Radioguy7268

If you try to go the legit way for current model software for Motorola, you're probably going to be disappointed. Motorola is not interested in supporting Ham or GMRS at a corporate level, and getting things like Wideband entitlement for CPS software is nearly impossible. The newest CPS2 software for the XPR/Trbo series is not out in the wild, and the older CPS software won't even read new radios fresh from the Factory.
If you are dealing with older model analog radios like the CDM1250 mentioned above, the PM400, M1225, etc.  then there are plenty of unofficial resources and available software, but it's still not 'Plug and Play'. If you are starting from nothing, you would probably be best served to purchase a radio that's already programmed for what you need, and then try to acquire the software & cables to read that radio & save a baseline profile that you can begin to experiment with.

Most folks know when you’re done speaking when they stop hearing words.

Lolwhut? No, I'm not. S-meter calibration is different for HF and VHF. On HF frequencies S1 is 0.2uV, S2 is 0.4uV, S3 is 0.79uV and so on. On VHF it is 0.02uV, 0.04uV, 0.08uV... Why the 10x difference? Because it's not about microvolts at all.
Strength scale (the "S" in the RST):
Faint—signals barely perceptible Very weak signals Weak signals Fair signals Fairly good signals Good signals Moderately strong signals Strong signals Extremely strong signals Where are the microvolts? It is all about acoustics.

12 and 20dB sinad is all I care about. Where does it open and where does it close in CSQ or pl
 

Your using a CCR mobile and your worried about a few watts. Power isn't everything in UHF. Throw an NMO Mount in and hook it up to the radio and use it. That 5 watts will do nothing noticable. 

I don't see any reason, with the right hardware, that a dual pl setup couldnt be implemented similar to what CARLA has on the ham side. One pl, your audio goes to the whole system, while another pl repeats on that machine only. If you key up the local pl, linked audio is muted until a set period after local activity ends, and the link resumes.
http://carlaradio.net/thesystem/pl_ct.php

Who sits around and thinks up this kind of stupidity?  No!  Not just no, but hell no!  This is another hairbrained attempt to make GMRS into "ham radio lite".  I am an Extra class ham, and I am 100% against this.  GMRS (Class A CB) was originally another means of personal (and at one time, business) communication.  It should remain that way.  It should remain 100% analog.  GMRS allows for reliable communication with a short wavelength (think being able to use an ht in a car without an outside or excessively long antenna).  It is great for families, friends, and even properly licensed hams, to keep in touch, especially with family and friends who just do not want to be bothered with testing, radio theory, etc.  If someone wants to enjoy the hobby aspects of ham, play with digital, etc; then let them get off of their dead behind and study and take the tests or shut up! Those who are already hams and who want to turn GMRS into ham lite or other extension of ham radio, please use the privileges you have on ham or upgrade if that is not enough.
People are continuously trying to wreck a great thing that GMRS is with these bright ideas.

I think this is more of a "what gives them the right?" sovereign citizen take. I'm pretty sure that the writers of the Constitution never quite envisioned the possibility of a wireless communication system back in 1789. At best, they left it up to the People and the individual States with the 9th and 10th amendments. Pretty sure nobody pays much of any attention to the 9th and 10th since the Wickard v. Filburn decision.
Feel free to fight the battle. I doubt I'll invest in your fight, but I'd be thrilled to read the legal arguments once you make it to the Supreme Court.
I do recall a company called TeraWave who was going to be using Infrared light as an unlicensed high bandwidth beam between buildings. They did some amazing things in the Lab, but once they got out in the real world & put up some systems on rooftops, they discovered that there are some real world problems like fog and rain that played havoc on their systems. Not sure if the FCC got involved in that one, I think all it took was economic reality. Giving up a few hundred MB of bandwidth in exchange for a licensed microwave system with Six Sigma reliability was the winner.

Motorola does have RAC for analog, but it's can be scanned.
A better option is to spend the money and get a part 90 license then you have better options.  First is you can run DMR (MOTOTRBO) and run a digital RAC and run basic encryption.  It would also allow you TWO talk paths on the same frequency.  Something that's no possible with analog radio. 
And the other thing with a part 90 commercial license is if others come in, outside of your family unit, they can use the license under your authority.  You can 't grant a non-family member access if they don't have a GMRS license.. so day workers and laborers that are not family can't use the radios. 
The basic encryption will also keep your radio traffic semi-private.  The 6 digit numeric RAC code will keep all but the most determined off the repeater.  And it really sounds like it would be a better option for your specific application. 
The issue is that you are so limited with analog radio.  And there is a greater limitation with the lack of encryption due to the regulations of GMRS.
I know that someone brought up using a trunking controller that would look at radio ID's to grant or deny access to the system, but there again, I don't know the regulations specifically for GMRS would allow that.  Would it work, sort of, until someone with a scanner that could display the LTR data was used to pick apart the information and then it's going to be screwed with if you are really expecting issues with others trying to gain access. 
I wouldn't typically go to these length's but you seem adamant in you post about it to the point you foresee issues before you even have equipment on the air.  And in truth, if you haven't bought any equipment for this yet, now is the time to look at other options that better match your listed requirements.
Personally, I am a P25 and AES encryption guy all the way.  That will always work and NO ONE gets to listen in.  But none of that fits within the rules governing GMRS.
 

It depends on the subscribers and the radios. a CCR radio wont do what you want. Motorola supports RAC (Repeater Access Control) but that's a form of MDC. There are not many options for analog options. I also use DCS for input and CTCSS on output. This helps eliminate many users but isn't a fail safe. 

Another option would be using an LTR controller ,w/that said all of your radios would have to be LTR capable 

The trouble with relying on cellular phones as a primary communication device in an emergency is that every cellular service is over-subscribed by design. They make money on the idea that thousands of people might be in the vicinity of a local cellular tower, but only a few of those people will actually be trying to use their phones at any given moment. In an emergency, everyone picks up their phone and tries to call, text, livestream, or search up: "what do I do in an active shooter situation?"
Any study done in the aftermath of an emergency will point out poor communication as a primary point of failure. Having a dedicated communication system with proper training and protocols is much better if there is an emergency - rather than relying on a service that piggybacks on top of an overloaded cellular service.
Do NOT use Zello for emergency situations.

Layering communication technology on top of a WiFi network is a really poor choice for an emergency communication channel.
When things go bad, you want to count on LESS technology, not more. The more you can adhere to the KISS principle, the better off things will work once things go wrong. Keep it simple, keep it working.
What happens if the school gets hit by high winds that rip the roof off? Well - at least with conventional portable radios, there's the option of simplex. What's the option with Network radios when there is no functioning Network?
There's already money available for schools for communication equipment through Federal/State grants & funding. No need for Amazon.

The trouble with relying on cellular phones as a primary communication device in an emergency is that every cellular service is over-subscribed by design. They make money on the idea that thousands of people might be in the vicinity of a local cellular tower, but only a few of those people will actually be trying to use their phones at any given moment. In an emergency, everyone picks up their phone and tries to call, text, livestream, or search up: "what do I do in an active shooter situation?"
Any study done in the aftermath of an emergency will point out poor communication as a primary point of failure. Having a dedicated communication system with proper training and protocols is much better if there is an emergency - rather than relying on a service that piggybacks on top of an overloaded cellular service.
Do NOT use Zello for emergency situations.

There are lots of funds available for schools under the Safe Schools funding & government grants for security. Take a look here: schoolsafety.gov
I'm not sure why those compact digital Hytera radios are being out-performed by Baofengs, but I'd definitely try out some other radios with better durability & performance specifications. Radios used for safety & security at a school should not be purchased based upon cheapest price. Repeaters are not necessary for most smaller sized buildings, but I've seen some strange stuff with newer construction with low-E glass. There are also advantages to using digital repeaters for a district-wide network that allows
I'd call in a local wireless company & have them survey the building to see what works. They might also be able to help you out with some direction on grants and funding options available to schools in your State.

Layering communication technology on top of a WiFi network is a really poor choice for an emergency communication channel.
When things go bad, you want to count on LESS technology, not more. The more you can adhere to the KISS principle, the better off things will work once things go wrong. Keep it simple, keep it working.
What happens if the school gets hit by high winds that rip the roof off? Well - at least with conventional portable radios, there's the option of simplex. What's the option with Network radios when there is no functioning Network?
There's already money available for schools for communication equipment through Federal/State grants & funding. No need for Amazon.

If I follow what you're asking, you would have radio users on one system (non-GMRS) with the ability to generate traffic on a GMRS repeater. It's not going to be legal.
If you end up relaying their voice traffic from this 'private' system over to an analog GMRS repeater, I also question how 'private' the system would remain. You would be basically be wiretapping your own private system, and then broadcasting the audio over an open analog channel.

If I follow what you're asking, you would have radio users on one system (non-GMRS) with the ability to generate traffic on a GMRS repeater. It's not going to be legal.
If you end up relaying their voice traffic from this 'private' system over to an analog GMRS repeater, I also question how 'private' the system would remain. You would be basically be wiretapping your own private system, and then broadcasting the audio over an open analog channel.

The trouble with relying on cellular phones as a primary communication device in an emergency is that every cellular service is over-subscribed by design. They make money on the idea that thousands of people might be in the vicinity of a local cellular tower, but only a few of those people will actually be trying to use their phones at any given moment. In an emergency, everyone picks up their phone and tries to call, text, livestream, or search up: "what do I do in an active shooter situation?"
Any study done in the aftermath of an emergency will point out poor communication as a primary point of failure. Having a dedicated communication system with proper training and protocols is much better if there is an emergency - rather than relying on a service that piggybacks on top of an overloaded cellular service.
Do NOT use Zello for emergency situations.

There are lots of funds available for schools under the Safe Schools funding & government grants for security. Take a look here: schoolsafety.gov
I'm not sure why those compact digital Hytera radios are being out-performed by Baofengs, but I'd definitely try out some other radios with better durability & performance specifications. Radios used for safety & security at a school should not be purchased based upon cheapest price. Repeaters are not necessary for most smaller sized buildings, but I've seen some strange stuff with newer construction with low-E glass. There are also advantages to using digital repeaters for a district-wide network that allows
I'd call in a local wireless company & have them survey the building to see what works. They might also be able to help you out with some direction on grants and funding options available to schools in your State.

My only guess on those Hyteras (and it's totally a guess) would be that they are programmed for low power with either .5 or 1 watt on FRS channels. If your school does not have a specific frequency licensed with the FCC, some radio shops and dealers would just plug in some low power random FRS channels as a workaround instead of bothering with Licensing issues.
 

There's a practicality point to all of this, because running multiple control heads get pretty expensive pretty quickly if you're buying them retail (or even getting new at dealer cost!).
The dual control head option is neat, but if you just want to talk on a specific channel, it's much easier (and affordable) to run a remote speaker and/or mic.  There's a few different builders who make remote microphone options that plug into the rear accessory connector of most of the popular mobile radios. You're not going to have channel changing options, you're not going to see the LCD display, but you'll be able to hear what's going on, and even key up to talk back.
If 90% of what you want to do in the other room is monitor the radio, then the remote speaker is about the simplest and cheapest. 

The trouble with relying on cellular phones as a primary communication device in an emergency is that every cellular service is over-subscribed by design. They make money on the idea that thousands of people might be in the vicinity of a local cellular tower, but only a few of those people will actually be trying to use their phones at any given moment. In an emergency, everyone picks up their phone and tries to call, text, livestream, or search up: "what do I do in an active shooter situation?"
Any study done in the aftermath of an emergency will point out poor communication as a primary point of failure. Having a dedicated communication system with proper training and protocols is much better if there is an emergency - rather than relying on a service that piggybacks on top of an overloaded cellular service.
Do NOT use Zello for emergency situations.

You’re still missing the point.  You said that your manual said you must provide a 12 amp source. Then you said your radio draws 23 watts, a number that doesn’t make sense.  That’s what Kenny was telling you. Kenny explained that’s less than 2 amps.  Now you’re talking about your radio using 20-30 amps, numbers which still make no sense for a GMRS radio, even while transmitting.
My mobile ham radio outputs 100 watts of RF.  At 13.8 volts it does that while drawing 23 amps, which is a power consumption of 317.4 watts. That’s a power efficiency of 31.5%.  The rest of the power is mostly converted to heat and some light. This radio would require a direct connection to the battery.
During receive my radio draws 0.6 amps (at 13.8 v), which means it consumes 8.28 watts.
So, where did your “23 watt” figure come from?  Is that something you measured on an RF wattmeter?  If so, that’s not the power “draw” but rather the output power.
And if that’s the output power, then your radio probably doesn’t need a 12 amp circuit.  
12 amps would be a reasonable current requirement for a radio with a 50 watt RF output if it were as efficient/inefficient as my FT-891.
But, if your radio only puts out an actual 23 watts (RF Output), and if it operates at the same inefficiency level as mine (31.5% of the input power is radiated as RF power), then the actual power consumption while transmitting is 73 watts, which represents a current consumption of about 5.29 amps, a value that’s easily delivered by your cigarette lighter socket.
So Kenny was trying to get you to understand that you were using numbers and units that simply didn’t make sense the way you used them and in return you accused him of drinking.  
I can see why he might want to.

Whoever gave you that information is flat out wrong. JVC Kenwood is still making new radios. Just delivered 25 new units the other day, and they all worked quite well.