berkinet

Ok, let's try to keep this in scale. If one were to renew for $70 the day before the new price went into effect. The total extent of the "damage" would be $3.50 per year over the 10 year life of the license.  That is $ 0.0095 per day, $0.067 per week, or a whopping $0.29 a month.

I'd add, since the radios being used are not certified for either GMRS or FRS, they do not automatically set or limit bandwidth and power in accordance with the channel requirements.  This means it is quite possible someone is transmitting wideband at 5 watts on a channel designated for narrowband at 0.5 watts.  Note also, a certified radio blocks the possibility of operating simplex on the GMRS repeater input frequencies (not allowed by the rules). But, this is possible with the radios you are using.
 
While operating a non-certified radio is a technical violation of the law, it generally will not cause harm to other people's communications. However, running too much power in wideband mode on the wrong channel could easily interfere with other users, both simplex and through a repeater.
 
Personally, I don't care what kind of equipment people run on GMRS, as long as the equipment has a clean transmitter, they otherwise conform to the rules, and don't advertise the fact they are running non-certified equipment.  
 
However, flagrant violation of the FCC regulations can become especially notable when there are 175 cars in a long queue on the highway. So, you might want to make sure your group at least adheres to the operating rules.

As there are no more GMRS or FRS channels, there is no need to block transmission on any frequencies other than the GMRS repeater inputs on those radios that are repeater capable*. OTOH, depending on the default configuration of the radio, it may be necessary to adjust bandwidth and power settings on some channels for FRS users.
 
* EDIT Footnote added. There were never many GMRS/FRS combined radios that were repeater capable anyway. And, any new FRS certified radios don't need to (can't?) be configured.

I would differ on this view. It depends on what the goal is. If you want to know the maximum possible useful GMRS range in an area, then yes, equipment will matter a lot. However, if you want to know your maximum useful range, then you, by all means, need to test with the same equipment you are going to use.
 
An old developers saying goes something like: Test what you will use. Use what you tested.

It will be interesting to see if either the MXT500 or MXT575 will allow configuration via external software.  The problem with Midland is that are just really just resellers of other manufacturers products. So, these two new radios could be based on the previous 275 & 400  (which were unlike each other), or some totally different platform(s).

Not to worry. the difference is only just over 4db. You can more than make up for that by antenna choice. But, you can only use that power on channels 15 to 22 and the repeater inputs. on the other 14 channels the limit is 5.0 or 0.5 watts ERP.  Enjoy your radio.

Several members here have done so. Search the forums for reports. There seem to be three issues that are commonly reported and which may, or may not, be important to you.
The Midland radios operate on narrow-band FM while most repeaters operate on wide-band FM. This tends to result in the Midland's broadcasts being heard at a lower volume by listeners. The Midland radios must use the same tone or digital squelch on transmit and receive. So, if you have a repeater that uses different schema on transmit and receive, you will not be able to easily use the repeater. The Midland is missing a small number of PL tones. If a repeater requires one of those tones, you will not be able to access it. Again, I suggest you search the forum for reports and to determine if these issues are significant for your planned usage. And, note also, the built-in search feature tends to miss things. I'd suggest doing a google search for something like:
site:forums.mygmrs.com midland review repeater

Reynolds Wrap Heavy Duty aluminum foil.  
 
Ok, seriously, simple a/c cords do not usually present an RFI problem unless you have some devices that require a ground, but that are not grounded.  Motors can be a source of noise. But, at the signal levels you are looking for, the frequencies you are listening to (uhf) and the use of FM rather than AM, your local environment is not likely to have a significant impact on your reception.  The case where you might find problems would be trying to receive very weak “short wave” signals on a small radio with the built-in antenna.
 
If you want better reception, the best thing you could do would be to setup an outdoor antenna, and the higher, the better. You do not need anything fancy or expensive, even a DIY 1/4 wave dipole would make a huge difference. (google for build a uhf antenna)

Ok, let's try to keep this in scale. If one were to renew for $70 the day before the new price went into effect. The total extent of the "damage" would be $3.50 per year over the 10 year life of the license.  That is $ 0.0095 per day, $0.067 per week, or a whopping $0.29 a month.

I think many people coming from the CB world may have different expectations. Better audio quality and reliability of communications, but still with a fairly disorganized group of people looking to chat with others nearby.   It is certainly within the capability of the equipment. But, as you point out, it is not the general nature of the community. 

I think many people coming from the CB world may have different expectations. Better audio quality and reliability of communications, but still with a fairly disorganized group of people looking to chat with others nearby.   It is certainly within the capability of the equipment. But, as you point out, it is not the general nature of the community. 

Reynolds Wrap Heavy Duty aluminum foil.  
 
Ok, seriously, simple a/c cords do not usually present an RFI problem unless you have some devices that require a ground, but that are not grounded.  Motors can be a source of noise. But, at the signal levels you are looking for, the frequencies you are listening to (uhf) and the use of FM rather than AM, your local environment is not likely to have a significant impact on your reception.  The case where you might find problems would be trying to receive very weak “short wave” signals on a small radio with the built-in antenna.
 
If you want better reception, the best thing you could do would be to setup an outdoor antenna, and the higher, the better. You do not need anything fancy or expensive, even a DIY 1/4 wave dipole would make a huge difference. (google for build a uhf antenna)

Just to make sure you understand... all repeaters are privately owned and it is up to the owner to decide if, who and how people get access.  Some may be “wide open” with no permission required, while others may indeed be private and only for the use of a family or small group of friends.  So, when asking for permission, which is fine and proper, just keep in mind that the owner is under no obligation to even respond to your request.  Though, it would be nice for them to at least send a note back saying, “no, but thanks for asking.” They do not have to.

Ok, let's try to keep this in scale. If one were to renew for $70 the day before the new price went into effect. The total extent of the "damage" would be $3.50 per year over the 10 year life of the license.  That is $ 0.0095 per day, $0.067 per week, or a whopping $0.29 a month.

Adding to the answers above, there is nothing different about a repeater. It is still a single antenna and subject to the same rules (or lack thereof) as any other GMRS station. About the only difference in a repeater antenna is if it is used with a duplexer, in which case you need to be sure the antenna design will provide good response on both transmit and receive. But, of course, that has nothing to do with where or how the antenna is mounted.

I do not think anyone would argue with your points about the potential benefit of a portable repeater. However, I do think you took @Corey's post out of context. He was responding to an earlier post in this thread which proclaimed Low-altitude, low-power, and transportable systems can be extremely valuable. Given the specifics of the original post, I would have to agree, a low power low altitude (car top) repeater is not likely to offer any improvement over simplex operation on the same terrain.
 
However, the examples you provided did not match that criteria. They were either effectively not-portable or temporary and well situated, like between you or your friend, or used antennas mounted at a significant height above ground level.
 
As to your last statement, it would be nice if that were true. But sadly, I think there are an awful lot of cases where that didn't happen.

Talk to others directly, radio-to-radio.  If there is nobody to talk to, then a repeater won't help.

I would offer one tip, and there is bound to be disagreement on this, but...
 
As you read how different groups have put together their emergency communications plans, be very wary of those with a layered structure and in particular those that have a hierarchy like: FRS -> GMRS -> ham.  Those plans inevitably are built on some level of unproven assumptions (i.e. prejudice). On the other hand, pay heed to plans that start with an analysis of need and and capability and then match the plan to that.  The El Dorado California plan seems to be a good example of what to look for.  BTW, keep  in mind that since a good plan reflects local abilities, needs, finances, etc., what works in one community may not work in another.  But, those one-size-fits-all plans are unlikely to work well anywhere.  So, if you see a plan that sounds good to you, you might want to ask how they came up with that plan. The answer to that question could be worth far more than the plan itself.

Well, since you seem to know more than the people who have responded to your post, why bother asking in the first place?
 
Perhaps, instead of telling others they are wrong, you might ask yourself what circumstances might explain what, at least to you, looks like a dichotomy.  BTW, there is a perfectly good reason, sample size and sampling methodology.

This is the follow-up report based on findings in my environment from a set of side-by-side comparisons. If you are looking for a short read, I suggest you move on now and not look back or forever hold your piece. . You have been warned.
 
Before I begin, I want to give special thanks and credit to RadioGuy7268 for his graciousness and the trust he placed in me with his equipment for this effort. It would not have been possible without you. Thank You!
 
What was the comparison all about and why did I undertake it?
 
Manufacturer specifications really are an important thing to review when purchasing a radio. Most humans don’t ‘think’ numbers however. Instead we think about and relate to real world outcomes. What we want to know is if a product will or will not meet our expectations and ‘what can I reasonably expect.’ Sadly the manufacturer’s marketing information, by design, can lead folks into a fantasy world that may have one believing we can have the sky and life will be rosy if we only purchased and used their product. Everyone reading this can relate to the absurd advertising claim on the Midland (and other’s) radio package of a 36 mile range for their top-end GMRS hand-held radio. They do this conscientiously knowing no soul on earth will ever achieve this range in practical use. Sadly though, fantasy sells, even in radio.
 
The more technical the person, the more numbers have meaning. They gain more meaning when they can be related to real life. For example: To the uninitiated, if I ask them how loud something might sound if I doubled the sound power of something they were listening too they might say it would sound twice as load. But that would not be the case. In real life testing researchers found that if the power was doubled (3dB louder) it would be just barely noticeable to the average human. In reality, the power would actually need to increased by 10dB (10-times the power) before the person (on average) would subjectively conclude the level had actually doubled. It is through this type of learning that gives meaning to the various numbers that appear in technical specifications a manufacture may publish.
 
Then we have experiences and opinions. Both are yours, neither of them may be the same as mine. If I shared with you (and I have) that I have communicated successfully well via a GMRS repeater 50 miles away, you might start to believe that if you switched to the use to the same equipment as I then you would be able to do the same. Maybe, maybe not. In the same way, when I read the experiences (or opinions) of others I may start to thinking I too could experience much better results if I switched to the equipment they use. Maybe, maybe not. My conditions are different than yours.
 
When I purchased my current and now primary GMRS handheld I had high hopes for its performance. I bought it because I wanted simplex capability substantially better than I had. I also wanted repeater support, and ability to use it with an external antenna. Imagine my surprise when I experienced only marginally (barely noticeable) better simplex distance over the model it replaced. What a disappointment! I spent 2-3/4 times the price and ended with a radio that, in my environment, achieved maybe 5%-10% increase in range (HT-HT). While disappointed, I am pleased with my purchase and have publicly admitted I would buy the radio again. The features and qualities of the radio that are currently meaningful to me more than justify the additional price. But I really did want much better simplex distance.
 
Like many of you I have read the posts of others sharing their opinions and experiences with regards to the use of ‘commercial’ part 90 radios. Many great experiences (or opinions) have been shared, and some very bold statements have been made (e.g. ‘10x the range’). Such comments caused me naturally to think that perhaps I too should consider such options. Maybe then I could achieve my simplex goals. The commercial prophets had sowed their seeds and thus I have been seriously considering obtaining higher priced commercial-grade stuff. However, my knowledge and life experiences have provided me enough wisdom and little angel on the other shoulder whispering in my ear saying “trust but verify”. Would this equipment really make a difference ‘in my environment?’.
 
I have never owned nor operated ‘commercial grade’ radio equipment for any extensive use. Instead I have always owned consumer grade and ‘amateur’ stuff. As a consequence of my experience I could not say first hand if commercial performs obviously better in practice like others have said it does. I do admit that I almost blindly accept that commercial equipment will likely be built to last longer, stand up to more rigorous use, perhaps even in harsh environments, but before I am willing to make a greater investment for personal-use, I really want to know that the equipment will result in noticeably better outcomes material to me. It is hard to image a scenario again where I find myself investing 2-10 times as much and getting nothing more of what I really want in return. So that leads us to here.
 
I reached out to this community for some assistance, and assistance is what I graciously received. I sought the opportunity to do some side by side field comparisons between my current GMRS HTs (KG-805G) and some ‘commercial’ grade HTs. I had hoped for perhaps one or two premium models. I ended up being blessed with 5. All Motorolas.
 
I told myself that if I could double or nearly double the range in my environment I would plan to switch.
 
So in full disclosure, I tell that when I went into my comparisons cautiously optimistic that I would achieve confirmation of the following:
 
1. Commercial Part-90 Radios will exhibit notably greater range, in my environment, than any equipment I own.
2. Commercial Part-90 Radios will exhibit the continued ability to receive and produce intelligible audio at notably increased distances than any equipment I own when receiving in the presence of adjacent channel interference.
 
Now, let me set the stage for comparisons.
 
I live in a semi rural area about 20 miles southeast of Cincinnati. My elevation above sea level is just about 875’ which I believe to be in higher-most percentile of the region, and on par with the ground elevation of one of the highest profile repeaters in the area. The terrain around me is mostly flat to slightly rolling. I estimate that within a few miles of my home the land is 60% or more trees with the rest a mixture of residential, open fields and light single story commercial. When I walk down my street using my existing GMRS HTs I experience simplex coverage that goes from perfect (full quieting) at the home and out to a distance of 4/10 miles. Thereafter, noise emerges but communications remains 100% reliable out to about 6/10ths mile. Beyond 6/10ths mile and out to 1.4 miles, communication is unreliable at best. Within this unreliable zone communication quality ranges from noisy but intelligble to very noisy and partially copiable, to non-existent. All this within 1.4 miles distance by way the crow flies.
 
Range or “Sensitivity” Testing
 
Because my street allows me to experience everything from great to nothing, it offers a great initial test bed. I theory that any radio with notably better receive capability will pop its head above the rest while operated in the unreliable (fringe) area between 6/10 and 1.4 miles. My plan was that when I identify radio(s) that stand out I will perform more extensive distance testing at greater distances and in different directions.
 
For my range tests, all operations were HT to HT, theoretically enabling the ability to spot notable sensitivity differences in a short physical distance. My wife operated an HT on the coach near the front window of our home while I went pedestrian. Where model-matched pairs of radios were available, my wife and I each operated two models, a KG-805G and another identical model. Where we did not have identical models for both ends, my wife used a single radio at the house (KG-805G) for consistency, while I carried a KG-805G plus another model.
 
For each comparison, I would walk on the street while walking and talking with her on the radios. I would stop about every 200-300 feet. We would communicate using identical models, then perform cross-model communications. If we could communicate, we noted that location and moved on. When we entered the unreliable (fringe) area we continued with the pattern. When neither receiver would receive a signal at the location we moved on. When we encountered a location where one radio opened up and the other did not, we spent a little more time. Heavy noise on one or both models was an indication we were at the fringe for that radio. When presented with this his condition I would alternate between both models on my end while my wife consistently used the same radio on her end. I would hold each radio in the air in the same way (overhead and in front of me, with my body out of the receive path). I would move each radio around slightly looking to see if minor repositioning made a difference in the ability to receive and in quality of audio.
 
If we found a model that worked in a fringe area where another would not, even after minor repositioning, we would know that we had found a candidate that exhibited more effective sensitivity and that would probably work better in many other environments as well.
 
See the summary below.
 
Adjacent Channel Interference Testing.
 
The next set of tests were practical adjacent-channel selectivity tests. The intent of these tests was to ascertain which radios where obviously less subject to desense in the presence of adjacent channel interference, based on the use of a common desense source. The hope was to identify, in relative terms, how much further a given receiver could receive satisfactorily when subjected to a consistent level of adjacent channel interference. For this test, one additional radio was added to the mix, a Midland GXT1000.
 
For these tests, my wife operated a single model radio in the house for the duration of the tests. For this test her radio was hooked up to a Ed-Fong roll-up J-pole antenna hanging inside at the front picture window. I went pedestrian. I took 7 models of radios with me to evaluate each back to back at each location I stopped. My wife read from the US Constitution while I confirmed I had reception on each model. Once good reception was confirmed I would hold each radio overhead at about 45 degree elevation in front of me, while below and behind me I held and keyed up a 1/2 watt ERP radio. I always made sure that my body was between the two radios I held and that my body was out of the RF path from my wife to the device under test. Separation between the radios I held is estimated at 6 feet (two arm lengths). Tests were performed at various distances along the same 1.4 mile stretch of my street.
 
Findings from my Comparisons
 
I found only minor (but not notable) differences between (4) of the Motorola’s and the KG-805G on the day of the tests. (2) Models, the EVX-S24 and VX-261, both seemed to exhibit the same sensitivity compared to the KG-805G, but struggled to open squelch just a hair more when in the fringe area. Both of these radios also seemed to exhibited a bit more audible noise when squelch did open up. (2) Models, the XPR-6550 and XPR-7550, both exhibited just the opposite. These two models seemed to open squelch just a bit sooner than the KG-805G, but on par nearly the same. (1) Motorola, the EVX-534 exhibited only about 1/2 mile of usable distance (A1 on Map) which suggests it was not functioning properly or perhaps its squelch setting was too high. Although two models appeared to open squelch a hair better and two a hair less, there was never a case (except for the EVX-534) where one radio opened squelch and the others did not when held in the same or nearly identical location (+/- 6 inches).
 
My results suggests there is insignificant difference in the effective sensitivity between the KG-805G and the (4) Motorolas, as none of them reproduced audio at a spot in the fringe area where the KG-805G did not receive and reproduce audio.
 
Since no radio demonstrated better sensitivity in the fringe area I concluded that no further range comparisons were warranted. So this concluded my sensitivity comparisons.
 
Findings from my Adjacent Channel Interference Comparisons
 
Findings here are significant in that it was observed that in the presence of my adjacent channel interference signal, not a single radio (KG-805G or other) opened squelch nor would reproduce audio under test conditions beyond a distance of about 3/10 mile (B1 on map).
 
At 3/10 of a mile and less, all models tested, except the GTX1000, opened squelch. Even as close as 1/10 mile (B2 on map) the GTX1000 would not open up squelch, showing a significantly reduced usable distance compared to the other models.
 
It was noted that when the radios opened squelch that the quality of audio through all the radios was significantly degraded. Even with the audio degraded, with carefully listening, the words could be understood from all radios that did open squelch. As the radios moved closer and closer to the home, the degree of audio degradation decreased. Subjectively speaking, I ranked the radios in the following order in terms of intelligibility when subjected to the interference condition at the 3/10 mile. XPR7550, XPR6550, KG-805G, VX-261, EVX-S24, EVX-534.
Then again at 1/10 mile I ranked that as follows: XPR7550, XPR6550, KG-805G, EVX-534, EVX-S24, VX-261 at 1/10 mile.
 
Conclusions
 
Staying within the bounds of what I set out to do, here are my conclusions.
 
In my physical and RF environment, given the objective of maximum simplex range (HT-HT) there is was no material benefit to switching to commercial grade part 90 radios from my current KG-805G radio. No part 90 radio model demonstrated any materially better sensitivity nor increased range under static RF conditions; no radio demonstrated a materially increased range under adjacent interference conditions. All were equally as effective and I found zero increased range benefit to justify a model change.
 
Saying it another way. In my environment, with locally strongly attenuated signals, the difference between the KG-805G and the part 90 radios was not significant.
 
The GTX1000 radio, Midland’s long-time flagship bubble-wrap radio, while reasonably sensitive, is an inferior performer in the presence of adjacent channel interference, giving credibility to the many assertions that radio-on-a chip radios can/will have limited usability in high RF environments.
 
Opinion
 
The cost difference between the KG-805G and Midland GTX-1000 can be justified considering the KG-805G outperformed it by a factor of 3 when exposed to adjacent channel interference as was the case in my comparisons. Users of the GTX1000 (or any like performer) at high-occupancy public events may find their usable range substantially and undesirably reduced compared to users of better models when there are a lot of GMRS and FRS radios in active use in the vicinity.
 
The cost difference between a KG-805G and a new Motorola radio is not justifiable when the key objective is maximum range (HT-HT), while it may be justified when other qualities are deemed more important.
 
For those interested, here is a google earth image with annotations of where the tests were conducted.
 

 
I personally found this effort very beneficial. Nothing like getting your feet wet and experiencing something first hand.
 
If you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me. And once again, Thanks to RadioGuy7268.
 
Best regards to you all.
 
 
Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM
 
Edited for spelling.
Edited to amend conclusion.

First off, you are welcome.
 
Second, you make a very fair statement. There is no doubt that the signals in my environment are in fact very much attenuated. That is why I believe the unreliable/fringe zone from 6/10 to 1.4 miles to be such an important zone. Agreed too that if the fringe area were known to be say, 5 times larger, that finer differences would have been able to be detected. I also believe under laboratory conditions small differences would be detected. But this test was all about the practical, in my environment. In the end, I take no exception to amending the conclusion to clarify.
 
Thanks for your feedback.
 
 
Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

Compander = Compression & Expander. The idea of a Noise Blanker - at  least as I understand how it was implemented in Low Band radios by Motorola - was a secondary receive circuit slightly off-set in frequency, and that would be used to compare desired signal vs. undesired noise (Figuring that most lower frequency "noise" would be wideband in nature, while the desired signal would be on-frequency).
 
In Compandering, Audio is compressed upon transmit, and expanded upon receive. This allows for a potentially better "envelope" of audio response to be compressed into a given amount of bandwidth. However, it requires more manipulation of the audio components of human voice. You give up a bit of audio purity when using Compandering. Better or worse is often up to the ears of the people using the system (and in my experience, how often the people using the system are pressing the outer edges of coverage/range).
 
There's already a ton written about this type of stuff out there on the internet, so the best way I could describe it is to say that if you're only concerned about quality of audio within your own fleet - give it a try & see how it works on your radios and in your system. If you like it, certainly use it for your system.
 
However, most GMRS radio systems and user groups aren't running Compandering, so your radios would sound "odd" sending out compressed audio to another radio that wasn't set to receive (and expand) the compressed audio. 

The Motorola CDM750 or CDM1250 are surprisingly good radios with very good receivers.  The 1250 might be a tad better b/c you have more than 4 channels.. but...
 
G.

Maybe I am the only one, but I am confused about the purpose of this ongoing rant. Complaints on an online forum are not going to change anything. If you want change, file a Petition for Rulemaking with the FCC. Then get people to support your petition.
 
But, to the points you raise. First, about GMRS radios themselves: Some of your facts are wrong or off target, there is no need for a -5 MHz (not KHz) offset on a GMRS radio. There are only 8 repeater input frequencies defined and those are all 5MHz higher than the 8 defined repeater input frequencies. And, the number of internal memory locations (aka "channels) that a given user needs is very difficult to determine. Probably more than 22, but 180? Zello? Zello works just fine without a GMRS radio at all. But, Zello is an Internet (IP) based app, which means anything that connects to Zello needs an Internet connection. But, you also suggest GMRS should work when away from any cellular infrastructure. So, how is your Zello equipped GMRS radio supposed to connect to Zello when you are in the middle of nowhere? And you complaint about morse code, I really don't know what that is about? We live in a free market economic system. Manufacturers are free to offer products they feel will meet customer and investor needs. You have a choice. And, if you don't like the certified GMRS products you can choose from, there are plenty of other options, from super-cheap CCRs to super-high end Part-90 commercial equipment.
 
Technical questions aside, your major complaint seems to be about licensing fees. Here again I think you are off base. Many services, especially commercial, marine, aviation, LMR, broadcast, common carrier, cellular, etc. have licensing fees and they are often quite expensive. At $7 a year, GMRS is cheap by comparison. Yes, it is more than Amateur. But, Amateur radio is also considered a public service, with a long history and International agreements. And, what difference does it make who you pay a licensing fee to the FCC, the ARRL, a local radio club or whatever? But, even here you are not current. There is now a proposal in the FCC to lower GMRS licensing fees to $50 and add a fee for Amateur radio. The reason? It appears federal law requires fees be set to recover costs. The GMRS fee was bringing in too much money, ham radio was bringing in nothing.
 
You also object to being taxed on your GMRS radio, but have no issue with the FCC requiring a cell phone company to offer a GMRS repeater service on every tower for free. When you consider the equipment and installation costs, plus administration and maintenance costs, are you willing to pay for that every month when Verizon and AT&T raise your bill to cover their costs? There is no free lunch.
 
Ok, you obviously feel strongly about something, otherwise you wouldn't have started this topic and posted 7 follow-up comments. But, it is really hard to understand just what it is you are complaining about and what you think should be done about it. Can you succinctly state the top 5 high level problems you see with GMRS today, the reasons you think those are problems, and 5 proposed solutions.