Borgbox

Hey Mr. Marcspaz,
 
You did a most outstanding job on the evaluation of the GMRS-50X1. Proof of this is that You are now the go to man for this radio.
 
I did buy one in spite of the reviews. However, I run it at 25watts. Without any test equipment I can only say it works great out of the box. I have a Midland 400, & 275 and all reports have it sounding much louder with more clarity than the Midlands.
 
Tnhanks again for the review.
 
Keith T.

Our neighborhood has most of the electrical underground. Except, for the transformer pedestal 50 feet from my front door. 
 
Not much in the way with interference on GMRS, 2m and 70cm bands. Although, I mostly just listen. So I couldn't tell you how it affects transmit purity. One of my neighbors a couple of blocks over has his long wire slung in the trees. He doesn't have any complaints on any of the bands. Well I take it back, he was complaining about all the vegetation interfering with his satellite play time. http://k3rrr.com/
 
Now the plethora of Plasma screen T.V.s  in my neighborhood make trying to listen to HF with the SDR is another story. Should mention I have neighbors up real close to all sides of my house. Close enough my kids watch his living room T.V. from our living room.

Great suggestion.  Great summary of your post too.
 
You reminded me of two items I would like to touch base on again, as well as expand on something else you touched on.
 
First... for non-licensed options, CB radio should not be over looked.  It is still HF and when configured properly, you can get outstanding simplex communications, even with the low power restrictions.  I have a Galaxy CB with AM and SSB.  I have a properly tuned antenna transmission line and a perfect match on a 1/4 wave ground plain antenna (113.5").  On AM with 1 watt RMS carrier and 2 watt RMS modulated power, on a properly tuned system, I am getting 13-15 miles in rough terrain.  On SSB, with 11 watts peek power, I am able to talk 22-26 miles, depending on the weather conditions, in that same rough terrain.
 
The second item is, don't be afraid to include a GMRS repeater; even if repeaters in the area have been destroyed in the past.  When I was an emergency volunteer, I had a two dedicated, stand-alone mobile repeaters in my truck.  One VHF and one UHF.  I could either run them from wherever I parked, or I could dead-drop them anywhere with their own batteries and then drive to where I needed to work.  Each unit was in a vented container that kept weather off of it, twin 115 amp sealed lead-acid batteries and a 35' portable antenna tower with an omnidirectional antenna AND directional beam antenna to support local repeater comms and long-range point to point comms.  The portability is a very affordable add-on to any low power repeater. 
 
On 10 watt low power with 50%-60% duty cycle, they lasted for days before the batteries needed to be recharged.  Even 50 watt mode, they would run on batteries for more than 24 hours before needing to be recharged.
 
 
 
 
HAM Response -
 
I used to be an assistant emergency coordinator with ARES and answered directly to our local county government Emergency Coordinator.  I am NIMS and ICS certified.  I think one of the reasons Amateur Radio emergency response seems overly complex for first responder support is because groups and services like ARES are NOT first responders. 
 
ARES and groups like them are focused on supporting multiple municipality, mass casualty events and we bring in all aspects of technology to support extended operations in extended responses.  The Northeast Blackout of 2003 and Katrina are great examples.  We provided phone, video, internet, radio, formal traffic, responder escorts, etc.  We had to be not only self sufficient, but able to provide a service in areas and conditions that are worse than being in wilderness with no outside resources.
 
In a situation where OP is discussing... none of that is initially needed and grossly over-complicates the main objective of notification of an inbound crisis that is either occurring or about to occur.  That is why the ENS was created.  A simple alert system on commonly used platforms; radio, TV and smartphones.  Once the event has occurred, that's when the more complex solutions need to be brought in.

Thank you for sharing the link to the Emergency Preparedness series. However, after looking it over, I have to say it seems based on a number of unstated assumptions - many of which I believe are untrue. There also seems to be an implied prejudice towards a hierarchical communications model and the use of amateur radio. 
The fundamental problem with any system that relies on ham radio is the requirement for licensed operators at every operating location. As you noted, getting people to get even the most basic Technicians license is a non-starter. There is also some assumption that Part 97 operations will offer a richer set of communications options. However, in practice. unless you live in some very isolated area, and particularly for the type of system you say you want to create, the only Part 97 options would be VHF (2M) and UHF (0.7M). When you add an uneven terrain, into the mix the difference between VHF and UHF is pretty much nil.
 
Because GMRS allows repeater operations, as far as practical operations go, it is pretty much the same as Part 97 UHF. The main differences lie in the options available for linking repeaters via radio. GMRS is limited to use of the assigned GMRS channels for radio links, amateur is not. However, in a semi-isolated area like the Sierra Foothills that should not be a problem.
 
If you use GMRS you can flatten the model shown in the Emcomm Doc you linked to and allow communications directly between the Community coordinators and the emergency service providers. Though, you may still need to provide staffing for the service provider sites as they will probably be unwilling to manage communications back to the community. At $7 per year ($70 for 10 years) cost is really not an issue. Or, looking at it from another view, if $7 a year is keeping people away from your system, you have some serious issues to deal with before you even think about radio.
 
What I have written above is not simply theoretical. Take a look at BeCERTAINN in Berkeley, CA. This organization which provides pretty much what you describe in your first post, but just within the city of Berkeley, now has over 40 GMRS licensed participants, most of whom got their license for the sole purpose of participating in BeCERTAINN.
 
Hams have a, rather unfortunate, predilection for making things more technically and organizationally complex than they need to be. For immediate response emergency systems that is the opposite of what you want. You want simple and easy with the least amount of equipment and the smallest number of operators and transactions necessary to make the system work. As shown in the emcomm doc, it takes 4 people, two of whom must be licensed hams, to pass a message from a home to a service provider. By basing a system onGMRS, that number drops to two or three and no ham licenses are needed.
 
I strongly suggest that GMRS + maybe one of the following, FRS/CB/MURS/Paper-notes/voice, is what you really need.

If I were to do it... it would be for the fun of trying. There are enough CCR's on the market that it doesn't have a practical purpose.

A couple of comments related to this discussion.
 
#1) I'd be surprised if the cost per unit of certifying a radio for the FCC adds more than a dollar to the unit cost. Based on this site (and others), the cost of getting a radio certified looks like it is usually under $5000
 
#2) As to the difference between two, otherwise identical, radios. One being Part95E certified, the other Part 15 or Part90. My guess is the only difference is operational limitations to conform to the Part95E rules. I really doubt there is any difference in the actual transmitter or receiver circuitry.
 
So, If my second comment is accurate, and the two radios discussed in this topic are truly identical (other than changes to comply with Part95E). there is no way anyone listening could possibly know if you were on a Luiton LT-590 or a Midland XMT400.
 
YMMV

Been saying it since this Midland came out. They're just selling a Chinese radio for twice the price. At least Btech doesn't try to hide where they're from.

Been saying it since this Midland came out. They're just selling a Chinese radio for twice the price. At least Btech doesn't try to hide where they're from.

Get a number of regular GMRS operators with 50 watt mobile or base to make their pitiful HTs cry...

Mostly Jeeping in the mountains of West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
 
 
http://fiveguysracing.com/marc/HardRock/Rubi_W_Lift.jpg
 
http://fiveguysracing.com/marc/RauschCreek/June_2018/images/20180616_115106.jpg
 
http://fiveguysracing.com/marc/RauschCreek/June_2018/images/Image12.jpg

It sounds more like RTTY to me.  Did you listen to the sounds on the link I posted earlier?

Same thing happening here in Fort Lauderdale. there is a maritime document spreading through the industry, that list 467, repeater inputs as safe to use in USA ports.

Taiwan CB RadioIt is illegal to use equipment designed for the Taiwan market in the United States.
14 channels, 12.5 kHz spacing, FM:
467.5125 MHz 467.5250 MHz 467.5375 MHz 467.5500 MHz – US GMRS Repeater Input 467.5625 MHz – US FRS Channel 8 467.5750 MHz – US GMRS Repeater Input 467.5875 MHz – US FRS Channel 9 467.6000 MHz – US GMRS Repeater Input 467.6125 MHz – US FRS Channel 10 467.6250 MHz – US GMRS Repeater Input 467.6375 MHz – US FRS Channel 11 467.6500 MHz – US GMRS Repeater Input 467.6625 MHz – US FRS Channel 12 467.6750 MHz – US GMRS Repeater Input

If I owned the repeater, while waiting for FCC to intervene, I would just shut it off when I hear them get on it.  If I can't use it, why should they.