New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

[WRQC527]

On 11/26/2023 at 12:20 PM, gortex2 said:

Ham can use digital and can't come up with what's best.

We're not trying to come up with what's best. We're experimenting with all different modes. CW, SSB, AM, FM, systems like APRS, sound card modes like FT8 and a bunch of others, digital modes like Fusion, DMR, D-Star, and  others, EME, microwave, you name it. GMRS is not so much for experimenters. It's for people who need to communicate. Ask anyone here with just a GMRS license how they set up their Jeep radio. They'll say they mounted their radio, they mounted their antenna, they (presumably) checked the SWR, and off they went. Ask a ham operator how they set up their mobile radio, and you'll hear the ARRL Handbook read to you.

[WRKC935]

On 11/25/2023 at 4:23 PM, BoxCar said:

I will chime in and plainly state: MIXING DIGITAL AND ANALOG RADIOS ON THE SAME FREQUENCIES DOES NOT WORK --  PERIOD. We Part 90 coordinators fought through this issue when Moto introduced MotoTURBO. It reached the point where the 4 Public Safety coordinators froze all applications to either convert existing systems to digital or create new digital coordinations. We were finally able to create guidelines that often resulted in converted systems allowed lower radiated power or antennas being aimed lower on the horizon. New coordinations were also restricted on radiated power, often much lower than originally requested.

You might have heard that someone had to 'buy back' an entire system over the issues with the interference that it was causing and getting from surrounding agencies.  I have first hand knowledge of that system.

Those issues were also why the APX line of radios never received the ability to do DMR.  That family of radios were built for public safety in mind of course.  And Motorola didn't want to even go down that road for interoperability.

I know of a Motorola shop owner that did setup a TRBO system after all the mess happened.  He told me that M said if it didn't work, they would pull his dealership from him.   He was a very accomplished RF engineer, and his system did work without issue.  But it was not a case of just taking out the analog repeaters and dropping in DMR on the same frequencies and power levels.  Some of the original frequencies were reused, but some couldn't be.  And the whole thing was re-engineered.  Different antenna's at different heights, and power levels were all significantly reduced.  But DMR requires a different mentality and effort than old school analog radio where you run as much power as allowed as high on the tower as you can. 

This is another concern that I, to this point, have been reluctant to bring up with DMR on GMRS. GMRS users typically do subscribe to the 'height is might' mentality with strong reliance on power.  We hear guys complaining that there 50 watt radio only does 48 watts on their meter (coax loss in the test jumper is the typical cause) and wanting those extra 2 watts.  With that line of thinking, dumping DMR into GMRS in a suburban or urban environment WILL cause interference problems of course.  And getting the max power thought process out of peoples heads isn't going to be possible.  So there is yet another reason to steer clear of the whole idea of DMR on GMRS.

 

[WRKC935]

On 11/23/2023 at 5:38 PM, Sshannon said:

So, looking at the protocol specification:

https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/102300_102399/10236101/02.04.01_60/ts_10236101v020401p.pdf
 

it only makes sense that the payload is the only portion of the communication that’s encrypted. That means I’m very probably wrong in thinking that encryption would affect repeaters. 

Correct, the payload is the only ting typically encrypted, but the 'repeaters' in a conventional system are also transparent to the data stream.  They look at the signal to see that it's P25 and nothing else.  If it's a 'system' then the data stream is further processed to see that the talkgroup ID and radio ID are encrypted before allowing the traffic to pass.  But if you stand up a stand alone Quantar repeater in P25, and run encryption on the subscribers, the repeater doesn't care or even have the ability to look at the data stream.  Now the headers which carry the ID are NOT encrypted typically.  This becomes apparent when you have a radio that isn't encrypted listening to the secure traffic.  The transmitting radio ID will be displayed, but the audio is muted since there is no way for the receiving radio that's not encrypted or doesn't have the proper key in it to decrypt the radio traffic. 

As mentioned, to have 'wireline' control of the repeater, it requires a DIU with encryption in the DIU to communicate via wireline encrypted.  The repeater isn't encrypting the traffic, that is done by the DIU and the encrypted data stream is fed directly to the repeater and it puts that stream on the air.

 

[WRQI583]

On 11/25/2023 at 7:37 PM, wrci350 said:

A DMR repeater does not play nicely with analog users.

I dont think you, or I, or anyone else will get that through to these guys that want DMR on GMRS. Unlike the guys who want DMR or some form of digital on GMRS (probably because it is the way of the future) I and possible you and others have been on the other side or seen the other side of the coin where the analog user gets bumped out of the way for the digital user, or where the two cannot communicate.

People like this fail to recognize one thing - while they sit up on their high thrones on digital, all shielded from the analog user world, the analog users are sitting on the other side being forced to listen to digital motorboating and what is worse, they cannot even communicate amongst themselves on analog. They aren't able to join, especially when it is on a repeater. Its essentially no different than a bunch of rich folk sitting at a window seat at a fine restaurant eating nice food in a warm room while, right below them on the other side of the glass sit homeless people who cant afford to eat and be in the nice warm room, but these people are so absorbed in enjoying their food and warmth that they dont see these people and if they do, they just figure that these people can just take some money and join them.

This same attitude is in Ham Radio which is why it really confuses me why these people who want to turn GMRS upside down dont just go get a Ham license where they will have a HUGE amount of space to play with all the DMR they want. They have the same smug attitude as many of them do. Most users of GMRS wouldn't know how to write a code plug. I know a LARGE majority of extra class Hams who couldn't write a code plug to save their lives.  

Seeing how many forums they are on touting this digital idea and not listening to anyone who brings up valid points, they clearly dont know how radio works and the mess digital has created on Ham, and if I didn't know better, I would say they are trolling. I have read a lot of the comments just on this site and every knowledgeable person has thrown every single scenario at these guys and they still come back with "Yeah but..................".

[Lscott]

36 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

Seeing how many forums they are on touting this digital idea and not listening to anyone who brings up valid points, they clearly dont know how radio works

I wouldn’t make a blanket statement like that. This is why the topic doesn’t get a serious discussion. There is a way to partially accommodate a digital voice mode if one is willing to consider reasonable options. Read the attached document, particularly the last few paragraphs. 

 

GMRS Digital Voice - 20231127.pdf

[WRQI583]

18 hours ago, Lscott said:

I wouldn’t make a blanket statement like that. This is why the topic doesn’t get a serious discussion. 

 

 

For those of us who have been on the wrong side of digital fighting analog and those of us who know how radio works, WE dont want to see it. Its not as easy as just putting a PL tone decode on your radio. PL tones do NOT stop digital from interfering with your analog signal. I dont know why so many people think that it does. If a digital signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the analog signal you are trying to listen to, the digital will either make it impossible to hear the analog signal or you just wont hear it at all. Meanwhile, the digital user will have no clue and quite honestly, probably wont care what he is doing to someone else. Plain and simple - Keep digital out of GMRS! You want digital? Please, go get a Ham license. The Ham bands are dead in many areas and have digital repeaters just spewing out RF identifying themselves with absolutely little to no activity. There are other areas of the bands that have absolutely nothing at all going on on them. People think I make this up. I am not kidding! Please leave GMRS alone. Mixing digital with analog is a good way to cause everyone to vacate a band and then no one is using it and what will you have accomplished in the end? Nothing other than you shot yourself in the foot and went 100 steps backwards.

[intermod]

2 hours ago, WRQI583 said:

...If a digital signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the analog signal you are trying to listen to, the digital will either make it impossible to hear the analog signal or you just wont hear it at all. ....

I will also add that if an analog signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the digital signal you are trying to listen to, the analog will either make it impossible to hear the digital signal or you just wont hear it at all. 

[Lscott]

7 hours ago, WRQI583 said:

For those of us who have been on the wrong side of digital fighting analog and those of us who know how radio works, WE dont want to see it. Its not as easy as just putting a PL tone decode on your radio. PL tones do NOT stop digital from interfering with your analog signal. I dont know why so many people think that it does. If a digital signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the analog signal you are trying to listen to, the digital will either make it impossible to hear the analog signal or you just wont hear it at all. Meanwhile, the digital user will have no clue and quite honestly, probably wont care what he is doing to someone else. Plain and simple - Keep digital out of GMRS! You want digital? Please, go get a Ham license. The Ham bands are dead in many areas and have digital repeaters just spewing out RF identifying themselves with absolutely little to no activity. There are other areas of the bands that have absolutely nothing at all going on on them. People think I make this up. I am not kidding! Please leave GMRS alone. Mixing digital with analog is a good way to cause everyone to vacate a band and then no one is using it and what will you have accomplished in the end? Nothing other than you shot yourself in the foot and went 100 steps backwards.

Two decent strength analog FM signals do a really good job of wiping each other out too. 
 

Did you bother to read the file I posted the other day on this thread? 

[WRQI583]

13 hours ago, intermod said:

I will also add that if an analog signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the digital signal you are trying to listen to, the analog will either make it impossible to hear the digital signal or you just wont hear it at all. 

Then why try stuffing digital on a band with an extremely limited amount of space, and in some places, even less space? I'm tellin ya, Ham Radio. It is made for the digital voice user and it isn't limited to one digital standard.

[WRQI583]

8 hours ago, Lscott said:

Two decent strength analog FM signals do a really good job of wiping each other out too. 
 

Did you bother to read the file I posted the other day on this thread? 

GMRS has no regulation at all. Do you really think that people would abide by keeping digital in one spot? I dont. People in my area currently use NXDN and P25 on MURS which is illegal. There are already people around this country setting up DMR repeaters on GMRS which is illegal. Once you let the cat out of the bag, you are not getting it back in. I'm telling you like I told the other guy - Ham Radio. You have not one, but many digital voice modes to use. Many areas of the country not only have a dead UHF band, they have dead VHF bands and on SHF Hams actually operating are almost non-existent. So much potential, and unlike the 360 KHz or less worth of frequency space you have on GMRS/FRS, you have over 1 GHz worth of space on Ham Radio to play with just on local bands and you have far less restrictions. Why introduce something into a radio service that will totally ruin the last good radio service for common citizens that doesn't have a bunch of southern rednecks screaming "AAAUUUUUDIO AAAAAAUUUUUDIO" like a broken record on a 1000 watt radio 24/7?

[Lscott]

8 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

GMRS has no regulation at all. Do you really think that people would abide by keeping digital in one spot? I dont. People in my area currently use NXDN and P25 on MURS which is illegal. There are already people around this country setting up DMR repeaters on GMRS which is illegal. Once you let the cat out of the bag, you are not getting it back in. I'm telling you like I told the other guy - Ham Radio. You have not one, but many digital voice modes to use. Many areas of the country not only have a dead UHF band, they have dead VHF bands and on SHF Hams actually operating are almost non-existent. So much potential, and unlike the 360 KHz or less worth of frequency space you have on GMRS/FRS, you have over 1 GHz worth of space on Ham Radio to play with just on local bands and you have far less restrictions. Why introduce something into a radio service that will totally ruin the last good radio service for common citizens that doesn't have a bunch of southern rednecks screaming "AAAUUUUUDIO AAAAAAUUUUUDIO" like a broken record on a 1000 watt radio 24/7?

Sounds like to me the battle is already lost. 

What your complaint is really all about is no FCC enforcement. Not really about digital voice, although you pick on it as an example. We also have reports by others of illegal use of GMRS by businesses with no licenses etc. This topic deserves a whole thread on its own. But that’s not what this one is about.

[WRQI583]

37 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Sounds like to me the battle is already lost. 

What your complaint is really all about is no FCC enforcement. Not really about digital voice, although you pick on it as an example. We also have reports by others of illegal use of GMRS by businesses with no licenses etc. This topic deserves a whole thread on its own. But that’s not what this one is about.

You may have good intentions but that is in a world where the FCC enforces the rules. The FCC doesn't enforce the rules on GMRS. You of all people should know what happens when you throw digital voice into the mix of analog. On Ham radio, if you dont like it, you have over 1 GHz worth of space to play with. If someone comes along and throws up a digital repeater or starts using digital, maybe in a malicious way on GMRS, where do you have to go? Not like you can go to the VHF GMRS band and use 50 watts. It doesn't exist. If the rules were enforced 100% and people were responsible and looked out for other people, then digital might be an option. For most people using GMRS, they are not Hams. They dont have technical knowledge. They just need a means of communication.

Here's an idea - If all of you Hams want DMR on GMRS, how about giving up a portion of your 70 cm band that hardly gets used and creating a digital GMRS? I am very sure the FCC would have no issue with that. They would probably make more money seeing as how more people are getting their GMRS license every day than their Ham license. I have a Ham license and I am all for Hams giving up a portion of some of those higher bands for digital or even analog GMRS. Maybe a sharing agreement could be had. Hams and GMRS digital operators share a portion. Interoperability. That isn't a bad thing. It goes right along with Ham Radio "Emergency communications" plans. If Hams dont mind taking their digital standards and shoving them into GMRS, why cant it go the opposite way? Bring the GMRS operators who want to use digital onto a small portion of the 70 cm Ham band? There is already a portion of the 70 cm that is shared with other users and Hams are ok with it.

Seeing as how GMRS is the last thing I have to play with where I can find like minded people like me, I dont want to see it go the way of the digital graveyard like so many Ham frequencies have gone, and that's coming from someone who likes DMR. I, unlike the majority of Hams, if not all of them, think about the little guy. The guy who cant afford expensive equipment. The guy who cant run a ton of power or is stuck with a portable in a world of mobiles. The guy who can only run analog and will get squashed by digital users who dont care and will break the rules if digital were allowed on GMRS. I dont want to see the common citizen run off of the band because a digital standard was created and unleashed by people who dont care who they hurt.

Believe me, I would love to see DMR repeaters on GMRS, just not on any of the 6-8 repeater pairs that currently exist or for that matter even on simplex on any of the 22 channels. Not when there is zero regulation.

[BoxCar]

10 hours ago, Lscott said:

Two decent strength analog FM signals do a really good job of wiping each other out too. 
 

Did you bother to read the file I posted the other day on this thread? 

Yes, I did read your file and still proclaim it pie-in-the-sky hogwash. Digital and analog will NEVER be compatible on the same channel concurrently.

[Lscott]

52 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

You may have good intentions but that is in a world where the FCC enforces the rules.

Looks like that's were we should start, get the FCC to enforce the rules.

The whole point with enabling digital voice, in some limited manner, on GMRS has nothing to do with experimentation or making it a "Ham Lite" type service. It's more about improving the quality of service.

As it exists now the general GMRS user really only "practically" use channels 1-7 and 15-22 due to the above restrictions on channels 8-14.

The proposal I made in that paper would take the nearly useless narrow band low power interstitial channels and put them to better use. The topic of this thread was more "repeater" channels. While not exactly adding more channels by allowing using digital voice on 8-14 and at a reasonable power, 5 watts in simplex mode, we effectively gain 5 more channels without asking the FCC for more spectrum, which likely won't ever happen. Better than nothing and a kick in the butt from the FCC.  

[WRQC527]

1 hour ago, WRQI583 said:

I, unlike the majority of Hams, if not all of them, think about the little guy.

Maybe you can stop throwing hams under the bus. You're ranting to and expecting support from an audience that in many cases have both our GMRS and ham licenses. 

[Lscott]

2 minutes ago, BoxCar said:

Yes, I did read your file and still proclaim it pie-in-the-sky hogwash. Digital and analog will NEVER be compatible on the same channel concurrently.

I never claimed it was. The dPMR service in the EU seems to be working out OK so apparently it's very possible to do, share the spectrum. In fact they have TWO digital voice modes, dPMR and DMR.

Further on 11M people have used AM and SSB for years and now FM is added to the mix. I don't see any huge crying over that either.

I have to agree with those with how annoying a mode like TDMA, which is how DMR operates, with the machine gun like pulsing. I do know that the TDMA nature of the signal is known to cause false opening of the squelch, when using CTSS, on analog radios. It happens on the CCR tri-bander I have in the office I use as a cheap scanner from time to time. The two modes I mentioned in the paper are FDMA, no pulsing noise.

I also am NOT advocating using digital voice on repeaters. I would keep those analog only.

Analogue and Digital PMR446 Information Sheet.pdf The-effect-on-dPMR-446-of-the-new-digital-license-v3-2019.pdf

[WRQI583]

6 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

Maybe you can stop throwing hams under the bus. You're ranting to and expecting support from an audience that in many cases have both our GMRS and ham licenses. 

Maybe in CA. I know many Hams outside of CA who despise GMRS and when it comes to a Ham having their GMRS license in addition their Ham license, oh boy, what colorful words and attitudes I have observed, and yes, many have come my way just for possessing both, like I am not being 100% loyal to Ham Radio. I am not throwing Hams under the bus. The stuff I have heard come out of Hams is disgusting to say the least and I am not a person who will just sit here and turn a blind eye to it. I have been on the wrong end of digital kicking analog users out. It isn't nice, and the attitudes I have heard from some Hams when it concerns digital is real smug to say the least. There is no need for that behavior. 

My main issue is throwing something onto a service with extremely limited frequency space and no regulation that has already shown itself to be a recipe for disaster.

[WRQC527]

7 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

Maybe in CA. I know many Hams outside of CA who despise GMRS and when it comes to a Ham having their GMRS license in addition their Ham license, oh boy, what colorful words and attitudes I have observed, and yes, many have come my way just for possessing both, like I am not being 100% loyal to Ham Radio. I am not throwing Hams under the bus. The stuff I have heard come out of Hams is disgusting to say the least and I am not a person who will just sit here and turn a blind eye to it. I have been on the wrong end of digital kicking analog users out. It isn't nice, and the attitudes I have heard from some Hams when it concerns digital is real smug to say the least. There is no need for that behavior. 

My main issue is throwing something onto a service with extremely limited frequency space and no regulation that has already shown itself to be a recipe for disaster.

Have a nice life. 

[Sshannon]

51 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

Maybe in CA. I know many Hams outside of CA who despise GMRS and when it comes to a Ham having their GMRS license in addition their Ham license, oh boy, what colorful words and attitudes I have observed, and yes, many have come my way just for possessing both, like I am not being 100% loyal to Ham Radio. I am not throwing Hams under the bus. The stuff I have heard come out of Hams is disgusting to say the least and I am not a person who will just sit here and turn a blind eye to it. I have been on the wrong end of digital kicking analog users out. It isn't nice, and the attitudes I have heard from some Hams when it concerns digital is real smug to say the least. There is no need for that behavior. 

My main issue is throwing something onto a service with extremely limited frequency space and no regulation that has already shown itself to be a recipe for disaster.

I’ve known GMRS users who have no interest in ham radio and (unfortunately) I’ve known ham radio operators who have a derisive attitude towards GMRS users who reject ham radio and then attempt to make GMRS into a no-test substitute for ham radio. But here in Montana I have not personally encountered any hams that look down on the licensed use of GMRS for group communications. 

[WRQI583]

13 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

I’ve known GMRS users who have no interest in ham radio and (unfortunately) I’ve known ham radio operators who have a derisive attitude towards GMRS users who reject ham radio and then attempt to make GMRS into a no-test substitute for ham radio. But here in Montana I have not personally encountered any hams that look down on the licensed use of GMRS for group communications. 

I've encountered a mix but the ones who seem to be attracted to me are hams who have an issue with GMRS. That's why I tend to stay away from the radio crowd in my own life. I only use GMRS when it comes to communications with family. 

[WRYZ926]

On 12/7/2023 at 9:47 AM, Sshannon said:

I’ve known GMRS users who have no interest in ham radio and (unfortunately) I’ve known ham radio operators who have a derisive attitude towards GMRS users who reject ham radio and then attempt to make GMRS into a no-test substitute for ham radio. But here in Montana I have not personally encountered any hams that look down on the licensed use of GMRS for group communications. 

We had a few members of our club look down on GMRS and give the rest of us with our GMRS licenses trouble. Those guys really poured it on when we started talking about putting up a GMRS repeater. But guess what, a few of those guys giving us trouble now have their GMRS licenses now.

[WSAN654]

On 5/28/2023 at 8:52 PM, Lscott said:

One other point. Just how many people check to see if they can reliably communicate using simplex? If they can then they should stay off the repeater, use simplex, and let those who REALLY need it the access. 

simplex is working here excellent here, we have a total of 7 radios, ive asked someone can i use repeater if needed but as yet I've had no reply but unsure if i would ever need it here and i will probably but a repeater on the hill here are most repeaters open or closed as ive not took much notice of them to be honest

[WRXB288]

Just declare GMRS is the novice class for amateur radio and allow access to 70 Centimeter band Problem solved.....