WRAF213

Looks like yet another rebranding to shift appeal to a specific target market. R&D is expensive, stickers are not. It almost certainly carries the TYT's FCC ID per 2.924.

Adding T-Band spectrum to Part 90 use comes at a huge cost to broadcast services, which is why T-Band is only available where necessary. Broadcast spectrum won't be released unless the buyer can afford to give the FCC the money that spectrum's worth. Whitespace devices are Part 15 and have several restrictions on their operation to reduce broadcast interference; they aren't high-power, fixed-frequency narrowband voice solutions. Lately the telecom industry has been leading a crusade against 'underutilized spectrum', eyeballing 9cm, 6cm, and 3cm Amateur bands along with the bottom of 70cm in hopes of getting free 'whitespace' spectrum (which is subject to the fundamental flaw of the hidden-node problem, particularly on duplex links). In October, 462.5375 and 462.7375 became available for allocation with a 4K00 mask or narrower per FCC-18-143. Those licensees are paying far, far more money for that spectrum than we are, and our use case barely justifies what we have now (see FRS 22-channel expansion). We aren't going to get more than we already have.

Just remember that while simplex operation happens down at 462 MHz, duplex operation transmits at 467 MHz and SWR / return loss should be checked at 467 too.

There's a 1/4 wave dual-band whip on my car, even that simple construction cuts off right at 450 MHz. Most of those dual band antennas are based on 70cm being around the third harmonic of 2m, and 467 MHz is quite some distance from the third harmonic of 148 MHz. Most of those multi-band ham antennas are designed to give good SWR inside 144-148 and 440-450, and SWR will rise very quickly above 450 MHz. As a good rule of thumb, higher gain antennas are narrower-bandwidth than lower gain antennas.

As far as I know, it's AllStarLink-based linking. EchoLink is Amateur Service-only. It's possible to configure an RTCM for GMRS use. The GMRS AllStarLink-based stuff doesn't (and can't) use the Amateur network, and connect to each other as private nodes. As far as the rules go, 95.1733(a)(​8​) determines what kind of linking is allowed -- things that have already been transmitted can't be retransmitted over control links. Remote bases are fine as long as that and 95.1763 are followed (remote base input can't be on GMRS, and is probably networked or PSTN anyways). The rules regarding linking are unclear so everyone just ignores them and waits for the FCC to make a move. The rules don't say POTS, they explicitly state the PSTN. If you can dial its number on a regular cell phone, it's only allowed connection to that for the purposes of being a remote base. There's no constitutional principle privilege since 95.1731 exists.

Yes: 600 is Wilson 625 is Harvard All work as listed on the website. I don't think any of the alternate tones work.

There are lots, lots of radios on Amazon from questionable sources that claim FRS/GMRS/BRS operation but have only Part 15 certification (if any at all) and require programming to bring into GMRS spectrum. Advertising like that is how small businesses and children end up on public safety or federal spectrum. Illegal marketing, but inaction is the trend.

There's an open repeater on 600 at Mt. Wilson (see MyGMRS database), and travel tone in the LA area (not sute about SFV coverage). Try also Club 650 for technical discussion, but that's not a super active repeater. The primary tones listed in the database are correct and I can hit 600, 625, and 725 from here. 625 and 725 are quite... crass. They may ignore radio checks. 625 has a rather insensitive receiver so you need a fairly strong signal to hit it. 725 also needs a good signal but that has exceptional coverage in the SFV.

The radio can't be shipped with the jumper in the FPP-Enable position if it is compliant with 90.203(g)(1). It can only be enabled by modification: The radio can't be sold in the US in the unmodified state from the factory. A radio shop can sell it in the modified state, but they would have to unmodify it before delivery to the user. End users on Part 90 don't need to study frequencies, licensing, and allocations; technicians handle the license requirements and provide radios that only operate within that license. End users aren't allowed to change their frequency set from the radio's front panel per 90.203(e); and all exceptions under (g) apply only to service/maintenance technicians. In an in-service state, radios in use under Part 90 cannot have front-panel programming accessible to the user. See also 90.427. Based on that, whatever the FCC has to say about the matter, I don't think you'll like. Anyways, I'm not asking whether the TK-805 is Part 90 compliant, or whether it is Part 95 compliant. The FCC already did so by granting it type acceptance. It doesn't even matter what that jumper was set to from the factory, even if that violates 90.203(g)(3). My question isn't about the radio; it was only provided as an example. The question is about whether 90.203(g)(1) and 95.1761(a) are mutually exclusive under all circumstances. I'm not aware of any 90.203(g)(2) or (3) radios that are also Part 95 certified, so I'm not asking about the other exceptions to 90.203(e). The other question that will come up is whether Part 90 regulations apply to, or influence, Part 95-only operation. The results of that conversation would be influenced by 95.335 and ultimately affect 95.1735.

My question to the FCC will basically read off like this:

I mistyped that rule number, I meant 95.1765; it was after midnight when I wrote that. I'm just going to ask the FCC about the issue.

By stacking and properly phasing the antennas, you get higher horizontal gain and a narrower lobe in vertical gain (less multipath from ground reflection). Some collinear antennas like the one WRCD400 posted can have electrical downtilt, so just because it resembles a professionally built collinear does not mean it would be of utility for base station use (downtilt antennas cover limited areas close to a high-level site very well).

Once you make that internal modification, you void the Part 95 type acceptance. The modification is strictly compliant with 90.203(g)(1). You can make the modification to enable FPP and keep the Part 90 certification, but that would then equip the radio with a frequency capability outside the allotted GMRS channels accessible through operator action, voiding the Part 95 certification per 95.1755(c ). Operation would then violate 95.337 both directly through the modification and indirectly per the 95.1755 violation. You can't have Part 90 FPP on a GMRS-compliant radio. It's simply not permitted under several rules.

I second the recommendation for an outdoor antenna. It doesn't have to be big. Losing 5dB in gain by using a simple one-foot dipole instead of a ten-foot collinear is easily made up for by the 20dB improvement of clearing the roofline and gaining separation from noise sources. On UHF, clearing the roofline makes a *BIG* difference in simplex range, and a good improvement in repeater range.

There's quite a few radios out there that are dual-service 90/95, with the forum frequently mentioning the Kenwood TK-880 and Motorola M1225. Those have no method of changing the frequencies loaded from outside the programming software, and is certified for operation in Part 90. It's fully eligible for certification in both services, and neither seevice precludes certification in the other. FPP exposes the frequency determiming internal to the radio, but it can easily be argued that the dongle Motorola uses on those radios is a service-only tool. Doesn't matter since radios that can do FPP aren't certified under 95 anyways. Part 90 doesn't include provisions for barring certification in other services. Some equipment needs to be used both on Part 90 business licenses and Part 74 broadcast auxiliary licenses. Some use cases require both 90 and part 80 VHF marine radio. Radios certified for all three aren't hard to find. 90/95 certification is harder to get as it puts restrictions on the feature set, so you see fewer radios certified for both. GMRS is not a radio hobbyist's band. Amateur already exists for that purpose. Type certification exists so we don't have to take technical tests of knowledge to use GMRS equipment; it's supposed to just work, and work with all other certified devices enough to exchange voice messages between different manufacturer's radios. Remember that in a proper commercial radio environment, the user buys the radio from a radio shop, amd the radio shop manages what frequencies are in the radio based on what the user is authorized to use. Unlike Amateur, you see a marked separation between radio users and radio technicians. The user doesn't have to concern themselves with the intricacies o lf licensing, it's assumed that the trained service techs can properly interpret a license authorization and produce a codeplug that is compliant with the services the user and radio are authorized for, and can be held liable for rule violations that result from an incorrect codeplug. This also gives some flexibility in what the radio manufacturer can provide in a radio, since those bells and whistles can be turned off by the radio shop and the end user can't turn them back on.

Yep. When using FRS, you're not operating under your GMRS license unless you choose to, as long as your radio is FRS-compliant.

All repeaters around me (that identidy) use Morse for ID. Some don't send the Morse with CTCSS so it's not always audible to a proper receiver. Doing so is compliant with the rules and doesn't distract the operators, so long as the Morse isn't interrupted by repeater traffic. I prefer that mode of ID, but that's rather uncommon to see. I'd expect most (identification-transmitting) repeaters to send Morse ID with CTCSS, a handful to send Morse ID without CTCSS, and the rest to use voice ID because those repeater owners want to watch the world burn.

Part 90 rules state you can load channels you are authorized for in other services and remain Part 90 compliant. A type-certified Part 95 radio won't have FPP capability (95.1761©) so you'd be operating under the "good enough" Part 90-on-95 generally accepted practice. Having access to FPP without an interlock of some sort wouldn't be Part 90 compliant (90.203(g)). That's why FCC FPP requires a dongle and Federal Government (not Part 90) FPP doesn't.

95.1745 determines what type of remote control (this would be remote control, operating outside the immediate vicinity of the transmitter) is permissible. Only fixed, base, and repeater stations may be remotely controlled. For a mobile station, those can only be operated while in the vehicle, with exception to on-premises use where the vehicle is located. You'll also want to make sure ineligible users shouldn't readily have access to the link; pretty easy with DTR. Since those are Part 15, there isn't much regulation against what you can interconnect those with. The only issues I see would result from unlicensed operators using the radio remotely and exceeding operator distance limits for stations ineligible for remote control. It's regulated same as Bluetooth. DTR radios (such as the DTR650) are much more capable radios and should give better range with their superior antennas. DTRs occasionally pop up here and are quite useful in their own right. Sadly the new DTR700 and related drops the SMA connector and uses some weird lug.

Part 95 does not certify those Part 90 amplifiers because such devices are not legal under Part 95. Type certification specifies the operational parameters of the certified device to make sure the transmit power levels, bandwidth, etc. do not exceed what it has been certified to operate under. Changing those parameters causes the radio to operate outside of its certified parameters, voiding its type certification and authority to operate under Part 95. Any amplifier which is not aware of the channel it is operating under will violate 95.361©, as the combination of radio and amplifier is capable of operation outside of GMRS's maximum power levels. The use of such transmitter will cause violations of 95.337 and 95.339. All equipment certified on Part 95 stays within the limits of Part 95 under all normal circumstances. Any device that modifies the RF carrier's modulation (power, deviation, modulated signal contents) before reaching the antenna's feedline, with exception to passive devices such as external filtering, requires Part 95 certification.

Any component attached to the RF chain must comply with the rules. GMRS does not restrict antennas (compare to FRS), but it does restrict output power. Output amplifiers are certainly covered under FCC regs, especially with their use on CBRS. Earlier, I had overlooked rule 95.337, which explicitly states that any external device that increases the transmit power of a radio voids its type-acceptance and legality of operation under Part 95. That should settle any question of legality here.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't do a vehicle-installed repeater. Repeaters must not be capable of operating while moving, and cannot have a mobile operation mode. It's written in the Part 95 definition of a repeater station. They must operate at a fixed position. The specifics of what defines a fixed station is a question I'm trying to raise to the FCC's attention. There's no spectrum entering or leaving GMRS. Consider frequency availability in the cities. Public safety is still building out on T-band here around Los Angeles because there is no spectrum available on 700 MHz, 800 MHz, or 450-470 MHz. Frequency reuse on those three segments is intense. Likewise, there's a lot of frequency reuse and congestion on GMRS, and coordination is necessary to protect against interference. In the suburbs out of the coverage areas of the cities, GMRS appears unused. Likewise, T-band and 800 MHz also appear unused. That doesn't mean there aren't any users. You just can't hear them, especially from ground-level. FRS users can exit receive range after a few thousand feet; low-level repeaters typical of private use can exit range in a few miles. Same goes for simplex or building-mounted repeaters in Part 90. The FCC won't deallocate 452.600 because they didn't hear anyone at their Denver field office in the last 25 minutes. For that same reason, they won't deallocate 462.600. Since there's already a lot of Part 95 462/467 MHz equipment out there in a poorly regulated (relative to Part 90) fashion, getting FRS and GMRS users to stay off those bands would be impossible. Removing FRS or GMRS would also kill an industry of unlicensed two-way radio manufacturing (which is a bigger industry than you think), threaten emergency preparedness for what is easily hundreds of thousands of people, and provide very, very little benefit to the FCC. Trying to change the service to illegalize the operating modes of the existing radios is too monumental a task, and is one of the reasons why FRS gained the 8 repeater output channels. The pressures of the license-by-rule system on FRS and fixed channel set of GMRS would actually favor expansion of the band over contraction. Setting up a bunch of repeaters blindly across all 8 channels just creates a bunch of interference for the other licensed users of the bands. Just because a repeater is open doesn't mean it isn't interference. This applies moreso during emergencies. Packing a bunch of users into GMRS in an attempt to lead the FCC to believe an already alive service is still alive doesn't make any sense. Setting up a bunch of repeaters in that close of proximity both in frequency and in physical space would also create intermodulation problems, further polluting spectrum. If you want to use wide splits and/or tiny mobile repeaters with appreciable output power, use Amateur spectrum in either a wide split on 70cm or crossbanded to 2m/900. That spectrum has already been made available for hobbyist use. GMRS isn't supposed to be a tinkering band, type certification tries to ensure equipment already works when it reaches GMRS spectrum. Amateur is also free from frequency coordination concerns on temporary setups, restriction on mobile duplex operation, and linking concerns. Cavity filtering only costs about $100, and considering there's a transmitter and receiver sharing an antenna, skimping on filtering isn't a good idea. Trying to implement a miniaturized filter would cause greater harm with receiver desense than benefit from running high transmit power, and with the filter order you need to get acceptable isolation even at 10 MHz, you're gonna spend more in component cost and tuning labor than you will buying a sixpack cavity filter. Single-channel repeaters don't cost much more than $400 to build ($100 cavity filtering, $75 transmit radio, $75 receive radio, $100 repeater controller and interface; power supply and antenna fill the balance). Performance isn't great, but it's certainly acceptable. Getting the cavities tuned is about knowing the right people or knowing enough theory to make cheap tools work (such as SDR + noise generator). Knowing a friend with the right tools is the right path to take, since they'll know more about the nuances of making a repeater work well. Building your first repeater alone isn't something I'd recommend, they aren't plug-and-play solutions and there's a reason this stuff costs money.

I'd be using it if the Part 15 stuff weren't.

The whole range can be covered in a 2:1 VSWR by a dipole or discone pretty easily, but bandwidth is one common trade-off from gain.

Even on my home setup, I do see a lot of people (unlicensed based on communication patterns) using the GMRS inputs, one unknowingly hitting the input of some repeater on 675. I don't think it has anything to do with cheap radios being available, since none sent a 55 Hz STE tone at end of transmission. Some run CSQ, some run CTCSS. One group on 7.550 sounds like maritime users, I suspect it may be people at harbor or an oil rig given their regularity. The best way to figure out who uses a channel is to listen closely to what they have to say. You can learn their names, location, and type of business they perform. I used it to catch some freebanders on VHF; it took a few weeks of monitoring to get enough information. I doubt the Commission would pursue the matter, even if the users are identified. In one case, I had contacted a school regarding unlicensed transmissions on public-safety channels coming from their premises, and they determined an employee of an after-school program had purchased radios without the school's knowledge. Transmissions ceased quickly. SDR is a powerful tool in identifying out-of-band operators. The presence, duration, and phase of end-of-transmission signalling (such as the de-facto 55 Hz tone standard) can reveal the radio model being used. Narrowband I/Q recording allows for samples to be preserved digitally and distributed for identification. Such 'fingerprints' can be determined with signal levels below -130dBm in a quiet area, and around -115dBm in most cases.