Adding New GMRS Frequencies

[jmarcel66]

I am considering a recommendation to add GMRS frequencies (not Channels) to Part 95 with specific conditions and figure the debate can rage here. Here goes the bullet points of the idea.

• Add 454.5250 through 454.6500 (6 Frequencies) using 25Khz spacing designated at 50 Watts ERP maximum for Mobile, Base and Repeater Output frequencies. 
• Add 454.5375 through 454.6375 (5 Frequencies) using 25Khz spacing designated at 10 Watts ERP maximum for Mobile (portable) only frequencies.
• Add 459.5250 through 459.6500 (6 Frequencies) using 25Khz spacing designated at 50 Watts ERP maximum for Inputs to the new 454 Repeaters.
• By FCC rule, do not allow these frequencies to be added to any new, or existing models of radios that use pre-set channels, or allow them to be assigned Channels within an FRS type radio service. In other words, 454.525 can't become FRS/GMRS Channel-23 or similar. 
• Require Narrowband (12.5) operation.
• Allow Digital Voice modes in conventional configuration only, currently accepted in Part 90 rules. (I.e. P25, DMR, NXDN, etc. but no multi-frequency trunking).
• Do not apply the current GMRS grandfathering business license rules to these frequencies.
• Remove the frequencies from their current FCC category, and make GMRS secondary on the frequencies through grandfathering, to any existing active users from the previous category. No new licenses would be issued in the previous category.
• By rule, allow Part 90 type accepted equipment.  

Essentially, the idea is to increase the pool for GMRS licensees ONLY without the FRS bubble pack garbage that has previously followed, and using expanded types of equipment. 

The frequencies would be, 454.5250, 454.5375, 454.5500, 454.5625, 454.5750, 454.5875, 454.6000, 454.6125, 454.6250, 454.6375, 454.6500, 459.5250, 459.5500, 459.5750, 459.600, 459.6250 & 459.6500.

Let the debate rage.

John/WPXA902

 

[MaxHeadroom]

To your first 3 bullet points: ALL of that spectrum is already allocated to Part 90 (either as paging/radiotelephone or LMR) and will never be reallocated to a family service. Do a FCC ULS search for your proposed frequencies to see what I am talking about.

Requiring Narrowband would be theoretical if there was new spectrum available, but narrowbanding the existing frequencies will be utterly useless when there's already interstitial channels (FRS) between existing GMRS channels which would cause a lot of co-channel interference issues.

Digital Voice would not be within the rules either unless the point above with narrowbanding was able to be settled, and even then would only be one permitted modulation to prevent splintering of the service in a way that causes more issues than it solves. There's already super stringent regulation on data over the voice channels so I do not see a full digital modulation being easily accepted, never mind allowing multiple.

With all that said, there would not be any grandfathering allowed since these would be sweeping changes to the service that would mean that some of the currently grandfathered users would become unintentional interference to the other user base.

Moving the service definition will never happen either as all parts of 47 CFR have regulations which dictate frequencies and use cases for each service, none of which cross-over or are movable by current rule - FCC won't rewrite the book for GMRS especially with the current "attention" happening.

Part 90 equipment on Part 95 - that is actually doable and I was working on in 2017 and 2019 but would need to be a separate effort from everything else considering what I mentioned above about all the other pieces. Add type acceptance onto frequency/spectrum management for a service and this would stall before it got any traction.

 

I think you have a lot of spirit with this but sadly none of it is truly doable except the last part which should be tackled first to show that existing certified radios can be used in Part 95, which be default in 2024 opens up the "commonality of digital capable radios in a family service" and then work up from there. Sadly though there won't be any "free lunch" and GMRS will not see any change in frequency allocations unless something else is given up which this being my day job as well... I have yet to come to a workable conclusion that could be pitched to the FCC.

[Lscott]

5 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

Digital Voice would not be within the rules either unless the point above with narrowbanding was able to be settled, and even then would only be one permitted modulation to prevent splintering of the service in a way that causes more issues than it solves. There's already super stringent regulation on data over the voice channels so I do not see a full digital modulation being easily accepted, never mind allowing multiple.

I think it is doable to a point. See the attached file for some slightly more in-depth comments on the topic. Also reference the following link since the radio is mentioned at the end of the attached file for a bit more information. Note there are a non-display and a limited keypad display model available.

https://forums.mygmrs.com/gallery/image/290-nx-1300duk5/?context=new

Also the same basic radio design is used for the Australian license free 5 watt UHF CB radio service too. It is sold under a different model number as well.

https://www.kenwood.com/au/com/lmr/tk-3710/pdf/TK-3710_CB_LMR Portable.pdf

 

6 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

Part 90 equipment on Part 95 - that is actually doable and I was working on in 2017 and 2019 but would need to be a separate effort from everything else considering what I mentioned above about all the other pieces. Add type acceptance onto frequency/spectrum management for a service and this would stall before it got any traction.

I agree. This has the best chance of action by the FCC. I'm guessing but a lot of people are running Part 90 only certified radios on GMRS now. The FCC by allowing this would just be officially acknowledging the current practice. 

GMRS Digital Voice - 20241011.pdf

[Hoppyjr]

After reading all that my head hurts and I’m wondering….why?

[OffRoaderX]

12 minutes ago, Hoppyjr said:

After reading all that my head hurts and I’m wondering….why?

Because you know that you just wasted all of that time reading something that will absolutely never happen.  Basically you just had a long mental-masturbation session with no final-end and you have blue-brain now...

[Lscott]

11 minutes ago, Hoppyjr said:

After reading all that my head hurts and I’m wondering….why?

Because this topic come up again and again.

[Socalgmrs]

haha I stoped reading after the ridiculousness of the first bullet point.    50w erp is a totally joke

 

“Add 454.5250 through 454.6500 (6 Frequencies) using 25Khz spacing designated at 50 Watts ERP maximum for Mobile, Base and Repeater Output frequencies.”

 

That would only be a 15w radio with a basic 6db gain antenna 56 watts.  A 50w radio with a 3db gain antenna puts out over 90w erp. You would be neutering any radio you use by limiting erp to 50w.  Heck my 50w base runs 740w erp and my 20w mobiles in my trucks run over 70w erp.   I couldn’t even hook my 5w ht up to my base station set up since it would put out over 70w erp.  

 

[dosw]

Create your petition with the FCC.

https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/rulemaking-process#:~:text=Electronic Filers%3A Comments may be,the website for submitting comments.

 

There's nothing to debate until the actual process has started.

(It's never going to pass, but there's no point stirring up an argument here without any skin in the game. Go ahead and get the process started.)

 

[Hoppyjr]

It’s like the beginning of the “linked repeaters” silliness all over again.

SMH

[WSEM262]

Im curious why the existing GMRS frequencies cant be used as digital instead of analog? Would it create interference with the analog signal?

My repeater will do both... and it sure would be cool if it were legal to go digital. 

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, WSEM262 said:

Im curious why the existing GMRS frequencies cant be used as digital instead of analog?

My repeater will do both... and it sure would be cool if it were legal to go digital. 

You’re not alone in your opinion and it has been discussed frequently here.  There are a few experimental digital GMRS repeaters as I recall.  @Lscott is the main advocate on these forums. 

 

[Lscott]

59 minutes ago, WSEM262 said:

Im curious why the existing GMRS frequencies cant be used as digital instead of analog? Would it create interference with the analog signal?

My repeater will do both... and it sure would be cool if it were legal to go digital. 

That's a good question. I really don't know. There is a sizable group who are dead set against the idea. Those people have valid points why it shouldn't be allowed. IMHO I think many of the objections could be mitigated through careful rule changes. The fewer the better.

Unfortunately the GMRS community can't even agree to a common digital voice protocol. That would be the first major step one. Everyone has their favorite mode. However the favorite mode may not be the most appropriate. It has nothing to do with it's "technical" superiority. Whatever mode is chosen has to "fit" into the current usage of the service without causing widespread interference and chaos. That places some difficult restrictions on what could/should be used, and where. The end result could be a mode that might not be the majority's favorite, but would cause the least problems.

[WRCZ387]

3 hours ago, WSEM262 said:

I'm curious why the existing GMRS frequencies can't be used as digital instead of analog? Would it create interference with the analog signal?

It probably would

Awhile back someone was using DMR or some other digital mode on .700 in the Tampa Bay area & it made .700 unusable

I used to hear P25 on another repeater, but that wasn't that often, that was usually the repeater owner & anyone who has P25, I don't think that many users do, I have a P25 capable h-t, but I'm not going to use P25

I could be wrong, but there would probably need to be a complete switchover to digital, or separate frequencies mandated for analog & for digital for things to work with no interference

[SteveShannon]

3 hours ago, WSEM262 said:

Would it create interference with the analog signal?

Of course.  They’re on the same frequency. DMR sounds terrible on an analog radio.

 

[WRYZ926]

While one can run both analog and digital on the same repeater, it isn't always easy to get everything correct and functioning. A lot of it is in the programming of external controllers. We have three 70cm repeaters and all three are running DMR. But only one runs both DMR and analog without issues. The other two are only working on DMR at this time. We are seriously thinking about doing away with the DMR and sticking with just analog and then linking all three repeaters together.  But we can't link GMRS repeaters (subject beaten to death).

On the repeater with both working, the DMR side does cut the analog side off when someone is using DMR. Again it is a matter of reconfiguring the Raspberry Pi and the controller. 

3 hours ago, Lscott said:

Unfortunately the GMRS community can't even agree to a common digital voice protocol.

This is true even with amateur radio. There is DMR, Yaesu Fusion and also D-Star used by Icom and Kenwood. People will argue which is better. And they are not compatible with each other.

[Lscott]

28 minutes ago, WRYZ926 said:

This is true even with amateur radio. There is DMR, Yaesu Fusion and also D-Star used by Icom and Kenwood. People will argue which is better. And they are not compatible with each other.

The list is longer. There are more digital voice modes than the above if you count several more like NXDN, P25 and dPMR. Then there is the new one M17 too. Your waist line is going to look like Batman's utility belt with all the radios hanging on it for the various digital modes in use. The problem is finding a place to hang all the speaker mics.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, WRCZ387 said:

or separate frequencies mandated for analog & for digital for things to work with no interference

I think that's the way it's likely to get done. The best idea I read was using the nearly unless FRS 0.5 watt interstitial channels. Using a digital voice mode narrow enough, there are a couple that would work, it would fit between the GMRS repeater channels without causing interference, and likely can be done at higher power like 5 watts. That would give GMRS effectively 7 more useful channels without begging the FCC to allocate more scarce UHF spectrum to the service. It also would keep the existing higher power frequencies free of digital so it won't disrupt FM operations there.

[WRYZ926]

20 minutes ago, Lscott said:

The list is longer. There are more digital voice modes than the above if you count several more like NXDN, P25 and dPMR. Then there is the new one M17 too. Your waist line is going to look like Batman's utility belt with all the radios hanging on it for the various digital modes in use. The problem is finding a place to hang all the speaker mics.

Yes there are way more modes than I listed. I just listed the 3 most common ones used in amateur radio.

[GreggInFL]

On 10/11/2024 at 3:23 PM, OffRoaderX said:

Because you know that you just wasted all of that time reading something that will absolutely never happen.  Basically you just had a long mental-masturbation session with no final-end and you have blue-brain now...

Glad to hear it.  For a moment there I thought it was just me.

[Lscott]

20 hours ago, WRCZ387 said:

or separate frequencies mandated for analog & for digital for things to work with no interference

IF it ever comes to be that would be the most likely result. Also the one the FCC would be more inclined to consider. If you look back through the prior posts to this thread you'll find a file attached to one of mine that goes into a bit more detail on the subject.

[MarkInTampa]

On 10/14/2024 at 1:54 PM, WRCZ387 said:

It probably would

Awhile back someone was using DMR or some other digital mode on .700 in the Tampa Bay area & it made .700 unusable

I used to hear P25 on another repeater, but that wasn't that often, that was usually the repeater owner & anyone who has P25, I don't think that many users do, I have a P25 capable h-t, but I'm not going to use P25

I could be wrong, but there would probably need to be a complete switchover to digital, or separate frequencies mandated for analog & for digital for things to work with no interference

Tampa has two digital/analog repeaters on GMRS, one running P25 and the other NXDN. The connection info is published on their websites and are public. Neither one of them get very much digital traffic, I would guess 95% is analog.

There is also someone running encrypted DMR on 700 still, from what I was told it is a business running GPS tracking on fleet vehicle's. It drove the Tampa 700 repeater a year or so ago to .600 and they forced the existing .600 repeater in Clearwater to .550 knowingly but didn't care.

[WRUE951]

WHY????   serves zero purpose,, nada, nothing..  its even funny   

[Lscott]

14 hours ago, MarkInTampa said:

Tampa has two digital/analog repeaters on GMRS, one running P25 and the other NXDN. The connection info is published on their websites and are public.

Do you have the link for those?

[Lscott]

12 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

WHY????

Apparently because they can.

12 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

serves zero purpose,, nada, nothing..  

They seem to think those repeaters are useful. It cost money to build, install and maintain/operate them.

12 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

its even funny   

No. It's sad if they don't have a special FCC experimental license to test them. Otherwise it just shows the total lack of FCC enforcement activity.

[Lscott]

14 hours ago, MarkInTampa said:

Tampa has two digital/analog repeaters on GMRS, one running P25 and the other NXDN.

Now this is a bit of an off beat question. Lets "assume" for the moment those repeaters are operating under a grandfathered license before the rules were changed in 2017. The owners could have been licensed for business use and their authorization might have allowed digital voice. I'm not sure if that last part was allowed under the old rules. In that case those repeaters might be operating legally.