JLeikhim

Here is FCC Response to me in 2017 rulemaking : WT Docket 10-119 (FCC 17-57) "Finally, a commenter requested that we delete the GMRS prohibition on messages that are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station. [125] We find there is insufficient record in the proceeding to make a determination on these issues at this time." 95.1733 (#8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station;" The FCC kicked it down the road because FCC has no idea why that prohibition is in the rules. The issue is that 95.1733 prohibition #8 above, is not related to the current interpretation of network interconnection. I believe it and another paragraph are scrivenors errors, text that was left in place from deletion of old rules. It would take some research, however, there was a point in time when repeaters were a new thing in the eyes of the FCC and an actual control operator was needed to shut off the repeater if misused. Interestingly, you could use a dial up line to turn on and off the repeater, but you could not convey trafffic as that would be interconnection to the PSTN. Old technology, old rule, not removed. Detractors will try to leverage that mistake, and the FCC no longer has the institutional knowledge to determine that the prohibition should no longer exist. Getting this resolved should be done by a paid attorney like "AT" (Mr 800 MHz Rebanding) to research all of the records and determine for the FCC that it does not belong in the rules. Asking the FCC for an opinion, is likely to get an uninformed, negative result. It appears this unofficial heads up is from an FCC official acting without doing the research behind this conflicting prohibition in the current rules.

The rules were never changed. Same as written in 2017 Federal Register. The link you cite is not the rules, but is a staff interpretation. A misguided one.

The 50 watt mobiles will transmit on the 8 sole, repeater/simplex channels and create havoc for other GMRS users. Bad idea, even for "rural" .

There is only one day left to post YOUR comments on this critical item. Only 6 so far have commented in dissent. You can make an express comment filing if you wish . I did, and mine was wordy. My old boss had a saying about allowing a camel to put his nose in the tent. Eventually you have the whole camel in your tent. Midland is interested only in maximizing sales of product, not protecting the GMRS service. You might like their product, fine, but Midland wants to distort the rules to sell product, without any regard to the technology that has existed since the inception of GMRS many decades ago. Point of fact, they have no problem ignoring that GMRS is a wide band 16K0F3E emission and sell radios that are narrow band and are reduced in performance. They did some trickery on one already certified radio model and claimed it could be made wide band via software. If so, it would be illegal to do so. So far I have no evidence that the software slipped out the back door, actually works. That is the company Midland. 1) More digital noises on the channels will become very annoying. I can tell you from experience, that the rodger beeps from FRS radios at the national parks will drive you nuts. Now with 50 watts and persistent GPS locations from 5 or 10 ATV's and voice communications will be impossible. Yes you can use PL but, if you are in the wilderness, sometimes it can be a safety net to listen in CSQ. Midland can do all this SMS messaging and geolocation on 900 MHz ISM band like their competition in this space. They can have mesh networking as well and extend the footprint substantially. 2) A digital voice option in GMRS would be great. However Midland describes a 4:1 TDMA solution that will not work in simplex which is 99% of their market. They are apparently un-knowledgeable about this and have thrown it in for arguments sake. If Midland were to develop such a product, it would not be a standard like P25 or DMR, it would be proprietary and incompatible with everyone else (Like Yaesu C4FM Fusion). If the radios are strictly digital, there would be no interoperability with existing FM wide band radios. Good luck on calling for help with your radios as you hear only digital voice. Midland can also do this on 900 MHz ISM band like Motorola DTR. There would need to be no FCC rule changes as ISM rules are very flexible. None of what Midland has proposed should be approved. Especially adding digital data to high power radios. If a digital voice option is to be considered, it should be described by the user community and should be a recognized standard like DMR and should have FM wide band mode as a primary mode of operation for interoperability with existing radio population. Frankly, a blanket approval of part 90 DMR radios, would be sufficient. But Midland wants more than that as a proprietary option will be cheaper to make and will lock in users to their crappy brand. Please dissent on Midlands entire proposal and do so quickly. An Express Comment is fine. Just Say No to bad engineering. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/docket-detail/RM-11970

I think the Channel 19 was a truckers channel long before 40 channel radios were mainstream. So i dont think being at center of the band was the reason. Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Has the temperature changed where the repeater is located? Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

You have one of the following: Bad feedline, antenna or connector causing wideband noise when transmitting. Loose connector in one of the above. A noise source nearby like a computer or monitor that is so close to the antenna that it reradiates the TX signal plus wideband noise. Loose mounting hardware on the antenna or mast. Nearby interference like an AM station or FM station mixing with TX and reradiating the RX frequency. This should be considered last and not at all if it works on a different antenna. Duplexer out of tune. Think about what might have changed... Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

You would have had better results with a metal ammo box. An ideal ground plane woukd be an aluminum disc about 13 inch diameter. You can try lining the box you have with aluminized HVAC duct tape. Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Proper Wideband FM sounds much better than the IMBE and AMBE vocoders. I really dont see the advantage for GMRS. Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Same as channel 3 for many cheap radios. These are FRS radio guidelines. Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Nor is tone 07 the same in all radios, Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

A countrywide option would be to use FRS channel 9, tone 11 or 911. Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Wake me up when Baofenshuii has a shortage of flashlight LED s and can no longer offer that "feature" either. Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Has anyone actually tested one of these Midland radios after programming "wide band" with Chirp or any other software? By test, I mean looking at the deviation of the transmitter with a deviation meter and measuring receiver acceptance bandwidth. I think that folks are being fooled by a check box in the software that does nothing. Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

You would be better off buying a Kenwood TKR850 repeater Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk