Leaderboard

So I thought this might be an interesting topic. Maybe it will die on the vine, maybe not. I see a lot of chatter here about SHTF comms, both GMRS and amateur radio. I'm curious what a SHTF scenario looks like to different folks, and how they think GMRS and other radio services may be incorporated. For me, a SHTF scenario doesn't look like a nationwide "someone hit the EMP switch and knocked the whole country back to the 1700s", it looks more like a local disaster like a major earthquake, where radios could help like they did a couple of weeks ago here when we had a 4.3 and I purposely tried to make a cell call just to see if it would work, (it didn't), but my repeater at 6,000 feet worked just fine and lots of us were communicating over a wide area.

You make a good point. SHTF can take many forms and cover everything from a neighborhood, to the whole country, even the world. If there were a widespread cellular outage lasting days or weeks, I imagine CB radios would start flying off the shelves in affected areas. Believe it or not, they can still get your voice out, and bring others' voices in, just as they did in the 1970's. Something that helps you find a working or stocked gas pump in time of shortage, is as valuable today as it was in 1973. Just knowing you have the means contact another person and ask them to send help; in the event of a vehicular breakdown, collision, or perhaps being targeted by a hostile person or groups of people, could mean a lot. When I talk of ham radio, it is not because I think hams are the greatest, the best, or anything; but the fact that there are a lot more ham repeaters in most places than GMRS, and they usually have greater range, makes it worth mentioning. Although most hams do not participate in it, hams have a neat thing going for them called the National Traffic System or NTS. This consists of long established nets, usually on 75 meters and 40 meters, that handle message "traffic" in the form of brief formatted messages, known as "Radiograms". These nets meet daily or nightly and handle traffic coming into or going out of a given area, coming from or going to another area. Frequently, these messages reach the final recipient in a day or two. In the event of a situation like 9-11, health and welfare messages to loved ones who had no other means of knowing the status of a friend or family member in a disaster area can mean so much. Learning how to format, copy, and relay these messages is an integral part of these hf (shortwave) nets. In an area with a GMRS repeater with good coverage, as with CB, being able to communicate with others and knowing you are not totally alone can be a huge comfort.

@TrikeRadio Great question, BTW. Even if we have no intent on doing it, it's always fun to try to think through stuff like that. Sometimes, the 'what if' is very entertaining.

My 12 year old grandkids studied the Technician exam prep at hamstudy.org for about 30 mins a day over two weeks and passed the first time. There is virtually zero theory in the Technician exam, it's mostly FCC rules and regs. You can do it.

A critical part is emergency power. Forget about gasoline generators. If the power goes out even gas stations won't have power to run the pumps. When your gasoline generator runs dry it's back to square one. Back in 2003 great blackout only ONE gas station had emergency power. That one was only pumping gas for emergency vehicles and police. No exceptions. I had no power for about 3 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003 Your options then are a natural gas powered generator. A propane powered one, at least you might fine bottled gas someplace. Or solar power with battery backup. Ideally you have a combination of the above. You can have all the radios in the world, but if the battery packs are dead, well you have a lot of paper weights.

Greetings! I'm located in Schaumburg, IL and just received my GMRS license! I got into kayaking recently and discovered if you're more than 50 feet away from the wife or kids, no one can hear each other. Arrive, three GRMS radios. So I placed one of my three handhelds on the kitchen table, went outside and my first broadcast was to my wife who she immediately reply transmitted, "You're a dork". Hopefully I'm in good company here...

@WSDD439 Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing with you, I'm just explaining the issue that some people have with linked repeaters. Personally, I don't care whether they are linked or not. They are useful linked, they are useful unlinked, and simplex is also good.

Ahhh, a "wireline control link" then as well??? Sounds like we're working on "making the impossible difficult." (Best college course I ever took, btw)

Does it complicate this with the reg. (95.303) that states that fixed stations may only communicate with other fixed stations? Always a tad fuzzy on that one...

How does it transmit to the input on a different channel and then carry the response back to the origin? If you draw a diagram mapping the connections I think you’ll see the problem. I want to transmit to repeater A and I want people on repeater A to hear my transmission. I also want repeater B to hear my transmission and reproduce it on a channel that people can hear, right? Then, I want to hear the people who transmit back to B I believe it would be possible to create an RF link using GMRS frequencies but you must have the link isolated from the repeater frequencies. That could be done using Fixed Stations on the GMRS channels. Fixed Stations are allowed to transmit and receive on either the 462 or 467 MHz Main Channels. So you end up with two repeaters operating as repeaters and two full duplex transceivers (same as a repeater) operating as Fixed Stations, tightly beaming communications to each other for the link.

From the mind of a nube GMRS user like me... LOL

That is the intention with any repeater I install for my use or my family/friends. The 2 I have up locally are both on surplus telco batteries using RV solar panels/charge controllers with AC power to create essentially an "unlimited UPS" when shack power is lost. No internet linking, not even RF linking since power budget has to be taken into account for then your link radio and repeater. Wide area coverage, mobile-centric coverage. That is how most public safety systems are built as well since handheld coverage will always be the most "expensive" to design around no matter what. I think most of the SHTF conversations have a lot in common, but never come to a similar conclusion - power and survivability being key. I think a lot of people see CB as a good alternative because "low power and less to maintain" except HF propagation is not to be relied on - and even DHS/FEMA/etc are getting a reality awakening on that end after throwing very expensive Codan radios at all agencies/hospitals/etc and then realizing its not guaranteed you can hit the next station 200 miles away. That is part of your SHTF - have to decide what matters and when/where because you'll never be able to feasibly cover "all risks".

I was wondering when I said something that could possibly get a cherry picked repeater. Now I understand. No biggee Steve. Stuff like that happens all the time.

You wouldn't hear someone using simplex near a repeater linked to the one you are on.

Not a lot of research I guess. GMRS is a family radio service for close communications with the ability to access a repeater to help out range. The linked repeater thing has been going on now for months and months and repeater owners have been disconnecting there linked systems to avoid FCC reprisal. If this post was a year old then that would be one thing, now most of us know the FCC has reiterated that linked repeaters aren't allowed. Still better than no communications during SHTF times. I'm sure the $35 didn't hurt that much.

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

Good morning ole' wise members of knowledge. When it comes to configuring tones for a repeater, does it matter whether I use CTCSS or DCS tones. My repeater will do either and I currently have it set up for a CTCSS tone, both broadcast and receive. Are there pros and cons to using either? Or just personal preference?

the second I read your post I could hear Mr. Hopkins in my head.

I'm talking about someone who is out of simplex range but within repeater (or especially linked repeater) range.

Very true. Yeah I was just always curious if it was possible and fit the rules. Yes, you would probably make a lot of people mad and the FCC could probably call it an "RF NETWORK" to get you... so not a good idea anyway.

As Steve mentioned, there are some regulations preventing repeaters from transmitting on the 8 input channels. All repeaters can only transmit on the frequencies associated with channels 15 through 22. With that said, there are no restrictions on with input frequencies can be used... there is no law or rule requiring a specif frequency pairing. The only way I am aware to RF link GMRS repeaters while staying in the GMRS service is to use any GMRS frequency other than the 8 traditional repeater inputs as an input for each relay point. Now, here is where you may run into issues. Anything not explicitly denied is allowed. Since there are no laws or rule prohibiting the methods I mentioned, you can do it legally and within scope of the rules... BUT, depending on the User population in those repeater areas, you will P!$$0ff a ton of people. I would expect complaints to be filed. I say this because, instead of tying up one channel for one repeater, you are going to be using 2, 3, or possibly even 4 or more channels for a GMRS service based RF linked system. Now, if the FCC really wanted to be hard on someone, they could call it an RF network and try to prohibit the action under the "any other network" clause, even though its not a routed network. That's where having deep pockets for a lawyer would come in handy. Edit: I forgot to mention, due to the type of duplexers and filtering needed, this would be extremely expensive to build.

There are technical differences, but I have never observed any actual, real-world difference - in the real-world, they both do the job just fine. also, FYI, I have owned/used virtually every GMRS radio manufactured since ~2017 and I do not recall ever seeing one that does not support DPL/DTC/DCS tones. Not saying those radios do not exist, but if they do, they are very old, very rare, or, both.

The two issues with this scheme is It requires a repeater to transmit on a frequency not allowed by regulations and It results in a loop. Repeater A transmits on the input frequency for repeater B. Repeater B must transmit on the input frequency of repeater A which then transmits on the input frequency for repeater B.

My wife and I use our GM-30's to stay in contact when we are at the flea markets, outdoor concerts, fishing, camping, or just out walking. No repeaters. Works great.

Even natural gas generators might only be a false comfort. We had a huge blackout with a cold snap one year. The natural gas compressor stations were unable to run, line pack was lost and an entire town had to be relit.

Corn is cheaper than that round about these parts....

My UT-72 came with one but I didn't use it because I have a mobile. The adapter is a thin cable. Not long enough to worry about loss but being flexible eases some of the strain on the SMA of the radio.

Everyone has an SHTF and they all stink. Seriously though, for a few days after Beryl, neither land line nor cell phones worked for my family. I was still able to communicate via GMRS and ham. I've been thinking along the lines of emergency comms for about a year now and I think it's a good idea to have at least some kind of plan.

I don't recall 100%, but I think when I bought my UT-72G, it came with an adapter to connect my handheld.

i just made a video about Scientology so obviously i don't care about my reputation, but I dont want another one of those electronic abortions of a repeater.

Please no more, we’ve had enough of the linked repeater drama.

I don't think so. For the monies, I would expect much higher build-quality (ie; no wobbly knobs), MUCH better software, and far more features like channels, more customization, etc. Not enough bangs for the bucks.

Unless you go off the official FCC reservations above. I guess this could be another whole topic itself.

As you saw in my writeup on the radio, I did test it at its various power levels, and at various regions within the RF spectrum. It's not exactly 10w; usually a few percent low, occasionally a percent or two high. But it is so close it doesn't matter. I can hit a repeater 64 miles away with the 771 and this radio. I think I've hit that same repeater with the UV-5G (old <5w model), with a 771 antenna. Your amazement should really be about the repeater you're hitting's quality setup. I don't know what hardware they're using for some of the repeaters in my area, but if I'm hitting one 64 miles away, and coming through legibly, it's because the repeater is amazing, and the radio is good enough. Not hitting the broadside of a barn, so to speak, is all about line of sight, and path loss (through trees in your case).

Especially if they carry a cutlass!

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 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.”

And just maybe they actually listen to the repeater system, and find out that no one is being denied access to any of the frequencies…..

By using the internet. We’ll have to figure out another way. Maybe microwaves…

I plastered my dashboard with "NO DRIVE THRU's" and "CLEARANCE 10 FEET" with my label maker because knowing me I WILL FORGET. I actually have forgotten TWICE...with the labels everywhere. Maybe I need more labels.

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

That is a logical fallacy that I see used constantly in GMRS. This service is literally one of the last wideband outside of T-Band UHF in places like NYC/Boston/Chicago/LA, and Low-Band VHF. T-Band equipment is typically used in GMRS as well as most 450-512 equipment is relevant, but not ALL equipment will operate in GMRS (Quantars having multiple band splits for example). That leaves a LOT of equipment like MSF5000s, MSR2000s, and similar antiques that are still being used for GMRS, not to mention that a lot of the equipment I mention is Part 90 certified and this community has spun its wheels on agreeing that Part 90 equipment should exist in GMRS and push for THAT rule change among others. Point being: GMRS capable repeater equipment is not "expensive" by any stretch, just more expensive than the race-to-the-bottom radios everyone is buying to use on them. This is a snowball effect of GMRS users starting at the 2017 rule change acting like this is the modern CB and now everyone is feeling the effects. Part 90 equipment is not permitted explicitly and limits equipment options, the 2017 rule change deregulated bubble pack radios which with FRS channels being narrowband interstitials in-between GMRS channels means GMRS narrowbanding would be a monumental effort that assumes all those bubble pack radios would not be around to cause interference, THEN we can talk about linking and other resources. This should be a cautionary tale about how apathy and lack of engagement to keep a service beneficial to the public comes back to bite everyone. Now with all that said - its not hard to imagine why the FCC had to turn GMRS to a 10 year license and drop the fee to $35 - who wants to pay good money for this mess?

Depends on the repeater/repeater owner.. It could take anywhere from 5 minutes to never.

Howdy from Oklahoma City. I'm a retired truck driver who has used CB radio (legally, of course) for decades. My adult son and I were recently discussing alternate communications for the day when internet and cell phones go dark. My investigations led me to the world of GMRS, something about which I knew nothing until a couple of weeks ago. I sent the FCC $35, and in return they kindly gave me a call sign (WSEG265). A pair of TidRadio TD-H3 GMRS hand held units arrived from Amazon five hours ago. So, here I am, starting from scratch and trying to learn whatever I can about this strange, new world.

Convinced me to buy two TD-H3's

Drill a hole and put an NMO mounto n the roof.