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

[Don_Burke]

GMRS and FRS: FCC petitioned for VHF low-band channels

Long-time GMRS licensee asks FCC to give 30-50 MHz frequencies for personal use

natcommag.substack.com

I would think a second set of MURS channels would be a better use for this.

This would also be a great opportunity to lighten up on the MURS type-acceptance rules.

 

[kc2asb]

I would think a second set of MURS channels would be a better use for this.

This would also be a great opportunity to lighten up on the MURS type-acceptance rules.

MURS currently has five frequencies available to it, IIRC. Is demand sufficient to justify adding that much more spectrum?

 

[nokones]

MURS currently has five frequencies available to it, IIRC. Is demand sufficient to justify adding that much more spectrum?

Since, the channels are low power and simplex only with antenna height limitations for base stations, I don't believe there is justification for additional channels.

 

[Don_Burke]

GMRS and FRS: FCC petitioned for VHF low-band channels

Long-time GMRS licensee asks FCC to give 30-50 MHz frequencies for personal use

natcommag.substack.com

Does anyone here have a way to look up the petition?
I would like to read the original.

 

[Don_Burke]

MURS currently has five frequencies available to it, IIRC. Is demand sufficient to justify adding that much more spectrum?

I consider the entering argument to be that the existing private radio services need some additional capability that VHF low can provide.

In that case, the rules for the additional channels would have to go _somewhere_ and I think MURS would be a better choice than GMRS or CB.

MURS is crippled by the type-acceptance rules. It is only recently that a MURS mobile radio has been readily available.

 

[K6GBW]

MURS is crippled by the fact that the FCC allows data on it. So, at least near any big cities or towns it’s a squawking mess and nearly unusable for voice communications. The should add about 15 more frequencies, up the power to 15 watts and keep it NFM only. Then it would be a decent replacement for CB, with decent usable range, and without the nonsense that we currently enjoy. Low Band…is just a pain to use…period.

 

[nd5y]

Does anyone here have a way to look up the petition?
I would like to read the original.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10425259046292/1

 

[Don_Burke]

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10425259046292/1

Thank you

 

[mmckenna]

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10425259046292/1

The more I read, the worse it gets.

 

[kc2asb]

The more I read, the worse it gets.

It's likely going right into the round file. FRS only got traction because Tandy/Radio Shack was behind it and other manufacturers jumped on the band wagon. This REACT group doesn't carry that kind of weight with the FCC.

 

[Chris155]

Is 8 mhz split really practical with available mobile or handheld radios & antennas?

 

[nd5y]

Is 8 mhz split really practical with available mobile or handheld radios & antennas?

It depends on the band.

 

[mmckenna]

Is 8 mhz split really practical with available mobile or handheld radios & antennas?

That will be a challenge.

Portable radios are going to suck. Same reason hand held CB's suck. Inefficient antennas and lack of suitable counterpoise will be a bit issue.
On mobiles, getting 8MHz out of a reasonable antenna is going to be a challenge. Running a full 1/4 wave on 35MHz is going to look pretty dorky for most people.

These are all issues that low band has consistently had, all issues complained about by agencies running low band, and something that has been overlooked.

 

[Don_Burke]

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10425259046292/1

Reading the petition, it looks like the scenario is that someone would buy and install a unique radio (for a service in a band that many commercial users have abandoned for good reasons) just in case the cell network goes down and nothing else can pick up the slack.

The scenario calls for long range simplex operation in a service that mainly consists of repeater pairs.

Is that a fair assessment?

I am thinking a few channels in two HF bands would address the given problem better.

I am also thinking that figuring out a way to keep GMRS repeaters online would be more likely to be useful in more likely scenarios.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Is 8 mhz split really practical with available mobile or handheld radios & antennas?

LB antennas seem to range between 1.5 and 3 % BW which is a problem. On the RX side the VSWR is not that big an issue. On the TX side, though the repeater input can be tuned, talk around will be a problem.
I am struggling to find an antenna that will span 26.965 to 29.7 MHz. It is just not there.

These Laird antennas are the best you can do provided they are available in stock. I have been trying to get a CW27 and they are NLA. The CW42 may still be available for CHP. But then, nothing for the lowly Part 95 crowd.




As far as handhelds, very impractical.

 

[MTS2000des]

Every time I see nonsense like this, I shake my head. All these sad ham types want exceptions, create a "new" band, more whackerism. Meanwhile, all the stuff people WANT to do radio wise can be done by simply getting a ham ticket: Part 97 has it all:

DC to daylight spectrum allocations with PLENTY of room for all. ALL LEGAL no rule changes needed.
Up to 1500 watts of power ALL LEGAL
AM/FM/SSB/CW/NXDN/DMR/P25/YSF/D-Star/M-17/FT-8 etc ALL LEGAL
Repeater/internet linking/VoIP/Radio gateways ALL LEGAL

But yet, our bands devoid of activity. Why not 6 meters? Pretty sad affairs when hams quit being hams. Just saying.

 

[W8UU]

Every time I see nonsense like this, I shake my head. All these sad ham types want exceptions, create a "new" band, more whackerism. Meanwhile, all the stuff people WANT to do radio wise can be done by simply getting a ham ticket: Part 97 has it all.

The problem is that ham operators can only communicate with other ham operators on ham bands. The beauty of GMRS, FRS, MURS, business band, etc. is that the license covers any family member or someone authorized by the business licensee to use the equipment. I can give my kids a GMRS portable when we're camping and they can legally communicate with me. My 10 year old may not have the interest and desire to sit for a written examination so he can get a ham license and talk to me when we camp. If everyone in your family and circle of friends is a licensed ham, then the problem is solved -- but that's almost never the case.

 

[W8UU]

I'm probably in the minority, but I think VHF low band GMRS is a good idea. Low band should be simplex only, base and mobile, and the 100 watt RF output is good. No repeaters. Stay away from the Part 22 frequencies. And choose 43, 46, or 49 MHz (pick one) and establish the service there. You'll play hell finding a mobile radio and antenna system that can tune across everything in the petitioner's proposal. And leave FRS alone on the interstitial UHF frequencies until they can someday be re-homed elsewhere.

 

[kc2asb]

I'm probably in the minority, but I think VHF low band GMRS is a good idea. Low band should be simplex only, base and mobile, and the 100 watt RF output is good. No repeaters. Stay away from the Part 22 frequencies. And choose 43, 46, or 49 MHz (pick one) and establish the service there. You'll play hell finding a mobile radio and antenna system that can tune across everything in the petitioner's proposal.

I don't think it's a bad idea, but like others here, I just question if its needed with all of the existing personal radio services. Power output is fine, but it should provide for the use of repeaters. They're great on 6 meters, so why not here too? Agree with choosing one of those three bands mentioned, not shooting for all of them

And leave FRS alone on the interstitial UHF frequencies until they can someday be re-homed elsewhere.

FRS should stay where it is. These radios have been on the market for over 25 years and there are scores of them in the hands of the public. Plus, where is the service going to be relocated to? UHF is well-suited low power handhelds.

 

[W8UU]

I don't think it's a bad idea, but like others here, I just question if its needed with all of the existing personal radio services. Power output is fine, but it should provide for the use of repeaters. They're great on 6 meters, so why not here too? Agree with choosing one of those three bands mentioned, not shooting for all of them

I just think repeaters on low band are clunky. Duplexers the size of a filing cabinet or split site TX/RX with all the linking complexities. It's difficult to get a low band mobile to go more than 0.5 MHz from one transmit frequency to another, so you'll either need a close frequency spread between transmit and receive for the repeater, or you'll need to forget having talk-around.

Hams are in tune with all these technicalities -- in fact, many of them live for it. GMRS users are more of a communications device consumer that wants a non-technical, plug-and-play arrangement. If you truly want and need the long distance rural communications advantage that low band provides, simplex is the easiest and simplest way to go. Go to Channel L4, dial in your CTCSS code, and start talking. Just raw RF power and a good antenna for base to mobile or mobile to mobile communications.

FRS should stay where it is. These radios have been on the market for over 25 years and there are scores of them in the hands of the public. Plus, where is the service going to be relocated to? UHF is well-suited low power handhelds.

For now -- YES. Leave FRS alone. I never agreed with overlaying FRS onto GMRS spectrum. In that perfect radio world that exists only in my head, FRS would be eventually be relocated to some tiny unused sliver of the 220 or 440-470 band, maybe increasing the RF power to 1 watt ERP. This would also remove the FRS interference from UHF GMRS channels. Sunset the existing UHF FRS equipment out of existence like the FCC did for the 49 MHz cordless phones and baby monitors. Lots of problems solved there.