russbrill
Member
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..
-
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.
"Fixing GMRS" - an Editorial (AKA everyone's GMRS ideas go here)
- Thread starter RFI-EMI-GUY
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
I am not for Fixing GMRS, I'm for Flushing it and FRS.. The tittle of the thread is a little misleading...
I expect you will make your argument in your petition to the FCC. Let us know when you file that petition.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
I ♥ Ø
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
- Status
