Un-official GMRS travel channel?

[DanW]

2 hours ago, DownEastNC said:

"Some people".. recognize that when "one person" attempts to shut down a conversation, that it transcends into arrogance, just like those sad hams that you constantly lament about. Better take a close look at yourself before accusing others of social deficiencies. You don't appear to be able to handle differing opinions very well. You're no longer in your YouTube safe space where you can delete what you don't want to hear. Demeaning others by innuendo only shows shallowness and accomplishes nothing.

If you and your following want to suggest a GMRS travel channel then that's great, I'm all for the conversation. However, if your approach to resolving the issue is by edicts, proclamations, and the shutting down of different opinions then that's where I start having problems. No, the conversation is not over because you say so.

Getting back to my original response, lets see some REAL activism on adopting some channel, whether it be 19, 20, or whatever, as the travel channel and by that I mean something other than an edict. Let's see some outreach to all the GMRS communities. Let's see some consensus and agreement. Build an organization if your have to. Are you willing to do that? If not, then this will go nowhere. Who wants to be the leader?

 

Looking back through the thread, you said you were pretty open minded about it.  In fact, you explicitly said that, IIRC.  But now that someone has come along and actually made a bold move to make something happen, you change your tune.  You've got every right to do that.  But you can be called out on it, too.  

Nobody is forcing any of you to go to channel 19.  But the squawking sure makes it look like you feel that way.  Like I said, I detect lots of butthurt here.  Sorry you don't want to come back and explain how I might be wrong on that.

 

[DanW]

6 hours ago, Ian said:

When I'm driving, I set 20(22) -- channel 20, 141.3 Hz CTCSS.

 

2022 is the year of the travel channel, friends!

And some of you folks going with channel 20 love it because you've got your little ctss code to keep the hoards and unwashed masses from joining the party.

This might surprise you:  I 100% support you in doing exactly that.

I'll be on simplex channel 19 and I think we'll both be happy.  Win/Win!  

[dhardin53]

30 day ago I started this post. It saddens me to see the amount of discourse it has provoked. I don't mind a spirited discussion, I don't have a strong opinion with this topic as some have expressed. A simple goal for licensed GMRS to be able to connect with others GMRS travelers should NOT be such a imposable hurtle. But it appear to be the case. 

 FCC rule is that GNRS is intended for general mobile radio using one license call sign for family and extended family.  I see no rule stopping two Licensed GMRS operators making casual contact. So why are we so divided? 

If you don't wish to participate in a general  Consensus then don't. Just don't.  Stop trying impede others from ones freedom to associate.  This topic has got off in the weeds many times I guess that go with the "world of Forums" 

I most of all would be considered weak in the written word/text and being miss understood. I get that, I have seen many well expressed points of view. Many good people looking for a command good as well.

I have read every post and come to a conclusion.  Some just don't want to play well with others.

I am sorry to say I will never make this mistake again. 

[n4gix]

16 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

I suspect every radio that comes with pre-labeled channels follows the same list that appears in Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mobile_Radio_Service#Frequency_table

Well I'll be darned, that Wikipedia article lists "Chanel 20" as:

(7) National GMRS calling channel (CTCSS tone 141.3 Hz).

How about that?  

[n4gix]

16 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

I suspect every radio that comes with pre-labeled channels follows the same list that appears in Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mobile_Radio_Service#Frequency_table

Well I'll be darned, that Wikipedia article lists "Chanel 20" as:

(7) National GMRS calling channel (CTCSS tone 141.3 Hz).

How about that?  

[Sshannon]

8 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Well I'll be darned, that Wikipedia article lists "Chanel 20" as:

(7) National GMRS calling channel (CTCSS tone 141.3 Hz).

How about that?  

Cool!

[DanW]

22 minutes ago, dhardin53 said:

30 day ago I started this post. It saddens me to see the amount of discourse it has provoked. I don't mind a spirited discussion, I don't have a strong opinion with this topic as some have expressed. A simple goal for licensed GMRS to be able to connect with others GMRS travelers should NOT be such a imposable hurtle. But it appear to be the case. 

 FCC rule is that GNRS is intended for general mobile radio using one license call sign for family and extended family.  I see no rule stopping two Licensed GMRS operators making casual contact. So why are we so divided? 

If you don't wish to participate in a general  Consensus then don't. Just don't.  Stop trying impede others from ones freedom to associate.  This topic has got off in the weeds many times I guess that go with the "world of Forums" 

I most of all would be considered weak in the written word/text and being miss understood. I get that, I have seen many well expressed points of view. Many good people looking for a command good as well.

I have read every post and come to a conclusion.  Some just don't want to play well with others.

I am sorry to say I will never make this mistake again. 

So you asked a question about something unsettled.  You didn't know.  I don't think its a big deal.

I also don't think everyone has to agree in order to be considered playing well with others.  In fact, I think society in general has come to believe that disagreement is hostile.  That's the real sad state of affairs.  I think we can all disagree and still enjoy discussion.  A forum is for discussion.  I've never read anywhere that there was a requirement for agreement.  In fact, I think there is far less growth when there is no disagreement.  I think it is healthy, on the whole.

I don't think anyone has crossed the lines and gotten intentionally personal or nasty.   But that's just my opinion, (which I'm sure many around here would agree is worth 2 cents.  A few seem very scared it is worth much more than that, though.  Lol.)

This is one thread in a forum full of many topics. Folks who disagree on this topic probably agree on many others.  And most threads don't really involve any disagreement.

I'd just advise not taking any of it too seriously.  If someone gets feelings hurt around here, they probably need to take a break and regain perspective.  I know some disagree with me a great deal right here in this thread, and with some good support for it.  I'm fine with that and still would consider each of them friends with more in common than not.  Some might be surprised to know that my opinion can be changed sometimes, too.  It might take some work to get me there, though. 

[mbrun]

I have already shared my opinion and will offer none further. I do not have a dog in the hunt for what is or what becomes the official channel, if any. I will share what I currently do however.

When I am traveling around town (mine or other(s) that I regularly frequent) my radio is scanning only for activity on known repeaters. Why? Because that is the dominate source of activity and I like having the ability to communicate back through those repeaters if the need arises. Now, when I outside the coverage range of these towns, I switch to scanning for activity on all FRS/GMRS frequencies using CSQ. If there is active communications along my route, odds are good I will here it. So far there is has been some, but minimal, travel-related radio traffic being heard, but no pattern discerned. Off course if what I hear is repeater traffic or otherwise uses CTCSS I cannot easily engage without tone scanning or stopping to fiddle with the radio.

When caravanning, I start by using a frequency that has no activity. If activity emerges that I or others are not interested in listening too, we will either switch frequencies or enable CTCSS. It has happened a couple of times only. If I have a TDR radio in the vehicle, I generally leave one receiver tuned to the caravan channel and scan on the other, but only for as long as its activity does not interfere with internal conversations or other caravan communication activity.

Everyone of us can come up with our preferred channel/frequency and why. In the end however, it will be whatever the people decide it to be…for them. If there is a substantial ground-swell of travel related activity on some particular frequency in an area, then so be it, that will be the one that folks in that area gravitate towards. Remember this phrase? “We the people…”

Remember, we are not talking about making a law or rule that people must follow. Folks here are offering opinions, and hopefully making recommendations and well-informed decisions based on what they currently know.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[DanW]

6 minutes ago, mbrun said:

I have already shared my opinion and will offer none further. I do not have a dog in the hunt for what is or what becomes the official channel, if any. I will share what I currently do however.

When I am traveling around town (mine or other(s) that I regularly frequent) my radio is scanning only for activity on known repeaters. Why? Because that is the dominate source of activity and I like having the ability to communicate back through those repeaters if the need arises. Now, when I outside the coverage range of these towns, I switch to scanning for activity on all FRS/GMRS frequencies using CSQ. If there is active communications along my route, odds are good I will here it. So far there is has been some, but minimal, travel-related radio traffic being heard, but no pattern discerned. Off course if what I hear is repeater traffic or otherwise uses CTCSS I cannot easily engage without tone scanning or stopping to fiddle with the radio.

When caravanning, I start by using a frequency that has no activity. If activity emerges that I or others are not interested in listening too, we will either switch frequencies or enable CTCSS. It has happened a couple of times only. If I have a TDR radio in the vehicle, I generally leave one receiver tuned to the caravan channel and scan on the other, but only for as long as its activity does not interfere with internal conversations or other caravan communication activity.

Everyone of us can come up with our preferred channel/frequency and why. In the end however, it will be whatever the people decide it to be…for them. If there is a substantial ground-swell of travel related activity on some particular frequency in an area, then so be it, that will be the one that folks in that area gravitate towards. Remember this phrase? “We the people…”

Remember, we are not talking about making a law or rule that people must follow. Folks here are offering opinions, and hopefully making recommendations and well-informed decisions based on what they currently know.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

I'm giving you an alternative like.  For some reason this forum limits the number of likes you can give in a day.

[TOM47]

34 minutes ago, DanW said:

Remember, we are not talking about making a law or rule that people must follow. Folks here are offering opinions, and hopefully making recommendations and well-informed decisions based on what they currently know.

PERHAPS OUR RESIDEN IN WHITE HOUSE WILL MANDATE A OFFICAL GMRS TRAVEL CHANNEL FOR WHATEVER THATS WORTH?

[Sshannon]

4 hours ago, DownEastNC said:

I don't know the history of how channel 19 on the CB became the truckers channel but I would wager a guess that it propagated from the truck stops and informal agreements that would be the channel they would hang out on. That was their social network of that period. For us, we have the internet to get the word out.

This doesn’t directly answer how it was chosen, but it gives some of the history:

Originally, there were only 23 CB channels in the U.S.; 40-channel radios did not come along until 1977. In the 1960s, channels 1-8 and 15-22 were reserved for "intrastation" communications among units under the same license, while the other channels (9-14 and 23) could be used for "interstation" calls to other licenses.

In the early 1970s, channel 9 became reserved for emergency use. Channel 10 was used for highway communications, and channel 11 was used as a general calling channel. Later, channel 19 became the preferred highway channel in most areas as it did not have the adjacent-channel interference problems with channel 9.

https://www.thetruckersreport.com/truckingindustryforum/threads/history-of-channel-19.82602/

[DownEastNC]

3 hours ago, DanW said:

Looking back through the thread, you said you were pretty open minded about it.  In fact, you explicitly said that, IIRC.  But now that someone has come along and actually made a bold move to make something happen, you change your tune.  You've got every right to do that.  But you can be called out on it, too.  

Nobody is forcing any of you to go to channel 19.  But the squawking sure makes it look like you feel that way.  Like I said, I detect lots of butthurt here.  Sorry you don't want to come back and explain how I might be wrong on that.

 

You are totally not understanding my dispute. It has nothing to do with the channel number at all. I honestly don't care what it ends up to be. I have previously expressed my opinion on that but yes I am flexible and will go with whatever the consensus is. Now let's take a look at the word "consensus" and think about that for a moment. What it should mean is that as a group we all mutually make a decision. I'm not going to quote it but what has happened here is one individual came in, proclaimed a final solution and then went on to say that the discussion is closed (I'm paraphrasing here). I find that a bit arrogant and annoying. You call it butt hurt but it doesn't matter. A lot of members have made an investment in this discussion and to just dismiss their opinion with the click of a mouse,  in my opinion shows no decorum or respect for others. This could have been handled a much more tactful way. So I reacted. And that's it.

Some of you have expressed relief that someone made a decision. That's fine if that's how you feel about it. But as a secondary argument I am saying that the "decision" really goes no further than this forum and a YouTube video. It's a big ass country out there with thousands of GMRS participants that don't know a thing about a travel channel or our "decision". If you really want to effect this proposal and get country wide participation then someone is going to have to roll up their sleeves and go to work. It has been suggested that this will roll out itself over time but I'm not that optimistic.

I would propose that we post a poll with the proposals that have been made. Now that would be a consensus. Do you agree?

[MichaelLAX]

Let's get the Captain's input on this topic

How about an unofficial travel channel on MURS? 

[AdmiralCochrane]

My comment about my search engine use being deficient was in regard to the fact that the often quoted Youtube result does not occur in the first page of results I get.  Nor does any website that suggests 19. 

I must be doing something wrong. 

[MichaelLAX]

11 minutes ago, AdmiralCochrane said:

My comment about my search engine use being deficient was in regard to the fact that the often quoted Youtube result does not occur in the first page of results I get.  Nor does any website that suggests 19. 

I must be doing something wrong. 

I think they are quoting the GOOGLE Machine result and not searching within YouTube...

[DanW]

1 hour ago, DownEastNC said:

You are totally not understanding my dispute. It has nothing to do with the channel number at all. I honestly don't care what it ends up to be. I have previously expressed my opinion on that but yes I am flexible and will go with whatever the consensus is. Now let's take a look at the word "consensus" and think about that for a moment. What it should mean is that as a group we all mutually make a decision. I'm not going to quote it but what has happened here is one individual came in, proclaimed a final solution and then went on to say that the discussion is closed (I'm paraphrasing here). I find that a bit arrogant and annoying. You call it butt hurt but it doesn't matter. A lot of members have made an investment in this discussion and to just dismiss their opinion with the click of a mouse,  in my opinion shows no decorum or respect for others. This could have been handled a much more tactful way. So I reacted. And that's it.

Some of you have expressed relief that someone made a decision. That's fine if that's how you feel about it. But as a secondary argument I am saying that the "decision" really goes no further than this forum and a YouTube video. It's a big ass country out there with thousands of GMRS participants that don't know a thing about a travel channel or our "decision". If you really want to effect this proposal and get country wide participation then someone is going to have to roll up their sleeves and go to work. It has been suggested that this will roll out itself over time but I'm not that optimistic.

I would propose that we post a poll with the proposals that have been made. Now that would be a consensus. Do you agree?

No, I do understand and what you are describing is exactly what I thought.  You don't like that @OffRoaderX decreed channel 19 as the official road channel of GMRS.  I think you missed the part where he is joking and poking fun at himself.  He wore a cartoon crown, for goodness sake!  You are acting like he and I have some kind of real authority here.  We don't.  But we ARE pushing it.  And I think it would ultimately happen without us. I see no reason it won't, since 20 has had so long to take off and has not. 

I think channel 19 frightens some around here who are not a part of the fastest growning GMRS segment.  But that's not our intent. Our intent is practical use.  I'd love to ditch the CBs in my Jeeps.  I don't yet because CB 19 is still very practical and useful on the highway.  But it would de-clutter and simplify my Jeeps to get rid of it.  I think that's a long way off, even if we get a bonified road channel established on GMRS, but it'd be a good solid step toward it.

I think the poll is a great idea, so fire one up!

I've said from the start that if people start using 20 or even 20 with CTCSS 141.3 instead of 19, I'll happily join in.  But channel 20 has had a long time to get there and it hasn't.  So we're trying to put channel 19 out there in a way that may result in people using it.  Seems some are afraid of that happening.  Then they'll blame us for whatever but it will have been nothing more than the power of persuasion, or consensus building, if you will.  No guns to the head or bullying or whatever it gets called.  

So the game is on.  19 simplex vs. 20 simplex vs. 20 with CTCSS 141.3.

But be careful.  Even though this is a radio enthusaist forum, even it has been infiltrated by the off-road community as they are looking to learn how to better utilize their radios, including some who want to go beyond just vehicle to vehicle comms.  That's how I got here.  The poll might not go the way some anticipate.   But even if ch 20 w/CTCSS wins here, that won't settle it.  Because a tiny fraction of a decimal of a percent of actual users are members here.  But I still like the idea of a poll to see where we are.  And I'd suggest leaving it open to see where it goes as more people find their way here.

So jump in the arena and try and persuade instead of grumbling.  If 20 or 20 with CTCSS wins and people actually use it, I'll be happy as anyone.  But we'll have to explain to new users how to get there.  Channel 19 eliminates that except for simply saying, "use channel 19."  But maybe that's exactly what some around here want.  A gateway that again, keeps the unwashed masses away from their playground.  (See what I did there? The off-road community as "unwashed"....LOL!  I crack myself up sometimes....you see, their vehicles get muddy and.....well, I know you get it.)  

Bring on the poll.  Don't forget to add 20 simplex as an option.  That potentially could wind up as the great compromise, event though it still won't make sense to new users.

 

 

[marcspaz]

 

A little history on CB, the reason truckers picked 19 as their channel is 100% technology driven.  CB radios go from channel 1 on 26.965 MHz, to channel 40 on 27.405 MHz.  CB radio's and antennas are covering 440 KHz, which is actually a very large swath of spectrum. 

 

Because the frequency range is so large, its not affordable to make a CB perform equally on all frequencies.  So, the radio and antenna is tuned for maximum performance in the frequency range center, which is 27.185 MHz... aka channel 19.

 

A common issue with the CB is, you can get close to full legal power limit (4 watts am, 12.5 watts SSB) on the center frequency, but on channel 1 and channel 40, your power will be low and SWR will tend to be higher, causing more losses.  Also, over the many decades of servicing CB's, I have seen as little as 1.5 watts on AM and 2.5 watts on SSB with a 2.5:1 SWR.

 

Well, no such thing as repeaters for CB and if you wanted to get the maximum mobile to mobile range, you would pick the center frequency for the full 4w/12.5w and 1:1 SWR.  That is literally the only reason why 19 became so popular for truckers.

[DanW]

Btw, almost 13.5k have found the YouTube video on channel 19 in less than a day.  They must be doing something wrong.

[DanW]

In response to @DownEastNC's great idea and In honor of @OffRoaderX's spirit of gettin' 'r done, I have posted the poll.  Fire at will!  I'll defer to someone else to cast the first vote!

 

[marcspaz]

@DanW... what if we are happy hams? Can we still vote? LoL

[DanW]

1 minute ago, marcspaz said:

@DanW... what if we are happy hams? Can we still vote? LoL

LOL!  By all means!!

[DownEastNC]

32 minutes ago, DanW said:

No, I do understand and what you are describing is exactly what I thought.  You don't like that @OffRoaderX decreed channel 19 as the official road channel of GMRS.

Do we have a comprehension problem here? You will not let this fascination with a channel number go for some damned reason. I don't care what channel was decreed and I don't give any consideration to this video that you are so enamored with. It's irrelevant in the context of this thread. I thoroughly explained the reason for my outburst in my previous response. It was thoughtful, methodical, and covered! Period! If you want to keep going down fantasy avenue then fine. Enjoy the ride. I'm done trying to reason with you since you continue to make this into something that it wasn't.

[DanW]

29 minutes ago, DownEastNC said:

Do we have a comprehension problem here? You will not let this fascination with a channel number go for some damned reason. I don't care what channel was decreed and I don't give any consideration to this video that you are so enamored with. It's irrelevant in the context of this thread. I thoroughly explained the reason for my outburst in my previous response. It was thoughtful, methodical, and covered! Period! If you want to keep going down fantasy avenue then fine. Enjoy the ride. I'm done trying to reason with you since you continue to make this into something that it wasn't.

All I see is compound butthurt here.  Maybe someone else can translate in simple terms, so that I can understand it.

As for my fixation on it, do you not see the topic of this entire thread?  What would you have me talk about here, the weather? 

And "outburst" was your word to describe what you did there, not mine.

 

[axorlov]

Great! The audience of NotaBubblegum will keep with their queen at chan 19, the rest will do whatever they want. Some will stick to .675. Win for the community from every angle.

[DanW]

9 minutes ago, axorlov said:

Great! The audience of NotaBubblegum will keep with their queen at chan 19, the rest will do whatever they want. Some will stick to .675. Win for the community from every angle.

Sad sham, vote in the poll and tell us what you really think.