FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
Jack Bitzer (NL7SX)
on
April 26, 2006
View comments about this article!
My opinion on FRS, amateur to FRS and the amateur civil defense/disaster situation follows:
1. FRS radios are ubiquitous so personal radio networks abound, even here on the desert.
2. There should be a advertised/published national help frequency with no tone (FRS channel #1).
3. A block in a city or a small village should have its own published/advertised channel and tone.
4. There should be a secondary village/block channel and tone for FRS organizers.
5. FRS organizers should know how to scan all FRS/GMRS channels and detect the tones used.
6. Amateur radio liaison to FRS should have high power / receive preamps / beam antennas / direction finding equipment / GPS / APRS / ham radio HF, VHF, UHF and microwave voice / cellphone / MURS/ CB / Marine (it is in use here) / SARS / police liaison method / scanners with special antennas / for fixed, mobile and portable operation.
7. A parallel hard copy data network should be in operation with encryption available at any time.
8. A log should be maintained of who, what why, how, when and for what purpose for a record and reference.
9. Manuals, jumpers, adapters, antennas, spare batteries, auxiliary lighting, water, writing materials, fuel, sleeping bag, alarm clock, camera, computers, VOM, etc should be "on hand" at all times.
10. A satellite telephone is necessary for those in command in a major emergency.
Additionally, there has to be trained people to adapt to conditions who have the ability to discern what is a help and what is a hindrance, to anticipate needs, solve problems, and to operate a network that may change at any moment.
Jack
NL7SX
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This thread like other similar ones should be a real spectacle!
Jack, you have just entered the "Tempestuous Zone" - not to be confused with the Twilight Zone.
As you will see, hams are very touchy about the mere suggestion that another radio service - especially cheap, unlicensed types- are in any way, shape or form close to or capable of competing with amateur radio.
Enjoy.....
Chris, WA1RNE
|
| |
|
Chris WA1RNE
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm hoping that just amendments to the idea of FRS and HAM radio......WORKING TOGETHER...will be listed here as additions to my fundamental concept in the original article.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unfortunately, interfacing of unregulated and unlicensed services with the Amateur Service is completely unworkable, because the utterly unregulated nature of those services, even those where licensing is ostensibly required, like GMRS, causes those services to be cesspools of chaos and entitlement complexes.
The clear unwillingness of the FCC to police the FRS, GMRS, CB, and other "easy access" services makes those services a poor quality communications channel. The mass-market availability of GMRS type-approved devices to unlicensed individuals is what doomed GMRS. Just the other night, I was monitoring some of the GMRS traffic in my area, only to be met with an individual literally screaming and howling like a baboon over the airwaves, presumably for the comedic effect.
Unfortunately, the Amateur Service is also poorly suited to intra-familial communications, given the restrictions on what can or cannot be transmitted in the Amateur Service.
It is beginning to look like the only feasible option is to use a licensed commercial service, and to pay the outrageous prices demanded by commercial radio dealers and their opaque distribution regime, because the narrow availability of such devices at least keeps the riff-raff off of those frequencies.
I would suggest that anyone who is honestly interested in intra-familial or regional communications, emergency or otherwise, form a cooperative group to obtain appropriate equipment and licensing.
Regards,
Michael
HA-KC2OOS & ZA-WPWN327
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K9NYO on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FRS, though plentiful and easily acquirable, has severe limitations in usage. These low power devices have limited range, and legally there is nothing that can be done to extend their power or the stock antenna's gain.
One of the best reasons amateur radio is used in local EMAs is our ability to manually tune frequencies on our radios, as opposed to emergency services radios that are primarily computer-programmed to standard frequencies. In so doing, we also have the ability to monitor these emergency services frequencies (as well as FRS/GMRS if so desired). Combined with the generally good range we can get on our HTs with 1, 2 or 5W simplex (or even better through repeaters), amateur radio makes a nice supplemental communication mode in an emergency.
FRS and GMRS are readily available and likely there will be REACT individuals or similarly trained CERT individuals coming to help with these radios. For that reason, it is good to have someone on hand with a GMRS license (they're $75 from the FCC) to liase. The same theory goes for having a CB on hand that can monitor channel 9. I would appreciate it if these comments were taken in the spirit of cooperation and those trolls looking for a flame should move along.
So while I agree that for those instances when FRS or GMRS might come into use it would be good to have some emergency standards set, I do submit that in general there are better, more viable communication options that should be pursued (such as ham or local emergency services frequencies).
And it is worth noting that in the CB craze of the 1970's, most kids' walkie-talkies were tuned to channel 14. Emergency communications could exist in general on channel 9 without the chatter from neighborhood children and local authorities could in general monitor channel 9. With today's FRS radios and their wide-spread use among youngsters, I would doubt there would come a day anytime soon that authorities would choose to monitor an FRS channel (much less be in range of a true emergency signal transmitted on one).
73 DE K9NYO
aka WQAB462 if needed
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Isn't this the 100th time we have had to hear someone ramble on about FRS and a national freq, etc etc.
FRS has the range of two cans on a string.
Obviously NL7SX belieleves those ads he reads of "12 mile FRS" radios that only put out 300mw.
|
| |
|
response to KC2OOS and K9NYO
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC2OOS: unregulation is not synonomous with cesspools of chaos and entitlement complexes. For many areas, adaptation of an FRS network to local conditions will allow significant communications and in small villages there will be virtually no interference during an emergency or otherwise.
K9NYO: the limited range of FRS is an advantage for FRS networks and when people learn in an emergency that there are people listening, that certain channels can give and receive valuable information, and that there are hams connected to a larger network, interest and concern will develop in the system and amateur radio.
|
| |
|
response to KC5TTL
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you don't have anything significant to contribute "spin the dial"!
|
| |
|
additionally, to power an FRS (2-3 AA's)
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Batteries are a problem in an emergency and if you don't have some AA's you're out of luck, but if you do; they will be reserved for FRS if there are family members using the radios or there is emergency information and services available. How long will your HT go on 2 or 3 AA's?
|
| |
|
RE: additionally, to power an FRS (2-3 AA's)
|
|
|
by KB2CPW on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry to inform you all but FRS,MURS and GMRS here in the NY area has already been claimed by the urchins. You can find plenty of smut,echo mics, non compliant radios in the service already.. So you can forget about any proposals in the NY area.. Its now relegated to being the new CB band for the masses but with only 14 channels.
I cant wait until they want to mod their rigs for "uppers and lowers" and tick off the services around them.. Its a matter of time..
Since there is no "skip" you have to be here in NY to hear it.. :-) Regards and nice try.. N2ZD
|
| |
|
RE: response to KC2OOS and K9NYO
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jack, I appreaciate what you're suggesting, but perhaps you might want to take a trip back east and have a listen to what's actually going on on the FRS and GMRS frequencies. Things are quite a bit different back here in Two Land than they are up in AK, thanks to the incredible population density.
What I meant when I said "entitlement complexes" is that when the average consumer purchases a readily available product from a big box retailer, they expect that they have the right to use it in whatever fashion pleases them. Without effective enforcement from Uncle Charley, who's going to stop the pirates? Do you really think the average, unlicensed user is going to stop transmitting with their radio just because you asked nicely?
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K1CJS on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jack, there was an article just about like yours on this site about six months ago--also proposing blending the FRS/GMRS services and the Amateur service. Sure, the FRS radios can be used for short distance work, stressing SHORT distances.
To expect them to be useable in an emergency is unreasonable--for the simple reason everybody, their uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. will probably have one of those little radios, and wherever you may try to go on that service you'll hear NOTHING WHATEVER IN THE WAY OF CLEAR FREQUENCIES!
I'd bet dollars that even when used in a non-emergency situation, there are likely to be people butting in on your chosen frequency and probably messing up any serious use of those 'toys'.
Let the FRS radios go to where CB went back then--personal use and misuse. Its the only alternative for those pocket radios that will help hams do their thing.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by N6AJR on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FRS is family radio service, handy for mom to keep track of the kids at the park, or when you are caravanning in 2 cars.. Frs is not ham radio. although it has a strong resembalance to 2 meter fm repeater operation.
use the service for what it was intended, low power, short range, no license, mom and dad to the kids radio.
please quit trying to make it into a ham band. those folks don't care, they flip up antenna turn on switch and talk.. no more no less, it is what they want.
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by WA6GON on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Read this. This sounds like a rehash of a previous topic. Hope it helps:
http://www.popularwireless.com/pra/PRA_CERTetal.html
http://www.popularwireless.com/pra/LocalFRSGMRS.pdf
http://www.popularwireless.com/pra/RadioEmergencyOpinion.pdf
Doug
WA6GON
KAF9830
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sure, the FRS radios can be used for short distance work, stressing SHORT distances.
---------
Obviously, you never tried calling "CQ Contest" - "CQ Contest" on FRS radios before. :)
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think this is what the FCC wants with the FAMILY Radio Service.
I also disagree on many of the individual points but the bottom line is that the FRS frequencies are not allocated by the FCC for practically any of the listed suggestions.
I would suggest trying to use an FRS radio at a large public event before thinking they would be prudent in a mass emergency of any sort. No way.
I know the limitations of FRS radios because I use them. We have 5 base stations and 7 handhelds. I also have tried to use them at events where hams did communications. My thought was to give the person we were to shadow an FRS radio so they could use it to communicate with the hams, which also had them. It never worked. The people would push a wrong button, not hear us call them, not push the right button to talk, talk before they pushed the button, let up on the button while they were talking....it was never pretty.
One exception is SAR. FRS/GMRS is being used by SAR for searches in most areas as there are few people using them and therefore little QRM. They are used to allow the non-hams comms to the hams and work rather well for that purpose, albeit contrary to FCC terms of preferred use. (They better get the obscenity off FRS before they even think about the SAR groups....besides, some of the guys are related).
One great feature some FRS radios have is GPS, compass and clocks. Some even have electronic bug repellers. I think ham HTs should offer such options.
I would also like to have ham HTs be able to work the FRS/GMRS channels without having to mod them.
73,
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KE7AKS on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jack, you left out a fingernail file, measuring tape,
extra coat hanger, and spare shoe laces. just in case you require an emergency antenna or something. I never can understand why HAMS can't seem to think that in an emergency ANY RADIO might be better that NONE....
73's
Harv
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I too disagree with integrating the unregulated/unlicensed services with amateur radio. In effect, someone could bypass all the licensing regulations by integrating them (use an FRS radio to link to a 2M repeater for instance). I think that in an emergency though, it would help if HAMs could monitor MURS, CB and FRS/GMRS, and use amateur radio to relay emergency (or priority) traffic by individuals in distress (not individuals manning a shelter or 'shadowing' an emergency worker).
As much as everyone complains about CB, how many of us have a CB or FRS radio? I could imagine how useful a HAM with all of the unlicensed capability could be in an emergency, but integrating the systems is a bad idea. Then again, I have gotten flamed for a lot of posts on e-ham, so maybe this one will bring the same (as I am a HAM suggesting we have *gulp* unlicensed radio service capability).
73 de KB3LSR
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NL7SX
"IF you don't have anything significant to contribute "spin the dial"! "
----
if only you had taken your own advice before posting this dribble --
but let me through in my two cents -
what you propose for FRS was proposed 35 years ago with CB radios. The only difference is that the CB could actually get out a few miles and some law enforcement agencies actually monitored channel 9 ... but the solution you are offering can only go 1/4 mile at best. CB was 5 watts - FRS is about 300mw
More people have cell phones then FRS so why don't you just organize the cellphones in your neighborhood instead of trying to get FRS 1/4 mile radios to all link up and, well I have no idea what you want to do after you get everyone in your neighborhood on a single channel.
Anyway - good luck with that. While most hams are trying to work the far off stations its refreshing to see hams like you trying to work the kid down the street with your 300mw FRS radio ... WAY TO GO!!
I'm surprised the ARRL hasn't called you personally to do a front page story.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC0USQ on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
FRS radio is just for punk kids, and family's. The last time I tried to use FRS, all I heard were kids talking garbage. So if u can get a free channel, let me know. Im 15, and every single one of my friends has one, and there the only ones. So im just seeing the whole neiberhood of Frs users on channel on absoulutly impossible. Once and a while frs channels are used for good, but usually not. But really, Just think of all the complications with trying to get a whole network of frs users. Now that would be a major disaster.
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by W8WLC on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
FRS is a big joke here. Plenty of smut and punks on the channels. GMRS a bigger joke I guess people feel that the application instructions for licensing these high powered radios is just additional packing. Why should hams waste time trying to work with this service given how easy it is to obtain a ham license today? If its that big a deal let em get a ham ticket. Agreed this same idea failed years ago with CB and given the current ME ME state of most of the ordinary Joe's FRS means "Failed radio service"
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmmm...
Family Radio Incident Command Communication Network
...FRICCN
"This is KC8VWM to the FRICCN unit."
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
April 1st has already come-and-gone.
73 - KG5JJ
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by N6AJR on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
and in a true emergency any one can use any radio to get or provide help, regardless of license class
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd just like to reiterate the fact that I am a current GMRS licensee, for those who might have missed my ZA callsign (GMRS, for those unfamiliar with the FCC service designation, and the call is WPWN327) at the end of my original post. As a legal GMRS user, I wholeheartedly resent the fact that the vast majority of users of GMRS radios are unlicensed and noncompliant. It is a sad state of affairs when a close-by, unlicensed user of a bubble pack HT can capture your licensed, 50W GMRS mobile unit with the real antenna, thus rendering your sizeable investment in radio equipment worthless for its intended purpose.
The reality of proposals such as this article is that the nature of the sort of people who seek to use the radio spectrum without the burden of licensing or transmission restrictions leads them to become the very sort of people who are the most unruly users of the radio spectrum, especially in times of emergency, and this behavior frequently carries over into other aspects of their lives. Would you think that this sort of person is someone who will refrain from causing harmful interference to other users, especially in an emergency? Let alone, someone who could be counted upon to act in a useful manner on the information obtained through their commuinications equipment? I don't. I will also posit, as I have previously, that most everyone tends to think that their communications content is of the utmost importance (to them), and that in an emergency situation, the unlicensed and/or unregulated nature of these types of services causes utter chaos in the event of an emergency, or even in a large crowd scenario.
If you don't believe me, I invite you to take an FRS or GMRS HT to any large stadium type event, and monitor the traffic at exit time!
I'm not saying that communications should be restricted only to an elite subset of the population, especially in an emergency, but then there is the logistical reality of communications in a stressful situation...
Far better that we should encourage the usage of licensed commercial spectrum with more onerous licensing requirements, but free of the content restrictions imposed on the Amateur Service, by families or organized citizens' groups outside of the public safety sphere for this sort of purpose. While the costs involved are probably too much for a single family, a cooperative of many, like-minded people should be able to share the costs around.
Such a proposal would in my opinion in no way detract from the advantages of the Amateur Service for certain other types of communications, while at the same time providing those people who have the desire to communicate in an effective manner in an emergent scenario the ability to do so free of the harmful interference that is so prevalent in the unlicensed (or effectively so) services.
Again, while the FRS, GMRS, and MURS services may currently be viable in areas of low population density and may continue to be so, in more populous areas, these services have long since degenerated into a waste of the scarce radio spectrum.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here's some other things to consider as part of my erstwhile counter-proposal...
One of the things we really need for coordination of different services is the partial removal of the type acceptance restrictions for Amateur radio equipment. I would think that with modern computerized transceivers, radios could be easily designed to work not only in the Amateur Service allotments, but in a channelized fashion in other specific services in such a way as to not violate the requirements of those other services.
Suppose that some form of what I have suggested above is implemented on a nationwide (or worldwide) scale as the "Community Radio Service" (or some such). The licensing requirements for this new service would entail not testing of electronics and propagation knowledge, but demonstration of the understanding of the proper procedures of structured communications and compliance therewith. The CRS could be a channelized service, similar to other existing Part 90 or PRSG services.
Why, for example, can we not have an Amateur transceiver that is programmed to operate in the CRS as well, especially if this mode were not modifiable via hardware or third-party software changes? I would think that anyone who is deemed worthy of an Amateur license could be trusted with transmission in such a service!
Given the existing services, it seems odd to me that it is forbidden to use Amateur equipment to transmit in the FRS, GMRS, and MURS services. The only reason for this is the "type acceptance" criterium. If we could somehow gain an exception to these rules, or a specific "type acceptance" for Amateur gear that is interoperable with other services for specific reasons and limited circumstances, I would think that it would be a big improvement over the current situation, not to mention a financial and operational relief for multi-service licensees.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KE7CDV on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Given the existing services, it seems odd to me that it is forbidden to use Amateur equipment to transmit in the FRS, GMRS, and MURS services. The only reason for this is the "type acceptance" criterium."
I expect the reason the FCC requires type acceptance for FRS radios and doesn't let hams transmit in the FRS service is specifically so that everyone and their neighbor doesn't start purchasing 100W mobile amps and wideband ham transceivers from Ham Radio Outlet, Universal Radio, etc. (places where I've never been asked to prove I was licensed, although they do ask for your callsign, but of course that's no problem to fake) and having FRS turn into CB more so than it already is.
Of course, many ham HTs can be modded to transmit on FRS frequencies, but it takes more effort than most people are willing to invest, and from a technical perspective it doesn't usually work that well anyway given the tighter frequency specs and narrower modulation of FRS vs. ham NBFM.
---Joel
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on April 26, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I understand those aspects, but I would still think that in this age of modern computerized transceivers, that a specific type acceptance could be created which would allow certain Amateur-capable rigs of transmitting in those other services while still complying with the requirements of those services. Clearly, this would obviate the ability of individual hams to roll their own multi-service transceivers (unless of course, they submit them for type acceptance), but that's a limitation I'm personally willing to accept in order to gain interoperability.
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC0VCU on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
About the only way that something like this would be effective, would be if frs, gmrs, or murs (or for that matter some yet to be defined service) radios were sold specificly with dcs or a similar capability, and requiring a minimum configuration of a squelch code.
Each family could use their own code, and set up extra groups for intercommunicating between groups, etc.
One potential advantage to this is that radios could be set up with a couple of extra frequencies that they use to pass text messages, gps information, or even weather information, that gets tied back to the sending radio, and users could 'subscribe' to those services. APRS provides that functionality in 2-meter band at the moment, and the equipment needed to add that capability does not take up a significant amount of spece. Considering the capaiblities of text mode pagers.
As a 'longer' term idea, an frs type service could be built using just as many channels as are available today, using 1 or 2 channels as control channels, and radios ask for a free channel to communicate with theri group. The control then sends a message to the entire group saying you have channel x for y minutes. Each radio has the ability to act as control, though when a control station leaves the 'net' a rapid election needs to happen to select the new control.
Are there problems with the idea? Sure. It would obviously be better to have fixed stations with more power providing the control feature. It might make more sense to build the service with frequency hopping built in, and radios sync up in their common charging stand, or charging stands can be linked via some cable system to bring a collection of radios into the same 'net'.
Mostly I don't expect this to happen because I don't expect AudioVox, Motorola, Uniden, or any of the other frs/gmrs/murs radio manufacturers to see the capability as 'selling' at a rate that makes it worth while to build and sell such radios. Garmin might, as they already do the GPS communications stuff, but that's about it.
73,
-Rusty - kc0vcu - WPVJ944
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmmmm...
Family Radio Incident Command Communication Network
...FRICCN
"This is KC8VWM to the FRICCN unit."
We would need special radios, only to be used in emergencies. They could be called Family Radio Incident Command Communication Network Normally Unused Trancievers or FRICCN NUTs.
Thanks for the laugh Charles!
Mark K8MHZ
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the three years since I purchased my FRS radios,
I have yet to hear anyone in the area where I
live (Berwyn, IL. EN61, 8 miles SW of Chicago).
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YUR
"In the three years since I purchased my FRS radios,
I have yet to hear anyone..."
You do know that you actually have to put batteries in them to make it work -- LOL
We live close to an elementary school and the traffic to and from school is packed on most of the channels with parents making sure their kids get there OK from home...
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by W3LK on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<< Of course, many ham HTs can be modded to transmit on FRS frequencies >>
And it is absolutely illegal to use modified ham HTs on FRS, MURS, GMRS and every other radio service.
73,
Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the Washington, DC both Red Cross and REACT use GMRS repeaters and there is use of GMRS by licensed CERT team members in both Arlington and Fairfax County, VA. There is also a REACT GMRS repeater in nearby Montgomery County, MD, but I am not aware of any formal agreement on CERT use there. Maybe somebody associated with CERT, RACES or REACT in Maryland could clarify.
All GMRS/FRS units capable of with over 500mw transmit power out require proper licensing.
Don’t jeopardize your ham license by being a “bubble pack” pirate on GMRS. “Opened up” ham rigs are not acceptable. But some GMRS Part 95 radios will program to 70 cm ham too.
Most GMRS repeaters are not “open.”
Sec. 95.129 Station equipment.
Every station in a GMRS system must use transmitters the FCC has certificated for use in the GMRS. Write to any FCC Field Office to find out if a particular transmitter has been certificated for the GMRS. All station equipment in a GMRS system must comply with the technical rules in part 95.
From the FCC rules for GMRS, [63 FR 68975, Dec. 14, 1998]
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr95_04.html
Radios 95.129
Freq. 95.29
RPT 95.129
USE 95.179
Power 95.135
73 de KE4SKY / WQAX587
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K7SUB on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In Wildoming we use FRS radios for CERT and SAR communications with no problems -- guess it all depends on where you are. The ham in the group just gets info from the FRS communicator if it needs to be passed on to the EOC, etc.
Use the tools that work, and forget the ones that don't!
Bob
|
| |
|
response to KB2CPW
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OK....some places FRS won't work in a disaster, however as conditions worsen the FRS, HAMS, etc become more valuable/useful. It is because there is no "skip" and the radios have limited range that they work so well as an adjunct to ham radio. In downtown LA I could talk 7 miles from the 4th floor on a normal day. One FRS channel actually had a repeater on it! In a disaster smutty people, illegals and bag ladies need help too!
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And it is absolutely illegal to use modified ham HTs on FRS, MURS, GMRS and every other radio service.
73,
Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
-------
Ok, here's a question I was pondering over...
Is it illegal to add amateur radio frequencies into an FCC type accepted MURS, FRS, GMRS radio?
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
2nd response to KC2OOS
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I like people using lots of radios "in whatever manner pleases them" (not on ham radio :-). But in a disaster the priorities change. People choose to help their neighbors, to group together for defense, deliver insulin and diapers, help the old lady in the basement, etc. They might even listen for a broadcast on a particular FRS channel at 3 AM if it is in their interest.
|
| |
|
response to K1CJS
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Short distance (less than 10 miles) is an advantage for FRS. It assures that only information of local interest gets moved. Generally one doesn't need a clear channel, just more elevation, or maybe only talk a mile or maybe even 300 feet when it's very crowded. WalMart uses FRS alot and inside the store I can still find my shopping partner (which was very dificult before FRS). Car to car comms works great on FRS. If you were around in the 50's or earlier you know that on the HF bands with AM there were no empty frequencies. One had to use a signal strength meter to find a weak spot on the band and "blast" away. That is like CB (with skip) and FRS IS. It's not for "clear channel folks". I've worked emergencies on CB and FRS. (PS I read every comment on EHam on the FRS topic in the last 2 years).
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From what I understand, you do not need FCC certification for a radio, so you can modify anything to work on the HAM band as long as you have a license (like a CB to 10 meter). I think it would be nice if Cobra, Motorola or Uniden would come out with a DUAL-BAND "license-free radio," that would include MURS AND FRS/GMRS. Also, up here in Erie, PA, there is very little activity on FRS. I even have all 14 FRS channels programmed into my scanner and rarely hear anything (I'm on a college campus if that counts).
Does anyone else think that HAMs with CB, MURS, FRS, GMRS capability would prove more useful than a HAM without?
|
| |
|
response to N6AJR
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You either miss my point or don't recognize that FRS communicates 100's of thousands of conversations a day. Myself and KE6SMA have both worked emergencies on FRS and then used ham radio for longer distance support. I believe peoples priorities change in a disaster and to not support FRS-HAM interacttion would be wrong.
|
| |
|
response to K8MHZ
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A great call (by the way). I find FRS radios useful under nearly all situations from 100 feet to 2 miles depending on traffic and the knowledge of the FRS operator. Sometimes they are useful for 10 miles or more. (I think the record is over 150 miles). If you hand a radio to a stranger and they can't use it, what did you espect? Everybody was ignorant in the beginning. Help them out! You recognize SARS use so you see the potential. And if you want FRS to be like HAM radio, good luck.... swearing and smut are like mosquitos, chiggers, sand fleas and ants. But those swearing, ranting, echo-chamber operators are people with RADIOS! They will cooperate if it is in their interest.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by W5HTW on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KC8VWM on April 27, 2006 Mail this to a friend!
A
Ok, here's a question I was pondering over...
Is it illegal to add amateur radio frequencies into an FCC type accepted MURS, FRS, GMRS radio?
73 Charles - KC8VWM
Yes. Modifying those radios makes them no longer type accepted for their design service. They are designed to not be modifiable.
So the answer is, if you modify one to work on amateur frequencies, it becomes an amateur radio, and can no longer legally operate on its original frequencies. That IS legal, for hams can modify equipment from other services to operate in our service.
Now if the radio is programmable (and no FRS or MURS radios are, though some GMRS may be, but not the GMRS handhelds) then, if you can program in amateur channels without modifying the radio, then it is legal to do so.
If, though, you have to make ANY circuit mods inside the radio, it can no longer be used in the non-ham licensed service such as GMRS.
Many radios in the Public Safety service can easily be programmed (but not modified!) to operate ALSO on ham frequencies. Since this does not disturb the qualities that make them type accepted, they are still certifiable on PS frequencies. The same would apply to GMRS radios that can be programmed.
Ed
|
| |
|
response to KE7AKS
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You see it and I see it, and they should be able to see it in time :-)
|
| |
|
response to KB3LSR
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I can monitor CB and FRS with my HF, UHF mobile and UHF HT. In an emergency I will use them and my FRS radios to help.
|
| |
|
additional response to KC5TTL
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The cell sites get overloaded or lose power in a disaster so FRS, MURS, GMRS, CB, and HAM radios take over.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by W5HTW on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If there were a combined ham/FRS handheld, it would establish a precedent for a combined CB/ham radio, and the FCC is not about to permit that to happen. With the exception of Part 15 operation, ham radio is a standalone entity, because it is not only a licensed service, but a service which requires an OPERATOR license, not just a station license. That makes it unique.
FRS and MURS radios, and GMRS handhelds, are very small. There is just no reason in an emergency a ham can't carry both. Use his ham radio for ham-band communication, and a pocket sized FRS for non-ham communication. Trying to get both into the same radio is not only illegal, but will turn ham radio into a service that does not require an operators's license. That will mean ham radio will become type accepted. No more Novices, Generals, Extras, no code, with code, nothing but channelized radios. Period.
Our emergency plan here is for hams to provide ham communicatin and our EOC will provide both FRS and Public Safety radios *as needed, if needed* to assist in interfacing with non-hams. It works. It requires no special services, no blending of services, no dilution of ham radio, no communication blank spots, and no unlicensed operation.
When we blend ham radio into these other services, it WILL stop being ham radio, not because OFs say so, but because it will be very tightly regulated by the FCC, in mode, frequency, power, tolerance, and equipment design.
We do NOT want to go there.
Ed
|
| |
|
response to KC0USQ
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You said it! "Every single one of my friends has an FRS!". Well, as a disaster worsens, and half of your friends run down their batteries, things will get quieter and the people left will find it in their interest to "pass the word" and help their friends!
|
| |
|
response to KC2OOS (GMRS repeater)
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I suppose it IS sad that your GMRS repeater can be captured by a 300mw FRS radio, but it was the FCC's doing. Would you refuse to help someone that asked for help on your repeater if they didn't have a "ticket"?
|
| |
|
response to KE4SKY
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You may be an important "cog in the machine" and I appreciate your possible contribution in that capacity, but to deal with jargon, mnemonics, sub-chapters and section numbers is OFF-TOPIC.
|
| |
|
response to W5HTW (no blending)
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In general a valuable contribution to the topic.
There are handhelds that work on FRS and HAM radio so "the threat of a 'blending' of FRS and Ham radio is there". Your subject seems to be that degradation of amateur radio results from FRS-HAM interaction. I suppose like CB-HAM interaction. Maybe.....maybe not. If the subject is FCC type acceptance, I'd prefer you start another thread/topic.
Your synopsis of your organizations use of other radio services is greatly appreciated.
Jack
NL7SX
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8VWM writes:
"And it is absolutely illegal to use modified ham HTs on FRS, MURS, GMRS and every other radio service"
Yes and no.
Yes, for normal everyday use, NO in an emergency where other means of communications are not available and there is an immeadiate threat to life/property. See 47 CFR 97.403 and 47 CFR 97.405.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
PRA & WA6GON response
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The PRA is wrong (Personal Radio Service) because emergencies are being worked on FRS. I didn't read all the resources you provided (I will in time) but because I saw errors in the few chapters I read there is likely to be more mis-information. They appear like a lobby/pressure group and probably are "in bed" with the FCC, Motorola and other assorted lobbiests. The reality of FRS comes not from the FCC or the ARRL but from the users of the FRS radio. This radio, with its limitations, will be used for anything it is capable of. Like a gun, it can harm but in general they are not being used to rob banks. (Hams should be more suspicious/cautious when relating with FRS operators than with hams) The FRS radios price and availability probably make them of more use to the average person than any other communications device except the cellphone. When the cellphones go down the FRS's takeover.
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Would anyone else purchase a dual-band MURS/FRS radio? I think they should manufacture one of these, and make it without a removable antenna, so it can be certified for FRS. Something like that would prove invaluable for a HAM emergency responder.
Just because we are licensed for HAM radio doesn't mean we shouldn't explore and utilize other bands. The ARRL's emergency communications book (level 1) also describes the importance of unregulated services. Integrating HAM to an unlicnsed band will never work, as it bypasses the licensing. However, using an unregulated service to pass on priority or emergency traffic from non-HAMs only makes sense.
|
| |
|
National SOS Network site FRS
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.nationalsos.com/
It appears that FRS channel 1 with no tone is the emergency call channel
|
| |
|
additional link for emergency FRS channel 1
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://emcomus.org/commwp.html
It appears that FRS is already accepted by some hams as a source of local information and emergency assistance.
|
| |
|
RE: National SOS Network site FRS
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"" http://www.nationalsos.com/
It appears that FRS channel 1 with no tone is the emergency call channel ""
-----
Why ??? Becuase some bogus website says so -- give me a break. I went to the website and it has NO information about any Official sanctions or guidelines -- just some billybob website.
|
| |
|
correction Encomm is a commercial satellite
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
emergency service and therefore "OFF-TOPIC"
sorry
Jack
NL7SX
|
| |
|
RE: National SOS Network site FRS
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NL7SX,
Yes, that is the "unofficial" emergency calling frequency. Unlike CB radio (channel 9), this is not for exclusive emergency use. The problem is, some extremely low cost FRS radios only have 1 channel, and it is FRS #1 (I purchased a bunch of them from Radio shack for about $3 a couple years ago). Another problem is that channel #1 is also the unofficial calling frequency of FRS. Without an organized structure, the individuals with the FRS radios will not know to stay off FRS #1 in an emergency. Also, the FRS radios almost always have all 22 channels, even the 8 GMRS channels. The average FRS person does not know to stay off exclusive GMRS frequencies, so they are breaking the law anyway. Then again, with such a limited distance, it will make enforcement more difficult. But then again, if you are receiving interference, you know the person must be somewhat close (not like 'skipland' on the CB).
I believe FRS should be a backup for cellphones, because almost every family has a couple of the radios.
I do support any HAM expanding their capability by having CB, MURS, FRS and GMRS. It's just more tools in the toolbox.
73
|
| |
|
RE: response to KC5TTL
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The FCC may have refused to 'take charge' in making an emergency channel, but they are the final say. Like what happened with 1.25M (220MHz) and when they portioned part of it off to UPS (I could be wrong about UPS, but I remember reading it was taken from amateurs for a new service). If the FCC doesn't want to make it official, the best that will happen is an 'unofficial' emergency channel. We, as citizens, do not have the authority to enforce cooperation of an unofficial channel, whereas the FCC does. Someone back in 2000 or 2001 petitioned the FCC to adopt #1 as the emergency channel, but the FCC declined it (I found it on the ARRL's site). Maybe a few more petitions, citing how it has helped in past emergencies?
|
| |
|
to KB3SLR
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The FCC may refuse to authorize FRS channel 1 for emergency use but if KB1EHE continues it will take an FCC ruling to try to prevent it. I doubt if the FCC wants to get involved, so......FRS channel 1 (462.5625) will be where one transmits to ask for help! And I hope there will be a ham listening :-)
|
| |
|
RE: to KB3SLR
|
|
|
by KC5TTL on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So you want a ham monitoring channel 1 of a radio that only has 1/2 mile range...
thats means you need about 5,000,000 hams working 24/7 becuase you don't know when emergencies occur...
do you not see how crazy this is..????
Either use a cell or walk outside and yell help -- both will get you further range then a FRS radio.
And then think about all the folks that will simply be screwing with the hams by saying "HELP ME HELP ME" .. and then the hams call 911... and look stupid.
lets just give everyone a 2meter radio instead so they can hit the repeater and call for help -- yeah -- thats the ticket!!!
|
| |
|
RE: to KB3SLR
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmm....sounds interesting.
The phones would be a great idea, I use mine daily. Except my service provider (Cell One) sucks and in an emergency I Will not be able to get through. I would use my HAM radio to help with local communications in an emergency, but what about the people, IN AN EMERGENCY, that need help? You just going to forget about them because they are not HAMs? While you are at it, take the spare tire out of your car to cut the high gas costs (more weight = less miles per gallon). The idea here is to help locals in an emergency, not talk to the local kiddies playing in the neighbor's yard. I would rather use my FRS radio in an emergency and help someone, rather than chase DX (on 6M, because I am a tech.). You may be inclined to do otherwise, because, after all, emergency serivce is not manditory.
73
|
| |
|
FCC authorization for HAMS to xmit on FRS
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In emergencies:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/katrina/AmateurEmergencyCommunicationsDeclaration.doc
|
| |
|
RE: to KB3SLR
|
|
|
by AA4PB on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
thats means you need about 5,000,000 hams working 24/7 becuase you don't know when emergencies occur...
do you not see how crazy this is..????
------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is if you can't have coast to coast 24/7 coverage then don't do anything at all. It takes very little effort to monitor FRS channel 1 during a known emergency so why not do it? If you don't hear any emergency calls then nothing lost. Perhaps you will be able to help someone in your neighborhood and your minimal effort will pay off.
I'd say that if you are in a hurricane or flooding situation you aren't likely to be bothered by the neigherhood kids playing out in the yard with their FRS radios.
Nobody is saying that we should *replace* other methods of communications with FRS. Just use FRS as one additional tool *because* there are so many of them around.
|
| |
|
some facts for gaining understanding
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
from nationalsos.com
there are 70,000 licensed GMRS operators
700,000 licensed hams
more than 70,000,000 FRS radios
(sold at a current rate of 12.2 million units a year)
|
| |
|
KB3LSR HUH?
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Nah...... FRS'rs, GMRS'ers, scanners, hams, etc.......they listen when they have time, help when and if they can; sometimes all it takes a few words of encouragement. Nothing crazy...here :-)
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jack,
When people post who are quite obviously unfamiliar with the rules outside the service for which they are licensed, I feel it is QUITE on topic to correct people who might be tempted to modify ham equipment to operate out of band to transmit on the GMRS interstitials. For those who want to look them up I listed the sections to save them time.
But since you want to be moderator, I recommend that you should apply to QRZ.com, I understand that they are looking for one there. 73
|
| |
|
RE: to KB3SLR
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree!
In an earlier post, I mentioned CB, MURS, FRS and GMRS as being more tools in our toolbox. They are pretty inexpensive and could prove to save someone's life in an emergency. HAMs can pass emergency, or priority, traffic from non-HAMs who need such traffic to get through. I just think it's foolish that some disregard all unregulated/unlicensed services, simply because they are not HAM frequencies. I asked earlier how many of us have such radios, or capabilities, and no one replied. I have a CB, FRS, and MURS radios. I think that is more equipped than a HAM with amateur-only capabilities. Since CBers are looked so down upon, no one will actually fess up to owning one. Seriouslly, how many of us are HAMs that also have a CB somewhere around the shack or an HT in the car?
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by W3LK on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<< Ok, here's a question I was pondering over...
Is it illegal to add amateur radio frequencies into an FCC type accepted MURS, FRS, GMRS radio?
73 Charles - KC8VWM >>
You can legally put them in GMRS, but not FRS - FRS is not modifiable legally. I am not sure about MURS.
Lon W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
|
| |
|
To W3LK
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For MURS you need a type-accepted transmitter with 2W Max output. You are allowed digital on MURS as well, and a detachable antenna. I think MURS will take off if there were actually a large amount of radios manufactured for it.
73
|
| |
|
RE: to KB3SLR
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I too agree with KE4SKY.
In order for us to even consider this idea, hams must have a well rounded education with respect to any legalities and/or limitations involved in the process. For example, not only must we understand Part 97 rules but we must also be well versed in Part 95 FRS/GMRS rules as well.
Yes, believe it or not, there are a unique set of FCC rules for operating these services that we must observe before any ham operator involved in emergency communication decides to operate their type accepted GMRS/FRS radio equipment on these frequencies. In fact you are even required to have a separate station license to do so.
I would also like to add that while everyone is considering FRS channel 1 as a designated emergency channel, it is already apparent that GMRS frequency 462.675 is already considered to be the nationwide "emergency channel"
See this website:
http://www.provide.net/~prsg/uls-disc.htm#Confuse
"Currently, a GMRS licensee may use seven 462 MHz interstitial channels, the 426.675 MHz/467.675 MHz nationwide channel pair for emergency communications and traveler assistance, and up to two of seven other GMRS channel pairs. ..."
The GMRS Personal Radio Association (PRA) is considered to be the leading authority and advocacy group in the area of GMRS / FRS radio legislation.
I would encourage anyone to visit their website here:
http://www.gmrsweb.com/pra.html
and while your at it check out:
http://www.gmrsweb.com/gmrsprsg.html
The group is very serious and well organized. It has a strict code of conduct for it's membership, has it's own enforcement committee and the group has even recently pushed several FCC docket changes including the idea of establishing a nationwide emergency calling frequency for licensed GMRS users.
I would suggest if hams are going to try and coordinate and implement any such coordinated effort involving the use of FRS/GMRS radio bands for the purpose of providing emergency radio communications during an actual emergency event as the author seems to be suggesting, then we should probably "team" up with this active group of licensed GMRS/ FRS operators that have already been doing much work in this area to make this idea a reality.
Otherwise we are just duplicating their current efforts but on our own parallel course.
73
KC8VWM / WPSP389
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K9NYO on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think I missed the point of this article earlier on, and it makes a little more sense to me now. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the author on the feasibility, but it might make sense at the local level for an EMA or ESDA unit to have a radio capable of communicating with an emergency call made on FRS/GMRS.
In my neck of the woods we have tornados and floods. It's not often that we lose landline service, but it has happened. There's something to be said for using a little forward thinking and assuming the public might try and contact emergency services on one of these little radios. It doesn't have to be an advertised function of the radio room at the EMA, but it might make for a nice extra capability next to the other radios there.
This is not to suggest the dependability of these radios or that hams should use them....merely "another radio in our toolkit" should the need arise. And I will further suggest that monitoring is only necessary should the need arise...just like storm spotting only when there's a storm or a strong possibility. It is noble to want to set up a national monitoring network to cover 24/7, but that might be pie in the sky.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can legally put them in GMRS, but not FRS - FRS is not modifiable legally. I am not sure about MURS.
Lon W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
-----
Thanks Lon. It is also interesting to point out that many type accepted programmable GMRS radios have FRS frequencies programmed in them.
Someone mentioned that in order to operate on FRS frequencies that you must have a fixed antenna and less than 500mw. Firstly, I would like to point out that is simply not true.
The FCC Part 95 rules clearly indicate that FRS is a "Shared" radio service and therefore it must share it's frequencies with licensed GMRS stations.
So that is how it is legal to end up using higher powered type accepted GMRS radios with detachable antennas and a full 5 watts power output on FRS frequencies.
- Now for the FCC stuff -
"FRS/GMRS Dual Service Radios"
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=general_mobile
I believe the Pryme Clearconnect PR460 is one of them radios that is both type accepted to operate on FRS and GMRS frequencies at the same time even though it has a fully detachable BNC connector style antenna and 5 watts output.
Also interesting is the fact that this particular radio is capable of 99 channels and is fully capable of operating on amateur radio frequencies without any additional modifications.
So my question is, if I were to program this particular radio with a bank of amateur radio frequencies, without any additional mods to it, would it make this radio illegal to operate on GMRS/ FRS frequencies?
...Interesting huh?
73 Charles - KC8VWM / WPSP389
|
| |
|
RE: PRA & WA6GON response
|
|
|
by WA6GON on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Huh? Misinformation? Reeeally. Well been here before, done that. Your response was gibberish. The PRA is made of of regular citizens. We are not in bed with the FCC or the manufacturers. We represent member licensees of the GMRS and people with an interest in FRS and MURS. We stand for the rule of law. Take some time to peruse our site. Folks on our current Board are current and former public safety pofessionals. Everything you have should have taken the time to read was based on solid years of experience and knowledge of the law. You are good at tossing bombs. How about some facts we can sink our teeth into.
By the way, this:
Posted By NL7SX
In emergencies:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/katrina/AmateurEmergencyCommunicationsDeclaration.doc
DOES NOT allow you, a Ham, to transmit outside the Part 97 Amateur Radio Service on FRS or GMRS. It allows Hams to call a communications emgergency under certain conditions in the Amateur Service so that frequencies can be kept clear and speicifc privleges based on operating class can be ignored for the duration of the emergency and ONLY for a short period.
I have some experience in this area. I worte the first RACES plan for a county in California many years ago, served for 12 years in police communications where for six of that I supervised a 911 PSAP in a community of 100,000 and trained an excellent group of RACES responders assigned to our department. (I was on duty during the 96 quake.)
As a GMRS licensee I became quite fed up with Hams using the GMRS illegally, bubble pack pirates, and commercial intruders. I have thousands of dollars invested in my family GMRS system as do many licensees across the US. We got together to protect the GMRS. In the last year we have built the foundadtion of an intruder reporting and enforcement system with the help of Riley Hollingsworth. (I'm looking for other licensees in other parts of the country to help us by the way.) We have interviewed, in Washington D.C. the Enforcement Bureau Chief, and responsible parties at WTB. So I think if you knew a little more about us and how disasters are handled you might more thoroughly understand the serious weaknesses in your arguments. I cover this in detail in those links I gave you. There are a number for very sharp Hams in THIS discussion that have set you straight as well.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by W3LK on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<< So my question is, if I were to program this particular radio with a bank of amateur radio frequencies, without any additional mods to it, would it make this radio illegal to operate on GMRS/ FRS frequencies? >>
No. That is perfectly legal.
73,
Lon - W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
|
| |
|
RE: PRA & WA6GON response
|
|
|
by WA6GON on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can legally put them in GMRS, but not FRS - FRS is not modifiable legally. I am not sure about MURS.
Lon W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
-----
Charles:
Lon, FRS 1 through 7 are also called GMRS interstitial GMRS channels 1 through 7. A GMRS licensee may operate a radio with up to five watts ERP and this includes a Small Base Station. SO if you have a Part 95 hand held you can have the GMRS channels and GMRS interstitial 1-7 but NOT FRS 7-14. This is why people have to be careful buying teh bubble-packs that advertise higher power. many have an output greater than .5 watt which is not allowed license free.
- Now for the FCC stuff -
"FRS/GMRS Dual Service Radios"
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=general_mobile
I believe the Pryme Clearconnect PR460 is one of them radios that is both type accepted to operate on FRS and GMRS frequencies at the same time even though it has a fully detachable BNC connector style antenna and 5 watts output.
-------------------------------------------------
Doug:
It is not EXCLUSIVELY approved as an FRS radio so it's operation requires an FCC license. The PR460 cannot be used on FRS 8-14 since it has a detachable antenna. A GMRS licensee CAN use it on FRS 1-7 (same as GMRS interstitial 1-7 with an external antenna up to five watts ERP)
-----------------------------------------------
Charles:
So my question is, if I were to program this particular radio with a bank of amateur radio frequencies, without any additional mods to it, would it make this radio illegal to operate on GMRS/ FRS frequencies?
------------------------------------------------
Doug
A Part 95 radio capable of operation in the UHF Amateur service may be programmed there and used there as long as the operator has a Ham license. Part 97 equipment cannot be operated in GMRS.
|
| |
|
RE: to KB3SLR
|
|
|
by WA6GON on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually the FCC made the 462.675 declartion in 1998 I think and it was rescinded since it was no longer needed. There is no designated "emergency channel" in GMRS. The PRSG site is current. Corwin Moore has gone to great lengths to chronicle the rules and rulemaking and to offer his pertinent opinions about the impacts of changes over the years.
In the OLD days, prior to 1998, licensees could only sign up for a maximum of TWO GMRS channel pairs. The GMRS rules then specified that licensees could also use 462.675/467.675 as a common channel to seek roadside assistance and traveler's information, or report traffic emergencies. The need for this rule evaporated when the FCC gave all licensees the right to use all 8 channel pairs. Now at that same time the FCC hiccupped. They assumed, incorrectly, licensees wanted an emergency frequency pair in GMRS. Not so. That immediately shut down every family system already on 462.675 with virtually no notice. After a resounding NO the FCC abandoned that part of the rulemaking.
What we support at popularwireless.com (also known as GMRSWEB.COM) is the Travel Tone system. Travelers are encouraged to use CTCSS 141.3 to attempt contact with other licensees for local traveler's aid. We really have no idea how or if this has even caught on. We encourage the use of cellular telephone for REAL emergencies. The days of monitoring a radio channel for an emegrency are long gone thanks to the cell phone.
There is a great amount of information and GMRS expertise at my website popularwireless.com. There is a BBS community and folks all over the country who know the rules and can help hams set up neighborhoods with small FRS or GMRS networks. When you set one up the right way it can work. I invite all of you to visit the site. I espeiclaly encourage GMRS licensees to join the PRA and lend us your support.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I knew it wouldn't be long before the discussion degenerated into legal jibberish, invocation of the FCC & protests over "bubble packers".
Fact for you protesters: If the FCC really cared about 500mW sharing of licensed radio services, "bubble packs" wouldn't share the same frequencies with GMRS. 15 & 22 channel radio are in the millions. You got to be naive to think this was any "accident".
There are more illegal bubble packers than there are illegal immigrants. You think we could actually round up either one to the fullest extent?
You must be joking...
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by WA6GON on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted By K4RAF
I knew it wouldn't be long before the discussion degenerated into legal jibberish, invocation of the FCC & protests over "bubble packers".
----------------------------------
Doug:
So what's your point?
----------------------------------
Fact for you protesters: If the FCC really cared about 500mW sharing of licensed radio services, "bubble packs" wouldn't share the same frequencies with GMRS. 15 & 22 channel radio are in the millions. You got to be naive to think this was any "accident".
----------------------------------
Doug:
We KNOW they don't! In my PERSONAL opinion this was done on purpose by a small number of people at the WTB for a couple of reasons:
1) Ecomomy building for manufacturers.
2) To copy a radio service in Japan (this part is actually true)
3) To delicense GMRS and let complete anarchy take over.
------------------------------------
There are more illegal bubble packers than there are illegal immigrants. You think we could actually round up either one to the fullest extent?
-------------------------------------
Doug:
Actually no. But We can do our best to try and preserve what we already have before the FCC has a chance to destroy it entirely.
-------------------------------------
You must be joking...
-------------------------------------
Doug:
No. Not joking at all. Lots of licensees are putting their time, money, and efforts behind preserving GMRS and FRS. The ARRL has done the same for the Amateur Service. How will it finally play out? I don't knw. We can however take whatever steps we think we need to take to preserve the service under the current rules. part of that is protecting the service from looney ideas. BTW, I NEVER once said anyone was going to go after every bubble packers. You invennted that. ;)
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K1CJS on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I said:
"Sure, the FRS radios can be used for short distance work, stressing SHORT distances."
The reply:
Obviously, you never tried calling "CQ Contest" - "CQ Contest" on FRS radios before. :)
Right back to ya--(yes, I saw the smiley):
I supervise two separate apartment sites, about 1 1/4 miles apart, and even with the radios marked '10 mile range' (yes, on a GMRS channel) the radios did not work well at all between the sites. Yes, the sites are in an urban area. Maybe line of site--no obstructions which, BTW, is how the manufacturers come up with those extravagant range estimates.
Face it, those radios are little better than toys. Period.
|
| |
|
RE: PRA & WA6GON response
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A Part 95 radio capable of operation in the UHF Amateur service may be programmed there and used there as long as the operator has a Ham license. Part 97 equipment cannot be operated in GMRS.
------------
100% right on the money.
Therefore it is perfectly legal to use a Pryme GMRS radio with GMRS / FRS / HAM frequencies progrmammed in it. However a person cannot legally operate the same dual functions using an ICOM ham radio.
Also, you are correct in the fact and I should have specified that FRS channels 1 - 7 are shared with the GMRS service and that not all FRS channels are shared.
I should also clarify that it is perfectly legal for a 5 watt licensed GMRS station to openly communicate with an unlicensed 500mw FRS station. That might be useful and more realistic in terms of the authors intended emergency communications purposes.
Also I should point out that a GMRS license is not the same as an Amateur Radio license. Part 97 licenses typically limits communication to your own station under the control of a control operator.
I bring this point up because it is useful to know that instead of using toy FRS radios you can actually provide individuals who don't have a ham license to communicate with higher powered GMRS radios.
A GMRS license provides a single license which extends for your entire group of individuals using GMRS/FRS (shared) frequencies to communicate with one another. Each user does not require a seperate license. So you really don't have to limit yourself to using FRS toys to communicate with each other.
Unless you want to limit your emergency communication requirements to cheap 500mw FRS toys, I would suggest applying for a seperate GMRS license which would not only enable you to communicate with the toy users out there, but it would also permit your "non ham helpers" to operate more realistic power output levels. In addition, it would also permit you to install your own auxillary repeater on GMRS frequencies.
5 watt HT's!- Repeaters! - Now were talking some serious distance for non hams who are not licensed as hams but yet are somehow involved in assisting during the event.
73 WPSP389 / KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K1CJS on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"From what I understand, you do not need FCC certification for a radio, so you can modify anything to work on the HAM band as long as you have a license (like a CB to 10 meter). I think it would be nice if Cobra, Motorola or Uniden would come out with a DUAL-BAND "license-free radio," that would include MURS AND FRS/GMRS."
You understand it partially. Manufacture of radios capable of being used on both ham bands AND other bands is illegal. Also, once a radio has been modified to work on ham bands, it cannot be converted back to its original purpose legally.
The most common example are the dual purpose sets made for use on both CB and 10 meter. If you look, you'll find the truck stops that used to sell them have either got slapped with big fines or got rid of them before they got caught.
The short version of it is this: Why get caught and fined? Just get the separate radios and use both if you want to get on both services.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by AA4PB on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
95.1 The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).
(a) The GMRS is a land mobile radio service available to persons for short-distance two-way communications to facilitate the activities of licensees and their immediate family members.
95.5 License eligibility.
(b) A non-individual (an entity other than an individual) is ineligible to obtain a new GMRS system license or make a major modification to an existing GMRS system license
It appears to me that new licenses are issued ONLY to individuals and only the individual's immediate family members are permitted to operate stations licensed to that individual. Only organizations who already hold a GMRS license (i.e. "gandfathered") can permit members of their organization to operate the radios. That's the way I read it - am I wrong?
|
| |
|
RE: K1CJS
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was not suggesting using a HAM radio to work with CB/MURS/FRS. You can modify a MURS radio, for instance, to work on the 2M band, but then it lost its type acceptance. Having a radio that will transmit out of band is not illegal in and of itself, but using a HAM radio for other services is illegal.
What I was suggesting was Cobra, Motorola, or Uniden make a "license free" radio that would include MURS and FRS. Then an unlicensed person would have dual-band capability in one HT. Of course, if they were that hardcore into radios, they would get their ticket anyways, but it would be nice to see.
73
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KB8YIO on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
wow.. all i ever hear on my audiovox frs radios are the drug dealers down the street.... and a doctors office giving out sensitive info over the air.
|
| |
|
RE: K1CJS
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Only organizations who already hold a GMRS license (i.e. "gandfathered") can permit members of their organization to operate the radios. That's the way I read it - am I wrong?
------
No your right. The point is that it IS possible.
73
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Manufacture of radios capable of being used on both ham bands AND other bands is illegal.
------------------
Not true. Another myth.
There is a radio tranciever that is manufactured that is capable of operating on both the ham radio band and VHF air band at the same time.
It is perfectly legal to manufacture a radio capable of using both the ham band and VHF air band at the same time.
Vertex Standard VXA-700
http://www.avionicswest.com/Transceivers/vxa-700.htm
73 Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: KC8VWM
|
|
|
by KB3LSR on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I stand corrected. I didn't know that it was possible. How about 2M rigs with MURS then? Does anyone use MURS?
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Lots of licensees are putting their time, money, and efforts behind preserving GMRS and FRS."
Preserving FRS or ultimately GMRS? If you desire to chase 500mW shadows, fine. Who are they really hurting? They aren't on the duplex input. Honestly, I'd rather scan those frequencies for 'intel'. I'd rather they not know they have a 'shadow' on all 836 channels. : )
"The ARRL has done the same for the Amateur Service."
Uhhh, the jury is still out on this concept. In most cases, it isn't the ARRL's time or money.
"How will it finally play out? I don't knw."
The FCC will do nothing but allow the continued license free simplex on all 22 channels, perhaps even add more? Until bubble-packs do duplex, I have yet to really see the "issue" other than repeater egos. The FCC obviously agrees or my 7 different radios wouldn't each have an FCC ID showing type acceptance!
"We can however take whatever steps we think we need to take to preserve the service under the current rules."
Yea, great... Is it any wonder why bubble pack hybrids have taken off? Hint: TOO MANY RULES - millions just want to talk, caravan or stay in touch with family. Can you cite 3 examples of bubble-pack users cited for no license? I would bet 'NO'...
"part of that is protecting the service from looney ideas."
Looney ideas, fostered by the very body you expect intervention from. They made it this way so why would you expect them to "fix it"? It's not broke!
"I NEVER once said anyone was going to go after every bubble packers. You invennted that."
No, didn't have to 'invennted' that. Simply have read all the GMRS Rambo chronicles on the web. Only the callsign format changes!
Many GMRS ops are either also hams or ham wanna-bes who see "the rules" as never sharing with low power devices. You spend you entire life trying to bust someone, rather than trust someone. The ultimate joke is believing that a no-test, fee based license affords you any protection from sharing simplex use on a duplex band. The FCC just didn't bother to ask you licensees first, they just let bubble-packs happen. They are doing this JLIH more & more, to avoid the protracted confrontation!
: )
k4raf@yahoo.com
PS: Corwin Moore is the slug who has impeded both FRS & MURS, to the best of his meager ability! He is no savior but as WB8UPM, his view of rules comes as no surprise! He never mentions his call though, hmmm...
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< Amateur radio liaison to FRS should have high power / receive preamps / beam antennas / direction finding equipment / GPS / APRS / ham radio HF, VHF, UHF and microwave voice / cellophane / MURS/ CB / Marine (it is in use here) / SARS / police liaison method / scanners with special antennas / for fixed, mobile and portable operation.>
Wheeew. That was a mouth full.
What kind background, experience does one need to arrive at the point where one can make expert recommendations covering all of those unrelated areas?
After doing your lengthy research, why did you choose eHam as best place to post the results of your lengthy analysis?
Have you forwarded your research results and recommendations to any local, state or federal agencies?
What was their response?
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KX8N on April 27, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It is perfectly legal to manufacture a radio capable of using both the ham band and VHF air band at the same time. "
So, it's legal to MANUFACTURE a radio like that, but not MODIFY one and use it on both bands?
That would make sense. I mean, if it is type accepted for all services it's capable of, you could potentially have a tranceiver that does a little bit of everything, such as HF, CB, VHF air, FRS - just as long as it's type accepted out of the factory, right?
I think they are just talking about mods, though - modify any radio for use outside of it's intended frequencies and/or mode, and it becomes only legal on the ham bands (since we don't require type acceptance).
I think I've got that straight.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KE4SKY on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC no longer grants organizational licences for GMRS. Existing REACT, Red Cross and business licenses on GMRS are grandfathered and may be renewed, subject to the restrictions of the ORIGINAL license, meaning that unlike current new GMRS licenses they cannot use all GMRS repeater pairs, but only the interstitial simplex channels shared with FRS channels 1 through 7, AND the repeater pair they are licensed on.
While members of licensed REACT and Red Cross teams may operate as "unit numbers" under a grandfathered umbrella license, unless your group is grandfathered under the regulation, each individual in your CERT team, SAR group or whatever, much have an individual GMRS license.
Some localities are buying radios for issue to CERTs who produce a valid GMRS license. An appropriate radio which is reasonably priced, capable of both GMRS repeater use and simplex use on the interstitials which are shared with FRS is the ICOM F21-GM. This is a commercial grade portable which is widely available for around $150 and has all the permitted GMRS repeater pairs and the interstitial simplex channels pre-loaded. It is not user programmable, but CTCSS and DCS are selectable and the rig features all-scan and tone scan capabilities.
It is a simple rig to use and is a good choice for those who want something better than a "bubble pack" radio, but one which WILL NOT transmit outside the GMRS band.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K3UD on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is nothing new.
Back when the original Citizen's Band service was proposed by the FCC in the immediate post WW2 period the ARRL proposed that Amateur Radio should have a liasion with the new service in terms of being able to operate on the CB frequencies, especially in the case of emergency communications. The ARRL ran an editorial about it and thought that some kind of CB and ham radio partnership would be very beneficial in the are of public service.
The problem with this was that the original CB service was to be placed in the UHF region at 460 MHz. It was difficult to get equipment to operate in that region and not many hams were even experimenting with using the Amater allocation at 432 MHz back then. There was some equipment manufactured for the CB band at 460MHz but it never really caught on and most of the commercial stuff offered was unreliable.
Oddly enough, when Class D CB became a reality, there were no calls from the ARRL to form a liasion wht the Class D users. I have always wondered why the ARRL did not follow up on their suggestion of 11-12 years prior. IMHO I think that it had to do with the FCC taking away 11 meters for the amateur radio allocations AND allowing people who did not need to take a written or a code test to get on HF. I guess unpopulated UHF spectrum was a different situation as oppossed to a taken away HF allocation.
Interestingly, we now have FRS operating in the same spectrum that the original CBers used. We have come full circle.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KD5NOI on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I thought this was eHam not eFRS. Besides I can shout further than an FRS radio can transmitt. FRS radios are not much more than toys MURS would be a better soultion for any serious non licensed operations Im suprised that those are not found in walmart along with the FRS and GMRS radios, as they are a much better choice. 11 meters would be even better choice if you could get the "good buddys" to shut up long enough for you to talk.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"MURS would be a better soultion for any serious non licensed operations Im suprised that those are not found in walmart along with the FRS and GMRS radios, as they are a much better choice."
We can all thank Corwin Moore for stunting every attempt to rollout such MURS radios for years. MURS has existed for years but he pulled so much procedural BS regarding FCC type-acceptance criteria, it shelved 8 out of 10 manufacturers who expressed interest in producing MURS radios. TEKK & Dakota Alert are the only ones I know that have them on the market. You will not find either at any WallyWorld. The TEKK is superior to D-A.
He also threw a tantrum when the FCC clarified MURS from 2W ERP to 2W transmit power. He wanted to have fixed antennas on everything! Not a very practical thing on base setups. As proven by FRS portables, the limit is not the power output, but rather the poor antenna design. Anyone with half a clue & some desire, would hack off those stubbies in lieu of a real antenna, like a UHF 460 1/4 wave!
The guy is a blithering bafoon who likes to see his name in FCC proceedings! He has done nothing to further the cause, only stunt its' growth or outright kill it! His so-called "Steering Group" manages to veer into a brick wall everytime it gets "involved".
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by KL7FH on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Strange things happen in the deserts of Alaska
|
| |
|
response to KE4SKY
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A moderator is helpful for EHam articles. I suggest that all articles be "moderated" by the authors. The modification/FCC type acceptance issue is not part of the topic (even when someone else brings it up). Your concern IS appreciated and comments appreciated but they are a "red-herring" for the topic :-)
73 de nl7sx
|
| |
|
response to KC8VWM
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thankyou for elaborating on the GMRS/FRS interaction. It appears that grounds for cooperation should be found. But without it, it is inevitable that GRMS power trumps FRS and the shear quantity of FRS users trumps the limited number of GRMS users. Probably this was known by the FCC and manufacturers from the beginning so both services could continue independently.
|
| |
|
response to WA6GON re PRA
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The PRA in general/in my opinion indicates that FRS is valueless as an emergency service. I know this to be untrue. Range of FRS units in emergency service far exceed the 2 miles they wish to regard as their maximum useable range. I'm new to the PRA mission so have yet to "pin-down" their position.
|
| |
|
response to AE7G
|
|
|
by NL7SX on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice of you to ask....
50 years of diversified ham activity and observation of how things WORK, not....how they were intended to work.
This is the main point of my article; that HAMS increase their capabilities and versatility, FRS users (and the others- MURS, GMRS, etc) recognise the reality of how things have turned out, and how best to use these resources in an emergency. With over 70,000,000 FRS units, sales of 12,000,000 units a year and the personal experience of KE6SMA and myself doing FRS emergencies the reality is that there is capability beyond what most hams appreciate.
The last part is that the FRS/HAM situation happened. I didn't have any part in its creation, but I will have a part in helping, sometimes with communications, sometimes in emergencies, sometimes, just with a word of encouragement using the equipment as a ham in obeyance of the regulations. Listening to FRS with beams, preamps, using direction finding techniques, and using GPS is part of my hobby and I know it will pay off in an emergency. How the lobbiests, politicians and manufacturers want to slice it their problem.
Thanks, NL7SX
|
| |
|
RE: NL7SX InterService Compatibility
|
|
|
by KC5JK on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Item #2. Jack, about twenty years ago I submitted an NPRM to the FCC for a(n) emergency frequency(ies) designation(s) in one or more popular ham bands, the priority being 146MHz FM. I pointed out that we already have such reserved channels in maritime, aircraft, class-D CB and other services. They replied (and rightly so) that if we wanted to do it, fine, and we didn't need their help. Well, apparently, we DON'T want to do it.
Item #9. I also suggested, facetiously, a "KC5JK standard" mobile power connector/polarity, so that any of our rigs could be plugged in to any emergency vehicle they might need quickly to be fitted with. Nobody (from ARRL on down) was ever interested. Today, our VHF rigs are more likely 50+ watters than the 10 and 25-watt rigs of old, and the connector I used for over a decade is no longer adequate. But vehicles that used to have only a 5-amp fuse in the cigar lighter wire are today suited to plugging in high-current devices.
Item #1. I won't repeat what others have already pointed out about FRS and other no-license services. K9NYO makes good points. GMRS users seem to be the only regulation-consious operators besides us, and they practice some degree of commitment to REACT and similar operations. They are very upset right now about the availability of combo FRS/GMRS radios, and fear an invasion of FRS users on their orderly channels. The rest of the services you can pretty much forget. About the only way you are going to see significant numbers of hams outfit their gear to interface with other services and vehicles is if you produce and distribute adapter cables and other necessities en masse, or keep them stocked and on hand for ready passing out at emergency coordination facilities when needs arise. This would probably require that amateur radio clubs nationwide fund projects to provide members and others with these adapters. Would even ARRL-affliated clubs rise to such an occasion, IF the national organization proposed it? I'm not banking on it.
|
| |
|
RE: NL7SX InterService Compatibility
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The modification/FCC type acceptance issue is not part of the topic (even when someone else brings it up). Your concern IS appreciated and comments appreciated but they are a "red-herring" for the topic :-)"
Simply not so:
1) When you have the huge wave of legal wranglers riding the range defining what is & is not legal, in their own opinion...
2) Unless you seek to look like a total idiot carrying around 3-5 HTs. That is unless you are really trying to be a feature on HamSexy...
Moderate your own comments, we got it out here in the cheap seats!
|
| |
|
RE: response to AE7G
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<FRS users (and the others- MURS, GMRS, etc) recognize the reality of how things have turned out, and how best to use these resources in an emergency. With over 70,000,000 FRS units, sales of 12,000,000 units a year and the personal experience of KE6SMA and myself doing FRS emergencies the reality is that there is capability beyond what most hams appreciate.>
Even though your prose is easy to read, I get the feeling I don not quite understand it.
It seems as if you want to organize Radio Services, other than our radio service, and then organize Ham Radio to interface with your proposed organization.
It seems to me, the majority of your organizational problems do not have anything to do with ham radio, and must precede an attempt of integrating the new emergency response services with ham radio, rather than trying to organize ham radio now for your proposal to organize other Radio Services.
So far, no ham radio content. No reason to start setting up beams with preamps to receive FRS, MURS, GMRS etc.
Bob
PS: I have about 40 years of experience driving autos, and repairing them--I am not an expert.
|
| |
|
Something Fishy
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on April 28, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Your concern IS appreciated and comments appreciated but they are a "red-herring" for the topic :-)
-----------------------
I respectfully disagree...
FRS/ GMRS radio equipment is a large part of what you are proposing therefore it would only be logical to assume that we need to consider ALL and ANY legalities involving such operation.
This is our obligation as hams. This is *not* considered to be an optional requirement for later discussion.
The intention of your proposed idea should openly include the idea that any use of FRS/GMRS equipment for the purposes intended should meet all legal requirements and should not in any way cause interference to other radio services as a result.
You cannot simply close your eyes and pretend these legalities don't exist as part of the discussion. Rules *must* exist and they must be included as an integral part of any proposed idea placed in front of our noses for consideration.
Respectfully,
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: response to AE7G
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"It seems to me, the majority of your organizational problems do not have anything to do with ham radio, and must precede an attempt of integrating the new emergency response services with ham radio, rather than trying to organize ham radio now for your proposal to organize other Radio Services."
Don't you just love the duplicity?
One side of the crew says "we must seek to interface with any supplemental communications", while the other says "this has nothing to do with ham radio so why would you ask us?"
To me, this whole argument is pointless if either:
A) You don't already have a "can-do, by any means" attitude...
B) Don't already have equipment or scan those bands
Either way, if you didn't care before (after seeing millions of units are in use), why would anyone expect that P-Poor attitude to change.
Any fully equipped operator has capabilities from DC-Light & in between. How could you claim to be "prepared" without it?
|
| |
|
RE: response to KE4SKY
|
|
|
by KD5NOI on April 29, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No I disagree Modification/Type acceptance is very much a part of the issue. Modified ham radios can be very useful in an emergency situations where FRS/GMRS/MURS/CB communications are needed. For one you have a removeable antenna on your ham radio not to mention higher power when needed and the simplicity of having one radio to do everything (not to say you dont need back up radios). And unless I am mistaken in an emergency situation you are authorized to use any method nessecary to get the mesage out including transmitting outside of normally autorized bands and power restricions.
|
| |
|
RE: response to KE4SKY
|
|
|
by W3LK on May 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<< Modified ham radios can be very useful in an emergency situations where FRS/GMRS/MURS/CB communications are needed.>>
That may be, but the use is STILL illegal and can cost you your amateur license and your GMRS license, if you have one.
<<And unless I am mistaken in an emergency situation you are authorized to use any method nessecary to get the mesage out including transmitting outside of normally autorized bands and power restricions.>>
This often-quoted statement is not totally accurate. The "emergency" referred to is generally accepted to be an imminent loss of life kind of situation - people trapped in a burning building, trapped on a sinking boat, car wreck with people trapped inside and that sort of thing
The tpoint that many people forget is, while the FCC man not ding you for using your modified HT to get on the local PD frequency and call a legitimate life-treatening emergency in, there is nothing that keeps that PD from filing charges against you for willful interference with their radio system. And the FCC WILL prosecute that complaint!
People who screw around with putting modified ham radios on non-ham frequencies do so at their own risk and I feel no sympathy for them when the get burned doing it.
Lon W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
|
| |
|
Emergencies and Radios
|
|
|
by W5HTW on May 1, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KD5NOI
<<No I disagree Modification/Type acceptance is very much a part of the issue. Modified ham radios can be very useful in an emergency situations where FRS/GMRS/MURS/CB communications are needed. >>
You need to define "emergency." Life or death is it. You can NOT hold practice sessions, for example, with your ham gear on non-ham frequencies. You can not get away with reporting a cow in the road. Or a flat tire. Life or death.
<<And unless I am mistaken in an emergency situation you are authorized to use any method nessecary to get the mesage out including transmitting outside of normally autorized bands and power restricions.>>
See above. Life or death. Dire emergency, not "my pizza fell to the ground." But when we start with one thing, it escalates to many others. The rules then become gray, and suddenly everyone is on FRS and MURS and GMRS with 50 watt ham mobiles, and those frequencies become totally useless to anyone. Then we get the "How 'bout it, you FRSers, you ain't a gonna talk cause I'm a gonna be onna channel." Yes, it WILL happen.
W3LK on May 1, 2006
<<People who screw around with putting modified ham radios on non-ham frequencies do so at their own risk and I feel no sympathy for them when the get burned doing it.>>
The also do it at the risk of Public Safety radio. Your local police dispatcher is NOT going to be happy at all when you get on there and say, "You copying me, QSL?" And what is your police call sign? Who the hell ARE you? While you are saying "I'm a ham and I'm calling on the police frequency," she is dispatching police to find you, and probably reporting you to the FCC. And she should.
It has been suggestd to me (since I am DEC of this county) that we need "opened radios." Oh? So we can get on the Public Safety channels, without authorized call signs, and start with "Hey, Ed, you copying me down there tonight?" No! Not gonna happen.
And as I said in an earlier post, the moment we try to get LEGAL authority to operate our ham gear on MURS, FRS and GMRS frequencies, we will also face Type Acceptance, full channelization, non-used programming, power limits and mode restrictions. We will BECOME those services, with their strict controls of equipment.
Forget it. Get one of the five ham HTs on your belt and leave it in the car and instead attach a FRS radio in its place. Not like carrying around a 20 pound concrete block. We do NOT need authorization to transmit on non-ham frequencies, for when we get that authorization, we are no longer hams.
Want proof? Listen to MARS. Listen to CAP. Listen to your local police and fire. They don't need any "Yeah, QSL, I'll be there shortly ,QSL?" on their frequencies.
Ed
Lon W3LK
Baltimore, Maryland
|
| |
|
KC5JK, K4RAF, AE7G, KC8VWM response by NL7SX
|
|
|
by NL7SX on May 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC5JK: interfacing FRS with HAM radio has no physical connections, just operational.
K4RAF: I suppose 3-5 hts are no worse than 3-5 mobile rigs :-) I didn't understand your last sentence. Lastly, the "can do" attitude is what HAMS have more than all other services (maybe excluding the NSA or armed services) and already owning the equipment helps, but education and using what you have more effectively is worth something. When you purchase new equipment maybe you will consider monitoring other services than ham radio?
AE7G: I have no "organizational" aspirations. Because KE6SMA and I (NL7SX) have done emergency work with FRS I only wish that hams recognize FRS as well as GMRS, CB and MURS as partners when non-radio communications are inoperative. FRS completes the chain from citizen (alien?) (FRS) through MURS, GRMS, CB, then ham radio to the established and temporary systems set up by the government. Hams are the best people to do this liasson.
KC8VWM: As far as I know there are no violations of law with using CB, MURS, FRS, GRMS and HAM radio together in an emergency.
|
| |
|
RE: Emergencies and Radios
|
|
|
by KD5NOI on May 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
First off I never recommended that a ham radio should be utilized to transmit on the Public service band, only FRS/MURS/GMRS/CB. And yes by emergency I did mean situations involving the potential loss of life, limb or eyesight. I probably should have been more clear in that. Second GMRSers are already using 50 watts on FRS frequencies legaly, effectively making FRS a waste of bandwidth. And as for CB, don't make me laugh you can't even be heard over all the "good buddys" with less than 50 watts, or better yet make that 500 watts, not to mention that CB is a VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY (ie. transmision on HF without a code requirement.)
|
| |
|
RE: KC5JK, K4RAF, AE7G, KC8VWM response by NL7SX
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 2, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"When you purchase new equipment maybe you will consider monitoring other services than ham radio?"
I feel there is no greater advocate of monitoring, listening & expanding your radio horizons than I have been. I started as an SWL 33 years ago. I got an OO card for forwarding too many "non-ham" rec.radio.shortwave & rec.radio.scanner messages from Usenet over to packet radio (long before "the internet" existed). I haven't "owned a "ham-band ONLY" radio since 1988. All of my radios have local PS & other frequencies of interest in them (including FRS/GMRS & MURS) for monitoring. I can quote most of the bandplans for MURS, FRS & GMRS from memory, along with many other VHF/UHF allocations. Frequencies have always been a second nature to me & listening to them is a compelling part of being 'aware'.
My point at the end was all these people who claim "preparedness" as a function of their ham radio activities really can't say that is true if they can't monitor things outside of the amateur bands whether it be VHF/UHF or HF. It is vital to cross train & to cross monitor.
I am actually on your side...
|
| |
|
K4RAF comment...
|
|
|
by NL7SX on May 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It was a question....I don't have personal knowledge of the monitoring equipment you have, the time you spend monitoring or what kind of emergency service you have provided. It appears we are on the same side :-)
73 de Jack
NL7SX
|
| |
|
RE: K4RAF comment...
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 3, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Agreed.
I addressed the question for the benefit of those watching the fishbowl who insist on dismissing every COMPETING communication mode or service as unworthy of the respect they so demand.
After a meeting I had today with several local hams, our common feelings toward "open acceptance" is something many younger hams seem to embrace. It is the OF's who need to wake up or move over. The world is changing, the train is leaving, get onboard or cry on the station bench...
Carry on...
|
| |
|
RE: K4RAF comment...
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I seem to remember there are organizations within ham radio, for emergency communications.
So far, I have not seen mention of what the corresponding organizations are for FRS, GMRS, MURS, etc.
As a result, I am at a loss how hams, who have purchased GMRS, MURS, CB equipment, and multiple scanners, cross train with these other radio services.
<2. There should be a advertised/published national help frequency with no tone (FRS channel #1).
3. A block in a city or a small village should have its own published/advertised channel and tone.
4. There should be a secondary village/block channel and tone for FRS organizers.>
<Additionally, there has to be trained people to adapt to conditions who have the ability to discern what is a help and what is a hindrance, to anticipate needs, solve problems, and to operate a network that may change at any moment. >
Bob
OH. What is it that I should respect about someone who buys an FRS radio, or GMRS radio, or MURS radio, or scanner? All of the hams I respect are because of their contribution to ham radio, the stations they have built, the way the operate, or their contributions in the Elmer section here.
|
| |
|
Just get a Ham Ticket
|
|
|
by N9LYA on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why does everyone want to mix Amateur Radio with these cheap non-functional FRS Frequencies..
Just get a ham ticket...
It is not hard... Radios are not that expensive.. and its fun..
You can use them for emergenices and have fun talking with other HAMS during non-emergencies...
73 Jerry n9lya
|
| |
|
RE: Just get a Ham Ticket
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why does everyone want to mix Amateur Radio with these cheap non-functional FRS Frequencies... "
I love the "non-functional" dismissal. There are many more possible eyes & ears on FRS/GMRS than amateur radio. If you seek to be a "communicator", you can actually afford to discriminate?
I-D-I-O-T-I-C attitudes abound in this hobby. Why would anyone want to get a license?
|
| |
|
RE: Just get a Ham Ticket
|
|
|
by K2LES on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I say leave the emergency reponse aspect of our society to the trained professionals who drill for this stuff on a regular basis and have the proper tools and equipment to do so.
Up until last year I did the auxiliary police thing and was the chief for the last 18 months of my 14 year stint. I left to spend more time with my family and the more I look back, the more I realize what a joke the whole volunteer public safety / emergency service thing is (I don't mean the EMT's who do a wonderful job... but the cop / public safety wannabe's / wackers). We were understaffed, undertrained, underfunded, underequipped, unarmed and I was saddled with a bunch of misfit volunteers who didn't know left from right, and couldn't take orders and follow them to the letter without questioning them. A police recruit walking into his first day of the police academy could run circles around my guys.
In an emergency situation, we were on the bottom of the call list and on those rare occasions when we were called, it was for something idiotic like setting up cones to block off a side-street and making sure no one drove past.
We had radios with police frequencies, but we could only talk amongst ourselves since we were on VHF and the sheriff's dept was on UHF and there was no chance in hell they'd let us onto their system (even on a car-to-car or TAC frequency).
Now given that we did receive formal police academy training (not much - but it was the real deal), had peace officer powers when working, etc... and were at the bottom run of the law enforcement ladder, there's no way in hell they're gonna allow untrained volunteers with FRS radios running around in disaster response mode.
Keep dreaming, but it ain't gonna happen. Emergency / disaster response requires a huge coordinated effort and even the best of plans often go awry.
|
| |
|
RE: Just get a Ham Ticket
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on May 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just tell us how you are cross training with FRS/GMRS.
How are the emergency organizations of FRS/GMRS training with let say, the Red Cross?
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by GENERALJOHNNYREB on May 6, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It would be a hard task indeed, but I like you line of thinking. Our Fire & Rescue currently monitors CB channels 9 and 19 as well as GMRS "bubble pack" emergency channel "10" (462.675). It seems a bit frivalous, but in the 5 years I have been with the department I can recall a few times it helped out. We have had a call for help on the GMRS one time for a house fire. I picked it up on my scanner called up my partner who is a GMRS op, he got back with them got all the details and we dispatched out. They were actually trying to reach a neighbor who was a GMRS op, but we intercepted, they were surprised and glad we had the channel in our scanners.....Now the CB is practically worthless, I do not recall if it was the designated emergency channel 9 or if it was 19 that we have gotten called on, but we had a report of a brush fire and the occasional stranded motor vehicalist. Maybe 3 or 4 calls in the last 5 years, nothing serious. However, we monitor because you NEVER know. I LOVE your line of thinking....too bad other aren't willing to take on such a tast.
|
| |
|
RE: FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by G7NIZ on May 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Where I work (in a hospital) in the UK we have had "emergency" radios simlar to the ones you are discussing. It has proved almost impossible to call between the reception and the wards. The telephone system suffered a lightening strike and the rasdios were no use at all.
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by WA2RCB on May 8, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This topic seems to be an extension of
the debate brewing over www.nationalsos.com
This is all so very familiar sounding to me
being an original Class D Licenced CB Operator
in the early 1970's and moving onto Ham Radio
a short time later.
Think back..... Remember CB CHANNEL 9 (?) which was
supposed to be the one-size-fits-all radio freq for every emergency. (For awhile the channel knob indicator
for Channel 9 was even painted red or blinked on
newer digital CB radios of the early 80's)
Like CB it fizzled out as a union between Hams
and REACT never truly materialized and Channel 9
while still supposedly the 27 mHz "emergency call
channel" faded into history with he 1970's as
people soon learned that the old POTS landline and
later on cell phones were far more efficient
for emergency calling. (it's called 911 folks)
nationalsos.com ? We've been there before. History will show it was a waste of effort in the long run
just like Channel 9 CB was.
|
| |
|
AE7G, K2LES, WA2RCB & Gen Johnny Reb reply
|
|
|
by NL7SX on May 9, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE7G & K2LES: I think maybe there is a misunderstanding in that training isn't required to listen and help in an emergency. FRS and CB with their interference and limited range would require minimal training for relaying and referring to other services (ham, MURS, GMRS, etc). Understanding how to search for a tone on an FRS requires some knowledge. Organization of a block or village "chat" channel & tone requires some additional concern and dedication to the idea of listening more than transmitting. (These people are potential hams). It is up to those that wish to communicate to understand the limitations of their terrain and be aware of who is in their "networking" area. With the rancor between GMRS and FRS I suspect they will have to "work out" their differences over time or ignore each other the best they can. As a ham I monitor GMRS as well as FRS so I know what is going on around the area and could help out sometime. It is not a matter of organization on the lower levels. An individual that is crying for help on an FRS is just as important as a ham crying for help so I suggest showing respect for all the diversified users of all the radio services in and out of emergencies.
General Johhny Reb: One of the most important rescues I participated in was called in on channel 9 (CB). The reason it happened that way was that Marine channel 16 was jammed on the first day of boating season. There were not enough CB operators/the "skip" was so bad that the emergency was referred to ham radio. The hams involved were from both Canada and the USA. Some were on sailboats and others on shore. Loran coordinates had to be converted to distance & bearings from known landmarks. The Canadian Rescue Service eventually found thd lost vessel- adrift and medical information had to be obtained from hospital staff by radio telephone. A ham on shore with a pier in the San Juan Islands provided gasoline for the vessel to reach port. All radio services were rooting for this guy and cooperating. Where was the US Coast Guard? They didn't want to send any boats out without compensation, addresses, credit card numbers, etc. Toward the end the Canadian Rescue Service (in US waters) called the US Coast Guard to inform them of the situation. This should be a reminder to hams, GMRS, CB, MURS, SARS & other personnel. "Official" assistance may or may not be available and when the going gets rough we have to work together, with or without "training".
|
| |
|
FRS, Hams, SARS & Police -- Major Disaster
|
|
|
by K0RNY on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jack, you make good proposals and they SHOULD be enacted. There should be peace on earth and goodwill to all men, but ain't.
The amateur community opposes this form of cooperation simply becasue they don't want it to work, and terrified it would rob them of their pseudomonopoly on "public service".
There was a tornado in Darke county Ohio, RACES and ARES both show up, and by the time they had got done arguing over who had the jurisdiction cell phone coverage was restored and they were asked to leave. I did my last public service in 2000 and sent a notice of retest for my labors.
73
Corny
|
| |
|
K0RNY
|
|
|
by NL7SX on May 14, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You speak of the "higher echelons" of ham radio with RACES and ARES; compared to FRS/ham, GRMS/ham, and CB/ham interactions. How to be helpful in an emergency is more restricted the higher up one goes. Amateur Radio operators routinely reach a point where the established services (police, fire, military, search & rescue, military, etc) prevent further participation. It is an art for an amateur radio operator to decide how and how much to participate. You have seen where an attempt to help is futile for one or another reason, so drop back, re-think, keep listening, have communications capabilities for the future.
Locally, we had a power outage that required actuation of the Emergency Operations Center. The need was for someone to broadcast on the FM or AM broadcast bands because the commercial radio stations were "down". There were simultaneous threats from "legal eagle" hams and requests for the AM/FM broadcasts from the local police :-)
73, nl7sx
|
| |
|
National Emergency Alert Notification System
|
|
|
by NL7SX on May 16, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://emcomus.org/commwp.html
This well organized plan for frs/gmrs emergency support appears to be the most advanced to date.
|
| |
|
GMRS repeater inputs
|
|
|
by NL7SX on May 18, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
are not included in Motorola "talkabout" radios. I suspect all "bubblepack" FRS/GMRS radios cannot use GMRS repeaters. I have a new appreciation for GMRS and the difficulties they have faced with the FRS onslaught.
Jack
NL7SX
|
| |
|
FRS,HAMS,CB,MURS,GMRS, ALL HELPING EACH OTHER!
|
|
|
by NL7SX on June 7, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD IT WOULD BE!
kc5ttl.....sing this, (you know the tune!) "I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony"
http://www.geocities.com/holidaysfun/teachworld.html
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Field Day -- The Real Deal
Portable Shelter
If You Need Me...
Hams Join Airport's E-Comm Team
Idea to Help With the BPL Fight:
Other Emergency/Public Service Articles
DHS: Ambitious Multi-Band Radio Project
Heat, Wind, Smoke and Fire
ARES-RACES Support of Inauguration
In Terror Attack, Jam Communications?
Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!
|
