"Fixing GMRS" - an Editorial (AKA everyone's GMRS ideas go here)

[BaoFeng_Blogger]

I think they're Chinese agents plotting to take over Ham Radio

Your above post just shows us how much you really don't know about me! Try again.

73 to ya...

BaoFeng Blogger

 

[N4KVE]

I think most of the Part 90 radios used by hams have VFOs. My Part 90 Alinco DJ-MD5T has a VFO mode as well as channel mode.
View attachment 85926

View attachment 85925

A part 90 radio can not be programmed from the keypad.
At that time they had the radio type accepted for FCC part 90 regulations. That means the radio was to comply with the rules for the Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Service. Devices that are Part 90 compliant include radios that could be used for business and industry and public safety. and having part 90 certification means Amcrest could market the radio for business use. But in order to receive the part 90 certification, the radio was to have specific power limits, frequency ranges, and could not be user programmable from the front panel.

 

[bill4long]

CCR's ??? Cheap Chinese Radios???

Yeah

 

[wd8chl]

FYI-Sad news is that the Kenwood TK-8180 (and the matching h/h, the 3180) are discontinued. They might still have some in stock, but I doubt it.
In fact, most of the TK series of radios is d/c'ed or is being phased out in favor of NX series radios.

 

[N4GIX]

Number of GMRS Licensees as of March 2020:

 

[vagrant]

Those are interesting numbers. It appears that California has 10526 active GMRS licenses.

 

[russbrill]

You ain't seen nothing yet, wait until I give 6 meters away to the CBer's with my latest proposal

I'm kidding...

 

[russbrill]

Those are interesting numbers. It appears that California has 10526 active GMRS licenses.

I suspect there are 3X as many people using GMRS without a License..

 

[russbrill]

Hi Everyone,

I have refined my ideas regarding Rebanding/Power limits/Licensing on the GMRS Spectrum (see attached doc). Please check it out and provide some technical feedback or your opinion.

73,
Russ

 

[a417]

Which problem does this fix?

Having channels like 18R --> 22R can be misleading, why not just add them after 25 to keep with sequential numbering?

You have USAGE -- (4) for every channel, making the page busy, why not just put a leading note that all "CRS tranmissions are 11khz..". Same goes with the CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth specification, as they are literally all the same, why not just put that as a static rule prefacing this?

I'm still not sure what this proposal fixes.

[edited for punctuation - sheesh]

 

[russbrill]

Which problem does this fix?

Having channels like 18R --> 22R can be misleading, why not just add them after 25 to keep with sequential numbering?

You have USAGE -- (4) for every channel, making the page busy, why not just put a leading note that all "CRS tranmissions are 11khz..". Same goes with the CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth specification, as they are literally all the same, why not just put that as a static rule prefacing this?

I'm still not sure what this proposal fixes.

[edited for punctuation - sheesh]

The 18R thru 22R thing is how input or duplex mode is ID'ed on some consumer gear so I rolled with it. But I can just list the Inputs with the Restrictions, point well taken...

 

[russbrill]

Which problem does this fix?

Having channels like 18R --> 22R can be misleading, why not just add them after 25 to keep with sequential numbering?

You have USAGE -- (4) for every channel, making the page busy, why not just put a leading note that all "CRS tranmissions are 11khz..". Same goes with the CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth specification, as they are literally all the same, why not just put that as a static rule prefacing this?

I'm still not sure what this proposal fixes.

[edited for punctuation - sheesh]

And I could put the note (4) Bandwidth specs under the Transceiver section.. CRS-I/CRS-II Bandwidth column on the Table indicate both must meet the 12.5 kHz specs on each channel.

 

[a417]

Couple of small changes and it looks good from here, ship it on off to the FCC.

 

[russbrill]

Couple of small changes and it looks good from here, ship it on off to the FCC.

What about deleting channel numbers altogether when it comes to the Repeater Inputs??? No one is allowed simplex there now or under the new band plan, so may be just omit them???

 

[russbrill]

Here's the revision with some suggested changes (see attached)..

 

[N4KVE]

I suspect there are 3X as many people using GMRS without a License..

Probably more.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Russ; You have hijacked the thread with the continuation of your proposal nonsense. Not only that you have changed the title of the thread. You are behaving as a child and need to knock this off. I am calling on the mods to remove your nonsense and close the thread.

 

[KevinC]

Russ; You have hijacked the thread with the continuation of your proposal nonsense. Not only that you have changed the title of the thread. You are behaving as a child and need to knock this off. I am calling on the mods to remove your nonsense and close the thread.

No, I merged all the GMRS ideas into one thread. I see no reason to have multiple threads discussing the exact same thing.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

No, I merged all the GMRS ideas into one thread. I see no reason to have multiple threads discussing the exact same thing.

Can you close the thread. It has served its purpose.

 

[AK9R]

Russ; You have hijacked the thread with the continuation of your proposal nonsense. Not only that you have changed the title of the thread.

Russ did not change the title of this thread, a moderator did. We are trying to convey that any conversation about changing GMRS rules should go in this thread. We do not need multiple threads about roughly the same topic.