Part 95 rule changes. Finally.

[Dantian]

If you can use "other networks" for the sole purpose of remote control then how can you not be allowed to "turn on" the transmitter remotely through the internet?

You can be allowed to turn it on through the Internet. That is control. But that is the "sole purpose" for which it could be connected to the PSTN or "other networks". The Internet can't connect the transmitters for any other purpose, such as carrying what the FCC calls in 95.1733 the "messages" (transmissions).

Let me add here that keying up a repeater doesn't constitute "control". Control involves the ability to sign the station on or off the air, to shut it down and cause it to stop transmitting, period. Connection to networks is allowed for that and no other purpose.

 

[zikada]

You can be allowed to turn it on through the Internet. But that is the "sole purpose" for which it could be connected to the PSTN or "other networks". The Internet can't connect the transmitters for any other purpose, such as carrying what the FCC calls in 95.1733 the "messages" (transmissions).

Forgive me for my ignorance, but does that mean you can link repeaters through the internet?

 

[zikada]

You can be allowed to turn it on through the Internet. That is control. But that is the "sole purpose" for which it could be connected to the PSTN or "other networks". The Internet can't connect the transmitters for any other purpose, such as carrying what the FCC calls in 95.1733 the "messages" (transmissions).

Not only that but "wireline control link" is not defined in Part 95.

 

[Dantian]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but does that mean you can link repeaters through the internet?

Sure, for the purpose of controlling them and for no other purpose. Not for sending audio between them, as that is not control.

Control of a station is vested in the licensee of that station. Even if the licensee designates other people who have physical control of that station -- the ability to cause it to transmit, continue or stop transmitting -- the licensee has exclusive responsibility for whatever that person does. See for example 95.1743.

 

[Dantian]

Not only that but "wireline control link" is not defined in Part 95.

No, and it should be defined, but that is not a loophole. It doesn't matter because the interconnection rule forbids connection to the PSTN or "other networks", whether wireline or not, for any purpose other than remote control.

 

[zikada]

Sure, for the purpose of controlling them and for no other purpose. Not for sending audio between them, as that is not control.

Control of a station is vested in the licensee of that station. Even if the licensee designates other people who have physical control of that station -- the ability to cause it to transmit, continue or stop transmitting -- the licensee has exclusive responsibility for whatever that person does. See for example 95.1743.

I don't see in the new rules where it defines control as being audio being sent between repeater stations.


In fact, I don't see a definition of control at all.

 

[Dantian]

I don't see in the new rules where it defines control as being audio being sent between repeater stations.

It doesn't. That's the point.

 

[Dantian]

In fact, I don't see a definition of control at all.

95.303 defines Operate as: "Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting."

If you want to say that the FCC still didn't define Control, I don't think you'd be on firm ground.

 

[zikada]

Sure, for the purpose of controlling them and for no other purpose. Not for sending audio between them, as that is not control.

Control of a station is vested in the licensee of that station. Even if the licensee designates other people who have physical control of that station -- the ability to cause it to transmit, continue or stop transmitting -- the licensee has exclusive responsibility for whatever that person does. See for example 95.1743.

But the rules allow you to connect your repeater to the internet. Control isn't defined clearly in Part 95. The licensee of the station is obviously responsible so they can terminate their remote control if they feel there's something astray.

 

[Dantian]

But the rules allow you to connect your repeater to the internet.

Only for the very limited purpose of remote control, which is probably not what you are concerned about. The FCC is not interested in people using GMRS to create mobile radio networks.

Control isn't defined clearly in Part 95.

If you say so. That would be a very interesting thing to say to the FCC and I hope you will share their reaction. Control of a station is a bedrock principle in all services regulated by the FCC.

The licensee of the station is obviously responsible so they can terminate their remote control if they feel there's something astray.

I don't know why the licensee would want to terminate his control of his station.

Zikada you are stringing me along here so I will say to everybody, good nite and Happy Transmitting no matter how you control it.

 

[zikada]

Only for the very limited purpose of remote control, which is probably not what you are concerned about. The FCC is not interested in people using GMRS to create mobile radio networks.



If you say so. That would be a very interesting thing to say to the FCC and I hope you will share their reaction. Control of a station is a bedrock principle in all services regulated by the FCC.



I don't know why the licensee would want to terminate his control of his station.

Zikada you are stringing me along here so I will say to everybody, good nite and Happy Transmitting no matter how you control it.

Sorry about that, I'm just trying to make sense of all of this. I just wish the language wasn't so ambiguous. If linking repeaters through the internet was explicitly prohibited, why wouldn't the FCC just say so?

 

[n1das]

I agree; I think that rule conflict should be formally addressed since many existing GMRS radios are incapable of switching to NB. I think the FCC made an inadvertent error.

Let's see......

All of the current crop of bubble packs already operate in narrow mode on all 22 channels. FRS has been narrow only from day one in 1996. Some 22-channels had an option of running wide mode on the GMRS primaries but most are narrow only on all 22 channels.

Part 90 equipment has been required since around 1997 to include narrowband capability (2.5kHz max deviation) in addition to old school wideband (5kHz deviation). The receivers are also narrowed in addition to the transmitter deviation when operating in narrow mode. Such equipment would be denied Part 90 type acceptance if it didn't include narrowband capability. Included in this are Part 90/95 dual certified equipment. It is because of Part 90 being required to include narrowband capability that Part 90/95 dual certified equipment manufactured since 1997 already has narrowband capability.

My Kenwood NX-300 UHF handhelds have Part 90/95 dual certification and have narrow capability in analog mode. My Kenwood TKR-850 repeater (sold it several years ago) has Part 90/95 dual certification and is wide/narrow capable. I operated it in narrow mode on GMRS to keep adjacent channel splatter from bubble packs from bothering it on the upper FRS channels adjacent to the input. Several iCOM Part 90 handhelds also have Part 90/95 dual certification post-1997 and have wide/narrow capability. I owned a few Kenwood TK-370G and TK-3140 handhelds back then and all were part 90/95 dual certified and included narrowband capability. The list of examples goes on.

With the rules proposing to allow FRS to use higher power on the upper FRS channels, repeater owners operating their repeaters in wide mode may find the repeater input getting hammered by splatter from bubble pack on the upper FRS channels adjacent to the input. I've had this happen before with my repeaters when operating in wide mode. All adjacent channel splatter problems from bubble packs on adjacent FRS channels went away completely after switching my repeaters and handhelds to narrow mode. No loss of coverage was experienced. Narrowbanding works.

We've had narrowbanding for 20 years. Part 90 equipment including Part 90/95 dual certified equipment manufactured since 1997 has narrowband capability. To say that most GMRS equipment is incapable of narrowband operation isn't quite true. Maybe it's time for people to think about retiring their ancient Motorola Micor repeaters and pre-1997 Part 90 handhelds and mobiles. It's probably getting hard to get parts for them now.

 

[mmckenna]

Maybe it's time for people to think about retiring their ancient Motorola Micor repeaters and pre-1997 Part 90 handhelds and mobiles.

"But, what about those guys still running spark gap transmitters, this rule isn't fair to them! They'd be required to buy new equipment, and that costs money, real money!"

Sarcasm mode off.

I agree with you N1DAS. I'm getting tired of hearing amateurs and GMRS operators belly aching about using equipment from this century. Time to retire that ancient equipment and join us on the solid state side of things.

 

[AA4TX]

Let's see......

All of the current crop of bubble packs already operate in narrow mode on all 22 channels. FRS has been narrow only from day one in 1996. Some 22-channels had an option of running wide mode on the GMRS primaries but most are narrow only on all 22 channels.

Part 90 equipment has been required since around 1997 to include narrowband capability (2.5kHz max deviation) in addition to old school wideband (5kHz deviation). The receivers are also narrowed in addition to the transmitter deviation when operating in narrow mode. Such equipment would be denied Part 90 type acceptance if it didn't include narrowband capability. Included in this are Part 90/95 dual certified equipment. It is because of Part 90 being required to include narrowband capability that Part 90/95 dual certified equipment manufactured since 1997 already has narrowband capability.

My Kenwood NX-300 UHF handhelds have Part 90/95 dual certification and have narrow capability in analog mode. My Kenwood TKR-850 repeater (sold it several years ago) has Part 90/95 dual certification and is wide/narrow capable. I operated it in narrow mode on GMRS to keep adjacent channel splatter from bubble packs from bothering it on the upper FRS channels adjacent to the input. Several iCOM Part 90 handhelds also have Part 90/95 dual certification post-1997 and have wide/narrow capability. I owned a few Kenwood TK-370G and TK-3140 handhelds back then and all were part 90/95 dual certified and included narrowband capability. The list of examples goes on.

With the rules proposing to allow FRS to use higher power on the upper FRS channels, repeater owners operating their repeaters in wide mode may find the repeater input getting hammered by splatter from bubble pack on the upper FRS channels adjacent to the input. I've had this happen before with my repeaters when operating in wide mode. All adjacent channel splatter problems from bubble packs on adjacent FRS channels went away completely after switching my repeaters and handhelds to narrow mode. No loss of coverage was experienced. Narrowbanding works.

We've had narrowbanding for 20 years. Part 90 equipment including Part 90/95 dual certified equipment manufactured since 1997 has narrowband capability. To say that most GMRS equipment is incapable of narrowband operation isn't quite true. Maybe it's time for people to think about retiring their ancient Motorola Micor repeaters and pre-1997 Part 90 handhelds and mobiles. It's probably getting hard to get parts for them now.

Your assertion may very well be true. The service may be better off if these channels are narrow banded. And it may be true that it is time to retire the handhelds that are not narrow band capable (your comment about Motorola Micor is hyperbole, since we are discussing interstitial channels, which the Micor could not properly operate on anyway due to the power requirements). I am not challenging the soundness of your reasoning.

Your assertion notwithstanding, the appropriate approach would be to declare in a Report and Order that the intention was to narrow band these channels, and NOT to say that this is rejected, and then, through a miss-statement, narrow band them. If we are to narrow band these channels, then the FCC should make the case for the action, based upon sound reasoning and public input, and then implement it. “Accidental” implementation of any rule is never good policy, nor is it good law.

 

[mmckenna]

Either way, with natural attrition, wide band radios are going away. In many cases have already gone away.
Wide band entitlement keys, W-licenses, etc. are not something that the average user is going to do. Eventually the manufacturers are going to stop supporting it.

GMRS will eventually go narrow band, just like it will probably eventually go digital. Just not today.

 

[nd5y]

With the rules proposing to allow FRS to use higher power on the upper FRS channels,

That is incorrect. The 467 MHz interstitial channels will still be limited to 500 mW.

 

[12dbsinad]

Either way, with natural attrition, wide band radios are going away. In many cases have already gone away.
Wide band entitlement keys, W-licenses, etc. are not something that the average user is going to do. Eventually the manufacturers are going to stop supporting it.

GMRS will eventually go narrow band, just like it will probably eventually go digital. Just not today.

Users can use wide or narrowband. The mandate of just narrowband only at this point for GMRS gains no additional spectrum and really no benefit, just reduced modulation and reduced equipment performance. Yes, it will help with FRS bleed over, but, use of narrowband on GMRS can still be utilized if this problem is a concern.

Eventually GMRS "could" go away so to speak... I am just happy it is still available as a high power service, for now.

 

[n1das]

Users can use wide or narrowband. The mandate of just narrowband only at this point for GMRS gains no additional spectrum and really no benefit, just reduced modulation and reduced equipment performance. Yes, it will help with FRS bleed over, but, use of narrowband on GMRS can still be utilized if this problem is a concern.

I haven't noticed reduced equipment performance. The receivers in my modern Part 90/95 equipment seem to have slightly better sensitivity in narrow mode. The receiver in narrow mode is tightened up in addition to the transmittter deviation being cut in half. I use narrowband on the GMRS primaries and on my repeaters. All of my adjacent channel splatter problems from bubble pack users on upper FRS channels adjacent to the repeater input went away as soon as I switched my repeaters from wide to narrow. I've also had cases of local bubble pack users in my neighborhood and 12.5kHz away from whatever GMRS primary channel I'm listening on splatter over to it because my Part 90/95 equipment was still set in wide mode. All of my adjacent channel splatter problems from local bubble pack users completely went away after switching everything to narrow mode on all GMRS channels.

Having wide mode capability in part 90/95 dual certified equipment potentially creates a problem going forward for new Part 90 equipment. Having wide mode capability effectively would preclude Part 90/95 dual certification because it would preclude Part 90 equipment from being granted Part 90 certification due having wide capability. IIRC, new Part 90 equipment is now required or soon will be required to be narrow-only. A possible work around acceptable to the FCC might be for new Part 90/95 dual certified equipment to have wide capability only on the GMRS primary channels.

Wide mode is slowly going away whether we like it or not.

 

[n1das]

That is incorrect. The 467 MHz interstitial channels will still be limited to 500 mW.

D'Oh! I stand corrected.

 

[N9PBD]

I haven't noticed reduced equipment performance. The receivers in my modern Part 90/95 equipment seem to have slightly better sensitivity in narrow mode. The receiver in narrow mode is tightened up in addition to the transmittter deviation being cut in half. I use narrowband on the GMRS primaries and on my repeaters. All of my adjacent channel splatter problems from bubble pack users on upper FRS channels adjacent to the repeater input went away as soon as I switched my repeaters from wide to narrow. I've also had cases of local bubble pack users in my neighborhood and 12.5kHz away from whatever GMRS primary channel I'm listening on splatter over to it because my Part 90/95 equipment was still set in wide mode. All of my adjacent channel splatter problems from local bubble pack users completely went away after switching everything to narrow mode on all GMRS channels.

Having wide mode capability in part 90/95 dual certified equipment potentially creates a problem going forward for new Part 90 equipment. Having wide mode capability effectively would preclude Part 90/95 dual certification because it would preclude Part 90 equipment from being granted Part 90 certification due having wide capability. IIRC, new Part 90 equipment is now required or soon will be required to be narrow-only. A possible work around acceptable to the FCC might be for new Part 90/95 dual certified equipment to have wide capability only on the GMRS primary channels.

Wide mode is slowly going away whether we like it or not.

David,

Here's a link that explains why normal (wide) deviation FM has better performance than narrow band. Although it's aimed at the survivalist bunch, it is a very clear and well done explanation. https://radiofreeq.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/fm-versus-nfm-for-best-radio-communications/

73, Greg