Un-official GMRS travel channel?

[n4gix]

18 hours ago, AdmiralCochrane said:

Glad I did my ham license upgrade before the fee was initiated. 

That reminds me, I need to get off my duff and upgrade to Extra before the fee goes active! 

[n4gix]

6 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

He is telling YOU that if you want to start a conversation with him, shout out to him on 146.52!

Absolutely bang on! This is a prime example of the differences between a "ham listener" and an "active ham..."

Over the years I've heard hams whine that "the bands are dead," yet when I ask them how much time they invest in calling CQ they nearly always answer "What's the point? I never hear anyone talking. The bands are dead!!!"

<Sigh>

[marcspaz]

33 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

That's why they invented the word: Anecdotal

AND:

"Never say Never!" ("not once") -- It's SO easy to disprove! @tweiss3and @marcspaz 

 

Most of humanity bases their opinions off of anecdotal evidence because those experiences shape our immediate reality. So, I try not to discourage sharing of personal experiences. 

 

I'm a scientist and there is an expression I heard long ago,  when I first started my studies, that still holds true today. Nothing is impossible, just improbable 

 

[MichaelLAX]

6 hours ago, gortex2 said:

My point was it never happens...

38 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

Most of humanity bases their opinions off of anecdotal evidence because those experiences shape our immediate reality. So, I try not to discourage sharing of personal experiences. 

Sharing of personal experiences that he claims to be probative of a much larger point, but which are easily shown to be completely wrong, have no value other than to mislead others.

Now if he wants to share how he just has bad luck on the road; then your point is well taken!

There is an expression I heard long ago that still holds true today: Don't confuse bad luck with irony! (Alanis Morissette, "Ironic")

[DanW]

4 hours ago, Sshannon said:

The rule for Line A is required of the FCC by a treaty between the USA and Canada, not by lack of motivation by the FCC.  Until Canada and the USA amend the treaty the FCC cannot change the rule. 

If the FCC was motivated, they'd start talking to the Canadians about it, since they've made changes since the treaty was signed.  In fact, it might be interesting to look more closely at the fine print in the agreement. There might actually be language in the agreement that allows one side to change things if the other side makes a change.  That is fairly standard in international agreements.  And I would not be so sure it has to go through congress if there is a clause or language in the agreement that nullifies it if the conditions or need for it changes.  Congress doesn't have to revisit treaties that expire due to certain conditions being met that grandfather the agreement.

But someone have to work pretty hard to convince me that the FCC moves with any kind of urgency on anything beyond emergencies or things that actually do get politicized.  

[MichaelLAX]

11 minutes ago, DanW said:

But someone have to work pretty hard to convince me that the FCC moves with any kind of urgency on anything beyond emergencies or things that actually do get politicized.  

Keep poking at the bee hive! 

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Keep poking at the bee hive! 

Yup. Keep playing “twist the dragon’s tail” game sooner or later one wins and gets the flame prize.

[SteveShannon]

3 hours ago, DanW said:

If the FCC was motivated, they'd start talking to the Canadians about it, since they've made changes since the treaty was signed.  In fact, it might be interesting to look more closely at the fine print in the agreement. There might actually be language in the agreement that allows one side to change things if the other side makes a change.  That is fairly standard in international agreements.  And I would not be so sure it has to go through congress if there is a clause or language in the agreement that nullifies it if the conditions or need for it changes.  Congress doesn't have to revisit treaties that expire due to certain conditions being met that grandfather the agreement.

But someone have to work pretty hard to convince me that the FCC moves with any kind of urgency on anything beyond emergencies or things that actually do get politicized.  

Here are the agreements. Knock yourself out.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/international-agreements

And, here is the original agreement:

https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/above30r.pdf

[axorlov]

Agreements... Yawn. NotaRoundhead should just declare Canadian border abolished.

[DanW]

40 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

Here are the agreements. Knock yourself out.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/international-agreements

And, here is the original agreement:

https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/above30r.pdf

Yeah, that narrows it down.  

 

[DanW]

3 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Keep poking at the bee hive! 

Ok.  If you say so.

Hey, I changed my signature.  It'll help spread the word! 

 

 

 

 

 

[BradfordD]

On 12/9/2021 at 8:28 PM, OffRoaderX said:

This is the obvious answer.. Everyone knows that CB Ch19 is the unofficial official road channel so it makes sense that GMRS Ch19 would be the same..

Someone should go on Youtube and decree it, to make it official..

 

I don't think we'd have an "Official Ch19 Road Channel" until myGMRS puts out an "official" bumper sticker:

                                           

                                            Road & Travel

                                           GMRS Channel 19 

[OffRoaderX]

Just for fun, someone should contact BuyTwoWayRadios.com, the largest distributor of Wouxun GMRS Radios in the United States, and ask THEM what the official GMRS Road/Travel channel is now......

Get ready to hear heads explode...

..You're welcome..

 

 

[WROZ250]

As mentioned by many, this seems to be an age old topic.  If you do a general search, you'll find that 462.675 with a CTCSS of 141.3 has, for many years now, a general status of a "GMRS Travel Channel".

That said, just because such a designation exists, doesn't mean anybody is going to do anything to support it/the idea to make it useful to travelers. 

It's kinda like the old CB Channel 9 thing which was suppose to be for emergencies and for a time back in the CB boom, many police departments monitored Channel 9 and some even had a CB radio in their squad cars.  That said, it wasn't a universal buy in on the part of law enforcement nationally.  Current era, I don't see law enforcement, especially in these times, getting money to purchase GMRS equipment even for the dispatch centers, let alone police vehicles.

Even in Amateur radio, 146.5200 (VHF) and to a lesser extent 446.0000 (UHF) have been considered 'calling/emergency' frequencies, but with the exception of some geographical areas, these frequencies are rarely monitored routinely and so are of little use to a traveler.  Indeed, if I were traveling , I'd prefer HF in the vehicle for a variety of reasons, not just emergencies.

To be sure, I'm not opposed to the general concept, really I'm not. I just think it isn't practical in the bigger picture. 

However again, you or (some other interested entity) can designate a GMRS traveler channel which, as previously noted, has sort of been done, but it doesn't mean anyone will support it to the point where it actually serves a useful purpose.

Just an opinion...

[WROZ437]

I see it as more analagous to CB channel 19. If I’m in traffic and curious as to why I’m not moving it would be cool, although not necessarily helpful, to call out on GMRS 19 and get a response if anyone was in range. I’m thinking simplex use here to another road user within a mile or two. My understanding is that 462.6750/141.3 was originally meant to be an open repeater initiative. That’s cool but not the same thing. In a real emergency I would pick up the phone. Radio use would be a last resort in an emergency.

So for my simple minded vision of this it would be nice if there was a consensus. Channel 19 with no tones seems to make the most sense for on the road simplex use similar to how CBs were used. Yeah, there is the line A thing….

 

[AdmiralCochrane]

I talk to a traveller about once a week on 146.520.  Sometimes people just call out, other times they are travelling across a ridge or bridge at high elevation and know the propagation will be tremendous so they call knowing the likelihood of being heard is greater from those locations.   

Just one time I talked to a trucker who called out on 520 asking for some local knowledge. It was a great QSO. 

[Lscott]

16 hours ago, WROZ437 said:

I see it as more analagous to CB channel 19. If I’m in traffic and curious as to why I’m not moving it would be cool, although not necessarily helpful, to call out on GMRS 19 and get a response if anyone was in range. I’m thinking simplex use here to another road user within a mile or two. My understanding is that 462.6750/141.3 was originally meant to be an open repeater initiative. That’s cool but not the same thing. In a real emergency I would pick up the phone. Radio use would be a last resort in an emergency.

So for my simple minded vision of this it would be nice if there was a consensus. Channel 19 with no tones seems to make the most sense for on the road simplex use similar to how CBs were used. Yeah, there is the line A thing….

 

Yes, there is that pesky Line-A, and a Line-C too.

There are people who have no experience with two way radios of any kind and likely have no idea what channel 19 is and what service. Using the same channel on GMRS as on CB only makes sense if you have knowledge of CB radio. That's likely why people are coming to this forum asking what is the GMRS road channel, they have little to no prior experience.

Some have even suggested using channel 16, 4 x 4 = 16 because you're driving a 4-wheel drive, as a logical reason. By the way 16 is the VHF marine emergency call channel too. I'm sure others can cook up other "logical" reasons to pick a different channel.

[marcspaz]

Something I was thinking about with regard to Line A... 90% of the US population lives on the the US borders and coast lines.  ~79,633,000 people live on the northern border.  That means that Line A has the potential to impact communications for more than 24% of the people in the lower 48 states.

 

As much as I like the idea of picking a channel, a channel other than 20 to avoid conflict with potential ORI type repeaters, a solution that potentially excludes almost one quarter of the population doesn't seem like a solution at all, IMHO.  In fact, I would be more prone to encourage people to use 20 over 19, since many repeaters have light traffic and operators are supposed to be mindful of not causing interference as part of their license agreement, anyway.

 

I don't know the right answer.  Just thinking.

[WROZ437]

29 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

Something I was thinking about with regard to Line A... 90% of the US population lives on the the US borders and coast lines.  ~79,633,000 people live on the northern border.  That means that Line A has the potential to impact communications for more than 24% of the people in the lower 48 states.

 

As much as I like the idea of picking a channel, a channel other than 20 to avoid conflict with potential ORI type repeaters, a solution that potentially excludes almost one quarter of the population doesn't seem like a solution at all, IMHO.  In fact, I would be more prone to encourage people to use 20 over 19, since many repeaters have light traffic and operators are supposed to be mindful of not causing interference as part of their license agreement, anyway.

 

I don't know the right answer.  Just thinking.

You make a ton of sense. It has been published that channel 20 with PL 141.3 is the travel tone (Wikipedia and other random online sources). I find @OffRoaderX and his YouTube videos to be very entertaining and helpful but his "proclamation" was obviously, at least partly, in jest. Even in jest, using channel 19 also makes sense, to a point. I am in the Metro NYC area and I can say channel 20 is basically unusable here. I have not determined the source but there is (what I think is) a repeater with substantial reach that has constant traffic/interference on it. I hear it at my home and also at work which is 28 miles away. This is small potatoes compared to Line A but still a thing. 

[marcspaz]

@WROZ437... you are experiencing exactly what I would hope to avoid.  Finding something other than 20 for "over the road simplex" would work much better in many cases.

 

Maybe, there is no single channel as answer. 

OffRoaderX does have some entertaining content.  Being a Jeep enthusiast, I love watching offroad videos.

[bobthetj03]

If the FCC would open up channels 1-7 to 50 watts, it would be logical for folks to use one of those channels for a travel channel. That way you aren't wiping out the repeater channels with simplex traffic, and you aren't limited on HT power in your mobile unit. Let's face it, how much range can you expect from a mobile unit while traveling anyway? Exclude those who have gone full retard and have 5 antennas and the corresponding radios in their vehicle, talking on all kinds of bands. 

 

[DanW]

2 hours ago, marcspaz said:

Something I was thinking about with regard to Line A... 90% of the US population lives on the the US borders and coast lines.  ~79,633,000 people live on the northern border.  That means that Line A has the potential to impact communications for more than 24% of the people in the lower 48 states.

 

As much as I like the idea of picking a channel, a channel other than 20 to avoid conflict with potential ORI type repeaters, a solution that potentially excludes almost one quarter of the population doesn't seem like a solution at all, IMHO.  In fact, I would be more prone to encourage people to use 20 over 19, since many repeaters have light traffic and operators are supposed to be mindful of not causing interference as part of their license agreement, anyway.

 

I don't know the right answer.  Just thinking.

Interesting.  Define "live on the northern border."  Are you saying that 79 million people live above Line A?  That'd be in the ballpark of 24% of the US population.  I'd have to see the source on that statistic.  It just doesn't sound correct.

[Lscott]

15 minutes ago, bobthetj03 said:

If the FCC would open up channels 1-7 to 50 watts, it would be logical for folks to use one of those channels for a travel channel. That way you aren't wiping out the repeater channels with simplex traffic, and you aren't limited on HT power in your mobile unit. Let's face it, how much range can you expect from a mobile unit while traveling anyway? Exclude those who have gone full retard and have 5 antennas and the corresponding radios in their vehicle, talking on all kinds of bands. 

 

Those are interstitial channels that sit between the main high power repeater output channels. That has the potential to cause interference to them. The low power is intended to minimize it.

For example channel 1, 462.5625 MHz, sits between channel 15, 462.5500 MHz, and channel 16, 462.5750 MHz.

If you check the remaining channels 2-7 you'll see a similar situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mobile_Radio_Service

[bobthetj03]

7 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Those are interstitial channels that sit between the main high power repeater output channels. That has the potential to cause interference to them. The low power is intended to minimize it.

For example channel 1, 462.5625 MHz, sits between channel 15, 462.5500 MHz, and channel 16, 462.5750 MHz.

If you check the remaining channels 2-7 you'll see a similar situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mobile_Radio_Service

 

Just another example of my newbness in this hobby. Thanks for clarifying that. Makes sense. 

[marcspaz]

53 minutes ago, DanW said:

Interesting.  Define "live on the northern border."  Are you saying that 79 million people live above Line A?  That'd be in the ballpark of 24% of the US population.  I'd have to see the source on that statistic.  It just doesn't sound correct.

 

No, I am not saying that 79 million people live above Line A.  They would be packed ridiculously tight. 

What I am saying is, the total population of the northern states that Line A is present in, per the Census Bureau, is about 79,633,000+.  That is enough people whom driving to or north of Line A is a distinct possibility, that they should be considered in a standardization proposal.