Let's open another can of worms, Digital GMRS/MURS.

[TNFrank]

Do you think they'll ever come a time when we can use a DMR Radio to digitally transmit on GMRS and MURS Frequencies?  Seems like it'd be the next logical step in the evolution of GMRS/MURS.  Please be kind and don't beat me up too much for asking this. Thanks. 

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, HHD1 said:

Totally hypothetical and Noob question here, but is there a band of frequencies that could be opened up/ designated for "digital gmrs" if the FCC wanted to? Would that eliminate the digital noise on analog freqs?

I feel like I read somewhere that the idea was already shot down.

Forgive me for being stupid...

Not stupid, just honest questions. That's why this thread exists. I would read the file linked below. I think it addresses a number of concerns people have voiced in objection to digital voice on GMRS. I understand some people will never accept the idea. Not much different than the bad old days where Hams HATED SSB on HF, AM was the king. Now SSB is the norm for voice. Oh-well. Times change.

https://forums.mygmrs.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=10994&key=8ad0218081bafe7c4e59609e685cc2af

Personally I think it's going to happen sooner or later. I'm reading where more digital voice activity is appearing in areas around the country. Either the FCC has to get REALLY serious about enforcement, or just just throw in the towel like they did with the 2017 rule changes to legitimize what people were doing up to that point illegally. IMHO they'll likely take the easy route, again.

[LeoG]

Trunking systems that use digital. 

 

It seems the frequency is in between GMRS frequencies but they bleed over into them very clearly.  Seems to be centered at 462.6325 MHz in my case.

[HHD1]

8 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Trunking systems that use digital. 

 

It seems the frequency is in between GMRS frequencies but they bleed over into them very clearly.  Seems to be centered at 462.6325 MHz in my case.

If it's a government used frequency, there's probably nothing that can be done about it other than switch frequencies.  Sucks, especially in a high traffic area.

I'm just glad I live in an area that is nearly silent across all channels. except for the occasional kids having fun in the summer.  For the most part, the airwaves are a calm open sea for Katie and Me.

[Lscott]

6 hours ago, LeoG said:

Trunking systems that use digital. 

 

It seems the frequency is in between GMRS frequencies but they bleed over into them very clearly.  Seems to be centered at 462.6325 MHz in my case.

You can try a search on this site. If it’s a licensed frequency it will likely be listed.

https://digitalfrequencysearch.com/index.php

[WRQI583]

I understand the urge to explore this. It is not a bad question. I love DMR because of the capability it has and how it makes good use of the frequency. I love the ability to network with it but also have a local channel for each repeater if you don't want to tie up the networked end of the system. Simply put, digital voice, in my opinion, has divided Ham Radio and it will do the same thing to GMRS if implemented. Thankfully, Ham Radio has enough spectrum, so while it is divisive, there is still room for analog. When it comes to GMRS, you only have 8 pairs (6 in some places) of frequencies to play with. You can divide and multiply and reconfigure the frequencies anyway that you want, but the reality is, digital wont work on GMRS unless ALL, and I mean 100%, of every radio goes digital.

Having DMR on GMRS is a great idea. Even I would love to use DMR on GMRS, but there is just not enough room for digital and analog. Being a Ham and seeing what has happened with digital, I would vote against it. The big issue is just like Ham you will have a group that goes for digital because they like it. Then you will have the other side who stays with analog because they prefer analog or cant afford to go digital or cant program digital. Certain repeater owners will turn their repeaters digital which will kick the analog users out unless they convert. More than likely, if the analog guys don't convert, they will sell their radios and stop using GMRS because they can't use it and because digital is annoying to listen to on an analog radio. Eventually, even the DMR guys might abandon using it. Then there goes your GMRS. I am not saying that is exactly how it will all play out. You may get no one getting on board with digital, you may get some, and then you may get all of them. Either way, digital cannot mix with analog, therefore creating the divide.

I think the best thing is to allow more power to be used on MURS or some frequencies nearby and allow DMR on there, OR, take a set of UHF business band low power frequencies and add them to GMRS and allow them for digital use only to set up repeaters or use as simplex (keep the same rules as GMRS). There are many UHF business frequencies that are low power that do not get used. I believe their are 30 low power channels in addition to many others that are strictly used for business with higher power. MURS was originally low power business at one time. They took 5 of the busiest channels and made them license free. I think that if they did it this way, you could have a mix of the two and everyone would be happy.
 

[Lscott]

I think there is a way to do digital voice on GMRS in a way that won't be a problem. I did post a link in one of my prior messages in this thread to a paper I wrote on the "how and where" questions. It's a rather long read. I suggest you have a look at it if you haven't already.

While some people are suggesting to use DMR, if digital voice is ever allowed on GMRS, I don't think that's the best choice. As I covered in the linked paper why that's the case. Personally I like DMR, but for various technical reasons it's not a good fit for use on GMRS. However there are two other digital voice modes I feel do work, and why they would be a better choice.  

Doing any additions to MURS I'm guessing is virtually non existent. It has even less spectrum to work with. Adding more channels is unlikely.   

[WRUE951]

45 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

I understand the urge to explore this. It is not a bad question. I love DMR because of the capability it has and how it makes good use of the frequency. 
 

I agree,  DMR is the wave of the future, but will it be the wave of GMRS future?? Doubtful, merely because GMRS frequencies are not abundant enough to pull off a transition to DMR..  It would be either all or none and the FCC will never  create that level of kaos.  But when you think about it, with everythig else going digital, there has to be a time somewhere down the road to impliement digital in the GMRS world,,  Our grandkids kids may enjoy it someday.... 

[WRYZ926]

I don't know if DMR is the wave of the future. I know it isn't in my local area. I'm sure its different in other areas.

We had DMR and analog setup on all three of our 70cm repeaters and we shut the DMR side down. No one was using DMR and it was causing issues with the analog side.

Don't hold your breathe waiting for anything to be done with MURS, especially expanding it. MURS is right in with business frequencies and public safety frequencies. 

There is also not room on the GMRS frequencies to add anything other modes such as digital. And if the digital side is not setup correctly, it will cause issues with the analog side.

I saw people mention how GMRS radios already have the ability to send GPS coordinates. The problem is that there is not any sort of standard for it. One brand of radios will not share GPS info with any other brands. As far as I am aware, only Garmin, Baofeng, and Wouxun have GMRS radio with GPS. And none of them will send GPS data across to the other brands.

We have beaten this dead horse many times and the majority of GMRS users do not want digital modes.

[Lscott]

1 minute ago, WRYZ926 said:

We have beaten this dead horse many times and the majority of GMRS users do not want digital modes.

At least not yet.

[nokones]

On 10/1/2025 at 6:16 AM, amaff said:

In digital modes, isn't everything data? 

No not really if it is transporting voice communications.

Data is defined as:  raw facts, figures, or information, often collected for a specific purpose, such as to be examined, considered, and used to help make decisions or understand patterns that is being transported over a wire or wireless medium regardless of the modulation type.  In otherwords, if the transmission does not contain voice traffic, than it is data.

[WRYZ926]

All data sent digitally, including digital voice communications is still data as it is just a series of 1's and 0's.

[LeoG]

1 hour ago, WRYZ926 said:

All data sent digitally, including digital voice communications is still data as it is just a series of 1's and 0's.

Ding ding ding we have a wiener....

[HHD1]

59 minutes ago, WRYZ926 said:

All data sent digitally, including digital voice communications is still data as it is just a series of 1's and 0's.

I think you're confusing the two.  Data is information, digital or not.  For example, if a biologist writes down his observations of a frog in a notebook, he is collecting data.  But it's not digital.  Even if he wrote it down as 1's and 0's, that is merely binary code. Still not digital.

The electronic signal of binary code is digital.  That code can communicate voice or data.  

[WRYZ926]

11 minutes ago, HHD1 said:

I think you're confusing the two.  Data is information, digital or not. 

No I am not confusing the two. Remember that digital voice is transmitted over the Internet by nodes which are computers.  And even when using dimples radio to radio, the radios are just embedded single board computers too.

One of the degrees I have is in IT network administration. I am familiar with how data is transferred. Digital radio modes are no different than VOIP when nodes are used.

[Lscott]

This is getting fun to read.

The miss understanding is using the word "Data" to refer to two different concepts.

1. Data as a general concept describes information in any format. It could be sound recordings, photos, notes in a log book etc.

2. Data, as specifically applied to digital systems, is information in a digital, binary, format. It's immaterial what that information is.

When the FCC is talking about "Data" they make a finer distinction, for digital, it's either conveys voice information, or, everything else except voice. It's clear when looking at the emission designations. Besides the occupied bandwidth the last part is for the type of information. 

Case in point looking at DMR we have:

7K60FXD ~ 2-slot DMR TDMA data

7K60FXE ~ 2-slot DMR TDMA voice

When arguing about the issue one needs to be VERY clear which concept applies. 

Emission Designators - The RadioReference Wiki.pdf

[HHD1]

@WRYZ926 I understand your point. And please know that I'm not trying to be argumentative.  But the fact remains that not all "Data" is in digital form.  Data is simply information.  It can be written down on paper with a pencil or converted into digital format. Data is data. A set of hard-covered encyclopedia is in essence a Data Bank.  Just an analog one.

I do understand that the computer age has given a new definition to the term Data.  But I think in this case, when talking about voice verses data, one means sound and the other means information.  And it seems to me, in this thread, some of us are using these terms to differentiate between the two.

Congrats on your degree by the way.  That's a great accomplishment.

[WRYZ926]

@HHD1 I understand where you are coming from. Yes there are many forms of data.

Now the topic at hand is about digital communications and no matter if its pure data or voice, Its still digital and still binary. All of the digital modes such as DMR, D-Star, System Fusion, etc all work the same way as VOIP. Analog voice is converted to digital data for transmission.

[LeoG]

Over the air data is digital.  Data can be collected and shown on paper.  Mr Data is a Star Trek character.

[Lscott]

19 minutes ago, WRYZ926 said:

All of the digital modes such as DMR, D-Star, System Fusion, etc all work the same way as VOIP

Not exactly, unless you mean in a very general sense..

There are two parts to the process.

1. The voice encode/decode algorithm. Typically this isn't a simple sample and digitize process. The usual AMBE+2 CODEC is an example. The the patent application for it attached. The process is rather complex. 

2. The exact protocol used to exchange that encoded voice information between nodes.

For digital voice communications over a radio link there are various protocols, CAI - common air interface, used. For example the common ones for Ham are D-Star and System Fusion. For commercial radios you have DMR, NXDN, P25 Phase 1 & 2. There are many more. You can look up the exact details on line. There are standard documents for the above.

US7634399.pdf

[WRYZ926]

@Lscott Yes I do mean in the general sense. Each mode/protocol will do things a little different from other modes/protocols.

Digital voice and data is still binary no matter the protocols used.

[nokones]

And pursuant to Part 95 rules and regulations, voice communications, as defined by the FCC, is not data and cannot be transported with digital modulation emissions, only data meeting the Part 95 rule may be transported digitally,that does not contain any voice communication.

[WRQI583]

On 10/9/2025 at 8:48 AM, WRYZ926 said:

 

We had DMR and analog setup on all three of our 70cm repeaters and we shut the DMR side down. No one was using DMR and it was causing issues with the analog side.

 

I have the same thing in my state. DMR is used but not by many. I think, last I checked, there is a small group in the southern end of the state that uses it. Three of the repeaters have been taken offline. A linked fusion system was placed across the state and you see a little more activity on that.

The reason I have heard Hams complain about when it comes to why they don't do DMR is 1. It is too hard to program, 2. there just isn't enough activity on it. Well, when people find it too hard to program, then of course there won't be a lot of people on it. It really irritates me personally because DMR makes better use of the frequency and there are things you can do with it that you can't do with other digital voice modes, one of them is being able to use the repeater on a local talkgroup without bothering the rest of the network talkgroups.

I still would not recommend it on GMRS unless they could expand the GMRS channels for digital use only.

[WRYZ926]

Yaesu really pushed their System Fusion. They have practically given their fusion repeaters away by selling them at reduced prices to get everyone to use the repeaters.

DMR popularity is like the 1.25m/220 MHz band. No one uses 1.25m since most tri band radios only put out 5-10 watts on 220. Another issue is the great majority of tri band radios are made in china.

Icom and Yaesu don't want to make 220 radios because no one used the band. No one uses the band because there aren't  many radios available that will do 40-50 watts on the band. It's a vicious circle.

I'm not a fan of Yaesu based on my experiences with their customer service. Plus I don't have any plans on using System Fusion.

With Icom, I stick with the IC-2730 for my mobile radio needs since it is the only one without D-Star. I can't see paying extra for a digital mode that I will never use.

I also don't own any DMR radios as I was never impressed with their performance.

I've said it plenty of times before. We don't need digital modes on GMRS as there is not the band width for it. Plus a good portion of GMRS users want simple radios that work without the complications of DMR.

We don't need to turn GMRS into Ham Lite. 

[WRQI583]

1 hour ago, WRYZ926 said:

Icom and Yaesu don't want to make 220 radios because no one used the band. No one uses the band because there aren't  many radios available that will do 40-50 watts on the band. It's a vicious circle.

I'm not a fan of Yaesu based on my experiences with their customer service. Plus I don't have any plans on using System Fusion.

With Icom, I stick with the IC-2730 for my mobile radio needs since it is the only one without D-Star. I can't see paying extra for a digital mode that I will never use.

It makes me wonder if they pushed really hard, back when we had the full 220 spectrum, to make radios, would more people use it? There are a bunch of those bands that I always wanted to use but very few people use them/are interested in them. Now, I live in a place where none of those bands work and many have literally zero activity on them.

I run the Yaesu 991a. The VHF/UHF side is disconnected. I cant use it where I am plus I am not a big fan of Fusion due to the way the repeaters are setup. I bought it because I have recently owned Yaesu products and had good luck, plus I wanted an all in one radio with 160m-70cm. I have had very good luck on HF with it. I shoot people all over the place very strong signals. I used to own Icom equipment. The reason I stay away from Icom now is because of the construction of their equipment and reviews from other Hams. From the radio's I have owned, they put out strong solid signals, have wonderful features, but I cannot tell you how many physical parts have broke on the radios. Knobs, connectors, wires, you name it, the physical end of their radios are junk from my experience (up until 2006). Otherwise, I probably would have gone with an Icom for HF. But I hear many Hams say what you say when it comes to the two brands. They like Icom over Yaesu.

[WRYZ926]

Every brand will have their positives and negatives. I have had good luck with every Icom product other than the IC-T10. The IC-T10 is no better than a Baofeng radio when it comes to performance and front end overload.

My oldest Icom is an IC-706MkIIG that I just bought gently used. It came from a silent key estate. I haven't had any issues with it either.

What turned me off from Yaesu is the fact that they know there is an issue with the USB port on the FTDX10, FTDX101, and FT991. Yaesu refuses to fix the issue. They will repair the USB port for free  ONCE under warranty. After the first time then they charge $900 for the repair even if the radio is still under warranty. I'm surprised that we haven't started seeing the FT710 have the same issue with its USB port going bad.

The FTDX10 I have works well other than the bad USB port. And I keep it as a spare. My daily HF rig is my IC-7300. Icom menus are definitely easier to use compared to Yaesu menus.

From talking to old timers, the 1.25m band was commonly used to link 2m and 70cm repeaters back in the day. The only listed 1.25m repeater I can find here in Missouri is permanently linked to a 2m repeater. Yes the band is very popular in other parts of the country.

D-Star, DMR, and System Fusion might be popular in some areas but they are dead in other areas just like the 1.25m band.

On topic:

Most do not want digital modes on GMRS and for those that do, there are plenty of choices on the amateur bands.