Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Well said, and I agree; this discussion should be taken to a separate thread so the OP can get what he needs.
  3. Steve, I am interested in doing this to a couple of Motorola M1225 LS radios and would like to find info on doing that and the software. I know this is an older post but just beginning to research these 1225 LS radios.
  4. What communication are you all running for utvs. My current setup is just the simple HA1G. I'm wanting to set up my current setup. Let's see them
  5. I once had a professor in a technical writing course ask the class "do you know why all your user manual and instruction manuals for the things you buy are by and large all terrible? It's because the person they get to work with the technical writers to put together the manuals is the guy the shop foreman or engineering manager can most stand to do without for a couple weeks. And do you know who THAT is? Literally their worst and / or dumbest employee." Which is a long way of saying "no, I don't think getting stupid people to write regulations would actually be an improvement" Should they be written in plain language instead of legalese and spell things out? Oh absolutely.
  6. This is why you need stupid people to write the actual regulations. They'd spell it out instead of referring to this which refers to that which in turn refers to something else. Reminds me of reading the NEC regulations where you need to look at the whole book every single time because nothing is stated in a sentence that doesn't refer to some other part of the book.
  7. This could be the subject of a whole other thread since this seems to be an area of some dispute. The disagreement is how and why attorneys exist and make their money, arguing over the law. I once read the following that was told to recently licensed attorneys. "If the evidence is against you, bang on the evidence." "If the law is against you, bang on the law." "If both are against you, bang on the table."
  8. YES. Unfortunately the FCC allows a bunch of other crap to operate there as well. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-15/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR2f2e5828339709e/section-15.240 Some examples: https://hackaday.com/tag/433-mhz/
  9. I don’t agree. Although the numbers of two examples of exceptions are listed, one from subpart C (RCRS) and from part E (GMRS), the actual exception belonging in the GMRS subpart no longer exists and thus cannot apply. 95.335(a) clearly says that an exception must be listed in the applicable subpart.
  10. Maybe. Maybe not. It's probably worth the effort to test it and see.
  11. Today
  12. I think this is what saves us here that use LMR radios on GMRS. Plus also why the FCC hasn't made a fuss over people using such radios on GMRS. I would say the majority of repeaters used on GMRS are repurposed Part 90 equipment. FCC isn't making a fuss over those either. This is likely, my guess, why the FCC hasn't specifically authorized Part 90 radios on GMRS, it is basically implied in Part 95.335(a). Before the 2017 rule changes it was legal, and possible, for a business to get a GMRS license and operate. So, it made sense for manufactures at the time to get certification for both Parts 90 and 95. It was a sizable market. Now, post 2017 rule changes, only grandfathered business, no new applications, can operate on GMRS. The manufactures just don't bother anymore getting dual certification, just Part 90, since that's where the business market is at. I have some radios that in fact are dual certified for Parts 90 and 95. However I have a bunch that are Part 90 only. This is reassuring it's they're very likely legal to use. Given the above I wouldn't hesitate recommending a Part 90 radio in place of the specifically manufactured GMRS radios to new GMRS users. While most LMR, Part 90, radios can't be front panel programmed like the specifically manufactured GMRS radios, some can. This is one such example. https://forums.mygmrs.com/gallery/image/290-nx-1300duk5/?context=new NX-1300 FPP.pdf
  13. A quick google shows a handful of instances of interference if you're sitting right on 433 (either the TPMS light on the dash coming on when you transmit, or occasional noise when receiving. At least 1 seems to have fixed it by moving the antenna. https://kq4afy.xyz/blog/2022/12/tpms-uhf-interference/ https://www.reddit.com/r/amateurradio/comments/1l732o2/today_i_learned/
  14. Thanks for the quick responses.
  15. Yes, they’re allowed. We share portions of the 70 cm amateur allocation with other users, including TPMS.
  16. Short answer: yes. I don't know what brand you're looking at, but the OEM giant in this space is Continental and: https://fccid.io/KR5TIS-09DL
  17. I was looking for TPMS sensors for my trailer. I found the following on Amazon with good reviews: RV TPMS Sensors Something in the product description caught my attention; the sensors transmit at 433.92MHz, which is in the 70cm amateur band. That raises a couple of questions. First, does the FCC allow for these low-powered short-range devices to operate in the 70cm band? I assume that given the fact they last 6 months of run-time on a set of CR2032 batteries, and obviously couldn't have much of an antenna, that they are very short range and unlikely to cause interference at more than 150 feet. Does the FCC allow them to operate in an Amateur band? Second, will they cause interference to me; if I'm monitoring repeaters within the 70cm band, typically a little higher up in the band, would these interfere? I suppose to answer that question one would have to test. The ARRL band plan shows: 433.00-435.00 Auxiliary/repeater links ...so if these are well behaved they would not interfere with reception of a repeater itself, since they are usually in the 442-445 and 447-450 range. And the only way to be sure these are well behaved is to test with a spectrum analyzer or SDR. As an example, though, I've found that one of the USBC-to-HDMI dongles I use at my home office causes interference in the 440MHz range when I'm within about 30 feet of it -- enough interference with enough tertiary spikes that some of the 70cm band is unmonitorable to me when I'm too close to this adapter.
  18. It does not say that it is permitted. It says if there were exceptions, they would be listed, and they aren't. Insults from people like you are meaningless to me.
  19. My license was granted on 2025-07-22 and has no mention of Line A or any frequency restrictions.
  20. Watch this:
  21. I'm sure any of those will be nicer to use than my old boat anchors.
  22. Obviously, it appears that you are not a SME on these types of matters or can demonstrated any professional expertise in the analysis and writing of legislative bills, statutes, policies, rules, regulations, ordinances, guidelines, and enforcing such rules, etc. in a government bureaucratic or legal form. My question still is, after the rule says it is permitted, where does it say that the operation of Part 90 radios are restricted or prohibited?
  23. Mirror Mount like truckers, 1/2 wave
  24. duplicate...the forum wigged out
  25. Theoretically? Sure. In practice? I'd be surprised if it was more than a fractional difference all the way at the edge of the performance envelope.
  26. The length of cable needed to get from the tow vehicle to a good spot on the trailer will probably introduce more loss than just using the antenna on the tow vehicle, with the (almost standard) 13' RG58 type coax that comes with most mag mounts.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.