That does not mean that there are no interested parties for VHF-high and UHF spectrum, as we see with AST Space Mobile.
-
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.
Proposal to FCC for VHF Low Band Channels on GMRS and FRS
- Thread starter W8UU
- Start date
- Status
d119
Patch & Channels Clear...
*big sigh*
I'm not going to argue with you about this, Don, it serves no purpose to keyboard warrior back and forth with you, you clearly know more than I do. I could post all about my industry affiliations and what I do for a living, and what I know that you don't, but you'd just pick it apart.
I know your type, based on your signature, you're incapable of rational debate. I do, however, thank you kindly for the wonderful idea for a signature here on the board, I previously had none.
You win. You're right, I'm wrong. I know nothing of what I speak, I'm just a dumb ham. You can always tell a ham, but you can't tell 'em much. Feel better?
Last edited:
With that being the case, maybe we should confine this conversation to what the petitioner is asking for and not go off on further tangents about amateur radio frequencies, TV channels, etc.
KF0NYL
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2023
- Messages
- 228
All of us that have used the low VHF band in the military or use the 6m amateur band will tell you that using 46 or 49 MHz ill not be the end all beat all fix the petitioners think it will be.
Is there a use for 46 or 49 MHz for Part 95 or even expanding the 6m band a little? Yes but only if done correctly.
Is there a use for 46 or 49 MHz for Part 95 or even expanding the 6m band a little? Yes but only if done correctly.
It's also been pointed out already that the petitioners could test the viability of the radio service they are proposing by running tests on 6 meters. Many/most REACT members are also hams. Nothing wrong with testing a theory. Plus, the emergency-type comms they are concerned with are obviously allowed on amateur frequencies.
Or, the frequencies in the 30-50 MHz range for which they already have Part 90 licenses.
Don_Burke
Member
As a ham for over 30 years, I am actually saddened.
That's a great signature. It suits you well.
Ok I'm ready for the new channels....well if I can figure out how to mount this....
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
No, but it's sure starting to smell like it.
Those look amazing at 200' on a guyed metal tower.
I was part of the ground crew when one was installed for 39.62 MHz. Worked like a champ.
The finger muscles haven't been flexed in the mirror yet
Don_Burke
Member
I am looking for a way to track the petition.
The docket number just leads to the "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative.
Well, now that’s out of everyone’s system… If you read the proposal and actually research what is being asked, it makes perfect sense. Honestly, it’s the only sensible path forward (right now) to get Low Band added to a service.
Granted, it isn’t a perfect path, because in an ideal world you could just magically POOF a perfectly harmonious RF spectrum where everyone followed the rules, every user had a neat little slice without interference or congestion, and everything just worked everywhere, all the time. But we don’t live in that world.
For full disclosure, I helped review and participated in the proposal. Is National Capital Communications some whacker REACT group? I mean, c’mon—how many radio enthusiasts have more than one antenna on their vehicle? Or had their wife complain about “wires and poles” in the yard? The admin team responsible for the proposal is a very small but talented group of professionals, engineers, and yes, some enthusiastic operators too. Dr. Trahos, the FCC liaison who authored the proposal—among many other roles in the radio world—oversaw Region 20 for the rollout of current public safety 700/800 MHz trunked systems. Dr. T is not a newcomer to radio or GMRS. If you were to do a search of EVERY active GMRS in order of grant date, oldest first he would be something like number 32. Take out the old grandfathered business licenses and might make the top 10 oldest GMRS licenses. So in revised HAM terms that would make him like a OG 'elmer'. Grand Elmer? Anyway you get the point.
Yes, the proposal might look a little clunky at first glance, but there’s a valid method to the madness if you actually do some research. Keyboard warriors and naysayers without a clear understanding of how and why this evolved are to be expected, I suppose. But I think you’ll be surprised at some of the behind-the-scenes supporters who have had influential roles in the FCC and radio communications in general.
If you’ve never dealt with government agencies on an administrative level, it’s not an easy process. Agencies have policies and procedures they must adhere to, plus internal guidance, not to mention politics and bureaucracy. The FCC is no different.
Any time a decision has to be made, an agency prefers to choose “yes/no” with as minimal impact or change as possible. Policy and procedural changes cost money. The bigger the change, the bigger the cost. Agencies don’t want to waste budget resources on major changes unless there’s a significant goal to accomplish. So any change must always have more “bang” than the cost of the “bucks.”
Summation: The scope of the change has to be narrow enough to make it worth doing.
“Just get your ham ticket—this is unnecessary!”
YES—If everyone in the country had their Amateur License, the equipment, the knowledge, and the ability to use a VFO radio correctly, then sure, maybe this would be redundant. But we don’t live in that world.
“CB does everything this proposal wants to accomplish.”
No. And that should be obvious.
“It’ll just end up like CB (a zoo).”
Idiots are going to be idiots. That can happen on any band/frequency (see 40/80 meters for reference).
Tinfoil hat guy: “They’re coming for the HAM spectrum!”
No, Chicken Little—we are not touching a single Amateur frequency.
“Low Band isn’t magic like the proposers think…”
Whoever consulted Madame Cleo for the mind-reading, I hope you didn’t overpay. We certainly don’t think Low Band is a cure-all. Depending on terrain, clutter, foliage, or urbanization, Low Band can have worse propagation than UHF. Add in atmospheric noise and interference—we know. (See: RF engineers on the team.) Saying Low Band is “best” would be like saying a #3 Phillips screwdriver is the best screwdriver ever just because it’s bigger. Tools are situational. RF is no different.
“There’s no equipment available, and manufacturers won’t be interested.”
We already have letters of intent from companies that say otherwise. They can’t be disclosed yet to prevent sabotage (which, yes, has already happened in another context).
“Low Band antennas are big!”
CB antennas are bigger. Next.
“The proposal isn’t well thought out, the frequencies don’t make sense.”
We’ll get to that.
“300 Watts is insane! Maybe 60W, but not 300.”
If you can only see 60W, then you can’t see past your nose. Yes, that was a bit facetious—but think about it.
This isn’t for “flamethrower repeaters.” 300W is a hard-stop power limit, not a requirement. With an 8 MHz split between input/output, you need extra filtering, separation, circulators, etc. Dual-antenna repeater setups at Low Band require significant pass/reject filtering, which creates 3–4 dB loss before the TX antenna. That means the repeater ends up with only a marginally better EIRP than a 100W base station. The power limit simply makes sure the system remains practical.
Will the average person be able to build such a system? Absolutely not. But that’s the point—it requires enough technical knowledge that anyone doing it will also respect adjacent spectrum.
“Why not expand MURS or give MURS more power?”
Because VHF high band is crowded, and public safety has priority there. No real room left. More power would just create bigger splatter.
“Why not make it its own service instead of modifying GMRS?”
Regulatory cost, plain and simple. GMRS already exists, with licensing and family-use rules. That’s an easier sell.
“Would different simplex or repeater pairs make more sense?”
Yes—but not feasible. The proposal reuses established pairs already carved out, reallocating them for voice. The 300W rule already exists in Part 15/22 (cordless phones and paging). It’s much easier to ask, “Can we clean up and repurpose this?” than to dismantle and rebuild something new.
Honestly, 99.99% of this will just be simplex on recycled LB channels. It gives the average person:
This isn’t just a random idea—it’s actively moving through the FCC process, and honestly, it’s the best chance to get Low Band VHF into public use.
Do we need this? No. Between the group and our businesses, we already have enough spectrum—including Low Band—for whatever we want. We’ve been running a LB network in three states since January, with advanced features like AI health monitoring, automatic alerts, self-healing IP backhaul, remote power cycling, and even satellite failover. We don’t need this proposal for ourselves.
This is about providing the general public with a tool other than:
If you support it, help us. Spread the word. If not, that’s fine too. At least now you understand it better.
Granted, it isn’t a perfect path, because in an ideal world you could just magically POOF a perfectly harmonious RF spectrum where everyone followed the rules, every user had a neat little slice without interference or congestion, and everything just worked everywhere, all the time. But we don’t live in that world.
For full disclosure, I helped review and participated in the proposal. Is National Capital Communications some whacker REACT group? I mean, c’mon—how many radio enthusiasts have more than one antenna on their vehicle? Or had their wife complain about “wires and poles” in the yard? The admin team responsible for the proposal is a very small but talented group of professionals, engineers, and yes, some enthusiastic operators too. Dr. Trahos, the FCC liaison who authored the proposal—among many other roles in the radio world—oversaw Region 20 for the rollout of current public safety 700/800 MHz trunked systems. Dr. T is not a newcomer to radio or GMRS. If you were to do a search of EVERY active GMRS in order of grant date, oldest first he would be something like number 32. Take out the old grandfathered business licenses and might make the top 10 oldest GMRS licenses. So in revised HAM terms that would make him like a OG 'elmer'. Grand Elmer? Anyway you get the point.
Yes, the proposal might look a little clunky at first glance, but there’s a valid method to the madness if you actually do some research. Keyboard warriors and naysayers without a clear understanding of how and why this evolved are to be expected, I suppose. But I think you’ll be surprised at some of the behind-the-scenes supporters who have had influential roles in the FCC and radio communications in general.
Breaking it down
If you’ve never dealt with government agencies on an administrative level, it’s not an easy process. Agencies have policies and procedures they must adhere to, plus internal guidance, not to mention politics and bureaucracy. The FCC is no different.
Any time a decision has to be made, an agency prefers to choose “yes/no” with as minimal impact or change as possible. Policy and procedural changes cost money. The bigger the change, the bigger the cost. Agencies don’t want to waste budget resources on major changes unless there’s a significant goal to accomplish. So any change must always have more “bang” than the cost of the “bucks.”
Summation: The scope of the change has to be narrow enough to make it worth doing.
Addressing concerns
“Just get your ham ticket—this is unnecessary!”
YES—If everyone in the country had their Amateur License, the equipment, the knowledge, and the ability to use a VFO radio correctly, then sure, maybe this would be redundant. But we don’t live in that world.
“CB does everything this proposal wants to accomplish.”
No. And that should be obvious.
“It’ll just end up like CB (a zoo).”
Idiots are going to be idiots. That can happen on any band/frequency (see 40/80 meters for reference).
Tinfoil hat guy: “They’re coming for the HAM spectrum!”
No, Chicken Little—we are not touching a single Amateur frequency.
“Low Band isn’t magic like the proposers think…”
Whoever consulted Madame Cleo for the mind-reading, I hope you didn’t overpay. We certainly don’t think Low Band is a cure-all. Depending on terrain, clutter, foliage, or urbanization, Low Band can have worse propagation than UHF. Add in atmospheric noise and interference—we know. (See: RF engineers on the team.) Saying Low Band is “best” would be like saying a #3 Phillips screwdriver is the best screwdriver ever just because it’s bigger. Tools are situational. RF is no different.
“There’s no equipment available, and manufacturers won’t be interested.”
We already have letters of intent from companies that say otherwise. They can’t be disclosed yet to prevent sabotage (which, yes, has already happened in another context).
“Low Band antennas are big!”
CB antennas are bigger. Next.
“The proposal isn’t well thought out, the frequencies don’t make sense.”
We’ll get to that.
“300 Watts is insane! Maybe 60W, but not 300.”
If you can only see 60W, then you can’t see past your nose. Yes, that was a bit facetious—but think about it.
This isn’t for “flamethrower repeaters.” 300W is a hard-stop power limit, not a requirement. With an 8 MHz split between input/output, you need extra filtering, separation, circulators, etc. Dual-antenna repeater setups at Low Band require significant pass/reject filtering, which creates 3–4 dB loss before the TX antenna. That means the repeater ends up with only a marginally better EIRP than a 100W base station. The power limit simply makes sure the system remains practical.
Will the average person be able to build such a system? Absolutely not. But that’s the point—it requires enough technical knowledge that anyone doing it will also respect adjacent spectrum.
“Why not expand MURS or give MURS more power?”
Because VHF high band is crowded, and public safety has priority there. No real room left. More power would just create bigger splatter.
“Why not make it its own service instead of modifying GMRS?”
Regulatory cost, plain and simple. GMRS already exists, with licensing and family-use rules. That’s an easier sell.
“Would different simplex or repeater pairs make more sense?”
Yes—but not feasible. The proposal reuses established pairs already carved out, reallocating them for voice. The 300W rule already exists in Part 15/22 (cordless phones and paging). It’s much easier to ask, “Can we clean up and repurpose this?” than to dismantle and rebuild something new.
Practical use
Honestly, 99.99% of this will just be simplex on recycled LB channels. It gives the average person:
- A simple radio setup
- Better coverage in challenging areas
- No interference with HAM users
- A bit of self-reliance for families
Recap
- Direct reuse of existing frequency structure and power allocations.
- No impact to Amateur Radio allocations.
- No impact to public safety, military, or active commercial bands.
- Minimal regulatory changes.
- Manufacturer endorsements.
- Provides both simplex and repeater options.
- Still requires licensing.
- If you don’t like it—don’t use it.
This isn’t just a random idea—it’s actively moving through the FCC process, and honestly, it’s the best chance to get Low Band VHF into public use.
Do we need this? No. Between the group and our businesses, we already have enough spectrum—including Low Band—for whatever we want. We’ve been running a LB network in three states since January, with advanced features like AI health monitoring, automatic alerts, self-healing IP backhaul, remote power cycling, and even satellite failover. We don’t need this proposal for ourselves.
This is about providing the general public with a tool other than:
- “CB”
- “Get your ham ticket”
- “Add more repeaters”
If you support it, help us. Spread the word. If not, that’s fine too. At least now you understand it better.
Now we know the other side. To avoid another 15 pages of rinse, wash, repeat I'm closing this. If it goes anywhere we can reopen or make a new thread.
- Status
