Jump to content


Photo

Seeking logical rationale for Type 95


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 WRDD237

WRDD237

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WRDD237
  • Ham Callsign:KN4PTV

Posted 17 April 2019 - 08:39 AM

Frankly, I want to know the real reason why the FCC requires you to use a Type 95 radio for GMRS. Suppose you're a licensed ham AND have your GMRS license. This rule just means I've got to purchase additional radios to lug around. Who is this rule benefiting and why?

There was a petition in 2014 to add exception to the Type 95 rules to ham operators but it failed miserably.

 

Thanks


  • n7ekb and Downs like this

#2 WRCY896

WRCY896

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WRCY896

Posted 17 April 2019 - 09:14 AM

GMRS is for families. No test, covers your whole family. No tinkering, grab a pre programmed radio and go.

The downside is that the FCC limits the equipment that can be used to prevent people from plugging numbers into a radio and causing interference.

There would be a lot more confusing regulations to follow if the FCC started putting all kinds of equipment exceptions for various other services, which then creates more problems than it was trying to solve for a family jist grabbing a set of radios and going.

My wife and kids are not interested in Amateur radio. This allows us all to communicate with few issues.
  • SteveC7010, Corey, berkinet and 2 others like this

#3 Elkhunter521

Elkhunter521

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationWashougal Washington
  • GMRS Callsign:Ask

Posted 17 April 2019 - 09:15 AM

You do realize that you are expecting logic from an agency of the federal government.
  • n7ekb and WRDD237 like this
Be vewy vewy quiet.
I'm listening to my wadio!

#4 Corey

Corey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • LocationWisconsin
  • GMRS Callsign:WQVA593
  • Ham Callsign:KD9HCW

Posted 17 April 2019 - 09:22 AM

GMRS is for families. No test, covers your whole family. No tinkering, grab a pre programmed radio and go.

The downside is that the FCC limits the equipment that can be used to prevent people from plugging numbers into a radio and causing interference.

There would be a lot more confusing regulations to follow if the FCC started putting all kinds of equipment exceptions for various other services, which then creates more problems than it was trying to solve for a family jist grabbing a set of radios and going.

My wife and kids are not interested in Amateur radio. This allows us all to communicate with few issu

 

I might add that GMRS has tolerances as far as frequency that are far lower then most HAM gear. With GMRS being smack in the middle of the part 90 portion of the band it is important to maintain some type of standard as to not cause interference to the adjacent service. Requiring a type accepted and certified transmitter is the best way to do this.


  • JohnE, SteveC7010, n4gix and 3 others like this

Just My $.02

 

Corey

 

Midwest GMRS

https://mwgmrs.com


#5 Downs

Downs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationHunt County Texas
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYH678
  • Ham Callsign:KK6RBI

Posted 17 April 2019 - 08:34 PM

GMRS is for families. No test, covers your whole family. No tinkering, grab a pre programmed radio and go.

The downside is that the FCC limits the equipment that can be used to prevent people from plugging numbers into a radio and causing interference.

There would be a lot more confusing regulations to follow if the FCC started putting all kinds of equipment exceptions for various other services, which then creates more problems than it was trying to solve for a family jist grabbing a set of radios and going.

My wife and kids are not interested in Amateur radio. This allows us all to communicate with few issues.

 

And nothing that the OP suggested would change any of that.  Adding an exception for already licensed HAMs to use their already existing and perfectly capable gear wouldn't change anything that's happening in GMRS currently for non HAM types using it.  Just means that we would have to spend less money on redundant equipment to stay within the letter of the law.  

Though I'm sure there's already plenty of combo HAM/GMRS guys running around with Amateur gear programmed for GMRS use.........


  • marcspaz likes this

A pile of "cheap Chinese radios", BF888s, UV5Rs, UV82s, KGUV8Ds, BFF8HP, UV50X2, and a few "good" radios, Yeasu FT310 (airband/nav), Yeasu FT90R (no longer in mobile service used as a base radio)


#6 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 17 April 2019 - 09:24 PM

And nothing that the OP suggested would change any of that.  Adding an exception for already licensed HAMs to use their already existing and perfectly capable gear wouldn't change anything that's happening in GMRS currently for non HAM types using it.  Just means that we would have to spend less money on redundant equipment to stay within the letter of the law.  

Though I'm sure there's already plenty of combo HAM/GMRS guys running around with Amateur gear programmed for GMRS use.........

 

This is exactly my thinking as well.  I currently have GMRS, 2m/70cm, and a 10m radio in my Jeep.  And an antenna for each radio. I really want to add 6m, too, but 3 radios and antennas are already too much.

 

I am thinking about getting a Yaesu FT-8900R, which is a quad-band.  That will get me down to two radios and two antennas... but if we could get a radio like that to run on GMRS too, then I would be down to one radio.  Instead of looking like a mobile SETI station, my Jeep would look like a Jeep.


  • Ian and Downs like this

#7 Ian

Ian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WRCH569

Posted 17 April 2019 - 11:53 PM

Honestly, if they thought of GMRS as a subset of amateur, where someone else (a ham, or a company) had to set your stuff up for you, and you were limited to "novice" bands, that wouldn't be so bad.

 

If GMRS were bolted to business bands still, that wouldn't be so bad.

 

The problem is that fragmentation of the bandplan - and moreso the market - means network effects can't take off.

 

Even Motorola is pitching LTE as the new answer to trunked radio deployments.  "Pay us a per-unit monthly fee, and we'll handle all the infrastructure for you". I can't help but wonder if this is aimed mostly at "FirstNet" users who don't need a smartphone, or who need something that can be operated without looking at it.

 

The problem with that is, ultimately, that it's rent-seeking.  I want to pay $40 per radio, not $40 per month per radio.



#8 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 18 April 2019 - 03:03 AM


Even Motorola is pitching LTE as the new answer to trunked radio deployments.  "Pay us a per-unit monthly fee, and we'll handle all the infrastructure for you". I can't help but wonder if this is aimed mostly at "FirstNet" users who don't need a smartphone, or who need something that can be operated without looking at it.

 

The problem with that is, ultimately, that it's rent-seeking.  I want to pay $40 per radio, not $40 per month per radio.

 

I would never buy solely into commercial networks.  Don't get me wrong... I love my smartphone, but the regular failures and lack of coverage, even when everything on the commercial networks work correctly, are the very reasons "radio" comms are alive and well.



#9 Downs

Downs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationHunt County Texas
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYH678
  • Ham Callsign:KK6RBI

Posted 18 April 2019 - 06:43 AM

Honestly, if they thought of GMRS as a subset of amateur, where someone else (a ham, or a company) had to set your stuff up for you, and you were limited to "novice" bands, that wouldn't be so bad.

If GMRS were bolted to business bands still, that wouldn't be so bad.

The problem is that fragmentation of the bandplan - and moreso the market - means network effects can't take off.

Even Motorola is pitching LTE as the new answer to trunked radio deployments. "Pay us a per-unit monthly fee, and we'll handle all the infrastructure for you". I can't help but wonder if this is aimed mostly at "FirstNet" users who don't need a smartphone, or who need something that can be operated without looking at it.

The problem with that is, ultimately, that it's rent-seeking. I want to pay $40 per radio, not $40 per month per radio.

I just switched over to FirstNet on my smartphone yesterday. Not sure id want my radios on it

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

A pile of "cheap Chinese radios", BF888s, UV5Rs, UV82s, KGUV8Ds, BFF8HP, UV50X2, and a few "good" radios, Yeasu FT310 (airband/nav), Yeasu FT90R (no longer in mobile service used as a base radio)


#10 berkinet

berkinet

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYR510
  • Ham Callsign:WB6TAE

Posted 18 April 2019 - 09:28 AM

Frankly, I want to know the real reason why the FCC requires you to use a Type 95 radio for GMRS... ...Who is this rule benefiting and why?

There was a petition in 2014 to add exception to the Type 95 rules to ham operators but it failed miserably....

I had assumed the first couple of responses had adequately addressed the original post. But, that seems to not be the case.  So, I will give it a try...

 

#1) GMRS and Amateur radio are two completely separate services with different applications, users and purposes.  In particular, the US Amateur Radio service is based on International agreements:

The amateur radio service (amateur service and amateur-satellite service) is established by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) through the Radio Regulations. National governments regulate technical and operational characteristics of transmissions and issue individual stations licenses with an identifying call sign. Prospective amateur operators are tested for their understanding of key concepts in electronics and the host government's radio regulations.

 

#2) As the FCC made clear in its response to the 2014 petition, allowing non-certified radios to be used in the GMRS "would allow for the proliferation of home-built, non-standardized transmitters in the GMRS, with no practicable way for the Commission to monitor and enforce regulatory compliance for these devices." Further, allowing licensed amateurs to operate non-certified equipment in the GMRS would provide special privileges for users of one service operating in another, completely unrelated, service. This would be an extremely slippery slope, one any regulatory agency would want to avoid.

 

#3) Amateur Radio and GMRS have their place in the world. I believe the FCC made the right decision. Blurring the boundary between the two would not result in any real benefit for anyone and might cause a lot of problems for both services.

 

#4) If you really want/must use ham gear on GMRS, go ahead, nobody is really going to stop you. Take responsibility for your action and operate accordingly. Just do not expect the FCC to officially condone your actions.


  • Logan5, SteveC7010, Corey and 1 other like this

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

-- Marcus Aurelius


#11 Ian

Ian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WRCH569

Posted 20 April 2019 - 01:34 AM

I would never buy solely into commercial networks.  Don't get me wrong... I love my smartphone, but the regular failures and lack of coverage, even when everything on the commercial networks work correctly, are the very reasons "radio" comms are alive and well.

They're literally the reason I got into GMRS, too.

 

I just switched over to FirstNet on my smartphone yesterday. Not sure id want my radios on it

Any particular reason?  From what I heard, they're building out a boatload of "excess" capacity for that network.


  • marcspaz likes this

#12 Downs

Downs

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • LocationHunt County Texas
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYH678
  • Ham Callsign:KK6RBI

Posted 20 April 2019 - 11:30 AM

They're literally the reason I got into GMRS, too.

Any particular reason? From what I heard, they're building out a boatload of "excess" capacity for that network.

Its nothing against first net but i would prefer my radios to be on their own dedicated system seperate from the cell network. Or at least have a way to easily and quickly and easily switch off to a dedicated system.

My department just switched last year from analog to digital. Its been a rocky switch and some of the old timers have had a hard time changing their radio habits to better suit the digital system and radios.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

A pile of "cheap Chinese radios", BF888s, UV5Rs, UV82s, KGUV8Ds, BFF8HP, UV50X2, and a few "good" radios, Yeasu FT310 (airband/nav), Yeasu FT90R (no longer in mobile service used as a base radio)


#13 BoxCar

BoxCar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts
  • LocationArden, NC
  • GMRS Callsign:WRCM737

Posted 21 April 2019 - 07:13 PM

FirstNet or FedNet as it should truly be called is another cellular  telephone system with its emphasis on data rather than voice. What ATT rightly understood about the win to build the network is it will/has turned into a money sink for the users. Even with the ability to ruthlessly preempt other Band 14 users and access to ATT's other bands the envisioned bandwidth will not be available at the scene of a major incident. There are a little over 12 million "first responders" and another 18 million other emergency responders as defined by the Homeland Security Act of 2001. The present governance is almost entirely in the hands of law enforcement who don't always play nicely in the sandbox with fire and EMS. Don't even ask them if the utility companies deserve to be included, they are very much opposed. In a disaster situation the two things most needed are water and electricity and you can't get that from law enforcement, fire or EMS. If I sound a little bitter about it, it's because I spent a good many years arguing that no responder or class of responder does their job alone but was not truly heard by the first responders or the Commission.

 

What the system lacks, and has been pointed out, is mission-critical voice communications. The cellular devices in use are a peer-to-peer connection while LMR or radio is a one-to-many. Say something on a channel and everyone on that channel in range hears that same message. That doesn't happen with cellular and, if and when it does come about it will be at the cost of the bandwidth needed for data.


  • JohnE, Radioguy7268 and Ian like this

Old and wise infers you were once young and stupid


#14 berkinet

berkinet

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WQYR510
  • Ham Callsign:WB6TAE

Posted 22 April 2019 - 01:34 AM

It seems this topic has drifted from its original purpose and it is time to start a separate “FirstNet” topic.
  • SteveC7010 and Ian like this

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

-- Marcus Aurelius


#15 PastorGary

PastorGary

    Senior Tropical Weather Analyst, TSRC, Gulf Shores, Alabama

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1457 posts
  • LocationMultiple locations in USA seasonally.

Posted 22 April 2019 - 05:28 AM

STAFF NOTE:  Agreed... When a member starts a thread, it is a courtesy to keep it on topic. If anyone wishes to start a new thread on the merits and disadvantages of ANY such cell based comm system, please do so in the Private Discussion area.

Thank you for your cooperation.


  • SteveC7010 likes this
PastorGary -

Weather postings Copyrighted © TSRC, All Rights Reserved

#16 Corey

Corey

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • LocationWisconsin
  • GMRS Callsign:WQVA593
  • Ham Callsign:KD9HCW

Posted 22 April 2019 - 03:55 PM

And nothing that the OP suggested would change any of that.  Adding an exception for already licensed HAMs to use their already existing and perfectly capable gear wouldn't change anything that's happening in GMRS currently for non HAM types using it.  Just means that we would have to spend less money on redundant equipment to stay within the letter of the law.  

Though I'm sure there's already plenty of combo HAM/GMRS guys running around with Amateur gear programmed for GMRS use.........

 

I might add that GMRS has tolerances as far as frequency that are far lower then most HAM gear. With GMRS being smack in the middle of the part 90 portion of the band it is important to maintain some type of standard as to not cause interference to the adjacent service. Requiring a type accepted and certified transmitter is the best way to do this. Posted this again just to be clear, I am a HAM but use part 90 gear for UHF and VHF. If the chart below posts you will see that typical HAM banded gear can allow error rates as high as 10ppm, With GMRS being a wide band service in the middle of the narrow banded part part 90 service its important to use certified transmitters. I have had plenty of HAM gear on my Aeroflex 2975, very little would pass 2.5ppm tolerance. 

 

error.jpg


  • berkinet likes this

Just My $.02

 

Corey

 

Midwest GMRS

https://mwgmrs.com


#17 marcspaz

marcspaz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • LocationLocation Location

Posted 22 April 2019 - 10:27 PM

2.5 ppm at 462 MHz is only 1155 Hz.  That is very, very tight.



#18 WRAF213

WRAF213

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • LocationVentura, CA, USA
  • GMRS Callsign:WRAF213
  • Ham Callsign:KJ6PSG

Posted 23 April 2019 - 12:48 AM

Wideband equipment on GMRS allows 5ppm error, but stuff operating on the 467 interstitials requires 2.5ppm. I have seen ham gear off by 20ppm or more, and drifts of 10ppm per transmission. That's not really important since there is no type acceptance for Part 97; as long as the equipment stays in-band and doesn't have excessive out-of-band spurs. Running 30kHz deviation is fine. Running 4 kHz off-center is fine, but not optimal.

 

That's not really why there's type acceptance. Ham gear can generate nearly every emission. Part 90 gear can generate a good number of emissions, like TDMA digital voice or packet data. Both services allow for transmit power above 5 or 50 watts. None of those are allowed on GMRS, which is why there are type acceptance procedures in place. It also establishes a set of guidelines for manufacturers to follow when designing and marketing equipment to ensure interoperability across manufacturers.

 

Why there's a prohibition of having amateur and GMRS channels together on the same Part 90-certified and 'otherwise compliant' radio, I don't know. I would expect it to be a prohibition of marketing dual-service radios, given the difference in intended use and operational procedures between the two services.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users