• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Bill proposed to extend Narrowbanding by 2 years

Status
Not open for further replies.

grem467

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
881
Location
Houston, TX
112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION - H.R. 3430
To direct the Federal Communications Commission to extend the final
deadline for private land mobile radio licensees to migrate to
narrowband technology by 2 years

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - NOVEMBER 15, 2011
Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey introduced the following bill which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3430ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3430ih.pdf
 

GTR8000

Well Known Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
7,113
Location
BEE00
Try this, link to view the full bill is on the right.

House Bill H.R.3430 - NYTimes.com

Proposed by a congressman from NJ with no co-sponsors, doesn't seem like the bill will have legs. It'll probably die in committee.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Im on the border on this topic. I cant see it from both ways... Im currently on an ambulance service that used moto SP50's..which will all need to be replaced. We'd like mt1500,s/xt1500's or xt2500's...but have grants available and cant just buy them all at once. Im guessing this is how it is for alot of services and business across the country, BUT its not like narrowbanding is a new topic. So really what would two additional years do? Just give two more years to procrastinate about buying new radios?
 

radioman2001

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,746
Location
New York North Carolina and all points in between
This is a very touchy subject for those that have to narrow band. My feeling all along is that if the government wants to dictate to radio users what kind of equipment to buy or have then it should fund it completely. Just look at how much was spent on TV tuners for digital transistion. If the FCC can get that kind of money for the couch potato, then why not for PUBLIC SAFETY!! Also the fact of extending is probably to cut off all the costs involved with dealing with all the to come waivers. Extending was done for TV then again why not for P.S., and I am still not all on board for this, there is going to be NO additional VHF channels, UHF was already spintered over 15 years ago with no major interference issues. Until the digital formats are made better then all this is for nothing. Quite frankly I don't see any need for it, most private and business users went to cell phone or ESMR long ago, leaving a good chunk of the spectrum in the hands of speculators unused. Public Safety has had access to any frequency that had business users, and they were even made those frequencies P.S. only if it was vacant.
BTW why buy XTS radios when a HT-750 or 1250 would more than fulfill your needs over a SP-50
 

Dude111

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
425
radioman2001 said:
I get 0 bytes for file, also run time error in Adobe
Hmmmm maybe they were having problems @ the time?

FIle is 123k and loaded fine for me..
 

n5ims

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
3,676
My take on this is pretty much "you snooze, you lose". The FCC has had the narrow-band mandate for nearly a decade and over that time there have been many grants available to assist agencies upgrade their systems. There have also been several notices and information packets released to notify and remind folks to prepare.

This bill makes me think about all of the students that were assigned a long term project (book report, science fair project, term paper, etc.) that ignored the teacher's many warnings and reminders but still didn't even think about the project until the night before (when the book to read, required project items, or other research information couldn't be found) and they begged their parent to ask the teacher for an extension.
 

radioman2001

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,746
Location
New York North Carolina and all points in between
It doesn't matter whether it's been 10 or 20 years since first enacted, the grants don't cover everything, and with today's economy I'd rather put off narrow banding than let people go from work.The FCC found money for TV viewers, why not Public Safety, since that's all we are really talking about anyway.
 

mbarnhard

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
7
Location
Little Rock Arkansas
The bill applies to "private land mobile radio licensees" which is different that gov't public safety agencies. Many private EMS providers may fall under the bill but PD/SO/FD agencies will not. At least that is how I read the "private" and Part 90 references.

The narrowbanding deadline has already been put off several times over the past decade. There is sorta no excuse at this point. Both public and private users have had a decade to buy radios. There may be an argument that narrowbanding is not even needed at this point, but that is a different argument than needing even more time.
 

SCPD

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
I think its a bunch of garbage to be quite honest. Why push it off for two more years? in Texas and specifically north of Dallas/Fort Worth to the Red river, we can't get new FCC licenses because of the VHF narrow-banding. And we won't until the narrow-banding is complete. Coordination has no clean pairs available, were all already too close to each other between Texas and Oklahoma that were interfering a lot. When we all get narrower were going to be kissing when we key up. Extending this will only hurt the agencies who have been waiting for this to go through so we can get new frequencies. Freaking Politics!
 

GTR8000

Well Known Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
7,113
Location
BEE00
The bill applies to "private land mobile radio licensees" which is different that gov't public safety agencies. Many private EMS providers may fall under the bill but PD/SO/FD agencies will not. At least that is how I read the "private" and Part 90 references.
Incorrect. Land Mobile Radio Service (LMRS), aka Private Land Mobile Radio Services, is all governed by Part 90.

Land Mobile Radio Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
 

W2NJS

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
1,934
Location
Washington DC
I have to wonder about why so much misinformation about this rebanding subject goes around these days. The requirements as to who is affected are simple and straightforward and easy to find, so why does the subject of "Who is affected" still gets posted on this Board regularly?

As to the post above which says that an HT750 or 1250 could be used to fulfill the NB requirements, I've heard that the government funding is given only to P25-capable radios, which these two models are not. I have no proof that this is true but I suspect that it is.
 

GTR8000

Well Known Member
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
7,113
Location
BEE00
I have to wonder about why so much misinformation about this rebanding subject goes around these days.
Speaking of misinformation and confusion, we're talking about narrowbanding, not rebanding. Two completely different and unrelated subjects! :D
 

AlanTilles

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
40
Several Clarifications

1. The narrowbanding mandate applies to all Part 90 VHF and UHF licensees, Industrial/Business AND Public Safety (not Part 22). The ONLY exceptions are the paging only channels (not paging on voice channels);

2. While it is true that the interstitials have been available in UHF for a while, we (the Land Mobile Communications Council, an umbrella group of all the frequency coordinators) have been fairly conservative in coordination procedures in order to minimize interference, particularly with regard to centralized trunked systems and 6.25 kHz systems. LMCC is working on additional coordination guidelines for 6.25 kHz systems which are more liberal, and the narrowbanding of all systems will permit more centralized trunking opportunities (except in the most crowded markets, of course);

3. Narrowbanding at VHF will reduce (not eliminate) SOME of the adjacent channel overlap, freeing up some spectrum opportunities. It doesn't cure the lack of paired channels, of course. However, take a look at the coordinated efforts by the railroads at 160 MHz to narrowband, with some channels going to 12.5 kHz and others going right to 6.25 kHz, making much more spectrum available;

4. MANY grants are available for public safety and transit (through the FTA) which cover the entire amount of narrowbanding. Our presentations include many of these examples, which have been used by many entities.

Alan S. Tilles, Esquire
Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker, P.A.
NarrowbandingLaw
 

W9BU

Lead Wiki Manager
Super Moderator
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
5,772
Location
Brownsburg, Indiana
3. Narrowbanding at VHF will reduce (not eliminate) SOME of the adjacent channel overlap, freeing up some spectrum opportunities.
How does going from 16kHz wide signals on 15kHz channel spacing to 11kHz wide signals on 7.5kHz channel spacing reduce adjacent channel overlap?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top