Lscott

If a deaf person can't hear you some would say it's OK. 😎

That's a nice neat installation! I like it when people post stuff like this. Good material to reference for ideas.

That's a nice neat installation! I like it when people post stuff like this. Good material to reference for ideas.

That's a nice neat installation! I like it when people post stuff like this. Good material to reference for ideas.

I don't think impressing anyone was his intent. But Proven Science is what it is, and L. Scott was correct in that formula. 

I must be missing something.. I run 300w WB-C4FM on FRS 10 all the time, so when my wife is in the kitchen and I'm in the garage, she can hear my signal okay.  Are we not supposed to do that?

Except for the people a mile or so away using their 0.5 watt FRS radios that’s getting hammered by your 5 watts. You can’t hear them, but they’re very likely can hear you. Does that still make it OK? You didn’t hear it.
Given equal radio receiver sensitivity then range can be limited by the square root of the ratios of the transmitter powers. So 5 watts verses 0.5 watts could result in a range increase of 3.16 to 1 in favor of the 5 watt radio.

It’s so typical on this forum to see the Gang of One, Two, Three, Four dump on the guy making a scholarly presentation instead of the one who suggests 5 watts on WBFM on FRS 10!

Every once in a while you may stumble across an "odd split" repeater frequency, rare but they are out there.
If you end up getting some commercial grade radios the programming is a bit different. For those they don't assume any kind of offset. You have to enter in BOTH the discrete transmit and receive frequencies.  None of mine have any entries for an "assumed" offset, unlike many Ham grade radios.
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Offset

Understandable.
The goal was finding a spot where those that want to use digital voice have a "home", and not impact those who are happy with analog FM. 
The proposed changes allows those who want to continue to use FM won't notice a difference.
The manufactures would have a choice which grade of radio they want to provide. For example right now in the EU one can buy cheap simple analog only PMR446 radios, or spend more money and buy one with digital functions too.
There isn't any reason to force manufacturers to sell only the more expensive combo analog/digital models. The market place will take care of that if the demand is there.

I went outside with my longer 771 antennas on 3 of my radios(AR-5RM, BF-F8HP Pro, and UV-K61) and the 3" antenna on my UV-5R and the longer antennas hit about 5 or 6 of the programmed repeaters, the UV-5R hit about 3 which I think is still pretty good for being in the 'burbs and miles away from the White Tanks. 
I can't wait to give 6M a try with the RT-880. If I could get 15 or 20 miles Simplex I'd be happy since 6M should skip a bit and not have to totally be Line of Sight like VHF/UHF is.  I'm so glad I got my HAM Tech. License. This opens up a lot more Frequencies to play with vs GMRS/MURS. 👍

You’re right.  1.25 meter is 1.600 MHz.  It can get really confusing.  Here’s a link to a chart that makes it even more confusing:
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Offset

Every once in a while you may stumble across an "odd split" repeater frequency, rare but they are out there.
If you end up getting some commercial grade radios the programming is a bit different. For those they don't assume any kind of offset. You have to enter in BOTH the discrete transmit and receive frequencies.  None of mine have any entries for an "assumed" offset, unlike many Ham grade radios.
https://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Offset

It’s frequency based. For VHF such as 2 meters it’s actually 0.600 MHz offset and it can be either plus or minus. 
For UHF such as GMRS or 70 cm it’s 5.00 MHz and for the ham frequencies it can be plus or minus, but for GMRS the FCC put the repeater input frequencies in the regs. 
The frequency that’s given is always the frequency that the repeater transmits and your radio receives. For the frequency your radio transmits you apply the offset. 
You uplink (transmit) to the repeater and you downlink (receive) from the repeater. You really will pick it up. You’re doing great. It’s just that the fire hose is so big right now. 
Edited to add: most of the better ham radios automatically select the correct offset value based on frequency, but sometimes you have to override the direction. 

I noticed while programing some Repeater Channels into my radios that in 2M it's +/- 6MHz, 1.25M is -1.6MHz(didn't see any +1.6MHz on the list) and 70cm(kind of like GMRS) is +5MHz.  So RX(transmit to the Repeater) is the frequency that's given then you off-set that by the given MHz for your TX frequency. Do I have that right? Of all the radio stuff Repeaters has to be the one thing that I have trouble with in regards to TX an RX.  TX will ALWAYS be the one with the off-set, + or - whatever it is and RX is the listed Frequency.  I think I've got my head wrapped around it. 
Also, just to add, "Uplink" is the Freq. I TX(send) to the Repeater and "Downlink" is the Freq or RX the Repeater sends back to me. If they'd just say RX or TX instead of Uplink and Downlink it'd be a lot simpler for me to understand but I think I've got it. 

Understandable.
The goal was finding a spot where those that want to use digital voice have a "home", and not impact those who are happy with analog FM. 
The proposed changes allows those who want to continue to use FM won't notice a difference.
The manufactures would have a choice which grade of radio they want to provide. For example right now in the EU one can buy cheap simple analog only PMR446 radios, or spend more money and buy one with digital functions too.
There isn't any reason to force manufacturers to sell only the more expensive combo analog/digital models. The market place will take care of that if the demand is there.

Yes I did. Yeah, it's not the best written paper I've ever done. Just tried to get my ideas down in some coherent fashion. I'm not an English major. It's easier to just attach it to a post rather than try to convey my ideas a few lines at a time over dozens of separate posts.
No. The only reason for any kind of registration on Ham is for the user ID's. That's to prevent duplication. However you can use whatever ID you want, but for those that depend on the radio's builtin database it will, of course, show the wrong info.
I had accidentally did that programming one of my DMR based NX-1300's. When I used it one of the Hams on the repeater noticed and asked about it. Didn't impede the QSO any however.  

While it’s still fresh in your mind start going through the General material. It builds on the technician test and adds more technical detail. I really enjoyed the studying experience. Upgrading your license doesn’t require additional money to the FCC. 

Agreed. There is a LOT of overlap in material between the General exam and the Technician exam and General is relatively easy if you've just wrapped up Tech. I'm a VE (we actually have a monthly exam session tonight) and I very often see the same Tech candidate pass then come in the following month for their General and pass that too.

Yes I did. Yeah, it's not the best written paper I've ever done. Just tried to get my ideas down in some coherent fashion. I'm not an English major. It's easier to just attach it to a post rather than try to convey my ideas a few lines at a time over dozens of separate posts.
No. The only reason for any kind of registration on Ham is for the user ID's. That's to prevent duplication. However you can use whatever ID you want, but for those that depend on the radio's builtin database it will, of course, show the wrong info.
I had accidentally did that programming one of my DMR based NX-1300's. When I used it one of the Hams on the repeater noticed and asked about it. Didn't impede the QSO any however.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_propagation

Using anything other than FM on VHF/UHF is sort of a specialty, including digital voice.
Most of your digital voice operations you'll typically find on UHF, normally the 70cm band. There is some on the 33cm band but it's done almost exclusively with new/used commercial radios. There is some activity on VHF. 
Other modes, like SSB can be found on VHF and UHF by a small number of stations. Where it really explodes is on the 6M band during an opening. The SSB section of the band goes from nearly DEAD to wall-to-wall signals at that time. You also might find the occasional AM station on 6M too.  
The 1.25M band is a bit spotty. It can see significant use in some areas and almost nothing in others. There aren't too many radios with 1.25M TX/RX. Before investing in expensive equipment for that band do some monitoring and see what the local activity level is like. If 2M and 70cm is crowded in your area then the 1.25M band might be attractive if you prefer talking to a group of friends and don't want to hunt around for an open frequency/repeater to use all the time. Some also claim 1.25M has the propagation characteristics of 2M and 70cm making it a good choice when indoors or outside. 

The FCC just recently made it officially legal on 11M. I guess it's popularity all depends on equipment availability and any real world advantage it might have over AM/SSB. 
Some people have no interest in digital on GMRS. That's OK. However there are apparently enough who do that a few threads have commented about the proliferation of digital voice signals in some areas, and it's not even legal! Oh well.
The point of digital voice is the ability to have reasonably clear communications out to nearly the limit of the traditional FM UHF signal range. FM can get really ratty and noise polluted at extended ranges.  
One other reason to use it the digital signals, using the right mode, can fit between the main FM repeater channels with the likely hood of not interfering at higher power levels, unlike the narrow band FM currently allowed at 0.5 watts. In areas with substantial GMRS usage this opens up the service for much better coverage without begging the FCC for more spectrum we're very unlikely to get.
 
GMRS Digital Voice - 20250723.pdf

I have a buddy at work here that keeps saying he wants to get his Ham license but claims he doesn't have time to study. This has been going on for several years now. I don't bother to ask him anymore. If he wanted his license that bad he would have put in the effort. As you discovered it doesn't take that much.
Congratulations on getting your Tech Class license. 😀 Now you get to spend even more money and buy more radios. 🤑

Not yet anyway. That could change at some point. People are doing it now regardless of the rules. If the practice continues, expands and no FCC enforcement action then we could see the FCC just throw in the towel again, like they did in 2017 rule changes with FRS/GMRS combo radio, and make it legal. Then the question will be what mode(s), power and where.
Some have pushed the idea to add more channels to GMRS. Very likely won't happen. As it is the service has 7 nearly useless interstitial channels, 8 to 14, limited to narrow band, 0.5 watts and handheld units only with fixed antennas. Finding a better use for those, at higher power and use on mobile radios, would be equivalent to adding 7 additional channels, no extra spectrum required.
I posted an opinion paper, based on a suggestion made in an old thread on this forum, these nearly useless channels could be the location for a dedicated home for a digital voice mode. Some won't like the idea of digital voice on GMRS, but hey for example, the FCC finally got around to adding FM to 11M CB radio. Took them long enough.