Leaderboard

Personally, I think it's sloppily written with inaccurate premises and illogical conclusions. I see absolutely no reason why a ham radio licensee should be excused from paying for a GMRS license and arguing that equipment that requires no certification should be allowed on a service that requires certified equipment is ridiculous. But it's interesting what people will ask for.

I seriously doubt it. It's written by a ham. Hams are notorious for having zero sense of humor. In fact, "Hams have a sense of humor" is one of the true or false questions I answered on my Technician exam.

I can honestly say that as a GMRS and ham radio license holder, I want exactly no part of this proposal to ever see the light of day. The FCC has already made a mess of the FRS/GMRS portion of the UHF band, and is contemplating even more mayhem with Midland's digital nonsense. Also, us hams have enough work to do already, what with posting reams of FCC regulations, technical service bulletins and doctoral dissertations for simple questions like "How do I ID" on MyGMRS. We can't be expected to police GMRS+ too.

I read the document. Wow, there is a lot going on there and I'm not talking about the technical aspects. I am not sure I understand why anyone with an amateur license would need or want to make all these changes to GMRS. Everything the document proposes is available in the amateur bands and is not relegated to the small number of frequencies given to GMRS even with going narrow band to add channels. The most disturbing paragraph to me was proposing people holding an amateur radio license could volunteer to be the radio police for both GMRS and the proposed GMRS+ services. I guess having an amateur license makes one superior to the folks on GMRS. I have a "HAM" license and a GMRS license and I am not better than anyone. I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers for that gig.

To be fair, there were legislative reasons the fee for ham licenses stayed zero as long as it did, along with some administrative hoops to get their <stuff> together to justify the fees and get the payment processes in place. It'd probably get more traction to argue the cost of administering gmrs licensing should be adjusted to reflect actual costs than trying to get a structure where the license costs nothing.

Well put, and putting it nicely. It sounds like making more of a mess to me, and there's definitely an overtone of "hams are superior" in that document While I wouldn't mind seeing digital voice come to gmrs, it'd probably be best relegated to a new channel or two (maybe require narrowband there), and for simplicity go with one set standard...there's already a good variety of radios out there with DMR, from cheap to LMR. Along that line, how about explicitly making part 90 gear a-ok too? The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing that's definitely a concession to hams (and I'm not seeing any corresponding downside to gmrs, but let me know if I'm missing something) would be a pass on the 95e certification requirement IF the user holds both a gmrs license and a ham license, i.e. the ability to also use your ham gear for gmrs, subject to the usual power, mode and bandwidth requirements for gmrs. Hey, a guy can dream.

I also tried the MXTA26 when I switched my mobile to an Icom 2730A and 2 meters SWR was through the roof. I ended up with the same Comet SBB5 and very happy so far. You have to pull up on it pretty good to get it to fold over. I have had no issues with it. I think one of their larger antennas had this issue and they changed the design to a locking nut but I don't recall which one that was.

Here is the PDF. eb8ecdb4-dd29-4556-b6f5-6e260a31350e.pdf

No, “TSQL”, means that it transmits a tone and also requires a tone to open the squelch. “TONE” sends a tone but doesn’t require one on receive. It’s the same as leaving the tone out on receive.

I agree. I intend to get my ham license soon and have no desire to use that to police or otherwise screw up GMRS.

Yup hams trying to inter-fear in yet another service. My hopes are the FCC laughs at this one.

While I was on the FCC site today trying to decide what (if anything) to enter into the public record about the Midland proposal for digital mobile GMRS radios and digital voice on GMRS, I stumbled across this document: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/121859354063/1 Here's the filing details: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/121859354063

That is interesting. I never realized it was based on MURS. I have a Garmin Xumo XT for my bike, it's been great. I looked at the group ride radio but honestly, I just never ride in groups. Now that I know it is based on MURS, it opens up the ability to talk with others using that system. Good to know it isn't some closed "Garmin" system, but based on a free to use, unlicensed public frequency. It sure is expensive, though. But, I would feel awfully cool if I had a MURS and a GMRS mobile rig on my motorcycle. I bet all the pretty girls would think I was all right at that point.

If I ever heard any activity on the repeater, and they had an open net asking for people, then sure. But to reach the repeater I'd have to be told the tones or scan the tone as it identified and that just feels like trespassing. Plus, I have sent a request on here and have sent the guy an actual request letter via actual real life mail. No response, so at this point I can only assume they don't feel like sharing the system at this time. Believe me, I'd love to be using it since it is so close to the house. But, I'll have my ham license soon enough and there are ham repeaters I can reach. GMRS would be cool too for when I'm hiking/exploring with family, but it is what it is.

First, don't necessarily trust the SWR reading from the Surecom. It might be rights, but there are reports of them being incorrect. An antenna analyzer will tell you whether your antenna has a reasonable SWR in the 462-467 MHz. Once you know about the antenna, then test the combination of the cable and antenna. Second, are you testing with the antenna connected to the car the way it's designed to be? The simple act of raising an antenna, or placing it on a ground plane, or standing beside it, can drastically affect the SWR. Third, What is the SWR on the higher repeater channels (23-30?) Finally, welcome to the forums! Steve

I don't recall it being mentioned on the forums here, but in October, Garmin petitioned for a rule change as well: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/1005158792395

Yes, I think that would be one of the most important things for a serious rule change proposal. I'd like to also see GMRS added for free to those with a HAM license who request it (obviously I already have mine so that's for newcomers). It can't cost $35 just to have software assign an extra alphanumeric string to an existing licensed user. But at least let us use our UV-5Rs, dang-it, instead of buying one with a different label; there's no need for duplication.

That would be nice if that would happen. As it is, there are plenty of people who have both licenses that are unlocking/modifying their radios to work on amateur and GMRS bands.

I did send a letter, but haven't heard anything. The owner, from basic information available, is big in the local amateur radio community. I am set up to take my Technician exam in early January, and am hoping to join and meet those communities too. I listen in a lot; haven't keyed up the mic yet obviously. It's very tempting to chime in when they are literally asking "any other lurkers listening in here's your chance to say hello" but... I figured all that will come when I hold a ham callsign.

You can, but it will never be the best option. You have to weigh the advantages against the disadvantages. How long is it? Which leads to calculating the losses. RG-6 loses nearly 5 dB in 100 feet on GMRS frequencies. How difficult would it be to replace? If it’s easy, and the cable is long, go for something better. If it’s short and difficult to replace then I would at least try it. Basically I would try it and see first.

It means it’s “stale”. Its status hasn’t been updated in 2 years.

I'm no Jimmy The Greek, but the odds are definitely not in your favor.

I wouldn’t think that the FCC would be in on the joke…

TSQL is for setting both TX and RX tones. Or at least that how it works in CHIRP I find it easier to just use the Wouxun KG935G software downloaded from Buy Two Radios to program all of my Wouxun radios.

I might believe this if they were drinking coffee...

Personally, on the surface of this proposed rule making, I'm not opposed to it if it is technically feasible and will not cause harmful interference to any existing Part 95, Subpart E channel. I am a proponent of narrowbanding for the purpose of frequency efficiency. Wide-Band channel users need to embrace frequency efficiency is more important than audio fidelity. I'm not sure why the Amateur Radio Service hobbists want to encroach in the midst of the only channels that GMRS hobbyists have for their use when the Amateur Radio Service has a gazillion of seldom used frequencies throughout the Country. I'm still trying to wrap my arms around that subject. It appears that the proposal is one-sided and a little greedy, and only addresses the benefits for Amateur Radio Hobbyists. What about allowing the GMRS hobbyists enjoy the same scarce spectrum resource too? I think the proposed rule making should include the possibility of allowing the licensed GMRS hobbists to apply for this proposed GMRS+ license without taking a test, that only proves the Amateur Radio hobbyists have a better memory in remembering the published test question answers than a looked-upon lowly GMRS hobbyists. The GMRS+ license should also grant the GMRS licensed user with the Plus license access to the 2 Meter and 33 & 70 Centimeter bands as a restricted Station Operator without taking any written examination. Wouldn't it be best if we all can share and enjoy the hobby together rather than be segregated?

Nevermind. Are y'all sure this isn't a hoax/joke?

I'm not sure if I'm following correctly but it sounds like the radio will stop scanning on a frequency/channel when it sees a signal regardless of if it has a tone to match and even though it stops you can't hear because the tone is not the receiving tone needed to hear. If I got that right, my thought is to work around you could only program one memory without the RX tone or put the channels of different locations in different scan groups and only scan the one area you want one at a time thus eliminating the one with the other tone from your scan. You could also set scan to TO so that it continues to scan after 5 seconds if you don't stop it. I hope I'm understanding your dilemma correctly and this helps.

Not surprised. The way a lot of electronics are packaged (or packed) these days helps to protect them from physical damage and also from the elements. Unfortunately, it also sometimes protects them from us.

That’s exactly the one. It doesn’t fold over, at least not accidentally. It may be that they changed the way the folding whip works since someone complained about it, but it requires a very deliberate action to fold it. One other thing. I bought mine used from a person and saved $10 (I thought), but I didn’t have a decent analyzer at the time. It worked on 2 meters (better than the Midland) but once I got my RigExpert I discovered that SWR was higher than it should be. It looked like the whip was too short. So, I wrote in to the US Comet representative and he immediately identified it as a failed capacitor in the loading coil section immediately above the mount. He sent me one for a price, so by buying used from a private party I cost myself some money. I suspect I could replace the capacitor if I could figure out how to take apart the coil assembly, but I haven’t yet. The factory rep said it couldn’t be done without destroying the coil. Of course you’ll need a mount as well.

Not a modeler, but I've found this useful: https://www.scadacore.com/tools/rf-path/rf-line-of-sight/

I tried to use the Midland MXTA26 antenna for one of my Radioddity DB20Gs, which I reconfigured for use on VHF and UHF Amateur bands, but not GMRS. As expected it worked okay on 70 cm. But it failed miserably on 2 meters, not even communicating five blocks down a straight street. For that radio I switched to a Comet SBB5.

I'm not into model railroading but I took my kids to a couple of events some years ago and it is truly amazing. Can't spend the time and money on it myself but I hope you find plenty of others to work with.

As I read what you have tried I couldn’t think of anything else either. Just out of curiosity do you have any issues talking simplex between your two radios?

You have covered everything I would have tried. If the problem was reproduced with four radios and two different antennas it my be a repeater issue. Hopefully someone on the forum will have a better idea of how to figure this out. Sorry I couldn't help.

When tuning an antenna such as the TRAM 1486, which has 3 sections. After Trimming the antenna to the 3 prescribed lengths and determining that it still needs further trimming should you continue to tweek all 3 sections or only trim the base of the the antenna for overall length to achieve the desired SWR?

65cm is damn close to 70cm. My antenna is under 1.8 swr all across both bands.

Popup blocker stopped me from reading it live, but it was downloadable. My comment: New enforcement nightmare. Just because people should be licensed to be legal doesn't mean they will be. If this was approved, within 2 months a new Baofeng GMRS+ would be on Amazon and about 3% of users under the new rules would hold + licenses.

Maybe the Texas GMRS Radio Club would be interested in working with you.

Yes, one repeater transmitting to another repeater results in an infinite loop. You transmit on Channel A to the small repeater. The small repeater repeats your transmission on Channel B so it can be received by the big repeater. The big repeater must transmit on Channel A or your small repeater would never receive it. When the small repeater receives it on Channel A it repeats it on Channel B where it is received by the big repeater. Infinite loop. There are ways to link repeaters to accomplish what you suggest using network connections.

Grounding bonding and the like are NOT to deal with a direct strike. The first and foremost reason to ground and bond is safety for the operator. And that is where the bonding part comes in. If you install a tower, toss a couple ground rods in the ground and connect them to the tower and do NOTHING else you create a bigger issue than if you just did nothing. And here's why. Your house, building or whatever has an electrical service connected to it. Part of the code for that service being connected is there is a safety ground. So that service has one or two ground rods connected to it (newer builds require 2 rods). You radios are plugged into that service and that ground. That ground is connected to the case of your radio and then the antenna is ALSO connected. That antenna is connected to the tower and the tower is grounded with a second set of ground rods. A ground strike that hits neither the tower or the electrical service will induce a pulse that will spread out across the ground as it disperses. Since the two different grounds are at different places, they are at different voltage potentials as the strike disperses in the ground. But you have connected them together with your radio being the fuse in the middle. So it goes poof. If the radio is NOT connected to the electrical ground, but is connected to the tower, but other equipment is sitting there on the desk that is connected to the electrical ground, then it will arc across from one device to the other, OR if the radio is connected to a computer or some other device that is on the electrical ground via data cables, then one device has a different voltage potential than the other across the data cable,,, again POOF. None of these are 'direct hits' They are all ground strikes that fry your gear due to lack of proper bonding between the different pieces of equipment connected to the different grounds. Specific to tower grounding. For a small tower for GMRS / HAM radio use, and NOT a big commercial tower, the reason for grounding the tower is NOT to deal with a direct hit, it's more to prevent the hit from coming at all. As we have all been told over and over. Lightning will take the path of least resistance. If you have an ungrounded tower, that tower can build a static charge on it with reference to ground. The tower is more conductive than the tree's around it, and it's now at a higher potential due to the static charge. That makes it the path of least resistance and therefore the most likely target for a strike. Anything connected to that tower is going to become part of the dispersion of that strike. So you ground it. Grounding the tower brings the entire tower back to the same voltage potential as the rest of the surrounding earth and therefor makes it no more of a target than anything else there because the grounding pulls the static charge off the tower, and in reality will not let it build up to begin with. Lightning suppressors. Lightning suppressors perform two different tasks when they are properly installed, and don't do anything if they are not installed correctly. They first and foremost need to be grounded. That ground needs to be right at the entry point where the cable enters the building. But the shield of the cable needs to be grounded on the outside of the building just before it enters the building as well. The surge suppression part of the device is to short down any voltage higher than the trigger voltage of the suppressor in use. This is typically about 100 volts. If any part of the tower is hit, every part of that tower and anything connected to it will have a voltage induced on it. That induced voltage will create a magnetic field (like a transformer) that will induce voltages on any other conductor near it including the center conductor of any coax on the tower. The suppression is to short that to the shield of the cable and then to the grounding system it's connected to. It's NOT to deal with a singular hit on a specific antenna on the tower. If that happens, the radio connected to that antenna will go POOF. BUT if the grounding is done correctly and the bonding is right, that will be the only radio damaged. If not, then the lightning will come down and tear up lots of stuff.

Almost all of the bands have a portion reserved for phone (voice) and a portion reserved for CW (carrier wave - which is very effective for Morse code). The use of phone or CW is also limited by class of amateur license (Technician - most limited, General, or Amateur Extra - least limited). A generic chart showing which class is allowed and where for each band is called a “band plan.” Some states have slightly different band plans as well. I’ll post the general band plan here: https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/Band Chart/Band Chart - 11X17 Color.pdf