Leaderboard

There is no such thing as "type acceptance" for Part 97, ham radio... Onomatopoeia!?! ?

Nooo, no no. It's not worth all that. I can learn to accept that I'm his second favorite viewer. I just think that it's only fair for me to expect him to address me as such, though. Congrats, you're his favorite. ?

Checking in.... would like to get the whole Veteran Crew in on this a lot of Veterans are kind of put off by the recent moron tirades and the structure of ham radio today. I think the would be a great alternative and cure some of the boredom and help network shut-ins and give some alternative to networking with the crew. And then there is the testing of the tech lic well it really didn't hold any interest for me to read up on be honest kinda some boring reading.

Yes. I have both. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Creating a repeater out of two radios that meet Part 95 does not mean you've got a Type Accepted Part 95 repeater. As mentioned, it is also quite expensive compared to the (IMHO better) alternatives. Vertex. Motorola. Kenwood. They all made good Part 90 repeaters. Some will put out at least 50 watts at a 100% duty cycle. Used units are available that will outperform a Bridgecom - and do it at a better price point. They also have a history of performance, along with available support (that you will probably never need).

@WRQV528 Don't fret over it. If the first files work on specified radios (looks correctly exported to me), it is sufficient that folks are now warned that they may need to modify files depending on what equipment or miscellaneous settings they are using. There are enough CHIRP guides and tutorials on the interwebs.

@wayoverthere Fairly sure, that is exactly how it works. Part of the CHIRP learning curve I guess.

For me, Chirp populates the default value for each field. If tone is not set, the default values are not sent to the radio. So, all those 88.5s mean nothing.

So, there is a difference between the older Part 95 and the newer Part 95e certifications. Back in the day a manufacturer could get an "add-on" part 95 certification for just about any part 90 certified UHF product. That was the Part 95 cert. Now there is a separate certification process and that is the Part 95e certification. I point that out because there a couple of Kenwood and Motorola repeaters that were certified under the old system which are grandfathered in, so we can use them for GMRS. Here are a couple: Kenwood TKR-820 repeater Kenwood TKR-850 repeater Anyway, hope this helps. JG

Ohh, I did not know that the Retevis RT97S is Part 95 Certified! I have the (older) RT97 (non-S version) and have had great results with just a mag-mount antenna on the top of my car. You can see how that went in this video: and you can see how well it works in hilly areas in this video: I agree with @WROZ250's warning about the Bridgecom - I have not used one, but have read many bad/negative reviews on them (although did not know they had a Part 95 repeater). I have also built a repeater from two KG-1000Gs - and although it was a great learning experience, its very expensive and not a practical solution for a 'real' repeater.

Thank you for the detailed analysis. This was very helpful as I go home tonight to fit a PA to my repeater. I am never one to push wattage as I understand the difference between 40 and 45 watts in db on the other end is usually negligible. I'm just bringing mine up to the point that transmit matches receive.

You can actually enjoy GMRS for your purposes without having to throw shade at Hams...

Ah, the more you know! Thank you both, and thank you axorlov for reminding me that crimping exists (as I truly forgot). I've since ordered a pre-made Kenwood (or as the listing calls it, "T Shape Connector") to bare wire cable.

Naw! QRP (especially with CW) can go quite the distance with a decent antenna, even a modest one, depending on conditions. Power isn't everything and, personally, I find snagging some DX with a couple of watts a lot more rewarding than doing it with 100+. The challenge with the Pixie is that it is an extremely rudimentary transceiver, especially the receiver portion. It is definitely not for a beginner to use as it would indeed become frustrating.

Some of the NGGMRS repeaters are tagged with: Open to all transient users. permission required for local and regular users. A few years ago, I was in Hixson/North Chattanooga & was a guest on their weekly net on the Lookout Mountain machine It looks like they reopened the .700 machine, it wasn't activated when I was there, only the Lookout .650 & the non-linked Chattanooga .600 were live While you're there, I would announce my call with 'traveling' or 'visiting' Hope my advice doesn't step on any toes 73

It's under the "Subscriptions" link in the sidebar on the main pages (rather than the forum page). If you hit the "repeaters" link at the top of the forum page, that will have the main page sidebar available (3 lines near the top left of the page). https://mygmrs.com/profile/subscriptions

Well, I have only be a ham for 20 years. Do I have an agenda, yes, I dislike stupidity and to a lesser degree, wackers, or wanna be public safety types. These aren't the average hams that want to do their part, pass traffic in a disaster situation and conduct themselves 'professionally'. I am referring to the clowns that have a light bar on their car, a big sticker about weather spotting, fake radar dish on the roof of their car and the mandatory ham radio 'police badge' further indicating their self importance. And the modification to the radio makes it 'illegal' under part 90, not part 97. The radio was never type accepted under part 90 so if it transmits there it's automatically in violation. This is regardless of any other regulation or stipulation in the rules that says any means at your disposal.... if you take a ham radio and transmit in another part of the spectrum that's regulated under a different part of the regulation, then the radio has to meet the requirements of that part of the regulation. Ham radios are NOT part 90 approved, therefore they can't be transmitting there. It's just as illegal to spin the dial on your HF radio down to the AM broadcast band and start transmitting there. Again, not because of the part 97 regulations, but because of part 73 that regulates AM FM broadcast. And the number of regulations they have to follow is FAR more strict than ham or even part 90. And that's a piece of the spectrum that WILL get the attention of the FCC if you go messing about in it. Here's the problem with all this. This lie has been being told to other hams for YEARS to the point it's common. The League refuses to set the matter straight, and tell hams to stop spreading this myth because it will drive away some part of the ham community as a whole that believe they need to be able to talk to the police or fire dispatchers directly 'just in case'. And the truth is a lot of those guys are one step away from getting a Crown Vic and turning it into a wanna be police car and ending up on the front page of the newspaper for being arrested for impersonation of whoever. Now all that being said, if you are stuck on a mountain top and you are in trouble, can't get down, or whatever the case may be. If you have a radio that will talk on the police, fire or dog catcher channel and you call for help, NO ONE is gonna fault you for that. And I seriously doubt you will end up with a fine from the FCC for transmitting a distress message. But there are limits to when it's acceptable. And with this specific situation, none of those limits were met.

OK, so now we just generalize because a few people have had bad experiences with a few idiots? I do agree that there are, unfortunately, a few 'hams' who are idiots and can't wait to fling their newfound 'expertise' in people's faces (even if they have it incorrect which is, admittedly, frequently). However again, that is just a (very) few people overall and, it seems to be only people like yourself who they tend to gravitate towards. That said, many times people bait them (intentionally and unintentionally). I find your videos, for example, entertaining and informative. But for those not familiar with your style(?) and/or the few miscreant idiots who can't wait to show their 'intelligence', they come across as anything but entertaining and, the idiots are certainly not really interested in your point, despite the fact it is valid. They wouldn't know that because the idiots stopped listening the moment they heard something they believed to be wrong. However again, despite your own (and others) negative experiences with a few miscreant 'hams', they certainly do not represent the vast majority of 'hams'. Indeed, there are quite a few GMRS 'aficionados' who can't seem to wait to expound about their expertise (to other GMRS users) based on a single personal experience, despite the fact that they have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about. Shall we call out all GMRS users because these few?? I suppose my point here is that such idiots are not exclusively (or even predominately) 'Hams', and so when people make blanket negative comments, it's just rude IMHO and unnecessary. There are plenty of other non-ham idiots who jump in with their 'expertise', do we start generalizing about people in general? How about the newbies who don't meet the average knowledge level? Do we respond with 'These newbies are always so stupid...'? It just doesn't belong in a forum that is suppose to foster open discussion. Too many times I've see valid technical discussions go completely off the rails and/or a post hijacked because somebody generalizes and/or feels compelled to comment about the poster rather than the topic. It just doesn't belong in these conversations. Just one opinion.

This is ideology is a result of the constant barrage of ham radio operators acting like snobs, idiots, and whatever (take your pick) in online forums every day seemingly doing their best to chase away newcomers to the hobby. And yes, GMRS users also do this, but strangely, many of them also have ham callsigns listed on their forum signatures.

This fascinates me, so I read that whole thread. One statement stood out for me: "in fact, they were trying to manipulate the emergency response to save some of their own equipment" Assuming this poster knows what they're talking about, I feel like "interfering with the intent to prioritize personal interests" would be a lot more scandalous than just "trying to help, but being a nuisance"...

MY opinion is they should go harder on him. This happens more than folks realize and many walk away with a warning. Other forums have hundreds of pages about hams thinking they can talk on any channel they want if they feel the need. If more folks got fined maybe these yahoos would think before they do stuff like this. If he had info he could have picked up his cell and called the command post.

Yup, making the plug is fully seated is the only fix. A lot of times it's the boot around the plug that's the problem.

He transmitted five times on the frequency they used to direct aircraft the first day, “thwarting” their ability to effectively respond (according the the public statement). He transmitted three times on the second day. At some point during the second day a supervisor dropped what he/she was doing to tell him to knock it off, in spite of the characterization of the fire incident being described as an “all hands on deck” event. I could understand someone making an emergency transmission on an unauthorized band once, but eight times? The guy was trying to make himself more important than he is.

I never did find something that clearly states he transmitted after the personal warning, but I had to chuckle at this post: walrus01 16 hours ago | next [–] Oh wow I literally know this guy. Jason Frawley. He's a big part of a very vocal group of rural, deep red state WISP operators who think they're god's own gift to network engineering, and mostly worship at the altar of one specific political figure. Watching their antics has been an endless source of amusement. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen Jason and his cohort shoot themselves in the foot with some ill-advised network architecture, rf engineering or network engineering design choice... That he's out there interfering with licensed bands and emergency services is totally unsurprising. That's only the tip of an iceberg of weirdness. There are very, very few FCC enforcement bureau staff members in WA, ID, OR. You have to do something really egregious to get on their radar screen. Every time the FCC fines someone $10k+ it goes in their public daily digest emails as a "notice of apparent liability" and is quite a rare event in the Pacific Northwest. It is not at all as if the FCC has vans full of guys with spectrum analyzers and such driving around the area trying to hunt down and fine people for petty reasons. To get fined by them you really have to go far outside the accepted norms for two way radio or wisp operations in the area. He has network equipment and repeaters at the mentioned elk butte site and probably thought he was doing something to protect his gear. His FCC licensed part 101 fdd band plan ptp microwave links are all part of the public record as part of the FCC ULS public data for the curious.

“According to the FCC account, a Forest Service supervisor drove to the airstrip, identified Frawley as the person and told him to stop.”

I purchased my first VHS VCR in 1979 for $1,000 One year later, they came out with a new model that had a long cord that plugged into the back and you could hit a button to pause the commercials; for $1,000. One year later, they came out with a new model that had a wireless remote; for $1,000. Now do you think the idea of a wireless remote was too advanced for their engineers in 1979? I think marketing just said: release a new "cool" feature every year so we can sell new models to existing owners! Just a brief note of history...

[ slams mouse, rushes outside for a fight ]

Based on my subjective and nerdy calculations, there are a little over 10,000 licensed GMRS users that are affected by this, which works out to about 7% of the United States licensed GMRS users. I say we (the 93%) use channel 19 anyway hahaha

Let me get this right.... you come in here more than a week ago, make 1 post to stir the pot on a subject you know very well has history on this forum. Act shocked by the same responses that are in every other thread about this and then pop smoke with a backhanded snarky attitude. Does that about sum this up? Did someone put you up to this or are you just terrible at being a troll all on your own?

I think you hang around here long enough you will find OffRoaderX, in regards to the radio airwave spectrum, to be almost Hebraic in his view of HAM.?

...as predicted...