New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

[gortex2]

DMR/P25 can sound excellent when using proper subscribers and infrastructure. When DMR came to the ham world the only player was Motorola. It was a XPR repeater and XPR subscribers. All was good. Then in came CCR, Hotspots and other poorly designed equipment interfaced to DMARC. Same with the P25 world in HAM. Those that run standalone true P25 repeaters have great audio. When folks build them with analog radios and a raspberry pie things dont go so well.

 

[intermod]

26 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

DMR/P25 can sound excellent when using proper subscribers and infrastructure. When DMR came to the ham world the only player was Motorola. It was a XPR repeater and XPR subscribers. All was good. Then in came CCR, Hotspots and other poorly designed equipment interfaced to DMARC. Same with the P25 world in HAM. Those that run standalone true P25 repeaters have great audio. When folks build them with analog radios and a raspberry pie things dont go so well.

 

Bingo...

[Radioguy7268]

2 hours ago, intermod said:

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. 

During that FCC Auction 20+ years ago, I attended an FCC Seminar down in DC & got to sit in with a bunch of people talking with FCC staff attorneys regarding the Auction process. One of the things we learned was that the FCC was only allowed to auction spectrum if there was more than one competing application for the allocation.  That was the reason the attorneys always suggested that people checked the "all" button on their application, as they wanted to make sure that every market had a potential competing application. You did not need to bid on all the markets you expressed interest in, but without a competing application, the auction process could not legally proceed.

Not sure if it still works that way, or if the FCC convinced the legislature to amend the auction rules. You would think that the concept should be to put the spectrum to use - rather than to just maximize Federal revenue.

Google 1997 PCS auction defaults if you want to read up on some FCC comedy.

[intermod]

Good info.  The Atty. I spoke with suggested as much.  

[intermod]

So, can one link Part 22 spectrum (private or common carrier) to GMRS legally?  I cannot seem to find a restriction to this (just an idea, if we lack GMRS spectrum but have Part 22 available in an area).   This would not be permitted on Part 90 or other LMR spectrum. 

[kc9pke]

6 hours ago, intermod said:

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

There's a proceeding from 2014 to clean up P22 rules (cannot remember the docket number offhand) and still remaining a rule that completely prohibits offset channel usage in Part 22 (I'll have to look that up as well)

An experimental license configured that way on P22 channels could definitely end up being the impetus to get rid of the rule

[intermod]

3 minutes ago, kc9pke said:

There's a proceeding from 2014 to clean up P22 rules (cannot remember the docket number offhand) and still remaining a rule that completely prohibits offset channel usage in Part 22 (I'll have to look that up as well)

An experimental license configured that way on P22 channels could definitely end up being the impetus to get rid of the rule

Lots of it going on.  I have not identified that one rule...maybe I will dig around.   The Commission routinely grants licensees requests to split the channel down the middle and licenses them to separate entities.   Presumably they have waived that particular restriction.  

G 

[Radioguy7268]

I remember hearing an old timer story about the one time they got fined from the FCC - because they had a Part 22 transmitter that was BELOW the wattage specified on the license. The FCC had warned them, and they didn't take it seriously because... well, nobody ever heard of a fine for being below your allowed power. 

That story came about because we were brainstorming around at a dinner meeting during the early days of narrowbanding and refarming, and some of us saw the same opportunity for more available talkpaths in Part 22 if you did some creative channel splitting and re-use of offset frequencies. The old timer warned us that in Part 22, things didn't need to make sense but you did need to follow the letter of the law. Again, that was 20+ years ago and a different era with the FCC and enforcement actions.

[kc9pke]

2 hours ago, intermod said:

Lots of it going on.  I have not identified that one rule...maybe I will dig around.   The Commission routinely grants licensees requests to split the channel down the middle and licenses them to separate entities.   Presumably they have waived that particular restriction.  

G 

Now that I looked at it it’s not its own rule, the rules just say under every frequency “Unless otherwise indicated, all channels have a bandwidth of 20 kHz and are designated by their center frequencies in MegaHertz [sic]”

The rule that permits disaggregation is a way to split offsets and bypass that nonsense, don’t think you need a waiver for that in particular 

[RayP]

On 5/29/2023 at 1:22 PM, Lscott said:

I’ll chime in here. What would likely be done is a mixed mode repeater. It auto detects the mode in use. That would still preserve the analog user’s ability to continue to use their equipment. I would DEFINITELY not recommend installing a digital only repeater.

Of course the tiny sticking point is getting the FCC to change the rules to allow ANY digital voice mode on GMRS. And I do have some thoughts on that.

 

GMRS Digital Voice - 20221011.pdf 67.88 kB · 10 downloads

The two modes are incompatible and will cause much confusion.  As someone already correctly noted, setting up a code plug for DMR is very complex, tedious, and time consuming.  MURS is already a cacaphony of beeps, bloops, burps, etc.  I think the FCC seriously erred in allowing digital radiolocation on GMRS.  Thankfully, they did confine it to simplex and not repeat, as well as limiting duration of digital transmissions.  Unfortunately, the FCC has shown a tendency to further liberalize such things, as they did by first allowing blister pack FRS to include the eight high-power/repeater channels (only to be used with a license ), then allowing them to be used without a license.  If DMR becomes a reality on GMRS, one of the "advantages" to be touted will be the ability to see the name and call of the person you hear on the screen.  That will require frequent updates (daily or weekly) to keep the alphanumeric info current for new licensees or DMR operators, as is now the case on ham DMR.

This is not a great idea.

I wish people would stop trying to make GMRS into ham radio lite.  As has been said many times, if you want to do ham stuff so badly, get your ham license and do ham stuff.

[RayP]

On 6/4/2023 at 1:18 PM, WRXE944 said:

 

8 x 4 = 32

Thank You, 944! 

[RayP]

One source of overcrowding on GMRS in many places, though admittedly not all, is the cancer of ubiquitous linking to other repeaters and networks.  I regularly read or hear that somebody, frequently a new licensee, is going to put up a repeater in his area.  Hey, great idea, especially if you clear the hurdles of expense, finding a worthwhile site, obtaining low loss hardline and a decent antenna, as well as a repeater and duplexer.  Unfortunately, the next thing out of their mouth is how they intend to link to this or that network, repeater(s), or whatever.  WHY????  Again, WHY????  If you plan on putting up an open access, viable repeater with decent coverage footprint, you are on the way to doing a great community service and excellent philanthropic gesture.  If you plan to clog it with duplicate conversations from another repeater or across the country, well not so much.

We only have eight repeater channels in GMRS.  Those same (output) channels are also our only 50 watt simplex channels.  In some areas, a persons or group of persons have destroyed any hope of using most or all of those eight channels by piping in unnecessary garbage from around the country or even just another repeater.  People in the next state, or the other end of the country jawjacking being piped into the local repeater(s) do nothing to enhance local communications between family, friends, or others.  These continuous conversations negate people from using the local repeater or 50 watt simplex channel they are on.  Even if just two repeaters are linked, you might have five or more operators jawjacking on one, but their lengthy conversation makes the other unuseable for the family or friends trying to keep in touch if they have bad cellular reception or perhaps their cell network is down.  For as far back as I can recall, the FCC has forbidden autopatch use on Class A CB/GMRS.  My guess is, they feared such would tie up the limited frequencies with phone calls.  In my experience with autopatched ham repeaters, the calls were always brief, a very few minutes or less, and were not an issue.  These networked or linked GMRS repeater conversations can go on for hours, tying up multiple repeaters and multiple frequencies in a given area with convos that are taking place on one repeater.  This is not a good thing and is not in keeping with the original intent of Class A/GMRS.  The FCC would do well to outlaw internet linking across the board and restore GMRS somewhat to its original intent, rather than being ham radio lite.

In a lot of areas, this would greatly reduce congestion.

Are you listening, FCC?  

[gortex2]

Been saying this for years....^^^^^^ 

Linking and CCR world is the issue with GMRS now. Its ham lite and it sucks. 

[Lscott]

4 hours ago, RayP said:

One source of overcrowding on GMRS in many places, though admittedly not all, is the cancer of ubiquitous linking to other repeaters and networks.  I regularly read or hear that somebody, frequently a new licensee, is going to put up a repeater in his area.  Hey, great idea, especially if you clear the hurdles of expense, finding a worthwhile site, obtaining low loss hardline and a decent antenna, as well as a repeater and duplexer.  Unfortunately, the next thing out of their mouth is how they intend to link to this or that network, repeater(s), or whatever.  WHY????  Again, WHY????  If you plan on putting up an open access, viable repeater with decent coverage footprint, you are on the way to doing a great community service and excellent philanthropic gesture.  If you plan to clog it with duplicate conversations from another repeater or across the country, well not so much.

We only have eight repeater channels in GMRS.  Those same (output) channels are also our only 50 watt simplex channels.  In some areas, a persons or group of persons have destroyed any hope of using most or all of those eight channels by piping in unnecessary garbage from around the country or even just another repeater.  People in the next state, or the other end of the country jawjacking being piped into the local repeater(s) do nothing to enhance local communications between family, friends, or others.  These continuous conversations negate people from using the local repeater or 50 watt simplex channel they are on.  Even if just two repeaters are linked, you might have five or more operators jawjacking on one, but their lengthy conversation makes the other unuseable for the family or friends trying to keep in touch if they have bad cellular reception or perhaps their cell network is down.  For as far back as I can recall, the FCC has forbidden autopatch use on Class A CB/GMRS.  My guess is, they feared such would tie up the limited frequencies with phone calls.  In my experience with autopatched ham repeaters, the calls were always brief, a very few minutes or less, and were not an issue.  These networked or linked GMRS repeater conversations can go on for hours, tying up multiple repeaters and multiple frequencies in a given area with convos that are taking place on one repeater.  This is not a good thing and is not in keeping with the original intent of Class A/GMRS.  The FCC would do well to outlaw internet linking across the board and restore GMRS somewhat to its original intent, rather than being ham radio lite.

In a lot of areas, this would greatly reduce congestion.

Are you listening, FCC?  

Did you look back at some prior posts in this thread? I attached a file outlining most of the points you mentioned to one of my posts.
 

While I think digital voice, not DMR for technical reasons, can be done on GMRS but with certain tight conditions. I would suggest you read that file. I think there is a valid reason to do digital voice that would benefit users while not ruining it for everyone else if the suggestions in that file are followed.

[pcradio]

GMRS is definitely becoming ham-lite in my area. I will say that they are extremely courteous here. We also have a massive state wide linked system, more coverage than HAM as far as that goes. But I do wonder what the end-game will be?

Observation:
I use GMRS/FRS for my local hiking group because they can't get on HAM. I personally use HAM for the long range aspects of VHF, but GMRS might fulfill that if they keep filling in the gaps everywhere.

Personally, I wish the services were organized around close coms and then long range coms (vhf, aprs). Then add the other layer of HAM or GMRS on top to manage those two camps.

The problem with HAM is that it does not really get used by people needing off grid coms. Yet, it has all the tech to do that well. So, when I try to get my people into off grid coms, there is this hurdle of everything HAM which makes no sense to them. They only want to communicate. Yet GMRS is lacking.

So, would be cool to have something in GMRS that closes the gap. Regular people need to stay far away from HAM! But they need good radios like the Yaesu VX-6R,7R with just a little bit of the tech and frequency behavior of HAM. Because of this the simplicity of GMRS is being blurred.

Its why I argue so much to use my Yaesu VX-7R on GMRS. I don't want to use a UV-5G. I'm being dragged downward.

[WRQC527]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:56 AM, WRXE944 said:

So then, why so much criticism of others that do not affect his GMRS usage in the slightest?!?

It's done to get a reaction. Like when a five year old does something to an older sibling to make them mad. It's a common tactic here to get people involved in pointless arguments.

[OffRoaderX]

Almost 7 pages of nothing more than pure self-absorbed grammatical masterbation and, as expected, nothing actually accomplished.

Great job everyone, you're making GMRS a better place!

[RayP]

On 7/15/2023 at 11:35 AM, Lscott said:

Did you look back at some prior posts in this thread? I attached a file outlining most of the points you mentioned to one of my posts.
 

While I think digital voice, not DMR for technical reasons, can be done on GMRS but with certain tight conditions. I would suggest you read that file. I think there is a valid reason to do digital voice that would benefit users while not ruining it for everyone else if the suggestions in that file are followed.

Hi Lscott!  I was unable to read that file with my current device.  I have a fair amount of experience on-air with DMR, Fusion, D-Star, and P-25.  There are advantages to be realized with most of these, but in the scope of a service with literally dozens of repeater pairs and simplex channels per band, or in land mobile where frequencies are assigned or coordinated, NOT on an analog-centric band with only eight shared 50 Watt simplex and repeater channels.  A simplex or repeater transmission on a channel with a digital-only repeater will be crushed by the digital signal and most likely, those in digital mode will not even be aware of its presence.  At least with analog, you have the opportunity that one of the parties talking will hear you and disable their PL decode to communicate with you. As others have noted, as simplicity of equipment decreases and complexity increases, you lose reliability, especially in the event of an emergency.  Digital equipment and programming is usually more complex by quite a bit.  

I maintain that polluting the existing eight channels, plus 15 sub-channels, with bloops, and jackhammer noise is a bad idea.

 

[WRQI583]

On 7/15/2023 at 1:36 PM, pcradio said:

GMRS is definitely becoming ham-lite in my area. I will say that they are extremely courteous here. We also have a massive state wide linked system, more coverage than HAM as far as that goes. But I do wonder what the end-game will be?

Observation:
I use GMRS/FRS for my local hiking group because they can't get on HAM. I personally use HAM for the long range aspects of VHF, but GMRS might fulfill that if they keep filling in the gaps everywhere.

Personally, I wish the services were organized around close coms and then long range coms (vhf, aprs). Then add the other layer of HAM or GMRS on top to manage those two camps.

The problem with HAM is that it does not really get used by people needing off grid coms. Yet, it has all the tech to do that well. So, when I try to get my people into off grid coms, there is this hurdle of everything HAM which makes no sense to them. They only want to communicate. Yet GMRS is lacking.

So, would be cool to have something in GMRS that closes the gap. Regular people need to stay far away from HAM! But they need good radios like the Yaesu VX-6R,7R with just a little bit of the tech and frequency behavior of HAM. Because of this the simplicity of GMRS is being blurred.

Its why I argue so much to use my Yaesu VX-7R on GMRS. I don't want to use a UV-5G. I'm being dragged downward.

Ham doesn't get used for off grid or local communications because everyone is down on HF contesting. I gave up on Ham. While I do find a handful of Hams in my area that do utilize the VHF/UHF bands, no one really does much with it outside of quick chats here and there and a few nets. I keep the license just in case the HF bands get destroyed by other forces and everyone decides to come back to VHF and UHF, or in case I run across someone who actually wants to use it (all wishful thinking). I really try to do my best to not think about it, but it makes me sick to my stomach to see how much technology is available to Hams and all of the millions of possibilities there are to communicate using VHF and UHF and Hams would rather activate parks on HF, leaving GMRS with only 8 repeater pairs to play with that can fill up quickly and are not allowed to be radio linked. GMRS is more likely to be used by all people in an emergency situation or off grid purposes compared to Ham Radio that will only be used by a select few Hams in a select few situations. So, my focus stays on GMRS because my wife and I can use it without her having to study up on a bunch of stuff you do not need in order to just pick up a microphone and communicate. It also allows the rest of my household to use it. 

Personally, I would love to see the FCC allow the MURS band to be used with higher power (50 watts), give GMRS users 462-462.725/467-467.725 so we have more space for repeaters, simplex, and linking. Take those who lost their place in the 462-462.55/467-467.55 and put them in the 440 Ham band that doesn't get used in a large majority of places in the United States. Then, allow crossbanding or linking between the VHF and UHF and just label the whole thing GMRS. This stuff can be done with plug and play equipment. It would make more sense than allowing large amounts of frequency spectrum to go to waste. And, if you got those ones out there who prefer to use digital, the FCC could make allowance for that also. That way, in the end, more bandwidth would be getting used and the FCC would be making money on spectrum that is not getting a whole lot of use as it sits. Seems to me to be a win win all the way around.

[WRUU653]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:56 AM, WRXE944 said:

I notice that one of the more prominent responders to this thread (and others like it) who posts criticisms of "ham lite" on GMRS, has famously proudly announced that his personal repeaters are private and ONLY available to his family members.

So then, why so much criticism of others that do not affect his GMRS usage in the slightest?!?

How does having a repeater only available for family members prevent that person from not being effected by others on all the same frequencies? I’m not saying you may not have a valid criticism of their said criticism but this statement lacks context. Was there more to this?

Edit- I tried to look back through the thread for context but it was a jungle out there.

Edited July 17, 2023 by WRUU653
Additional clarification

[Sshannon]

1 hour ago, WRQI583 said:

Ham doesn't get used for off grid or local communications because everyone is down on HF contesting. I gave up on Ham. While I do find a handful of Hams in my area that do utilize the VHF/UHF bands, no one really does much with it outside of quick chats here and there and a few nets. I keep the license just in case the HF bands get destroyed by other forces and everyone decides to come back to VHF and UHF, or in case I run across someone who actually wants to use it (all wishful thinking). I really try to do my best to not think about it, but it makes me sick to my stomach to see how much technology is available to Hams and all of the millions of possibilities there are to communicate using VHF and UHF and Hams would rather activate parks on HF, leaving GMRS with only 8 repeater pairs to play with that can fill up quickly and are not allowed to be radio linked. GMRS is more likely to be used by all people in an emergency situation or off grid purposes compared to Ham Radio that will only be used by a select few Hams in a select few situations. So, my focus stays on GMRS because my wife and I can use it without her having to study up on a bunch of stuff you do not need in order to just pick up a microphone and communicate. It also allows the rest of my household to use it. 

Personally, I would love to see the FCC allow the MURS band to be used with higher power (50 watts), give GMRS users 462-462.725/467-467.725 so we have more space for repeaters, simplex, and linking. Take those who lost their place in the 462-462.55/467-467.55 and put them in the 440 Ham band that doesn't get used in a large majority of places in the United States. Then, allow crossbanding or linking between the VHF and UHF and just label the whole thing GMRS. This stuff can be done with plug and play equipment. It would make more sense than allowing large amounts of frequency spectrum to go to waste. And, if you got those ones out there who prefer to use digital, the FCC could make allowance for that also. That way, in the end, more bandwidth would be getting used and the FCC would be making money on spectrum that is not getting a whole lot of use as it sits. Seems to me to be a win win all the way around.

I’m trying to understand your dissatisfaction with amateur radio.  Are you disappointed that more people in your area aren’t chatting frequently on VHF/UHF?

[Lscott]

3 hours ago, RayP said:

I was unable to read that file with my current device.

I think if you can read that file you’ll find a number of the points are addressed.

[WRQI583]

9 hours ago, Sshannon said:

I’m trying to understand your dissatisfaction with amateur radio.  Are you disappointed that more people in your area aren’t chatting frequently on vhf/uhf. 

Instead of it being a hobby of experimenting and being the leader in radio communication,  it has turned into a regressing place of competition on the HF bands.  It does have the capability to be more than just competition.  The vhf/uhf bands have been abandoned because allegedly you can't do anything with them and no one is on them.  It's also turned really divisive in some areas,  in addition to Hams having strong political opinions, something i refuse to get involved in. Instead of getting wrapped up in that,  something I've done before,  I switched to focusing on gmrs. If one day Ham radio changes,  I'll become more active.  Until then,  Hams make it what it is.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WRQI583 said:

[...] If one day Ham radio changes,  I'll become more active.  Until then,  Hams make it what it is.  

My fortune cookie likes you to know that: "You are one of them - be the change ..." 

(Sorry, I had to ) - But you get the idea. 

I have my Extra license and I have not operated outside 2m and 70cm. I am saying that to show how much I do not care about competing!

I also gave up on listening to repeaters that are only used for a weekly net (or two) and the occasional key-up without ID.

However, I recently rejoined the local club and stepped up my VE involvement by taking over as CVE.

Yet, we meet here and not on a ham forum ...

What I am trying to say is this: You are not the only one who feels "disillusioned" by the current state of ham radio - how do you know that there are no other hams being silenced by the same frustration?

 

[axorlov]

1 hour ago, WRQI583 said:

Instead of it being a hobby of experimenting and being the leader in radio communication,  it has turned into a regressing place of competition on the HF bands.

Ham is exactly a hobby. Some like to compete, some don't. HF bands give you a global reach, it draws people to HF. But many are fine with the local chats on repeaters.

1 hour ago, WRQI583 said:

The vhf/uhf bands have been abandoned

What? You got to be kidding. Where I live VHF FM is packed to the brim, while 70cm is empty because military restricted use, to not have an interference for the PAVE PAWS radars.