marcspaz

That is really weird to hear. The REACT team in the DCA doesn't own a single repeater. I don't think they charge to be a member either. That would be some shady stuff... for sure.

I agree.

There is nothing like that around here. At least not that I'm aware of.

Are people paying for repeater use, or are they members of a club that pay dues to be a club member, and only paying members can use club resources? I would think if the only resource is the repeater... that would seem to be a violation. Not that the FCC cares anyway. I am a member of a Jeep club. There are free memberships and paid memberships. Paid members can vote in club elections and have access to resources (such as training and trail guides) that non-paid members can't access.

Charging people to use a GMRS repeater is a rule violation. And as someone who lives in a densely populated area where 2 or 3 people own and operate wide coverage area repeaters on every pair, I definitely don't see frequency use even remotely close to considered overwhelmed. We have several wide coverage area repeaters here in the DC metro area. There are many smaller nested repeaters inside those coverage areas and they work well together since they have implemented different tone squelch settings. Even in heavily populated areas, like DCA with ~10M people, there are less than 8,000 active GMRS licensees in the area. It does not cause problems because of how little use there is. Some days, I may not hear any traffic at all. Also, I don't see a problem with a person having large coverage area repeaters on every pair due to the benefit to the community members, such as in a regional emergency or communications blackout. That far outweighs any perceived inconvenience from having a wide coverage area or a single person owning a repeater on every pair. Even day-to-day, families are using these machines to stay in touch in areas with no cell coverage. Friends are using them to stay in touch as a convenient alternative to cell phones, too. There are already antenna height and power limits. I'm not sure how we could tell people who live in a higher elevation that they can't have a repeater, though. I'm sure that would turn in to a Constitutional Rights court case. I don't think we should, either. EDIT: Quick note on power. I have a 50w repeater, but its only a 50% duty cycle at 50w. It's 100% duty cycle at 20w. After running through a duplexer and 150 feet of cable, only about 5w gets to the antenna. Even if I run the full 50w (since it never sees 100% duty cycle), I still only get about 12w to the antenna. It's not great. Sadly, the receive is impacted the same way. On the antenna height side, my antenna base is at 40 feet and I only get about 3 miles of coverage out of it due to the terrain, which also sucks. If me and my son hop in two vehicle and drive anywhere away from my house, we can talk 8+ miles. So, my repeater at my house with the specs you are talking about, performs worse than mobile simplex pretty much anywhere else but on my street.

What are you thinking of?

@SteveShannon i think in the case of PRS, operate and use are the same. The language has to be bland enough to cover the licensee's actions to include using the radio (personally) to transmit audio, GPS data, messaging data, CW or control commands. And it has to cover the licensee's family also performing those actions.

That is ironic. The part you have in bold is from the FCC website. Like... literally the actual regulation. I even put it in my opinion post and cited § 95.303 in that post. I'm going to have trouble agreeing with you on that one. Too bad, too. I was hoping to find some common ground. Go to this link for the Part 95 definitions and look at the definition of operate. Direct quote from the FCC website linked below... "Operate. Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting." https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95

A friend of mine who monitors this forum but doesn't post very often pointed out that you disagree with my synopsis view of remote control. However, it is not my synopsis, I literally copied and pasted from the FCC part 95 rule on their website defining remote control. I'm not sure I understand what you disagree with. So I can understand a little better, can you expand on what line or portion of my post you disagree with? I don't want to argue, I'm just trying to understand your point a little better.

I think I lost that debate.

Quick side note. You're opinion is always welcome. You may provide information I don't have or a point of view I haven't considered before, that make more sense. Even if the temporary end result is we are still in disagreement, that doesn't mean I don't like you or i don't respect your opinion and input. It just means that in that one specific instance, we simply hold a different point of view.

Okay, as I mentioned earlier... this is my breakdown of what the rules state. I am not a lawyer. However, I had studied Constitutional Law, the founding and framing of the US for 7 years, I worked with my state legislature to work on Bills, and I am a private sector Engineer who's primary focus is supporting all branches of US government in technology. What I have written below is 100% my opinion based on how I have interpreted the rules, based on my experiances. This is simply "use at your own risk" opinion sharing. I will caveat that, while I think I am correct, this will not stop an enforcement agent from misinterpreting the rules, sending no-no letters, enforcement action notifications or other enforcement actions that could be very, very costly for someone... even if found innocent in court. That is the main reason I think Randy's video, sharing the user's experience, is so important. It shines a light on government over-reach, inappropriate and unlawful actions, and intimidation tactics that are used by all branches of government. I feel like some people in every branch are banking on you/us having too much to lose to be willing to put up a fight. As individuals, regardless of if you agree with me or not, you have to make the determination as to if you are will to risk suffering the ramifications, win or lose. Let’s start with some general rules and definitions. § 95.345 states that remote control is prohibited in the PRS unless explicitly allowed in a specific service. Also, § 95.349 states that Connection to a public switched network is prohibited. Both Remote Control and Network Connection are defined in the rules for PRS, in § 95.303. Remote control: Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control. Operate: Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. Network connection: Connection of a Personal Radio Services station to the public switched network, so that operators of other stations in that service are able to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station. PRS Rules… § 95.345 Remote control. Operation of Personal Radio Services stations by remote control is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.945 and 95.1745. § 95.349 Network connection Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749. So, the default state is that Network Connections and Remote Control are prohibited. Now we must stack the GMRS rules on top of the PRS rules and definitions. § 95.1745 GMRS remote control. Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. § 95.1749 GMRS network connection. 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. In the case of § 95.1749, there are two clauses. One states that “operation” of a GMRS station with a “telephone connection” is prohibited. The other clause states that you can use a “public switched network” or “other networks” for “operation” by remote control. On the surface, these two clauses conflict with each other, but there are clear distinctions in this rule and the PRS definitions between “telephone network” and “public switched network” and “other networks”. We must also reference the classifiers (other rules). The words “as in” in § 95.1749 are very important in legal definition. They are preposition words used to express a relationship to a clause. In this case, it clarifies the meaning of “telephone network”. The reference to § 95.349 is an example of what they mean. Let’s break it down. § 95.1745 states that GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. Operate means to cause a station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. Remote control is defined in § 95.303 as operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. § 95.1749 states that a GMRS stations cannot be connected to a “telephone connection”, but GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations can be connected to the “public switched network” or “other networks” for the purpose of operation by remote control. So, if we string all of the rules together using the FCC PRS definitions to make a coherent statement, the rules will read as follows: GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations can be connected to the “public switched network” or “other networks” for the purpose of beginning, continuing or ceasing transmissions of a GMRS station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. However, this behavior is prohibited on any “telephone network”, defined as a public switched network that allows operators to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station. This is where the sticky part comes in. This rule was created during a time when The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) aka Plain Ole' Telephone Service (POTS) was strung on copper wire to dedicated phone switching stations. Today, PSTN/POTS is only in about 6% of the US and is expected to be completely gone in the next 3 years. PSTN/POTS has been replaced with Internet service and Voice over IP. The rule is grossly outdated and it looks like enforcement agents are substituting public switched network and Common Carrier switched networks in place of PSTN/POTS. Meaning, they now consider the entire internet and every connection to it as a "Telephone Network". The bottom line is, it looks like rather than the FCC amending § 95.1749 by removing the first clause, they are choosing to ignore the second clause and all related definitions. Their behavior is nullifying all of § 95.1745 for remote control and clause 2 of § 95.1749, allowing network connectivity. There is no administrative authority to allow that behavior and until we collectively and successfully petition the FCC to remove clause 1 of § 95.1749, everyone linking or using linked repeater over the internet is taking a risk of big fines and going to court for doing something that should be completely legal and in scope of the FCC rules.

I still have most of the gear and plenty of woods. I may repeat the test with "like-model" comparisons. I have to see how the calendar shakes out and if I can find a volunteer with a proper CB install.

It's not limited to a telephone network. Collectively, the rules state any public network. (I'll get the quotes shortly). This includes any internet connection, even over a VPN. In my opinion, based on the rules as a whole, the only way I am aware of to link GMRS repeaters without a rule violation is for a private person or business to own 100% of the physical infrastructure. There may be a way of RF linking on GMRS channels, but I haven't dug into the rules enough to make a legit determination.... yet.

I thought about doing it for my own interest, but I didn't think of it until after the project was done. The customer was looking for a cheap alternative to commercial radios, to communicate between two campus' with base stations. Handhelds were also in the site survey and setup, but they only needed coverage for about a mile in each direction, per campus and only to the base station. I missed an opportunity for sure... but was focused on the job and requirements.

While I tend to agree, it will still take a lawsuit, deep pockets and the courage to both pursue it and apply those resources to the suit.

So... couple of possible answers. I have done head-to-head-to-head testing for a customer, through 10 miles of heavy woods, with GMRS, MURS and CB. I will make this as concise as possible. With everything being equal, the lower in frequency you go, the less foliage and trees absorb RF... therefore the less the impact on range. That said, due to rules of the services, that doesn't mean anything as far as practical application. Again, no Line of site restriction, heavy woods, abiding to the FCC rules. From and to the exact same locations, on the same day, within an hour time frame. With a mobile CB, legal limit on AM, the max usable power of 4w (3 measured) and a 1/4 wave antenna, range was about 2.5 miles. With mobile MURS, max usable power of 2w (1.8 measured) and a 6dB gain antenna, max range was 1 mile. With GMRS. max usable power of 50w (48.5 measured) and a 6dB antenna, we were able to talk the full 10 miles with about a 50:50 SNR.

I agree with Steve. Especially since the FTM-500 is a crossband repeater already. I was using two FTM-300DRs as a repeater for EmComm purposes, but I had two radios in two different vehicles and only set them up as a same-band repeater for emergencies and training. Even then, it's not practical and I ended up getting another DR-1X repeater.

BBI has a 10kw amp he drives with an 1.8kw amp. Thing is loud as heck.

Unfortunately, based on the wattage mentioned, I don't think the duplexer is doing much, if anything. A typical 'notch only' 6 cavity duplexer (3 transmit and 3 receive) will experience 3dB or more signal attenuation, cutting your signal in half. However, when properly tuned, even losing half the signal is still a significant improvement over the desense of using two close proximity antennas with no duplexer at all. Do you have a VNA available to you? Or a friend with one?

I ran a 3/4" ground strap from the swing gate to the tub, from the tub to the frame and from the from to the engine block. My SWR did drop under 2:1 (1.7 IIRC), but the radio just worked much better. I could hear a lot better and got much more distance out if it.

It's tough doing QRP during some of these QRM contests. Even with 500w+, it can be difficult to get through the noise of 1kc of separation. Field Day is no exception. For the past 2 years I have skipped all contesting for health reasons and the fact that it has been close to 100 degrees two Field Days in a row. Normally, I bring out a portable shelter, solar and batteries, and I will string up a dipole between two 35' masts. Same thing on Winter Field Day. It's always fun, but its a lot of work to setup and tear down.

I had gotten my first GMRS license long before I was licensed in amateur radio, '87-'88 timframe. I was looking for an alternative to CB, that was quiet and family friendly. It was mostly for road trips with my family, as several times a year we would caravan 1,000+ miles to states around the country. I had let me original license expire due to lack of use, but got interested in Ham radio back in the early 2000's. As my son got older and started driving, he wanted radios to keep in touch. Especially because of the camping g and 4wheeling. At first we used CB... but he asked me if there was something like Ham radio, but without having to take a test. I remembered how well GMRS worked, so, I got a new license for the family to use. Just like the old days, it was for caravans with the family and noodling around when there was no cell coverage. Today, I still use it for the same reasons... caravans, wheeling, keeping in touch around town. It's a good service.

GMRS has historically been a utility, not a rag-chew hobby. While in very dense population areas there is a big social component, once you get outside population centers, it is very much still a utility. If you are looking for social communications, I would recommend amateur radio. Specifically either a General or Extra class so you can use the most amount of HF voice spectrum.

I don't think the people who write this stuff are very smart... "You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications," The common definitions of a network are "a group or system of interconnected people or things." and "interact with others to exchange information" Two people talking on the radio creates a network... two operators talking on a repeater (using 3 radios) is a network. They really need someone with a firm grip on the English language to help them over at the FCC, because they are failing.