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

[russbrill]

This band plan proposal will get the FCC smack down any day of the week. You must provide a reasonable explanation to the FCC on why your proposed changes would benefit current users as well as benefit the Govt. Just the fact that they would have to change all of the Code of Federal Regulations from GMRS to CRS will kill it. What would be the benefit to me, a current licensed GMRS user, if this plan was implemented? P.S. Highway Chat Channel PL/DPL not allowed ROTFLMAO

Okay, keep laughing... I do have some reasoning for the new service, reasoning I'm not going to argue about for another 150+ posts, but I do have an argument for the new service..

 

[russbrill]

"Fixing GMRS". A solution in search of a problem.

I am not for Fixing GMRS, I'm for Flushing it and FRS.. The tittle of the thread is a little misleading...

 

[AK9R]

I do have some reasoning for the new service, reasoning I'm not going to argue about for another 150+ posts, but I do have an argument for the new service..

I expect you will make your argument in your petition to the FCC. Let us know when you file that petition.

 

[tweiss3]

I am not for Fixing GMRS, I'm for Flushing it and FRS.. The tittle of the thread is a little misleading...

The thing you don't get is you can't just flush a commercial system. As stated previously in this thread, there are 67,899 people that paid for this fixed group of spectrum to work within this fixed set of rules. Are you going to convince the FCC to refund that $4.7 million in license fees to scrap the system?

GMRS is not like ham at all. Close one frequency in ham, they can move on as they please to another frequency, because they have such a wide range of frequencies to choose from. GMRS has a fixed set of frequencies.

There are 1701 listed repeaters (I bet including unlisted, that number more than doubles), with some of those being in the listed 187 linked repeater groups. Is the FCC going to buy back those station equipment at $5,000-20,000 each?

You need to let go of the scrapping GMRS. FRS and bubble packs can be a pain, but I don't even look at those channels. If I did need to use those channels, 5W will easily overpower the 0.5W bubble pack crap, so my communication won't be interrupted.

If you want to discuss going narrow-band to double the frequencies available, lets talk. I'm not in favor of it, but its something we can talk about. Heck, if you want to talk about going digital, I'd be willing to talk. As stated, there would need to be a type chosen by the FCC, because a free for all would cause more issues than going digital would fix. Other ideas that would improve GMRS, lets discuss them, but the idea of scrapping GMRS, or cutting it in half in favor of something else is not something that should be discussed, just let it go.

 

[nd5y]

5W will easily overpower the 0.5W bubble pack crap, so my communication won't be interrupted.

Think again. Ever hear of the FM Capture Effect? Your neighbor kids running 1/2 watt toys can easily overpower a 5 watt signal from several miles away that is weak by the time it gets to you.

 

[SigIntel8600]

Okay, keep laughing... I do have some reasoning for the new service, reasoning I'm not going to argue about for another 150+ posts, but I do have an argument for the new service..

I'm not looking to argue. I just would like to know how you think established GMRS repeaters with many licensed operators will just fold so you can have your simplex highway chit chat channel.

 

[bill4long]

I'm not looking to argue. I just would like to know how you think established GMRS repeaters with many licensed operators will just fold so you can have your simplex highway chit chat channel.

I wouldn't get worked up about it. Any such proposal would go right into the circular file at the FCC.
This is all just verbal m********n, if I may be so indelicate. (<--- I censored myself there.)

 

[mmckenna]

Okay, keep laughing... I do have some reasoning for the new service, reasoning I'm not going to argue about for another 150+ posts, but I do have an argument for the new service..

If we promise not to laugh, would you let us in on whatever secret is destroying GMRS?

Seriously, it's been asked many times, what part of GMRS is broken that needs to be fixed?

 

[W8UU]

I don't believe GMRS is broken. As others have mentioned, the service is unique and fills the need of at least a hundred thousand (licensed and unlicensed) users.

What could make it better?

• Move FRS radios elsewhere
• Have a specific FCC database and frequency coordination for repeaters
• Clarify by rule that Part 90 type accepted UHF radios that can operate in wideband mode and with (=/-) 50 watts be automatically considered Part 95 compliant

None of those are deal-breakers. None would infringe on current licensees (assuming existing active repeaters would be grandfathered). Moving the FRS crapola elsewhere would eliminate a lot of low level interference. And the Part 90 thing might encourage other manufacturers to market existing LMR products to GMRS users since the added cost of getting a second type acceptance approval is no longer needed. This helps with the complaint about Midland and the CCR radios being the only game in town for new equipment.

No need to start a war over this stuff. We're just a bunch of GMRS users who want what's best for the service but have different opinions about what, if anything, needs done.