Lscott

And more headaches with 70cm band. https://www.arrlsacvalley.org/pave-paws

So GMRS as a licensed service that's allowed to run much higher power everywhere else and wide-band is limited to to same tiny 0.5 watts and narrow band. Makes no sense until you consider the interference issue with the repeater input frequencies. The FCC in 2017 increased FRS to 2 watts EXCEPT for those channels. FRS was also initially limited to 0.5 watts. If the desire was to keep FRS as a low power short range service they would have kept the 0.5 watt limit on all channels. They didn't. Of course allowing GMRS users to run up to 5 watts, or 50 watts in some cases, is the carrot to get people to fork over $35 to the FCC for a license and enjoy the perks FRS users don't get. FRS users pay nothing to use the spectrum. Remember that GMRS also has interstitial channels, shared with FRS, 1 through 7. However nether are limited to the same tiny 0.5 watts. GMRS is even allowed wide-band on them. Any potential interference on the repeater output channels would be due to simplex stations and would be over a much more limited range as well. The simplex station(s) could simply switch to another simplex channel to eliminate any interference. Switching to another channel in the range of 8 though 14 just ends up being next to another repeater input frequency. So, switching to one of those doesn't really fix the interference on a repeater input frequency issue. Most of the available repeater channels are now home to various wide area coverage machines in my location. Two can't be used because we're past the FCC "Line A" mark. Your comment that "FRS users have no concept nor concern about their proximity to repeater channels" explains why they are limited to 0.5 watts and narrow-band. If there was no concern the FCC wouldn't have kept the power and bandwidth restrictions in the first place on those channels when they increased the power limit for the other channels. They had to do what the ignorant FRS users couldn't figure out for themselves, apparently, and fixed, more like tried to mitigate it, through the technical rules new FRS, and don't forget GMRS as well, radios must meet. FRS-GMRS Channels Layout.pdf

The question is why is it "still currently limited" at low power and a narrow bandwidth? One other point is licensed GMRS radios also have the same exact limitation for the same reason, to reduce interference to the repeater input frequencies. It's not just an FRS thing.

Which is far more serious than an FRS radio getting into a wide area coverage repeater on the input side with a 20 to 30 mile range. Once an FRS user on the output of a high power repeater gets hammered by the repeater output they typically go away to another channel. That's why it's not a really big issue compared to the input. That's how I've got rid of a few in my area.

I'm not so sure this is true. The reason is the right questions are not being asked and debated fairly. See attached file. I think what should be asked with digital voice should it be allowed on all channels or restricted to particular ones? I think it should be restricted to a few selected channels. Next what digital voice mode should be used? Note I used the singular "mode" as opposed to allowing multiple modes. Standardizing on one would make the radios cheaper, more competition, and the radios from different manufactures would interoperate. People point out DMR should be used, however it might not be the best choice! I really dislike comments to the effect that anyone who proposes digital voice on GMRS is trying to turn it in to a "Ham Lite" service. No. It's about improving the quality of the communications. I was monitoring a local repeater here at work. The one station had low modulation and a weak signal. The audio was hard to understand and the beacon frying noise just made it worse. If the signal was digital very likely neither of the above would have degraded the communication experience. The typical GMRS user wants clear communications. When given the choice I doubt they would care if the signal was digital if they had good solid copy. GMRS Digital Voice - 20231127.pdf

No its not a myth. In the 2017 rule changes the FCC increased the power to 2 watts on FRS EXCEPT those particular channels for a reason. FRS was never intended to have repeater access. Channels 8-14 being located between the high power GMRS exclusive repeater input channels can lead to interference and "possibly" keying up of a repeater since the frequencies overlap to a degree. That depends on how tight the repeater input filters are and how close the FRS radio is to it where enough signal can leak through them. The FCC couldn't ignore the existing population of combo radios so they left the specifications lower for power and bandwidth. That was about the best they could do under the situation.

People on this forum have been severely roasted for suggesting this idea.

See attached files for suggestions. Grounding Tips for the Shack.pdf Antenna System Bonding and Grounding Requirements in the USA.pdf Lightning Protection Grounding Solutions for Communication Sites.pdf

Since you’re using the radios for ranch operations, a business use, you would likely qualify for one or more business “Common Itinerant and Business” frequencies which doesn’t require frequency coordination. You can also run digital voice with encryption legally for private communications. This would be an alternative to using GMRS. National Business and Itinerant Frequencies.pdf Common Itinerant and Business.pdf

They are better radios out there if you really don’t need the high power. You could be better off buying some simple commercial grade radios. Many of those are designed to take a beating from hard use and also survive in poor weather. Of course they will cost a wee bit more than a $25 to $50 Baofeng.

Do you honestly really need 8 watts out of an HT?

We’ll not exactly sell the licenses. One could offer a service where a small additional fee on top of the FCC application fee the service would do all the “paperwork” to get the license filed. Not much different than getting a ham license without the test. The VE’s take care of the paperwork details.

I’m mainly a Kenwood guy but I do have a few Motorola XPR6550’s. https://forums.mygmrs.com/gallery/image/261-e451d5e2-f358-40dd-95a1-af106f7e8584jpeg/?context=new

The few photos I’ve seen don’t show the required FCC ID tag for the radio to be legally imported to the US. That was another question I had about these radios.

Fortunately there are only a few of those kind of people here.

Sounds like a plan. The Extra Class License doesn’t mean what it use to. The difference with any class of Amateur license is you gain the official blessing of the FCC to put signals on the air, with some limits of course. To experiment that is a big advantage. Something to reconsider.

There are 12 year olds with an Extra Class license. You would be in good company.

When you get it and programmed let us know what you think about the radio.

That's a bummer with my TH-D74A HT. A memory channel can only be programmed for a split frequency in the SAME band, no split band. My 20 plus year old TH-G71A lets me program in different bands for TX and RX. I wonder if Kenwood fixed that on the new TH-D75A.

One on-line recommendation was to get the 4D model with display.

What kind of programming cable did you use for the radio? I ran across some info where people had to buy a special one or made their own. I have a cheat-sheet, Excel, for my TK-D340's too, no display. That's why I primarily look just for radios with a alpha-numeric display. Various commercial radios come in the non-display and display models. The non-display models of those seem to be commonly available used, likely due to the cheaper price and most users don't need more than a few channels anyway.

I've found that a Lithium Ion battery will hold a useful charge for a really long time. So an occasional battery pack swap wouldn't be a big deal. Of course one can buy a battery holder to use disposable cells. A few of my HT's I have battery pack eliminators, plug in to the accessory socket in the car. But you do have a point.

I'll have to look into it more. Chinese manufacture are known for playing loose with the specifications and terminology. It wouldn't surprise me to find out it's really a DMR radio.

The old IC706MKIIG is one, but the power output is low due to the filters. IC-706MKIIG Freqequency Mod Power Output.pdf IC-706MKIIG Transmit Power Mod.pdf IC-706MKIIG Frequency Expansion.pdf

Actually I was looking into dPMR radios, at one time. I still am occasionally. There are "license free" dPMR446 ones, for use on 446.0 to 446.2 band in the EU, but they are limited to 0.5 watts. dPMR isn't used, or so minimally it doesn't exist as a practical mode here as far as I can tell. I was looking into it as a novelty. I have the radio programming software for Kenwood's TK-3701D dPMR446 radio, but no radio. There is also a DMR 446 license free version too. So in effect they have two different digital modes and analog FM available in a license free service. The cheap Chinese DMR radio could be used with the correct programming. I'm not going into the topic if that's really legal. That's their problem over there. Kenwood sold, now discontinued, a NX-220/320 radio with a firmware update could be converted over to a dPMR radio. I believe I have the firmware, radio programming and license file writer software someplace archived on my FTP server at home. The problem is I need an "E", European, version of the above radios along with a license file to write to it so the feature is activated. I have an NX-320K, North American model which likely won't work. NX-220E-320E.pdf The-effect-on-dPMR-446-of-the-new-digital-license-v3-2019.pdf Upgrading Kenwood NX-x20E to dPMR.pdf TK-3701D.pdf