FR4x4 default radio channels - what shall we use?

[Jim]

Hello Folks,

With a continued move to add radio types from the basic CB radio where the common channel is #4, what channels might we default to for each type of radio. I'd then post that info on the RSVP / calendar entry creation form. We would not _need_ to stick to any channel, but these might be channels we'd use as we find them to be useful.

In addition to channel, would be any privacy code or any other sub-configuration we should consider.

CB: ??
FRS: ??
GMRS: ??
HAM: ??
Other ???

Generally, CB channel 4 is our long used channel. I can see a change to this as other groups also use channel 4 - this has found us moving to a different channel mid-run to avoid chatter from the other group.

For all of these radio types I would wish to find channels that are available to all radios of that type and might be lesser used (less interference with other users).

What say ye?

[Tom]

CB: 4
FRS: 4
GMRS: ??
HAM: 146.520. (2 meter natl calling freq). On occasion this might be busy, Then we would decide to roll a couple steps either side.
Other ??​


no ctss or other privacy codes. They can be almost impossible to change manually on many cheap Chinese radios without using software.

[Jim]

Tom previously posted:

[Tom]

Jim previously posted:

[Tom]

Could also do
146.550
or
146.490

either side of natl freq.

[speedkills]

I’m not sure which channels are repeater channels for frs/gmrs but it would probably be good to avoid those.

[Steve-O]

For the FRS channels, I feel like it would take trial and error to find a channel that other people just tend not to use. It also may just be a game of chance, with equal probability of other people being on any channel we pick. I wouldn't say no to ctcss so quick. Yes it's a pain when Chirp or some other software needs to be used, but if we commit to a dedicated channel with the addition of a ctcss code and use it for every run, the probability of someone else also being on that channel/code is infinitesimal due to the number of codes, and folks with programmable radios will only have to set it up once. Also, it is very easy to set up on some handhelds such as the Motorola T600s a few of us have picked up. Not sure how easy it is on actual FRS/GMRS radio unit

[speedkills]

Without any testing I'll nominate channel 6 for gmrs and frs. 1 and 4 have both been more frequently busy in my limited experience. In general I think 1-7 make sense as they are the lower power channels for gmrs and these radios seem to get out just fine. https://wiki.radioreference.com/inde..._channel_chart

[Steve-O]

Shane, what ch were we on at Rainbow Falls?

[speedkills]

7 I think.

[Trevor?]

speedkills previously posted:

[Tom]

A thought for FRS/GMRS. We had a bunch of external chatter on frs channel 4 Sunday on Kingston. It wqs suggested we use privacy codes aka ctcss tones on non frs/gmrs radios.

My thought on that is that we use the reverse code of the channel. My old radios have 22 frs/gmrs channels.
My proposal would be on frs channel 1 we use privacy code 22. For channel 2 privacy code 21, etc
3:20, 4:19, 5:18, 6:17 ... 21:2, 22:1

That way we could have everything set and just choose a channel.
It would make it simple for those of us not using frs radios that we have to program via computer.

Thoughts?

[Trevor?]

Why not pick one ctcss code/tone that could be used on any channel? Seems equally likely to have the desired effect. Also, the privacy code numbers aren't always the same across radio manufacturers. Picking one code/tone makes the task of getting everyone on the same code/tone easier.

I'll admit to some bias here. My KG805G does not use codes but instead you enter the CTCSS tone frequency directly.

[speedkills]

Do we want to leave any without privacy codes? I'm thinking of if people show up with radios that don't support them, or like me without a manual telling them how to program them, it could be handy to have a fall back channel or two that didn't have a privacy code. My feelings on this aren't very strong though so if we aren't too concerned about the programming aspect then reverse channel seems fine, or even same code as channel to be super simple.

[Jim]

My perspective, with regard to folks talking about difficulty using radios where setting a sub-channel / privacy / etc can be difficult..

1) find a channel that is of lesser interest/use (no channel 4) - and keep it no privacy channel - and have that as a "first use" channel selection (one that works well FRS/GMRS).
2) perhaps we could also settle on an optional channel should the primary have too much activity - a channel with some privacy code

Having two posted channels in such a condition seems acceptable. We'd roll with the "more open to all" primary channel to only switch to a second choice when the primary is too chatty - but some folk's radios might not be able to participate.

Good discussion. Please continue.

[Tom]

Trevor? previously posted:

[speedkills]

I like the single code for all channels idea the best myself as well, along with maybe a channel or two with no codes, maybe 1 and 22 or something like that.

[Bob]

I’m not in favor of privacy codes, and think it’s much better to just select a clear channel and no code. As has been mentioned there are opportunities for confusion and some radios don’t support them, and there are also two different types of privacy codes, tone (CTCSS) and digital (DCS).

In addition all that privacy codes do is keep the squelch closed unless the correct code is received. They can’t prevent interference from simultaneous transmissions by two groups on the same channel, even though using different codes. It’s possible to miss a transmission from someone in your group if another transmission is occurring at the same time from another group, and you might not even realize there is another group on the same channel.

[speedkills]

Channel hopping is certainly the most compatible and easiest solution. We could table the discussion for a month, be a little more aggressive about switching channels and see how that works out. The only issue I could see with it really is losing people on switch or not being able to find a clear channel. Worth a shot to see if either of those become real issues in practice.

[derf]

Channel hopping is the way we solved it with CB. And I've been known to change frequencies on ham when two groups were using the same one. It's a simple solution to a simple problem.