WRTC928

I've never made a random contact on simplex. You just aren't reaching enough people. It's extremely useful for communication with people you know, family groups, etc., though.

Okay, I can live with that. I have other radios. However, I definitely want to be able to program 8 repeater pairs with tones and 8 without, but my program doesn't have any option for "no tone". It has CTCSS, DTCS, and inverse DTCS in the dropdown menu. No "none' or blank space. I'm away from home right now, but I'll email BTech when I get home and see if I can get it clarified.

Supposedly, you can enter a bunch of frequencies to scan but not transmit. Not that I really need it, but if it's supposed to do that, I'd like to know why mine won't. Mainly, I want to have one set of 8 repeater pairs with tones and one set without. For some reason, the software I have won't let me enter a repeater pair with no tone set. That seems to me to be a major flaw.

Not on mine. That's the problem. The software I downloaded from BTech seems extremely rudimentary. For example, there are only 16 channels. Period. Supposedly, you can store up to 800 frequencies and scan them. There's no way to do any of that with this software.

Okay, one more thing. How do I tell it I don't want a CTCSS or DTS code enabled? "No SQ" doesn't seem to be one of the options.

Aha. Good to know. I'll try that.

That's interesting. I can't enter anything into rows 9-16. I'd like to do what you did. After I posted, I realized that it could actually function like a base station. Since a base station exceeds the power limits for channels 1-14, it functions on 15-22 anyway. It won't scan, but otherwise it will function like a base station; i.e, transmit and receive on the selected frequency without having to use the repeater function.

I bought one of these, but I haven't installed it yet. I need to get a mast up for the antenna. For now, it's going to be a 30' flagpole because my budget won't allow a real tower. However, I've mentioned before that my house is in a very good location for radios, being on an elevated position above a river. I have a buddy who lives on the other side of the river in a simplex "dead zone". Based just upon the distance, we should be able to talk simplex, but his home is blocked by terrain. We can talk on my base unit with a Comet 2x4 on a pizza pan about 9' off the floor, so I think getting the antenna up 30' will make it possible for us to talk HT to HT pretty much all over the area. I'm less optimistic about my friend who lives in a city about 20 miles north, but I used one of those online terrain calculators, and it looks like it's not impossible. It has 16 channels in the software, but you can only enter data into 8 of them with one weird exception. Using the BTech software, if you checkmark channel 9, it automatically enters values to transmit on 440.0000 MHz and receive on 450.0000 MHz. You can change the tones but not the frequencies. I haven't tried to find out if it actually functions in that mode, but it seems like a strange thing to include. At first, I was like, "Whaddaya mean I can't use all 16 channels!" Then I remembered it's a repeater. It will probably spend its entire life on the same frequency. I entered 8 just because I could, but it seems unlikely I'll use more than one. BTech says you can use it as a base station with the supplied mic, but that's not exactly true. Apparently, you can transmit and receive on any of the 8 programmed channels, but the rest of the GMRS band isn't available. That isn't really a big deal because most likely I'll only use the mic to respond to traffic on the repeater when I'm at home, but being away from home is kinda the point of a repeater. I may program them to some local repeaters that are a bit too far away for my base unit and see if the taller, higher-gain CA-712 antenna will let me reach them.

Yep. I've even started to use that phrase myself.

The Tiger II is widely acknowledged to have been the best tank of WW2. The Germans built 1,347 of them. The Sherman was a "pretty good" tank. The US built 49,324 of them. As good as the Tiger was, it would never have been as good as 36 Shermans. Sometimes "good enough" in large numbers can provide the winning edge. It's pretty hard for me to even wrap my head around the staggering production capacity of the US in WW2. At the end of the war, the US repurposed 57 aircraft carriers to return troops home from overseas. 57. Today, there are 50 aircraft carriers in the entire world. Yes, today's carriers are bigger and better, but the ones built in WW2 were technologically the best available at the time. The US made more than 15,000 P51 fighter aircraft during the war. Just that one type of fighter. 12,730 B17 bombers. It boggles the mind.

I have 6 new unopened AR-5RMs on standby.

Those are very valid points, especially that lawmakers and bureaucrats don't know the difference between us. In fact, from an outsider's perspective, we're more alike than we are different. Sending two different messages would create confusion and reduce the probability that either of us would get what we want.

I don't doubt that's what he said, but either he's using "wholesale" in a different sense than I understand it, or he has misunderstood tariffs. When they've taken effect, he may discover that it isn't going to be as bad as he thinks. I hope that's the case. If a major importer stops importing, no doubt the consumers will notice.

According to this article and this article, tariff fees are paid at the point of entry. Thus, they are not assessed on the wholesale price, because that reflects costs associated with getting the product to the retailer in addition to the cost of the item itself. One thing interesting to note is that both articles state that the countries the US is imposing tariffs upon already have tariffs on US goods, usually higher than what the president is raising them to.

I'm sure I also read that it was at the port of entry, although I don't remember where I read it. Same here. I can live with the radios I have for a few years. However, I don't think China will hold out very long. The US is THE big market, purchasing 35% of all goods that are traded internationally. Simply put, without the US market, they'll go broke.

47 was my radio call sign in my last law enforcement job. I have a fondness for it.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Hams can't use radios in exactly the same circumstances as GMRS because the test requirement is a barrier to entry for a lot of people -- which is why a lot of us have GMRS licenses/radios as well. Hams tend to be older, often somewhat debilitated, so we're not going to be using our radios while mountain biking, but by no means does that mean we just sit around and try to contact Italy. I participate in a stormwatch net, I monitor my city's emergency sirens and report how well they function, next week some of my club will be teamed with medical personnel to respond to emergencies at a marathon. Recently, during tornadoes and fires, members in the affected areas provided ongoing, real-time information on the events to emergency responders. It's not the same as running the marathon, but it's not endlessly calling CQ either. Next week, I'll be part of the staff of a regional cavalry competition. Guess what? I'll be pulling out the GMRS radio because many of the people who will be there are GMRS folks, and it also gives us the ability to talk to people with FRS radios, which some of the staff will be using. If you saw me there supporting that event, you'd think that was evidence that only GMRS people do that kind of stuff, but you'd be wrong. I go back and forth between the two modes as appropriate to the situation. A lot of us use radio to support hobbies, but also as a hobby in itself. There's a certain allure to the challenge of building an 80 meter antenna from scrap wire. It's true GMRS is most often an adjunct to some other hobby, but that doesn't mean there can't be a subset of GMRS users who want to build that antenna and a subset of hams who see the radio mostly as a means of supporting other activities.

Most of the hams I know also have a GMRS license. I couldn't say how much they use it because at present, there aren't any GMRS repeaters within range of where I live. I can use one when I'm close to Oklahoma City heard a guy I "know" from my favorite 2m repeater give his amateur radio call sign on the GMRS repeater a few days ago. He caught himself and corrected himself quickly, but I ribbed him anyway. When I'm near Oklahoma City, I usually have the 2m repeater on the left side and the GMRS repeater on the right side of the mobile, so I expect it's only a matter of time. But, no, I haven't noticed any actual hostility toward GMRS users, although a small number of the hams I've met apparently kind of think of GMRS users as "quitters" who gave up before getting an amateur license. It's more condescension than hostility.

That's good to know. TBH, I haven't had any use for it up until now because I haven't been in a situation where the frequency was so busy there would be any use for it. Should it come up, I may use it on simplex, but I now know not to use it on a repeater.

I think the concept is that the parts are less valuable than the assembled item. They'd still have to pay a tariff, but it wouldn't be as much as if they shipped a completed item.

I'm almost certain the tariff is on the value of the item at the point at which it enters the US. Most of the retail price is incurred after the item is in the US, so it wouldn't make either logical or economic sense to place a tariff on it at the point of sale.

It won't impact the cost of radios as much as you may think. The tariff is collected on the value of the item at the port of entry. That $30 radio is probably only worth $6 on the dock. Most of the expense is in transport, advertising, handling, etc. A 25% tariff would mean that $30 radio went up to $31.50. Even a TYT TH-9800 probably is only worth $50-60 at the dock, meaning it would go up from $240 to $253. I think most of us will complain just a little and go right on buying radios.

A lot of police radios used to be "2-way not 3-way". Dispatch would transmit on frequency A and receive on frequency B. All the units' radios would transmit on frequency B and receive on frequency A. Dispatch could hear and talk to everyone, but the field units could only hear and talk to dispatch. It helped keep down confusion. Typically, there were a couple of "tactical" frequencies on which the units could talk directly to one another. I don't know what they do now with all the new and different radios. I've been out of law enforcement for almost 40 years. I could see where a business with a number of field units might find something similar useful. Otherwise, I can't think of a practical use for that capability. It's interesting to contemplate, though.

On a related thought, is there any prohibition on tx/rx on different frequencies on simplex? Business users don't necessarily need 3-way communication. Most of it is between the dispatcher and the field units. If you put up a tall antenna and a base unit, you could communicate with your units even if they were out of simplex range of one another. As I read it, the 467 frequencies are specifically designated as repeater inputs. However, is there any prohibition on for example rx on 462.55000 and tx on 462.60000? Yes, it would create a lot of confusion on the airwaves, and I have no intention (or need) to do it, but I'm often curious about irrelevant technical matters. In practice, it would be simpler to put up a base unit and if the field units were out of range of one another, base could relay a message or they could just call each other on the phone. Also, this is one of the cases where those radios that operate over cell towers would be a good option. That's probably the one I would go with if I owned a business -- pay $50 a year per radio and let someone else worry about the infrastructure.