Is There A Road Channel For GMRS?

[MichaelLAX]

3 hours ago, IdahoJohn said:

Yes, The way I understand it is,  you will hear them, but they will not hear you

if they have a code set..

I do not have any codes set on my radios

No, no: set your transmit tone; just leave your reception toneless. 

[marcspaz]

5 hours ago, Lscott said:

For mobile radios on the repeater channels ok. With hand held radios using an external antenna. Maybe not.

 

As I mentioned... the concept is in a theoretically perfect scenario.  I actually field tested this for a customer while working a proposal.  They had a 5 square mile piece of land that was hilly and about 50/50 cleared/wooded.  The branch chief insisted that every radio (assortment of HT's mobiles and 3 base stations) were all on VHF. 

 

I explained that the heavy woods and metal building don't impact lower frequency UHF as much as the upper portions of VHF, but he didn't believe me.  I ended up taking 2 other of my employees and ran field tests around the whole property, and then got out on the road and started a long distance test.  Because of the woods, VHF didn't even cover half the property while 5w UHF HTs did.  Plus, we put a portable antenna up 40' and hooked an HT to it and could talk mobile to HT to just short of 10 miles outside the property.  The VHF radios didn't make it more than 2.5 miles up the road.

 

Moral of the story?  Theoretical perfection and practical application are rarely friends.  LOL

[donniefitz2]

22 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

I explained that the heavy woods and metal building don't impact lower frequency UHF as much as the upper portions of VHF, but he didn't believe me.

As a software developer, many hire me as the "expert". But, I always run into this very scenario where the guy at the top knows better. It's like hiring a lawyer, then questioning the entire process and ending up in jail. In our case, it's not jail, just other people's money wasted. 

[Citizen]

13 hours ago, marcspaz said:

I explained that the heavy woods and metal building don't impact lower frequency UHF as much as the upper portions of VHF, but he didn't believe me. 

19 hours ago, marcspaz said:

Generally speaking (terrestrially), watt for watt, the lower the frequency the further the signal travels before it spreads into oblivion.

Marc,

As low UHF frequencies are actually higher than the high VHF frequencies, I don't completely understand why lower UHF would yield better range/results than higher VHF. 

In no way am I disputing this, as your real world tests prove, I just don't understand it.  Do you have any further insight as to why lower UHF yields better results than higher VHF?

Thanks,

Thomas

...

[marcspaz]

@Citizen Thank you for the question.  I can see where is can be hard to track, but hopefully this clears it up a bit.

Lets look at a test case, say when we are inside the Earth's atmosphere and there is absolutely nothing in between you and the other station.  We could be on top of two mountain peaks, for example.  If literally nothing is in the way, including the curve of the earth and all other conditions being equal, watt for watt VHF signals will travel farther than UHF signals.

Where the clarification comes in and explaining the real world results above, all has to do with obstructions.  Radio waves do not perform the same at every frequency.  At some frequencies, signals bounce off of literally everything.  At other frequencies, literally every object absorbs the signal. At still over frequencies, the radio waves pass through everything. 

Then, there is everything in between.  At some frequencies, singals will be absorbed by some things, reflected or refracted by others, and still pass through some.

So, it just so happens that when it comes to wood and steel (trees and metal buildings), those materials just happen to absorb signals between 130MHz to 300MHz at a much higher rate than a signal between 430MHz to 500MHz. 

Because their land and surrounding area was a combination of cleared land and heavily wooded, the trees simply cause more signal interference on VHF than UHF, by absorbing more of the signal.  So, in that one specific case, UHF was the better choice because of the terrestrial interference. 

 

Hopefully that helps a bit.  Let me know if you have other questions.

[Citizen]

19 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

[snip]

At some frequencies, signals will be absorbed by some things, reflected or refracted by others, and still pass through some.

So, it just so happens that when it comes to wood and steel (trees and metal buildings), those materials just happen to absorb signals between 130MHz to 300MHz at a much higher rate than a signal between 430MHz to 500MHz.

That absolutely clears it up, thanks!  I love radio, but while old, I'm still a newbie.

T.

 

[Lscott]

On 3/13/2022 at 1:24 PM, marcspaz said:

 

Welcome to GMRS and MyGMRS.Com. 

 

With only 30 channels in total...

22 channels. You can't run simplex on the 8 repeater input channels, they don't count. Unless you ignore the rules.

[marcspaz]

54 minutes ago, Lscott said:

22 channels. You can't run simplex on the 8 repeater input channels, they don't count. Unless you ignore the rules.

 

FCC calls them channels, so I do, too.

§ 95.1763 GMRS channels., (c): "467 MHz main channels. Only mobile, hand-held portable, control and fixed stations may transmit on these 8 channels."... "The channel center frequencies are: 467.5500, 467.5750, 467.6000, 467.6250, 467.6500, 467.6750, 467.7000, and 467.7250 MHz. "

[axorlov]

I agree with Lscott, while 467.xxx0 MHz are channels, in a context of what we are talking about, they are not in the picture. And the 467.xxx5 MHz with it's 0.5W max power are rather useless when mobile on the road, so only 15 channels may have any real use.

[marcspaz]

But how can you disagree?  They are literal channels on the radio too?  Even advertisers call them channels...  here is a quote from an advertiser...

"This radio utilizes 15 GMRS channels and eight high-powered repeater channels".

 

Regardless of if you find use in 0.5 watts in a mobile or not... it's still a legal option and a channel and totally in scope for a conversation about what channel to use while on the road.  May not be a great option, but its still an option.

[axorlov]

C'mon Marc, would you program 467.xxx0 into your scanner for the road trip?

[marcspaz]

17 minutes ago, axorlov said:

C'mon Marc, would you program 467.xxx0 into your scanner for the road trip?

 

Now that IS a different conversation. 

 

It's okay... you guys can call it whatever you want. I know that regardless of any protest here, you at least agree enough that you know what I'm talking about. If you want to call it something other than what the FCC and industry manufacturers do.. have at it. Who am I to judge. LoL 

[WROZ250]

I'm getting the impression (in this thread and others in the forum overall) that many have only read the 'highlights' of Part 95 and/or, people read only until they find what appears to bolster their 'position', yet failing to read the complete document where a given sub-section might correct/clarify a point of debate.

In addition to the main Part 95 document, there are within the main document, various references/pointers to other sections found both in the main document and, other (external) sections of the CFRs (outside of Part 95, but relevant to Part 95). 

All of which paint a pretty clear picture of what is, and is not, possible and/or legal.

None of it is 'rocket science'.  However,  it (admittedly) isn't necessarily easy to understand.

The point is, a good understanding Part 95 as a whole, really makes some of these 'conversations' mute/unnecessary.

Just my opinion...

 

[axorlov]

Reading is one thing, understanding is another, having personal experience is another another, and working in the industry  is a different plane alltogether. Oh yeah! Talking trash on the interwebs is fun!

[marcspaz]

5 hours ago, axorlov said:

Oh yeah! Talking trash on the interwebs is fun!

 

QFT!

 

I have been chatting with folks like Axorlov for some time... I think many of us have figured out when we're messing with each other and when we're serious. Though it may not seem that way to others.

[MichaelLAX]

15 hours ago, Lscott said:

22 channels. You can't run simplex on the 8 repeater input channels, they don't count. Unless you ignore the rules.

On 10/12/2021 at 10:37 AM, MichaelLAX said:

I'll accept the FCC as the best source for my position that there are 30 GMRS channels:

 

FCC - General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) -- Data Tab

 

[MichaelLAX]

12 hours ago, axorlov said:

Oh yeah! Talking trash on the interwebs is fun!

Give us some insight: Putin or Zelenskyy!

[WROZ250]

9 hours ago, marcspaz said:

I think many of us have figured out when we're messing with each other and when we're serious. Though it may not seem that way to others.

Agreed, but being ambiguous about your meaning before 'people figure you out', can lead to some heated exchanges.

Texting is an imperfect medium and without clear indicators in the message, and/or knowledge of the person writing can again, lead to misunderstanding.

Just Saying...

[marcspaz]

40 minutes ago, WROZ250 said:

Agreed, but being ambiguous about your meaning before 'people figure you out', can lead to some heated exchanges.

Texting is an imperfect medium and without clear indicators in the message, and/or knowledge of the person writing can again, lead to misunderstanding.

Just Saying...

 

Eh... people will get used to it. It's It's good tool to weed out the weak.

 

  

16 hours ago, WROZ250 said:

...people read only until they find what appears to bolster their 'position', yet failing to read the complete document where a given sub-section might correct/clarify a point of debate. ... All of which paint a pretty clear picture of what is, and is not, possible and/or legal.

 

Have you ever spent any time in court?  This is exactly what happens in court.  Someone is accused of doing something wrong.  The defense team points to the code, rule or Tort Law that exonerates their client.  The prosecution points to the code, rule or Tort Law to get a conviction.  Many time they are both looking at exact same source and just looking at it from a different perspective or trying to use circumstance change the prism.  Then its up to the judge or jury to decide who is right or wrong.

 

Our laws and rule are so convoluted that much of it is contradictory or no longer rational.  There is a book you may want to check out.  Three Felonies A Day by Alan M. Dershowitz and Harvey Silverglate.  The whole concept of the book is that our laws are such as mess that the average person commits an average of 3 felonies a day, while just living a normal life.

 

Here is the Amazon description:

Quote

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

 

[MichaelLAX]

20 hours ago, axorlov said:

C'mon Marc, would you program 467.xxx0 into your scanner for the road trip?

Since my TYT-UV88 has TONE SCAN but does not have a REVERSE function, I have programmed all 8 repeater channels into another 8 channels in reverse, for when I take my road trips to look for repeaters and/or track down repeaters.

[WROZ250]

@marcspazNo argument.

That said, I at least, find very little about the CFRs (where it pertains to communications) that is unclear, especially after years of dealing with them almost daily (prior to my retirement).

However, on the practical side, the virtually complete lack of enforcement, even and especially at the manufacturing level, makes a lot of the 'rules' under part 95 pretty stupid.  If one were take the 'rules' at face value, virtually every Chinese manufactured radio (yes, even the 'good ones') violate the rules because, while not 'published', the ability to easily modify/override the otherwise restrictive 'rules' completely violates their 'type acceptance'.  Indeed, I cannot think of one Chinese radio that doesn't have some 'secret procedure' that will unlock it's other (non compliant) capabilities.

Generally speaking, I do try to remain compliant with the 'rules', but at the same time, and as many others have pointed out, it is extremely unlikely (if any concern at all) that the FCC would, for example, come after someone for using a Part 90 radio. 

Additionally, as others have also pointed out, unless you are causing serious and/or malicious interference to others, there is no way anyone (including the FCC) would be able to know (listening off the air) if your radio is part 95 or part 90.  Actually, there are ways to 'fingerprint and identify' a particular/specific transmitter off the air.  However, if the FCC is resorting to such technical enforcement tactics, I'd say you've been accused and/or suspected of some serious $#@%.

We all know that politics plays a role in a lot of the 'rules', and not just radio related.  I personally suspect some of the more restrictive (yet oddly unenforced) rules, where radio is concerned, came from one manufacturer's lobbying, trying to gain an advantage over the competition and/or generate sales (for themselves).

In a nut shell, if you don't bend the rules so far as to get noticed, odds are favorable that nothing will ever come from it.  That said, a misunderstanding of the rules and operating in a manner that consistently draws attention (and pisses a lot of people off), you might get a knock on the door one day. ("might")

Don't worry about the details, operate in a manner that doesn't piss people off, and at the end of the day, nobody cares.

As Randy says in his videos, they are 'rules' and not 'Laws' and, (the extremely few) people who have ever had their proverbial wrists slapped, are the morons who do (consistently) piss people off.




 

[axorlov]

10 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Since my TYT-UV88 has TONE SCAN but does not have a REVERSE function, I have programmed all 8 repeater channels into another 8 channels in reverse, for when I take my road trips to look for repeaters and/or track down repeaters.

I expected you to pop up with something like quoted above. You, the Fearsome  Hunter of Repeater Users, the Sneaky Decoder of Input Tones.

[jwilkers]

I have it on good authority that TWO new GMRS radios will be released in the next few months that have a quick-road-channel/Home button, pre-programmed to Ch19, which many use as the official road channel for GMRS..
"Some people" will disagree/whine/complain about Ch19, so they dont have to use it - they can talk to themselves on some other channel that nobody knows about.

Actually, what people refer to as channel 20, has been the travel channel for decades. There is also a designated pl tone. Many open repeaters use this frequency and tone.

Only this "new breed" and some lunatic YouTube er are calling for 19. Personally, I prefer to talk to the old guard anyways.

Sent from my SM-A125U using Tapatalk

[H8SPVMT]

12 hours ago, jwilkers said:

Actually, what people refer to as channel 20, has been the travel channel for decades. There is also a designated pl tone. Many open repeaters use this frequency and tone.

Only this "new breed" and some lunatic YouTube er are calling for 19. Personally, I prefer to talk to the old guard anyways.

Sent from my SM-A125U using Tapatalk
 

In my travels I scan (simplex) all the channels and have only heard two " good conversations" taking place on a repeater.  One was a nation link-in on a Sunday I think and the other was some good ole boys.  I must not visit the right parts of the country (hehe).

[marcspaz]

10 hours ago, H8SPVMT said:

In my travels I scan (simplex) all the channels and have only heard two " good conversations" taking place on a repeater.  One was a nation link-in on a Sunday I think and the other was some good ole boys.  I must not visit the right parts of the country (hehe).

 

(insert anecdotal experience disclaimer here) The little traffic I do hear while traveling is little kids playing on channels 1 though 4 or the occasional retail store near the highway on 1 through 7.  Hardly someone to "chat" with while I put miles behind me. 

In a real emergency I'll use a cell phone, 2m/70cm or HF radio.  However, if every single one of them are broken or somehow not functioning for me, I'll call on channels 1 through 7 for help, because a little kid can get a parent to help me or a store clerk can call 911 in an emergency.  Everything else seem like a ghost town.