Leaderboard

or drive one!

I recently picked up a Baofeng AR-5RM. The kit included the radio with battery, a standard "701 clone" antenna tuned to FM (broadcast radio) / 136-174MHz / 400-520MHz, an Abbree AR-771 VHF/UHF antenna, a desktop charger, wrist strap, belt clip, and a manual which turned out to be better written than the manual for my old UV-5R radios. For those who are unfamiliar with this radio, it is pretty much identical to the UV-5G Plus, the UV-5RM Plus, and possibly other Baofeng radios. It's marketed as pushing up to 10w transmit power. The radio is quite a bit larger than the older UV-5G (UV-5R sibling). The screen is much nicer, though I've seen complaints that it's hard to read in bright sunlight. I suspect that's true, though it's still legible to me. The menus seem better laid out, but maybe that's because the display has more characters, so it's easier to understand what the menu is saying. Compared to the UV-5R's 128 memory locations, this radio has 999. Just about the first thing I did was use my old Baofeng UV-5R USB cable to program it with Chirp. This process went smoothly, and the data upload/download is about twice the speed of data transfers with the older UV-5G. Chirp is going to be Chirp -- if you know how to use it with one radio, it works just about the same for any compatible radio, with the addition or subtraction of a few field columns depending on the radio you're programming. I noticed that this radio allows up to 12 characters in the channel name field. And it offers three power levels, low, medium, and high. Through some testing I determined that these equate to about 2.5w, 5w, and 10w. Spurious emissions.... When transmitting with my older UV-5G and looking at the spectrum waterfall on my RTL-SDRv4 I would see a sharp peak at the frequency center, with two short peaks a few kilohertz away in either direction. This isn't terribly surprising, as my SDR's antenna is only six feet away when I test. But when I transmit with the AR-5RM and observe the waterfall, I don't see those secondary peaks on either side of the frequency center. I also used some software to do a wider scan with the SDR to see if there were other significant emissions across a broader portion of the UHF spectrum, and really didn't see much, in my unscientific test. Next I hooked up the Surecom SW-102 along with a dummy load, and tested power output at 2m, MURS, Marine VHF, 1.25m, 70cm, and GMRS frequencies. At low power, the output was usually in the 2.3-2.7w range, with a bit of a dip, closer to 1.9w in the 1.25m band. At medium power, there was another dip down to just over four watts at 1.25m, but in other VHF and UHF portions of the RF spectrum power was very close on either side of 5w -- sometimes a little over, other times a little under, but just barely. At full power it came in around 8.2w in the 1.25m band, but everywhere else was between 9.4w and 10.2w. It's worth noting that as a GMRS radio (for which it isn't type approved), it would be inappropriate to set it up to transmit on GMRS channels 8-14, since they're supposed to be 0.5w channels, and this radio really doesn't go below about 2.5w. For MURS (for which it is also not type approved) you're also pushing it a little, since MURS is supposed to be <2w. But 2.5w is only 25% too powerful, versus 5x more power than it should be putting out, which is the situation for GMRS 8-14. The antennas: I did sweeps with a NanoVNA within each of the ranges mentioned above; 2m, MURS, Marine VHF, 1.25m, 70cm, and GMRS. The included antennas perform fairly well. The shorter one had an SWR of <2.5:1 throughout all the ranges except 1.25m, where it was something like 3.5:1 -- not appropriate for use in that band. The longer antenna scored consistently better in all of the ranges I tested. Still not really appropriate for 1.25m. With both antennas, they tended to see a bit too much rise near the top of the Marine VHF spectrum. If this spectrum is important you would probably want an antenna better tuned to that set of frequencies. But they both did pretty good at 2m, MURS, 70cm, and GMRS. I compared a Nagoya NA-771G, and it did even better at GMRS frequencies, at the expense of slightly higher SWR in the lower parts of the 70cm band. The 771G did okay in the upper portions of the 2m band, and MURS as well, though it's not designed to be a dual band antenna. Testing with the long antenna (the Abbree 771) at 5w (medium power) I hit the Ogden repeater (43 miles away) and the Promontory repeater (64 miles away). It helps that I have line of sight to those repeaters. Over Simplex I tested at about 3 miles and 5 miles from my home at each power level using both the shorter and longer antenna. The 5-mile test was more interesting, so I'll rank the results of that test from best configuration to worst. First, though; I did manage to get through to my home, with where I had a VOX recorder set up, using each of the configurations. I'm going to mix my RA-87 (40w radio) with MXTA-26 for comparison: Best to Worst: Retevis at 40w: Full quieting, no static at all. Crisp sound. Retevis at 25w (M): Nearly full quieting, no static. Crisp sound. The noise floor was just very slightly higher. AR-5RM at High with long antenna: Obviously it's going to sound a little noisier at 10w with a 771 clone antenna than the Retevis, but still very good. Retevis at 5w (L): slightly higher noise floor than AR-5RM at 10w. AR-5RM at Medium power, long antenna: noise floor was just a little higher than before. AR-5RM at High power, short antenna: I had to listen several times to hear the difference between high/short and medium/long. But medium/long won by a hair. AR-5RM at Medium power, short antenna: Still pretty good, but high/short was a little less hiss. AR-5RM at low power, long antenna: Noise floor was quite a bit higher, and some static coming through. AR-5RM at low power, short antenna: Considerable hiss and static, but my voice was still very clear, easy to make out. I should have tested against my older UV-5G but I ran out of time. At higher powers, the difference between the long and short antenna wasn't as important. At lower powers, the antenna length mattered a lot more. Overall, though, antenna length seemed to make more difference than power level. Configuration: I don't see much point in draining the battery and singing my eyeballs by transmitting at 10w all the time. The sound quality at 5w from 5-miles away was pretty good, particularly with the longer antenna. And I was able to hit those distant repeaters at 5w. Therefore, as I configured the radio with Chirp, I set channels 1-7, 15-22, and repeater inputs to medium - 5w. I set MURS to Low, 2+w. Marine VHF/16 and the 68,71, etc working channels are set to Low (2+w). I haven't tested it with an antenna -- only with dummy load -- at 2m, 1.25m, and 70cm, and currently have it configured to not be able to transmit on any frequencies. And I've set GMRS channels 8-14 to not transmit, since its minimum power level is way too high compared to the requirement of staying below 0.5w on those channels. To configure it to not be able to transmit on a frequency that you have programmed into its memory slots, you set the "offset" to "off." At that point, when you hit PTT, nothing happens. In Chirp there are four possible offset modes: (blank) which is no offset/simplex; off which is no transmitting possible, + (positive) offset, and - (negative) offset. Air band: I've listened to air band with this radio. When you set it into the airband (108.0000 - 135.99875MHz) it automatically switches to AM, and will not transmit (tested with a dummy load). It does pick up ATC just fine. Battery life: I've never run it all the way down, so I don't know. But I do like that you can charge it either from the desktop base, OR with a USB-C plug. In the spirit of avoiding surprises: This radio, at least in the package I bought, doesn't come with a USB data cable. But it works with the same data cable used with the UV-5R or UV-5G. And within Chirp you chose the Baofeng 5RM profile (my UV-5G uses the Radiodity UV-5R profile). The green button (search): Hold the green button for a few seconds. The phone will say "Search." Now hold the PTT on another radio. In a few seconds this radio will show the frequency, and a second or so later, will show the DCS or CTCSS tone. Then it will let you save it into a memory bank. I can't remember for the life of me how to delete it (other than with Chirp) but that's in the manual, for sure. The point is that you can pair it up to another radio that is already set to a frequency and tone quickly and easily. I tend to be the one setting up my radios and handing them out to family members when we go skiing or hiking, so it's probably not a feature I'll need much. But if you find yourself bringing a radio to an event where you know others will be using GMRS or FRS to keep in touch, you can get paired up to their radios easily. I'm well aware this isn't a $50, $80, $100, or $150 two-way radio; it's a $35 (with extra antenna) multi-band two way radio; it should, by all rights, be a much worse radio. But its power levels are quite close to what's advertised, within about 5-6% of advertised across most of the bands I tested. 1.25cm is kind of the exception, being more like 10% off. But still, this radio is better than it should be. It feels pretty solid. Its sound quality is quite good. Listening to my recordings, it sounds like it transmits clearly. Scanning is pretty slow -- scanning is always slow on 2-way radios I've used. Squelch isn't perfect -- scanning 2m repeaters I keep getting hung up on one that must have another more distant one on the same frequency, too far to hear, but powerful enough to break squelch even when I have it set high. When people review equipment there's often some level of confirmation bias. I'm probably looking for reasons to like the radio, and to defend my purchasing decision. If I were looking for negatives, things not to like, I would come up with a few: It's quite a lot bigger than the UV-5G / UV-5R. It doesnt' fit into a pocket as easily. The included ABBREE 771 knockoff antenna feels cheaper than my Nagoya 771G, and the 701 knockoff is even cheaper than that. The scan button requires a long press, and an accidental short press puts you into a DTMF transmit mode that you can't seem to get out of except by hitting the "monitor" button once, which is an undocumented path. The antenna jack is SMA-M, whereas the UV-5G was SMA-F, so I had to order different adapters to be able to use an external antenna. The dust cover over the mic/speaker/data ports feels like it could wear out if you're opening and closing it a lot. Unlike the UV-5R/G you can't alter the levels associated with the squelch settings. That was a common customization people made with the UV-5R series. The USB-C charging light on the back of the battery shows a dim green when fully charged -- too dim to see in outdoor daylight. You can't set the power level low enough to meet power requirements for GMRS 8-14, but I don't really care about using those channels anyway; my mobile radios can't use 8-14 either. In the overall picture, those are minor things, for a $30-35 radio.

Especially if they carry a cutlass!

I gotta say, you know someone is really into radio when they give up drive-thrus and convenience to have an antenna. My setup is too high to pull into the Sonic drive-in stalls. I can do it but the antenna touches the gutters and I have to look out and up and pull just close enough that I can push the red button + barely touch the antenna. The things we put up with just to chat with other people about radios

But court cases are won and lost based on semantics. I also don’t use linked repeaters for GMRS, so whatever happens I don’t have a dog in the fight or “legal standing.”

If they do as they have in the past, nothing will be done. But a public change to an interpretation often precedes a change in attempted enforcement. In other words, I have no idea what will really happen. Whatever happens won’t affect how I use GMRS.

I agree. This is most certainly is the case as things are at this moment. The FCC has stated their position on linking and why. Any attempt to link multiple repeaters no matter what method would certainly fall within their reasons for prohibiting them. What people decide to do and what the FCC decides to do is another matter but their position has been clarified. “The GMRS is available to an individual for short-distance two-way communications to facilitate the activities of licensees and their immediate family members“ “Linking multiple repeaters to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R” “In addition to violating Commission rules, linking repeaters is not in the public interest. Because GMRS spectrum is limited and used on a shared “commons” basis, the service only works well on a localized basis when users can hear each other and cooperate in the sharing of channels. Linking repeaters not only increases the potential for interference, but also uses up a limited spectrum resource over much larger areas than intended, limiting localized availability of the repeater channels.”

Yes, some people say 19 and some say 20. You’re all caught up. Just don’t use 19 above line A.

Well, the tower mine is on was 48K..... used. Of course it came with 1.3 acres of land and a building. Equipment isn't overly expensive. Unless you compare it to the cost of a subscriber radio. But It does cost money to get it off the side of your house and getting the antenna over 50 feet in the air. And there are typically some sort of reoccurring costs involved with tower space. That's where the cost of ownership starts to move people away from it. Yeah, a garage or basement repeater can be done for a reasonable expense, if you know what you are doing. But I think that you are forgetting that there are people like you and me that have the equipment and expertise to pull equipment out of the trunk of your car, and put it all together with equipment that we have on hand. Start to finish. Mind you we rig the tower with equipment I own. I have 1200 feet of rope, a Cat head winch, the proper blocks, harnesses and such. Then I have the tools for prepping the cable for connector installation. Cable grips to hoist it and the rest of the crap required to do a proper antenna install. Not a mast pipe bolted to the peak of a roof. The only thing I don't own outright is a service monitor with tracking generator / VNA to tune the duplexers. That belongs to the shop I work for. But I have instant access to it. I / we are certainly in the minority with having all that. Now I didn't buy all that new, but there were costs involved. Does the average GMRS operator need that sort of stuff. Not really unless they own a bigger tower (240 feet in my case). But owning a tower, it's pretty much a requirement to have that gear. And I don't know what tower fee's are where you are. But they ain't cheap here. Ebay pricing and hamfest finds pricing for a MTR2000 or Quantar at around a grand. A 600 dollar used duplexer. A DB-420 antenna is gonna be a few hundred. Then some length of 7/8 cable that was pulled off a tower that's still good.... figure one or two bucks a foot. You're right. Not expensive. The day rate for a tower crew to install it on a 200 foot tower. That's gonna be 6 grand. So your USED repeater system, installed, is going to be around $8000. And that's not taking into account a cabinet, snap-ins for the cable, or some means to connect the cable to the tower. And if it ain't YOUR tower, you have to do what the owner wants done. No wire ties or other 'good enough' home remedies for lashing the cable to the tower. So that price can easily balloon to 10 grand. And to this point you haven't paid a cent in rent. When we bought the site, we just paid up front for rent. But going rate is 1000 plus per month from the big three tower companies. So even at 48K. That's ONLY 4 years of rent. Sure there is a 200 dollar electric bill, taxes and the like. But it ain't the cost of renting space from others, and since it's owned, we don't have a requirement to use an 'approved' tower crew. So again, repeater systems ain't cheap. Those of us that can do this stuff, and have the proper tools to get it done, sometimes forget TCO (total cost of ownership) of things. I use to scratch my head about a brake job on a car costing a grand. Because I have done a number of them myself. But I didn't consider the 20K in tools I have acquired over the years. I was doing it with jack stands and a creeper (replacing rusted brake lines) but I didn't consider the building, lift, employee's wages and all the rest in that cost. Of course I still do brakes on my older vehicles. But there again, I have the right tools and knowledge to do it.

In order to get FCC Part 95 type acceptance, all GMRS radios do that. It's not 'weird', it's how it is supposed to be.

Great review, thanks. I got mine yesterday and the only thing I did was add one of my Nagoya 771 antennas and was hitting a repeater 30-ish miles away while on my front porch in the middle of a neighborhood full of oak trees. I couldn't do that with any of my previous Baofeng or Tid Radio units.

I'll put it into my perspective from both working at an entity that controlled tower space statewide (on gov owned land), and as a "customer" of that entity as well on the other side: Up until VERY recently with some "clubs" using non-profit status to actually profit off their repeaters, only "commercial" entities were charged for a lease - not even power/HVAC consideration was charged. Your tower site was F R E E as long as you were putting it up for hobbyist/community use Most of those towers had abandon-in-place feed line and antennas on VHF and/or UHF. National Weather Service was famous for that so ham clubs were quick to snatch up those spots since they had to do zero work except drop a repeater and jumper at the site Some repeater owners got lucky enough to even find an abandon-in-place repeater to re-tune for their use Those that had to have any of the above installed on the site were able to get tower work done for free by state employee climbers of said entity - just had to wait until they had a reason to climb the tower for something else because they would not "do requests". Most repeater owners either know someone that has the equipment to tune/program infrastructure, if not have it themselves. I have an in-cal Freedom R8100 and will happily use it for anyone that truly wants a community open repeater... and I won't charge either. I only start to talk about money when they do as well... I am not saying your experience is invalid - in fact it is how a lot of the sites get treated here. I have a Crown Castle 400' site literally in my back yard that they want an eye-watering lease for an LMR antenna on it, and the state entity I mentioned above is not allowing anyone other than hams on the tower thanks to some abuse of the policies from other "non profit" entities. Then add that I would have to pay one of my friends/acquaintances to climb the site for me and I have zero intention of putting up GMRS... I will save the money for such an effort and pay a coordinator for a VHF pair to be added to my Part 90 licenses. My point is this becomes much more of a "who you know" endeavor as much as "what you know". It is also why I mentioned the "barrier to entry" aspect that in previous generations of GMRS you needed to coordinate your repeater with the FCC, or needed a GROL to maintain such equipment, or other things on top of capital expense of the equipment itself or even the operating expense of paying someone else for their site. It shouldn't be a "race to the bottom" in the sense that wide area repeaters should not be trivial to install and affect other users in the area without an appropriate effort, because someone with their "roof top repeater" might want to have a smaller footprint and not fight the "big dogs" in the area for their chance to use the service the same as them without the massive wallet to back it.

Because those on the linked system have no idea about anyone they may be denying access to/interfering with, nor do they give a flip. They have their noisy little toy that lets them pretend they are hams by talking unnaturally long distances, using the same technology that facilitates most long distance calla, VOIP. That is all that matters to them.

I'm seeing zero documentation between 446 license free and Mode 1/2. You don't happen to be getting a license free radio as well? I would think it may be as easy as some attempts between programming to figure it out. You can look at the manual for a dPMR446 radio, like the Icom IC-F29DR2: https://www.icomjapan.com/api/download.php?post_id=1747&fl=JTJGdXBsb2FkcyUyRnN1cHBvcnQlMkZtYW51YWwlMkZJQy1GMjlEUjJfSU1fTXVsdGlfMmEucGRm Page 13 outlines frequency/common ID:

Alright, I think this topic has run its course...

Well, i know people still using the original 6666 that came out a decade ago. In todays throw away world, i say 10 years out of a CCR is pretty damn good. Also 90% of the President radios now come from China. Only a few “flagship” models still come from Vietnam. At any rate the QT80 is a great rig. Just talk some SSB DX and you’d be amazed how many are using AnyTone/Radioddity products because they are spot on frequency with great audio for a respectable price.

So, I've been thinking about joining the dark side and get the Ham Technician license. I've also been thinking about having a cb radio when we travel. I joined a cb forum trying to get some ideas. I thought I would go AM/FM and it would fulfill my needs. But I've also been googling ssb and whether I should consider that too. I was thinking about getting a Radioddity qt60 and actually had one in my cart. I've seen and read some stuff on a new qt80, and thought, let's see if there's one on Amazon. Well, when I searched on Friday, Amazon said there was only one left in they're system. So buy once cry once, right? So now I have a Radioddity qt80 coming with a Tram 3500 magnetic mount coming. Now I'll just have to see if it will fit where I want it to in my truck.

Got it - thanks!

A buddy just sent this to me. It’s a link to the FCC Website. Open the link. Scroll to the bottom and click on Operations. Here is the text. Sounds to me like Nets are over! https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs A GMRS licensee may use a combination of portable, mobile, fixed, and repeater stations consistent with the operational and technical rules in Subpart E of Part 95. The use of some channels is restricted to certain types of stations. In addition, certain channels are reserved for voice-only operations, while other channels allow voice and limited data operations. None of the GMRS channels are assigned for the exclusive use of any system. Licensees must cooperate in the selection and use of the channels under a “listen-before-talk” etiquette in order to use them most effectively and to reduce the possibility of interference. A GMRS user can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain, and repeater use. GMRS stations cannot be interconnected with the public switched telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations. In other words, repeaters may not be linked via the internet—an example of an “other network” in the rules—to extend the range of the communications across a large geographic area. Linking multiple repeaters to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R. Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals. In addition to violating Commission rules, linking repeaters is not in the public interest. Because GMRS spectrum is limited and used on a shared “commons” basis, the service only works well on a localized basis when users can hear each other and cooperate in the sharing of channels. Linking repeaters not only increases the potential for interference, but also uses up a limited spectrum resource over much larger areas than intended, limiting localized availability of the repeater channels. GMRS and the Family Radio Service (FRS), which share many of the GMRS channels, are intended for individuals such as family members and friends, scouting troops, emergency response groups, and hobbyists to communicate with each other over short distances, directly or through a repeater station. Linking repeaters, via the internet or other networks, undermines the purpose and usefulness of the GMRS and FRS.

I'm not the smartest person on here. It took me a while to figure it out myself. I have a Radioddity GM-30 and used a SMA male to UHF female. The SMA end consists to your radio. Yours might take a female? I used a Nagoya lip mount on my driver side rear door with a Motorola 3db ghost antenna, both of which I got off of Amazon.

If I had to guess there is a really strong repeater around 40 miles away already on 725 with excellent coverage up 400ft that can be accessed from the 575 repeater location with a good radio. Far enough away that occasional local traffic on a different tone on the input of 725 won't really effect it but close enough that you wouldn't want them on the same output. Both are by far the strongest repeaters in the area.

Yeah, we never had any of that locally. ATC wanted 650 bucks a month and a 3500 dollar civil engineering study done for a ham antenna on a LONG LINES tower that had not seen a tenant ever since it was purchased from AT&T back in the 90's. I know others have had luck with that, but had to have a 503 status in place for it to become a reality. I was never much for clubs because people get idea's in their head that their position in the club somehow equates to their overall importance. And I have seen that fester into guys that would tell seaters / servers at a restaurant their name AND call sign as if having a 2 by 3 actually meant something outside of the ham community. And paying 'someone' for tower services. Again, my dealings have been with ATC. But they ONLY allow their approved crews on their towers. I have had tower companies tell me I needed to get someone else because they were not on the 'list'. And I don't typically charge folks either,,, or not nearly what we charge commercial clients. I just prior to the latest FCC debacle spent probably 30 hours setting up two interfaces for R-Pi's for linking and remoted into their nodes getting them up and running. The one guy gave me like 90 bucks for the effort, and it was a situation that he wouldn't let me refuse to take his money. I actually try to avoid taking money for anything labor related to radio because it's sort of a conflict of interest. Not that the shop I work for would even bother with anything GMRS related. But I think you and I are mostly on the same page. I do believe that linking has a place in the service though. But it needs to be done MUCH differently than what's currently happening. I know I have said this elsewhere,,, but not sure about here,,, so I will repeat it. I think that linking has a place, but so does single frequency simulcast. I think that within the general coverage footprint of a repeater that no other repeater pair should be linked to that repeater. If there is a coverage null, then simulcast needs to be employed to mitigate that coverage null. And it should be required of repeater owners to NOT link to repeaters within their coverage footprint. If a system goes from town to town, then OK, but not in the same geographic area. It's wasteful. I also believe that a linked repeater owner needs to ensure that there is another local coverage repeater with a similar footprint in his service area. I am not saying that every linked repeater owner needs two repeaters, one linked the other not. But I am saying that a conversation where both users are accessing the same repeater, and no one else is involved, needs to NOT tie up repeaters outside of the coverage area of the participants of that conversation. The ASL image EVERYONE is using to link could be easily modified to recognize different PL's and link ot not link based on the PL being used. Or another repeater be installed if none exists. Lastly, the 'interference' issue. As you know part 90 still requires hub function (listen CSQ before transmitting) on type accepted radios. Part 95 radios don't have that function. So they can't do it. I know that FB6 and FB8 frequencies don't have that requirement. But those freqs are tied up and there is a 'waiting list' for them to become available. ANd of course GMRS is NOT FB8 or market frequencies. We all have equal right to them as license holders. But a receiver on the repeater output coupled to that same Pi with a bit more software modification could address the interference locally that would be caused by other simplex users in the coverage footprint of another repeater not being heard by someone 100 miles away on a linked system.

There is ship traffic that causes occasional interference on the Tampa 575 repeater. It has a alternate input of 467.725 as well as the primary input of 467.575. The primary input (467.575) is part of the ITU standard for UHF vessel communications and the repeater overlooks the port of Tampa. The ship traffic doesn't key the repeater but does mix in with normal GMRS traffic so they shut down the primary input if it becomes a problem. FYI - ITU UHF standards for vessel communication coexists with two GMRS repeater inputs, 467.550 and 467.575 as well as GMRS channel 8 (467.5625)

…and they get to wear the eye patch and bandana, which makes them scary looking.

The problem with Pirates is… they got such a cool name.

Continue the press against the Pirates, where the money is and people who are being actual dicks on the airwaves?

The internet is filled with wireline control links as you know! Kind of a semantical argument, but that's that. I'm a sideliner on this anyway as I seldom use a repeater much less a linked one. I'm one of those short distance, point to pointers the service was originally intended for. OTOH, it's made for some entertaining reading at lunchtime here.

That’s correct. The actual regulations specify “wireline” and POTS, but the FCC “updated” their interpretion to include the internet because the intent for prohibiting wireline and POTS was because it violated the purpose of GMRS which is short distance communication. That type of intent based reasoning is the kind of thing that ATF used to prohibit bump stocks after Trump ordered them to get rid of them. They reasoned that because the 1932 National Firearms Act placed a special tax on fully automatic firearms because they allowed a person to fire many rounds quickly, and because bump stocks allow a firing rate that approaches that of a fully automatic firearm they (ATF) had the authority to ban bump stocks. SCOTUS ruled against that because bump stocks don’t fit the definition of a full auto firearm. It’s possible that a lawyer versed in communications law could challenge the new interpretation if the fcc actually charges someone with violating their regulation. Which way it goes is anybody’s guess, but if their new interpretation is upheld, any other mechanism that links repeaters to achieve a wider coverage area might also be affected, whether it’s point to point microwaves or dedicated long haul modem.

All the people saying just get a ham license, are missing the point. If we wanted a ham license we would get one but we chose gmrs. i dont care to have to study to get a license for ham or wish to spend the $$$$ for new equipment. Its kinda crazy in 2024 you have to take a test for a basic ham license any way, thats why people choose gmrs. Pay a fee start talking. If i want more range i got a CB. The FCC making people shut the link repeaters down is terrible. Well thats my rant on the subject.

FCC doesn't affect the technology. What they do do is establish and clarify the rules for the service; these state that linking is against those regulations.

ooops wrong thread

You would think so... Repeater A has been around for 5+ years and is the dominate repeater in its area. Repeater B popped up about a year ago and almost instantly I notified the owner about the issue (within a day or two of it going up) and asked if could change the tone and he never responded. I tried to be a good trooper but if I accidently hit his repeater (and the repeaters networked to it) when using repeater A there isn't much I can do about it. I sent a link to the repeater A owner of repeater B's linked status page so if there is interference on their repeater they can at least see if it's a user of repeater B doing it. It doesn't happen often, the band has to be open just a bit then it becomes a bit of a problem or confusion to users on both repeaters. Folks on one of the repeaters or the other are hearing just one side of the conversation and wondering what's going on and from where I sit I hear both.

At least for some of the radioddity stuff on amazon, radioddity appears to be the seller as well, even if it may be shipped from Amazon. If you want your radio quicker, Amazon will be hands down faster than ordering from radioddity. That's my one gripe, actually...last order said "us stock, free 5-7 day shipping", in reality, it shipped from China, and didn't even leave their facility for 5 days. Total time to receive was 18 days.

The QT80 is just Radioddity’s rebrand of the AnyTone 6666 Pro. Not a cheap radio at all. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. I have the AnyTone AT5555+N and the Radioddity QT40 (rebranded AnyTone Ares II), along with both the smaller AM/FM versions (AT500M II and CB500). Great radios for the money. I would have bought direct from Radioddity.com though instead of Amazon as they offer a warranty and support. Amazon retailers don't.

The technical aspects are worth considering. For the main channels (15-22, and repeater inputs) in the 462 and 467MHz range, you may configure your radio for wideband or narrowband. The channel spacing is 25kHz. Wideband is 16kHz with a transmitter deviation of +/- 5kHz. You may optionally configure narrowband. Same channel spacing. Bandwidth is 11kHz with transmitter deviation of +/- 2.5kHz. On the mains, you may use power levels up to 50w, though handhelds are rarely more than 5-10w, usually less. For the 462MHz interstitials (1-7), the same rules as above apply, though you are limited to output of 5w. For the 467MHz interstitials (8-14) you should be using narrowband (11kHz with deviation of +/- 2.5kHz), and no more than 0.5w. This additional power and bandwidth limitation is designed to prevent the interstitials from interfering with the repeater inputs. The 467MHz interstitials also are handheld only. The reason I mention all this is because some handheld radios won't transmit as low as 0.5w. My AR-5RM, on low, transmits at 2.5w, which would be 5x the limit for the 467MHz interstitials. If I were to use that radio for GMRS I would not set up those channels (8-14) for transmit at all, so that I'm not risking causing interference with repeater inputs. Keep in mind that in the actual frequency chronology GMRS is laid out like this: 462.xxxx MHz: 15 01 16 02 17 03 18 04 19 05 20 06 21 07 22 Max Power(w): 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 5 50 Bandwidth: W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 467.xxxx MHz: R1in 08 R2in 09 R3in 10 R4in 11 R5in 12 R6in 13 R7in 14 R8in Max Power(w): 50 0.5 50 0.5 50 0.5 50 0.5 50 0.5 50 0.5 50 0.5 50 Bandwidth: W N W N W N W N W N W N W N W You can see that the channels are interleaved. 15-22 and R1-R8 inputs are considered the "main" channels, and 1-7 / 8-14 are the interstitials -- the ones that are scaled back a bit in power to reduce interference with the mains. If the radio can be set up like this, then it would be working identically to how a type approved GMRS radio would transmit, though it would still be non-compliant in terms of type approval itself. If it can't be set up for <=0.5w on channel 8, for example, it probably shouldn't be transmitting on 8-14 at all. I like the old USPS mail commercial slogan, "If it fits, it ships." I can make channels 1-7, 15-22, and the repeater inputs fit within the permissible limits for power output and bandwidth. With one of my handheld radios, I can't make the radio scale back on power enough to fit in the 8-14 channels. So it gets used on 1-7, 15-22, and repeaters, but does not get used to transmit on 8-14. And I really don't miss being able to transmit on those frequencies, with their 0.5w max.

Oh this one is easy, there are 24 repeaters part of the "North Georgia GMRS" network covering every repeater channel twice, some four times over, covering literally the entire northern half of Georgia and part of Eastern Tennessee I get that it's fun to do this and have a network you can get your voice over 700 square miles without having to learn radio theory or whatever is on the technician class exam, but the network is mostly 10 guys who live within 15 miles of each other ragchewing all day. Except this weekend, they're going to do radio relay for the cops at a Jeep event and that will be linked into the entire network, so that's a really good efficient use of all those channels There should be a middle ground between no linked repeaters and what some of these guys are doing. It would absolutely make sense to be able to link two repeaters on two sides of a mountain for example. But, do we really need the ability to order a radio off Amazon, key up, and tie up 8 channels between Knoxville and Orlando? But, my favorite part of that network is how it's essentially just a slush fund for the clique at the top. It's a non-profit that has no reports to the IRS, charges hundreds of dollars a year, and doesn't own any of the equipment. When the FCC rules say you can only use funds for paid repeaters for the repeaters themselves, they have a suspiciously well produced YouTube channel and well funded video studios

Sounds exactly like something an elitist H.A.M. would say...

Most hams that I’ve talked or listened to, are more than willing to help out, not elitist at all….

Yah, it's an elite group...

We were doing that for our friend Roland, too. We appended his REACT number to our call signs at the end of our conversations... like WRAB123 43. I agree it's a nice gesture.

I like some of the ideas in your NET like mentioning one's radio, and a measurable response about the quality of their check-in. In the weekly Net that I participate in, the net controller almost always says everyone has a "good signal" ... and well.. sometimes to me at least it does not seem some are that strong or clear. I think it is a more practical and useful method your group is using if the purpose is to check and test communications and how they are working. I might suggest this to our net controller. The tribute to a "permanently logged off" member also was a touching thing to do. We have members how have passed listed as "silent key" members. Many are checked in by the net controller as silent keys for a number of weeks or more after their passing in memory of their years of service to the club.

Had our net tonight. Just simple stuff, more like a roll call of people interested in participating in said net. We had a member pass and we held a silent moment after the net manager called out for his reply 3 times. No reply was heard and we put his member number into the books as permanently logged off. After that anyone interested in calling out states their ID#, call sign, name, and radio type (base, mobile or HT). The net manager would repeat it back and log it, then state the R# for the quality of the reception into the repeater. Today we had a member that was trying out 5 different HTs from the same area and the net manager told him how he was received on all. Only one of his radios sounded bad, very muffled sound. Maybe a defective microphone. No big deal or fanfare. At the end he would ask if there was any traffic, there never is.

Regarding the Change.org petition. There is a typo in the number of the rule # in a subsequent paragraph shown as 95.1722 where 95.1733 is correct. And do we want 95.1749 removed? It is a permissive paragraph simply spoiled by 95.1733(8). I sent a letter to FCC DRO and CC'd decision.makers@change.org. Here is what I added: NOTES ADDED BY Joe Leikhim: During the 2017 NPRM to rewrite the GMRS rules I questioned the rule 95.1733(8) which conflicted with new rules pertaining to network connection. It appeared on one hand that remote control via Internet was permitted, yet on the other hand 95.1733(8) prohibited such. My comment was met with a reply that the FCC could did not have resources to research the rule at the time. If you check the Federal Register you will see my comment and the reply and reference in footnotes (Leikhim). I have done some research and the wording in 95.1733(8) predates the 2017 ruling by decades. I believe that it once pertained to a control operator being required for repeater operations. (Prior to rules permitting Automatic control) That prohibition and other fragmented rules persisted for decades and were as such, scriveners errors. The original intent was to permit remote control of a repeater (enable and disable) via tones carried on the PSTN along as voice was not carried. This prohibition has now created great confusion within the community and I suspect within the Commission itself because the rule was written decades ago, by folks who are no longer able to say why it was there. This raises additional questions: Why were 95.1749 and 95.1745 crafted if not to permit interconnection with the Internet (or other networks)? § 95.1745 GMRS remote control. Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. What constitutes "Remote Control"? In all other services, operation by remote control does not preclude transmission of information (Voice). I urge the commission to revisit the rules with an eye toward permissive linking of repeaters. 1) Linking is often required because it is no longer economical to obtain prime tower height in most of the country. 2) Linking can provide a public service to the community. This has been demonstrated. 3) Linking can enhance public safety for the community. There are numerous outages of power and cellular services every year. 4) Natural and Manmade disasters occur daily. We can agree that linking poses some problems. The following address those issues. 5) Linked repeaters should operate on a secondary basis to repeaters that are for local use. 6) Linked repeaters should monitor their repeater input frequency (467.xxx) for co-channel traffic having a different or no selective squelch code. This has been employed in Part 90 systems to protect co-channel repeaters. This is a simple addition of hardware or software to apply logic and timers to provide polite monitoring of the channel. For example, if a co-channel repeater user transmits within 15 second period prior to a linked control signal arriving at a remotely linked repeater. The linked repeater shall hold off linked transmissions for another 15 seconds. 7) Linked repeaters should have a secondary selective squelch code for local traffic. In that way repeater users can hail one another over the link and then switch to the local repeater operation minimizing traffic over the wider area. Linked repeaters should transmit a valid callsign of the custodian within 15 minutes after being activated. 9) Linked repeaters should not extend outside the state where they are to be operated. No interstate systems. This is unnecessary and only creates unneeded traffic. 10) Linked repeaters should not overlap such that three or more channels are utilized in same area. This will require minimal engineering by the operators to ensure that their repeaters do not monopolize resources. The guidelines should be made simple enough to utilize open source coverage software. 11) The above rules should be phased in over a period of time to allow for modifications to existing systems. I hope these suggestions are helpful in allowing permissive use of linking in the GMRS band. I hope these address the concerns voiced by some. Back to the petition some of which may differ from what I stated above:

Damn these "Sad Hams"! Bunch of insecure little snowflakes that they are! (Not intended to offend "Good Hams"!)

Signed and posted comment... I believe that the ability to link repeaters over an internet connection is crucial to the success of public safety networks. There are a tremendous amount of GMRS repeater owners who allow volunteer response groups such as REACT, ARES and RACES that support the federal, state and local government in emergency response, as part of logistic divisions and moving critical information. Terrain often is the largest obstacle, reducing radio coverage. The ability to link multiple repeaters (network and RF) would greatly increase the coverage area for the emergency volunteer groups, helping preserve life and property during a mass-casualty crisis.

Dont give up sign this. If everyone complains we will get action. Forget about the FCC those are just rules not laws. The FCC is not in charge. Congress writes the laws. We can change this. This is how Satellite C band owners got the laws changes that allowed dish and direct tv to exist before the internet. There is a process to doing this and its been done many times. It works. When congress starts getting all these letters from people and not lobbyist they listen, Someone's going to ask the FCC WTF did they do. This will cause several actions 1 there was no comments opened before the action that's a violation. They will withdraw the rule and delay it. And congress may have hearings if we keep pushing. If so someone will have to go talk for GMRS for each state. If you want to keep linking this is what you need to do. call congress and the senate. or send this letter or send emails. https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/gmrs-repeater-linking-freedom https://www.elitedaily.com/p/whats-the-best-way-to-contact-your-congressperson-these-are-the-tips-you-need-to-know-8503943 https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1 https://www.congress.gov/contact-us

Just ignore it.

You aren't telling me anything I don't know already My antenna is on the back building highlighted in orange. Needs to go up another 20-30 feet