FCC and comments on the GMRS NPRM

[celestis]

I just looked here and there're still folks submitting comments on the GMRS NPRM... what gives? I thought they were supposed to be handed to the FCC 30 days after it was opened up!

Anyone else wondering why the hell the proposal is still pending? I'd've thought it would have been done for a couple years ago

 

[gewecke]

They'll do what they do irregardless what comments are made. I can care less at this point since its taken so long. :roll: 73, n9zas

 

[mmckenna]

Anyone else wondering why the hell the proposal is still pending? I'd've thought it would have been done for a couple years ago

Because there is no money to be made in it right now. The FCC has more important stuff to do, like taking spectrum away from public safety users and auctioning it off to the highest bidder.

FCC is an acronym, it stands for Federal Cash Cow. When congress needs mo' money, they just direct the FCC to auction off more valuable resources to large companies.

GMRS is such low priority to the FCC. It's obvious to most of us that they pretty much ignore anything that doesn't actively bring in the cash. $65/5 years isn't enough to even get their attention.

The day that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile decides they need more UHF spectrum is the day that something will happen with GMRS. You probably won't like the outcome.

 

[celestis]

The day that AT&T, Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile decides they need more UHF spectrum is the day that something will happen with GMRS. You probably won't like the outcome.

I'd give them 20 years. The next auction is for the 600 MHz band. Notwithstanding that, the FCC's been eyeing extremely high band spectrum (we're talking 20 to 60 GHz) for LTE in a desperate attempt to help mobile operators alleviate congestion... heh

 

[gewecke]

You might be right, but the commission must think we'll magically go away when we still have valid licenses yet. I don't see licensed users giving up the farm when they've paid their $65 (or more) just because someone decides 462-467mhz would be better utilized elsewhere. The new occupants of this band are going to be unhappy. :lol: 73, n9zas

 

[celestis]

You might be right, but the commission must think we'll magically go away when we still have valid licenses yet. I don't see licensed users giving up the farm when they've paid their $65 (or more) just because someone decides 462-467mhz would be better utilized elsewhere. The new occupants of this band are going to be unhappy. :lol: 73, n9zas

I tell people you can't just let everyone else stomp all over you. I'd go as far to say there's gonna be a fight whenever the FCC decides to even try to hand our frequency pairs to people wanting to sell commercial service to every neophyte in the nation

 

[gewecke]

I really don't see anything to worry about with so many valid licenses in circulation. Legally they will still be authorized to use the band, even if it was auctioned off. 73, n9zas

 

[mmckenna]

You might be right, but the commission must think we'll magically go away when we still have valid licenses yet. I don't see licensed users giving up the farm when they've paid their $65 (or more) just because someone decides 462-467mhz would be better utilized elsewhere. The new occupants of this band are going to be unhappy. :lol: 73, n9zas

You'll find that public safety users in the T band are having a hard time believing this as well. If the FCC will do this to public safety users, there isn't much of a reason why they wouldn't do it to others. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.

 

[celestis]

You'll find that public safety users in the T band are having a hard time believing this as well. If the FCC will do this to public safety users, there isn't much of a reason why they wouldn't do it to others. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last.

Yikes....

And no one in PS is slamming them for doing this?

 

[DaveNF2G]

FCC is government. Public Safety is government. One hand washes the other eventually.

 

[AI7PM]

You might be right, but the commission must think we'll magically go away when we still have valid licenses yet. I don't see licensed users giving up the farm when they've paid their $65 (or more) just because someone decides 462-467mhz would be better utilized elsewhere. The new occupants of this band are going to be unhappy. :lol: 73, n9zas

The new digital users won't even know anyone is there, and the digital signals would make analog GMRS use nearly impossible.

 

[Evgeni]

Can you imagine somebody trying to use a FRS/GMRS radio with their iphone occupying those frequencies wondering why the stuff isn't working?

Or it becoming like 11m CB where people use 50 watt amplifiers out of spite?

 

[gewecke]

The new digital users won't even know anyone is there, and the digital signals would make analog GMRS use nearly impossible.

That's doubtful since the commision would legally have to wait for current licenses to expire. 73, n9zas

 

[gewecke]

Can you imagine somebody trying to use a FRS/GMRS radio with their iphone occupying those frequencies wondering why the stuff isn't working?

Or it becoming like 11m CB where people use 50 watt amplifiers out of spite?

Gmrs mobiles and repeaters are already authorized to use 50 watts, so again new service assignments are unlikely as long as we are licensed for this service. 73, n9zas

 

[Hatchett]

I don’t see them pushing any further down into the lower UHF spectrum. The money they already spent on the spectrum they just got is one heck of a gamble on their part.

One simple reason why.

For traditional cellular data capacity. The total usable aggregate data bandwidth per MHZ of spectrum is so low that it would not be economical to build out such spectrum even if it was given to them.

I am not talking about the total MHZ of spectrum, but the deliverable data rate per MHZ of spectrum.

That is caused by the fact that the frequency is getting low enough in the spectrum that they can’t use normal sectorization techniques. Normal panel antennas, and other antenna technology will not produce clean, sharp and controllable high gain antenna patterns at those frequencies.

Instead of a frequency reuse rate of 3, 4, 5 sectors per cell, they are talking about a reuse rate of 2, if they are lucky. Most likely reuse rate will be 1 sectors per cell. The total build out cost per GB of data capacity per customer will be astronomical.

The tv spectrum they are already getting in the upper UHF tv band already suffers that problem to a degree. That is why they are not planning to use it for individual data capacity. They are planning on trying to use it for a relatively new and untested idea called streaming data broadcasting. When they have multiple customers in an area that is watching the same data stream then they can broadcast it to the entire area over the lower frequency bands, and that allows them to get system gains from the fact that multiple phones can utilize the same information stream across the entire area.

If that idea for the newly auctioned TV spectrum falls through, then I expect to see them drop the UHF TV spectrum like a hot potato. It will be like UPS and the 200 mhz spectrum. After their idea fails to live up to expectation, they will just walk away from it. The money they spent on the auctions will be written off as a loss.

If the data broadcasting idea does fall through, I expect to see the push for any more TV bandwidth in the UHF range to grind to a halt, and the bands they already purchased to be abandoned in place.

I don’t see them going for the LMR spectrum even if the idea is somewhat successful. If it falls through, then I expect total abandonment.

Basically like they did with VHF lo.
Abandon in place.

In that situation, they may issue an NPRM to open up the GMRS band to unlicensed users, and even increase the number of channels. (roll in a number of UHF LMR channels) That is if they even take the time to even revisit the subject after everything grinds to a halt.

 

[Hatchett]

I tell people you can't just let everyone else stomp all over you. I'd go as far to say there's gonna be a fight whenever the FCC decides to even try to hand our frequency pairs to people wanting to sell commercial service to every neophyte in the nation

Comments like that is what makes me sit back and contemplate the mindset of people on this forum.

Licensed GMRS users are quick to try and wield the force of FCC to protect their sandbox against unlicensed users.

Yet… If the FCC rules turn against them, they are some of the first that will try to fight the very FCC they try to bring down on the heads of other people.

In that situation, they are no better than the GMRS bubble pack users. In actuality, they are far worse.

The infractions from GMRS bubble pack users are a result of basic ignorance.
The infraction of a GMRS license after the GMRS band is reframed would be born out of shear hatred.

 

[DaveNF2G]

The new digital users won't even know anyone is there, and the digital signals would make analog GMRS use nearly impossible.

A ham should know better. The RF energy from any kind of signal will interfere with reception of any other kind of signal on the same frequency. The digital users would know something was there because their radios would not receive properly. If interference with digital is severe enough, they would receive nothing at all. Analog users have a better chance of getting something through the interference than digital users do.

Using PL/DPL would mask the digital noise, so analog receivers would be quiet even if there were digital signals on frequency. Whether or not either actually gets through depends on relative signal strengths, not as much on emission modes. FM capture still happens regardless.

 

[Hatchett]

A ham should know better. The RF energy from any kind of signal will interfere with reception of any other kind of signal on the same frequency. The digital users would know something was there because their radios would not receive properly. If interference with digital is severe enough, they would receive nothing at all. Analog users have a better chance of getting something through the interference than digital users do.

Using PL/DPL would mask the digital noise, so analog receivers would be quiet even if there were digital signals on frequency. Whether or not either actually gets through depends on relative signal strengths, not as much on emission modes. FM capture still happens regardless.

Interference to wideband digital signals from narrow band interference is not really an issue. The effect on a coding spread signal will be negligible. Coding gain is a powerful thing in a spread spectrum link budget. The actual S/N ratio can go drastically negative, and still produce a usable signal at the detector after the signal is unspread.

A narrow band signal will be lost in the coding gain (reduced to high frequency white noise), and then taken out by the low pass filter in the detector stage.

The only effect a bunch of narrow band carriers will have is to cause a bit of cell shrinkage at the perimeter of the coverage area.

If the interference is bad enough, they can use an active notch filter which will cut out the problem frequencies from the receiver bandwidth which will virtually eliminate their effect on the system.

The effect of the digital signals on the analog users will be a wall of white noise that you won’t be able to work through unless you are in very close proximity.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Technically correct, but is it relevant? How likely is it that the FCC would allocate a narrow slice of the 462/467 MHz band to broadband services? The most probable future users of what is now GMRS spectrum will be narrowband.

 

[mmckenna]

That is a good point. Unlikely that little slice(s) of spectrum would do much for anyone.
What would be a bigger risk would be 70cm band, but since amateur is a secondary allocation, it's unlikely that would be impacted, either.

I think GMRS is safe from getting taken away, however it getting neutered is not out of the question.