FRS/GMRS Expanded Band?

[russbrill]

I have been doing some "What If" planning when it comes to FRS/GMRS.

After all, the FCC took 3 Frequencies from the VHF Business Pool and assigned them to MURS.. Why not add a few to FRS/GMRS???

My plan still calls for Narrow Banding, but in my Country, we get 6 extra frequencies... Check out my attachment.. Who knows, may be one day something will happen similar to my pipe dream..

Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone!!!

73,
Russ

 

[mmckenna]

No.

Those 3 UHF channels you've "added" are heavily used by a lot of unlicensed users. From one of my locations I can pick up an almost constant stream of traffic on those. Adding that to the existing FRS/GMRS mess isn't going to improve things. There are plenty of channels for GMRS.

If we wanted the FCC to do something useful, they should "MURS-ify" those UHF itinerant channels, specifically 464.500, 464.550 and their inputs into a UHF MURS service. 2 watts or less, narrow band, leave it at that. Most active users on those channels are unlicensed. Adding them to GMRS just means that people will start to wander their unlicensed business stuff over to GMRS.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[bill4long]

Here we go again

 

[bill4long]

I have been doing some "What If" planning when it comes to FRS/GMRS.

After all, the FCC took 3 Frequencies from the VHF Business Pool and assigned them to MURS.. Why not add a few to FRS/GMRS???

My plan still calls for Narrow Banding, but in my Country, we get 6 extra frequencies... Check out my attachment.. Who knows, may be one day something will happen similar to my pipe dream..

73,
Russ

Pipe. Dream. Good choice of words.

So... did you submit your plan to the FCC yet?

 

[Hit_Factor]

I have been doing some "What If" planning when it comes to FRS/GMRS.

What if what? Why do you need this change? What's the goal?

 

[KevinC]

Maybe add some 38 MHz frequencies in there as well.

 

[nd5y]

What's the goal?

To create more locked threads than anybody else.

 

[russbrill]

Pipe. Dream. Good choice of words.

So... did you submit your plan to the FCC yet?

Hey Bill,

Nope, my feeling about the 462 MHz is the FCC already has long range plans for it. It is becoming the new "CB Channel 14" walkie talkie band for business in the large Metro areas. And to help promote the "Channel 14" mentality, the FCC allowed unlicensed users on the GMRS repeater outputs. If I owned a GMRS Repeater I would not be happy...

Hmmm, may be under my new band plan, we kick the FRS users off of the Repeater Outputs??? Just a thought...

73,
Russ

 

[russbrill]

Maybe add some 38 MHz frequencies in there as well.

Dang Kevin, why do you gotta be soooo Mean

 

[russbrill]

No.

Those 3 UHF channels you've "added" are heavily used by a lot of unlicensed users. From one of my locations I can pick up an almost constant stream of traffic on those. Adding that to the existing FRS/GMRS mess isn't going to improve things. There are plenty of channels for GMRS.

If we wanted the FCC to do something useful, they should "MURS-ify" those UHF itinerant channels, specifically 464.500, 464.550 and their inputs into a UHF MURS service. 2 watts or less, narrow band, leave it at that. Most active users on those channels are unlicensed. Adding them to GMRS just means that people will start to wander their unlicensed business stuff over to GMRS.

But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

What if the FRS crowd only had access to channels 1 - 14 and (15 thru 22 TX Locked Out) 23 - 28??? Under the new band plan FRS users would have 20 channels and GMRS would have the Repeater inputs/outputs exclusively...

 

[cmjonesinc]

 

[russbrill]

View attachment 94633

This horse is a different breed, not yet deceased

 

[SigIntel8600]

I have been doing some "What If" planning when it comes to FRS/GMRS.

After all, the FCC took 3 Frequencies from the VHF Business Pool and assigned them to MURS.. Why not add a few to FRS/GMRS???

My plan still calls for Narrow Banding, but in my Country, we get 6 extra frequencies... Check out my attachment.. Who knows, may be one day something will happen similar to my pipe dream..

Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone!!!

73,
Russ

Why narrow band only? Do you work for Midland? LOL

 

[n1das]

I have been doing some "What If" planning when it comes to FRS/GMRS.

After all, the FCC took 3 Frequencies from the VHF Business Pool and assigned them to MURS.. Why not add a few to FRS/GMRS???

My plan still calls for Narrow Banding, but in my Country, we get 6 extra frequencies... Check out my attachment.. Who knows, may be one day something will happen similar to my pipe dream..

Happy Thanksgiving to Everyone!!!

73,
Russ

This is a pipe dream. Good choice of words. Not likely to happen. I will believe it when I see a formal NPRM from the FCC about it and will submit my comments during the formal Public Comments period. The radio manufacturers all need to be on board with it to help make it happen. IIRC it was Uniden and maybe other manufacturers (Motorola?) that poked the bear enough to get the FCC to finally act on the 2010 NPRM in 2017 which created the revised Part 95 rules for GMRS/FRS that we have today.

I for one would LOVE to be able to use DMR, P25 and NXDN digital modes legally on GMRS but that probably will never happen.

I already use (analog) narrowband on all GMRS/FRS channels. All of my 12.5kHz adjacent channel splatter problems went away completely after I switched to narrow bandwidth mode on the GMRS primary channels. A GMRS repeater I had in service years ago (Kenwood TKR-850) would occasionally get hit by FRS traffic local to the repeater site on the upper FRS channels 12.5kHz adjacent to the repeater input. The FRS users happened to be using a CTCSS tone which matched one of the tones in the repeater. The FRS traffic caused the repeater to get keyed up and you would hear scraps of talk due to the FRS users being 12.5kHz away from the input frequency. Switching the repeater to narrow mode tightened up the receiver and completely eliminated the problem. I've heard the same thing happen to GMRS repeaters in other areas of the country and heard normal users of the repeater yelling at the FRS users which does no good. LOL.

I've heard the arguments that wide bandwidth operation (16K0F3E and 20K0F3E) gives better performance than narrow bandwidth (11K2F3E), but does that better performance include while being hammered by adjacent channel traffic 12.5kHz away? I addressed this by going with the flow of Part 90 and using narrow bandwidth mode on all GMRS/FRS channels. Operating in narrow mode narrows the receiver in addition to narrowing the transmit deviation.

 

[mmckenna]

What if the FRS crowd only had access to channels 1 - 14 and (15 thru 22 TX Locked Out) 23 - 28??? Under the new band plan FRS users would have 20 channels and GMRS would have the Repeater inputs/outputs exclusively...

It doesn't need a 'new' band plan.
If you think it does, start a conversation with the FCC.

The cat is out of the bag. There's already radios out there that can use what some call channels 15-22. The cat will not enjoy being stuffed back in the bag. The cat already went out a procreated prolifically and there's a ton of little cats out there that won't go back in a bag they were never in.

FCC fixed the mess they made when they allowed dual service radios. The latest iteration of the rules was a pretty good way of fixing that. It was much better than some of the options that others suggested. Of all the options that people sent in to the FCC, trust me, this one was the most logical and well thought out.

But if you feel different, contact the FCC and bend their ear.

 

[n1das]

It doesn't need a 'new' band plan.
If you think it does, start a conversation with the FCC.

The cat is out of the bag. There's already radios out there that can use what some call channels 15-22. The cat will not enjoy being stuffed back in the bag. The cat already went out a procreated prolifically and there's a ton of little cats out there that won't go back in a bag they were never in.

FCC fixed the mess they made when they allowed dual service radios. The latest iteration of the rules was a pretty good way of fixing that. It was much better than some of the options that others suggested. Of all the options that people sent in to the FCC, trust me, this one was the most logical and well thought out.

But if you feel different, contact the FCC and bend their ear.

What mmckenna said.

The revised Part 95 rules for GMRS/FRS are about the best we could have hoped for, all things considered. The results could have been a LOT worse. One of the proposals in the NPRM in 2010 was to eliminate GMRS licensing, high power operation and repeaters, and make GMRS license by rule as an extension of the original 14 channel FRS. GMRS would have been rendered a 2W bubble pack only service if that happened. Thankfully GMRS remains a licensed service (for now at least) and FRS was updated to accomodate the unlicensed 22-channel bubble pack users. This really is about the best we could have hoped for.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

This is a pipe dream. Good choice of words. Not likely to happen. I will believe it when I see a formal NPRM from the FCC about it and will submit my comments during the formal Public Comments period. The radio manufacturers all need to be on board with it to help make it happen. IIRC it was Uniden and maybe other manufacturers (Motorola?) that poked the bear enough to get the FCC to finally act on the 2010 NPRM in 2017 which created the revised Part 95 rules for GMRS/FRS that we have today.

I for one would LOVE to be able to use DMR, P25 and NXDN digital modes legally on GMRS but that probably will never happen.

I already use (analog) narrowband on all GMRS/FRS channels. All of my 12.5kHz adjacent channel splatter problems went away completely after I switched to narrow bandwidth mode on the GMRS primary channels. A GMRS repeater I had in service years ago (Kenwood TKR-850) would occasionally get hit by FRS traffic local to the repeater site on the upper FRS channels 12.5kHz adjacent to the repeater input. The FRS users happened to be using a CTCSS tone which matched one of the tones in the repeater. The FRS traffic caused the repeater to get keyed up and you would hear scraps of talk due to the FRS users being 12.5kHz away from the input frequency. Switching the repeater to narrow mode tightened up the receiver and completely eliminated the problem. I've heard the same thing happen to GMRS repeaters in other areas of the country and heard normal users of the repeater yelling at the FRS users which does no good. LOL.

I've heard the arguments that wide bandwidth operation (16K0F3E and 20K0F3E) gives better performance than narrow bandwidth (11K2F3E), but does that better performance include while being hammered by adjacent channel traffic 12.5kHz away? I addressed this by going with the flow of Part 90 and using narrow bandwidth mode on all GMRS/FRS channels. Operating in narrow mode narrows the receiver in addition to narrowing the transmit deviation.

This comment specifcally meant for anyone suggesting narrowbanding GMRS to FCC. Not directed at N1DAS.

Most GMRS users are not being hammered by adjacent channel interference. Adjacent channel implies low power narrow band FRS. If your repeater is somehow bothered, fine you can go narrow band. Knowing that you will lose fidelity and coverage.

But PLEASE don't force narrow band on the rest of GMRS. GMRS has better FM performance due to still being "wide" = +/- 5.0 KHz 16K0F3E/20K0F3E.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

What mmckenna said.

The revised Part 95 rules for GMRS/FRS are about the best we could have hoped for, all things considered. The results could have been a LOT worse. One of the proposals in the NPRM in 2010 was to eliminate GMRS licensing, high power operation and repeaters, and make GMRS license by rule as an extension of the original 14 channel FRS. GMRS would have been rendered a 2W bubble pack only service if that happened. Thankfully GMRS remains a licensed service (for now at least) and FRS was updated to accomodate the unlicensed 22-channel bubble pack users. This really is about the best we could have hoped for.

Agreed, the 2017 rewrite, though not perfect (scriveners errors), is technically the very best set of rules we could hope for. There are indeed industry forces that will put pressure on FCC to encroach on GMRS. It has already happened with FCC allowing MRA to utilize the guard band for NXDN. GMRS is located in PRIME UHF real estate. Think of it as the old Mom and Pop store where the next Mall is being planned.

 

[bill4long]

What if the FRS crowd only had access to channels 1 - 14 and (15 thru 22 TX Locked Out) 23 - 28??? Under the new band plan FRS users would have 20 channels and GMRS would have the Repeater inputs/outputs exclusively...

I believe you mean well. But the thing is, GMRS is fine the way it is, and if anyone needs a better situation, they can spend $200 and get a license and use business band itinerant frequencies. It really is that simple. Your pipe-dream solves no problems whatsoever. Therefore the FCC probably won't change anything. But if you want to keep bashing your skull against the wall, nobody will probably stop you.

73 OM

 

[alcahuete]

As I have said many times before with this guy...it's a solution in search of a problem.