JeepCrawler98

So what? We can't say superhet now? Doesn't change the fact that it's using heterodyning on the radio as opposed to direct sampling (Where DS has a much wider passband and why a lot of the CCR's that have massive desense problems). Could the receive and transmit filtering be improved? Of course; so can that of all major brand radios. Besides; the discussion was regarding electrical conformity between different radio types as it pertains to a granted FCC ID, not some philosophical debate about the best way arrange an RF stage.The 805G meets the FCC's requirements for emissions at 4-5W per the testing and is perfectly legal to use regardless of if the filtering could be improved to match that of a 'real' radio - end of story. I don't expect the 805G to perform as well as the commercial radio equipment I have - I'd hope not, it's a $79 brand new radio with inexpensive accessories (batteries and chargers), the expensive ones better offer an improvement or they'd be missing their mark. This one just 'should' be better than the GMRS-V1 or Retevis RT76P as they're all entry level. If it's affordable, doesn't upset me if it gets lost or grimed up dragging around the dirt by me or my family, is legal, and performs as well or better than others in it's price range it's doing its job.

Sure; fccid.io is a data aggregator though that farms out of the FCC database - it's easier and quicker to navigate and has sources you can link, and I've found it accurate. But yes, the FCC database itself should be considered the primary source in case of discrepancies. The KG-805G is a superhet design though; if the other models given are 'radio-on-chip' designs (direct sampling / SDR) it just further discredits that conformance letter on the application, unless the transmit side is somehow set up with that ROC design that most the other CCRs use and it's just the receive side they've tweaked. If you look at the exhibits for the interior photos it doesn't look at all like the other single chip designs, but I'd need to do some digging on the model number of that chip that everyone's using these days, maybe someone else has sharper eyes. The other possibility is that Wouxun has a standardized transmitter design that's not a radio-on-chip but is still used in all their listed radios - it's a reach to call all their radios identical this way, but I guess that's left up to some engineer's or officer's discretion? I can't directly verify either condition first hand. The question still remains whether Wouxun is issuing any other radios with the "WVTWOUXUN16" ID outside of the KG805G - that ID is going to be the only thing that makes it that particular type-accepted radio in the FCC's eyes. edit: the single chip transceiver that Baofeng likes to use seems to be an AT1846S or RDA1846. I'm sure there's others.

Yeah it looks like the WXVTWOUXUN08 includes the KG805; I assume with KG-805G you mean WXVWOUXUN16 since they've pulled it out separately as you pointed out, but the KG-805 appears to have 95A (prior to the rule change) as well. Both the 08 and 16 application seems to take the same approach of including multiple models. It's my understanding that manufacturers are allowed to revise their radios so long as it's not a major deviation from the original design; at who's discretion is a major deviation made? I suspect it's probably the manufacturer's best judgement, which doesn't necessarily ensure good judgement. The question always remains is what label comes with it; that's the crux of all these import radios - it can be hard to determine before hand that what you end up with even has any FCC ID imprinted on it somewhere, let alone the one you need; the 16 application lists a lot more models, and they could take the approach that Retevis does on the RT97 repeater where depending on what 'option' you select it comes with a different FCC ID even though the basic radio is model number remains the same. Motorola does this too with some of their radios which often have shared 'marketing' model numbers (I can think of the Radius radios at the moment) the only way to identify what you're getting is to look at the part numbers, but often the FCC ID label is easier. Kenwood on the other hand has a different model number for every radio variant. I'll see if I can dig up the reddit thread on the WVTWOUXUN08 discussion. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/gmrs/comments/e9ytiy/new_wouxun_kg805g_professional_gmrs_radio/

Agree with all topics at a fundamental and practical level - to play the other hand though; the Grant of Equipment Authorization doesn't identify the KG-805, the name of Grantee is "Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co, Ltd" and the identified equipment is "WVTWOUXUN16" So the question remains; what equipment is WVTWOUXUN16? I would argue its whatever the manufacturer labels it as such on the sticker and are consistent with their approved filings. This is why type accepted radios require the manufacturer affixed label bearing the FCC ID, and you can't just rely on the model number. The primary model is of course the KG805G, I assume it comes with the WVTWOXUN16 sticker, but the approved application submitted to the FCC for WVTWOUXUN16 includes the laundry list of other radios as well. I suspect the FCC certification covers the whole submittal package from the manufacturer and testing agency, and the whole thing would be rejected if they disagreed with this approach or some other portion of the paperwork filed. It remains to be seen what ID's the other radios come with from Wouxun. I suspect it's likely Wouxun doesn't sell these other radios with the WVTWOUXUN16 ID affixed which makes them not model WVTWOUXUN16 in the FCC's eyes and thereby non certified. From a business standpoint; they may very well have the same basic transmitter circuitry even though the radios physically differ, and they want to reserve the right to sell these others units under their GMRS approval that they've been granted should they retool a few things to make them "KG805G like". This would avoid having to go through more certification processes then otherwise required; and the liability on this remains with Wouxun if they over-reach and release a radio who's emissions and operation does not qualify the way the KG805G has. Another fundamental question; if the radio is capable of transmitting outside of the GMRS frequencies, power levels, and emissions but is not front panel programmable, does it disqualify for part 95E certification? The 95E rules only prevent the radios from operating in other services for which no certification is required (amateur radio bands) and doesn't necessarily land-lock them to GMRS alone; case in point is the historical dual 90/95A certified radios, which have always been able to operate in excess of GMRS' regulations and it's up to the licensee to ensure their equipment operation and programming complies with the cut-and-dry restrictions of GMRS when using that service. The FCC has publicly stated that its intent is not to limit manufacturers from dual certifying 90/95 radios as is the case for commercial surplus gear.

So we all know that the Wouxun KG-805G is a modern manufacture good quality radio has type acceptance for Part 95E, making it legal for use on GMRS. I have no beef with this radio; it seems like a solid unit that's well thought out, in fact I just ordered one myself to add to the collection, and am excited to get my hands on it even though I have a good collection of commercial gear laying around. In doing a bit of digging around; I found that while its FCC ID is primarily based on the KG805, the application lists a plethora of other models and certifies them to be 'electrically similar' and are therefore included under a blanket 95E certification. SAR Evaluation Report: https://fccid.io/WVTWOUXUN16/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-Report-4695713.pdf Declaration of electrical conformity: https://fccid.io/WVTWOUXUN16/Letter/Product-Similarity-Declaration-4695702.pdf This can all be found on the FCC ID listing: https://fccid.io/WVTWOUXUN16 The certification by this blanket approval includes the following models: KG-805G,KG-703E,KG-801E,KG-879,KG-869,KG-659E,KG-978,KG-939,KG-998,KG-918,KG-828,KG-988,KG-958,KG-959,KG-969,KG-968,KG-928,KG-UV8H,KG-UV9DPlus,KG-UV9P,KG-839,KG-979,KG-989,KG-999,KG-916,KG-926,KG-936,KG-956,KG-966,KG-976,KG-986,KG-996,KG-826,KG-836,KG-856,KG-866,KG-876,KG-886,KG-896,KG-838,KG-858,KG-868,KG-878,KG-888,KG-898 I found similar results under a listing for the Retevis RT97 repeater; again the primary certification is based on the RT97 portable repeater: https://fccid.io/2ASNSRT97 The RT97's test report: https://fccid.io/2ASNSRT97/Test-Report/Test-report-4720800.pdf Where lab testing thereby certifies the following additional listed models: RT90, RT92, RT93, RT94, RT95, RT98, RT99, RT9000D, RT9550 The above models are even more interesting as these are all DMR radios, in fact some are DMR/LTE/Wifi integrated repeater systems. Does this mean that if any of the above models come with Wouxun's and Retevis' labels that include the FCC ID (WVTWOUXUN16 or 2ASNRT97) that they're legal to use on GMRS? I find this odd because many of these are full-on ham radios with no 'locked down' special firmware or completely inapplicable commercial equipment, in fact a couple models are VHF only. They shouldn't have part 95E certification, but per the above FCC-ID's somehow do? This seems like an oversight; but with Wouxun and Retevis swallowing the "we promise its the same radio" pill and the liability that comes with it, it makes me wonder if you're in the clear as a licensee for using them so long as you use them within the rules of Part 95E to which operators are bound; after all the FCC granted all these radios the certified status? Anyways, fuel for the fire... happy new year!

Modulation or how you use that power does too - narrow-band FM (11.5khz width) vs wideband FM (16Khz width) has by the equivalent of about 6db penalty on SNR when looking at highest modulating freq (2.75khz vs 3.00khz) & peak deviation (3khz vs 5khz) per Carson's rule. https://urgentcomm.com/2010/04/01/cut-your-losses/ edit: I see this topic was already heavily discussed in this thread; carry on!

One thought that was discussed last night on the Tucson side was unlinking our local repeaters from each other and having each different repeater be connected to a different regional hub and in turn to different repeaters or groups throughout the country so things are intentionally mixed. This way users can 'shop around' between different repeaters so one link channel doesn't get gummed up with a couple folks chewing the rag. Rather than treating the hubs as territorial they'd be tie-in points for any repeater anywhere in the country for this event. We normally like to keep things linked consistently since it's useful for folks with local traffic; but since this would be a special event for a half day or something it's not too much to ask on our end. It's certainly one way to address the lack of 'voice bandwidth' through a single link. myGMRS Christmas QSO Party 2020!

Ditto on the expanding coverage - it's an easy and flexible way to get wide coverage areas by linking repeaters. In town we have three repeaters on the link that each covers their own blind spots; the Lemmon 650 is a wide area workhorse with the Tucson 550 and Continental 575 filling in its local blind spots (as the mountain its on casts its own shadow). The result is a network that people can rely on to stay in touch regardless of where they are in or around town. You can get on the network from much of the travel corridor between Tucson and Albuquerque. We're adding in Sierra Vista, which adds another metro area to the network that's nearby, and are working on another adjacent mountain top to expand coverage to the AZ/NM border. We're linked full time with the NM group, which has huge coverage for much of New Mexico. This means that someone going outdoors and enjoying themselves within a few hours of where they live has access to the radio and friends/family listening in - which is beneficial for public safety. There's plenty of places around here with no cell phone coverage if you're into the outdoors, where the repeaters work just fine. The other thing it does is drum up interest - it takes traffic to make traffic; pooling user-groups together results in more activity and diversity in the traffic, which in turn draws in more people, so the community grows as a result. This can all be done with conventional link radios of course; the nice thing about using TCP/IP networking is the ability to reconfigure it and fully control the repeaters on the fly in case there's an issue with one of the repeaters where it needs to be dropped, or routed a different way. You can use the internet, or you can always use your own wireless TCP/IP links if you want to stay away from commercial infrastructure which is then gateway-ed to the internet for access to nodes outside of your system. Does this mean that every repeater should be on the link? Absolutely not - there's a lot of merit in standalone repeaters when wide area range is not needed. In addition to the Tucson 550 and Lemmon 650 I also keep a portable repeater at my house for use by my family in the local area; it's a standalone for private use most of the time, but I am able to connect it to the other Tucson repeaters in case I need to.

Can you talk back? I’m sure their users would be perturbed if their monitors started talking back at random times. Fixed stations are allowed to communicate with other fixed stations at up to 15 watts on the repeater input frequencies if you read the Part 95 rules to a tee - can a parked car be considered a fixed station? Park a car on both sides of the building and have a conversation with your fixed station buddy about the prevalence of illegal baby monitors on federally regulated GMRS channels. It’s not intentional interference if you’re trying to work around pre-existing interference.

One of the things that seems to be fairly prevalent in the repeater listings are paper repeaters - those who are listed, but not longer online or usable. It would be nice if there was some sort of process for removing these - either by vote, requesting a review, flagged as "reported offline," or something like that. We have a few of these in the Tucson area; their owners at times haven't logged in in almost a decade and/or their licenses expired.