• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
  • 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

FCC Report & Order to Open Up More 800 Spectrum for (PLMR)

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
746
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
#1
There is a R/O from the FCC Drafted for the October 23rd Open Meeting in Washington D.C
from 10:30 to 12:30

https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2018/10/october-2018-open-commission-meeting

Revitalizing the 800 MHz Band
The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Order opening up new channels in the 800 MHz Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) band, eliminating outdated rules, and reducing administrative burdens on PLMR licensees. (WP Docket Nos. 15-32, 16-261)


This is the 88 Page Report & Order for The Addition to 800 Spectrum

https://www.fcc.gov/document/improving-800-mhz-band
 

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
746
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
#2
As I was Reading thru the Order a Bit--this Order has alot Players Getting Involved with Decisions / Recomendations / interference Issues--People like (mo) / (lmcc) / (Railroad) / (central station alarm) and a few More

There is also a Revamping on part 90 Rules--Some Stuff on Narrowbanding 150/174--450/470

this is 88 pages long with alot of twists and turns that will make your head spin--there are some parts which shows the big 3 are trying to influence the fcc on Frequency Enforcement as How I Think I Understand it --Some of the Wording and Footnotes are Interesting
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
3,211
Location
Texas
#3
Could be interesting. It would be cool if a petition would come up to change the spectrum licensing to allow for more carriers in a 25 kHz channel as long as existing power regulations are followed. For example, if you are allowed 100W output on a 25 kHz channel, then you could run 4 6.25 kHz channels in that same channel as long as the output didn't exceed 25W per channel (still at your 100W limit for the 25 kHz of bandwidth). What I'd really like to see is an official ruling stating that 25 kHz of bandwidth is ours and we can place our carrier anywhere in it as long as we don't go beyond our existing channel. Be really handy for a few of my sites where I am my own interferer (70 miles of separation but same channels at each site) and allow me to simply shift one carrier up 6.25 kHz and the other down 6.25 kHz since I am running 12.5 kHz systems.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
112
Location
PA
#4
What I'd really like to see is an official ruling stating that 25 kHz of bandwidth is ours and we can place our carrier anywhere in it as long as we don't go beyond our existing channel. Be really handy for a few of my sites where I am my own interferer (70 miles of separation but same channels at each site) and allow me to simply shift one carrier up 6.25 kHz and the other down 6.25 kHz since I am running 12.5 kHz systems.
It's been a few years (almost 20) - but back when we were looking at some old Part22 IMTS channels, we posed that exact question, and the FCC response was pretty much that if it was happening within our system's footprint, they didn't care much what we did to mitigate our own interference. That was verbal, but when we got involved with the Part80 VHF Public Coast auction, we were told that shifting off frequency center was NOT an option. Was that due to different services, a different group of regulators involved, or just the mood at the FCC that day? I'd guess a combination of all 3.

I agree it would be nice to see that type of flexibility. So much in the way of rules, but the useful reality is often lacking.
 

MtnBiker2005

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,428
Location
San Diego County, California
#5
New 800 MHz Spectrum Opens with Updated Part 90 Rules
Tuesday, October 23, 2018

New Part 90 rules adopted by the FCC Oct. 23 open 800 MHz spectrum, with 318 new 800 MHz interstitial channels becoming available.

The rules also make 40 expansion band (EB) and 40 guard band (GB) channels in 800 MHz available in National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) regions where 800 MHz rebanding is completed.
https://www.rrmediagroup.com/Features/FeaturesDetails/FID/873
 

MtnBiker2005

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,428
Location
San Diego County, California
#6
Compliance Guide for New 800 MHz FCC Rules Released
February, 2019

The FCC published a compliance guide to help small entities with 800 MHz interests comply with new FCC rules announced in October.

The FCC said the guide is intended to help small entities — small businesses, organizations (non-profits) and governmental jurisdictions — comply with the revised rules.

Link: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-42A1.pdf

Link: https://www.rrmediagroup.com/News/NewsDetails/NewsID/17925
 
Top