New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

[intermod]

19 hours ago, WRXD372 said:

If you ever travel to my area, you can tune in and enjoy silence on repeater outputs for hours 

GMRS is quiet much of the time here as well, other than the simplex traffic from business, or when there are major fires.  The "congestion" issue I mention is related to time-of-use.  Our groups, and those on other repeaters on the same channel, often want to use their systems at the same time.  Due to the terrain here, our portable radio users can get stepped on from users of other systems operating mobile or control stations at high-elevations, even 80 miles away.                    

[jwilkers]

Then stop putting repeaters on top of other repeaters! Simple solution because you don't need more than a few. Here in Southern California we have idiots that need to shut up and allow others to periodically use the frequency. Those are the real issues.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

I agree 100%! You get every Tom, dick, and Harry wanting to set up a repeater just because they want one. Don't ask for a new mode of communication to compensate for irresponsible use of spectrum.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk

[intermod]

7 hours ago, jwilkers said:

I agree 100%! You get every Tom, dick, and Harry wanting to set up a repeater just because they want one. Don't ask for a new mode of communication to compensate for irresponsible use of spectrum.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk
 

Are you suggesting that people in areas that were just ravaged by wildfires are irresponsible when they install a new repeater to save lives?              

[BoxCar]

14 minutes ago, intermod said:

Are you suggesting that people in areas that were just ravaged by wildfires are irresponsible when they install a new repeater to save lives?              

If they are not cognizant of what's already installed in their area and are interfering with an existing repeater then yes, they are being irresponsible.

[SteveShannon]

16 minutes ago, intermod said:

Are you suggesting that people in areas that were just ravaged by wildfires are irresponsible when they install a new repeater to save lives?              

How does “installing a repeater just because they want one” even remotely equate to “install a new repeater to save lives?”

[Lscott]

46 minutes ago, intermod said:

Are you suggesting that people in areas that were just ravaged by wildfires are irresponsible when they install a new repeater to save lives?              

I wouldn't equate the two.

I do want to point out the somewhat frequent post where a new GMRS user wants to setup a repeater. Most have no idea what they are getting into and what the various pit falls might be. The real important question is how many of those who want a repeater REALLY need one of their own? With just 8 frequency pairs it won't take that many before interference between them becomes a problem.

Perhaps the FCC could require some kind of coordination, either officially, or through a local group of repeater owners. The Ham community had a coordination group.

It might even be a better idea to pool the resources from several potential repeater owners. The pooled resources are used to Install a repeater at a location with a wide area coverage and open access to reduce the need for a bunch of smaller coverage zone repeaters scattered all over a given area at random. When one looks at the cost and work required to roll your own and the small coverage zone you get with a site with poor antenna elevation the above suggestion looks better. 

This was done with a couple of repeaters in the Detroit area in the past several months. The additional benefit are the repeaters are link so even more of the area is covered. My understanding is another one will likely get install farther up north of the area, likely also linked too. 

 

[WRUQ758]

The great thing about GMRS is that we can use wide channel spacing (25 KHz) and there are tons of old wideband radios that are unusable on business/public safety to be had really cheap. Compare the audio of a wideband Maxtrac, Maratrac or GE MLS to a Motorola DMR XPR radio - no comparison. DMR audio is barely intelligible. DMR / P25 is horrible in comparison to wideband analog fidelity. Enjoy what we have and be glad we are not being forced into the expensive digital radios like part 90 services. Just work together on repeater coordination issues and don't over complicate things. I know it's rough in S Cal and NY/NJ BUT the MAJORITY of America is not congested cities and in most rural areas GMRS gets little use. "Narrowbanding" (12.5) was a solution to a non existent problem - that's what "T" band and 700/800/900 MHz was allocated for in metro areas. When Motorola wanted multi-million dollar P-25 systems for every rural county and lobbied the FCC is when things went down the drain. 

[DONE]

OMG..... THIS AGAIN?!?!?!

Talk about the beating of a dead horse and we are 5 pages in AGAIN.

Not typing the reply again.

Go read it here.

 

You really don't want DMR on GMRS.  You might think you do.... but the problems it will cause will quickly set you straight.

[WQAI363]

On 5/29/2023 at 9:13 AM, UncleYoda said:

I hate everything about DMR.  I particularly hate the way it's taking up frequencies in HAM.  I would file for a refund of my GMRS fee if the FCC implemented your proposal.  Digital should get its own bands and not take over our analog frequencies.

I know that you said that you hate everything about DMR. However, I didn't hear her say anything about DSTAR / IDAS or P-25, which also takes a lot of real state in the Amateur Radio Service. Of course, I do understand where you're coming from, meaning that GMRS is only one band of channels and to integrate DMRS or other formats would only take away space for analog.  I can't say that I totally agree with you, because I do see some advantages to using DMR on GMRS. 

[nokones]

What would those advantages be?

[Lscott]

14 hours ago, nokones said:

What would those advantages be?

DMR has some attractive features.

1. Being a TDMA, time division multiple access, mode the transmitter is only working half the time. For a handheld radio that works out to a significant increase in operating time on a battery pack. That's a huge consideration for those who want the radio to last all day while out hiking the tails.

2. DMR, along with other digital voice modes, provide clear noiseless audio out to near the limit of the range typical of an analog only radio. Where the analog radio starts breaking up and getting very difficult to copy the digital signal is still clear.

3. With the proper radios that can auto negotiate the slot timing among themselves, that's the main caveat, you get two voice paths on a single channel. 

4. Finally there are radios that can operate in SFR mode, single frequency repeater, without the duplexer requirement typically necessary for an analog repeater. The SFR, as the name suggests, allows the equivalent of a full duplex analog repeater but using ONLY one frequency, no offsets required.

The trick is allowing the use of ANY digital voice mode on GMRS. Some of the objections voiced by several other posters are legitimate. I would suggest you look at this post and read the attached file that goes into the issues a bit more. It's meant as nothing more than to get some ideas out there.

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/5720-new-repeater-channels-for-gmrs-in-2024/page/2/#comment-57605

 

[Guest]

Good morning @Lscott.

That was a sleek move to jump back to the beginning of the thread - that way we can re-read the comments indefinitely  

I see the advantages you list.

However, questions remain: At what cost ?!? (or) Are things really that simple ?!?

Currently, GMRS is simple and easy and reliable - the decades old FM technology used in the 70cm band - cheap and robust.

I like digital clarity and positive confirmation of the connection and ... all the other benefits. I just do not think that we should use GMRS for those modes.

It has been mentioned before that those modes are available to users on different bands: 900MHz is Motorola's playground (license free) - HAM is opening doors to a whole universe of modes and, if that is what you want, experimentation.

As for emergency use (and that seems to be a concern of many GMRS users):

The more complex the technology - the less advisable is reliance on that technology for emergency situations!

Users on this forum repeatedly complain about interference (or just other people using GMRS frequencies) on a regular basis. Currently, that "interference" is comprised of easily decoded FM signals - if multiple digital modes would be allowed without anybody knowing what the other transmitter is doing, the overall increased noise floor might just "jam" all use of the limited band...

BTW: While you are right that a digital connection is nice and clean every time and that you will not encounter fading signals and noise, the flipside is that - once you are out of reach, connection fails: No fading signal, no weak and barely understandable "I think you tried but I could not hear you - it seems that you can hear me - shift you position..."

[Lscott]

There is nothing that prevents anyone from purchasing a cheaper analog only radio if they are happy with that mode of operation.

I think one of the concerns with digital has to do with the band being run over by an influx of digital users. That was one of the reasons the use of channels 8-14 was suggested. For typical GMRS operations  those are rather useless channels. By restricting digital to just those, by design of the radio (firmware), the rule would be enforceable. That leaves the rest open to those who only want analog FM.

I'm not concerned about what effect it might have on FRS. After all they have the same exact simplex channel access that licensed GMRS users enjoy. That means if they don't like the digital stuff on 8-14 then pick another simplex channel to use. Don't forget they are also limited to narrow band and 0.5 watts on those channels as well. They aren't anymore useful to FRS users than they are for GMRS users. Both are stuck with with the same limitations. IMHO if FRS users want access to digital then pay for a GMRS license, buy a compatible radio and quit complaining. Right now they are using the spectrum for free.

Anyway the point I was making in that paper was trying to crack open the door to digital voice operation on GMRS that would at least have a good chance of coexisting with FM users while not pushing the FCC into doing a lot of work. The less screwing around they have to do with the rules the more likely they might go for the idea.

[BoxCar]

4 hours ago, Lscott said:

DMR has some attractive features.

1. Being a TDMA, time division multiple access, mode the transmitter is only working half the time. For a handheld radio that works out to a significant increase in operating time on a battery pack. That's a huge consideration for those who want the radio to last all day while out hiking the tails.

That's not correct. When transmitting in DMR both time slots are sent so the entire 12.5/25 kHz channel is used even if it is carrying only one timeslot.

[Radioguy7268]

1 hour ago, BoxCar said:

That's not correct. When transmitting in DMR both time slots are sent so the entire 12.5/25 kHz channel is used even if it is carrying only one timeslot.

Lscott is correct. The handhelds will only transmit half the time  - saving battery life on a portable.

However, on the repeater side, both time slots are keyed up - even if only one time slot is actually active.

 

[DONE]

Can't believe I am gonna do this again.... especially after saying I wasn't... but here we go.

 

First issue.  WHO'S GONNA MANAGE IT?  Who's gonna assign talk group ID's and radio ID's?

How is it gonna be linked if at all?

Are we gonna allow some form of trunking?  Motorola has Cap Plus trunking,  but those levels of trunking are tier 2 and proprietary.  Meaning your 50 or 100 dollar cheapie radio ain't gonna work.  Motorola radios only.   And no linking with that.  Unless of course you are gonna want to pony up the 2000 bucks for the license for EACH repeater, and the grand for the special router that's required.

No old analog radios can be used.  So all your analog radio's are no longer usable.  Period.  Buy new radios.

The biggest issue, is management.  Someone needs to create a database and keep track of all the assigned radio ID's and talk groups so that nothing overlaps. This is going to be really important with linking two or more repeaters together.

Speaking of which, a maximum of 15 repeaters can be linked together.  To exceed that, you need a D-Bridge to route the talk group traffic.  Who's buying those? 

Ya'll are gonna get me banned off here posting this damn question over and over.  You want DMR, go sit a test and get a ham license. They use it all the time, and they have this worked out.  We (GMRS community) don't.  There are requirements to DMR we don't have currently with analog wide band FM.  The service works fine on analog.  And even the arguments for area's that are using it for 'sorta' public safety like SAR and such.  Go get a damn commercial repeater license and a couple simplex frequencies for your group and put in your own communication system.  Because that's the nonsense that will turn GMRS into HAM radio and ultimately CB.  I have been a ham for 30 years and watched it happen there with people having zero respect for the service get licensed for EMCOMM use for their SAR and CERT groups.  Sure commercial is a bit more expensive, but ONLY ONE license needs to be obtained.  If you set the license up right, and get national frequencies, then ANYONE regardless of the license they might have on another service can use your radios, or you can grant them access to program their radios to be on your licensed frequencies.  It's really not that difficult to see it's a better option.

 

[Radioguy7268]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Go get a damn commercial repeater license and a couple simplex frequencies for your group and put in your own communication system.

QFT!  Talk with a frequency Coordinator, tell them that you want to put up your own Private Carrier system for "Part 90 eligibles" and license your DMR system as FB6 repeaters. Yes, it will cost you more than $35 up front, but now you have the keys to your DMR kingdom, and you can DMR to your heart's content, because every user on your FB6/M06 system now runs under your fancy Private Carrier license. You can (but don't have to) even collect user fees for the use of your system.

 

 

[kc9pke]

On 7/2/2023 at 10:33 AM, Radioguy7268 said:

QFT!  Talk with a frequency Coordinator, tell them that you want to put up your own Private Carrier system for "Part 90 eligibles" and license your DMR system as FB6 repeaters. Yes, it will cost you more than $35 up front, but now you have the keys to your DMR kingdom, and you can DMR to your heart's content, because every user on your FB6/M06 system now runs under your fancy Private Carrier license. You can (but don't have to) even collect user fees for the use of your system.

 

 

yeah not a bad idea

Me personally, I'd prefer for the FCC to reauction unused Part 22 licenses

No site based filings, just construct your base station in the license market and go to town

[Radioguy7268]

More than 20 years ago, I got involved in an FCC Auction & made an honest effort to get some VHF channels in my economic area. The economic area I was interested in went for over $2.5 million for what amounted to about 8 possible channel pairs.

Part 22 channels from back in the IMTS days were gold. Most of them around my area are being used for linked DMR wide area systems. There's even still some wide area Paging on the old VHF Part 22 channels. Not sure how much availability there would be if the FCC protected incumbent operations.

[kc9pke]

10 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

More than 20 years ago, I got involved in an FCC Auction & made an honest effort to get some VHF channels in my economic area. The economic area I was interested in went for over $2.5 million for what amounted to about 8 possible channel pairs.

Part 22 channels from back in the IMTS days were gold. Most of them around my area are being used for linked DMR wide area systems. There's even still some wide area Paging on the old VHF Part 22 channels. Not sure how much availability there would be if the FCC protected incumbent operations.

In my neck of the woods there are very few site-based paging licenses still active (and they are protected from those who won auctioned licenses, yes) and some of the EA-based ones have been sitting unallocated

Indiana Paging Network has most of their operations on the shared 900 MHz ones

[pcradio]

My biggest issue with DMR is the sound. This is subjective of course, but everyone sounds like a robot. Would prefer a digital mode that is merely cleaned up analog, high audio fidelity.

[SteveShannon]

2 hours ago, pcradio said:

My biggest issue with DMR is the sound. This is subjective of course, but everyone sounds like a robot. Would prefer a digital mode that is merely cleaned up analog, high audio fidelity.

To me the digital speech modes sound like the speaker has a drunken slurred voice. Better processing might help some, but higher fidelity requires greater bandwidth. 

[intermod]

11 hours ago, kc9pke said:

yeah not a bad idea

Me personally, I'd prefer for the FCC to reauction unused Part 22 licenses

No site based filings, just construct your base station in the license market and go to town

Totally agree.   These remain like gold, but we have been using them for trunked control channels, and then combine them with Part 90 channels, where we cannot attain FB8 status.

The Part 22 channels are wideband (like GMRS) and can support two DMR channels like I proposed on the original post.   

I am also experimenting with placing three DMR channels in one Part 22 (-6.25 kHz, Center, + 6.25 kHz), with geographic separation between any 6.25 kHz adjacent channels. 

[intermod]

10 hours ago, kc9pke said:

....some of the EA-based ones have been sitting unallocated

We also have some idle ones in our area I contacted the FCC a month ago to see how one might licenses them.   An attorney confirmed that an auction is required.  And none are currently planned. 

[intermod]

3 hours ago, pcradio said:

My biggest issue with DMR is the sound. This is subjective of course, but everyone sounds like a robot. Would prefer a digital mode that is merely cleaned up analog, high audio fidelity.

I cannot disagree completely. 

In general, most all of the amateur systems sound on the edge of garbally, shrill, or muffled (Brandmeister)

Our GMRS DMR repeater can also sound this way, but it depends on the transmitting user's radio quality.

The utility DMR systems sound just fine and the vast majority of users like it - even the older employees. 

 

After working on many DMR systems, my confident conclusion is:   

 - DMR audio can become quite good depending on the manufacturers microphone selection, audio processing on both TX and RX sides; and

 - Using the the same radio manufacturer throughout the network; and

 - The tonality of the speakers voice (some voices sound better on DMR than others; its also biased against females)

 - The RX speakers make no difference.  

The best I ever heard was when a $1500 David-Clarke headset was used with an XPR7550 portable radio.  Equal or better than a strong wideband analog signal - and I am quite picky.  This configuration met all the above conditions, however.