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

[KevinC]

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

I could, but then we'd just have another and another and another discussing changes to GMRS.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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.

Kevin
Clearly my editorial does not support Russ's continued attempts at ruining GMRS. His stuff does not belong here. If you read my original post you will understand why this is so disturbing. I am then requesting you revert it back.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I could, but then we'd just have another and another and another discussing changes to GMRS.

If you read my original post I did not mention Russ, yet he followed over here to push his agenda and so very disturbing to see his agenda continuing here with your inadvertent assistance. Please revert it back and close my thread.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Russ has continued with pushing these changes without answering what problem they solve. He has provided no cogent argument why the bandwidth needs to change.

 

[alcahuete]

Completely agreed. His nonsense of pushing all his different plans and proposals constantly ad-nauseum need to stop.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

He is pushing this stuff on other boards. His whole purpose here is a commercial one. I would guess with Midland. You can see below what I have highlighted in bold.

I don't know if any of this violated RR rules, but clearly he is lobbying for some commercial purpose. Why else?

Class-E CB Radio Poll

Are you in support of a new CB Radio Service (see attached Band Plan). My proposal would phase out GMRS and FRS by combining the two to make up the...

www.thetruckersreport.com

"Are you in support of a new CB Radio Service (see attached Band Plan).

My proposal would phase out GMRS and FRS by combining the two to make up the new Class-E Service. Users that are using 5 Watts or less without Repeater capability do not need to be licensed. Anyone using more that 5 Watts needs an FCC License.

My new Class-E service would have two types of Transceiver Certification. A Type-1 Certified radio can transmit on any channel including Repeater inputs (Duplex Mode), and can have an RF output up to 25 Watts. A Type-2 Certified radio can transmit on any Simplex (No Repeater Outputs or Inputs) channel with an RF output of no more than 5 Watts. Low power Type-2 radios can use external antennas. All existing FRS radios are to be classified as "Type-2" and grandfathered as Compliant.

I know I'm going to get static for Whacking 3 Repeater pairs. I monitor GMRS a lot in my area, and 90% of the traffic is Simplex. No more than one repeater has any activity on it. So, to be safe and fair, I left 5 pairs available and protected from Type-2 users.

I feel strongly that Repeaters should be licensed.

Do you think my proposal would improve GMRS/FRS by converting them over to one type of Radio Service?

Any feedback will be appreciated.

73,
Russ "


but wait there is more:

"Night Stalker10 said: ↑

I guess it depends on what group of people your trying to get into your new CB radio service. if you're trying to win over the old CB crowd, I don't think this would work. Mainly because they won't like dealing with a license, repeaters, and no freebanding.

I am looking for input from current CB users and anyone that might be interested in a new UHF Service.. It's just a question, you don't have to buy anything

73,
Russ"

And there is more.

New 2022 GMRS/FRS Band Plan

Idea flushed and pronounced "Dead"... 73,Russ

forums.mygmrs.com

 

[russbrill]

He is pushing this stuff on other boards. His whole purpose here is a commercial one. I would guess with Midland. You can see below what I have highlighted in bold.

I don't know if any of this violated RR rules, but clearly he is lobbying for some commercial purpose. Why else?

Class-E CB Radio Poll

Are you in support of a new CB Radio Service (see attached Band Plan). My proposal would phase out GMRS and FRS by combining the two to make up the...

www.thetruckersreport.com

"Are you in support of a new CB Radio Service (see attached Band Plan).

My proposal would phase out GMRS and FRS by combining the two to make up the new Class-E Service. Users that are using 5 Watts or less without Repeater capability do not need to be licensed. Anyone using more that 5 Watts needs an FCC License.

My new Class-E service would have two types of Transceiver Certification. A Type-1 Certified radio can transmit on any channel including Repeater inputs (Duplex Mode), and can have an RF output up to 25 Watts. A Type-2 Certified radio can transmit on any Simplex (No Repeater Outputs or Inputs) channel with an RF output of no more than 5 Watts. Low power Type-2 radios can use external antennas. All existing FRS radios are to be classified as "Type-2" and grandfathered as Compliant.

I know I'm going to get static for Whacking 3 Repeater pairs. I monitor GMRS a lot in my area, and 90% of the traffic is Simplex. No more than one repeater has any activity on it. So, to be safe and fair, I left 5 pairs available and protected from Type-2 users.

I feel strongly that Repeaters should be licensed.

Do you think my proposal would improve GMRS/FRS by converting them over to one type of Radio Service?

Any feedback will be appreciated.

73,
Russ "


but wait there is more:

73,
Russ"

And there is more.

New 2022 GMRS/FRS Band Plan

Idea flushed and pronounced "Dead"... 73,Russ

forums.mygmrs.com

I have a poll on that other site. I can tell you most of the 27 MHz crowd is not interested in anything different from what they're using now. It appears to me they love things just as they are. RFI-GUY, I'm serious, I am not affiliated with Midland or any other manufacturer of two-way radio equipment.

I have even floated the idea on QRZ, most folks don't care, because they're Hams and they don't have channels, they have BANDS to use.. I appreciate the Moderators allowing the discussion to continue, and I understand the consolidation of Threads.

73,
Russ

 

[russbrill]

Russ has continued with pushing these changes without answering what problem they solve. He has provided no cogent argument why the bandwidth needs to change.

FYI: I have been seeking input from you and others, not with the intention of a "Rule Making Proposal" by the FCC, but an attempt to see if the FCC Mobility Division and the Chairman had an interest in Tweaking the Service in the near future or 5 to 10 years down the road.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Russ you have been very disingenuous in floating this turd of a proposal here and on other BB's. You have been asked repeatedly WHY it is even necessary to do this and you have been dismissive as to the implications of reducing power and deviation of the GMRS service. Why do you persist in this? If you cannot answer these simple questions, your proposal had no merit.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

FYI: I have been seeking input from you and others, not with the intention of a "Rule Making Proposal" by the FCC, but an attempt to see if the FCC Mobility Division and the Chairman had an interest in Tweaking the Service in the near future or 5 to 10 years down the road.

Why Russ? Do you want to be known as the guy who ruined GMRS? There are enough bad laws created by people with good intentions. I can only surmise your intentions are awful because people here and on the other BB's repeatedly told you why it is a bad proposal. Why?

 

[russbrill]

Russ you have been very disingenuous in floating this turd of a proposal here and on other BB's. You have been asked repeatedly WHY it is even necessary to do this and you have been dismissive as to the implications of reducing power and deviation of the GMRS service. Why do you persist in this? If you cannot answer these simple questions, your proposal had no merit.

I did listen to you, Licensed Users have 50 Watts, and Repeaters have 50 Watts at the antenna feed point..

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Russ; I have no idea what you do in your business life, but consider this. Suppose I went to your town council and suggested helpfully that they regulate your business? Suppose I didn't even have a good reason why. Then your town agrees it is a great idea and now YOU have to suffer that "great idea'. It is just not good civics to be meddling like this. You clearly don't think 50 watt repeaters are needed. I assume you don't have one. MYOB.

 

[russbrill]

Why Russ? Do you want to be known as the guy who ruined GMRS? There are enough bad laws created by people with good intentions. I can only surmise your intentions are awful because people here and on the other BB's repeatedly told you why it is a bad proposal. Why?

RFI-EMI, Have you read the new proposal???

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

RFI-EMI, Have you read the new proposal???

Yes I have, you have taken 3 repeater pairs away and persist in your narrow banding folly. Why?

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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

From time to time someone will post a proposed plan to "fix" GMRS. This is done with good intentions, but without having or considering all of the facts. Fix #1: Make more channels available, Narrow Band GMRS. Fallacy: GMRS already has as many channels available as possible due to the fact...

forums.radioreference.com

 

[russbrill]

Yes I have, you have taken 3 repeater pairs away and persist in your narrow banding folly. Why?

I have removed 3 repeater pairs because most of the activity and the purchasers of GMRS equipment use simplex. Repeaters are expensive and complicated to install and maintain, and for that reason, I don't see a big GMRS Repeater explosion. Narrow Banding will be happening in the future whether my idea happens or not.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

clueless

 

[sallen07]

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.

I have found this thread interesting and educational, at least until tonight. So here are a few observations:

1) My quality of life improved IMMENSELY when I found the "Ignore" feature in the Forums.

2) I've seen a couple people say that we need to "get those darn kids off our lawn" and banish FRS beep/boop radios from the GMRS frequencies.

3) On the other hand, I've seen others that say that we need to get more *licensed* GMRS users to keep the FCC from re-purposing the band.

Definitely a "Your Mileage May Vary" situation I think. FRS/GMRS usage in our area is almost zero: a local college with a grandfathered license whose identifier you hear (but no voice traffic), a school district that was running DMR (!!) for their buses until they moved to a licensed frequency last fall, and the tree-trimming crew that came down our street last year that was using FRS radios. Other than that? Nothing. Lots of days I scanned the whole band all day and heard nothing except the aforementioned identifier.

As of this spring, however, there *is* a new GMRS repeater in Western NY that I can hear loud and clear and they are trying to get people to sign up for it. My first thought was, why? Why would I want to use a GMRS repeater instead of 2 meter or 70 cm ham repeater?

4) So that led to my question, which was "other than Midland, who sells a GMRS mobile"? The consensus seems to be that the Midland radios suck because they are NFM instead of FM, and that I should get a Part 90 radio instead because that's what all the REAL GMRS folks do.

Sure, that's great. I know what Part 90 is, and Part 95 (and 97) too. But the average "hey I've heard about this GMRS thing and want to sign up" person off the street doesn't, and they don't care, either. They go to Google or Amazon and search for "GMRS mobile" and guess what they find? Midland and CCRs.

Oh, but I have also been told, "don't look on Amazon or eBay for good radios". That's fine to say, but again, the average "I want to do GMRS" person doesn't know about RadioReference, or any of these other sources. He or she wants to buy their radio the same way they buy everything else ... and that's how they do it.

5) But back to the "Part 90" radio recommendation. Yes, to paraphrase, Part 95E says that a radio capable of transmitting on a non-GMRS frequency cannot be certified for GMRS unless it's certified for another service where certification is required (aka Part 90). It does NOT, however, say that "Part 90 radios are automatically certified for GMRS" as some have suggested. But when I asked which Part 90 radios were also Part 95E I was told, "oh you can go look at the certification database on the FCC website".

Ha, ha, ha.

Yes, I *could*, and I have done so in the past. But again, is "Joe or Jane PotentialGMRSUser" going to do that, or even have a clue what any of that means? My bet is no.

6) Even if said potential licensed user DID get a Part 90 radio, then they have to go down the path of "you need a special cable, and this really expensive software that you can only get from a dealer but they won't sell it to you because you could program your radio to transmit on public safety frequencies ...."

So that begs (again, perhaps) a couple questions: Why would I want to use GMRS, and what GOOD out-of-the box mobile GMRS radios are available?

I'm not being snarky either. I actually *have* a GMRS license, because it seemed like the right thing to do at one point. But so far I don't have an answer to the first question, and the answer I've received to the second is "get one of these really great Part 90 radios ... that are discontinued".

 

[bill4long]

Naaa, GMRS is just fine. Better to petition for a new service on different frequencies.

 

[russbrill]

I have found this thread interesting and educational, at least until tonight. So here are a few observations:

1) My quality of life improved IMMENSELY when I found the "Ignore" feature in the Forums.

2) I've seen a couple people say that we need to "get those darn kids off our lawn" and banish FRS beep/boop radios from the GMRS frequencies.

3) On the other hand, I've seen others that say that we need to get more *licensed* GMRS users to keep the FCC from re-purposing the band.

Definitely a "Your Mileage May Vary" situation I think. FRS/GMRS usage in our area is almost zero: a local college with a grandfathered license whose identifier you hear (but no voice traffic), a school district that was running DMR (!!) for their buses until they moved to a licensed frequency last fall, and the tree-trimming crew that came down our street last year that was using FRS radios. Other than that? Nothing. Lots of days I scanned the whole band all day and heard nothing except the aforementioned identifier.

As of this spring, however, there *is* a new GMRS repeater in Western NY that I can hear loud and clear and they are trying to get people to sign up for it. My first thought was, why? Why would I want to use a GMRS repeater instead of 2 meter or 70 cm ham repeater?

4) So that led to my question, which was "other than Midland, who sells a GMRS mobile"? The consensus seems to be that the Midland radios suck because they are NFM instead of FM, and that I should get a Part 90 radio instead because that's what all the REAL GMRS folks do.

Sure, that's great. I know what Part 90 is, and Part 95 (and 97) too. But the average "hey I've heard about this GMRS thing and want to sign up" person off the street doesn't, and they don't care, either. They go to Google or Amazon and search for "GMRS mobile" and guess what they find? Midland and CCRs.

Oh, but I have also been told, "don't look on Amazon or eBay for good radios". That's fine to say, but again, the average "I want to do GMRS" person doesn't know about RadioReference, or any of these other sources. He or she wants to buy their radio the same way they buy everything else ... and that's how they do it.

5) But back to the "Part 90" radio recommendation. Yes, to paraphrase, Part 95E says that a radio capable of transmitting on a non-GMRS frequency cannot be certified for GMRS unless it's certified for another service where certification is required (aka Part 90). It does NOT, however, say that "Part 90 radios are automatically certified for GMRS" as some have suggested. But when I asked which Part 90 radios were also Part 95E I was told, "oh you can go look at the certification database on the FCC website".

Ha, ha, ha.

Yes, I *could*, and I have done so in the past. But again, is "Joe or Jane PotentialGMRSUser" going to do that, or even have a clue what any of that means? My bet is no.

6) Even if said potential licensed user DID get a Part 90 radio, then they have to go down the path of "you need a special cable, and this really expensive software that you can only get from a dealer but they won't sell it to you because you could program your radio to transmit on public safety frequencies ...."

So that begs (again, perhaps) a couple questions: Why would I want to use GMRS, and what GOOD out-of-the box mobile GMRS radios are available?

I'm not being snarky either. I actually *have* a GMRS license, because it seemed like the right thing to do at one point. But so far I don't have an answer to the first question, and the answer I've received to the second is "get one of these really great Part 90 radios ... that are discontinued".

Thank you for your input, and you have pointed out a few problems with the "It's fine the way it is" crowd.. And the only Part-95E consumer stuff I'm aware of is Midland.. I am licensed for GMRS also..