Paging on VHF may be changed or eliminated

[n4voxgill]

The FCC has issued WP Docker 07-100 which is a notice of proposed rulemaking for Part 90 rules. In paragraph 6 it states, "...we seek comment on whether we should place any restrictions on paging operations on VHF public safety frequencies...the type protection needed. We also ask that commenters address the disadvantages with restrictions. Finally, we ask whether we should eliminate paging operations in the VHF public safety frequencies altogether."

The docket is on the FCC website

 

[n4voxgill]

here is the URL for docket

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-85A1.pdf

 

[DPD1]

For once an FCC idea I really like.

Dave
http://www.dpdproductions.com
- Custom Scanner, Aviation, MURS, GMRS, Marine & Ham Antennas -

 

[ReceiverBeaver]

Yeah Baby....let's see this one through. Many a VHF'ing ham and scanner listener will be be able to relate many stories about serious intermod and desensing problems generated by these 300watt paging transmitters all over the place. I have a friend who operates a 2 meter repeater on a mountaintop but has to share space with one of these 300watt monsters. It badly desenses his repeater's receiver every time it transmits. He has an excellent cavity duplexer and extra notch filter and still has the problems.

Fortunately, pagers are going away slowly anyhow with the advent and popularity of cell phones. Who do you see carrying a pager nowadays?

A pox on pagers

 

[blueline_308]

Are they talikng about the paging business on 152 MHz and such or do they mean public safety paging as for FD's ? I ask because the document says paging on public safety frequencies.

Jim

 

[rescuecomm]

After reading the text, it is talking about paging which is a one-way communications. The paging of fire dept personnel is more properly called "alerting" since the dispatch center expects someone to call back on a two way radio to accept the call-out. There is a hospital paging transmiter in the building containing our rescue squad repeater. It will desense the VHF repeater when it transmits. It came on when I was testing an antenna with an MFJ antenna analyzer and pinned the RF level meters full scale for about 5 secs.

Bob

 

[SkipSanders]

Translation: Should we prohibit public safety agencies from doing their own paging, and force them to BUY paging service from businesspeople who, um, provide us gifts, just like they did when they wanted the ECPA?

Oh, and thereby make monitoring public safety paging, currently still legal when it's not on common carriers, illegal to do?

 

[car2back]

Translation: Should we prohibit public safety agencies from doing their own paging, and force them to BUY paging service from businesspeople who, um, provide us gifts, just like they did when they wanted the ECPA?

Oh, and thereby make monitoring public safety paging, currently still legal when it's not on common carriers, illegal to do?

Umm, I think you misread the post above you Skip; the FCC is considering putting a stop to commerical one-way paging on the VHF-Hi band that interfers with public safety operations (pages 3 & 4). I think it's a great idea; we often have to turn down the VHF "state net" at my work due to the large amounts of POCSAG paging.

 

[n1das]

Translation: Should we prohibit public safety agencies from doing their own paging, and force them to BUY paging service from businesspeople who, um, provide us gifts, just like they did when they wanted the ECPA?

Oh, and thereby make monitoring public safety paging, currently still legal when it's not on common carriers, illegal to do?

The FCC had absolutely nothing to do with ECPA'86. The ECPA'86 mess was created by Congress.

 

[mancow]

Oh thank God.

Maybe I can use my 996 on Vhf someday.

 

[blueline_308]

If it is indeed referring to one-way paging, then by all means eliminate it. It is and has been a boil on the RF spectrums butt for years. Death to paging.

 

[Thayne]

No way--152.72 forever---Works all over Colorado--Most butts have boils

 

[n4voxgill]

if you read it closely, they are only talking about paging by public safety agencies on public safety frequencies. This would have no impact on commercial paging companies but would prohibit fire paging on high or low band part 90 frequencies, of course it would impact police, ems and emergenc management.

Rght now it is just an idea they are asking questions about, but this is the federal govt so hang on tight.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I have not read the docket yet. I've seen two contradictory interpretations of its intent in this thread.

Commercial VHF and UHF paging were exempted from the definitions of "narrowband" that were imposed the last time channel spacing and bandwidth standards were changed. That's one of the main reasons for widespread commercial paging interference to other services. Maybe with this docket the FCC is going to bring paging into the 1980s.

 

[SLWilson]

Huh?

I've read the Docket.

It looks to me like they mean those of us who page out our rural fire departments and ambulances on the VHF freqs will have to cease doing so!!!

It mentions hospital paging on 155.340. We use that here for squad to hospital patient reports. No one pages on that freq.

Our local hospital pages Dr's on 154.515.

We page our FD's and EMS on 155.295. We're NOT using som high powered transmitter. We are at 100 watts on one tower, fifty on the other four towers. Takes THAT MANY towers to cover our terrain here!!!!

AND, the way I read the proposal, it LOOKS like they want to BAN all PAGING on the VHF Public safety bands.

In our county, we are the ONLY users on 155.295. The neighboring counties use UHF or a different VHF freq to page out their FD's and ambulances with....

Please, someone TELL ME where I'm misreading the proposal!!!!

Thanks,

Steve/Gallia

 

[blueangel-eric]

I've always wondered why many doctors and other business people still use pagers when you can have the same thing built into a cell phone eliminating the VHF paging interference from those 300-1000 watt towers. I notice that the first 3 MURS channels are unusable because they reside next door to the Paging frequencies.

Eric Burris

 

[gcgrotz]

Ok. I guess I have to read it for myself, it does sound like they are talking about paging only on public safety freqs and that will hurt a lot of departments that can least afford it. I'd love to get rid of it all too, but don't hold your breath.

As for my 2 cents worth:

I haven't seen a properly done system that can't reject paging. The local ham repeater here on the hospital only a few feet from a 158.700 monster is able to reject 70db of that signal when comparing the receive antenna direct to what's getting through to the repeater by using just the duplexor and an additional 144-146 bandpass filter.

Also, I think paging is already illegal on 155.340 even though some places do it. It is for Hospital to mobile comms only.

 

[car2back]

As rescuecomm pointed out, what we call "paging" is not what the FCC is talking about in the document! They're talking about one-way voice & data paging.

The paging of fire dept personnel is more properly called "alerting" since the dispatch center expects someone to call back on a two way radio to accept the call-out.

 

[Quickcall]

Brilliant!

 

[n7jei]

OK, read sections 4, 5, and 6 on pages 3 and 4. It is talking about "paging" on "VHF public safety frequencies" and gives examples of 155.34 and 155.16. It doesn't mention commercial paging, etc. Most of you know that a majority of Fire Departments in the USA are "volunteers" and have shoe-string budgets and bake sales to exist. Although it doesn't state it in this section, MA/COM is identified as raising an issue elsewhere in the document. As another poster said, this stinks of commercial interests $$$ wanting the FCC to force agencies to buy their services. Our "free market" government at work. (Sarcasim intended.) I guess Motorola, MA/COM, et. al. aren't satisfied with band changes, trunking, narrow band, digital, interoperability, etc. mandated by the gov'ment to feed their cash cow, now they want more. This is outrageous. And just who is supposed to pay? Taxpayers of course (the few of us left that actually do pay taxes). I hope that hundreds or thousands of small agencies flood the FCC with comments. But wait, the Notice includes a raft of requirements for just commenting! OH boy, I guess it never ends. Well, enough ranting for now.