WRAF213

Actually, it does. 95.1733(a)(8) prohibits transmission of a signal that has been sent by a wireline control link (the voting receiver's connection to a remote transmitter) and a GMRS station (the user talking on the input channel). I suppose this rule exists to prevent GMRS networks from existing, to ensure users are operating within the general vicinity of the repeater station. Adding amplification and filtering to the receive chain is perfectly fine, as long as the receiver is receiving on the paired input channel. Between both restrictions, there should be exactly one transmit path for each receive path.

You'll have to find a copy of Motorola RSS for M1225 (not terribly hard to do) but that's definitely not the hard part. RSS doesn't run on modern hardware; for the MT2000 I used Win95's DOS mode on a Pentium without issues. I'm not sure how the M1225 software runs on later computers. Virtualization may be an option but RSS needs Microsoft DOS to work. A 16550-based serial port is highly preferred, I don't know how well the USB ones work; computers of the right vintage for RSS usually have onboard 16550 serial. You can find a CDM1250 or CDM1550 for around the same price -- they're newer, have displays, will cover both GMRS and 70cm, and a larger channel capacity.

If there's two repeaters with the same tone, using TSql will prevent the other repeater from unmuting your receiver. Simplex activity is probably on a different tone (like CSQ or 67.0) and wouldn't unmute your receiver. If the simplex signal happens to have the same tone as the repeater's output, both will unmute. Not all repeaters transmit an output tone, so some require Tone mode.

Tone means a tone will be transmitted, but the receiver will not check for an incoming tone and will unmute on any signal. TSql means a tone will be transmitted, and the receiver must receive the tone to unmute. There's also split-tone ooeration, which is TSql but the transmit and receive tones are different; I forget off the top of my head how that looks in CHIRP.

P25 voice is not F1D, and F1E is not allowed. Similarly, DMR is not FXD/FXE -- that's a catch-all for different data encapsulations. The FCC has made it very clear that frequency-modulated voice traffic must be F3E or G3E, to prevent manufacturer exclusive voice formats. P25 is not, and for the foreseeable future, will not be allowed on GMRS, just like all other digital voice formats. They express this in the 2017 report on Part 95 reform and 95.1787.

900 MHz also avoids licensing, equipment authorization, and channel availability headaches. Any time there is significant separation ("outside the immediate vicinity of") from the 462/467 MHz transmitter and the person operating it, the transmitter becomes a remote base, and there are some additional restrictions that come into play. Since 2.4 GHz is already accepted for short-range wireless microphones, 900 MHz is also fine. The question then becomes whether crossbanding to 900 MHz causes a 95.339 violation. Fixed, base, and repeater stations can be operated by remote control. Short-range 2.4 GHz microphones are designed to only operate in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter, so use on a mobile station is acceptable. Crossbanding a mobile station to something like a set of DTR650s would enable violating 95.1745, producing a 95.339 violation, as the mobile station is considered remotely controllable.

I've never had problems before. TSA uses radios so they know what they are.

The FCC does not permit all equipment capable of operating on 462-467 MHz to operate under a GMRS license. Type acceptance ensures that equipment built for GMRS is intended to be used within the rules for GMRS. Mobile repeaters are not allowed within the rules of GMRS, so any device that is a repeater intended for mobile installation won't get type acceptance. This has little to do with the licensee, because there's no 'insurance policy' of a test of good operating procedure knowledge with a GMRS license. The responsibility falls upon the manufacturer to prevent misuse of GMRS radios, such as mobile installation of a repeater or the interconnection of a simplex repeater controller. The licensee would have to go out of their way to circumvent protections against misuse, such as nonstandard connectors or designs for a fixed operating location. Having protections in place is usually enough to shift blame for the rule violations from the equipment manufacturer to the licensee, and a type acceptance procedure mandates certain protections and guarantees manufacturer responsibility. Look at what happened with FRS. The 2017 report blamed the manufacturers, not the users, for misuse of equipment. And the FCC held the manufacturers (somewhat) accountable for their actions, with the change in marketing. They added the extra channels to FRS because they knew the users wouldn't change their behavior. In Part 95, equipment is expected to work with minimal configuration, and the type acceptance procedures for each service under Part 95 also provide some guidelines for the user interface. Repeaters, crossband or not, are not simple devices, and that's one reason we don't see many Part 95 repeaters. Allowing crossband repeating is not in the intentions of GMRS. What does it accomplish? The users will be in simplex range of each other already. For remotely controlling a station, network interconnection is permitted for this purpose; it doesn't have to be done over-the-air. It's just more spectrum pollution to solve a problem that doesn't exist. That depends on the FCC's definition of a Part 95 fixed station. I believe the antenna has to be mounted to a permanent structure, but the Enforcement Bureau decides that.

From a regulatory standpoint, how do you keep people from driving around with the repeater still active? A warning label is not sufficient. Such a mobile repeater would not be Part 95 accepted.

There's several reasons I don't see this even being considered: - Crossbanding into Part 15 equipment should be fine anyways. The FCC made a point of this in the 2017 report regarding wireless CB microphones. - VHF spectrum is incredibly valuable around large cities, and there isn't enough spectrum to add new services. - There's already a service for low-power simplex VHF: MURS. - GMRS is not a service for experimenting, that is what Amateur is for. Remember that we're all supposed to be using Part 95 type-accepted equipment without exception. Seriously, half of the non-standard stuff people do on GMRS (linking, illegal phone patching, PTT-ID, begging for digital voice) is better off done on Amateur where it is already legal but ends up being done on GMRS for the sake of doing it somewhere other than Amateur. Just because we can build a repeater doesn't mean we're in a second Amateur service. - The lack of mandating a minimum level of RF knowledge for licensing is something to consider. The FCC wants radios that work out-of-the box to communicate with other GMRS radios. Adding new spectrum will prevent some radios from working with others, raise technical operating knowledge requirements, create new interference scenarios, and may even prevent distress messages from being heard. In the 2107 report, the FCC made it clear that all GMRS radios must be interoperable to earn type acceptance. Mobile repeaters are EXPLICITLY PROHIBITED in Part 95.303. Repeater stations must be in a fixed location, they cannot be part of a mobile station. You'd have to establish a fixed operating location on-site and leave the repeater there until you're done with it. I'm posting from my phone, I'll give a better explanation of that in the appropriate thread when I get home tomorrow. Just know that mobile repeater use is invalid grounds for requesting crossbanding spectrum.

Every person with a GMRS radio needs to identify per the rules' requirements. Tactical identifiers are out of the FCC's scope, and can be used freely as long as all other rules are followed and the callsign is given per FCC rules. If you and someone else under your license are talking to each other, both you and the other party will have to give your callsign for identification. As tactical identifiers aren't regulated, there's no requirement to use one, though they are explicitly permitted to be included in an otherwise compliant identification. See 95.1751.

There's like 6 or 7 infractions at play here (unlicensed operators, non-95 equipment, jamming, retransmitting from another service, unauthorized automatic control, no identification, ...). There's several limitations on data transmission per FCC rules that limit use to short, infrequent, non-voice digital operation in simplex mode. I've only ever heard data once in my 2 years of SDR GMRS monitoring, it's not really in the market yet. I doubt Motorola will make an affordable digital unit, and I doubt any native GPS unit will ever be cheap. I don't see digital taking off, and I don't see any repeater manufacturers willing to add digital repeating capability, since there's no standard. The Wilson repeater identifies with some callsign I can't remember but comes back to an out of state licensee, the Harvard repeater is WPVL308's but is managed by Dennis Doty. I can't hit Wilson or Harvard, their frontends are (intentionally) deaf to keep low-power users from keying the repeater. You'll have to try me on 725 on an afternoon like today. The info isn't on MyGMRS afaik. That channel is pretty busy, and like 600/625 the majority of users disrespect FCC rules (absolutely something to not listen to in public), but unfortunately that's my only shot into LA and we could make it work. I'll PM channel access info, the repeater is open use but this isn't the private subforum. Can you send me IF (I/Q) recordings of the digital signals on 725? I'm not familiar with anything digital on that, besides MDC. See https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/User:Kj6psg/Best_Recording_Practices for info on recording IF, it lets me replay a signal as if I'm receiving it live.

You're probably seeing the POCSAG transmitters on 462.800 MHz appear on 462.600 MHz and 462.625 MHz. Those are two repeaters (Wilson and Harvard, respectively) getting jammed. It's been going on for several months and is heavily impacting usability of the VNC600 repeater in Ventura County. It's not 24/7, but goes for several hours at a time. Seems to be the result of a squabble between Dennis Doty and Kevin Bondy. Someone is running MOTOTRBO on 462.550 MHz, but it's rarely active. I think it comes from Saddle Peak, but it's so infrequent I can't do any research on that. Aside from those, I'd expect a SDR in Los Angeles to get some nasty front-end overload or intermodulation products. SDRs do not have particularly robust front-ends, and some compromise between sensitivity and selectivity is needed to find a proper LNA gain setting. None of those signals I mentioned here don't really have anything to do with this thread's topic, so those should be discussed in a different thread.

95.1749: "Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745." There are limitations, but linking is not one of them. The whole phone line / DSL debate only applied to the pre-2017 rules; the new rules cover all network connections and are more liberal in what they allow. The main concerns are general-use phone patching and linking to any radio service other than GMRS. Under the new rules, you can even patch your phone into your repeater to talk on GMRS through a cell phone or landline. A total Part 95 repeater build is far more of a headache than Part 90. The equipment simply isn't built as well: GMRS exists to let family members chat with each other, while Part 90 includes safety-of-life communications and guaranteed availability. 95.1735 was mentioned in 95.335(a), but I imagine this would have hurt GMRS equipment sales by telling users it's okay to use old commercial equipment. Transmitter certification keeps poorly-regulated Part 97 equipment in-band; certification for Part 90 equipment is more stringent than Part 95E requirements. A properly designed GMRS radio including the 467 MHz interstitial channels will integrate the antenna into the radio, and the integrated antenna is not allowed to have any gain over a dipole. That's why the GMRS-V1 sells so well. An HT1000 can be cheaper if purchased frugally and will perform astronomically better than anything built around the RDA1846 (nearby transmissions on repeater input channels or other spectrum near 460 MHz can desensitize the RDA1846 rather easily, deafening the radio to the repeater's output), but programming it isn't front-panel work. As a repeater operator you'll want something with DTMF support. MDC is not identification, it is selective calling; as such, it's allowed on Part 95 services per 95.377. MDC1200 can't even fit a callsign into its transmission.

The rule permitting automatic control on GMRS is 95.1747, allowing automatic control ONLY for repeater stations. The definition of a GMRS repeater is as follows: While "input channel" is not explicitly defined in Part 95, 95.1763 defines which channels can be used as a repeater input and which can be used as a repeater output. The only channels authorized for transmission from a repeater are the eight 462 MHz main channels, and the only channels authorized for transmissions to a repeater station are the eight 467 MHz main channels. Thus, for a repeater station to operate within Part 95 requirements, it must: receive a signal from a 467 MHz main channel,retransmit the signal on a 462 MHz main channel simultaneously with the input transmission; it therefore must be a duplex repeaterproduce its own identification, unless operating under the single-license exception; some sort of control circuitry must exist for open and closed repeaters.

To protect the rampaging hordes to the East from the residents on the West

We both know the non-identifying Part 95 repeaters haven't been shut down because the FCC doesn't care about GMRS enforcement. If enough repeaters pop up that do violate their new rules, they might just start issuing fines. It's free money for them. The wording in Part 95 is remarkably unambiguous compared to Part 90, partly to ensure manufacturers produce radios with consistent feature sets. It describes exactly who is authorized to operate a station under a given callsign, exactly when to identify, who's responsible when rules are broken, and describes the special type of station use that occurs when someone authorized under one license operates a repeater authorized under a different license. The rules make identification requirements clear, and the definitions for the terms in the rule necessitating identification are all defined in Part 95 itself. I still haven't been told which part of my interpretation is wrong, I'm mostly just reiterating definitions in Part 95.

Transmitters pretty much anywhere will desensitize a Baofeng, or any radio built around RDA1846/RDA1846S regardless of how robust they claim the front-end to be. They aren't built for fixed-antenna operation to keep costs down, and the lack of receive filtering causes out-of-band signals to strongly deafen the receiver. Something like a Motorola CDM750 would be better suited to repeater operation, and some sort of filtering appropriate to the radio-frequency environment at the antenna (bandpass filters for out-of-band transmissions like FM broadcast, or cavity filters for high-RF or adjacent-channel transmissions) would greatly aid sensitivity. On another note, FCC rules require repeaters to be duplex.

95.1705(c​) lays out the rules for who has authority to operate a licensee's GMRS station. You can't just pick someone else with a license to operate your station (read: your non-identifying repeater) unless cooperative use per 95.1705(f) is implemented; per 95.1705(c​)(1) and (2), the only people with authority to operate their GMRS station are the licensee and their family, and the only exceptions are cooperative use and emergency transmissions. Repeaters operate under the authority of an individual license in 99.9% of cases, and that individual license does not extend to other GMRS licensees that are not otherwise eligible for operating under the repeater owner's license. The purpose of allowing non-identifying repeaters is to allow the licensee and family members of the licensee to communicate through a simple repeater. Portable repeaters may not include a controller, but rather tie two otherwise compliant and capable Part 95 certified GMRS radios together directly by linking audio and control lines together. This reduces the technical complexity of the repeater, but it is now a station incapable of identifying itself. A rule to disallow other licensees from operating on that repeater would satisfy the rules regulating who has authority to operate a licensee's GMRS station: only the licensee and their immediate family. If other GMRS licensees are using that repeater, they would unlawfully be using the repeater owner's station unless there is a cooperative use agreement in place; their individual license does not permit the use of another licensee's station.

The repeater needs to identify if the callsign of any of the users isn't the same as the repeater owner's (i.e. the user is not operating under the repeater owner's license). It's explicitly stated under 95.1751(c​)(1), and per 95.1705(d)(3) it's the responsibility of the repeater owner to limit use of a non-identifying repeater to only those operating under the repeater owner's callsign.

There are two rules that establish closed and mandatory-private repeaters, respectively: 95.1705(d)(2): "[The repeater owner] may ... limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons"95.1751(c )(1): "[A repeater that does not self-identify] retransmits only communications from GMRS stations operating under authority of the individual license under which it operates"95.1705(d)(2) allows repeater owners to require permission for repeater use, and seek enforcement against those who do not obtain permission. 95.1751©(1) creates mandatory private repeater use in that particular hardware arrangement. In the latter case, anyone using the repeater that is not the licensee is automatically in violation of the rules. It also means that if a repeater does not identify itself, users of the repeater cannot transmit the repeater's identification (a repeater is considered a station per Part 95 rules, and all stations, not licensees, must identify themselves; the repeater must produce its own identification). If so, the transmission on the repeater input containing identification for a license that is not the transmitting station's license would be non-compliant.

Since weather warnings within the repeater's coverage areas are easily considered road condition alerts or emergency messages, they are authorized as one-way transmissions by 95.1731(b ). Synthesized voice doesn't appear to be an explicit violation of the rules. Since synthesized voice is still plain-language voice communications, attaching a synthesized-voice weather alert announcement system to an otherwise compliant GMRS radio wouldn't violate 95.339. Any violation I would imagine would be from the legality of that type of automatic control, but the purpose of the messages as emergency notification may override this.

The repeater MUST identify unless it is only being used by a single licensee: the owner of the repeater and their immediate family. If a repeater is not identifying but carrying traffic from multiple authorized licensees, the repeater owner is at fault. If the GMRS licensees using the repeater did not obtain permission, they are at fault. If the transmissions from the repeater are not compliant, the repeater owner is at fault. If the violations are being committed by the repeater's users (for example, swearing or jamming), the offending users are at fault and the repeater's owner is not. If unauthorized repeater use is occurring and the repeater owner is aware, the repeater owner is obliged to take steps to prevent the unauthorized users from accessing the system.

Try writing a post on a different device.

Particularly with schools, there's not a whole lot of money to go around to buy and license business radios. A school fairly close to me started popping up on Baofeng channels; I talked with the school's administration who confirmed it was an after-school program, and administration forced them to go back to 'more expensive' FRS radios. The after-school program wasn't run by the school, so they didn't have access to the Part 90 license and radios of the school. Many of the Amazon listings for the BF-888S and rebrands of such state they work out of the box, legally, without a license; someone in the after-school program probably took the bait and bought a six-pack for less than the cost of a PL-capable FRS radio. Around here, most schools have a Part 90 license, usually through the district. They aren't on itinerant channels, and each school appears to use two channels. Non-district functions don't get to use those radios, and are responsible for their own communications. One construction crews took the Baofeng issue a step further and picked a frequency within the Amateur band to do their stuff (including traffic control). Most of the crew members had UV-5Rs with hand mics. It's been several months since I've heard them; I was able to find where they were, but not which construction company was on-site. A different project in that same area is currently using FRS 2 in carrier-squelch (their LXT118s don't do PL/DPL), and from their location they should get out several miles. How they don't get any interference is beyond me.