GMRS Travel Channel (rant 2 of 3) Frequency choice criteria

[kirk5056]

When we choose a GMRS Travel Channel what are some of the criteria we should consider?  I have thought of a few, I am sure there are more.  When I refer to GMRS I also mean FRS unless noted.  This is my second rant of three on the GMRS Travel Channel.

In my first rant (yesterday) I gave my thoughts on what a Travel Channel is and how some other radio services have handled the concept.  To review, I suggested that a Travel Channel is made up of three components, a Call/Hail component, a Chat/Rag chew component and a Distress component.  And we saw that some radio services have all three components on one channel, some have each with a channel alone and some combined them on two channels.

These are my thoughts on the criteria, you may disagree.

CRITERION: HIGHEST TX POWER It seems to me that we should choose from the highest allowed power channels (GMRS 15-22).  This gives the prospective caller the most choices for TX power.

CRITERION: BE LIKE CB Since many come to GMRS from CB those people may be expecting GMRS 19 to be like CB 19.  Those coming from public safety, military, ham, aviation or marine may not have those same pre-conceived notions.  I am not sure that nostalgia should be an important criterion.

CRITERION: FCC LINE A There is an international agreement (signed in 1965, so it is nothing new) between the US and Canada that restricts the use of certain frequencies within a certain distance of the Canadian border.  The FCC calls this Line A.  For GMRS that means we cannot use GMRS 19 and GMRS 21 in those areas.  I cannot find any documentation to show why those only GMRS frequencies and not other GMRS channels. 

Now, only effecting areas near Canada may not seem like much of the US but a look at the FCC website map shows something else.  Looking at the FCC map it appears that GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in some major metropolitan areas like Seattle and Everett Washington.  Nor can they be used in the major metro areas of Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint and Saginaw Michigan.  They cannot be used in the metro areas around Cleveland and Toledo Ohio.  Also, cannot be used around Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester New York.  Nor can they be used in about 20-30% of Vermont and New Hampshire.  And others

Also, looking at FCC’s map it appears that GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in about 80% of the State of Maine and about 60% of the State of Michigan-with their major adventuring areas.  Speaking of adventuring areas, GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in New York’s Adirondack Mts or 4 of Michigan’s 5 National Forests.  They also cannot be used on 4 of the 5 Great Lakes.  They cannot be used in the Boundary Waters canoe area and the rest of the Superior National Forest.  They cannot be used in several Indian Reservations nor in Glacier National Park. GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in several of Washington State’s National forests, most of Puget Sound and all of Olympic National Park.

Nor can GMRS 19 & 21 be used at about 10% of the NFL stadium tailgate parties or about the same percentage of MLB stadiums.

I almost forgot, there is also an FCC Line C.  It seems to prohibit the use on GMRS 19 & 21 in and around the Alaska capitol of Juneau.  They cannot be used in any of the Alaska panhandle and the associated waters, so popular in the adventuring and cruise industries.  They are also prohibited from use in several National preserves, the Wrangell-St Elias National Park and most (if not all) of the US part of the Alaska Highway.

CRITERION: COMMONLY KNOWN There is a channel that seems to be, by some GMRS operators, to already be the GMRS Travel Channel.  The GMRS Travel Channel debate/discussion comes up frequently on the GMRS forums that I read.  When it does some people always point out that GMRS 20 is, or at least was, the unofficial Travel Channel.  I am sure many, like me, don’t post but also think this to be true.  This shows at least some common agreement on the topic already existed.  A google search also shows some references.  It is listed on the 333 Radio Plan and even the flyer that comes with the Wouxun KG-UV9g PRO and KG-UV9gx from Better Safe Radio labels GMRS 20 (PL 141.3) as the Travel Channel. 

My un-scientific review of the repeaters listed on this site it appears that many, if not most, repeaters that claim to be a “Travel Repeater” are on repeater channel 20 (rx 462.670, tx 467.670).

CRITERION: MOST IMPORTANT The last criterion, that I can think of, and the most important one, is a nod to, and paraphrase of, Spinal Tap’s Nigel Tufnel.  If Nigel was discussing the GMRS Travel Channel debate he undoubtedly would say that GMRS 20 IS one better than GMRS 19.  Case closed.  

  CONCLUSION

We are a relatively new radio service so we could have picked any of our 22 rx frequencies.  A look at my criteria above seems to me to make one frequency a little more desirable then the others.  But choosing one of the two frequencies prohibited for use in a small but significant part of the country seems like a weak choice.  “Some  people” may disagree. 

Before the GMRS Travel Channel Committee gave us it’s decision we had two groups.  One group had no idea that there was a Travel Channel and another group that thought it might be, or could be, or maybe was GMRS 20.  So, to end the confusion between these two groups the GMRS Travel Channel Committee gave us a third group, the GMRS 19 group.  Instead of picking one of the existing groups.

I believe that the GMRS Travel Channel “Committee” included one of the most influential, well thought of and entertaining people in the GMRS universe.  I agree with the “Committee’s” basic premise (someone just has to make a decision) but (mostly because of the FCC’s Lines A & C) I think the “Committee” was in error with it’s choice of GMRS 19.  A similar GMRS “committee” recently declared GMRS 16 as the 4x4 channel using the same “has to” idea.  That “committee” pointed out that in math 4 X 4 = 16 so GMRS 16 was the logical choice—THIS WAS INSPIRED.

I was considering making the GMRS Travel Channel my stand-by channel so that strangers AND friends can find me, while I am still able to monitor the Travel Channel.  But, even though I live on the good side of Line A, a lot of my travels and most of my adventuring takes place on the wrong side of Line A so I cannot use GMRS19 as my stand-by at this time.

But this is NOT reason for my rants.  Please read my next rant where I propose structuring our GMRS Travel Channel (regardless of frequency) in such a way that might encourage more use of it.

[WRQC527]

8 minutes ago, kirk5056 said:

When we choose a GMRS Travel Channel what are some of the criteria we should consider?  I have thought of a few, I am sure there are more.  When I refer to GMRS I also mean FRS unless noted.  This is my second rant of three on the GMRS Travel Channel.

In my first rant (yesterday) I gave my thoughts on what a Travel Channel is and how some other radio services have handled the concept.  To review, I suggested that a Travel Channel is made up of three components, a Call/Hail component, a Chat/Rag chew component and a Distress component.  And we saw that some radio services have all three components on one channel, some have each with a channel alone and some combined them on two channels.

These are my thoughts on the criteria, you may disagree.

CRITERION: HIGHEST TX POWER It seems to me that we should choose from the highest allowed power channels (GMRS 15-22).  This gives the prospective caller the most choices for TX power.

CRITERION: BE LIKE CB Since many come to GMRS from CB those people may be expecting GMRS 19 to be like CB 19.  Those coming from public safety, military, ham, aviation or marine may not have those same pre-conceived notions.  I am not sure that nostalgia should be an important criterion.

CRITERION: FCC LINE A There is an international agreement (signed in 1965, so it is nothing new) between the US and Canada that restricts the use of certain frequencies within a certain distance of the Canadian border.  The FCC calls this Line A.  For GMRS that means we cannot use GMRS 19 and GMRS 21 in those areas.  I cannot find any documentation to show why those only GMRS frequencies and not other GMRS channels. 

Now, only effecting areas near Canada may not seem like much of the US but a look at the FCC website map shows something else.  Looking at the FCC map it appears that GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in some major metropolitan areas like Seattle and Everett Washington.  Nor can they be used in the major metro areas of Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint and Saginaw Michigan.  They cannot be used in the metro areas around Cleveland and Toledo Ohio.  Also, cannot be used around Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester New York.  Nor can they be used in about 20-30% of Vermont and New Hampshire.  And others

Also, looking at FCC’s map it appears that GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in about 80% of the State of Maine and about 60% of the State of Michigan-with their major adventuring areas.  Speaking of adventuring areas, GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in New York’s Adirondack Mts or 4 of Michigan’s 5 National Forests.  They also cannot be used on 4 of the 5 Great Lakes.  They cannot be used in the Boundary Waters canoe area and the rest of the Superior National Forest.  They cannot be used in several Indian Reservations nor in Glacier National Park. GMRS 19 & 21 cannot be used in several of Washington State’s National forests, most of Puget Sound and all of Olympic National Park.

Nor can GMRS 19 & 21 be used at about 10% of the NFL stadium tailgate parties or about the same percentage of MLB stadiums.

I almost forgot, there is also an FCC Line C.  It seems to prohibit the use on GMRS 19 & 21 in and around the Alaska capitol of Juneau.  They cannot be used in any of the Alaska panhandle and the associated waters, so popular in the adventuring and cruise industries.  They are also prohibited from use in several National preserves, the Wrangell-St Elias National Park and most (if not all) of the US part of the Alaska Highway.

CRITERION: COMMONLY KNOWN There is a channel that seems to be, by some GMRS operators, to already be the GMRS Travel Channel.  The GMRS Travel Channel debate/discussion comes up frequently on the GMRS forums that I read.  When it does some people always point out that GMRS 20 is, or at least was, the unofficial Travel Channel.  I am sure many, like me, don’t post but also think this to be true.  This shows at least some common agreement on the topic already existed.  A google search also shows some references.  It is listed on the 333 Radio Plan and even the flyer that comes with the Wouxun KG-UV9g PRO and KG-UV9gx from Better Safe Radio labels GMRS 20 (PL 141.3) as the Travel Channel. 

My un-scientific review of the repeaters listed on this site it appears that many, if not most, repeaters that claim to be a “Travel Repeater” are on repeater channel 20 (rx 462.670, tx 467.670).

CRITERION: MOST IMPORTANT The last criterion, that I can think of, and the most important one, is a nod to, and paraphrase of, Spinal Tap’s Nigel Tufnel.  If Nigel was discussing the GMRS Travel Channel debate he undoubtedly would say that GMRS 20 IS one better than GMRS 19.  Case closed.  

  CONCLUSION

We are a relatively new radio service so we could have picked any of our 22 rx frequencies.  A look at my criteria above seems to me to make one frequency a little more desirable then the others.  But choosing one of the two frequencies prohibited for use in a small but significant part of the country seems like a weak choice.  “Some  people” may disagree. 

Before the GMRS Travel Channel Committee gave us it’s decision we had two groups.  One group had no idea that there was a Travel Channel and another group that thought it might be, or could be, or maybe was GMRS 20.  So, to end the confusion between these two groups the GMRS Travel Channel Committee gave us a third group, the GMRS 19 group.  Instead of picking one of the existing groups.

I believe that the GMRS Travel Channel “Committee” included one of the most influential, well thought of and entertaining people in the GMRS universe.  I agree with the “Committee’s” basic premise (someone just has to make a decision) but (mostly because of the FCC’s Lines A & C) I think the “Committee” was in error with it’s choice of GMRS 19.  A similar GMRS “committee” recently declared GMRS 16 as the 4x4 channel using the same “has to” idea.  That “committee” pointed out that in math 4 X 4 = 16 so GMRS 16 was the logical choice—THIS WAS INSPIRED.

I was considering making the GMRS Travel Channel my stand-by channel so that strangers AND friends can find me, while I am still able to monitor the Travel Channel.  But, even though I live on the good side of Line A, a lot of my travels and most of my adventuring takes place on the wrong side of Line A so I cannot use GMRS19 as my stand-by at this time.

But this is NOT reason for my rants.  Please read my next rant where I propose structuring our GMRS Travel Channel (regardless of frequency) in such a way that might encourage more use of it.

Wow. That is a lot of words. 

[OffRoaderX]

5 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

Wow. That is a lot of words. 

I approve this message.

[WRUU653]

because all the really good looking girls are going to go out with the satellite phone guys because they got all the money

[Radioguy7268]

Someone has discovered the joy of using ChatGPT to pose wordy ramblings. Congrats. 

[jbkalla]

I personally like the idea of nostalgia and using Ch19 for the travel channel, but I'm not tied to that.  Thirty years ago, I would have said everybody knows Ch19 and it might be easier for new users, but I think that's probably not valid anymore.  Ch20 also seems like a decent choice, and it's a nice round number!

[WRVZ612]

OK, here is my take on this. Channels 1 through 7 are 5 watts. Not a lot of range. Channels 8 through 14 is one half a watt. Not much use at that power. Channels 15 through 22 are 50 watts. Hey, that's great, but oops. Those are repeater output frequencies as well and anyone using a repeater on one of those channels with it being a travel channel, if it's a busy repeater, they will blow right over you and they will not even know that you are there. They won't hear you, because you are not transmitting on an input frequency and no tones. Basically none of them are good as a travel channel and that sucks. Unless the FCC was to give us one 50 watt non repeater channel lets say, channel one, then a common travel channel is unlikely. The only other option would be a "gentlemen's agreement" Like some Ham situations are. Making one of the repeater channels a travel channel and any repeater owner that uses that channel to change to another one. It's a nice idea, but it's easier said than done.

[Sshannon]

@kirk5056 I enjoyed reading your post. It was well written and you did a nice job of summarizing the issues.  Unfortunately, I agree with @WRUU653 that it probably won’t make any difference.

[WRUU653]

 @kirk5056 obviously put some time, thought and effort into his summation of the travel channel dilemma. While I admit to being dismissive due to the enormity of his case building and the fact I have yet to use the radio in a travel channel way, he deserves more.  YouTube guy picked a channel to get everyone on board to a decision.  The nostalgia that @jbkalla mentioned likely led to an acceptance of this idea.  There is a good case being made that was the wrong choice because it excluded a portion of GMRS users. @WRVZ612 points out why no choice is a good choice. I can’t argue with his logic.

I would ask do we need a travel channel on GMRS?  Do people use their radio this way?  Is the nostalgia of CB a good thing?  20 seems to be the best all inclusive option.  It can just as easily be 19 and 20 or 14 just get the FCC to let us put 50 watts out on 14. Okay that’s not likely going to happen but I like it. Anyway I’m sold, should I use a travel channel it will be 20 definitely 20 or 19, maybe 14 but definitely 20. 

[Sshannon]

If any kind of officiality is desired for things like this, GMRS users should first establish some kind of users group. Perhaps one even exists in stealth mode.

Clearly the FCC intends GMRS to be used to provide traveler assistance:

§ 95.1731 Permissible GMRS uses.

The operator of a GMRS station may use that station for two-way plain language voice communications with other GMRS stations and with FRS units concerning personal or business activities.

(a)Emergency communications.Any GMRS channel may be used for emergency communications or for traveler assistance. Operators of GMRS stations must, at all times and on all channels, give priority to emergency communications. 

(b)One-way communications.The operator of a GMRS station may use that station to transmit one-way communications: 

(1)To call for help or transmit other emergency communications; 

(2)To provide warnings of hazardous road conditions to travelers; or, 

(3)To make brief test transmissions. 

(c)Travelers assistance.The operator of a GMRS station may transmit communications necessary to assist a traveler to reach a destination or to receive necessary services. 

(d)Digital data.GMRS hand-held portable units may transmit digital data containing location information, or requesting location information from one or more other GMRS or FRS units, or containing a brief text message to another specific GMRS or FRS unit

[gortex2]

23 hours ago, kirk5056 said:

We are a relatively new radio service so we could have picked any of our 22 rx frequencies. 

Uh...MY father had a GMRS license when I was a kid. Thats 40+ years ago. GMRS is way not a new service. I think you need to do some reading. 

 

[WRKC935]

23 hours ago, Radioguy7268 said:

Someone has discovered the joy of using ChatGPT to pose wordy ramblings. Congrats. 

Yep, went back and reviewed his other posts.  6 to 8 lines max and then all of a sudden this stuff.  Personally I think we need to put a stop to this nonsense right now.  If you want to get on here and write a novel about a topic, then YOU need to be writing it, not ChatGPT. Because screen scraping someone or someTHING else's work and calling it your own is still plagiarism and BS.  Is this what the world is coming to that people refuse to have an actual thought or opinion and instead ask some AI thing on the Internet to form an opinion for them?  We just gonna forgo free thinking and jump on the InterWeb bandwagon of BS and allow others thoughts to be combined by some computer system and just go with that? 

Ok, how about we just forgo voice communications of any kind, run some voice recognition program on our computers and and then connect that to our radios and let the computers talk on the radio and not bother to actually communicate with each other any more. 

Personally I think this stuff is getting out of hand.  And we are only beginning to scratch the surface of the coming dumb.  The WORST is yet to come.

 

[marcspaz]

Man, I have to be honest, I feel like the internet and my cellphone/smartphone has made me dumber.  Like so much so, that I'm not sure I even spelled 'dumber' correctly, but I don't want to look it up because that perpetuates the problem. LoL

[marcspaz]

19 hours ago, gortex2 said:

Uh...MY father had a GMRS license when I was a kid. Thats 40+ years ago. GMRS is way not a new service. I think you need to do some reading. 

 

 

Yep, GMRS has been around for at least 60 years.  @kirk5056, the original service was formed in the '60s, called Class A Citizens Radio Service.  It was renamed (and some rule changes occurred) in '87, to General Mobile Radio Service.  The last round of rule changes occurred in 2017, including a lot of definition updates.  On September 30, 2019, US legislature passed a law making it illegal in the USA to import, manufacture, sell, or offer to sell radio equipment capable of operating under both GMRS rules and FRS rules.  This lead to the most recent round of 'new radio builds' we are seeing.