Adding New GMRS Frequencies

[WRUE951]

7 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Apparently because they can.

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.

Well, Da, you can $hit in a prescription bottle too if you wanted too  ..     The FCC does offer experimental licenses 47 (Part 5)..  Have at it.... 

[Lscott]

57 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

  The FCC does offer experimental licenses 47 (Part 5)..  Have at it.... 

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=234790&x=

[MarkInTampa]

49 minutes ago, Lscott said:

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.

Not in this case. The NXDN repeater went online six months ago, the P25 repeater has been online for a few years. I'm not complaining, both are really strong repeaters (the most dominant in the area) and most traffic is analog. If there is a bit of digital traffic a few times a month for a minute or two, it's a small annoyance for how good the repeaters are.

The encrypted DMR repeater on .700 popped up a year or two ago. It was traced to a security company running illegally and has been reported to the FCC many times but it's still there.

[Lscott]

3 minutes ago, MarkInTampa said:

The encrypted DMR repeater on .700 popped up a year or two ago. It was traced to a security company running illegally and has been reported to the FCC many times but it's still there.

If it's operating illegally I guess they would be very unlikely to complain if ordinary legal users hijack it for their own use. That might be enough to convince them to shut it down or get a legit business frequency and move off the GMRS channels.

[MarkInTampa]

21 minutes ago, Lscott said:

If it's operating illegally I guess they would be very unlikely to complain if ordinary legal users hijack it for their own use. That might be enough to convince them to shut it down or get a legit business frequency and move off the GMRS channels.

It's close to impossible to hijack a encrypted DMR repeater that doesn't do analog.

[MarkInTampa]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

Do you have the link for those?

Here is one of them https://flscg.org/2021/03/tampa-gmrs-repeater/

[WRUE951]

41 minutes ago, Lscott said:

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=234790&x=

i think you'll have have better luck $hitten in a prescription bottle.   Either way,,  have fun  

[Lscott]

21 minutes ago, MarkInTampa said:

It's close to impossible to hijack a encrypted DMR repeater that doesn't do analog.

Don't know until it's tried.

[Lscott]

15 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

think you'll have have better luck $hitten in a prescription bottle.

Send me your mail address and I'll send you the proof in the bottle.

[MarkInTampa]

13 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Don't know until it's tried.

I did a tone scan and got a tone a few months ago when it was transmitting DMR and tried. Either analog is disabled or it's using a non-standard input.

I did think about running a simplex repeater to mess with them but not worth the effort.

[Lscott]

51 minutes ago, MarkInTampa said:

Here is one of them https://flscg.org/2021/03/tampa-gmrs-repeater/

I looked at the group's Articles Of Incorporation in "Article III - Purpose" is to promote Amateur Radio. Nothing specifically about getting involved with GMRS.

http://flscg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Articles-of-Incorporation-FSGinc.pdf

I can't find whose license the GMRS repeater would be operating under. It has to be someone. Does it ID itself? All the Ham gear can belong to a club however.

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, MarkInTampa said:

It's close to impossible to hijack an encrypted DMR repeater that doesn't do analog.

But easy to do a denial of service.

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

Send me your mail address and I'll send you the proof in the bottle.

send it to the White House,,   Adress it to Joe

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

Send me your mail address and I'll send you the proof in the bottle.

I’ll send you his address.

[Lscott]

17 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

I’ll send you his address.

OK,

 Then he can't say he never got $hit for mail.

[Lscott]

27 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

send it to the White House,,   Adress it to Joe

He would think it was a free peanut butter sample.

[WRWY209]

FCC needs to provide bandwidth in 4 meters for new GMRS frequencies and a new amateur band. 8mhz of band would be nice. Make the upper 3mhz amateur and lower 5mhz GMRS. Allow repeaters and require frequency coordination by a community based organization. Allow all modes on the whole band. No linking of any kind GMRS or amateur. Allow a new class of amateur license on 4 meter maybe call it preview class. Test would be all regs and proper operation. Do not channelize the GMRS and require all modes to be narrow band.

[Lscott]

14 minutes ago, WRWY209 said:

FCC needs to provide bandwidth in 4 meters for new GMRS frequencies and a new amateur band. 8mhz of band would be nice. Make the upper 3mhz amateur and lower 5mhz GMRS. Allow repeaters and require frequency coordination by a community based organization. Allow all modes on the whole band. No linking of any kind GMRS or amateur. Allow a new class of amateur license on 4 meter maybe call it preview class. Test would be all regs and proper operation. Do not channelize the GMRS and require all modes to be narrow band.

Not likely to happen in any form.

https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-turns-down-petition-to-create-a-4-meter-band-in-the-us

[WQAI363]

I may not have fully read the entire post on the additional channels or the talk about Digital Voice, but it would be great to see that in the GMRS spectrum. Although I seriously doubt that D-STAR or FUSION would be implemented in GMRS, since those Digital Modes were designed for the Amateur Radio Service. I'm not saying that those modes wouldn't work, but it would be defiantly sound weird, especially when GMRS user who also are Amateur Radio Operators talking other GMRS Licensees that aren't Hams. Which probably put us back to where we were just a few months ago, with FCC requesting repeater owners and trustees to terminate links.

I understand that the General Mobile Radio Service was designed as a short-range communications service that could be implemented for commercial or non-commercial use, and not to be used as Amateur Radio. 

[Davichko5650]

On 10/27/2024 at 10:32 AM, Lscott said:

Not likely to happen in any form.

https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-turns-down-petition-to-create-a-4-meter-band-in-the-us

Not to mention all the clocks in our schools here would need a new frequency allocation for their time synchs, as they;re on the 4 metre band....!

[WQAI363]

On 10/11/2024 at 11:41 AM, jmarcel66 said:

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

 

Sounds like your recommendations would maximize the service and give more space, but the FCC isn't going grant another slice of spectrum to the Part 95 section anytime soon.