• 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.

Proposed Changes to GMRS - Comments Link

Status
Not open for further replies.

dksac2

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
327
Location
Idaho
I'd like to see the FCC not regulate them at all. They have no range on FRS, so everyone, licensed or not uses the GMRS channels. The kids will not stop using them no matter what, lots of interfearence in crowded places like amusment parks.

I bought a set of Midlands, like them a lot, but then shortly after got a set of Trisquare radios. No license and they transmit as far as GMRS, no interfearence, total privacy and may other benifits.
I also think $85.00 is too much for a license. Increasing the price will only cause fewer people to get legal. I'm on a limited budgit, I cannot afford to give the government more of my money, it goes against my grain, general class with lots of privlages is one thing, but for radios with very limited range, not unless I have not other choice, they remain for emergency only.
I don't use GMRS at all anymore except to carry in the car for emergancys should I have no cell service and hope someone might be listening.

I did not get the license and so I stayed off the GMRS channels to be legal, with the Trisquare, I don't need to feed the government and can talk just as well.

I'm holding off on getting a license for GMRS to see what happens. In the mean time, me and my friends have all bought Trisquare radios and are happy as can be with them. We are in a slightly sloping valley, can transmit as far a 5+ miles to some due to few homes and trees, great line of sight, it pays to live rural sometimes.
Should the FCC do away with the license fee, I would use both types of radios, but for now, I love my Trisquares, let the GMRS go to the CB crowd, that's where it's headed now unless they make them Freq Hopping like the Trisquare, there is no use in messing with them.

The one in 100 who has bough a license to be legal get mad at those who have not, especially those who abuse and use them to annoy others, the licensed people get mad, reporting to the FCC does nothing, they have bigger fish to fry. I'm just being real, it's the way it is and short of including the price of the license in buying a bubble pack, most will never get a license.
Thankfully, most do not buy the more expensive equipment on other frequencys, if you want to have much more professional communication, go to another freq, GMRS is just the newest CB radio, I wish it were not, but if you take a real look at what is going on with them, it's true.

My Best, John
 

dksac2

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2012
Messages
327
Location
Idaho
I should add to my last post that there is a big difference between quality radios and bubble packs, thing is, the bubble packs do ruin the band quite a bit, that is why I say the band may just turn into another CB type band. If I'm going to spend the money, I'll pick a band with licenced people who for the most part follow the rules.
I don't mean to give those who have spent the money and time to set up a good base and handhold radio set up. I'd like nothing better than to see the band be filled with mature, legal people. Every band should be run right, we only have so many bands to use.
I wish those who do things right nothing but the best. GMSR is not for me, I use Trisquare for low price line of sight radio. No repeaters, but it works for me.

My Best, John
 

mformby

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
167
Location
East Texas
UHF T-Band

That is a great idea to use the T-Band frequencies. I guess the FCC just forgot about those since 800 MHz, digital and P25 were all moved to the front burner. 470 to 512 MHz, with 12.5 MHz spacing would make over 3000 frequencies available.

One of the biggest things the FCC could do is free up the UHF T band for usage since all in that band had gone to digital (for areas that used to have ch 14-18).
 

quarterwave

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
521
Location
TBD
1. No need to narrowband.
2. Eliminate GMRS bubble packs....consumers don't know the difference anyway, let them use FRS.
3. Enforce rules for users with no license.
4. Leave the rest of it alone.
 

vorndamr

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
20
Anybody know if and when the FCC will make up their mind on the purposed changes?

MHO: Lower license cost but keep it, keep the repeaters, leave the rest of the reg alone. Rod
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
83
Location
Scottsbluff, NE 69361
the rules need revamping. we should be allowed to have some form of digital if we choose, repeater linking using part 15 or licensed microwave or internet linking just to name a couple.

part 95 CB and murs could use an overhaul too.

CB need to updated to at least fm if not digital and get a small power increase for fm and/or digital and CB and murs should both be updated to allow for remote control.

we need the remote control allowances as CCR's have made doing radio from most new homes a no no.

allowing for remote control would allow the rig/antenna to be placed outside of the ccr community and be controlled from your home.
 
Last edited:

Dantian

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
141
Anybody know if and when the FCC will make up their mind on the purposed changes?

I inquired about the status of the proceeding, just last week.

The answer from the FCC is that the decision is "awaiting internal review."

That is a way of answering the question without answering it ... that is, without providing information that could actually help the GMRS users understand the situation and what, if anything, could be done about it.

IMHO it means basically one of three things:

1. It is waiting for the Wireless Bureau top leadership to approve it

2. It is waiting for the other FCC bureaus to agree to it. The only other bureau that matters on GMRS is the Enforcement Bureau because they have to enforce the rules that the Wireless Bureau produces.

3. It is waiting to be placed on the Commissioners' desks for their vote. This is called Circulation.

That could take awhile even after circulation because it is doubtful that any Commissioner or their current staff knows what GMRS is.

And it does not mean a public vote at the monthly public meetings at FCC HQ. GMRS is likely viewed as too obscure to deal with through public discussion (CNN cameras are often there, etc.), so the Commissioners vote on circulated items by computer.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I'd like to see the FCC not regulate them at all. They have no range on FRS, so everyone, licensed or not uses the GMRS channels. The kids will not stop using them no matter what, lots of interfearence in crowded places like amusment parks.

I bought a set of Midlands, like them a lot, but then shortly after got a set of Trisquare radios. No license and they transmit as far as GMRS, no interfearence, total privacy and may other benifits.
I also think $85.00 is too much for a license. Increasing the price will only cause fewer people to get legal. I'm on a limited budgit, I cannot afford to give the government more of my money, it goes against my grain, general class with lots of privlages is one thing, but for radios with very limited range, not unless I have not other choice, they remain for emergency only.
I don't use GMRS at all anymore except to carry in the car for emergancys should I have no cell service and hope someone might be listening.

I did not get the license and so I stayed off the GMRS channels to be legal, with the Trisquare, I don't need to feed the government and can talk just as well.

I'm holding off on getting a license for GMRS to see what happens. In the mean time, me and my friends have all bought Trisquare radios and are happy as can be with them. We are in a slightly sloping valley, can transmit as far a 5+ miles to some due to few homes and trees, great line of sight, it pays to live rural sometimes.
Should the FCC do away with the license fee, I would use both types of radios, but for now, I love my Trisquares, let the GMRS go to the CB crowd, that's where it's headed now unless they make them Freq Hopping like the Trisquare, there is no use in messing with them.

The one in 100 who has bough a license to be legal get mad at those who have not, especially those who abuse and use them to annoy others, the licensed people get mad, reporting to the FCC does nothing, they have bigger fish to fry. I'm just being real, it's the way it is and short of including the price of the license in buying a bubble pack, most will never get a license.
Thankfully, most do not buy the more expensive equipment on other frequencys, if you want to have much more professional communication, go to another freq, GMRS is just the newest CB radio, I wish it were not, but if you take a real look at what is going on with them, it's true.

My Best, John

You do realize GMRS has more options than tinker toy radios don't you? If not read the rules about 50 watt repeaters and 50 watt mobile radio you are allowed to use.Some repeaters in Georgia reach well over 100 miles into Alabama and other have range varying from a few miles up to 50 miles or beyond according to height and what kind of system you wish to build,mine which is not but a 6 watt output at this time has 35-40 mile range........
 

SigIntel8600

Communications Receiver Nut
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
443
Location
Pine Barrens
I think Radio reference should help us licensed GMRS users out and separate the FRS and GMRS forum topics. One for FRS and one for GMRS.
 

rescuecomm

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
1,526
Location
Travelers Rest, SC
Sorry, But enforcement = money! You won't see anymore field enforcement than what is there now. That is why they want to make GMRS a walkie talkie service which is what millions of people think it is anyway. I still think there is a need for a UHF local repeater service independent from the cell phone things that can't be outside loaded in times of need.

Bob
 

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,254
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

And a specific forum for MURS while they're at it, if you want seperate FRS & GMRS forums.
Anyway, let's see what, if anything, happens with this NPRM now that a telecom investor has been named as FCC Commissioner...
 
Last edited:

KB7MIB

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
4,254
Location
Peoria, AZ.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; U; en-US) Gecko/20081217 Vision-Browser/8.1 301x200 LG VN530)

They're talking about seperate forums here on RR. One for GMRS, one for FRS, instead of having GMRS/FRS in one. And I suggested having a forum for MURS, as well, since there is none, and MURS topics usually get put in this GMRS/FRS forum.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Maybe the fora should be organized by regulatory status. Part 95, Part 97, etc. Or maybe License Required, Licensed by Rule, No License.
 

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Location
Nashua, NH
One idea I've had is FRS rules should be updated to reflect what the 22-channel GMRS/FRS bubble packs are today. This would accommodate the unlicensed riff raff using bubble packs. GMRS then could be left alone and remain a licensed service for the more serious radio users like us.

I am in favor of narrowbanding GMRS. The latest bubble packs are already narrowbanded, FRS was narrowband from day one, and older wide bandwidth Part 90/95 gear will become hard to get in a few years. I say let's go with the flow like Part 90. I'm currently operating in narrow mode on my GMRS repeater and on my Part 90/95 gear. All of my adjacent channel splatter problems from local bubble pack users on adjacent channels went away as soon as I made the switch from wide to narrow. It also stopped my repeater from from getting hammered by local FRS users on the upper FRS channels adjacent to the input. Audio quality didn't change and any reduction in range is small enough to be unnoticeable. Overall my equipment has been working better in narrow mode.

Just my $0.02 FWIW.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
0
Location
Virginia
I think Radio reference should help us licensed GMRS users out and separate the FRS and GMRS forum topics. One for FRS and one for GMRS.

They was not a FRS section in the forums,it eas GMRS only until somebody decided we needed it and you know the boss is always right...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top