|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
New Public Emergency Communications Network -- 'National SOS':
from
PRWeb
Website:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb379369.htm
on
May 4, 2006
View comments about this article!
New Public Emergency Communications Network -- 'National SOS':
See the full story here:
LINK
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
New Public Emergency Communications Network -- 'Na
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"FRS radios and FRS / GMRS combination radios used strictly under FRS regulations don't require an operator license..."
Well, there goes the beloved GMRS "bubble-pack" intruder argument. This is further proven by the FCC type acceptance on every combo radio.
Oh well, on to the next "intruders" on the sacred wavelengths!
|
| |
|
RE: New Public Emergency Communications Network --
|
|
|
by WT0A on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is old news and has already been discussed at length here.
Glen
|
| |
|
RE: New Public Emergency Communications Network --
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF said:
[quote]"FRS radios and FRS / GMRS combination radios used strictly under FRS regulations don't require an operator license..."
Well, there goes the beloved GMRS "bubble-pack" intruder argument. This is further proven by the FCC type acceptance on every combo radio.
Oh well, on to the next "intruders" on the sacred wavelengths!
[/quote]
This is *not* true. Don't believe every thing you read.
There is no "type acceptance" for a "combination FRS/GMRS radio". There is only type acceptance for FRS and type acceptance for GMRS. Now, it so happens that the same frequencies used by FRS are also in use by GMRS as the GMRS "interstitial" frequencies, so most consumer grade GMRS radios are marketed by the manufacturers as "combination radios". This has absolutely no bearing on type acceptance.
Operation of a GMRS transmitter *requires* a GMRS license, even if only the interstitial/FRS frequencies are used. Now, that's not to say that Uncle Charley will come busting down the door, but let's at least have our facts straight.
Even my Motorola GMRS bubble packs say "FCC License Required".
Michael Amper
HA-KC2OOS & ZA-WPWN327
|
| |
|
RE: New Public Emergency Communications Network --
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Notwithstanding this quote from the FCC GMRS web site:
"If you operate a radio that has been approved exclusively under the rules that apply to FRS, you are not required to have a license."
I challenge anyone to provide an actual piece of legislation or FCC Rule authorizing the above statement. If it exists anywhere in Part 95, then I haven't been able to find it.
|
| |
|
RF soup by FCC Design...
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, I challenge you to cite 3, no 1 example of a bubble-pack user getting cited by the FCC for operating without a license...
There was even a story on KYW-TV where they actually interviewed an FCC spokesman who said it has NEVER happened, even with millions not sending in the fees for the license. They acknowledged under 400,000 NATIONWIDE have registered their bubble pack radios, out of about 70 million radios. What does that say?
You can cite all the laws you want but a law is only as stringent as its' enforcement. There is none toward bubble packers because they are not even a remote "threat" to any communications @500mW SIMPLEX...
|
| |
|
New Public Emergency Communications Network -- 'Na
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh wow, another exciting tidbit of communications news. This has been on the E-Ham site for about......six months.......
|
| |
|
RE: RF soup by FCC Design...
|
|
|
by KC0VCU on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, you are at least a little wrong on the 'no threat at 500mw Simplex' statement. While the radios themselves operate 'simplex' the frequencies they tune to are often part of a repeater pair. As long as they only use the frequency that the repeaters transmit on, they are not a problem. Well, other than possibly talking over some other conversation local to a user of the repeater.
The real problem come in when the input frequency for a repeater is being used as the chat frequencies on a bubble pack radio. If the chatters just happen to use the same pl tone that the repeater uses, then everything that the bubble packers are chatting about are also going to be transmitted to everyone on the output frequency of the repeater. This denies users who are allowed to use the repeater from using it, and very well may cause the owner problems as the users are likely not identifying themselves, and he is the control operator for the repeater.
Granted the bubble pack users are probably not going to be hit for this. In fact I have seen a couple of notices being sent out to GMRS repeater owners over the past few months, for various activities that are not approved, so the people who are most likely to be affected by bubble pack users who are not licenced are the licenced users of the service.
Looks like a really good way to kill off the service. Don't you think?
73
-Rusty - kc0vcu
|
| |
|
RE: New Public Emergency Communications Network --
|
|
|
by N7UQA on May 4, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF said...
"FRS radios and FRS / GMRS combination radios used strictly under FRS regulations don't require an operator license..." Well, there goes the beloved GMRS "bubble-pack" intruder argument. This is further proven by the FCC type acceptance on every combo radio. Oh well, on to the next "intruders" on the sacred wavelengths!
This was the argument that the FCC used to ban the 'so called' 10/11 meter radios the CB crowd like so much. They claimed they were 'dual purpose' radios and could not be 'type accepted'. With the influx of 'dual purpose' FRS/GRMS radios I guess we can probably see the manufactures of 10/11 meter radios call the FCCs bluff on this one.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: RF soup by FCC Design...
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"While the radios themselves operate 'simplex' the frequencies they tune to are often part of a repeater pair."
No, they are not on ANY repeater pair (input on 467.xxxx). They are 12.5KHz off of any repeater input & ONLY on FRS channels 8-14. You also need to consider that they transmit narrower bandwidth than standard GMRS. 12.5KHz away from input & using about 2.5KHz deviation, the theory you assert is simply not valid. Have you ever compared wide & narrowband? Try it sometime. You will quickly see what I mean.
"If the chatters just happen to use the same pl tone that the repeater uses, then everything that the bubble packers are chatting about are also going to be transmitted to everyone on the output frequency of the repeater. This denies users who are allowed to use the repeater from using it, and very well may cause the owner problems as the users are likely not identifying themselves, and he is the control operator for the repeater."
Again, there is at least 12.5KHz seperation between GMRS repeater inputs & FRS channels 8-14. This would only happen directly on the output (462.550-462.700 x 25) & that would only be a remote case of 'FM capture'. I feel sorry for any repeater owner that gets strapped by a 500mW radio on the output, even IF it is set to the same frequency & PL.
"Looks like a really good way to kill off the service. Don't you think?"
There you go Rusty, perhaps you swerved right into my underlying point. IF the FCC saw a problem with it, they would not be allowed to sell millions of type-accepted hybrids. The FCC obviously has no problem with it since A) Millions have been sold with valid type-acceptance B) The FCC has yet to even WARN any hybrid users of a need for licensing.
With millions in daily use, it is just a little bit late for a "crackdown" or "trackdown".
|
| |
|
RE: New Public Emergency Communications Network --
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This was the argument that the FCC used to ban the 'so called' 10/11 meter radios the CB crowd like so much. They claimed they were 'dual purpose' radios and could not be 'type accepted'. With the influx of 'dual purpose' FRS/GRMS radios I guess we can probably see the manufactures of 10/11 meter radios call the FCCs bluff on this one."
Negative... The 10/11 radios were never type-accepted since their stated intent was for "Export Use" while FRS/GMRS are type-accepted & clearly destined for domestic sale & use. They are not comparable at all.
When snowmobiles have built-in 22 channel hybrids, I doubt the FCC considers them a real threat. Then add 1000's of tower climbers, road crews, shipyards & store workers. There is no putting the genie back into the bottle at this point in time...
|
| |
|
RE: RF soup by FCC Design...
|
|
|
by KC2OOS on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF said:
"OK, I challenge you to cite 3, no 1 example of a bubble-pack user getting cited by the FCC for operating without a license...
There was even a story on KYW-TV where they actually interviewed an FCC spokesman who said it has NEVER happened, even with millions not sending in the fees for the license. They acknowledged under 400,000 NATIONWIDE have registered their bubble pack radios, out of about 70 million radios. What does that say?
You can cite all the laws you want but a law is only as stringent as its' enforcement. There is none toward bubble packers because they are not even a remote "threat" to any communications @500mW SIMPLEX..."
I didn't cite *any* laws, I challenged anyone to cite authorization for the marketing of so-called "hybrid" radios. I don't know about you, but I'm a current GMRS licensee.
There is more than a remote threat to GMRS repeater operations from 500mW simplex unlicensed radios, especially when they are in use by under-educated operators. Yes, the 22-channel "hybrids" cannot transmit on a repeater input, but they can and do transmit on the repeater output frequencies (and generally at more than FRS power). It is quite easy for a nearby simplex radio to capture the receiver of a repeater user attempting to communicate through a relatively distant of the repeater.
Yes, the laws are practically useless if the enforcement doesn't happen, but I'm not talking about that. I'm just simply stating facts. There is no "hybrid" or "combination" type acceptance anywhere in Part 95, which governs FRS and GMRS, among other services.
The FCC has simply caved in to Motorola and the other large consumer electronics companies. Nowhere in my reading of Part 95 can I find any such authorization for the manufacturers to produce "hybrid" radios, or for unlicensed operators to use them. I would welcome a relevant citation to disprove me!
|
| |
|
RE: RF soup by FCC Design...
|
|
|
by N7UQA on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I said....
"This was the argument that the FCC used to ban the 'so called' 10/11 meter radios the CB crowd like so much. They claimed they were 'dual purpose' radios and could not be 'type accepted'. With the influx of 'dual purpose' FRS/GRMS radios I guess we can probably see the manufactures of 10/11 meter radios call the FCCs bluff on this one."
Then K4RAF said....
Negative... The 10/11 radios were never type-accepted since their stated intent was for "Export Use" while FRS/GMRS are type-accepted & clearly destined for domestic sale & use. They are not comparable at all. When snowmobiles have built-in 22 channel hybrids, I doubt the FCC considers them a real threat. Then add 1000's of tower climbers, road crews, shipyards & store workers. There is no putting the genie back into the bottle at this point in time...
Hold on one second here, I NEVER said the 10/11 meter radios were EVER type accepted. I said they couldn't be type accepted in the US BECAUSE they could be used on both licensed and unlicensed services, the 'Export Use' issue is irrelevant. So with this in mind, how can manufactures market FRS/GMRS 'dual purpose' radios? The last time I checked, you needed a license to transmit in the GMRS band. This would be comparable to Motorola making a 'dual purpose' MURS/2 meter radios; but making sure they only transmits 500mW on the 2 meter repeater output sub band. I'm sure all the repeater owners (including myself) would be thrilled. The FCC fsk'ed up on this one and are talking out of both sides of their mouths. The licensed GMRS people however, lost big on this one.
And if we don't keep a huge fire lit under the FCC's ass, the same thing is going to continue to happen to our service.
Craig - N7UQA
|
| |
|
RE: RF soup by FCC Design...
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'm just simply stating facts. There is no "hybrid" or "combination" type acceptance anywhere in Part 95, which governs FRS and GMRS, among other services."
Granted, we can argue theory till we are both feeding trees. I'm just stating reality. They are in 24/7 use, in the millions & I have yet to see a single radio WITHOUT a valid FCC Type-Acceptance number. I have yet to see a single warning. You can do your own math.
You can say the FCC "caved" but caved to what? They are not making any fees off the millions of licenseless users so where is the supposed impropriety in approving realistic (and relaxed) citizen use of a few channels at low power? There was & is an obvious need or want to apply radio to applications never before possible. I am amazed at where they do show up (scan the band 24/7 actually).
|
| |
|
RE: RF soup by FCC Design...
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2006
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...the 'Export Use' issue is irrelevant."
Huh? They were imported to the US under this justification, to in turn, ship them outside the US. The importing of equipment happens everyday so how were they ever imported through customs without FCC ID, is my question.
"So with this in mind, how can manufactures market FRS/GMRS 'dual purpose' radios?"
Simple, they carry valid FCC Type-Acceptance numbers. THEY ARE LEGAL to import!
"The last time I checked, you needed a license to transmit in the GMRS band."
Simple, 70-something million in use, not one citation or warning with only under 400,000 GMRS licensed bubble-packs.
"This would be comparable to Motorola making a 'dual purpose' MURS/2 meter radios; but making sure they only transmits 500mW on the 2 meter repeater output sub band. I'm sure all the repeater owners (including myself) would be thrilled."
Well if you consider Part 95 different from Part 97, then this would likely not be approved. GMRS is considered a CB-UHF service & I feel that FRS/GMRS is a true "Citizens Band" at this point. I'd actually say it is moreso than CB/27MHz ever was!
"The FCC fsk'ed up on this one and are talking out of both sides of their mouths. The licensed GMRS people however, lost big on this one."
No, the FCC did as it actually intended, without asking GMRS licensees. They created a UHF CB service to layer over another licensed Part 95 service. The only difference is the frequency matrix. The license-free is simplex only. An incentive, to be licensed, is duplex & repeaters... ('incentive' sound familiar?)
"And if we don't keep a huge fire lit under the FCC's ass, the same thing is going to continue to happen to our service."
Craig, you are 100% wrong on this. We NEED to light a flame under HAM RADIO's ASS to update & upgrade our technology, while streamlining licensing to an all inclusive equation, so this doesn't happen. At the present rate, I give it 10 years or less, for a total melting pot of all licenses into a single class. However, consider this: There are 100 times more active license-free FRS/GMRS users, as there are LICENSED amateurs. That is whose fault?
Are you listening ARRL/UN of ham radio?
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
DX News -- ARRL DX Bulletin #36:
Learn CW Online!
60 Years of ATV -- a New Video On the BATC TV Website:
Radio Club Seeks Information, Picture Of Former Member:
Fire and Rescue Honors 'Hams':
|
|
|
