitting stations.  A lot of cavities and intermod panels had to be used