Leaderboard

Ok folks. Severe topic drift here. This topic was about the Retevis RT76 radio, and has, in my view, been well addressed. Other subjects, such as FCC station identification requirements, should probably take place in the FCC Rules Discussion area. If you want to discuss the second amendment to the US constitution, I'd suggest the Miscellaneous Topics discussion.

To All, Have a Safe, Happy, and Prosperous New Year! WQXP640

My chrome colored pointed hat is on, and I have my noise toys. HONK!! HONK!! rattle-rattle-rattle-HONK!-rattle-rattle. Happy New Year! Oye Pablo! Mas Cerveza por favor!

Hi everyone. Hope you all had a safe & fun New Years celebrations. So my question is more directed at MA repeater users. I was monitoring 462.675 and heard a repeater that sends out an I.D. I would like to figure out where it is and how to access it PL, code ect. Any help would be appreciated.

There is always topic drift in any forum thread. Nature of the beast, I'm afraid. And this thread has been derailed since post #2. Ian ask if anyone had experience with a RT76 and no one answered that question. Instead, responses drifted all over. For what its worth, I have no experience with the RT76. I am tired of cheap radios and don't want to roll the dice anymore. I can't provide any feedback beyond that.

Nobody was "discussing" the Second Amendment. But since you bring it up, with all the threads that have started as a simple question and been turned into Chinese radio bashing threads, why is this the one you decided to charge into and complain about "thread drift?" Nevermind; I'm pretty sure I know why. Marc listing his qualifications for legal discussion and mentioning in one brief sentence his work in support of the Second Amendment, and one line in my post thanking him for that work, does not constitute a Second Amendment discussion. It's exactly the same as if someone in a discussion mentions the radios he uses as a firefighter, and someone else says "Thank you for your service."

Marc, I don't necessarily agree with everything you said here. But you have obviously put a lot of thought and study into it, and I respect that. And especially, thank you for the work you are doing in support of the Second Amendment!

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. That seems to be normal behavior in the real world. There are dozens of repeaters near me that are open for public use and only 2 of them self-ID (both in 20wpm CW). The issue is, legally, the statute regulation is very plain language. If its my repeater, me and my immediate family use the repeater... no need for the repeater to ID. If another licensee uses my repeater, than the repeater must ID with my station identification. The only legal exception I can think of would be a grandfathered GMRS station license. If a Trust holds a license and the Trust bi-laws states that anyone who uses the repeater is formally a beneficiary of the trust while using the repeater, than there would be no ID requirement. (All purely hypothetical, BTW... just thinking about a legal exemption.) Just a little understanding of why I am saying what I am saying. I studied Constitutional Law for 7 year (2 in college and 5 years of independent study) and I have spent years helping both write pro-2a Bills and fight anti-2a legislation. I am looking at it purely from a statutory prospective based on my training and experience. That said, the FCC has the discretion to prosecute or not. If laws are widely broken or those infractions are largely ignored by law enforcement, that doesn't make it legal, from a statutory standpoint. A great example would be CB radio. Maximum legal power on AM is the mean carrier power must not exceed 4 watts and its strictly prohibited to use any external amplifier of any kind. That is the statute. In reality, I don't know a single person who owns a CB that is running less than 30 watts without an amp and less than 200 watts with an amp. Most CB operators I know have amps that are well over 2,000 watts. Thousands of people are talking DX for 1,500 - 2,500 miles, every single day on CB. Yet there is no known FCC enforcement that I am aware of, on any of these people who violate the law, and its all the same people for decades. That doesn't mean its legal. It just means the FCC is ignoring it, for the most part.

I was thinking that was too big to fit anywhere in my car, but then I drive a Nissan Juke. I don't have room for a cigar box. Also, I wasn't thinking about the noise in between the GMRS split, but you're right. For instance, that MED-9 repeater that I had to fight with on the 444.475 tower. That is just above GMRS, at 462.950/467.950. I guess the only way to filter that might be with additional P/R cavity filters, and those add more loss per each can. These Olds filters could certainly be designed to block out all of the other business and public safety stuff in the 450-460 MHz and 470-512 MHz ranges, as well as all that UHF TV stuff near you. Once you lower that noise, the other stuff in-band around 463-465 might not bother you as much. Also, the fairly wide bandwidth is a feature of these Olds filters. The ham version allows you to work the whole 430-449 range without having to worry about re-tuning anything.

This is most likely a repeater site ID'ing - while repeaters on GMRS are not required to identify themselves at regular intervals like other radio services, many do this as a courtesy to let other users know that there is an active repeater on that channel/frequency. The "travel tone" refers to 141.3 Hz, which is commonly used by GMRS operators on repeaters and/or simplex. Here are some relevant links that explain in further detail: Continuous Tone-Coded Squelch System Digital Code Squelch (DCS) CTCSS and DCS Tones -- What's the difference?

I just received mine and have had it a couple of days. Have compared it to the BTech GMRS-v1. This radio blows it away. RF performance is amazing and I can hit all of my local repeaters from inside my house. One of them almost 30 miles away. The circuitry is way superior to the radio on a chip unit. Wish the buttons were rubber instead of hard plastic. Screen viewing angle isn’t that great either. But the little cosmetic flaws aside it’s RF performance justifies the cost completely.