Leaderboard

Well, I specifically put a repeater up on 675 with a PL of 141.3 because that WAS at one time the designated traveler channel and traveler tone. The only other listed repeater in the area was the clown with the for profit business selling air time. So I figured it was the right thing to do. I honestly don't care if y'all decide it needs to be different, the repeater is on it air and I ain't changing it. And to sort of quote WROZ250. Why are we rehashing this AGAIN??? Dude saw a video on YouTube and decided that it needed to be discussed in it's own new thread after we generated how many pages of discussion on this topic? I'm sorry but I am all for requiring your first 5 posts to require being approved by a moderator and a rule in place saying that you have to search the site before posting a new topic. One of the boards I moderate has a back end that when you type a topic for a new post, there is an area that populates with similar topics right below it. And it will ask you if you want to post an already discussed topic. Moreover, if you DO post a topic that's already been beaten to death, it gets added to the other thread or deleted and you get a strike for posting it.

Just remember, that as predicted in the proclamation video, "some people" will always and forever spew reasons why Ch19 (any channel, actually) is not "the right choice", and will argue about it as they have for years, accomplishing nothing.. Those people are not invited to join with the rest of us normal people on Ch19.. They can go talk to themselves on some other channel.. My name is Queen Randy and I approve this message.

I would support the idea if it weren’t for the fact that 10 - 12 million people live far enough north that they are not allowed to use channel 19 because of an agreement with Canada.

I got my updated MXT275 back Wednesday and got it set back up. I've been using it a few days on the local repeater now and so far, I've not heard any complaints about my audio being quiet anymore. I would say it works at this time.

We spent 6 months arguing over this before. Don't think we need yet another thread. Both points of view were discussed. Use a channel you want and go from there.

Ya'll go ahead and discuss your silly games. Off Road vehicles already have decided Ch 16 for the call channel.?

This is a new topic for me: could you please explain to me how someone else using foul language on his son's FRS radio puts your FCC licenses at risk?!?

I just drove from Central California to the Texas-Louisiana border. I did the 1900 mile drive in three days. I had my handheld GMRS radio on and scanning for the whole trip. I heard one person talking on a repeater west of Phoenix, AZ. Somewhere in New Mexico I heard a couple of people talking car to car. I was stuck on I-10 in Houston for three hours due to an accident four miles in front of me and heard nothing. I also had a 2m/70cm handheld on, scanning, and heard very little traffic. Both radios, KG-905G, and Yaesu VX-6R, work perfectly. Interestingly enough, when I reached my destination I found a juvenile detention facility using GMRS radios. The facility is several miles from where I am. I was surprised I didn't hear more traffic on either the GMRS or the HAM bands. I will reverse the trip next week and will keep the radios scanning. As an aside, the 3200 mHa battery in the KG-905G lasted the whole trip scanning 12 hours a day for three days and is still showing over 8 volts.

Might have smoked the reverse polarity protection diode?

A Halfwave antenna has a “matching network” on the end, usually in the base area, that a 1/4 wave doesn’t have. You can’t simply cut a 1/4 wave antenna for a lower frequency and expect it to work as a 1/2 wave with no ground plane at a much higher frequency.

Not that I dont trust you, or think you're making stuff up out of thin air, but i would love for you to share some actual facts about all these others this has happened to. Perhaps a link to the FCC enforcement database entry? Because as I'm sure you know, every time the FCC breathes down anyones neck, for any reason, by law, the FCC must publish that enforcement.

I have a Jackery 1500 Explorer. Under no load (I've not measured under a load) I was seeing 13.3V output. For my higher power radio (KG-1000G) I just use the AC output to my SamlexPower SEC-1235 power supply that is stable at 13.8, even under the load on H power while transmitting. Also, note, the KG-1000G has 15A fuses, the DC output on the Jackery is rated at 10A, another reason I didn't direct DC connect this radio to the Jackery. With my smaller first radio (Midland MXT275) I regularly powered directly from the Jackery DC power with no issues while camping.

As long as the ID is made by the rules who cares what language is spoken on the repeater. You’re not trying to hide or obscure the communications so it shouldn’t matter to anyone else.

Pertaining to the discussion of MDC being a form of 'encryption' It's really not. FCC specifies that it's illegal to modify the transmission 'to obscure the meaning of the communication' MDC doesn't obscure anything. And even being 'proprietary' doesn't hold water. I don't own a fusion radio or a DStar radio. So since I can't hear it, is it being specifically obscured so I can't hear it as a ham operator, and is it being done specifically so I CAN'T hear it? Of course the answer is no. And if you were to program up a GMRS radio with MDC status messages and broadcast them, are you obscuring the meaning? Not unless you specifically will NOT allow others to know what those status messages are. If you were to set up 16 status messages in MDC and then POST them here on the board, they aren't obscured. If you are only using MDC as unit ID's for your radios, nothing is being obscured, it's your radio ID. And MDC is limited to what it can send. It's not packet of another digital mode where you are shipping text messages with it. The status messages are assigned a specific number that is universal to the protocol. If STS16 is 'A$$CLOWN on repeater" then it's not obscured if posted. And it's universally STS16 message on the MDC protocol. Now I can' have STS16 as "I Love You' to be sent to my wife. It's still STS16. Of course if you have it as something else, then your radio will display something different. But again, I am using it to communicate with my wife and you are using it to warn others of shenanigans on the repeater. But they are BOTH STS16 in MDC. Now, if a number of us were to get on the repeater and start speaking Russian, is THAT 'encryption'. If we are doing it do others CAN'T understand what we are talking about, then yes, that's encryption, not because we are using the Russian language, but because we are SPECIFICALLY using it to obscure the meaning on purpose so others CAN'T understand the meaning of the communications. But if we have a Wednesday night net to keep our multi-lingual skills up to par and speak Russian for most all of the net then it's perfectly legal. It all goes back to intent. I honestly believe the only reason that we aren't allowed ANY form of encryption on ham specifically, even on WiFi links is the FCC doen't want to field the telephone calls about it from the old farts that would be raising hell about it because they can hear it on their old tube radios. I have no doubt that when VHF went to FM the old codgers were mad because their AM VHF radios wouldn't hear it. And it was gonna be the downfall of ham radio. Now I am not saying GMRS should be allowed P25 C4FM modulation and AES256 encryption. But DMR and building a nationwide network with IPSC (Ip site connect) would be nice, but also not really needed. So I really think it's about intent at the end of the day. But I will also say this about MDC. One of the features with MDC is Radio Stun. Which enables you to send a command to a radio with an MDC ID to basically turn it off. It's used commercially to disable rouge radios and stolen radios that pop up on the system. And it's pretty effective. Yes, you have to have a radio or console that will transmit that command, but that stuff IS out there in the wild.

CB channel 19 wasn't used nationwide as a travel channel. The Pacific Northwest used Channel 17. That area included all of Washington state, Oregon and most of Idaho. Channel 19 was primarily used for rag chews and sideband use.

..Like I said...

I wonder how long it will take before you see these showing up on eBay at a cheap price.

Same here. If I figure out they have no license, whether it's GMRS or ham, I ignore them. And like you, I got the GMRS license so my wife and I can keep in contact on repeaters when I'm off exploring outside of cell coverage, since she's not really interested in the ham license.

I believe Motorola’s patent on MDC has expired. That would mean it’s no longer even a “proprietary” signaling system. The patents are listed at the end of the below article on Wikipedia. The technical details are known how it functions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDC-1200 Several of my Kenwood commercial radios have it. For example the TK-3360. https://pdfs.kenwoodproducts.com/16/TK-2360&3360Brochure.pdf The radio can be easily programmed to work on GMRS, however it’s only certified for Part 90 so it’s not strictly legal to use except on Part 90 and the Ham 70cm band. Personally I’m more interested in seeing the FCC to allow some form of digital voice to be used. I think people favor DMR. If they allow NXDN my NX-300’s are already certified for Part 95A. I can use them on GMRS FM currently. https://comms.kenwood.com/common/pdf/download/301_NX200-300.pdf NX-300 FCC Grant - 1.pdf

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.

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. ?

I can't believe this is true AND you have the previously stated opinion. You would know that there is no other group or assortment of technology, techniques and talent that can match what we can accomplish and have accomplished with amateur radio and our partnerships with the aforementioned agencies. When no one else can communicate, Hams can. I'm certainly not bashing GMRS, FRS. The best solution is the one you have, but I'm not going to sit here and let you post that BS opinion and not call you out. Sorry... but no.

Bottom line, you need options. Don't limit yourself.

Also I believe you can transfer all your licenses to a single FRN and then either ignore the other FRN or request they be deleted.

There is no need for multiple FRNs as the number only identifies the applicant not the service or license.

Honestly, if you stop talking that generally means they can begin talking again. OTOH, simply saying "over" or "back to you" will accomplish the task easily. ?

If any of you with repeaters in the Austin area are interested in linking them via IP, let me know.

This Topic, Again?? ?

Well this is where one gets into a grey area... sort of... But you nailed it on the head. MDC by default is not encrypted, but it is encoded within a proprietary protocol. A protocol which, being proprietary and restrictively/non-published, is unavailable for use and/or arbitrary decoding (deciphering?) by, in this case, amateurs. As I alluded to previously, MDC isn't simply PTT ID and/or private call, the full data protocol is extremely powerful and feature rich. Antiquated or not, MDC is capable of things that few (if any) amateur digital modes, even some commercial data protocols, are capable of providing . Perhaps that is why it has not been release as an open standard (admittedly speculating there)?. So while it isn't technically encrypted, it effectively/practically speaking is, or might as well be. Were Motorola to release the protocol to public domain, making it 'open' to all, there is no reason it would not be completely legal for amateur radio. However, unless something has changed, MDC is not an open standard. That, is how I interpret the restriction/prohibition under the Part 97 rules. There are protocols (such as D-Star and P25) that have some proprietary features within, however, the the protocol information is not restricted, hence the availability of, for example, hot spots and dongles, most of which support open protocols such as P25, Mototrbo (DMR), D-Star and a couple others. As far as the FCC is concerned, I do agree that under 'normal' (what's normal these days?) situations, the FCC would enforce the restriction. The reality is they rarely enforce anything but the most serious offenses these days. That, however, is an entirely different topic. Again, for those who have not been paying attention, not talking about GMRS legality, only Amateur radio. My original question was answered where GMRS is concerned. ?