quarterwave
Member
"I know there are several GMRS users that are licensed and have invested a lot of money into GMRS repeaters"
Several? Ya think?
Several? Ya think?
-
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.
Create a new Class E (CB/FRS) from part of the Ham 70cm band?
- Thread starter jdobbs2001
- Start date
- Status
WB4CS
Member
Yes, I know, "several" might be an understatement. I actually have no idea how many GMRS repeaters there are in the US, nor do I know how many licensed GMRS users have radios other than hybrid handhelds. I'd take a shot in the dark that it's a very small percentage of the population.
Point is, since we're talking about hypothetically creating a new CB band, the spectrum would have to come from somewhere. As it's already been pointed out, the OP's idea was a bad idea. 70cm is used primarily by government and secondary by amateur radio, and is (except in his location) a fairly active band. So where else to look for spectrum? There's not much left out there that's not already in use, so it would be ideal to convert and existing license-by-rule (FRS) band into a UHF-CB band. That would almost have to include converting GMRS thanks to the millions(?) of hybrid FRS/GMRS radios out there.
Now, going back to those GMRS repeaters. I guess in this hypothetical situation, it could be said that the GMRS repeater pairs be left as the GMRS service and the rest of the FRS/GMRS channels be converted to CB. Of course this wouldn't stop the new "UHF Freebanders" that would run wild between 420 to 500 MHz, but hey, you could still keep your GMRS repeater.
Anyway, it's a moot point, since we are just talking about hypothetical situations here. We're like those old men that sit at Denny's all day and drink coffee, talking about how they would change the world if they were in charge. I'm pretty sure what ideas we discuss here are irrelevant to the real world.
quarterwave
Member
Yes, I know, "several" might be an understatement. I actually have no idea how many GMRS repeaters there are in the US, nor do I know how many licensed GMRS users have radios other than hybrid handhelds. I'd take a shot in the dark that it's a very small percentage of the population.
Point is, since we're talking about hypothetically creating a new CB band, the spectrum would have to come from somewhere. As it's already been pointed out, the OP's idea was a bad idea. 70cm is used primarily by government and secondary by amateur radio, and is (except in his location) a fairly active band. So where else to look for spectrum? There's not much left out there that's not already in use, so it would be ideal to convert and existing license-by-rule (FRS) band into a UHF-CB band. That would almost have to include converting GMRS thanks to the millions(?) of hybrid FRS/GMRS radios out there.
Now, going back to those GMRS repeaters. I guess in this hypothetical situation, it could be said that the GMRS repeater pairs be left as the GMRS service and the rest of the FRS/GMRS channels be converted to CB. Of course this wouldn't stop the new "UHF Freebanders" that would run wild between 420 to 500 MHz, but hey, you could still keep your GMRS repeater.
Anyway, it's a moot point, since we are just talking about hypothetical situations here. We're like those old men that sit at Denny's all day and drink coffee, talking about how they would change the world if they were in charge. I'm pretty sure what ideas we discuss here are irrelevant to the real world.
I was being sarcastic....I actually don't disagree with anything you have said. Just conversation.
I enjoy these threads, but interestingly enough, it usually turns in "us" deciding or debating what will happen as an "OR" question. Should we do #1.....OR.....#2....as if there are choices and we are deciding. I mean the ideas are always interesting, but at the end of the day, the FCC is not necessarily going to serve the licensees anyway. They serve $$ interests. If they ultimately make a change to GMRS, we will lose it in the name of public safety spectrum needs..or something like that. At the end of the day the hardcore radio guy that wants to maintain a system to use for what he wants, when he wants will have to get a part 90 license. So the speculation is wild, and sometimes I wish we wouldn't give the FCC any ideas...never know when they have this site up on the projector screen at a meeting...reading, and emitting evil laughs.....
I would rather they just leave GMRS alone.
WB4CS
Member
That's a common misconception. 10/11 share pretty much the same propagation characteristics.
The reason that 11 "sounds" open more than 10 meters is because of:
A) More people talking on 11M than on 10M. For some reason, us hams have a tenancy to scan the band listening for people, but we don't call CQ as much as we listen. If everyone is listening, who's transmitting?
B) A great number of 11M operators are running a lot more than the legal 4W AM/12W SSB power. Most are also running more than the average HF radio's 100W. When you've got several stations running 1KW+ power that makes the band "sound" more open than most of us on 10M running 100W.
C) The CB operators that are really into the hobby also have a lot better antenna systems than most of us on 10M. CB only has 1 band to worry about while us hams are trying to make one antenna work (poorly) on 160 - 10 Meters. Some of the high powered (illegal) CB stations have large beams on top of a tower. If you're using a 40 meter dipole with a tuner that's up 20 feet, you're not going to get out near as well as someone with a monoband beam up 80 feet.
Moral of the story: Put up a good antenna for 10 meters and start calling CQ! You'll be amazed at just how open 10 meters really is.
As for giving 11 Meters back to amateur radio, no thanks. There's so many countless CB radios out there still in use that it would take 50 years for all the CB'ers to go away. I seriously doubt if you told the CB crowd, "Hey guys, you can't use these radios anymore" that they would all pack up their gear and take down their antennas!
Last edited:
elk2370bruce
Member
Based on some radio history, each time a "free" unlicensed radio service has existed, it has been trashed by the very people who screamed the loudest for it. Free banders populating higher hf are still, despite user expertise are still illegal, running ampfliers, and talking out their butt about their advantages to radio spectrum users. 11m CB was great until the lincensure requirement was not enforced and then dropped so the kids and pottymouth adults could buy cheap radios and give the band a bad name. If radio use is so important to the OP, do something about it, get a license, and legally expand the technology. Its just too easy to whine, qvetch, and seek an easy way to play on the radio.
The last thing we need is another "Free For All" band. We already have a few and that's more than enough.
Any new allocations need to be under the control of the FCC.
We have all seen what happens in every unlicensed section of the bands.
If your too lazy to get a license and get on a controlled band, maybe you should stick to your "I" phone.
This is all a part of the new generation, they want something for free, that takes no work or effort on their part. Some things need to be earned. By the way, how's that "FREE" healthcare working out for all of you who voted so it could be put into law??? Yea, about as good as CB radio.
73's John KF7VXA
Any new allocations need to be under the control of the FCC.
We have all seen what happens in every unlicensed section of the bands.
If your too lazy to get a license and get on a controlled band, maybe you should stick to your "I" phone.
This is all a part of the new generation, they want something for free, that takes no work or effort on their part. Some things need to be earned. By the way, how's that "FREE" healthcare working out for all of you who voted so it could be put into law??? Yea, about as good as CB radio.
73's John KF7VXA
The 420-430 portion of the 70cm ham band is very heavily loaded with point to point links for repeaters and remote bases. There are several reasons why you probably won't hear much... one is that much of this activity is done using directional antennas. The other part is that these transmitters aren't on the air continuously.
But it can be almost guaranteed that in virtually every major metropolitan area, there is a lot of 420-430 activity that goes undetected.
But it can be almost guaranteed that in virtually every major metropolitan area, there is a lot of 420-430 activity that goes undetected.
Why would we reinvent the wheel???
How many license-by-rule channels do we need in the US??? There's 40 on CB (HF), there's 5 on MURS (VHF), and 14 on FRS (UHF). Do we really need even MORE license-by-rule channels that either A) never get used like MURS, or B) become overran with illegal high power stations like on CB and FRS/GMRS.
A GMRS license is cheap. There's no test involved. If you really want "CB" on UHF, get a GMRS license. Or, instead of trying to create an entirely new radio service that would take away from spectrum already used, why not petition the FCC to drop the license requirement for GMRS and you'll have UHF CB.
On a funny note, I'd love to see some CB'rs move to UHF. 2KW "kickers" on UHF should cook their brains a lot faster than it does on 27 MHz
You are making the assumption that they even have brains. If they really wanted to have long range communications, they would have got a Ham License.
I guess some have though. Have you listened to the group on 80 meters every night that calls each other names, questions their lineage, gender preference and IQ? They do this all night as long as the band is open. What really makes it pathetic, is they are referring to each other. Each tries to out do the other with insults and foul language. I think they got kicked off of CB.
To those who use CB as intended, you are not included in the above statement.
73's John KF7VXA
NO. Leave HAM alone. The FCC needs to just stop twiddling their thumbs about proposing to drop GMRS licensing requirements and just do it already. 50 watts, repeaters, and the like and there you go. You have the UHF CB you've been wanting now.
KB7MIB
Member
Wirelessly posted (Opera/9.80 (BREW; Opera Mini/6.0.3/27.2354; U; en) Presto/2.8.119 320X240 LG VN530)
No, do not drop the licensing requirements. There needs to be accountability. License by rule will only result in no accountability, and a further worsening of the service than what we have now with the bubble packs.
No, do not drop the licensing requirements. There needs to be accountability. License by rule will only result in no accountability, and a further worsening of the service than what we have now with the bubble packs.
KD0PEZ
Member
I think instead of using 70 CM, why not take back the 220 MHz part of the band that UPS bought, that now sits idle, and make this the new CB service?
I am aware they tried this in 1973 and it was shot down. But let's stop and think of 4 good reasons why this would be good, especially for truck drivers:
1. No skip issues. Truckers often see their CB as a "tool" and often do not enjoy not being able to talk to the next truck down the road due to skip. Being on VHF would only enhance their ability to use the CB without some clown 3 states over advertising polished bumpers and crap at Bubba's truck stop.
2. Antenna size. Truck drivers can't run tall antennas due to height restrictions, and the antennas they do run now typically don't exceed 5 feet. A CB antenna is 9 feet and when you coil it up you reduce range. To compensate, they run cheap dirty amps that only further clutter up the band. With VHF they could still talk to the next truck over, but on FM, with cleaner reception, and for once they could run a full size antenna which would reduce (if not eliminate) the need for an amp.
3. FM vs AM. CB today is on AM in the U.S. and often suffers from interference while FM does not. FM is better sounding as well.
4. Hopefully this will get people to quit buying those 10 meter export radios and bootlegging on ham frequencies, which in turn would help curb the illegal operations on the CW segment of 10 meters.
So.....what do you think? I think it would be a great idea.
I am aware they tried this in 1973 and it was shot down. But let's stop and think of 4 good reasons why this would be good, especially for truck drivers:
1. No skip issues. Truckers often see their CB as a "tool" and often do not enjoy not being able to talk to the next truck down the road due to skip. Being on VHF would only enhance their ability to use the CB without some clown 3 states over advertising polished bumpers and crap at Bubba's truck stop.
2. Antenna size. Truck drivers can't run tall antennas due to height restrictions, and the antennas they do run now typically don't exceed 5 feet. A CB antenna is 9 feet and when you coil it up you reduce range. To compensate, they run cheap dirty amps that only further clutter up the band. With VHF they could still talk to the next truck over, but on FM, with cleaner reception, and for once they could run a full size antenna which would reduce (if not eliminate) the need for an amp.
3. FM vs AM. CB today is on AM in the U.S. and often suffers from interference while FM does not. FM is better sounding as well.
4. Hopefully this will get people to quit buying those 10 meter export radios and bootlegging on ham frequencies, which in turn would help curb the illegal operations on the CW segment of 10 meters.
So.....what do you think? I think it would be a great idea.
bill4long
Member
Why don't the truckers just get GMRS radios? It's legal for them to do so right now. Good clean FM. Cheap used Motorola radios available (and other brands.) You can run 50 watts. High gain antennas. (5/8 wave is only 44cm with 6db gain.) No skip. On and on. Sure, the license is $85, but so what? I got one. It's good for five years. It didn't break the bank. They can write it off their taxes.
Of course, many of the bubble pack radios can talk on those frequencies (not legally, if they don't have a license), but I see that as a minor concern given how low their output power is (100mw typical) and utterly crappy antennas. 50 watt mobiles with good mobile antennas will have little problem getting over the "toy" operators.
Breaker breaker, 462.550
Last edited:
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
Hmmm why not just look to your neighbours to the north... We call it the 'basic ten' it is 10 VHF frequencies, that are, in some places, specifically for the trucking/resource roads.
Unfortunately, a few of the frequencies are restricted, and in one case not allowed to be used, because it is assigned to a couple of fire departments.
If IC and the FCC could agree to it there would, by licensing, 10 VHF channels, that could be used by the transportation industry,
In BC and Alberta, majority of the transportation industry use VHF simplex. From logging to the oil patch, to long haul drivers, even farming is using these frequencies. The use of CB is almost none existent in western Canada simply because VHF works so much better.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Project25_MASTR
Millennial Graying OBT Guy
I agree. I have mine and my entire family uses it. Gmrs is essentially uhf cb with a license. I could possibly see narrow banding to get more simplex frequencies (leave the wide band repeaters).
Taking gmrs to digital...how about carving something out of the 900 MHz ism band and not having me ask you to replace my 20 something analog hts, 10 mobiles, and 5 repeaters?
I finally perused this thread and am wondering why it was even brought up. 11M CB use is way down, GMRS is almost dead outside very large metropolitan areas and most of the locals here on GMRS were illegally using modified ham radios until the cheap Chinese radios hit the market. And most GMRS repeater users around here (do you hear me 462.700 users in the LA, CA area?) don't announce any callsign and curse all day and night.
The FCC gave us MURS, which is is under part 95 CB rules and except for a few locals around me I have never encountered anyone on it. The locals here are all using modified ham radios running lots of power and covering 50-75mi. So, GMRS and MURS share the same problem of overwhelming illegal operation just like its 11M CB cousin. Whats to prevent the same thing happening on a new unlicensed band?
Then there is the talk of repeaters on this new unlicensed band. How in the pluck does that work? Will people be allowed to cobble together a couple of hacked up radios and stick it on the air causing all kinds of potential interference problems? If the service is unlicensed, how do you insure repeaters are working as intended? Someone else mentioned accountability and that is a key point when allowing unattended repeaters.
As long as your dreaming of a new unlicensed band, which in my opinion is a huge wast of time, why don't you propose a new license free motor vehicle service to go with it?
Limit the horsepower to something less than 400 and at least two wheels but less than seven. You can drive it on existing roads or make your own wherever you please. When the cops pull you over for speeding and no muffler just giver them the one finger salute, say "license free vehicle service" and drive on. However, you will be cited for talking on your new license free CB radio band while simultaneously doing a burnout in your new license free vehicle. There has to be limits to everything.....
prcguy
The FCC gave us MURS, which is is under part 95 CB rules and except for a few locals around me I have never encountered anyone on it. The locals here are all using modified ham radios running lots of power and covering 50-75mi. So, GMRS and MURS share the same problem of overwhelming illegal operation just like its 11M CB cousin. Whats to prevent the same thing happening on a new unlicensed band?
Then there is the talk of repeaters on this new unlicensed band. How in the pluck does that work? Will people be allowed to cobble together a couple of hacked up radios and stick it on the air causing all kinds of potential interference problems? If the service is unlicensed, how do you insure repeaters are working as intended? Someone else mentioned accountability and that is a key point when allowing unattended repeaters.
As long as your dreaming of a new unlicensed band, which in my opinion is a huge wast of time, why don't you propose a new license free motor vehicle service to go with it?
Limit the horsepower to something less than 400 and at least two wheels but less than seven. You can drive it on existing roads or make your own wherever you please. When the cops pull you over for speeding and no muffler just giver them the one finger salute, say "license free vehicle service" and drive on. However, you will be cited for talking on your new license free CB radio band while simultaneously doing a burnout in your new license free vehicle. There has to be limits to everything.....
prcguy
You are making the assumption that there is an unlimited number of people wanting to operate on unlicensed radio frequencies and that no mater how many bands, or how big the bands are, that they will fill up beyond capacity.
There is a limited pool of people that will use 2 way radio technology, no mater how cheap the radios, how many channels, or how much power they have.
When you have that limited set of people concentrated in a finite bandwidth, then it causes a constriction. That constriction and interference causes the less motivated to drop off and find other ways to communicate.
When you open up the bandwidth, it will reach a point where everyone that wants to use it will be using it, and any more increase in bandwidth will cause the operating population to spread out just like the noise floor dropping when you spread out the bandwidth that the limited noise energy is distributed across.
The reason that CB was so bad is you hade a lot of people wanting to use it. There was only 40 channels for everyone. And the fact that it was in a long range band was just the capstone on the whole thing. A 40 channel 50W VHF band would have been bad, but the selection of an HF band was the knockout blow.
That was all before cell phones. Cell phones decimated the potential operator pool. So the license free 2 Way voice operator pool is already pretty much exhausted with the bands we got.
Opening up a higher power 2 way band would just draw away operators from other unlicensed bands like CB, and from the licensed business band operators that think the new service is enough to fulfill their communications needs without a need for a license. Like the FRS service drawing users from the color dot UHF frequencies which has caused the use of those to drop in a lot of areas.
The CB, and freeband will still retain the skip operators. Those people are in it for the sport of long range skip communications and are not there for basic daily communications. The sport is something that VHF and UHF don’t offer. So any service in those bands, no mater what the power level, will have no draw for them.
So, in the end, you are not really causing more people to use the radio by opening up more unlicensed bandwidth, you are just changing the way the existing operator base organizes it’s self. Central frequency planning and selection, or ad-hoc frequency selection, operation, and user judgment based interference avoidance.
When the user base was a lot larger (before cell phones) centralized planning and selection was necessary. After cell phones took over then the user base has dropped to the point that ad-hoc selection is now a viable idea.
Overwhelming illegal operation, yet you have never heard anyone but a few locals running high power ham rigs.
That is the entire point of having a VHF/UHF CB band, with a moderate power limit, and enough channels in a single sentence. No mater how illegal they want to go, the affected area is limited. You won’t be squashed by a person in Texas running 10,000 watts. Even the stupidest person is usually able to see that there is little to no point in doing anything extremely illegal like running 10,000 watts. And even if he did try it, the fallout area will be geographically limited. The highest power you will see people running even with no restriction will be about 100 watts. Above 50 watt the point of diminishing returns is quickly reached, So given no limit, that is where people will generally fall. That is the simple fact that is dictated by the characteristics of the band.
That is why you want to set the legal limit to a point reflected by the characteristics of the band you are working with. If you set the legal limit to 100W from the start, then illegal operation (power wise) will not really be an issue because you have selected a reasonable power limit that reflects the inherent upper power usability of the band. People will generally adhere to it even if it’s not put down in law.
That will help prevent the use of poorly designed black market amplifiers because they will have no need to use them when they can buy a 100 watt radio off the shelf. And anyone that does try to use a black market 1000 watt amplifier will soon learn that there is little to nothing gained by the hassle, so they will quickly forgo it’s use, and tell all their friends that it’s not worth the trouble. The lack of aftermarket amplifier use will help prevent out of band interference.
That is where power limits below a specified point will invite more problems than it helps.
Handheld operators will generally stay below 5 watts by sheer technical limitations, unless some super high power battery technology, and ultrahigh efficiency amplifier technology is discovered.
The testament to that is the 2 meter ham band. 1,500 watt limit. How many 1.5KW mobiles, or even base units, and repeaters do you see running around? You don’t. No one wants to put the money, time, and effort into something that gains them nothing.
That is why FRS and MURS, in my opinion have too low of power limit, and too few channels. It temps people to use illegal power, sometimes with spectrally dirty radios, and when they do in densely populated areas, the limited channel set means that there is plenty of other people on the same channel in the affected range that they interfere with.
With enough channels the people wanting to run 100watts to cover a 50 mile range can do so without bugging people talking in smaller areas. And they will do so with spectrally clean radios that don’t bug the people close by using 1W handhelds two channels down.
If there isn’t enough bandwidth to allow all the users to run the maximum practical power that the band dictates is usable, then it’s best not to create an unlicensed band in that area in the first place. Create a 200 channel service with a 100W limit, or don’t create one at all. Creating a 2 watt 5 channel VHF unlicensed service when 50W radios are readily available for that band, is just asking for trouble..
And as for my response to the OP.
My opinion on the best layout for a new “Non HF CB” band is…..
The name for the service would be the “General Communications” bands.
It would be a dual band service.
VHF for the band. Somewhere in the 150 to 170 mhz range It’s best suited for point to point moderate range analog communications traffic.
100W power limit. Dictated by the natural usability limit o the band.
1.25Mhz contiguous bandwidth at 12.5Khz spacing for 100 channels.
UHF for the band. Somewhere in the 450 to 470 mhz range. It’s best suited for point to point short range analog communications traffic.
100W power limit. Dictated by the natural usability limit o the band.
1.25Mhz contiguous bandwidth at 12.5Khz spacing for 100 channels.
Total of 200 channels.
Narrow band business band radios would be legal for use in the band by default.
Operators in rural areas would be allowed to use older wideband business band radios on the frequencies as long as they didn’t interfere with other users.
People would gravitate to UHF for short range communications, while people across the countryside would naturally gravitate to VHF and the longer range it gives in densely forested areas.
200 channels would give users enough space to spread out on so that unwanted interference between two user groups should not be a problem anywhere but the most densely populated cities.
Radios could be sold that operate on one or the other frequency set, or both (dual band).
If such a service was created, you would see a flood of businesses abandon the licensed business band for the new service to avoid licensing troubles. The ones that want to use repeaters and more complicated communications systems would stay with the licensed service, but the people that just want simple point to point communications would be quick to move. That shift of operator base would allow you to free up more VHF and UHF spectrum that you could shift over to the new CB service if there was a need for it, or a totally new application all together.
My opinion on the best layout for a new “Non HF CB” band is…..
The name for the service would be the “General Communications” bands.
It would be a dual band service.
VHF for the band. Somewhere in the 150 to 170 mhz range It’s best suited for point to point moderate range analog communications traffic.
100W power limit. Dictated by the natural usability limit o the band.
1.25Mhz contiguous bandwidth at 12.5Khz spacing for 100 channels.
UHF for the band. Somewhere in the 450 to 470 mhz range. It’s best suited for point to point short range analog communications traffic.
100W power limit. Dictated by the natural usability limit o the band.
1.25Mhz contiguous bandwidth at 12.5Khz spacing for 100 channels.
Total of 200 channels.
Narrow band business band radios would be legal for use in the band by default.
Operators in rural areas would be allowed to use older wideband business band radios on the frequencies as long as they didn’t interfere with other users.
People would gravitate to UHF for short range communications, while people across the countryside would naturally gravitate to VHF and the longer range it gives in densely forested areas.
200 channels would give users enough space to spread out on so that unwanted interference between two user groups should not be a problem anywhere but the most densely populated cities.
Radios could be sold that operate on one or the other frequency set, or both (dual band).
If such a service was created, you would see a flood of businesses abandon the licensed business band for the new service to avoid licensing troubles. The ones that want to use repeaters and more complicated communications systems would stay with the licensed service, but the people that just want simple point to point communications would be quick to move. That shift of operator base would allow you to free up more VHF and UHF spectrum that you could shift over to the new CB service if there was a need for it, or a totally new application all together.
WB4CS
Member
Any idea where there is 1.25 MHz of contiguous currently unused spectrum between 150-170 MHz and 450-470 MHz? Now keep in mind, you have to account for the entire US.
- Status