An interesting proposal for GMRS+

[gortex2]

49 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

There's a very good reason to eliminate the extra payment IMO: it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to process, and HAM used to be free at the FCC end.

So if that's the case then anyone with any FCC license should get free use of GMRS ? And to be honest the HAM fee is about 20 years too late. 

 

[SteveShannon]

54 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

What's the "it" you're referring to as sloppily written?  If you mean the original rule change referenced in your OP, then yea, that's obvious.  And it's hard to believe a lawyer wrote that, thus my comment about a hoax/joke.

The proposal linked in my first post. 

54 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

 

There's a very good reason to eliminate the extra payment IMO: it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to process, and HAM used to be free at the FCC end.

If you can show that the FCC is charging too much for processing GMRS licenses a petition to reduce the cost to all who apply would be reasonable, but giving GMRS licenses to ham radio licensees isn’t the solution. “We overcharge GMRS licensees so we’re going to give them to hams!”

[UncleYoda]

It costs more (more time and effort) to process a new, first-time licensee than to add another ID that requires no testing.  But I sure am not wasting time on proving anything to you or the FCC. (They know already and there was info made public about the costs back when they proposed changing the fees.)

[wayoverthere]

1 hour ago, UncleYoda said:

There's a very good reason to eliminate the extra payment IMO: it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to process, and HAM used to be free at the FCC end.

To be fair, there were legislative reasons the fee for ham licenses stayed zero as long as it did, along with some administrative hoops to get their <stuff> together to justify the fees and get the payment processes in place.

It'd probably get more traction to argue the cost of administering gmrs licensing should be adjusted to reflect actual costs than trying to get a structure where the license costs nothing.

[WRZZ732]

On 12/28/2023 at 8:49 PM, WRHS218 said:

I read the document. Wow, there is a lot going on there and I'm not talking about the technical aspects.

I am not sure I understand why anyone with an amateur license would need or want to make all these changes to GMRS. Everything the document proposes is available in the amateur bands and is not relegated to the small number of frequencies given to GMRS even with going narrow band to add channels.

The most disturbing paragraph to me was proposing people holding an amateur radio license could volunteer to be the radio police for both GMRS and the proposed GMRS+ services. I guess having an amateur license makes one superior to the folks on GMRS. I have a "HAM" license and a GMRS license and I am not better than anyone. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that gig.

 

I concur. 

There is a lot to unpack in that filing, and it will likely go nowhere with the FCC.  As a ham, I find this desire to by many of our fellow amateurs to "change" GMRS a bit disturbing.  I've run into this "attitude" with several hams local to me.  

All license classes of amateurs have full privileges from 420MHz - 450MHz (70cm).  Most everything outlined in that filing we already have available to us in the 70cm band. And for you non-hams out there, guess what?   The 70cm band goes largely unused!  The only thing that filing does is further annoy the FCC when it comes to amateur radio operators.  My eyes were rolling reading it, and if I were the FCC it would be targeted for the circular file. 

Allowing digital voice modes (DMR, etc..) is a very bad idea.  This would be very confusing and annoying to existing GMRS users.  To another point, most hams can't figure out how to program their DMR radios. 

As for the random joe-ham or the VM (Volunteer Monitors) performing band police duties?  Seriously?!? 

 

[gortex2]

It amazes me in some areas hams are all over GMRS, crying over usage but on the 70cm band its crickets. Maybe we should petition the FCC to give us the 70cm band for GMRS use ? The only UHF repeaters I hear around me are linked repeaters and 90% of the folks talking are not in the area I am in. The others are crickets. 

[SteveShannon]

5 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

It amazes me in some areas hams are all over GMRS, crying over usage but on the 70cm band its crickets. Maybe we should petition the FCC to give us the 70cm band for GMRS use ? The only UHF repeaters I hear around me are linked repeaters and 90% of the folks talking are not in the area I am in. The others are crickets. 

Here in Montana 70 cm is well used by a network of linked digital repeaters, connected to the Brandmeister.  I hear local conversations frequently between hams in Helena, Belgrade, Bozeman, and Butte as well as Montana Statewide Net checkins from Alabama, New Mexico and several from Montana.

If a band seems underutilized, find some way to use it.

[WRZY946]

This proposal can eat dirt.

GMRS is GMRS, amateur is amateur.

I don't want to see some powermonger trying to grub up a whole different radio service with the admonition of the FCC because they think being certified in a different one makes someone better.

That's a Reddit Moderator level of self-importance.

[arn]

On 12/28/2023 at 9:49 PM, WRHS218 said:

I read the document. Wow, there is a lot going on there and I'm not talking about the technical aspects.

I am not sure I understand why anyone with an amateur license would need or want to make all these changes to GMRS. Everything the document proposes is available in the amateur bands and is not relegated to the small number of frequencies given to GMRS even with going narrow band to add channels.

The most disturbing paragraph to me was proposing people holding an amateur radio license could volunteer to be the radio police for both GMRS and the proposed GMRS+ services. I guess having an amateur license makes one superior to the folks on GMRS. I have a "HAM" license and a GMRS license and I am not better than anyone. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that gig.

 

I completely agree with you regarding the "radio police". I also think that the guy who proposed this just wants to turn gmrs into ham on different frequencies. He suggests raising the limit on certain channels to 100w. I could totally foresee the overly obsessed ham guys scolding a gmrs user because they're trying to see how far apart they can talk. IMO. Ham is great and so is gmrs, but they are separate and should stay separate.

[Guest]

I posted this on my old thread, but I am posting it here for visibility as well. TL;DR: I don't care at all about "GMRS+" but some of what is being said in other comments needs to be validated and discussed in a holistic view past the half-baked responses thus far...

 

With the newest NPRM out, I think it is time that I re-visit this before submitting a public comment... if I end up choosing to do so.

1. The NPRM needs to address that 95.335(a) should fully codify Part 90 radios into the rule, as all of them meet or exceed technical standards for Part 95 use.
2. Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR.
3. On that end, narrowbanding would become mandated with a transition period, and interstitial frequencies assigned to the service to further leverage the narrowbanding "side-effect".
4. Using all of the above, then in-band GPS signaling along with cadence-based GPS and other "data" functions become "tolerable" in the service since there would be more channels, more talk paths, and more opportunity to use the service that has grown exponentially.

I am only writing this here because I want to see if the GMRS groups can even remotely come to some sort of agreement... because to be fully blunt Midland is the only one putting a compelling argument out with no one coming out with an actual comment to the proposal short of a long-winded "yes" or "no".

I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, NavyBOFH said:

I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.

I’ve posted this before. You might want to download it for a good read if you haven’t seen it before.

GMRS Digital Voice - 20231127.pdf

[Raybestos]

Who sits around and thinks up this kind of stupidity?  No!  Not just no, but hell no!  This is another hairbrained attempt to make GMRS into "ham radio lite".  I am an Extra class ham, and I am 100% against this.  GMRS (Class A CB) was originally another means of personal (and at one time, business) communication.  It should remain that way.  It should remain 100% analog.  GMRS allows for reliable communication with a short wavelength (think being able to use an ht in a car without an outside or excessively long antenna).  It is great for families, friends, and even properly licensed hams, to keep in touch, especially with family and friends who just do not want to be bothered with testing, radio theory, etc.  If someone wants to enjoy the hobby aspects of ham, play with digital, etc; then let them get off of their dead behind and study and take the tests or shut up! Those who are already hams and who want to turn GMRS into ham lite or other extension of ham radio, please use the privileges you have on ham or upgrade if that is not enough.

People are continuously trying to wreck a great thing that GMRS is with these bright ideas.

[H8SPVMT]

This reminds me of the citizen beginning to pass a Tractor Trailer traveling below the speed limit on the interstate. With his blinker on citizen begins to get out into the left lane and pass the truck at the legal speed limit.  Truck driver now speeds up to the speed limit too, preventing the the fellow to pass without speeding. 

Now all those that like to drive faster than the speed limit are blocked and blowing their horns.  Whos at fault; everyone is traveling the speed limit?  

I say the truck driver, as he needs to slow down and allow the citizen to pass and clear the left lane.

There are always people with what looks like good intentions.   But they seem to disregard the laws after getting use to never getting caught or, having their actions reviewed by the officials.... 

Are the Sad Hams getting frustrated because they think GMRS users are in their way?

 

[WRYZ926]

I have an amateur general license and GMRS license. If I want to use digital modes I get on one of my amateur radios. I like the simplicity of GMRS and do not want to see it change.

[WRQI583]

Ham operators have from 420MHz to 450MHz to experiment and do what they want with it (with some exceptions due to shared agreements and line A and C restrictions) and now they want to take over something else? On top of this, let me make clear, that in many parts of the country, Hams not only do not use the 70cm band as it is, they flat out refuse to use it and will actually verbally spit on it. In many areas of the country, Hams barely use anything above 2 meters (144-148MHz) because they claim "it doesn't get out far therefore you cannot do anything with it". Hams do not need anymore frequencies. 420-450 is in the same band that behaves the same way as 462 and 467MHz. There is absolutely no difference between the two except for the numeric frequencies. If Hams want more to experiment with, go petition to allow more capability within their own 70cm band. Stop trying to ruin other services. 

DO NOT BE FOOLED! Ham Radio operators are not lacking in bandwidth to experiment and talk on surrounding the GMRS band. Something many people, Hams included, do not realize is that Ham Radio operators have the following bands outside of the contesting bands to fully operate in, experiment in and do what they want in with, in most places, a 1500 watt power limit -

50-54MHz (little activity except for band openings once or twice a year)
144-148MHz (Utilized the most for short range communications across the country)
220-225MHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned in many parts of the country)
420-450MHz (small amounts of activity depending on the part of the country) The same band that GMRS (462 and 467 MHZ) sits in.
902-928MHz (little to no activity)
1240-1300MHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
2300-2310MHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
2390-2450MHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
3400-3450MHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
5650-5925MHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
10-10.5GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
24-24.25GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
47-47.2GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
76-81GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
122.25-123GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
134-141GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
241-250GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)
and all above 275GHz (little to no activity if not totally dead and abandoned)

I have personally heard Hams come out on the air and identify 50-54, 144-148, and 420-450 as being the only bands Hams have to operate on above 10 meters and how Hams dont have any room to play. GMRS operators have 8 repeater pairs and 14 simplex channels to use. Not chunks of bandwidth like Hams, only channels! So, no, Hams do not need "...allowing Ham Radio users more flexibility when operating on GMRS Channels." You want more flexibility, go back down on your own 70cm band and start utilizing it!!! GMRS is for people who need a means of communication and dont want to be hassled with becoming a licensed radio hobbyist. I personally hope the FCC laughs at this and throws it out. Hams do not use the bands they currently have and it is the reason the FCC is taking portions of their bands away. If Hams would get off of the HF bands and stop doing contesting and start utilizing the bands above 50MHz, they wouldn't have a reason to steal from GMRS, but that will never happen. 

[pcradio]

Proposal [1] is a good request. The others don't personally interest me. Radio has been so strangled by HAM restrictions that it maybe too late to fix it. Hence the desire to turn GMRS into what people want, which is a way to send off grid messages to family and friends who are not radio freaks.

That has always been the problem with HAM, it is a club of people who like to talk about radios but don't actually use them. The people who actually use radio for important things are GMRS users or Public safety, etc.

But as more HAMS use GMRS, naturally, they make it about saying your callsign 10 times a minute, talking about radios, yadda yadda.

 

 

 

[AdmiralCochrane]

14 minutes ago, pcradio said:

Proposal [1] is a good request. The others don't personally interest me. Radio has been so strangled by HAM restrictions that it maybe too late to fix it. Hence the desire to turn GMRS into what people want, which is a way to send off grid messages to family and friends who are not radio freaks.

That has always been the problem with HAM, it is a club of people who like to talk about radios but don't actually use them. The people who actually use radio for important things are GMRS users or Public safety, etc.

But as more HAMS use GMRS, naturally, they make it about saying your callsign 10 times a minute, talking about radios, yadda yadda.

I'm not sure

[WRQI583]

6 hours ago, pcradio said:

Proposal [1] is a good request. The others don't personally interest me. Radio has been so strangled by HAM restrictions that it maybe too late to fix it. Hence the desire to turn GMRS into what people want, which is a way to send off grid messages to family and friends who are not radio freaks.

That has always been the problem with HAM, it is a club of people who like to talk about radios but don't actually use them. The people who actually use radio for important things are GMRS users or Public safety, etc.

But as more HAMS use GMRS, naturally, they make it about saying your callsign 10 times a minute, talking about radios, yadda yadda.

 

 

 

I totally agree on everything you say. I know many will say its not but its one of the many reasons I got out of Ham Radio and into GMRS. I want what GMRS is and what Ham Radio used to be - a means of communication. GMRS affords me that and it makes it so I am not stuck talking to just Hams who are definitely not my family, friends, or household. Ham Radio is almost pure contesting/making contacts. In order to do this, you need to reach around the world where you can maximize the amount of people you can contact. This is why there is no real communication on Ham. This is why there is little to no activity on 50 MHz on up. This is why there is little to no technical talk and Hams getting together doing projects. I just hope Hams dont make a mess of GMRS. Its the last band that I have to use that isn't marred with politics and arrogant rednecks.

When it comes to the rule stuff. I will be very open about this. In the bands from 50 MHz on up, most Hams that sit on these bands are strict rule cops. Go down below 30 MHz and its a private club. An anything goes party, where, if it was up on 2 meters, you would be hearing a bunch of Hams having an aneurism over the language and the identifying 2 times, once when you get on and once when you get off. Believe me, I dont make this up. It annoys me because I recently got into HF monitoring with my SDR's and I try to get callsigns so I can look them up and see what range I have. I have sat here almost 45 minutes to an hour waiting for a group of guys to use their callsigns and I finally heard a few as they were getting off the radio but nothing in between. So, when Hams sit on 2 meters dropping the hammer on someone for being 1 microsecond late on identifying, that Ham is probably a hypocrite, if not himself, but for the community as a whole. 7.2 MHz is a good frequency to monitor at times. 

[WRQI583]

On 12/31/2023 at 2:12 PM, arn said:

 

Quote

He suggests raising the limit on certain channels to 100w

 

He has CB in the blood. Why you would want more power on UHF is beyond me. I should know because I have experimented with UHF and found that in many cases, more power is not going to do squat for your signal. A better or different antenna, and above all, height is what will make the difference. The guy who proposed this is probably the typical Ham who memorized the right answers, passed the test and thinks because of a slip of paper, he is an expert in radio. Sadly, Ham Radio is filled with these kind. None of them are smart, they just have a good memory. If I had a good memory, I would have an extra class license............just because I can have one.

[WRQI583]

On 12/30/2023 at 9:37 AM, gortex2 said:

It amazes me in some areas hams are all over GMRS, crying over usage but on the 70cm band its crickets. Maybe we should petition the FCC to give us the 70cm band for GMRS use ? The only UHF repeaters I hear around me are linked repeaters and 90% of the folks talking are not in the area I am in. The others are crickets. 

That was the thought I had also the first time I saw this proposal. My area is dead. The only activity is a couple stray 440 repeaters and maybe people with DMR hotspots. I say, take half of the the 440 Ham band and turn it into GMRS+. I understand that there are areas of this country where 440 is alive but for the rest of the country it is dead. Overall, from 50MHz on up, there is a TON of dead air on the Hams bands across the country. 

 

[Lscott]

14 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

If I had a good memory, I would have an extra class license............just because I can have one.

There are 12 year olds with an Extra Class license. You would be in good company.

[WRYZ926]

6 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

That was the thought I had also the first time I saw this proposal. My area is dead. The only activity is a couple stray 440 repeaters and maybe people with DMR hotspots. I say, take half of the the 440 Ham band and turn it into GMRS+. I understand that there are areas of this country where 440 is alive but for the rest of the country it is dead. Overall, from 50MHz on up, there is a TON of dead air on the Hams bands across the country. 

 

It does depend on what part of the country you are in. 2m and 70cm is pretty active here in Missouri. But no one uses 6m or 1.25m (220MHz) around here. There are weekly nets on different repeaters within a 100 mile radius of me on every night except Friday and Saturday nights. Plus there are the rag chewers on all the time too.

[WRQI583]

1 minute ago, Lscott said:

There are 12 year olds with an Extra Class license. You would be in good company.

Nope, I'm good. I got out of Ham Radio and will learn things on my own, experiment with things on my own, and just plain old keep to what I do...............on my own. I cant be associated with that.

[Lscott]

28 minutes ago, WRQI583 said:

Nope, I'm good. I got out of Ham Radio and will learn things on my own, experiment with things on my own, and just plain old keep to what I do...............on my own. I cant be associated with that.

Sounds like a plan. The Extra Class License doesn’t mean what it use to.

The difference with any class of Amateur license is you gain the official blessing of the FCC to put signals on the air, with some limits of course. To experiment that is a big advantage. Something to reconsider.

 

[WRQI583]

6 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Sounds like a plan. The Extra Class License doesn’t mean what it use to.

The difference with any class of Amateur license is you gain the official blessing of the FCC to put signals on the air, with some limits of course. To experiment that is a big advantage. Something to reconsider.

 

The difference between license classes?

 

Technician - privileges mainly from 50 MHz and above with a few tiny spots on HF.

General -  50 MHz on up, plus, added privileges on most of the HF bands

Extra - all privileges on all ham bands

What you don't gain is the smarts to operate on said bands. The only way you obtain the smarts is by studying the material and learning. Sadly, the studying and learning part is not required to pass the test. Just a real good memory.