marcspaz

In my opinion, it really depends on your expectations. 15 feet gets you about 5.5 miles to the RF horizon. 35 feet will get you out to about 8.5 miles. 50 feet gets you about 10 miles.

Just putting my two cents in, and reiterating what others have said... in the world of handhelds, GMRS and Amateur Radio UHF perform the same since they are in the same band and general frequency space. Again, specifically with handhelds, the lower in frequency you go (VHF and HF for example) the worse the performance will be as the antenna becomes less and less efficient. This is because the lower in frequency you go, the longer the radio wave length will be and the longer the antenna needs to be. Now, if you were to take an HF handheld and hook it up to a standalone antenna system that is the proper size, then you can literally talk around the world. The drawback is, the handheld is really no longer 'portable' for all intents and purposes.

Man... I remember when I first bought the TRASH80. So many people talk crap about it, but man did I have fun with that thing. I learned how to write shells and programs using that thing. Backup and restore to a cassette tape was too funny, too. Radio Shack was a great store for two-way radios all the way up to when computers, cell phones and satellite TV became mainstream. I literally bought components to do repairs if I had a customer waiting on a job and I ran out of resistors, capacitors and standard 3-leg transistors... occasionally ordering bulk ICs, and PAs for radios I was commonly repairing or upgrading. The good old days of peaking, opening up modulation, adding channels. Good times.

Im just trying to help and little, but i think there is benefit to watching this video. I put it together for some new Hams in my club, but the Amateur frequencies in UHF are close enough to GMRS, that the demo is still very valid.

How do we "loose" an attitude? And which one is it? Should we stop discussing this stuff or should we share our knowledge and experience? I'm confused.

I've done exactly this. It was to demo real-world line loss at example frequencies. I'll share a link if you or anyone else is interested.

That's really something. Even with such a short length, it makes a big difference.

Great choice! Congrats!

I don't know if that is the only benefit, but is sure is a good one. Most people don't monitor those frequencies since they are most commonly used for repeater inputs. You end up with a much less crowed channel. Now that you mention it... is there an OTC type approved radio that is configured to transmit simplex on the 467 mains (maybe a KG-1000?), or do we have to use reconfigured LMR radios?

Too late... you're committed now!

Zero pressure from me... I just hope its a useful tool for you.

I have tried to explain this before, at least the way I understand it... the station type is defined by its use. This is why you never ask cops for advice. You need to consult lawyers and judges. The rule very specifically says that a base station is a station at a fixed location that communicates directly with mobile stations and other base stations. Therefore, the act of using a station to communicate through a repeater changes the 'station type' to a Control station. A Control station is a station at a fixed location that communicates with mobile stations and other control stations through repeater stations, and may also be used to control the operation of repeater stations. So, using a radio at your home to communicate through a repeater is not a rule violation. The only defined hardware type is a Mobile radio, with handheld radios being a sub-type, with the definitions as follows: Mobile station. A station, intended to be used while in motion or during halts at unspecified locations, that communicates directly with base stations and other mobile stations, and with control stations and other mobile stations through repeater stations. Hand-held portable unit. A physically small mobile station that can be operated while being held in the operator's hand. All other references are to station types, which are defined by how they are used... for example: Base station. A station at a fixed location that communicates directly with mobile stations and other base stations. Control station. A station at a fixed location that communicates with mobile stations and other control stations through repeater stations, and may also be used to control the operation of repeater stations. Fixed station. A station at a fixed location that directly communicates with other fixed stations only. Personal Radio Services station. Any transmitter, with or without an incorporated antenna or receiver, which is certified by the FCC to be operated in one or more of the Personal Radio Services. Repeater station. A station in a fixed location used to extend the communications range of mobile stations, hand-held portable units and control stations by receiving their signals on one channel (the input channel) and simultaneously retransmitting these signals on another channel (the output channel), typically with higher transmitting power from a favorable antenna location (typically high above the surrounding terrain). You will notice that even a repeater is defined by the job it does, rather than physical characteristics. That is because you can easily build a repeater with 2 mobile radios, as an example.

I apologize. I didn't realize we had a rule against it.

Bickering implies that a counter position is taken because I care about the other persons opinion and how it reflects on me and my initial position.... which definitely is not the case. LoL /wordsalad

^^^ This! Exactly this! There is nothing in the rules that explains 'why' the rule is what it is. There are several conflicting parts and sub-parts, that I have pointed out in the past, that support that 'linking' as a whole is not prohibited. Only a specific method is prohibited. Whatever is not expressly prohibited is allowed. The truth is, I may retire this year. If I do, my time would be freed up enough to stand-up a linked repeater network and then wait to see if the FCC is up to a lively debate in Federal court. I don't know if I will, but the opportunity would exist and lately I am feeling kinda spicy about government overreach. Don't get me wrong. I have no personal animosity toward anyone in the FCC for simply trying to do their job and I have no intent on purposefully and intentionally violating any federal laws or rules... but we need a court case to settle the debate. All I have seen from everyone, including the FCC staff, is conjecture and opinion based on something that is NOT written, implicitly nor implied.

I'm sure you folks are getting great coverage where you are, but there are a lot a variables that make it so that works in those situations. It becomes problematic for a vast majority of the US. On the ocean or in perfectly flat land areas, if you have an antenna that is on a 100' mast, you are only covering 14 mile radius. Even if you bump to a 300' mast (which cost over $1m for a good commercial grade 300' tower) you are only looking at a radius of about 25 miles. To cover 100 miles (200 total miles end to end) your antenna needs to be almost 1 mile above the average terrain. That simply isn't possible in a vast majority of the US. If you are able to put an antenna on a mountain that overlooks a valley, you are golden, though. We have one of our antennas 1,000 feet above average terrain and we are barely pushing it a 45 miles, with dead spots inside that coverage area due to terrain. That particular repeater is known throughout the mid-Atlantic for being one of the top 3 repeaters, even when we include amateur radio coverage, and the top coverage repeater for GMRS in the area. Due to the terrain limits here, people/companies running farms need networked radios for reliable coverage and most of them are using commercial radio for it.

I always love hearing/reading opinions of others. Especially if they are different than mine, because I may learn something new that could lead to a position change. Friendly chat is always welcome. You have some very good and very valid points. I don't see anything I disagree with. Good analysis, for sure.

I don't like the idea of linking any repeaters for the sake of rag-chewing... but there is some practical applications that many seem to overlook. Things like remote receivers for extended talk-in to a high power repeater than can't hear handheld and other low power radios. Or, in an area that needs expanded coverage for emergency response (such as areas prone to flooding or severe snow causing issues) and any number of other situations. Maybe you own a massive farm or ranch and one repeater just won't cover it. Also, people keep saying linking repeaters is illegal and it is not. It is 100% legal. There is, however, a rule against using networks to link repeaters. You can do RF linking over GMRS frequencies (which uses more bandwidth, not a very friendly idea) or you can link repeaters over another radio service that you are licensed for. Also... just because you do or don't like something... that doesn't mean you're right. We are not in a world, or at least we shouldn't be in a world, were the majority bans what they don't like and mandates what they do. That is not freedom. If you don't like how the radio service is used near you, then don't use it.

This bubbled up on my local feed today. I am not sure if this was an honest error or if this dude was legit trying to get into the law enforcement system, but the FCC only sent a no-no letter. Part of me thinks that if it was an honest error and the person was just trying to repurpose the radio, that's fine... don't do it again. Another part of me is thinking "he admitted to putting the radio on that frequency himself, which implies some nefarious behavior and he should get more than a warning." Anyway, just a reminder to try not to cause interference when you are attempting to repurpose those older LMR Part 90 radios. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-410850A1.pdf Snip of text...

Very odd. You can definitely ignore it. The treaty is long gone and the restrictions were removed almost a decade ago.

I have a copy of my license from 2018 and it's not on my license. I downloaded a new copy about 5 minutes ago, and no reference to it today, either.

While i think you are very antagonist/disrespectful in a vast majority of your posts, and have a tendency to be wrong in a lot of your posts about tech and rules, I actually agree with the general sentiment of your comment. However, cell coverage is far from 99% of the US. They fudge the numbers by saying 99%+ of the population... not 99% of the land mass. It's closer to to 3.5%-4% of the total square miles of the US having (somewhat) continuous coverage, and only about 53% (which includes that 3.5%-4%) of square miles has a 70% reliability rate of cell service. Things like two-way radios and satellite communications are critical in about 47%+ of the country.

The US/Canada treaty that established the Line A/B/C/D radio restrictions expired a decade ago. The FCC removed the limits from PRS (GMRS) with the 2017 updates.

I have done handheld antenna testing and it's not that easy. I wouldn't recommend an SWR meter, either. You can't replicate the ground plane of the chassis and the effects of having the radio in your hand, which makes taking the measurements difficult. The closest I have come without literally building a sampling circuit onto the radio was by making small metal table into a ground plane, mounting an SMA connector on it with proper length cable between the base of the antenna and the VNA. Depending on the cable type, you will want the cable to be almost 7 feet (6.9) to be sure you are outside of the near field while testing.

As others have mentioned, there is no difference in physical hardware as you move from one station type to another. Station type is established based on how it is used, and can be classed as any other station type simply by changing how the radio is used. Thise use cases are explained in the rules, as mentioned by others. @UncleYoda you're kind spicy today! LoL For what its worth, ther is absolutely zero regulations and zero statements of clarification that was released by the FCC that says GMRS repeaters can't be linked. The rules contradict themselves, which is why the FCC released a clarification that repeaters can't be linked over a network for the purpose of expanding coverage. As it stands right now, there is no prohibition on linking repeaters for the purpose of extending range over an RF link, because an RF linked is not a network under any definition.