GMRS Travel Channel (rant 3 of 3) One suggestion on how to structure the channel

[kirk5056]

In my first rant I defined what I think a Travel Channel should or could be.  I discussed how some other radio services handle that concept.  In my second rant, I gave my opinion on which of our very limited frequencies should be used for our Travel Channel.

In this rant I want to talk about ways to make the GMRS Travel Channel more used and usable.  Because if you may make a lot of calls on the GMRS Travel Channel but if no one is there to respond to you then it is not very useful.  So, instead of talking about who is making calls and how those calls are made (like most other posts), I want to talk about the people on the other end that may be there to answer you, and maybe suggest ways to increase the number of potential GMRS operators available to respond the calls.

THE POTENTIAL LISTENERS

I think the listeners out there can be broken into four non-exclusive groups.  I think at some time all of us have been in each group, changing groups from time to time, maybe even hour to hour.  I know I spent most of my FRS/GRMS time in the first group, but now I move from group to group.

1)  NON-LISTENERS:  This group does not know that there is/could be a GMRS Travel Channel, nor do they care.  They got into FRS/GMRS (like most of us) to solve one or more communication problems.  If they positively affected those problems then they stayed with FRS/GMRS.  These people have no interest in talking to anyone outside of their group and would (mostly) not be very happy if an outsider started talking on what they think of as their discrete channel.  For the most part the people in this group do not know about the GMRS forums and have probably not seen any of the GMRS Youtube videos.  I was in this group for 25 years.  This is probably the largest of the groups and least likely to be available to respond to your calls.

2)  CASUAL LISTENERS:  This group has some idea that there is a GMRS Travel Channel (and may be somewhat confused now that there is more than one choice).  For this group a GMRS Travel Channel is very much a low priority but do, from time to time, give it a try.  This group gets bored or annoyed quickly when there is nothing to hear and even more quickly when there IS something to hear but it is (like CB 19) full of boring or obnoxious talk or worse nothing but poor rx or static whether man made or environmental.  So, they tend not to listen for very long and therefore not likely to be there to respond to your calls.

3)  AVID LISTENERS:  This group is very interested in the GMRS Travel Channel and it may even be the reason they got into GMRS, to contact strangers.  These people, at least occasionally, scan all 22 rx frequencies without any PL filters trying to hear everything there is to hear.  Ironically, they are the same people that complain when they hear too much, like kids calling their teddy bears or highway flaggers.  These people, when they can, will listen to the GMRS Travel Channel all of the time, but this may be the problem in the context of this rant.  They probably listen the same way that I listen to my police scanner.  My scanner is on all of the time and becomes back ground noise to me.  My brain/ears filters out everything until I hear a dispatch alert tone, or back ground siren OR someone’s voice goes up 3 octaves.  In other words, this group may miss your Travel Channel call if it does not get by their “ear” filters.

4)  MONITORS:  This group really wants to monitor the GMRS Travel Channel but does not want to hear chit chat/rag chewing, nor do they want to hear distant tx or environmental static.  This is the group that I would like to be a part of most of the time.  This group would be very likely to respond to your GMRS Travel Channel call, but not if it was part of a chit chat channel.

POSIBLE SOLUTIONS

1)  The main thing that we (GMRS users, forums readers and Youtube influencers) can do to recruit potential listeners is for us to encourage manufacturers and retailers to include some mention or maybe instructions on what the Travel Channel is how to use it in their owner’s manuals, advertising and (if we are really lucky) in the pre-programing.  This tact should help encourage some listeners from ALL four groups to be actually listening when you make your call. 

As I am writing this very section I came across the perfect example of this interaction with Manufacturer/retailer.   The new (upgrade) Wouxun KG-935G Plus seems to have many bells and whistles recommended by some of our Youtube/forum influencers.  Notarubicon even got an LCD display named after him.  I believe that he is responsible for many radio features and new GMRS licensees.  He was able to get us things on our radios that we didn’t even know we wanted.  I really like the stiff channel knob on my KG UV9gx (I didn’t even know it was a thing, I wish I had IT when I was still involved in public safety).  Thanks, Randy.

I have not always been a big fan of his ideas.  I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around his love of the “Roger Beep”.  I have been in my deer blind, everyone on the radios were being very low key, then that damn Roger Beep screams out.  By the way, “Roger” beep is a misnomer, in the old timey radio world (like military or aviation) “roger” means “I understand”, the beep at the end of your transmission should be called the “over” beep.  “Over” means “I am done talking, it is now your turn”.  The “Roger Beep” is not the only mis-labeled item that we deal with almost every day.  “Private Line” “PL” “Privacy Codes” or any other privacy sounding thing associated with CTCSS/DCS.  But like the “Roger Beep”, we have been using them for so long it is hard to use a change to the proper terms.

I bring up the KG 935g Plus manual because, like I suggested in the first paragraph of this section, we really need to get the manufacturer/retailers to help us get the word out.  It says “Channel 19 (travel channel) is a favorite by default”.  However, I have to wonder how the FCC feels about the official manual implying that GMRS Channel 19 is a nation wide frequency, it is not!  That line in the manual should be followed by the disclaimer: “unless you are within a certain distance of the Canadian border, at which time in is unlawful to use GMRS Channel 19”.  We all can make what ever choice on how much we want to be legal but the Manufactures/retailers should use that disclaimer, in my opinion.  Unlike “PL” or “Roger beep” it is not too late to change to the proper term, a true nationwide channel, in my opinion.  In a year, maybe less, it may get to be too late to change.  Therefore, leaving a small, but significate, number of us without a lawful “Travel Channel”.

I am sorry, I get carried away.  I am very happy that we have one or more people representing GMRS to the manufacturers/retailers.  Please don’t stop.

2)  Another thing we can do to encourage more GMRS Travel Channel listeners, if my concept of the who-is-listening groups is even close to being accurate, is to have two “Travel Channels” like aviation and marine radio services.  One for Calling/Hailing/distress (in other words, a channel to make initial contact) and one (or more) where the Chit-Chat, Rag Chewing etc (in other words, a channel to have the conversations) can take place.  Even public safety, although not a nationwide channel, do a similar thing by having non-dispatch channels (car-to-car, tactical, fireground, records, training etc) to take as much radio traffic off of the dispatch channel, so it is more available for dispatch/emergency traffic. 

In my groups above, in my opinion, many more people might monitor our main (call/hail/distress) channel if they did not have to listen to unwanted “noise” (whether man-made or environmental), like that sometimes heard on CB 19.  Having a two channel “Travel Channel” would put us in line with how aviation and marine radio services handle the concept.  But almost ALL radio services, to one extent or another, do the same even at the local level.  Railroads have “yard” and “road” channels, marine radios have channels set aside locally to call the marinas, service boats or to open draw bridges and locks.  Aviation uses channels locally for tower, ground control, approach/departure etc.  And, as I mentioned before, public safety uses alternate channels to help keep the dispatch channels available.  I see my idea of two “travel channels” would do that for us, except on a national scale.

3)  So how do we do this two channel option with only our 22 rx frequencies to work with?  Most of the other radio services have more, sometimes a lot more, frequencies available to them.  In reality, as I talked about in a previous rant, we only should consider the 8 high power frequencies and then only the 6 of them are truly available nation wide (the pesky Line A thing).  So, instead of using up 2 of our 6 frequencies for one purpose, I suggest using just one frequency but divided into two channels using the modern technology (OK 70+ year old technology) of what I been calling “PL filters”.  I know many of you actually hate PL filtering but read on with an open mind. 

To make my explanation a little less wordy (I know “too late now”) I want to propose labeling for the two channel option.  Since our GMRS radio have very limited characters available for labeling I think they should be limited to 6 characters.  For the channel used for initial contact I was torn between “CALL” (like many radio services use) and “HAIL” (as in Capt Kirk telling Lt Uhura to “open a hailing frequency” when he wanted to call another ship).  I think “CALL” may be inferred as, like in “phone call”, a place for conversation, so I suggest “HAIL”.  And I suggest for the longer conversations (rag chew, chit chat) channel that we use “CHAT” instead of “TALK”, for a similar reasons.  Then, in case we don’t achieve a full consensus, we add the common FRS/GMRS channel number, shown as “xx”, so as not to reopen the actual frequency debate.  So we would have “xxHAIL” and “xxCHAT”.  If my two channel option does not take hold then we could have “xxTRAV” and pronounce it as “number travel”  (ie “nineteen travel”).

I suggest the xxHAIL channel use PL to filter out the xxCHAT noise (voice or static).  It seems that PL 141.3 is well accepted as the travel PL filter, so we could continue that.  It is also the legacy PL filter used when we actually had a more official Travel Channel.  Then I suggest that xxCHAT have no PL filter and therefore be able to hear all traffic using that frequency within range, INCLUDING xxHAIL traffic.  If you are mostly into the social part of radio or if you really dislike PL filters so much then you could probably stay on xxCHAT and be very happy.

From a listener stand point it would seem that xxCHAT might be the channel to listen to, but “some people” do not want to listen to the noise but do want to hear any initial contact calls.  From a caller stand point why would they use xxHAIL?  Because, using xxHAIL for the call it is heard by people on both channels, filtered and unfiltered.  Therefore increasing the number of potential listeners.  If no response to the xxHAIL call is received after a few attempts you could switch to xxCHAT in case someone did hear you but has a radio that can not change from PL unfiltered to filtered easily.

Once initial contact is made, both users could go to an agreed upon channel for the longer conversations, xxCHAT would be the default but it could be any channel they have programed in common.  Very short exchanges and distress calls could stay on xxHAIL.  It should be noted that most other radio services lose the ability to hear the hailing channel when they switch to the conversation channel, but using this structure, we would not.

POSIBLE NEGATIVES

1)  As mentioned above, some radios, mostly “bubble pack” and some Midlands can not program frequencies with more that one PL filter.  Changing the PL filter from “none” to 141.3 can be done on most of these radios, but probably will not be.  For these users they can decide (if the information is available to them) which channel (filtered or unfiltered) would meet their needs the best.  I can see pros and cons to each in this case.

2) How does this Travel Channel structure affect repeaters?  Since repeater input frequencies are in the 467.xxx range then input would not be affected.  On the repeater out put side the repeater owners could decide which group they want to hear their channel.  If they see themselves as oriented toward the traveler then they may choose no PL filter or PL 141.3 so they can be heard by radios on the simplex Travel Channels.  If, on the other hand, they see themselves available to traveler but do not want to compete with the simplex Travel Channel users they could use any PL filter other than “none” or 141.3. In most areas I do not see much problem with simplex and repeaters sharing the same channel.

CONCLUSION

If you got into FRS/GMRS for emergency communications you may be disappointed.  Unless you know before your emergency who and how to call others you will probably not be able to call anyone.  Ham is a better option but your cell phone or a satellite distress device would be a much better option.   GMRS could be used to help rescuers find you once the initial distress call is received.  OR FRS/GMRS could be a poor, but available last chance.

If you got into FRS/GMRS to meet and talk to strangers you may be disappointed.  Ham is a much better option most of the time.  In fact, Ham is much better at most things “radio”.  They are great at innovation, radio science, radio etiquette.  GMRS is not “ham lite” and I hope my proposals here does not turn us into ham lite.  I think having a small part of our radio service used for this would make our radio service more valuable and our radios more valuable, but it is not what GMRS does best.

In my ¼ century on FRS/GMRS I have talked to exactly one stranger and I have talked one exactly one GMRS repeater, both were in the same conversation.  I really have no plans to contact strangers.  Although we are caravanning to Moab, UT next September, I may give it a try during the boring times.  I only started this discussion because the topic comes up so often on the forums and “the Youtube”.

If we are able to get a consensus on a national frequency, with the two channel options we would, in effect, have channels similar to public safety dispatch and tactical options.  I, for one, would use the channel this way.  I would make xxHAIL my stan dby channel, both at home and in my vehicles hoping to be contacted by strangers AND members of my GMRS groups.

My hope in taking this very long look at the GMRS Travel Channel I can get everyone, especially the GMRS Travel Channel Committee and other influencers, to revisit the idea and make best decision for our radio service.

These ideas are MY opinion and I do not wish to argue my opinions.  If you think that I am wrong, then I probably am.  I know my writing style is, at best, convoluted and disjointed, so if you want me to clarify a point or two I will.

I offer these ideas as a way to get discussion and conversation started.  I am not the final word on this.  In fact if you think I wrote this to prove how smart I am, I suggest you read it again and you see how little I actually know.

So, as Mike Myers, in his “Coffee Talk” sketches on Saturday Night Live (back when SNL was actually funny) would say:

“TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES”

[gortex2]

Dude you needed 3 different threads on the same topic ? Really ? This is a dead horse. Stop beating it just burry it. It will never happen. Go use another service. 

[Lscott]

25 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

Dude you needed 3 different threads on the same topic ? Really ? This is a dead horse. Stop beating it just burry it. It will never happen. Go use another service. 

People learn the most from their mistakes.

It's like the little kid in the kitchen. Tell them don't touch that, it's hot. Turn your back and a few seconds later you hear the scream. Time to get the band aids out. Next time you tell them something is hot they'll believe you and leave it alone.

[WRUU653]

Memoir of a Travel Channel volume lll (the sequel)
 

Reviews:

Did not live up to the hype

The plot was lost

It was better than “Cats”

Worse than Caddyshack ll 

[WRQC527]

1 hour ago, kirk5056 said:

In my first rant I defined what I think a Travel Channel should or could be.  I discussed how some other radio services handle that concept.  In my second rant, I gave my opinion on which of our very limited frequencies should be used for our Travel Channel.

In this rant I want to talk about ways to make the GMRS Travel Channel more used and usable.  Because if you may make a lot of calls on the GMRS Travel Channel but if no one is there to respond to you then it is not very useful.  So, instead of talking about who is making calls and how those calls are made (like most other posts), I want to talk about the people on the other end that may be there to answer you, and maybe suggest ways to increase the number of potential GMRS operators available to respond the calls.

THE POTENTIAL LISTENERS

I think the listeners out there can be broken into four non-exclusive groups.  I think at some time all of us have been in each group, changing groups from time to time, maybe even hour to hour.  I know I spent most of my FRS/GRMS time in the first group, but now I move from group to group.

1)  NON-LISTENERS:  This group does not know that there is/could be a GMRS Travel Channel, nor do they care.  They got into FRS/GMRS (like most of us) to solve one or more communication problems.  If they positively affected those problems then they stayed with FRS/GMRS.  These people have no interest in talking to anyone outside of their group and would (mostly) not be very happy if an outsider started talking on what they think of as their discrete channel.  For the most part the people in this group do not know about the GMRS forums and have probably not seen any of the GMRS Youtube videos.  I was in this group for 25 years.  This is probably the largest of the groups and least likely to be available to respond to your calls.

2)  CASUAL LISTENERS:  This group has some idea that there is a GMRS Travel Channel (and may be somewhat confused now that there is more than one choice).  For this group a GMRS Travel Channel is very much a low priority but do, from time to time, give it a try.  This group gets bored or annoyed quickly when there is nothing to hear and even more quickly when there IS something to hear but it is (like CB 19) full of boring or obnoxious talk or worse nothing but poor rx or static whether man made or environmental.  So, they tend not to listen for very long and therefore not likely to be there to respond to your calls.

3)  AVID LISTENERS:  This group is very interested in the GMRS Travel Channel and it may even be the reason they got into GMRS, to contact strangers.  These people, at least occasionally, scan all 22 rx frequencies without any PL filters trying to hear everything there is to hear.  Ironically, they are the same people that complain when they hear too much, like kids calling their teddy bears or highway flaggers.  These people, when they can, will listen to the GMRS Travel Channel all of the time, but this may be the problem in the context of this rant.  They probably listen the same way that I listen to my police scanner.  My scanner is on all of the time and becomes back ground noise to me.  My brain/ears filters out everything until I hear a dispatch alert tone, or back ground siren OR someone’s voice goes up 3 octaves.  In other words, this group may miss your Travel Channel call if it does not get by their “ear” filters.

4)  MONITORS:  This group really wants to monitor the GMRS Travel Channel but does not want to hear chit chat/rag chewing, nor do they want to hear distant tx or environmental static.  This is the group that I would like to be a part of most of the time.  This group would be very likely to respond to your GMRS Travel Channel call, but not if it was part of a chit chat channel.

POSIBLE SOLUTIONS

1)  The main thing that we (GMRS users, forums readers and Youtube influencers) can do to recruit potential listeners is for us to encourage manufacturers and retailers to include some mention or maybe instructions on what the Travel Channel is how to use it in their owner’s manuals, advertising and (if we are really lucky) in the pre-programing.  This tact should help encourage some listeners from ALL four groups to be actually listening when you make your call. 

As I am writing this very section I came across the perfect example of this interaction with Manufacturer/retailer.   The new (upgrade) Wouxun KG-935G Plus seems to have many bells and whistles recommended by some of our Youtube/forum influencers.  Notarubicon even got an LCD display named after him.  I believe that he is responsible for many radio features and new GMRS licensees.  He was able to get us things on our radios that we didn’t even know we wanted.  I really like the stiff channel knob on my KG UV9gx (I didn’t even know it was a thing, I wish I had IT when I was still involved in public safety).  Thanks, Randy.

I have not always been a big fan of his ideas.  I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around his love of the “Roger Beep”.  I have been in my deer blind, everyone on the radios were being very low key, then that damn Roger Beep screams out.  By the way, “Roger” beep is a misnomer, in the old timey radio world (like military or aviation) “roger” means “I understand”, the beep at the end of your transmission should be called the “over” beep.  “Over” means “I am done talking, it is now your turn”.  The “Roger Beep” is not the only mis-labeled item that we deal with almost every day.  “Private Line” “PL” “Privacy Codes” or any other privacy sounding thing associated with CTCSS/DCS.  But like the “Roger Beep”, we have been using them for so long it is hard to use a change to the proper terms.

I bring up the KG 935g Plus manual because, like I suggested in the first paragraph of this section, we really need to get the manufacturer/retailers to help us get the word out.  It says “Channel 19 (travel channel) is a favorite by default”.  However, I have to wonder how the FCC feels about the official manual implying that GMRS Channel 19 is a nation wide frequency, it is not!  That line in the manual should be followed by the disclaimer: “unless you are within a certain distance of the Canadian border, at which time in is unlawful to use GMRS Channel 19”.  We all can make what ever choice on how much we want to be legal but the Manufactures/retailers should use that disclaimer, in my opinion.  Unlike “PL” or “Roger beep” it is not too late to change to the proper term, a true nationwide channel, in my opinion.  In a year, maybe less, it may get to be too late to change.  Therefore, leaving a small, but significate, number of us without a lawful “Travel Channel”.

I am sorry, I get carried away.  I am very happy that we have one or more people representing GMRS to the manufacturers/retailers.  Please don’t stop.

2)  Another thing we can do to encourage more GMRS Travel Channel listeners, if my concept of the who-is-listening groups is even close to being accurate, is to have two “Travel Channels” like aviation and marine radio services.  One for Calling/Hailing/distress (in other words, a channel to make initial contact) and one (or more) where the Chit-Chat, Rag Chewing etc (in other words, a channel to have the conversations) can take place.  Even public safety, although not a nationwide channel, do a similar thing by having non-dispatch channels (car-to-car, tactical, fireground, records, training etc) to take as much radio traffic off of the dispatch channel, so it is more available for dispatch/emergency traffic. 

In my groups above, in my opinion, many more people might monitor our main (call/hail/distress) channel if they did not have to listen to unwanted “noise” (whether man-made or environmental), like that sometimes heard on CB 19.  Having a two channel “Travel Channel” would put us in line with how aviation and marine radio services handle the concept.  But almost ALL radio services, to one extent or another, do the same even at the local level.  Railroads have “yard” and “road” channels, marine radios have channels set aside locally to call the marinas, service boats or to open draw bridges and locks.  Aviation uses channels locally for tower, ground control, approach/departure etc.  And, as I mentioned before, public safety uses alternate channels to help keep the dispatch channels available.  I see my idea of two “travel channels” would do that for us, except on a national scale.

3)  So how do we do this two channel option with only our 22 rx frequencies to work with?  Most of the other radio services have more, sometimes a lot more, frequencies available to them.  In reality, as I talked about in a previous rant, we only should consider the 8 high power frequencies and then only the 6 of them are truly available nation wide (the pesky Line A thing).  So, instead of using up 2 of our 6 frequencies for one purpose, I suggest using just one frequency but divided into two channels using the modern technology (OK 70+ year old technology) of what I been calling “PL filters”.  I know many of you actually hate PL filtering but read on with an open mind. 

To make my explanation a little less wordy (I know “too late now”) I want to propose labeling for the two channel option.  Since our GMRS radio have very limited characters available for labeling I think they should be limited to 6 characters.  For the channel used for initial contact I was torn between “CALL” (like many radio services use) and “HAIL” (as in Capt Kirk telling Lt Uhura to “open a hailing frequency” when he wanted to call another ship).  I think “CALL” may be inferred as, like in “phone call”, a place for conversation, so I suggest “HAIL”.  And I suggest for the longer conversations (rag chew, chit chat) channel that we use “CHAT” instead of “TALK”, for a similar reasons.  Then, in case we don’t achieve a full consensus, we add the common FRS/GMRS channel number, shown as “xx”, so as not to reopen the actual frequency debate.  So we would have “xxHAIL” and “xxCHAT”.  If my two channel option does not take hold then we could have “xxTRAV” and pronounce it as “number travel”  (ie “nineteen travel”).

I suggest the xxHAIL channel use PL to filter out the xxCHAT noise (voice or static).  It seems that PL 141.3 is well accepted as the travel PL filter, so we could continue that.  It is also the legacy PL filter used when we actually had a more official Travel Channel.  Then I suggest that xxCHAT have no PL filter and therefore be able to hear all traffic using that frequency within range, INCLUDING xxHAIL traffic.  If you are mostly into the social part of radio or if you really dislike PL filters so much then you could probably stay on xxCHAT and be very happy.

From a listener stand point it would seem that xxCHAT might be the channel to listen to, but “some people” do not want to listen to the noise but do want to hear any initial contact calls.  From a caller stand point why would they use xxHAIL?  Because, using xxHAIL for the call it is heard by people on both channels, filtered and unfiltered.  Therefore increasing the number of potential listeners.  If no response to the xxHAIL call is received after a few attempts you could switch to xxCHAT in case someone did hear you but has a radio that can not change from PL unfiltered to filtered easily.

Once initial contact is made, both users could go to an agreed upon channel for the longer conversations, xxCHAT would be the default but it could be any channel they have programed in common.  Very short exchanges and distress calls could stay on xxHAIL.  It should be noted that most other radio services lose the ability to hear the hailing channel when they switch to the conversation channel, but using this structure, we would not.

POSIBLE NEGATIVES

1)  As mentioned above, some radios, mostly “bubble pack” and some Midlands can not program frequencies with more that one PL filter.  Changing the PL filter from “none” to 141.3 can be done on most of these radios, but probably will not be.  For these users they can decide (if the information is available to them) which channel (filtered or unfiltered) would meet their needs the best.  I can see pros and cons to each in this case.

2) How does this Travel Channel structure affect repeaters?  Since repeater input frequencies are in the 467.xxx range then input would not be affected.  On the repeater out put side the repeater owners could decide which group they want to hear their channel.  If they see themselves as oriented toward the traveler then they may choose no PL filter or PL 141.3 so they can be heard by radios on the simplex Travel Channels.  If, on the other hand, they see themselves available to traveler but do not want to compete with the simplex Travel Channel users they could use any PL filter other than “none” or 141.3. In most areas I do not see much problem with simplex and repeaters sharing the same channel.

CONCLUSION

If you got into FRS/GMRS for emergency communications you may be disappointed.  Unless you know before your emergency who and how to call others you will probably not be able to call anyone.  Ham is a better option but your cell phone or a satellite distress device would be a much better option.   GMRS could be used to help rescuers find you once the initial distress call is received.  OR FRS/GMRS could be a poor, but available last chance.

If you got into FRS/GMRS to meet and talk to strangers you may be disappointed.  Ham is a much better option most of the time.  In fact, Ham is much better at most things “radio”.  They are great at innovation, radio science, radio etiquette.  GMRS is not “ham lite” and I hope my proposals here does not turn us into ham lite.  I think having a small part of our radio service used for this would make our radio service more valuable and our radios more valuable, but it is not what GMRS does best.

In my ¼ century on FRS/GMRS I have talked to exactly one stranger and I have talked one exactly one GMRS repeater, both were in the same conversation.  I really have no plans to contact strangers.  Although we are caravanning to Moab, UT next September, I may give it a try during the boring times.  I only started this discussion because the topic comes up so often on the forums and “the Youtube”.

If we are able to get a consensus on a national frequency, with the two channel options we would, in effect, have channels similar to public safety dispatch and tactical options.  I, for one, would use the channel this way.  I would make xxHAIL my stan dby channel, both at home and in my vehicles hoping to be contacted by strangers AND members of my GMRS groups.

My hope in taking this very long look at the GMRS Travel Channel I can get everyone, especially the GMRS Travel Channel Committee and other influencers, to revisit the idea and make best decision for our radio service.

These ideas are MY opinion and I do not wish to argue my opinions.  If you think that I am wrong, then I probably am.  I know my writing style is, at best, convoluted and disjointed, so if you want me to clarify a point or two I will.

I offer these ideas as a way to get discussion and conversation started.  I am not the final word on this.  In fact if you think I wrote this to prove how smart I am, I suggest you read it again and you see how little I actually know.

So, as Mike Myers, in his “Coffee Talk” sketches on Saturday Night Live (back when SNL was actually funny) would say:

“TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES”

Welcome to my Ignore User list. Have a look around. Introduce yourself.

[Sshannon]

1 hour ago, kirk5056 said:

(as in Capt Kirk telling Lt Uhura to “open a hailing frequency” when he wanted to call another ship).

I always wondered how hailing frequencies are set such that alien civilizations, whom we have never before encountered, know to monitor.

Oh, well, for now, if I’m traveling I’ll just listen to channels 19 and 20 simplex, no tones.

[axorlov]

2 hours ago, kirk5056 said:

If you got into FRS/GMRS for emergency communications you may be disappointed.  Unless you know before your emergency who and how to call others you will probably not be able to call anyone

That's a ZING! Nail in the head!

2 hours ago, kirk5056 said:

I still have a hard time wrapping my brain around his love of the “Roger Beep”.  I have been in my deer blind, everyone on the radios were being very low key, then that damn Roger Beep screams out.  By the way, “Roger” beep is a misnomer, in the old timey radio world (like military or aviation) “roger” means “I understand”, the beep at the end of your transmission should be called the “over” beep.  “Over” means “I am done talking, it is now your turn”.

But let's discuss the "Roger Beep" vs "Over Beep". This topic will be much more interesting and revealing. And not enough attention was ever diverted to this very important aspect of communications. How the community survives without clear understanding and separation of what's "roger" and when it's "over". It is a mystery behind the veil, wrapped in enigma.

[WRUU653]

19 hours ago, axorlov said:

But let's discuss the "Roger Beep" vs "Over Beep". This topic will be much more interesting and revealing. And not enough attention was ever diverted to this very important aspect of communications. How the community survives without clear understanding and separation of what's "roger" and when it's "over". It is a mystery behind the veil, wrapped in enigma.

Will it be available in paperback?

YouTube guy six months from now… “today I’ll be reviewing the Wouxun, ocean KG-936G now with both roger and over beep.        Over beep.        Affiliate link below.        It will transmits a beep before you talks and after you talks. But the question everyone wants to know is how many fars will it talks…”

 

 

 

[Sab02r]

In all seriousness, I do applaud your effort and your passion, Kirk.  I myself suffer from a lack of both passion and seriousness.

That said...will you please expand your "rant" series to include a separate rant for each of the GMRS channels?  

[Over2U]

‘Honorable Mention’ for emergency use goes to Wyoming’s well-intentioned “Be 307 Aware” GMRS/FRS Campaign (which advocates use of Channel 3 and PL Tone 07). This has been discussed before on this forum.