New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

[DONE]

15 hours ago, Lscott said:

As you’re the owner, and allowing people to use it for free, you don’t really need a reason. It would be different if it was paid access.

That is very true. 

I had a thought on all of this that I posted elsewhere in the forum. 

Short version is this.  If that email was sent from an FCC mail server, it was archived.  A FOIA request would reveal the email completely, and verify it's real.  If no email was sent from the FCC servers, then this is all a hoax. 

If it's a hoax, why was it done, who was involved in the hoax and if there was money paid for access to the repeater system that was turned off, was that money returned? 

If it's proven to not be a hoax, and there is FCC action about to take place, then that will be proven out as well.

 

[Lscott]

31 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

That is very true. 

I had a thought on all of this that I posted elsewhere in the forum. 

Short version is this.  If that email was sent from an FCC mail server, it was archived.  A FOIA request would reveal the email completely, and verify it's real.  If no email was sent from the FCC servers, then this is all a hoax. 

If it's a hoax, why was it done, who was involved in the hoax and if there was money paid for access to the repeater system that was turned off, was that money returned? 

If it's proven to not be a hoax, and there is FCC action about to take place, then that will be proven out as well.

 

I guess we all will just have to wait and see what happens.

[WRUU653]

43 minutes ago, Lscott said:

I guess we all will just have to wait and see if anything happens .

I hope you don’t mind, I took the liberty of fixing it for you.

[Lscott]

8 hours ago, WRUU653 said:

I hope you don’t mind, I took the liberty of fixing it for you.

OK, I'm an engineer, not an English major.

[Blaise]

3 hours ago, Lscott said:

I'm an engineer, not an English major.

Dammit, Jim!

[intermod]

On 7/7/2024 at 8:02 AM, BoxCar said:

You don't loose 1/3 of your coverage area by narrowbanding. The most I ever saw back in 2013 was about 1 or 2 miles at the extreme edge and some even gained some additional coverage area. I monitored ALL of the Public Safety narrowbanding request as part of my role as the national frequency coordinator for some frequencies.

In reality, narrowband effectively reduces coverage by about 3 dB (is this 1/3?  1-2 miles?  who knows; depends on the situation).  But I would agree its noticeable along the edges.   This has the same effect as reducing your transmitter power by half.   This was one reason to encourage digital - it can (but not always) replace what was lost with analog narrowbanding. 

However, the most significant problem with analog narrowbanding was not the coverage impact in an of itself.  The interference susceptibility, or the effect of interference, increased by 6 dB.    Said another way, interference using narrowband has a much greater impact than it did with analog wideband.  With the increase in unlicensed low-power use on the 462 MHz channels, useable range will be reduced significantly in the GMRS service.    Interference susceptibility of digital actually improved - this included DMR, NXDN, P25, etc.  And, it is even even better than analog wideband (there are just few conditional exceptions).   

Public safety radio users may not have expereinced as much interference degradation since their channels have less co-channel interference.  

One Conclusion:  if the FCC considers narrowbanding, they really need to permit digital - otherwise range will suffer.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, Blaise said:

Dammit, Jim!

[Lscott]

16 minutes ago, intermod said:

In reality, narrowband effectively reduces coverage by about 3 dB (is this 1/3?  1-2 miles?  who knows;

Interesting article about narrow verses wide band.

Narrowband vs Wideband.pdf

[intermod]

I vagely remember this article.  Our numbers are a bit differnt - but I dissagree with Jay on the 6 dB degradation.   If you reduce the receiver bandwidth by half (25 kHz to 12.5 kHz), the receiver noise floor should drop 3 dB (improving C/I by 3 dB), offsetting his 6 dB to 3 dB.    But the rest seems right on the money. 

[WRUQ758]

I realize this is an old post, but you have got to be kidding! Right now GMRS channels are underutilized in rural areas and it's akin to Motorola forcing small rural departments to go P-25 through various sales tactics vis-a-vis FCC lobbied rule changes. LUCKILLY, we have 20 KHz wideband on GMRS and that allows the use of cheap, obsolete radios that had to be dumped by small rural departments and business because of forced "narrow banding" (another Motorola FCC lobbied sales tactic). It's nice you can afford a $500 used XPR DMR radio, not all of us can. Frankly I don't want DMR on GMRS, I am happy with my $75 Maxtrac and loud, clear 20 KHz analog audio. If you want unlimited channels get a Network Radio and load Zello, 4G is a LOT clearer than DMR. Quite frankly DMR and P-25 sounds like $#!+.

"Being from California, - we love sharing our great ideas with otehr states.   But this will be different!"

Californias sharing their "great ideas" does not go over well in most states including South Dakota where I live. I don't like hearing bubble pack kids on playing GMRS outputs and I certainly don't want to hear digital signals. If you want to use DMR get a ham license and get on DMR MARC! Perhaps you can put forward a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" to the FCC and include the phrase "this is how we do it in California". 

Not trying to be abrasive, just exercising my 1A opines. 

[Lscott]

12 minutes ago, WRUQ758 said:

Quite frankly DMR and P-25 sounds like $#!+.

What about dPMR or NXDN?

[wqnd300]

P25 doesn't sound like s. As to rural vs populated area both would have the same lack of usage if gmrs wasn't used as hobbyist radio.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[LeoG]

They all sound crappy on my analog FM receiver....

[Lscott]

3 minutes ago, wqnd300 said:

As to rural vs populated area both would have the same lack of usage if gmrs wasn't used as hobbyist radio.

Hummm… This could be the topic for another thread. GMRS seems to be mutating into a hobbyist type service. It seems the original primary intent by the FCC was a radio service simple enough to be used by ordinary people with basically no background in radio communication technology for their personal use, and immediate family members.

[Davichko5650]

9 hours ago, Lscott said:

Hummm… This could be the topic for another thread. GMRS seems to be mutating into a hobbyist type service. It seems the original primary intent by the FCC was a radio service simple enough to be used by ordinary people with basically no background in radio communication technology for their personal use, and immediate family members.

What "some people" (nod to Randy) like to refer to as "ham lite".  I go with the service to effect commuications with family and a handful of friends/neighbors, but especially when up north where cellphones are spotty at best.  Somewhat around town here, mostly on the HT's around the house. I go to other services for talking to strangers and friends in the DX world!

[Ian]

On 8/4/2024 at 11:14 PM, WRUQ758 said:

I don't like hearing bubble pack kids on playing GMRS outputs

I unironically do, if there's not too much of it!  They destroy the value of the frequencies, ensuring that there will never be a realistic temptation to turn it into a new block of license-by-auction cellular spectrum.

[WRUQ758]

On 8/6/2024 at 1:39 AM, Ian said:

I unironically do, if there's not too much of it!  They destroy the value of the frequencies, ensuring that there will never be a realistic temptation to turn it into a new block of license-by-auction cellular spectrum.

Great Point Ian!