Is There A Road Channel For GMRS?

[WROZ250]

The Channel 20 thing @H8SPVMT mentioned is the very old 'original' travel channel from the early days of GMRS.  Pretty sure even then it really never caught on. 

My own opinion is that the idea really isn't applicable to GMRS, especially these days for reasons such as mentioned by @marcspaz and then some. 

So where travel is concerned, GMRS definitely works for a group of vehicles talking to each other. 

However, traveling on an interstate at posted speeds (outside of a major city and traffic congestion), one would be hard pressed to have anything more than a 10 minute chat with a fixed station, if that, before moving out of range.  It's also unlikely that there would be stations routinely monitoring any channel really, that would be capable of offering, if desiring at all, conversation and/or assistance.

In this age of cellphones and such, the idea of having a modern GMRS equivalent to the 1970s CB channel 19 (or 9 for emergencies) is kind of mute.  Indeed, while most public safety agency don't routinely monitor CB channel 9 these days, odds are one would likely have a far better chance of getting assistance via CB than GMRS, same for travel chatting.

The entire idea of trying to establish a 'dedicated' travel channel on GMRS is silly, in my opinion.  There are simply better alternatives today that are providing that.  To some degree I see this ongoing debate over a GMRS travel channel as an attempt/desire to create what CB, Ham, and cellular phones are already providing, in a radio service that just doesn't lend itself well to the application.

Also, and as I've commented many times before, it's an adoption issue as well.  You can say this channel is a "travel channel", but that is completely without meaning unless people universally adopt and use it as designated.  I just don't see that happening beyond a local geographical area, if even then.

Just an opinion.
 

[WROZ250]

I would also comment to those who seem to argue this would work, to provide current examples of where it is working (excluding the off road crowd who does seem to have made it work to some degree to support their activities. The off road groups are not, however, traversing the country on the interstates).

Indeed, the more common response/experience to trying to use a 'travel channel' is more along the lines of, I believe the word was 'crickets'.

FWIW I operate an open repeater on the 'travel channel of old' frequency, with the old 'travel tone' (141.3) and, it solidly covers approximately a 10 mile segment of I-40.  Within the range of my system are at least 3 major truck stops.  I've yet to hear anything or anyone using the system beyond myself and a couple of locals.  Indeed, there is substantial, travel related traffic, on CB CH19.

[marcspaz]

7 hours ago, WROZ250 said:

...the off road crowd who does seem to have made it work to some degree to support their activities."

 

As an avid off roader and someone who travels a lot to do it, I am not even 100% convinced of this.  LOL 

I mentioned before that I know that there are groups, clubs, circuit series, etc., that have adopted a specific frequency/channel for their respective activities, but many of the groups I wheel with around the country just pick some random frequency/channel that everyone seems to agree on. 

Even professionally guided trail rides I have been on, the trail guides tend to use random channels between 8 and 14.  The one time someone I was wheeling with didn't have a radio capable of being on channel 8, the trail guide told everyone to got to channel 7.

So, it seems all over the place.

[H8SPVMT]

With general folks out running the roads around town a dedicated channel can work loosely as a club (per say) to shout out to other members.  But when we put a couple hundred Jeeps out in the woods on trails, each have to have their own channels.  And then there just isn't enough channels for a congested location for 40-75 square miles.

A draw back here is when you start hearing a call for assistance on another trail using the same channel, but miles away and mistaken it for someone on your trail ....

 

[Lscott]

14 minutes ago, H8SPVMT said:

With general folks out running the roads around town a dedicated channel can work loosely as a club (per say) to shout out to other members.  But when we put a couple hundred Jeeps out in the woods on trails, each have to have their own channels.  And then there just isn't enough channels for a congested location for 40-75 square miles.

A draw back here is when you start hearing a call for assistance on another trail using the same channel, but miles away and mistaken it for someone on your trail ....

 

Isn't that a good reason to use CTCSS or digital tone squelch? Particularly the digital tone squelch since there are a lot of them to choose from so the likely hood of one being used by another group isn't that high.

As far as channel congestion goes. Well, you only have 22 simplex channels to pick from, you're sort of stuck with the problem. Your other choice is all get your Ham Technician Class license then you have a whole lot more spectrum to use.

[H8SPVMT]

11 hours ago, Lscott said:

Isn't that a good reason to use CTCSS or digital tone squelch? Particularly the digital tone squelch since there are a lot of them to choose from so the likely hood of one being used by another group isn't that high.

As far as channel congestion goes. Well, you only have 22 simplex channels to pick from, you're sort of stuck with the problem. Your other choice is all get your Ham Technician Class license then you have a whole lot more spectrum to use.

Yes you have hit the nail on the head. 

[WRPQ991]

On 3/22/2022 at 6:25 PM, H8SPVMT said:

Your other choice is all get your Ham Technician Class license then you have a whole lot more spectrum to us

But all in your group would have to have a Ham lic. too. With FRS/GMRS they can go to wally world and get a handheld FRS cheap and have communication.

Can't get a consents on the channels we have now on GMRS why would we want more bandwidth/spectrum and more confusion?  

[marcspaz]

29 minutes ago, WRPQ991 said:

But all in your group would have to have a Ham lic. too. With FRS/GMRS they can go to wally world and get a handheld FRS cheap and have communication.

Can't get a consents on the channels we have now on GMRS why would we want more bandwidth/spectrum and more confusion?  

 

 

I actually go offroad with a small group of Hams... there is usually much less conflict over what frequency we use. The conflict with GMRS is some radios don't cover all FRS channels or there is a lot of congestion. Especially at big events like the Boy Scout Jamboree, Mustang Week, Beach Week, etc. 

 

In Ham radio, if we adhere to commonly accepted spacing, there is an equivalent of 267 channels, plus digital voice, analog voice in AM, FM and SSB. On top of that, we still have hundreds of squelching combinations.  Plus all amateur VHF radios cover all the same frequencies. It's pretty easy to just agree to use a quiet frequency. 

Me and my group usually use 147.525 MHz, C4FM modulation, group code 16.  The chances of us hearing anyone else while noodling around the mountains or downtown Daytona are almost zero.

 

That said, FRS and GMRS makes life a while lot easier for a family. Again, why I use it... mainly to talk to my family and a few very close friends and their families. The ease of use is what's so attractive for many families. 

[WRPE755]

I am not certain that we need a travel channel. Most of the tasks we used to use CBs for (traffic checks, speed traps, open gas stations, calling for emergency assistance, etc) are performed far more efficiently by our cell phones. GMRS is fantastic when traveling with a group of other cars, and I enjoy being able to gab with people on our local repeaters, but CBs died because they no longer filled a need. I don’t see how GMRS radios are any different in that regard.

Having said that I still scan through the channels while driving. I hear plenty of other people talking while on the road, so perhaps I am just missing something!

[Over2U]

This is truly the “Topic that keeps on giving”

[OffRoaderX]

10 hours ago, Over2U said:

This is truly the “Topic that keeps on giving”

"some people" will argue about it forever, and accomplish... Well.. You know... Nothing..

[donniefitz2]

2 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

...and accomplish... Well.. You know... Nothing..

I don't know. If we keep this up, this could become the longest forum thread on the site. That's something. 

[WRCE703]

On 7/16/2021 at 12:51 PM, gortex2 said:

So 462.650 and 462.700 are not to be used above Line A. That's about 100 mile stretch from the boarder. 

FCC Line A also excludes people in Seattle, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Michigan's Upper Peninsula, most of I80/90 through Ohio, Buffalo, Syracuse, Montpelier and 75% of Maine, from using GMRS channels 19 and 21.

[KAF6045]

3 hours ago, WRCE703 said:

FCC Line A also excludes people in Seattle, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Michigan's Upper Peninsula, most of I80/90 through Ohio, Buffalo, Syracuse, Montpelier and 75% of Maine, from using GMRS channels 19 and 21.

We can only hope, since Canada assigned those frequencies to ITS GMRS (simplex only, no repeaters allowed), that Congress eventually works on renegotiating the treaty that reserved those particular frequencies for other (Canadian) uses.

 

Should we start a letter writing campaign? Line A is not something the FCC can negotiate.

[kirk5056]

Or we could go back to using Channel 20!

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, kirk5056 said:

Or we could go back to using Channel 20!

You just guaranteed this thread will never end.

[back4more70]

I vote FRS channel 8.  If I'm within the sound of your voice, you have earned my assistance hahaha

[KPDoucette]

The closest thing I've heard to an official channel is Wyoming suggesting FRS channel 3 with PL tone seven (307, like the Wyoming area code), which is not as a monitored channel but as a channel for operational use to help search and rescue teams close in on search subjects.