Talk:General Mobile Radio Service/Archive 1

PMR446

Perhaps it should be mentioned that GMRS is only legal in the US and Canada, and that Europe has their own version called PMR446. Also, even if you where to forgo the legal issues, GMRS and PMR446 radios cannot communicate with each other as they are on different bands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.63.223 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Third paragraph - what's it mean?

The third paragraph (the one starting "Although the introductory paragraph") is confusing to me - what's its point? Is it implying that immediate family members can communicate with others if they're conducting my activities? I doubt that's the case, or that's what it's trying to say, but I can't figure out what, if anything, it *is* saying. --Rob Cranfill 00:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the result of political wrangling between traditional two-way interests and marketers like Radio Shack. The actual rules aren't any clearer. Altaphon 00:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not amateur radio

Why {{WikiProject Amateur radio}}  ? GMRS has nothing to do with ham radio. --Wtshymanski 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Took it out. --Wtshymanski 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

GMRSA Members

The GMRSA (General Mobile Radio Service Alliance) is a groups of distributors of radio equipment who promoted and facilitated limited use of GMRS radio equipment in Canda. As of March 2005 the members were retrieved 2008 May 5

• AVS Technologies (importer of Uniden and Cobra radios)
• Columbia Communications (US Satellite operator)
• Cosmo Communications Canada (Importer of consumer electronics)
• Garmin International Inc. (US maker of GPS equipment, some with automatic digital data over FRS and GMRS frequencies)
• Lectron Radio Sales Ltd. (Uniden and Midland importer)
• Lenboork Industries (importer of Motorola radio and other electronics)
• Midland Radio (manufacturer of radio equipment)
• Radio Shack Canada (consumer electronics distributor)
• Sonigem Preoducts (now RGC Group, consumer electronics importer)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtshymanski (talk • contribs) 01:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Page assumes that GMRS is only a USA service

The page needs a rewrite re USA emphasis, particular in the start of the article. I did a little, but more is required. GMRS is also Canadian: Canadian Radiocommunications Act notice. Fremte (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you can use the bubble-pack dual FRS/GMRS radios in Canada, but the service originated in the US. Canadian regulations don't allow repeaters, making the GMRS frequencies into an extension of FRS and not really fufilling the scope and intentions of the US original. A hand-held transciever without a repeater is strictly limited in scope, whereas GMRS allows repeaters that allow users to talk from one side of a city to another. The US emphasis is quite appropriate. One wonders why our great bureaucratic brains in Canada can't come up with things like this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag to article, per edit reversions. You comment here is obviously POV. Fremte (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Deconstructing my paragraph above, I find..fact, fact. Fact, fact, slight opinion. Fact, fact. Opinion. Gratuitious slam at bureaucracy. So, by and large, fact. None of the opinions are in the article. The NPOV tag is absurd in the article (opinion) and ought to be removed (opinion). Taking a a factual point of view is a point of view, I agree. The fact is that you can't operate a 50 Watt repeater on these frequencies in Canada under the rules - just because Cabelas on both sides of the border sells the blister-pack radios that use all these channels doesn't mean this is equivalent to a GMRS service in Canada. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion. May I respectfully suggest you look at WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:CIV. You have an opinion that GMRS is badly deployed in Canada. That idea might even pass the test of NPOV, but the article is not called "How GMRS should be organized". It is called GMRS and GMRS is licensed in Canada - whatever you think of its deficiencies and whatever is your great expertise in such matters. The solution here might be to have a description of GMRS without country information and then to describe how it is deployed, in which section the deficiencies you note might be appropriate. Please tone down your aggressivity. --Fremte (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You cannot get an individual GMRS licence in Canada. You may use hand-held devices that operate on some of the same frequencies as the US GMRS service, up to 2 watts output. But you cannot licence them. Look at RSS 210. Annex 6 specifically bars Canadians from using GMRS channels 16 through 23 as an unlicenced service. Canadian users of these radios also may not use repeaters. Equipment accepted for use under US GMRS type acceptance (which includes repeater operation and up to 50 watt power) may not be acceptable for use in Canada under RSS 210. These are very significant differences from the way GMRS functions in the US. Observe the discussion of the conflict between the few thousand licensed GMRS users in the United States and the millions of blister-packed radios. Oserve the exact language of Canada Gazette Vol.138 No. 34. Also look at Industry Canada SP-462/467 MHZ, published March 2004, which discusses the displacement of a hundred licenced land mobile users from these frequencies to allow the US GMRS radios to be used in Canada. GMRS is an American invention, an American term, and to stick a "globalize" tag on it is absurd. There is a discouraging tendancy in Wikipedia articles to drag in everything under the sun under one article title -this is not how encyclopedias are supposed to work. Start an article on unlicenced low-power radio services in Canada, if you must, but don't claim GMRS is the same on both sides of the 49th. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Added some phrasing re USA to attempt to deal with this. An article titled what you suggest "unlicenced low-power radio services in Canada" would not help a person who bought a radio labelled GMRS in Canada understand the device, because they would look for GMRS not some absurd heading like this. Best to have GMRS describe all such radios and services, which is precisely what an encyclopedia is intended to do. It does not matter one little bit that Americans may have "invented", "started", "deployed it as God intended", or anything else. I don't get the disparaging "blister pack" statements within the article and your comments either. I have 4 of these and did not get any of them in a difficult to open hard plastic package which apparently Americans like to call blister packs. No one needs to claim that GMRS is the same everywhere to have full information about GMRS located in an article called "GMRS". There is no way we will agree on this. And simple edit warring will not do at all . Suggest again you reread Wikipedia policies if you continue to resist the ideas of other editors. We could always request mediation I suppose on this, but it does seem like a small matter. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The "globalize" tag on this article is, in my opinion, absurd, abusive, and exemplifies the notorious credibility issues of Wikipedia. Check out the Industry Canada publications I've mentioned, and the US regulations. This article is describing a US radio service - which applies in the US possessions. Yes, you can use certain blister-pack radios in Canada but that does not mean you have an equivalent radio service in Canada.

The article describes the many restrictions on operations of FCC type accepted GMRS equipment in Canada. To say that this is equivalent of establishing "GMRS" in Canada is absurd, since you can't even get a license for the blister-pack handie talkies. In response to your valid concerns, the article now explains to wayward Canadians what those letters "GMRS" mean on the blister pack and how the US GMRS differs from the 22-channel FRS as it exists in Canada. It's not appropriate to clutter *this* article with passing references to every possible personal radio service with different rules, frequency bands, and technical standards. GMRS is not FRS, is not CB, is not MURS, is not amateur radio, is not cellular, is not FM broadcasting, and so on.

The situation is admittedly absurd and opaque. If I press one button while tuned to a particular channel on my blister-pack radio, and I'm travelling in the US, I'm operating under FRS rules - but if I push the "turbo" button and go up to a dizzing 2 watts EIRP, suddenly I need an $85 license. But an hour ago (before I crossed the border), I could push the "turbo" button and operate under RSS 210 and not require a licence.

Saying you'll never agree is not in the Wikipedia spirit now, is it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea what a "blister pack" radio is. Equivalence of GMRS in other places to a USA standard has nothing whatsoever to do with inclusion in this article. I will not agree with your single-mindedness on this. No-one is suggesting to include every type of radio service in the this article, merely the ones called "GMRS". Perhaps an openning sentence or two could be tried to clarify the matter, but simple leaving it out will not do. You do not own the article. --Fremte (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But there IS no GMRS service under Canadian regulations! Consider this: Bob McKenzie goes to Canadian Tire and buys a pair of blister pack radios for his big trip from Moose Jaw to Minneapolis, so he can keep in touch with brother Doug in the other van. Until he crosses the 49th parallel southbound, he operates under the Radio Act and the regulations in RSS 210 - his blister-pack radio has a permanently attached antenna, and claims to put out 2 watts on those extra channels. Somewhere in the packing with the blister pack is some fine print about needing a GMRS license in the United States. Now, he crosses the border, and hits the 2-watt button on Channel 15. He is now in violation of US law (along with about a hundred million other people) since he does NOT have a GMRS license, is operating outside the FRS frequencies, and is radiating more than the 0.5 watts allowed under FCC FRS rules. OK, now for Part 2 of the story. After Bob gets out of FCC prison, he goes to Target in Minneapolis and espies a really cool 50-watt mobile radio that he can permanently install in his van. Better yet, it works with something called a "repeater" - the salesman at Target assures him this will let him talk to Doug up to 50 miles away, and all he has to do is fill in this form and mail $85 to the FCC. Which (for the sake of illustration, though he's not a US citizen) he does, happily chatting with Bob and others on all the GMRS channels. Until he crosses the border back into Canada - the instant he keys up, he is in violation of the Canadian Radio Act since his equipment is NOT type accepted in Canada, operates with power levels and channels that are not allowed under RSS 210, and he cannot get a licence to operate it.

Does this clarify for you the difference between a licensed radio service like GMRS, and the RSS 210 rules under which Canadians operate? Do you know what a radio license is? Have you read all the literature that came with your radios?

GMRS as a licenced service does not exist in Canada. You have approval, under regulations (RSS 210), to operate a restricted set of hand-held radios also accepted for US GMRS service, (in the blister packs, hanging between the gum and flashlight batteries at the checkout), on a subset of the channels that the US GMRS service uses. There are important regulatory differences I beg you to understand; since you are theoretically running the risk of fines or jail if you use your radio gear in the US without understanding the difference.

Article ownership is a bit of misdirection - encyclopedias are about facts. Look at the facts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have bought my radios from Grove (Grove-ent.com) in the USA, Radioworld and Durham radio out of Toronto. These include scanners and SW. I've hooked computers for SSTV and CW, I have a slow-speed tape recorder from Crane in the USA. I used to subscribe to MT. I'm a minority, an YL, & you lecture like an OM. I have never seen radios between gum and flashlights and have never bought anything radio in a blister pack, but I do drink pop with my hotdog. And I bow at your feet, you are my radio guru. ;) --Fremte (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with article tags

Would you accept a statement or two at the start of the article along these lines to deal with the issues?:
"GMRS is a licenced high frequency radio service in the USA. The term "GMRS" is used for an unlicenced service with different frequency use and reduced capabilities in Canada <add other jurisdictions if required> as compared to the USA service".

I think it's unecessary in the lead paragraph - the article already talks about this later on. And we use the American spelling "license" in this article, even though right now my driver's licence is in my back pocket. "Use of GMRS equipment in other countries" explains the issues and also gives us a place to talk about Mexican rules, if only we could find out about them (I believe 14-channel FRS is accepted in Mexico, but I think the GMRS sets may be trouble). That section and the lead needs tightening; we don't need to define "family members" so comprehensively right off the top, for instance. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

" I think it's unecessary in the lead paragraph" - this is where we disagree completely. --Fremte (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Just like if you're reading about '1600 Pennsylvania Avenue', you don't really care that 'In Canada the Prime Minister lives at 21 Sussex Drive, wheras in the UK the Queen lives in Buckingham Palace (part time)'. It's not the sort of relevant information that belongs in the lead. The whole market for gmrS radios in Canada is comparable to that of California - it's a blip, not the point of the article at all. The lead paragraph must be focussed - we can get to the stuff about Canada and Outer Beluchistan much later in the article, if necessary. Disagree if you must, but look at good articles and see if they put all the trivia into the lead section. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians, I happened upon this article by chance (I'd never heard of GMRS) and I noticed your discussion. It seems to have gotten a little heated in the last couple of weeks. You can of course take what I say under advisement or ignore at your discretion. I would suggest a cooling off period. Perhaps you should take 48 hours to take a deep breath, take a walk, watch some TV, etc. After that time your postings on the talk page and/or edits to the article might be more constructive. ndyguy (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"non-bubble-pack"

As a well read individual, I have NO IDEA what this term means. A google search shoudl not be necessary, and in this case it doesn't help at all. I'd suggest either include a link to a reference or define it in brackets. Either that or it should be removed/replaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.98.163 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

It wasn't my term, but I know what it means and I will fix it. Altaphon 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"bubble pack" is a term created by the "real" GMRS community. A "bubble pack" radio is a cheap, consumer-grade radio that is typicall sealed in a plastic shell, hence the term "bubble pack". Previoos to this storm of low-quility radios, the only way to get on GMRS was to purchase commercial-grade equipment, which cost much more and had a much greater quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.146.110 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More hybrid FRS-GMRS radios do have repeater pairs

For example, see the Motorola Talkabout MR355R, with info at http://www.motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Two-way-Radios-and-Accessories/ci.MR355R-Talkabout-Two-Way-Radio-US-EN.alt

The article says only a Garmin radio does this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.232.230 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

source reliability

I've {{rs}}-tagged two sources that appear to be unreliable, and removed an external link to same. I'd prefer to remove the unreliably sourced content, speculation, and imperatively worded sentences completely as unencyclopaedic, but a certain editor persists in edit-warring the content back into the article. Please do not re-add external link without establishing notability on this page first. Please do not remove the {{rs}} tags without establishing the reliability those two sources. Please do not remove the {{cn}} tag without providing a citation to a reliable source. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your request for a rs for "Enforcement against individuals is rarely, if ever, attempted" is remarkable. Over in the FRS article you're objecting to the statement that the FCC may investigate interference with licensed users. Here you're objecting to the claim that they rarely do so. Which is it? Jeh (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why arguing for claims to be cited to reliable sources is remarkable. Why are you presenting me with a false dichotomy? 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I reverted un-{{rs}}ing PRSG because I can't {{fact}}-tag your edit summary. Please provide foundation for your claims. Something that's not a WP:SPS would be nice. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

False dichotomy? Hardly. In the first place neither of these (FCC investigates interference to licensed users, but enforcement in the GMRS field is uncommon) is a particularly remarkable claim. In the second place, on the one hand you're saying that you need evidence of actual enforcement actions to justify the one claim, and here you're arguing that a claim that enforcement on behalf of GMRS licensees is unusual, requires justification. I don't see how both demands can be satisfied at once. Pick one.

Re. WP:SPS, while SPS are not the best sources sometimes they're all we have, and they're better than no sources at all. Do you have what you would consider a WP:RS that counters the claim backed by that ref? In the absence of one WP:RS would you accept several different, independent WP:SPSs? Just out of curiosity, how much separation between author and publisher do you think is required to meet the requirements for these particular references for these points? For example, would you consider an editorial in a published magazine, written by one of the eidtors on the masthead, to be WP:SPS? What about if it was written by a very regular contributor?

And more to the point, why are these particular points in this particular article so deserving, in your opinion, of such a rigorous insistence on WP:RS? To me (as a radio geek) these aren't at all controversial claims and your insistence on deleting them until you personally are satisfied with a WP:RS is simply puzzling. Why are they controversial or "likely to be challenged" claims to you (other than that you're challenging them)? Not everything needs the same level of "reliability". Jeh (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

btw, this Google search turns up 47 documents at fcc.gov that mention PRSG, some written by them; the oldest I spotted was 1993. Now in that one they were simply mentioned as "comments have been filed by" but here is one of those reply comments, from 1994. Jeh (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not demanding that this article present a certain set of facts. I'm demanding that the facts presented by this article are supported by reliable sources. I'll challenge unsourced statements as I see fit, and that's not an action that requires justification. I repeat: why are you presenting me with a false dichotomy? This isn't a content issue, it's a reliability/sourcing issue.

I will accept any secondary source meeting WP:RS for the PRSG issue. Note that filings on fcc.gov don't count, as anyone can file them. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be the one to tell you, but you are not in a position to decide what is acceptable or required; my opinion regarding what is "controversial or likely to be challenged" is as valid as yours. And please do be aware of WP:OWN. Re. the PRSG filings, while any one filing is of limited import, a history of filings over a period of almost 20 years shows a long-established organization with multiple members, not just a self-publishing individual. Jeh (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps our learned co-editor could make some positive contributions that illustrate his mastery of reliable sources, so that we may benfit from his refined set of standards. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Srsly? Guys, chill out. You're both pushing the limits of civility. Go find something else to do for the next 9 days and come back ready to collaborate, okay? Thanks. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Things that crop up when you put "FCC Enforcement GMRS" into Google

• A manufacturer fined for voice inversion in a GMRS radio
• Editorial in Popular Wireless magazine on FCC complaints handling
• talks about FCC Docket WT-10-119, a proposal to eliminate GMRS call signs and licenses
• FCC fines a CB shop for selling non-type-approved gear for the Citizen's Band. Not GMRS related, but FCC enforcement-related
• List of grandfathered business GMRS licences, and how to find the licenses on the FCC database
• Bingo! Car dealership fined for bootleg GMRS operation.

--Wtshymanski (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of those sources look reliable and verifiable. Good for you! 24.177.120.74 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Range

Page should list the range (i.e. distance) one could expect from using GMRS - this lack is rather glaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.134.47 (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably not discussed because there's nothing special about the range of GMRS systems. The range is variable and is the same "line of sight" (nearly) as other UHF mobile radio services. Hitting Google Books I see most claims are about 5 miles - this would be car-to-car or between HTs in open flat country. A repeater in a good location can allow any two mobiles within, say, 25 miles to communicate. In a concrete-and-steel canyon or from inside a steel building, range will be considerably less. Mountaintop to mountaintop using an array of Yagis at both ends and taking advantage of coastal ducting...that's not GMRS, that's ham radio DXing. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Radio horizon gives the commonly-used approximation that, at UHF frequencies, the distance to the horizon in miles is the square root of twice the antenna height in feet. (This formula doesn't tell you how reliable communication is at that distance.) So, ignoring everything else about radio propagation, a hand-held antenna at 4 feet above the surface of the Earth has a radio line-of-sight of sqrt(8) or about 2 3/4 miles. (Two HTs, 5 miles apart, should *just* be able to "see" each other.) A small base station with an antenna at 20 feet would have a radio line-of-sight of 6 1/4 miles. And a repeater on an office building at 200 feet would have a radio line-of-sight of 20 miles. Observe that these ranges are independent of the power radiated; as someone once told me, "more transmitter power just heats up the ground a little more". Getting ranges much longer than radio line-of-sight distance is not typical, and even these ranges may not be attained in rough terrain or in a built-up area. Professional mobile radio coverage estimates require much more detailed calculations, provide an estimate of the reliability of the range calculations, and can even provide a justification for a particular transmitter power rating. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Shared GPRS/FRS Frequencies

This wikipedia article contridicts the wikipedia article on Family Radio Service regarding shared frequencies.

In the section that begins with "This second set of frequencies shows..." All of the SHARED frequencies should start with 462 NOT 467.

The 467 MHz Frequencies listed in this section are for UNSHARED "FRS 8" - "FRS 14". See http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_bandplan&id=family for correct channel #

May 1, 2019 revisions by RFI-EMI-GUY THE FREQUENCY TABLE: It is a mess. I took a stab at fixing it revising the FRS and GMRS "Channel Bandwidth" to reflect FCC rules, See also footnotes (4) and (5) added. Folks are rightfully confused about bandwidth. Bandwidth is 12.5 KHz for FRS and 20 KHz for GMRS. Conversely 12.5 and 25 are channel spacings. So as it applies to GMRS the bandwidth is less than channel spacing, though the modulation is centered within a 25 KHz channel . Its technical. The table could be simplified by removing the bandwidth columns entirely, (though now are accurate) and use only the footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ls4680 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

.5 watts or 5 watts?

From the article:

GMRS licensees are also able to use the first 7 FRS frequencies (the "interstitial" frequencies), but at the lower 0.5 watt maximum power output, for a total of 15 channels.

This was 5 watts, but 199.175.219.1 (talk · contribs) has changed it to .5, you did not leave an edit summery, do you have a citation or explanation?

Looking here[1], I see no mention of .5 watts anywhere, but several mentions of 5 watts. I admit though it was a limited read on my part.HighInBC 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13nov20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/47cfr95.29.htm

Sec. 95.29 Channels available.[...]

(f) Except for a GMRS system licensed to a non-individual, a mobile station or a small base station operating in the simplex mode may transmit on the following 462 MHz interstitial channels:

462.5625, 462.5875, 462.6125, 462,6375, 462.6625, 462.6875 and 462.7125.

These channels may be used only under the following conditions:

(1) Only voice type emissions may be transmitted;

(2) The station does not transmit one-way pages; and

(3) The station transmits with no more than 5 watts ERP.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjtabler (talk • contribs) 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to 5W, as this is clearly defined in FCC Code §95.29, section f (as you also noted above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZRobbo (talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Consumer Use Scenarios

I recently learned that several outdoor resort areas in the USA and Canada monitor Channel 9 tone 11, (911) for both skier and mountain-biker emergencies. Maybe a mention of that could be made regarding the role of GMRS in search and rescue and other scenarios -- along with the limitations of such radios for contacting outside help.

I'd like to think that Wikipedia is more than just the CIA factbook of world knowledge. Putting that thought to this article, I think the addition of a quick survey of typical consumer use scenarios would be interesting. Also, a best practices guide for consumers could also be helpful. 3strongpoints (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems foolish to me to require a CTCSS on an "emergency" channel - if you've got the time and leisure to scroll through the video-game menus on GMRS radios, you don't have an emergency. Since a walkie-talkie transmits only about as far as you can see, I would be curious to see any documented use for search and rescue. Even if this can be documented in reliable sources, isn't this pretty obvious use of walkie-talkies? Wikipedia doesn't do "best practcies guides", but if we can find one in the real world we might point at it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

National Emergency Calling Channel .675

In the United States, 462.675 is NOT any sort of emergency channel. Several groups have tried to use it as such, but it is not officially recognized by any authority, including the FCC, as an emergency channel. As such, the word "suggested" should be added to the description in the frequency chart. It is false and misleading as many GMRS repeaters in the U.S. are stationed there and have no such requirements. If it is national in Canada, then a note should be added to such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laggroup (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.203.0 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)