Leaderboard

I agree with that club president and the OP, that talking to jammers/dickheads just lets them know they're doing a good job and gives them the attention that their mother never gave them as a child, but I really want to hear more facts from @WRQC527 about the FCC pulling licenses for talking to unlicensed operators.

They make a MXT500 which is wideband. The MXT400 (which I have owned and used) sounds fine.. The XS20G (which I have owned and used) also sounds fine. Your ear will never hear the difference between an SOC and a SuperHet GMRS radio.. You might notice (a lot) more static/bleed over from other frequencies if driving near high-power transmitters (TV, microwave, equipment control, etc) on an SOC than a SuperHet, but that is likely the only thing you would ever notice. If sound is your most important factor, 2nd only to reliability, then consider the KG-1000G (which I have owned several of, and used in my 2 Jeeps), which has two speakers, both loud and decent quality.

I lost my license while talking an unlicensed user, Seriously.... I have no idea where I put it. I ended up having to print another copy. Ah.... I'm just joking. I didn't lose my license, but i did get a strongly worded scolding from the club president. He said "Don't feed the monkeys."

Try disconnecting negative from battery and put it to a bolt on the chassis or even a seat bolt. You could be getting noise or feed back from the alternator or some other electronics. I have a DC filter coming because I can hear an alternator whine through cb channels. https://www.gigaparts.com/kenwood-pg-3b.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1N2TBhCOARIsAGVHQc7XAMe6GAia8Z32Osig50r03P8O1MgaEGAMk1NHe_DItXB3MU2UA54aApqZEALw_wcB

Yes. Click on your username in the upper right hand corner of the forums page. Select "Ignored Users" under "Settings".

And you base this on... A guess? Anyway, you would be guessing wrong as I have tested the MXT400, MXT500, MXT275 and MXT575 on narrow/wideband. I dont have a fancy deviant meter - the difference can easily be heard with a regular human ear.

In my area of the country, many GMRS repeater owners state that they want users to refrain from using MDC, Talk Permit Tones, "Roger Beeps" or any other signaling, mostly due to the noise of those signals, or to keep Motorola users from "flexing" on other users......used to a thing in the past but surplus Motorola is also a lot more common now (as is other manufacturers including MDC in their products). On my own Spectra repeater system, I do have MDC set, so I can see which radio is keying up the repeater by its Radio ID number (just me and my family using my radio net most of the time), but that is a private repeater and I want to know when some outside person is on the net. (Usually other guest users do not have MDC set up, so I see a "1" or "0000" come through).

Those have really gone up in price, have used many of them for Icom A110/120 aviation radios, as that connector is also used by that series of mobile radio, with electrical noise being a huge problem with AM radio. Great filter, and does work well. I also add chokes to power cables, a practice that came from Motorola shipping cases of these when doing large projects, such as P25 installations at Public Safety Answering Points (911 Call Centers). That filter should work well to curb much of that noise heard. Back when you could still go to Radio Shack, they had a version that was sold for use with CB (AM 23-40 channel) and stereo equipment too, which was larger, cylindrical and comes up in many auction sites, for about the third of the price of the Kenwood version, it works too. Bought many on clearance years ago and used them all over the place.

One reason why many people run their repeaters for their own use and others they trust only. This is a lot easier in the amateur bands as there are so many more options and variables. GMRS radio use, well, people can figure it out easily if they know what they are doing.....and more reason to not even acknowledge the trolls, jammers, or other people that mis-use the radio system in play. Sort of like school yard bullies, unless you are ready to draw blood to prove a point, you only feed them what they want, acknowledgement and the thought that they have power over you. I see this on here at times, people that bully others, to make themselves look more important, or reply with flippant answers, attempting to belittle others, this does impact the usefulness and utility of this site (and is most likely why it has not grown as quickly as other radio related sites). Great advice has been given, do not "feed" these people or it gets worse. Some ways around this, use radios that have voice inversion (yes, some had/have this), do not acknowledge that you even hear these users, change channels, tones, or get off the air for a while. They do go away if they think they are unsuccessful. There will always be those that engage, and then rant about being jammed, trolled, or doxxed because of it, but it does not have to be you, if you keep it quiet. For clubs, business users, and individual families; bad news stays internal, good news goes public.

That is a very valid point. On one hand, as someone else mentioned, there appears to be no part 95 radios that have MDC in them, whereas some (not all) part 90 radios do. Sort of the same issue for ham radios. I don't know of any radio manufactured exclusively for amateur radio that includes MDC, yet hams are free to use part 90 radios whereas GMRS technically can't use them, even though it seems to be a common practice. So in reflection, it does beg the question of legality in both services and so perhaps I was misinformed about GMRS. Where I saw the difference was that hams can build their own radios and GMRS users can only use manufactured (part 95 type accepted) radios. I asked the original question because while I am certain that MDC is not permitted on ham, now I am back to questioning the legality of it on GMRS. (Oye!) The rules almost require a doctorate degree to understand, which leads to multiple interpretations. Combine that with the constant practice of people thumbing their noses a the rules (ham and GMRS) to the point where it becomes 'common practice', we find ourselves at the point where nobody really knows what is and is not legal. My interpretation, where ham radio is concerned, came from a legal explanation when I was still in 'the business'. At the time, GMRS was not not even on my mind and the conversation was specifically about the use of (commercial) digital protocols by hams. I agree with you in that if you look at the issue from the encode angle (virtually/effectively encrypted), it would be illegal in both services, save for the fact that there is no attempt to skew or hide the main information being transmitted. So for myself, I'm back to the 'adhere to the most restrictive interpretation of the rules' mode. That said, like the use of part 90 radio in GMRS, I don't see either user group who currently use it, ceasing the use of MDC until/unless confronted with a violation notice. If that happens at all. Doesn't really bother me in either radio service, indeed I rather hear people sending a short MDC burst than a string of DTMF tones. Personally, however, I simply don't operate in 'grey areas' where the rules are concerned. But that's just me and I'm not suggesting anybody stop if they do. To each their own! ?

It's not "largely" an empty threat, it is 100% an empty threat, based on the FCC's track record.. And for clarification for anyone following along at home, the ONLY penalties the FCC has levied in the last 10 years has been for doing things far and beyond anything that most rational people would even consider doing - and even then, they've only issued a handful.... and least I forget, paying the FCC for a license does not, in any way make anyone accountable for anything. It only makes one accountable if/when they choose to announce their callsign. But as mentioned, I DO agree, that feeding the radio-monkeys (aka dickheads, jammers, malicious operators) is a bad idea, so we can still hug. ?

OK Randy, just for you, I'll say this. I agree that the FCC probably has never revoked specifically a GMRS license in the history of GMRS licenses, (which I never said they did, and I you know that because you just re-read my post to try and nail me) and by the FCC even hinting at it, it's largely an empty threat. But the FCC can and does levy penalties, including monetary penalties and revoking of licenses across the spectrum, for misuse of the airwaves. You know this. I know this. We all know this. I have no idea if the FCC has ever revoked a GMRS license like they occasionally do with ham licenses, but I do know that they can, and folks have been fined for misuse of all manner of radio services, including GMRS radios. My point, and I know you get it, because from what I've seen, you're a smart man, is that by having a license, whether it's GMRS or any other, you become accountable for your behavior, and if a bunch of licensed idiots is running around on any radio service feeding the monkeys, it makes a mess of the airwaves for the rest of us.

No, I’m talking about GMRS legality. If MDC prohibited in amateur radio, it’s also prohibited in GMRS for the same reason; encoded communications are prohibited in GMRS in the same way they are in amateur radio You stated that MDC was legal in GMRS. If it is, then it’s legal for ham radio. It can’t go both ways.

Ham radio in general is more permissive in what technologies are used for communications. The principal limitation is on bandwidth, transmissions have to fit into allowed emission masks. Also you can’t use codes or encryption meant to obscure or hide the contents of the communications. There is an exception for satellite control ground stations for obvious reasons. The recent rule changes for GMRS in 2017, effective in 2018, encryption is now prohibited on GMRS, including the old voice inversion methods. You’ll likely find this on the older, pre rule change, radios but can no longer be used. So even though modes such as NXDN on Ham, for example, are proprietary they are “published” so anyone can receive the signals and don’t count as encryption thus legal to use. The same would apply to many other signaling systems currently in use. If one wants to design a new signaling system, fine, but the technical details have to be publicly available to any interested party. On GMRS you can use modes other than FM. There are several that are permitted, such as SSB, J3E. Not likely to encounter that one but it is listed as a legal mode. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E/section-95.1771 https://repeater-builder.com/tech-info/pdfs/fcc-emissions.pdf So I would recommend looking over the rules to see EXACTLY what is permitted first, then examine if a particular mode/signaling system is allowed per the FCC emission masks. Then decide if its an allowed emission does it fall under the prohibition of “codes” meant to hide or obscure the communications.

That’s my thought as well. If you’ve never put up a repeater, don’t list it prematurely; you don’t know what you don’t know. If you have done a half dozen successfully, go ahead and list it.

It’s not that it’s too minor for the fcc to react. The restrictions in ham radio are against encryption, not proprietary technology. The debate seems to center around an opinion that proprietary standards amount to encryption and thus violate the spirit of ham radio. I thought GMRS users were also restricted from using encryption. If so, how is it different from amateur radio in allowing MDC?

My question had to do with GMRS use of MDC. However, at the risk of getting into a debate, I'll answer your comment. First, it has nothing to do with modulation and bandwidth, etc... MDC is prohibited (on ham radio) because it is not an open standard. MDC is proprietary, Motorola created and owned, and so for every radio manufactured that includes it, that manufacturer pays a licensing fee that is (one would assume) included in the cost of each radio. For example, were you to build your own radio and wanted to include MDC signalling, you would need to ask Motorola for the specifications of the protocol and (like their other software licensing) have to pay them for the information and the use of their technology. Also like their software licensing, it is highly unlikely that such a request would be granted to an individual/end user. With the above noted, because an individual cannot legally obtain access to the details of the protocol (MDC), and/or use it in a design, it cannot be used in amateur radio. All that said, I am more than aware that there are hams using MDC signalling and that a lot of details of the protocol have leaked out over the years, to the point where one might be able to build a unit and/or write some code to make use of it. However, to the best of my knowledge, it's remains Motorola proprietary and so would remain a closed standard. So how are these people getting away with it? My opinion is that #1. when it comes to rule violations, it's a minor violation. #2, the FCC rarely goes after serious offenders so it's unlikely something like this would ever be pursued (much like the part 90 vs part 95 radio issue). The fundamental difference is that Ham radio and GMRS are two different radio services each with it's own intended purpose, rules and restrictions. Hams are permitted to construct their own equipment, GMRS operates are not allowed to do this. Ultimately GMRS operators are, in many ways, just users and so as our equipment is manufactured, we are generally free to use whatever technologies come with those radios (rules notwithstanding). Even then, the GMRS rules have a lot of caveats in regard to what kind of things we can put into the microphone jack so to say. Hams have very few technical restrictions beyond ensuring bandwidth use and clean signals. What lead to my original question was that MDC seems to still have a lot of debate going on between proponents of its use in amateur radio and those like myself whose understanding of legal operation (when it comes to Ham radio) leans to the restriction on the use of proprietary technology of any kind. Basically, if Joe ham cannot legally build a radio that includes technology 'X', then technology 'X' cannot be used in amateur radio. MDC is one such technology. Many will point out that there are other protocols in use in amateur radio, some of which include technologies that are proprietary to the manufacturer, D-Star for example (Icom). Nevertheless, those protocols and the licensing of them to end users and equipment manufacturers are available. While an end user likely isn't charged a licensing fee, another manufacturer would be. That again, is the fundamental issue. The protocol must be legally available for the end user in amateur/ham radio. While Mototrbo (DMR) and P25 are Motorola creations, both protocols are openly obtainable, indeed published. P25 via/through APCO and Mototrbo is based on one of the ETSI standards. My understanding of such restrictions is based on a long career I had as an engineer with Motorola. That said, It could be, as @Radioguy7268 mentioned, it is possible that patents have expired on MDC. It is admittedly, a somewhat antiquated (but in its full implementation, extremely powerful) protocol. Indeed, it may be that MDC signalling (not the full protocol) is legal because there is little in that subset of the protocol that could be considered as a way to concealing intent or otherwise be considered as a 'cypher' (encryption), which is not legal on ham or GMRS. I don't fear the FCC, but I do like to operate legally as much as possible, and after years working in the communications field, my experience with FCC rules is that one should adhere to the most restrictive interpretation. I don't feel my understanding is simple opinion, but take it as such if that helps. My original question was specific to GMRS and was answered, so I'm done with the issue and have no interest in debating it. Indeed, for the purpose of this GMRS forum any such debate is irrelevant, because MDC is legal on GMRS! All that said... I do apologize if my explanation seems to carry some tone, but I am admittedly upset because I posed the same simple question on a different GMRS forum and the sysop/admin of that forum threatened another user with removal for disagreeing with him, even resorting to a personal attack before threatening removal. Yeah, an admin, over a technical discussion!!! WTF? I enjoy (some) of the discussions that occur here, but really guys, if anyone feels they are personally, nevermind violently, offended because someone has a different opinion, then perhaps that person should stay out of the frey (IMHO). So by all means continue to discuss this one if you must. Just do it with respect and civility. To each their own.

The only problem with listing them is really getting a repeater on the air. There are tons of repeaters on the list that have never went on the air. I'm all for adding if your seriously adding one, but if you dont have equipment or plans I'd wait. Too many people look at the repeater map and program a radio to use a repeater that's not there. With that said there are guys who spend alot on getting a repeater online and they do follow thru with the work. Dont want folks to think everyone lists and doesn't do the work.

So where in the rules does it say that ? Many folks use MDC as well as P25 and other signaling on amateur radio. Many folks use MDC on GMRS.

Any digital signaling on gmrs is subject to the restrictions listed in 47 CFR § 95.1787 - GMRS additional requirements. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/95.1787

The rules don't say that you can't use it - but I'm not aware of any Motorola radio that's type accepted for Part 95 that has MDC signalling. "Legal" has lots of angles you can view it from. There are other brands that now offer MDC signalling.Vertex, Icom, and Kenwood all have certain models that offer it. It may not be fully compatible with all features in the MDC1200 Motorola world, but they've got it. I'm not actually sure if Motorola patents expired, or if they just decided to license it to other manufacturers at a more reasonable cost.

Well, it just so happens..... I have BOTH the 5000's in 3 bands and the 2500's in 3 bands. The one 5K is an 800 system radio and the equivalent 2500 is 900 and used for ham Durability is about the same. Price is similar. I like my 5K's because I have an XTVA in my van which allows me to drop any of the three radios in and have a handheld control head and external speaker. I have a multiband commercial antenna on it so it works with all three bands. Programming is no harder than setting up a CCR Baofeng, due to their almost hostile software. The 5K's are a bit larger and heavier than the 2500's but I run a fire rig (shoulder strap and leather case) with a commander mike (has volume and channel control on the mike. Not sure that the commander mike will work with the 2500's but I have never tried. If you are a system owner / operator on the network, the one nice thing with either of the radios is you can program 'phone numbers' into the radio. Now actual phone numbers on GMRS with a phone patch is a no no... But setting up the node DTMF commands so you can connect and disconnect to the different main nodes is nice. You just select the command you what and push the PTT. The radio will send the command string and your node will do it's thing. Accessories is another thing that commercial radios have that the CCR's and ham stuff lack. I have bank chargers that my radios set in. I can charge 6 radios or batteries at a time. Never seen that with a Baofeng. And the overall quality if so much better with the commercial stuff, and the apex of that is the 5K's for their manufactured window of time. Of course they have been phased out and replaced with the APX radios and those are a whole different animal. But they are seriously expensive. I have less invested in all my 2500's and 5000's than a single APX 7000 costs. The other thing with the programming is the files are portable. You can read your radio, email me or someone with my skill set your 'codeplug' (programming file) and I can edit it and setup the radio how you ask for it to be done and then I email it back. This is helpful when learning to program and not knowing exactly what you are doing. Just some thoughts to consider.

I have a XTS5000 III, and its an ok radio. The XTS are EOL now, and not supported by Motorola. The software was difficult to track down, and Motorola won't sell it to you. If you are looking for analog only, it is way too large and heavy to be a good choice. I bought mine for P25 use only, but analog it works well. As far as "upgrades", those that have extra upgrade flashes sitting around aren't willing to get rid of them, and like the software, MOL says EOL no sale.