Proposal to FCC for VHF Low Band Channels on GMRS and FRS

[mmckenna]

So much written here on a proposal that has about 0.1875% chance of moving forward. We should spend our time on something that might actually happen...like landing hams on the moon.

"When all was said and done, a lot more was said than done."

 

[kc2asb]

So much written here on a proposal that has about 0.1875% chance of moving forward. We should spend our time on something that might actually happen...like landing hams on the moon.

There you go. There were hams that piloted or were crew members aboard space shuttle. Why not send them on the moon? The ultimate DX-pedition.

 

[Don_Burke]

No argument at all, but I cannot wrap my head around the vitriol that some hams have about low band GMRS. Some hams feel threatened by this proposal. No one ever suggested that low band GMRS would take away from the ham bands or throw shade on the great work hams do every day. I just don't get it.



No, and No.

The utility and need of GMRS (and before that, Class A Citizens Radio Service) was largely unproven until the mid 1990s. That was 35+ years of an under-performing, lightly used, licensed radio service that operated almost entirely off used radio equipment from the commercial market. GMRS took off when the service was marketed by user groups and manufacturers. Today, it's still sparsely used in many parts of the country and jam packed full in other places.

A low band GMRS service would theoretically start the same way. Used radio equipment and sparsely populated until a national group started pushing the merits and marketing the benefits of low band GMRS. With the internet and social media, that group could start on day one of the new frequencies are approved.

For current GMRS users, this is easy. Your license is automatically updated with all the low band frequencies. There is no new service. No new license. No additional fees. I am KAE-9978 on UHF GMRS, and if I chose to buy the radios, I would be KAE-9978 on 49 MHz.

Finally, more robust repeaters won't fix anything if you can't get a good repeater site where you live. It won't fix anything if you cannot afford a multicast system with voted receivers because the hills and valleys play hell on single site UHF repeaters and even worse on simplex. Low band GMRS works better with this topography and, while not perfect, the signal travels better and further at 49 MHz than it does at 462 MHz. That's simple physics.



I'm not a huge fan of low band repeaters because they cost a lot more (than VHF, UHF, 800, et al) to do them right. There is a need for advanced technical expertise on low band that isn't always necessary with the plug-and-play repeater systems on UHF. With that said, maybe eight repeater pairs won't be a bad addition to my draft. I worry about losing talk-around and the ability to operate simplex when you have a 3 MHz split on transmit/receive but that works better for duplexers and dual antenna repeater installs.



And sadly, you are likely correct on your prediction. This was a poorly researched and written petition but still a good idea.

No argument at all, but I cannot wrap my head around the vitriol that some hams have about low band GMRS. Some hams feel threatened by this proposal. No one ever suggested that low band GMRS would take away from the ham bands or throw shade on the great work hams do every day. I just don't get it.

Some hams get pretty territorial...even when there is no actual territory involved.

You'll find many hams upset about a particularly crappy ham band that was taken away before most of them were born. Some might remember the attempt to take 220 away.

The utility and need of GMRS (and before that, Class A Citizens Radio Service) was largely unproven until the mid 1990s. That was 35+ years of an under-performing, lightly used, licensed radio service that operated almost entirely off used radio equipment from the commercial market. GMRS took off when the service was marketed by user groups and manufacturers. Today, it's still sparsely used in many parts of the country and jam packed full in other places.

None of that addresses whether a low VHF GMRS band will see much use in the days of Zello.

A low band GMRS service would theoretically start the same way. Used radio equipment and sparsely populated until a national group started pushing the merits and marketing the benefits of low band GMRS. With the internet and social media, that group could start on day one of the new frequencies are approved.

As I said, the utility of the band is largely theoretical.

I suspect any "national group" would not make much of a splash in these days of advertising saturation.

Are you talking about something like how MURS took off like gangbusters? Most people have never heard of it.

Which manufacturer is going to push a low VHF GMRS band?

Finally, more robust repeaters won't fix anything if you can't get a good repeater site where you live. It won't fix anything if you cannot afford a multicast system with voted receivers because the hills and valleys play hell on single site UHF repeaters and even worse on simplex. Low band GMRS works better with this topography and, while not perfect, the signal travels better and further at 49 MHz than it does at 462 MHz. That's simple physics.

Oh, I have no doubt a low band VHF system will outperform a simple UHF system.

The key question will be whether it is enough better to get the job done. I have my doubts and I suspect others do as well. Perhaps showing the results of some testing on six meters will clarify things.

I'm not a huge fan of low band repeaters because they cost a lot more (than VHF, UHF, 800, et al) to do them right. There is a need for advanced technical expertise on low band that isn't always necessary with the plug-and-play repeater systems on UHF. With that said, maybe eight repeater pairs won't be a bad addition to my draft. I worry about losing talk-around and the ability to operate simplex when you have a 3 MHz split on transmit/receive but that works better for duplexers and dual antenna repeater installs.

Performance costs. I suspect you are going to need repeaters whether you want them or not.

Class A started with just the eight repeater pairs with simplex on the repeater outputs. The interstitial channels were added later. Building the simplex channels into the plan might be the best way so you could use them at full power.

I think too much is being made of the frequency separations. If designing an RF deck that covers a wide range of frequencies is too hard, design a radio with multiple RF decks.

This was a poorly researched and written petition but still a good idea.

The "good idea" portion remains to be seen. The petition reads like the authors spend too much time talking the idea up and not enough time with boots on the ground.

 

[Don_Burke]

Why should the FCC consider adding VHF low to GMRS? The FCC would do better changing the current Rules and Regulations to channel 08 through 14 to go from 0.5watts to a full 2 watts, but that's not likely to happen.

It's not unusual for a radio system to have low power channels. It allows reuse of channels at a closer spacing.

I think a power increase on those channels would be a bad thing.

 

[hill]

Issue is that that channels 8-14 are interleaved between the GMRS repeater inputs. With GMRS using wide deviation, there's risk that an FRS radio running more than a little bit of power and being slightly off frequency would interfere with the repeaters.
[/QUOTE

Glad these are low power.

We enough problems with a group of Hispanics transmitting on our GMRS repeater input frequency causing havoc with the repeater users during the weekly net.

 

[GlobalNorth]

At one point, CB was the authorized distributor for screaming, cursing, and playing music. Failure to enforce their license has resulted in unauthorized copies floating around HF...

This is no exaggeration. There's a licensed amateur on 2 meters in Phoenix who cannot stop saying "See ya on the flip side, Roger..roger, and other CBisms. I suspect he wants a 1977 Pontiac TransAm in black and only watches one movie.

When I drive to Phoenix, I look for another repeater as he is, in my radio VFO, "the most annoying man in the world".

 

[Chris155]

This is no exaggeration. There's a licensed amateur on 2 meters in Phoenix who cannot stop saying "See ya on the flip side, Roger..roger, and other CBisms. I suspect he wants a 1977 Pontiac TransAm in black and only watches one movie.

When I drive to Phoenix, I look for another repeater as he is, in my radio VFO, "the most annoying man in the world".

Fow-tenn, bump bump, we reading the mail

 

[GlobalNorth]

How will the LowBanders put a 9 foot whip antenna on a Honda Ridgeline, a Kia Rio, a Tesla model Y, or a Subaru?

 

[kc2asb]

How will the LowBanders put a 9 foot whip antenna on a Honda Ridgeline, a Kia Rio, a Tesla model Y, or a Subaru?

I thought a lot of the REACT guys drove Crown Vics.

 

[mmckenna]

How will the LowBanders put a 9 foot whip antenna on a Honda Ridgeline, a Kia Rio, a Tesla model Y, or a Subaru?

They won't.
As soon as this radio service gets approved, the "low profile" 15dB gain 10" tall "don't tell the FCC you own this antenna, they'll hate you" low band mag mount antennas fed with RG-174 will hit Amazon, and we'll spend the next couple of years explaining to all the new raydeoh teks that you can't cram 49MHz into a 10" tall antenna.

 

[K9KLC]

There you go. There were hams that piloted or were crew members aboard space shuttle. Why not send them on the moon? The ultimate DX-pedition.

MOTA!!!

 

[hanlonmi06]

Thanks for the responses- i think the point i was trying to illustrate is, "reliable em-comms for my (non technical) family" that has actual real world range of operation is what a lot of people want, but it simply doesn't exist. er-go, get your ticket, as others have illustrate, the ham bands solve many, if not all the problems pretty readily if one is willing to put in the work.

I do appreciate a lot of the technical comments because i definitely was of the camp thinking, heck, i can slap together some VHF-lo gear and make it work.......but it wont!

 

[K6GBW]

Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box or notionalizing a new service. Over the last thirty years the FCC seems to have shifted from making services that work to being a fee collection agency for the government. These days they really don't do much other than sit their with their hand out.

The need for a real-world usable radio service makes sense. The problem we keep running into is that some people will take a service meant for communicating within a limited 5-10 miles range and they try and turn it into something else. GMRS was really meant to be a small repeater radio service to cover limited areas. But, people started linking them and creating havoc. The CB radio was meant to do the same, but the guys with the need to compensate bought huge amps and destroyed it.

Today, the best chance to get what you are thinking of is to propably take the MURS channels and add to them. Specify NO freaking data, narrow FM only and add a "few" watts to make it usable. The old AAA frequencies really aren't used anymore. There is only one license on them in the entire state of California. Those five frequencies could be rolled into the MURS service and the power raised to about 10-15 watts and it would work well for local use. But the FCC has no motivation to do something like that unless there's money in it for them.

Old AAA Frequencies: 150.905 - 150.920 - 150-935 - 150.950 - 150.965

 

[ecps92]

Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box or notionalizing a new service. Over the last thirty years the FCC seems to have shifted from making services that work to being a fee collection agency for the government. These days they really don't do much other than sit their with their hand out.

The need for a real-world usable radio service makes sense. The problem we keep running into is that some people will take a service meant for communicating within a limited 5-10 miles range and they try and turn it into something else. GMRS was really meant to be a small repeater radio service to cover limited areas. But, people started linking them and creating havoc. The CB radio was meant to do the same, but the guys with the need to compensate bought huge amps and distroyed it.

Today, the best chance to get what you are thinking of is to propably take the MURS channels and add to them. Specify NO freaking data, narrow FM only and add a "few" watts to make it usable. The old AAA frequencies really aren't used anymore. There is only one license on them in the entire state of California. Those five frequencies could be rolled into the MURS service and the power raised to about 10-15 watts and it would work well for local use. But the FCC has no motivation to do something like that unless there's money in it for them.

Old AAA Frequencies: 150.905 - 150.920 - 150-935 - 150.950 - 150.965

Depends on where you are. Those ole AAA are being re-used for Non towing purposes (Part 90)

 

[K6GBW]

Just like it has done many times before, the FCC would obviously need to create a service start date and a retired date for any old licenses. But it is completely doable. Even the one license out here in California (it's in Burbank) isn't being used. The cellphone has taken over. But again, this is all academic because the FCC won't debride their posterior unless there is money in it for them.

 

[Don_Burke]

How will the LowBanders put a 9 foot whip antenna on a Honda Ridgeline, a Kia Rio, a Tesla model Y, or a Subaru?

I'd expect a bumper mount to work in most cases.

What does a nine foot whip have to do with the frequencies we have been talking about?

 

[rescuecomm]

Is there a technical impediment to using the DMR single channel repeater system on VHF Low? TS1 receive and TS2 transmit with no duplexer? It is conceivable that a "package" GMRS low band radio with the UHF GMRS radio built in as a vehicle remote could be made with channels/mode selected from a front panel. Surely people that use modern smart phones could operate it. The low band antenna length will be a problem. One hundred watt radios won't work on the cigarette lighter plug for sure.

 

[KF0NYL]

What does a nine foot whip have to do with the frequencies we have been talking about?

Most mobile antennas are either a 1/4 wavelength of a 1/2 wavelength. Sometimes people will use a 5/8 wave antenna for mobile use which adds to the overall length. The average 1/4 wave CB antenna is 8.5 feet long. A 1/2 wave CB antenna would be around 17 feet.

Here are the numbers for antenna lengths: for 46 and 49 MHz

• 46 MHz - 1/4 wave = 5.09 feet, 1/2 wave = 10.17 feet
• 49 MHz - 1/4 wave = 4.78 feet, 1/2 wave = 9.55 feet

Here is the antenna length for the middle of the 6m band 50-54 MHz

• 50 MHZ - 1/4 wave = 4.68 ft. 1/2 wave = 9.36 ft
• 52 MHz - 1/4 wave = 4.5 ft, 1/2 wave = 9.00 ft
• 54 MHz - 1/4 wave = 4.33 ft, 1/2 wave = 8.67 ft

Antennas can be made short by using loading coils. But a non loaded coil would be the above lengths for them to be resonant and have a low SWR.

Now one could use a 1/8 wave antenna with a good ground plane but that is still going to be around 2- 2.5 feet long. Anything short than that will be very inefficient.

 

[K6GBW]

I haven't seen a car that a bumper mount would work on in decades. Quarter wave antennas for 49 MHz are just under 5 feet tall, so with coil loading they can be made pretty small. DMR would technically be possible on low band, but the signal fading would make it less than ideal. NFM or FM would be much easier to manage.

 

[Don_Burke]

Most mobile antennas are either a 1/4 wavelength of a 1/2 wavelength. Sometimes people will use a 5/8 wave antenna for mobile use which adds to the overall length. The average 1/4 wave CB antenna is 8.5 feet long. A 1/2 wave CB antenna would be around 17 feet.

Here are the numbers for antenna lengths: for 46 and 49 MHz

• 46 MHz - 1/4 wave = 5.09 feet, 1/2 wave = 10.17 feet
• 49 MHz - 1/4 wave = 4.78 feet, 1/2 wave = 9.55 feet

Here is the antenna length for the middle of the 6m band 50-54 MHz

• 50 MHZ - 1/4 wave = 4.68 ft. 1/2 wave = 9.36 ft
• 52 MHz - 1/4 wave = 4.5 ft, 1/2 wave = 9.00 ft
• 54 MHz - 1/4 wave = 4.33 ft, 1/2 wave = 8.67 ft

Antennas can be made short by using loading coils. But a non loaded coil would be the above lengths for them to be resonant and have a low SWR.

Now one could use a 1/8 wave antenna with a good ground plane but that is still going to be around 2- 2.5 feet long. Anything short than that will be very inefficient.

I have found half wave antennas too finicky for mobile use. I would not consider one for low band VHF, which is the subject at hand.