Digital voice on GMRS

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

But they have already granted experimental licenses for digital on GMRS. My friend that had lunch with an FCC person a few years ago was told to go ahead and apply for an experimental license and they will grant it and use information gained for possible future rule changes. Its going to happen and not in 2052.

It won't happen without an NPRM and reply comments period. As far as I can tell there is only the one lone experimental license that has been renewed over and over and no NPRM so it sounds like someone is content in their sandbox.

 

[jonwienke]

But the FREQUENCIES belong to EVERYBODY who PAID TO USE THEM.
Digital will be nothing but noise to an analog receiver, essentially making them unusable on that frequency. Now multiply that to however many repeaters are in a given area. It is not far fetched to assume that in densely populated areas all the repeater frequencies will be basically garbage to an analog radio.

That sure looks like a complaint about congestion to me. If it isn't, then you're just making up crap to argue against the use of digital. If the reality is that most repeaters are completely idle most of the time, then your argument is crap. And its still crap if the channels are congested, because digital doubles the capacity of every channel.

So your argument makes zero sense in either case.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I really have to wonder when I see hams and others trying to change the FCC rules for GMRS and they have no GMRS license themselves. What is their interest in changing the rules if said rules apparently do not apply to them? Are they a shill for a manufacturer? GMRS Pirates? Or just like to argue? arrrghhh.

 

[12dbsinad]

I really have to wonder when I see hams and others trying to change the FCC rules for GMRS and they have no GMRS license themselves. What is their interest in changing the rules if said rules apparently do not apply to them? Are they a shill for a manufacturer? GMRS Pirates? Or just like to argue? arrrghhh.

It's because they don't have a clue about the technical ramifications. They are probably radio programmers and system admins that don't work on the technical side of LMR regarding digital and analog. They just scream "you're old and don't like the advancing technology", which is clearly not the case. Obviously, the FCC knows something that they do not.

They forget that it takes the old timers for systems to actually work. Technology doesn't change the characteristics of RF.

 

[KK6ZTE]

It's because they don't have a clue about the technical ramifications. They are probably radio programmers and system admins that don't work on the technical side of LMR regarding digital and analog. They just scream "you're old and don't like the advancing technology", which is clearly not the case. Obviously, the FCC knows something that they do not.

They forget that it takes the old timers for systems to actually work. Technology doesn't change the characteristics of RF.

Haha. Watch out for those "evil radio programmers" and "system admins". They sure love to do things just to mess with some random nobody on the internet!

@RFI-EMI-GUY have you looked up everyone on this thread in support of digital emissions to ensure they don't have a GMRS license?

So many hurt feelings in this thread.

 

[12dbsinad]

Haha. Watch out for those "evil radio programmers" and "system admins". They sure love to do things just to mess with some random nobody on the internet!

If you guys could prove me wrong, I could actually retire.... finally. But I'm not seeing that happening anytime soon so not getting my hopes up.

You'd be doing us a favor!

 

[jonwienke]

It's because they don't have a clue about the technical ramifications. They are probably radio programmers and system admins that don't work on the technical side of LMR regarding digital and analog. They just scream "you're old and don't like the advancing technology", which is clearly not the case. Obviously, the FCC knows something that they do not.

LOL at all of this. All of the anti-digital arguments put forth so far have been schizophrenic luddite rants with obvious fallacies and logical contradictions.

And double LOL at the idea that the FCC is some fountain of higher wisdom. Like all government agencies, it's primary motivations are self-preservation, money, and power. Look at how long rebanding took to judge its competence and knowledge and wisdom.

 

[alcahuete]

I really have to wonder when I see hams and others trying to change the FCC rules for GMRS and they have no GMRS license themselves. What is their interest in changing the rules if said rules apparently do not apply to them? Are they a shill for a manufacturer? GMRS Pirates? Or just like to argue? arrrghhh.

You don't need a license in both services to see the obvious benefits. I have both (and Part 90), and I would love to reap the digital benefits on GMRS. Hell, I would take it just for the lack of static. I just took a 3000+ mile road trip with a bunch of friends last month, as I do a few times a year. A lot of driving with a lot of boating in between. 3000+ miles of static and crackling and fading as people got varying distances away was just plain tiring. My business partner and I using Part 90 DMR? Smooth as butter. Absolutely crystal clear, no static, fantastic range. DTR radios? Same thing. Didn't use those much due to being handhelds, but still great.

Maybe I'm just being selfish. Are the kids playing soldier in the neighborhood going to benefit from digital? Probably not. Are the CBers who get on GMRS and play music and curse at everybody else going to benefit? Probably not. But those of us who actually use the radios will certainly benefit. The benefits are obvious, and every single person reading this thread knows it deep down.

 

[prcguy]

I've been licensed on GMRS since the late 70s and have a current license. I'm forgetful and let a few of them laps and had to get new ones with new callsigns but please don't include me in your crowd of hams with no GMRS license.

I really have to wonder when I see hams and others trying to change the FCC rules for GMRS and they have no GMRS license themselves. What is their interest in changing the rules if said rules apparently do not apply to them? Are they a shill for a manufacturer? GMRS Pirates? Or just like to argue? arrrghhh.

 

[12dbsinad]

LOL at all of this. All of the anti-digital arguments put forth so far have been schizophrenic luddite rants with obvious fallacies and logical contradictions.

And double LOL at the idea that the FCC is some fountain of higher wisdom. Like all government agencies, it's primary motivations are self-preservation, money, and power. Look at how long rebanding took to judge its competence and knowledge and wisdom.

And you have the knowledege and wisdom of how things should work, Mr Uniden scanners? That's for sure a good....LOL.

 

[jonwienke]

If you have an intellectually coherent argument for not using digital on GMRS, let's hear it. Starting with how co-channel interference from a digital-modulated carrier is more of a problem than interference from an unmodulated carrier or FM signal of comparable strength.

Or why doubling the number of discrete talkpaths available for a given slice of bandwidth would be a bad thing.

Or why every GMRS user should be locked into the same format, when most GMRS users are family groups primarily concerned with communicating among themselves, rather than making contact with every random stranger within range.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

You don't need a license in both services to see the obvious benefits. I have both (and Part 90), and I would love to reap the digital benefits on GMRS. Hell, I would take it just for the lack of static. I just took a 3000+ mile road trip with a bunch of friends last month, as I do a few times a year. A lot of driving with a lot of boating in between. 3000+ miles of static and crackling and fading as people got varying distances away was just plain tiring. My business partner and I using Part 90 DMR? Smooth as butter. Absolutely crystal clear, no static, fantastic range. DTR radios? Same thing. Didn't use those much due to being handhelds, but still great.

Maybe I'm just being selfish. Are the kids playing soldier in the neighborhood going to benefit from digital? Probably not. Are the CBers who get on GMRS and play music and curse at everybody else going to benefit? Probably not. But those of us who actually use the radios will certainly benefit. The benefits are obvious, and every single person reading this thread knows it deep down.

I am curious if you and your friends were using actual "wide band" GMRS radios or were the "bunch of friends" sporting wimpy Midland radios and random CCR's with emission designators in the sub 10 KHz bandwidth area?

You mentioned DTR radios. The 900 MHz ISM band would be ripe for developing product that is digital and can be repeated and networked. Motorola does not have any regulatory advantage that makes theirs the only product in that band.

Vocoders suck big time and would make GMRS sound like poorly tuned P25 and DMR.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

If you have an intellectually coherent argument for not using digital on GMRS, let's hear it. Starting with how co-channel interference from a digital-modulated carrier is more of a problem than interference from an unmodulated carrier or FM signal of comparable strength.

Or why doubling the number of discrete talkpaths available for a given slice of bandwidth would be a bad thing.

Or why every GMRS user should be locked into the same format, when most GMRS users are family groups primarily concerned with communicating among themselves, rather than making contact with every random stranger within range.

Are you actually using licensed GMRS?

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I've been licensed on GMRS since the late 70s and have a current license. I'm forgetful and let a few of them laps and had to get new ones with new callsigns but please don't include me in your crowd of hams with no GMRS license.

You are in the clear!

 

[12dbsinad]

If you have an intellectually coherent argument for not using digital on GMRS, let's hear it. Starting with how co-channel interference from a digital-modulated carrier is more of a problem than interference from an unmodulated carrier or FM signal of comparable strength.

Or why doubling the number of discrete talkpaths available for a given slice of bandwidth would be a bad thing.

Or why every GMRS user should be locked into the same format, when most GMRS users are family groups primarily concerned with communicating among themselves, rather than making contact with every random stranger within range.

1) Per the GMRS rules, all legal radio's must be interoperable. That means throwing digital into the mix will go against this very rule.

2) Analog users would no longer be able to "monitor" a frequency for traffic, as digital noise would be considered interference to the user.

3) Co-mixing digital and analog repeaters in a very close proximity can create interference. Analog repeaters hearing digital traffic on it's input can "false" with analog PL tones, keying and passing digital hash. This happens extensively in the part 90 world.

4) Repeaters are not coordinated, so above problems would be impossible to enforce, or cure.

5) Digital repeaters transmit more than analog systems do, because of added features like test messaging, GPS, etc. compounding above issues.

6) Analog would no longer benefit from "capture affect" that happens with analog due to the full bandwidth transmission of digital on Co-mixed systems in a close area. It would make analog traffic unintelligible in many cases.

I can go on, Mr Uniden. Some of this can be found if you actually search the FCC reasons and findings.

 

[alcahuete]

I am curious if you and your friends were using actual "wide band" GMRS radios or were the "bunch of friends" sporting wimpy Midland radios and random CCR's with emission designators in the sub 10 KHz bandwidth area?

You mentioned DTR radios. The 900 MHz ISM band would be ripe for developing product that is digital and can be repeated and networked. Motorola does not have any regulatory advantage that makes theirs the only product in that band.

Vocoders suck big time and would make GMRS sound like poorly tuned P25 and DMR.

We had real radios. All are Part 90 radios with the exception of 1 or 2. Of course there was a Midland guy with a magmount in the mix, but we all know how that goes. I wrote that off straight away. It's really just the nature of analog FM. Same holds true for any band, ham included. I have largely stopped using analog on amateur radio. Even listening to repeaters while driving, it has gotten old. You drive by a truck, you get fading and static. You go underneath an overpass...static. Then you get static on the other end when the user goes through the same thing, or turns their handheld the wrong way. There is absolutelly none of that on DMR. Audio leveling with roaming, etc., and it is an absolute joy to listen to and use. And this is coming from a guy who loves to use HF. It's just incredibly more annoying on FM than SSB.

Everyone in my group has DTR radios that we use once we get to where we are going. I have used them for years. They are just not ideal for use in the faraday cage while driving, and have to go through batteries, etc. So for our use, GMRS is the obvious choice. Could we have used DMR on GMRS the whole trip? Of course. But aside from the Part 90 acceptance gray area, we generally try to play by the rules. So we are stuck with crappy FM analog, and all the joys that go with it.

 

[prcguy]

I prefer the circle with slash or black mode over red or clear, thank you.

You are in the clear!

 

[rescue161]

I am a GMRS license holder and a ham. I own 10 repeaters, two of which are GMRS and do all of the maintenance on these repeaters myself. I also am a system admin for a very large trunking system. Before moving to my current position, I worked on the maintenance side (aligning combiners, repeaters, wireline cards, climbing towers, installing/removing antennas, etc.), so I know what I'm doing and am not just a "programmer."

It's analog, get used to it - or get a private business frequency pair. Those are the options for a long time to come as far as I see.

I have actually thought of doing this very thing, but since the combiners I have right now are full, that leaves me no option but to remove the GMRS repeaters at each site. So would you rather get a DMR radio and enjoy the benefits of TDMA or talk simplex in analog mode? Your attitude is pushing repeater owners away.

1) Per the GMRS rules, all legal radio's must be interoperable. That means throwing digital into the mix will go against this very rule.

And if the rules are changed, this will no longer be an issue.

2) Analog users would no longer be able to "monitor" a frequency for traffic, as digital noise would be considered interference to the user.

Very few folks on GMRS ever press the monitor button before they press the PTT and start talking. Most are using their own PL/DPL and just talk over whoever may be using the frequency. Road crews around here love to use the output of my repeaters. They apparently don't mind. Digital or analog is not going to change anyone's behavior.

3) Co-mixing digital and analog repeaters in a very close proximity can create interference. Analog repeaters hearing digital traffic on it's input can "false" with analog PL tones, keying and passing digital hash. This happens extensively in the part 90 world.

This is simply not true. I have a UHF P25 repeater and a UHF analog repeater on a single antenna (DB420) and this never happens. And this is on a site with 7 other digital repeaters (on different antennas). Digital hash does not affect the analog Quantar, ever.

At another site, I have a UHF DMR and two analog repeaters. I also had two P25 repeaters, but I moved them to a new site. None of the analog repeaters at this site have ever repeated any digital hash, even when there were three digital repeaters transmitting into the same antennas at the same time.

At another site, I have two more P25 repeaters and an analog one. This site also has four Part 90 analog repeaters for a total of seven repeaters on one antenna system. None of the analog machines have ever repeated any digital hash. If this is happening on Part 90 frequencies, then I'd argue that the repeater that is affected by digital hash is not properly setup, i.e., poor filtering, not aligned, etc.

4) Repeaters are not coordinated, so above problems would be impossible to enforce, or cure.

They aren't coordinated now, so I don't see how going digital is going to make people behave worse than they already do. It is a behavioral problem, not a spectrum problem.

5) Digital repeaters transmit more than analog systems do, because of added features like test messaging, GPS, etc. compounding above issues.

What is there to compound? You get a lot more features and two talk paths if the repeater is TDMA. Plus the individual users can use their analog radios in simplex mode and not be affected. Or they can buy a CCR DMR radio and join in on the fun.

6) Analog would no longer benefit from "capture affect" that happens with analog due to the full bandwidth transmission of digital on Co-mixed systems in a close area. It would make analog traffic unintelligible in many cases.

Have you ever tried to use an analog repeater that has another analog repeater on the same pair? It doesn't work, because they will heterodyne and sound horrible.

I don't care either way, but if the FCC ever allows digital repeaters on GMRS, I will convert both of mine. If they don't, I'll leave them in place, unless I decide to license two pairs on Part 90. There are very few people who are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for repeater systems and I speak from experience when I say that I do not enjoy being told that I can't change or remove a repeater from service by someone that hasn't given me a dime.

 

[12dbsinad]

And if the rules are changed, this will no longer be an issue.

There is a reason for this rule.
You can literally say that about anything.

Very few folks on GMRS ever press the monitor button before they press the PTT and start talking. Most are using their own PL/DPL and just talk over whoever may be using the frequency. Road crews around here love to use the output of my repeaters. They apparently don't mind. Digital or analog is not going to change anyone's behavior.

Many use off hook monitor, and many share the same repeater with different PL tones. A lot of systems are shared, so I'm not going to buy this.

This is simply not true. I have a UHF P25 repeater and a UHF analog repeater on a single antenna (DB420) and this never happens. And this is on a site with 7 other digital repeaters (on different antennas). Digital hash does not affect the analog Quantar, ever.

At another site, I have a UHF DMR and two analog repeaters. I also had two P25 repeaters, but I moved them to a new site. None of the analog repeaters at this site have ever repeated any digital hash, even when there were three digital repeaters transmitting into the same antennas at the same time.

At another site, I have two more P25 repeaters and an analog one. This site also has four Part 90 analog repeaters for a total of seven repeaters on one antenna system. None of the analog machines have ever repeated any digital hash. If this is happening on Part 90 frequencies, then I'd argue that the repeater that is affected by digital hash is not properly setup, i.e., poor filtering, not aligned, etc.

You simply have no idea what I'm talking about, because what you just rambled has nothing to do with what I posted.

They aren't coordinated now, so I don't see how going digital is going to make people behave worse than they already do. It is a behavioral problem, not a spectrum problem.

You don't see it because you don't understand the ramifications. It's simple. Many here do actually get it.

What is there to compound? You get a lot more features and two talk paths if the repeater is TDMA. Plus the individual users can use their analog radios in simplex mode and not be affected. Or they can buy a CCR DMR radio and join in on the fun.

What I said was pretty self explanatory.

Have you ever tried to use an analog repeater that has another analog repeater on the same pair? It doesn't work, because they will heterodyne and sound horrible.

Yep, all the time. With some digital machine on the same freq not to far away, I wouldn't have very much luck. GMRS is a non coordinated system so many repeaters are on the same freq pairs in a small area in populated areas. Do you even know what capture affect even is?

 

[rescue161]

I'm out. Enjoy arguing the "benefits" of analog.