Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/28/19 in all areas

  1. quarterwave

    Repeater Operators

    It's not like FB4 / FB6 in part 90. As told several ways above...unless it's a variable cost / charge model covering only actual operating expenses in a co-op style function, it's not legal...nor welcome if you ask me, in GMRS.
    2 points
  2. coryb27

    Repeater Operators

    I just want to know where all these people willing to pay a 100 per year to use the repeaters are! Lets face it, my network covers 3 states and several 1000 sq miles and we have 51 users. Anytime I have needed help with climbers or manpower its always my same core group standing in the driveway. What you are talking about is basically a part 90 community repeater service not GMRS. Again as i stated selling tones is not legal...nor welcome. I would like to hear Pastor Gary's thoughts?
    1 point
  3. coryb27

    Repeater Operators

    All I am trying to say is you cant sell access nor do you have to start a non profit or get a CPA involved. Capital and operating expenses is in reference to supporting the equipment, paying tower rent or even leasing a repeater. Now if you start selling private access tones that is not allowed at all. I manage a system of GMRS repeaters linked from Highland Indiana to Rhinerander Wisconsin and have never had the need to send a letter or pull the plug. We have had jammers over the years but we out last them, best to just ignore them. I promise the second you start sending letters or trying to boot people off your repeater you will have jammers as well. I have even heard of instances of repeater sites being vandalized, and it all started with "you are not allowed to use this machine" Its hard to send a letter to somebody that wont ID while driving around in a mobile. Engaging them on the air just makes it worse and PD/DPL tones can be captured rather quickly with a scanner so in reality changing them works for about a day. If you start changing tones and pulling the plug you will end up with a quiet repeater that nobody uses. Just me $.02 Corey
    1 point
  4. coryb27

    Phasing Antennas

    Antenna gain is selected based on the site and required coverage area. It is a total misconception that more gain is better. Depending on the antenna height and terrain you can do more damage then good with higher gain. Site engineering is an important part of any system, science and methodology will always provide the best results over what one may think. Unless you are stacking UHF Yagis you will gain nothing by phasing omni's together, you would be better off setting them up diversity using power dividers but this involves its own engineering and the proper test equipment. Co phasing omni's was and still is popular for 10 and 11 meter but that is HF AM not UHF. I currently have several DB-420, DB-411, DB-408, DB-404 and a single Sinclair SC329-HF2LDF in use at different sites both part 90 Commercial and GMRS. Each one selected for the installation and desired coverage. The antenna is the biggest factor in any radio system with the coax the second, trust the science. I have and still do see allot of people wasting money and being unhappy with system performance over bad antenna selection. Just my $.02 Corey
    1 point
  5. That's about as close to a smoking gun as you're going to get from the FCC. They are aware that people are using surplus Part 90 equipment - and they don't intend to anything to stop that use. As others have mentioned, there's never been a single enforcement action by the FCC against anyone for using Part 90 equipment in Part 95. If you've been around the block with the FCC a few times, you begin to realize that many of the rules have been written after the fact.
    1 point
  6. What is the purpose/intent of the FCC Part 95 rules? It appears that the FCC aims to create a uniform standard for transmitter emissions. Following the "spirit" of the rules regarding frequencies, power output, bandwith, deviations, etc. seems to be the important aspect that allows GMRS users to have a reasonably functional band. Why does it matter how you configure or construct your transmitter if it comports with the emission standards? To a reasonable person, the "letter" of the rule would seem less important than the "spirit". Obviously, the FCC missed the common sense boat during their last rule-making session. Since I am new to GMRS, does anyone know how often they consider making changes?
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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