Leaderboard

GMRS repeaters do not have to ID. The users of the repeater must ID when they use it. When I first became licensed, about 25 years ago, you had to designate on the application IF you were going to have a repeater, how many mobiles, how many portables.... also you had to designate which pair you were using for the repeater, your LAT/LON and calculate your ERP. You don't have to do any of that now. If the FCC needed repeaters to be "registered" they would still require that. Tower wise, mine is beside a barn on a hill, it's about 35 feet with a 18 foot ASP fiberglass stick on top. There was never a requirement for a site registration because we are under 200' tower height, and not in a flight path. There are TV antenna towers at 60 feet around here...so no issue there.

Thank You Jones that does make it pretty simple. Ive always loved radio communications of all types and how they work.

To make it real simple, and Midland friendly, Yes. You may talk between your FRS radios and your Micromobiles on channels 1-7, and 15-22. (NOTE: To make this even simpler, channels 8-14 are not even included on the Micromobiles - it skips over them.)

I'd tell you that an "inexpensive amplifier" is really just a broadband noise generator. Yes, your meter might now read 50 watts - but it won't show you that you're not only putting 50 watts out on your desired frequency - you're also putting out some unknown amount of spurious energy out on adjacent frequencies (and multiples of your frequencies) - potentially interfering with other systems. Worse yet, those cheap amplifiers put out enough spurious noise that it will probably interfere with your own receiver - making that alligator system even worse. You might find some used TPL or Henry amplifiers in the less than $200 range. There used to be a ton of Motorola vehicular repeater amps being sold on eBay that would do 40 watts - but most of them were VHF. I'd be very wary of using any amplifier with a CCR radio. There's 100 ways to make your system talk better, and 98 of them don't involve an Amp.

I have mine setup the same way at a couple of sites, for the reason of the illegal users that were continually using the repeater both unknowingly and knowingly. After 6 months of trying to keep the bubble pack and other folks off the repeater I changed to a DPL and PL mixed configuration. All my commercial gear allowed this and it stopped interference. I spent alot of money on a repeater, tower, hard line, antenna, electric and other associated costs to be at a tower. Its for me to decide who get to use my repeater. On similar subject I have another repeater that was at a county park. I got tons of complaints on how it worked. every time I did a PM it was rock solid. One of the complainers was a ski patrol guy from a mountain nearby who liked to use that cause there radios didn't work. after 3 trips to the repeater and doing all sorts of testing I asked to meet him and look at his radio. He had the midland mobile (dont remember model) and a handful of bubble pack radios. I explained to him this was indeed the issue and as i explained that also realized other than him no one else was licenced. I attempted to educate him on the issues with the "junk" he bought however could not convince him.I volunteered to leave him one of my older HT's to use that weekend. Everything was fine. The following week when i picked up the radio he said he planned to get one..until he found what it costs. He was bewildered he had to pay $100 for a radio to use the repeater when he could buy a 2 pack on amazon of some other radio for $35.00.....At this point I gave up. Repeater has since been removed due to said group of non compliment users,. Sad part was this was installed at the county park for users of the park. At my new house I have 2 repeaters. I specifically have one in NB mode as my parents have a Midland radio. Its still not ideal but it works for them.I run my channel in WB and still use my commercial gear. In the end its what works for the users of the system, and who maintains the system.

I think that is an unfair accusation. Corey's repeater is not a public utility or a public service. He owns the repeater and lets other people use it. It is up to him to set whatever standards he wants to: technical, behavior, content, etc. If people don't like his rules, they don't have to use his repeater. Since he has already made the capital outlay to build, house and operate the repeater, I see no reason why he should now have to support the equipment needs of the people who wish to use the repeater. OTOH, you should buy the equipment that meets your needs for communication, reliability and price. That is strictly your decision. Should your equipment need to meet the standards of a repeater operator, that is then one more item you need to factor in to your purchase decision. Here is an example of a similar issue that may help make this clear. The Midland MXT400 is a popular GMRS certified radio. However, because of some design decisions on Midland's part, the MXT400 is not be able to operate with some repeaters. (Available PL tones; split PL operation; and only narrow-band transmission.) If you own an MXT400 and cannot access a repeater, who's responsibility is it to address the problem? Should the repeater owner change their configuration to accommodate you, or should you change your radio to meet the repeater's requirements? By the way. You present the situation as binary: CCRs, vs. expensive equipment. There is another option, high-quality, used equipment - Part90 and Part95. For your same $200 budget you could find decent gear - perhaps with cosmetic or other minor issues.

That's not a mobile repeater in that pic, its a HAM operating HF. As far as a mobile repeater it really is a waste of time. I have done this already and it was a total disappointment.. Unless your car is at a substantial height advantage you will not have any better coverage then simplex. Again you can and will try to explain or reason away my logic without listening to what I and others have been trying to tell you. I have tried the mobile repeater, the setup was a 50W Motorola SLR 5700 with a 4 cavity BP/BR duplexer connected to a 5.5dB gain antenna on the top of my truck. After testing for about month I realized it had no practical use and only offered slightly more range than simplex, best part I ended up needing a jump after a day at the fair. Mind you this was a $2400 repeater, $800 duplexer with an antenna that was tuned using an Anritsu S331D. I promise I nor anybody on this site will try to steer you wrong, I hold a Commercial, Amateur and GMRS license, own and operate several large repeaters and have all the gear for building, testing and maintaining these kinds of systems.

Good points. I doubt the FCC will be revisiting GMRS rules anytime soon. They actually did a lot of good with their 2017 updates, and it has given the service a much needed infusion of new blood by easing some of the previous restrictions as well as making the license itself more affordable. And yes, they did make a couple of rule changes that make little sense and pretty much (theoretically at least) kill the market for good quality new radios. But, then they compensated by making that statement about being aware of (and apparently not too concerned about) GMRS ops using Part 90 radios. Which supports the points you made above. I figure if they give a hoot about FPP-capable Part 95 radios (which they obviously don't on radios made before 2017, or they would not have granted type acceptance), they have thousands of users with non-type-accepted Baofengs to wade through before turning their attention to it. I also figure anyone who contacts them to ask about it will get whatever answer they figure is most likely to make the questioner go away and leave them alone.