Digital in GMRS - which mode is most appropriate?

[intermod]

Is this FB6 designation true? can this be verified?

 

Thank you.

 

Radioguy7268  is correct.  FB2 would also be fine for a private system.  However, the idle chit-chat that is common on GMRS is not actually permitted on the business/industrial service.   But in reality, it would never be challenged anyway as nobody really cares (including the Commission).     

[gman1971]

Intermod, now you're talking!!! Almost like a mini GSM GMRS tower.

 

And now for the "dreaming is for free part"  <deep breath> "....if I was made out of gold, man, I would be on TETRA faster than I can blink..." <end dream mode>

 

G.

 

 

 

Agree on the costs.  But if you need spectrum in a metro area, 6.25 kHz channels that may be the only thing available.   So you just eat the antenna, backup power system and additional rack space and site lease costs.   Ouch. 

 

TETRA - I forgot to mention this!   As GMRS uses 25 kHz wideband channels, that could support TETRA (I think it requires 21k bandwidth, so you would have to convince the FCC to go beyond the 20K GMRS limit; its already been done in Part 90).  Four TDMA slots would be more flexible than DMR's two and would further reduce message collisions among different groups. The handheld equipment is also quite nice, but still expensive.   

 

Since we have 25 kHz channels, it may be lower cost (considering both the repeater and user equipment) to simply split a GMRS channel in half and place two DMR transmitters there.

 

Normal Channel Center: 462.650

New Lower Channel Center: 462.650 MHz - 0.00625 MHz = 462.64375 MHz

New Upper Channel Center: 462.650 + 0.00625 = 462.65625 MHz

 

I just confirmed that the Motorola SLR5700 DMR repeater can be programmed for these channel centers.  Not sure about the CCRs.  

 

This now provides four repeater timeslots or channels in the place of one wideband analog channel.   Hmmm.....  

 

Greg 

[gman1971]

Wow, considering how bad I hate RF INTERMODULATION, I really like you intermod!! haha....

 

 

Radioguy7268  is correct.  FB2 would also be fine for a private system.  However, the idle chit-chat that is common on GMRS is not actually permitted on the business/industrial service.   But in reality, it would never be challenged anyway as nobody really cares (including the Commission).     

[intermod]

I just don't see the ban going on for much longer. I think we as a community need to step up and make a convincing case, on the record with the FCC. When they denied the requests to permit digital voice, they specifically mentioned that there was insufficient discussion about it in the record, and thus they could not make a ruling. Once a Petition for Rulemaking is filed with a very narrow set of requests (not the kitchen sink arguments that were flying around last time -- mostly due to so so many proposed changes by the FCC, we had to defend all of them), key GMRS groups and radio manufacturers will have a chance to discuss it officially on the record and the FCC can make the determination.

 

Even still, the main issue I see with allowed digital voice is that no Part 95 equipment (to my knowledge) is even capable of being programmed to enable it. Maybe one or two models exist that carry dual Part 90 and 95 certification. Assuming the FCC even decided to lift the restriction on digital voice, one of three things will need to happen:

 

1. The manufacturers will need to begin adding digital to their lineup of radios. This is not impossible, as some low-cost dPMR radios exist for Europe, but I don't see it as something they want to jump at right now. I think the tide will turn within the next 5-10 years, but that's quite far off.

    

2. The FCC would need to permit GMRS licensees to use Part 90 equipment. We've been down this road before, and they pretty much completely shut down the argument. Their position seems to be that the manufacturers just need to submit their equipment for type certification and there would be no issue.

    

3. The manufacturers will need to begin certifying their equipment for Part 95 as well. For whatever reason, the manufacturers seldom cross-certify for Part 95. We're only just now getting some of the Chinese radios to have Part 95 certification (much to the chagrin of some of us), but getting Motorola, Kenwood, Icom, etc to follow suit has not been going very well. GMRS and FRS were lumped together so GMRS radios ended up being seen as bubble pack radios to sell at Walmart, not for more robust communications. Hopefully now that the combo radios are no longer able to be marketed, that means GMRS will finally get some non-bubble pack love.

Digital formats are finally working their way into cheaper radios (mostly DMR at this point), so hopefully the market for digital personal communications will continue to grow and the manufacturers will get serious about meeting the demand. I think this lack of motivation will be a driving factor in the FCC not permitting digital formats in the near future. I also think the bubble pack manufacturers will sit back and moan that digital doesn't do anything special and they don't want to hear complaints of interference. 

 

It will need to be a concerted effort to get this done, but I think the case can certainly be made. Everybody needs to be on the same page and the argument eventually has to be had on the record, not just online in forums. 

 

 

Several comments to Rich's post:

 

 - My experience also indicates equipment certification is the #1 issue. The FCC wants to maintain separate control over the GMRS space and manufacturers, and I get that.

 

 - I would avoid requesting the use of Part 90 equipment.  The petition should instead suggest any new Part 95 certification issues that might be appropriate**

 

 - Don't restrict the emissions - include those for all the major technologies (FXE, FXD, F1E, F1D, F1W , F7W)

 

 - Address "listen-before-talk", particularly §95.1731 Emergency communications

 

 - Attempt to get some manufacturer buy-in (the larger the manufacturer, the better)

 

  - Have multiple supporting GMRS groups endorse/support the Petition

 

 

Operationally, this will allow full-power mobile, control station and repeater operation.   But do we drop back to better ensure success, such as:

 

 - Propose reduced-power repeater operations initially (i.e., 5 watts TPO for first year or two??)

 

 - Propose simplex/direct mode only operation initially?

 

 - Operation only on the 462 MHz GMRS interstitials initially

 

 - Restrict repeaters to certain GMRS channels initially (yea, can-O-worms...)

 

 

 

** Such as automatic analog/digital decoding for pre-transmission monitoring / listen-before-talk; mandatory analog IDers for repeaters, etc.  Encryption, shared use of channels (related to linking) is already addressed in the rules and need not be changed.  

[intermod]

Wow, considering how bad I hate RF INTERMODULATION, I really like you intermod!! haha....

 

Maybe this was my nickname when I first cobbled together two Jobcomm portables with duct tape to make a repeater without using those pesky and expensive filter thingy's back in the 80's....

[gman1971]

LMAO.. hahaha... pesky and expensive... indeed...

 

I would also think allowing mixed mode with FM would be great too. I believe Motorola repeaters can do both.

 

Oh man, I am already thinking about opening the flood gates and replace all the GMRS BF-888s house intercom with DMR... that is just going to be sooo cool... basically like those crappy old wireless phones with a station and a few extra handset, but this time on steroids!!! Dreaming is always for free tho.... haha

 

G.

[rdunajewski]

Maybe this was my nickname when I first cobbled together two Jobcomm portables with duct tape to make a repeater without using those pesky and expensive filter thingy's back in the 80's....

 

We now have four-letter words for people like that. 

[gman1971]

LMAO... hahaha....

 

We now have four-letter words for people like that. 

[quarterwave]

FB2 is Single User Repeater

FB4 is Multiple User, "Community Repeater", Each user group (Ex: Bob's heating and cooling) is licensed for the repeater pair and their mobiles/portables.

FB6 is Multiple User, Common Carrier, Only the system (Repeater) is licensed, users are licensed as part of the system when they become users. 

FB7 Same as FB6 but non-profit

FB8 is a trunking repeater (centralized)

[WRAF213]

Here's some excerpts from the FCC's 2017 rule change discussion:

 

Because the Personal Radio Services users typically share all the channels authorized for the service, it is important that all users be able to hear and understand each other in order to share channels and pass emergency messages.

 

[The] ability of GMRS licensees to communicate with each other is essential for the “listen before talk” etiquette, self-policing, and emergency calls that occur on these shared channels...

 

Services that function on shared channels in this fashion rely on operators following a “listen before talk” etiquette and are essentially self-policed in that someone that may be operating in an inappropriate manner is informed by others of the appropriate use of the channels. Voice obscuring features as implemented may prevent users from readily understanding each other’s conversations complicating the sharing etiquette, hindering self-policing and communicating with others in calls for help...

 

[introducing] a new modulation technique that is inconsistent with existing equipment would complicate the shared environment of GMRS channels. Further, with the use of the interstitial channels by GMRS and FRS units, we do not feel that the gains achieved by implementing narrowband digital techniques outweigh the losses in equipment investments and complications of introducing a new modulation scheme for GMRS radios.

 

We also decline to adopt a proposal to narrowband and digitize CBRS channels because 10 kilohertz channels are already relatively spectrally efficient and the digital emissions would be incompatible with the existing equipment base.

 

With the use of interstitial channels already in place and an established base of 25 kHz equipment held by individuals, any orderly switch to 12.5 kHz channels would be difficult, costly in lost equipment investments, and would not result in a material increase in spectrum efficiency.

 

The only way I see digital voice happening on GMRS is by creating a new service that's like GMRS but not, and digitizing from the start; type-certified equipment from the 1960s is probably still in use today, and there's no reason to fix what ain't broke.

 

 

But since we're speaking purely in hypotheticals here:

On the day pigs fly and there's a NPRM for digital voice (which is probably going to be a easily licensed 6.25 kHz modulation not common in commercial equipment (dPMR)), we suggest this as a rule: 462.675 MHz with a 141.3 Hz subaudible tone is officially recommended as a traveler's information channel, and no digital is allowed in the 25 kHz band centered at 462.675 MHz?

 

In reality, I would expect more digital voice exclusions, since analog repeaters would receive interference from any of four ultra-narrowband channels. It will actually have the effect of further overcrowding already overcrowded channels, since the new equipment will be purely interference to all existing equipment and only unidirectionally interoperable in the best case. To properly monitor the analog side, the ultra-narrowband receivers would need to either switch rapidly between the narrowband channel center on a 12.5 kHz step, and the ultra-narrowband channel center on a 6.25 kHz step, requiring a complicated and fairly expensive receive structure that would introduce additional confusion for the licensed-by-rule family members covered under the licensee's callsign. GMRS is already complicated enough, given the FRS/GMRS combination radio debacle. There's a whole list of reasons why DV, regardless of bandwidth, will never happen.

[gman1971]

Fighting against change is the surest way to failure.

 

One thing is to state that digital is currently not legal, and leave it at that. I understand that, its the law, and we have to respect the law. But the "resist change to the last breath" attitude, especially when defending a technology that is pretty much obsolete in terms of features and quality of transmissions, I simply don't understand your radical posture against change for the better on GMRS.

 

Also, the excuses and lame reasoning you've given, aside from the legality matters, which can be addressed (laws can be changed), I see no reason why digital couldn't be allowed, and offer a lot of functionality that FM analog can't offer. 

 

You sound like the guys who fought fuel injection b/c carburetors were simpler to tune... 

 

And if you have interference from digital systems, then perhaps you need to use more filtering and better radios... since I am using TX/RX cavities the intermod/interference problems I had are all gone.

 

Even if only GMRS was remain fully analog, the rest of the spectrum is ALL going digital, there will be interference no matter how hard you try to prevent the inevitable.

 

G.

[berkinet]

Here's some excerpts from the FCC's 2017 rule change discussion:...

...The only way I see digital voice happening on GMRS ...

Fighting against change is the surest way to failure.

 

One thing is to state that digital is currently not legal, and leave it at that. I understand that, its the law, and we have to respect the law. But the "resist change to the last breath" attitude, especially when defending a technology that is pretty much obsolete in terms of features and quality of transmissions, I simply don't understand your radical posture against change for the better on GMRS.

 

Also, the excuses and lame reasoning you've given, aside from the legality matters, which can be addressed (laws can be changed), I see no reason why digital couldn't be allowed, and offer a lot of functionality that FM analog can't offer.

 

You sound like the guys who fought fuel injection b/c carburetors were simpler to tune....

I think you may be unfairly characterizing the previous comment. I believe @WRAF213 was quoting the FCC’s own comments as a way of shining light on what might and might not be views and proposals the FCC would be open to entertaining. He did not claim to support or reject those views.

 

My own personal view is that this discussion has pretty much served its purpose and it is now time to let it go before we reach the point of Godwin’s law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[gman1971]

If that is the case, I am sorry.

 

In regards to the Godwin's law, nah, I am cool.  I just like my radios too much sometimes...

 

G.

 

I think you may be unfairly characterizing the previous comment. I believe @WRAF213 was quoting the FCC’s own comments as a way of shining light on what might and might not be views and proposals the FCC would be open to entertaining. He did not claim to support or reject those views.

My own personal view is that this discussion has pretty much served its purpose and it is now time to let it go before we reach the point of Godwin’s law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[intermod]

But since we're speaking purely in hypotheticals here:

On the day pigs fly and there's a NPRM for digital voice (which is probably going to be a easily licensed 6.25 kHz modulation not common in commercial equipment (dPMR)), we suggest this as a rule: 462.675 MHz with a 141.3 Hz subaudible tone is officially recommended as a traveler's information channel, and no digital is allowed in the 25 kHz band centered at 462.675 MHz?

 

 

That is an interesting idea.  You must have seen how public safety maintained backwards-compatibility on their mutual-aid channels (interoperability) when Part 90 users were slowly transitioning to narrowband.   They kept them wideband, and did not allow any narrowband operations the 12.5 kHz adjacent channels, until the mutual-aids when narrow.

 

While we are not really going narrow, it would better protect and lock in an analog wideband channel for compatible emergency comms when needed.    

[intermod]

 

In reality, I would expect more digital voice exclusions, since analog repeaters would receive interference from any of four ultra-narrowband channels. It will actually have the effect of further overcrowding already overcrowded channels, since the new equipment will be purely interference to all existing equipment and only unidirectionally interoperable in the best case. To properly monitor the analog side, the ultra-narrowband receivers would need to either switch rapidly between the narrowband channel center on a 12.5 kHz step, and the ultra-narrowband channel center on a 6.25 kHz step, requiring a complicated and fairly expensive receive structure that would introduce additional confusion for the licensed-by-rule family members covered under the licensee's callsign. GMRS is already complicated enough, given the FRS/GMRS combination radio debacle. There's a whole list of reasons why DV, regardless of bandwidth, will never happen.

 

dPMR-like 6.25 might have been the approach if no other common digital mode existed.  But we have many now.  

 

You may have missed the earlier discussions here - interference has to do with signal level & proximity, not technology to any significant degree.  And the assumption that the number of users and interference sources would grow and cause overcrowding has no basis.  

 

In the end, changes in radio services and rules are always much simpler than you portray.  If the Commission simply permitted the typical digital emissions and made no change to analog operations or anything else - new digital radios would operate on existing channel centers.  Bandwidth is a don't-care.   And like today, if an analog direct-mode operation was interfered with, the victim would simply change channels until it went away.  Despite what the Commission believes, I have never seen one user call another and coordinate channel usage (FCC pipe-dream).  They can't - they are all in tone squelch, and if they could hear, they would just start spewing expletives at each other. 

 

Repeater operations would be the same as they are today - a new repeater owner would usually listen, select a channel, and work with the other co-channel repeater owners to arrive on a good (or least bad) channel.   In the beginning, most digital repeaters would be replacing existing analog repeaters - so the interference environment would remain unchanged.  Having the option to operate a digital repeater would not necessarily increase the total number of GMRS repeaters.  Digital repeaters are expensive enough that I cannot see many going up initially anyway.  User equipment is also slightly more expensive. 

 

What if a new digital repeater owner does not coordinate?  You listen for his (analog) Morse Code IDer, or buy the $90 digital radio with Promiscuous Mode and talk to them directly if you want to save time. 

 

Also - all the new digital equipment have an extremely good "busy-channel-lockout" features if it came down to it.   But like analog, nobody would want to use it. They would simply move their repeater to a different channel and avoid the headache (and likely jamming/self-policing). 

 

Would digital complicate the GMRS? Only for those who wanted to use digital.   If I don't want to understand it, then I could save money and just buy analog.      

 

Really - its just that simple. 

[intermod]

Fighting against change is the surest way to failure.

 

Well said.   

 

Digital will eventually happen.  The question is whether we (GMRS licensees) what to propose the rules, or let the manufacturer's propose the rules.   

[gman1971]

Well said.   

 

Digital will eventually happen.  The question is whether we (GMRS licensees) what to propose the rules, or let the manufacturer's propose the rules.   

 

Maybe it should be we, the users, who propose the rules. Manufacturers usually don't care about anything else but revenue... 

 

G.

[gman1971]

Yes, however, I suspect that a lot of the cheap radios used for GMRS are not even type accepted, and they put out spurious RFI emissions off the charts.

 

For example, I can hear my cheapie GD77ss like 1000 channels away when operating on DMR.... now you crank the power of that CCR with one of those CCPA  (cheap Chinese power amplifier) like the BTech one, up to 50W, and now you have spurious RFI crap and IMD all over the band. I have a similar situation (not caused by 50W CCR, but kilowatt TV stations and whatever crap is on the giant tower) and I am certainly not a happy camper... but I've taken extensive measures with cavities and LNAs to get the situation somewhat under control. While its not as good as a remote location with little RFI, or noise, but its certainly better than 3 miles on receive with a triple collinear 5/8 over 5/8, when I know that antenna was easily capable of 20+ before... 

 

Again, its also about using the proper equipment, and unfortunately for us, licensed operators, not everybody cares, and the CCRs, for all their virtues to help people get in the hobby, they also have a lot of downsides. Most new folks (like I did) just want the darn thing to work reliable as a cellphone, and when they can't reach 5 miles with 50W they immediately assume they need to run 500W, or more power until the dang thing works (or smokes). Radio range, as explained by marcspaz is not about more power, is about location, antenna and feedline + filtering.

 

 

G.

 

dPMR-like 6.25 might have been the approach if no other common digital mode existed.  But we have many now.  

 

You may have missed the earlier discussions here - interference has to do with signal level & proximity, not technology to any significant degree.  And the assumption that the number of users and interference sources would grow and cause overcrowding has no basis.  

 

In the end, changes in radio services and rules are always much simpler than you portray.  If the Commission simply permitted the typical digital emissions and made no change to analog operations or anything else - new digital radios would operate on existing channel centers.  Bandwidth is a don't-care.   And like today, if an analog direct-mode operation was interfered with, the victim would simply change channels until it went away.  Despite what the Commission believes, I have never seen one user call another and coordinate channel usage (FCC pipe-dream).  They can't - they are all in tone squelch, and if they could hear, they would just start spewing expletives at each other. 

 

Repeater operations would be the same as they are today - a new repeater owner would usually listen, select a channel, and work with the other co-channel repeater owners to arrive on a good (or least bad) channel.   In the beginning, most digital repeaters would be replacing existing analog repeaters - so the interference environment would remain unchanged.  Having the option to operate a digital repeater would not necessarily increase the total number of GMRS repeaters.  Digital repeaters are expensive enough that I cannot see many going up initially anyway.  User equipment is also slightly more expensive. 

 

What if a new digital repeater owner does not coordinate?  You listen for his (analog) Morse Code IDer, or buy the $90 digital radio with Promiscuous Mode and talk to them directly if you want to save time. 

 

Also - all the new digital equipment have an extremely good "busy-channel-lockout" features if it came down to it.   But like analog, nobody would want to use it. They would simply move their repeater to a different channel and avoid the headache (and likely jamming/self-policing). 

 

Would digital complicate the GMRS? Only for those who wanted to use digital.   If I don't want to understand it, then I could save money and just buy analog.      

 

Really - its just that simple. 

[Dbnakamoto]

Well said.   

 

Digital will eventually happen.  The question is whether we (GMRS licensees) what to propose the rules, or let the manufacturer's propose the rules.   

A few months late on this one...

 

GMRS was traditionally made out of used commercial equipment. So yeah it will happen, the question is, will it become the same non-interoperable mess that has happened in the ham bands. I think eventually it will become harder and harder to find analog repeater equipment. There is already many GMRS repeaters running XPRs in analog mode. So I really don’t think it will be long, especially when you can pick one up with a cheap duplexor for less than $1k. 

 

The only way it could possibly work is if one organization issues the radio ids, and operates the network (ONE SINGLE NETWORK), hopefully in tier 3. Otherwise I fear it would just be doomed to become the same fractured mess that digital modes are in ham radio. Even if the current standards don’t allow for it, whatever form it takes in the future would still need to adhere to the sprit of those regulations.

[Lscott]

 

The only way it could possibly work is if one organization issues the radio ids, and operates the network (ONE SINGLE NETWORK), hopefully in tier 3. Otherwise I fear it would just be doomed to become the same fractured mess that digital modes are in ham radio.

The mess on the Ham Bands is due to Hams trying out every digital mode out there. At least there is enough spectrum to allow that. If somebody is running digital either switch to a different repeater or spin the VFO knob to find an open frequency for analog.

 

On GMRS there is a VERY LIMITED number of channels available. Once you start mixing in analog and digital is where you'll see the real mess. People with an investment in analog radios are not going to trash them so the mix with be with us for a long time if digital is allowed. 

 

The solution is to change the rules to allow only digital on one or more channels where the balance is analog only. Adding in another one or more channels reserved for digital only wouldn't require existing users to reprogram their radios. However I doubt the FCC is going to add additional channels unless there is a huge demand and or the manufactures lobby for it. That's how we ended up with the FRS mess.

 

Don't forget for digital you will likely need at least one channel for digital simplex and another "frequency pair" for digital repeaters. Without additional channels that has to come out of the exiting 22 simplex ones now, which 8 also being used as repeater output frequencies, and the 8 exclusive repeater input frequencies. That's a big bite out of the current spectrum.

 

If a digital mode were to be selected DMR makes sense. Even one NB analog channel converted to digital can handle two digital voice channels. That would improve the spectrum efficiency so you may not need that many digital only channels. 

 

Allowing linked GMRS DMR repeaters? That's a whole other can of worms. You need a registration authority, a network of high level routers etc. Just look at the Ham Bands to see the work required to setup and maintain a digital network. With GMRS being primarily for personal and family communications you need to find some very dedicated people to do the work, know what they are doing and have the money. As it is now there don't seem to be even that many linked analog systems on GMRS. Now you want to add in digital?

 

Last thing, somebody will get the "bright idea" to link a GMRS DMR repeater into other services or outside of the US. Remember GMRS is prohibited from communicating with stations outside of the US or other services. People have setup illegal cross-band analog repeaters between GMRS/FRS and typically MURS so the idea that won't happen with digital isn't realistic. If digital is ever allowed the FCC could simply prohibit any linking of digital repeaters to discourage people from doing it.   

[deanq]

A few months late on this one...

The only way it could possibly work is if one organization issues the radio ids, and operates the network (ONE SINGLE NETWORK), hopefully in tier 3. Otherwise I fear it would just be doomed to become the same fractured mess that digital modes are in ham radio. Even if the current standards don’t allow for it, whatever form it takes in the future would still need to adhere to the sprit of those regulations.

 

I think you may have a conceptual misconception of digital and GMRS. This isn't ham radio, with international linking. No radio id issuing is required for a repeater to work. You can utilize id's but not required.

I do not foresee digital anytime soon for GMRS. The gears of government grind too slow. JMHO

 

[jlag]

I'll just point out that if anyone wants to do UHF DMR, the FCC already allows for that. It's called Part 90 Private Carrier (FB6 designation). Go get a 10-year license - get a Coordinated Frequency pair, and have at it. You no longer need to be concerned about getting Part 95 certified equipment, you don't need to worry about who qualifies as a "Family" member, and you can go ahead and "rent" airtime to anyone you want to, at any price you choose to. There's no requirement to charge a set amount or fee to anyone as a Private Carrier - you get to set your own rates (Zero if you wish), and you get to decide who uses your system.

 

 

 

Hello RadioGuy,

This is interesting.

 

1. Would FB6 be part of Part 90 "IG - Industrial/Business Pool - Private, Conventional" frequency pair?

2. Does this mean that I could get a DBA for my business such as "XYZ Comm", get a frequency pair and "rent" time to myself/family and friends for business and personal use?

3. I have a 60 foot mast at my residence currently, would it be allowed to run an FB6/IG transmitter at my residence (legal business address)?

4. Would I be subject to a site inspection prior to operation?

[Radioguy7268]

I think you've got the concept - run under Part 90 as an FB6/IG - but you need to certify that you're going to provide communications service to "Part 90 eligibles" - which means US Citizens and US Companies that would be otherwise eligible under Part 90. Technically - you could also provide FB6 Private Carrier service to Public Safety entities - or a non-profit Town Watch group.

 

I'm not the law, and I'm not the FCC, but I've done this type of licensing for other entities. You are the one who needs to certify what you are planning to do, but I'm not aware of any requirement to "show your books" to the FCC to prove that you're running a for-profit business, or any site inspections. You will need to run Part 90 type accepted equipment, and you will need to certify buildout/construction within 1 year of your License being granted by the FCC.

 

Judging by your GMRS license, you're located in a fairly populated area, so finding a decently clear frequency pair might be a bit of a challenge in the Part 90 spectrum. If you've already got a 60 foot mast, try to monitor some frequencies and see if you can identify any open frequency pairs in the area. Used to be that some of the older 451.8xxx pairs were clean, but most communications companies have snatched those up - at least in my area.

 

I'd try looking up someone like FIT (Forest Industries Telecommunications) or EWA (Enterprise Wireless Assocation). They'll walk you through the steps. I find FIT to be a little more personable - but EWA is very professional & capable. Up front cost isn't cheap to get the 10 year FB6 license & coordination - expect to see something around $700, but it's still pennies per day. If you tell them you're looking for an FB6 UHF repeater pair with DMR/Trbo emissions, you'll be off to the races.

[BoxCar]

AASHTO or actually Radiosoft does both 90.20 and 90.35 in house. I used to oversee the 90.20 portion. www.radiosoft.com will let you see their price schedule for coordination and license filing.

[jlag]

I think you've got the concept - run under Part 90 as an FB6/IG - but you need to certify that you're going to provide communications service to "Part 90 eligibles" - which means US Citizens and US Companies that would be otherwise eligible under Part 90. Technically - you could also provide FB6 Private Carrier service to Public Safety entities - or a non-profit Town Watch group.

 

I'm not the law, and I'm not the FCC, but I've done this type of licensing for other entities. You are the one who needs to certify what you are planning to do, but I'm not aware of any requirement to "show your books" to the FCC to prove that you're running a for-profit business, or any site inspections. You will need to run Part 90 type accepted equipment, and you will need to certify buildout/construction within 1 year of your License being granted by the FCC.

 

Judging by your GMRS license, you're located in a fairly populated area, so finding a decently clear frequency pair might be a bit of a challenge in the Part 90 spectrum. If you've already got a 60 foot mast, try to monitor some frequencies and see if you can identify any open frequency pairs in the area. Used to be that some of the older 451.8xxx pairs were clean, but most communications companies have snatched those up - at least in my area.

 

I'd try looking up someone like FIT (Forest Industries Telecommunications) or EWA (Enterprise Wireless Assocation). They'll walk you through the steps. I find FIT to be a little more personable - but EWA is very professional & capable. Up front cost isn't cheap to get the 10 year FB6 license & coordination - expect to see something around $700, but it's still pennies per day. If you tell them you're looking for an FB6 UHF repeater pair with DMR/Trbo emissions, you'll be off to the races.

 

 

 

Thanks RG7268, Makes perfect sense.

It does seem that there are some 440 and 222's available for co-ordination. I certainly wouldn't want to grab a pair off a waiting list in a hot market if the frequencies would be idle 90% of the time, doesn't seem fair. Maybe its time to start a for-profit communication business, put a 100 footer up at my business site $700 is a great price considering what you are getting. Aligns with the cost of quality feed-line, antenna, duplexer, maintenance, time, time and more time. Still cheaper than a boat.