wayoverthere

No disagreement on the complexity of DMR, though the multi slot capability could make good use of the spectrum, especially if a little more spectrum could be allowed for digital only (wishful thinking, I know). The other I've messed with a little is P25, which seems really simple as an end user, though I know there's a couple more layers, such as setting up ids. Overall, it doesn't seem too much more complicated than analog with tones, though. Now the price....why is it so expensive? Still an expensive licensing in place? All the equipment priced for public safety budgets? I found a p25 capable icom at a really nice price, but the license to enable p25 was more than 4x the price of the radio.

Sorry not to get back with pictures...work has been killing my daylight hours lately ?

wasn't able to find something solid on them, poking at both radioreference and ULS. Business band stuff, it looks like; there's a bunch of stuff in the CA on those frequencies, though one lines up with a Fisher Wireless location (in Exeter). Only usage I've heard was 611 was cellular customer service.

Ran into this again recently with dmr...trying to get everything programmed, and I can't seem to find just instructions, everything is videos. Even the blog posts are just embedded videos.

Yeah, some members are strong Motorola devotees for exactly that reason...they hold up well in high rf environments. what's the term @gman1971 uses....fire breathing RF monsters?

Start here for the context. Findings are linked later in the thread. https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/2421-side-by-side-range-comparison-wouxun-kg-805g-vs-part-90/

Anecdotal, I know, but I found my midland HTs (gxt1050) go deaf almost as easy as baofengs, while the basic yaesu ham ht (ft4x) works quite a bit better, much closer to the vertex stuff.

It with 2 national parks and a national forest all packed together in one corner of the state, it wouldn't exactly surrprise me there. At a more general level, I wonder if the bubble pack manufacturers are finally settling on a standard set of codes for pl tones; maybe I just have a limited view, but outside the everything pushed on Amazon, it seems like Midland has a pretty strong presence in the retail/bubble pack space, so I wouldn't be totally surprised to see the other manufacturers fall in line with Midland's layout.

DX engineering has a good instruction sheet on the topic, and offers kits: https://static.dxengineering.com/pdf/weatherproofingcoax-techtip.pdf https://www.dxengineering.com/search/part-type/weatherproofing-kits/product-line/dx-engineering-weatherproofing-kits?GroupBy=SKU&SortBy=Default&SortOrder=Default And I'll echo @Lscotton AntennaFarm being a good reputable source. I haven't ordered that specific cable package, but had a number of other orders with them, and zero issues. I also did a little searching and didn't find any other solid alternative options with what you were looking for.

I believe it...I just didn't go through all of the docs in the grants at the moment, as reading and navigating them on a mobile screen is....challenging. I did see some lines listing frequencies up to 480mhz, but that would seem not too out of line with part 90 on the surface...not sure if they license business frequencies up in that range.

One plus of the upgraded batteries, though you trade the small size, is there's a USB chargeing pigtail available for them. Looking here: https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm with 2ajgm in the first box, and -uv5r in the second, I see a part 90 grant, and a bunch of 15b.

Radioddity had a sale going on through the 18th.

Yeah, I'm not particularly worried about it. I figure if I choose to take a risk, it's one thing....I've made my choices. It's a little different to hand out advice to others, especially if they're not aware of the risks...therefore, I try to keep up on where the line is, so I can give a good representation/explanation of the right way to do things. If someone chooses another route from there, they've made their own choice as well, but I've done what I can to help it be an informed one.

I think I've mentioned it a couple times, but I've backed off of trusting fcc.io much due to inconsistencies in the data. One of my vertex HT shows on there as being certified for "part 9" ? Actually looking on fcc.gov shows it as part 90.

I ran the authorization number on that @SteveWpprovided through FCC and it appears to show it's 95e certified...Am I misreading this? https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/tcb/reports/Tcb731GrantForm.cfm?mode=COPY&RequestTimeout=500&tcb_code=&application_id=pP6r2RsPtcaptv0L45it7w%3D%3D&fcc_id=2AJGM-P51UV

Glad to help. And I know...it's often easier to find things via Google, rather than navigate to it on their site.

Keeping an eye on the outcome of this. I was actually eyeing that one in particular for an inexpensive dual bander to use in the beater car and to throw in rentals on road trips.

Here is the search form for a gmrs license (I googled "FCC uls lookup gmrs"): https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchGmrs.jsp

how much power do you suppose they're running for these things?

I know; I tried to make the comment as general as possible, as I'm basing it off of things that have been said not just in this thread, or even this forum in general, but in other venues as well...kind of what I see related to GMRS overall. I personally won't assume a repeater as open unless it's listed as such, and have reached out for (and received) permission on a couple. I do wonder if there's some in the listings that were listed to help with coordination but intended as private, but weren't clearly marked so when the owner set them up. As was discussed in the open/closed repeaters thread, they're still property of the owner, who does get to dictate who can or can't use it, despite the limited spectrum we get with GMRS. While I can see wanting to know what's around, I would also agree that it's extremely bad form trying to muscle into an unlisted repeater; if it's the ONLY thing around, I wouldn't see an issue in taking a shot and reaching out (by mail, if that's the only way) and ASKING if they'd be willing to allow access on an emergency basis, but if not, that's their option. 100% agreed that being respectful is the best way to win friends, whether catching someone on simplex, or when it comes to repeaters. Jumping in the middle of someone's conversation (especially since they probably aren't expecting other users, its definitely something to take into account if you try to 'approach'), or on their repeater unexpectedly isn't likely to win friends. Personally, I have to practically twist arms to get my family to touch a radio, even off grid, so my actual use on GMRS is minimal, though I do monitor here and there, or respond to a radio check if I hear someone asking. Like some others, I did get my hopes up based on the enthusiasm here, trying GMRS as a 'ham-lite' while everything was shut down, but my area is almost entirely more like 'FRS-plus", and once things started picking up I expanded into ham. The mindset on the ham side is definitely more open, and the attitude toward repeaters is also definitely more open. Finally, I'll also admit to being a little more 'flexible' on some rules than others, mainly based on "will my actions affect someone else?" and logic behind it, but I also feel a responsibility to encourage others on the "right" path as much as possible, and help them have realistic expectations of what they'll find in each.

I feel like there's a perception among some of the long time gmrs users, especially with the influx of users the last few years (between boredom and disasters), that the growth of a hobbyist mindset is going to turn gmrs into a free for all like cb became. I think this is where some of the discouraging attitudes stem from toward hobbyist mindset on gmrs. I'm in the camp that, while hobbyist usage isn't the main intent of the service, there's also nothing in the the regulations that prohibits using it in that way. It just means I need to temper my expectations of what I'm likely to find on the radio waves. And I've been trying to walk that line with a lot of the new user threads...show then the reality without making it like I'm trying to totally rain on their enthusiasm for a new hobby.

I'd have to look for the specific procduct name, but I know 3m (and others) make a tape aimed at this kind of sealing. If you can do it better outside the connection point, I still would. DX Engineering even has kits, and a how-to document. https://www.dxengineering.com/search/part-type/weatherproofing-kits/product-line/dx-engineering-coaxial-connection-weatherproofing-kits https://static.dxengineering.com/pdf/weatherproofingcoax-techtip.pdf

That would work to make the connection; on a side note, the female side of pl259 is the so239 (pl=plug, so=socket) However, if the cable run permits, I'd be tempted to run a a couple to a few ft of cable with N connectors on both ends if it let me get the changeover point inside the attic. N connectors are better protected from the weather than the uhf (pl259/so239) connectors.

I forget if I posted it here or on one of the FB groups (I think here), but one test I did was coiling the cable vs just winding the extra around the room...though I atwont say that no effect is possible, least in my case (unmarked Midland mag mount cable), coiled together had a negligible effect on swr...I'll see if I can find the post. That said, since you'll be up there anyway, not a bad thing to do, especially as you secure it. Getting the extra height is a bonus too Edit: went digging for the post and found it pretty quick in the swr meter thread. .09 change on one channel, .01 on the other, and no change in the middle. https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/2426-decent-cheap-swr-meter/?do=findComment&comment=27863&_rid=2738

My need to experiment, I might test a little more before calling it done, though you're in pretty good stead where you are, and could just keep it as it is. My thought process, but take it with not just a grain but a helping of salt...id test swr on simplex 15-21, and again on the repeater channels. If it's tending downward on as you go up in simplex, and rising as you go up the repeater Channels, you're likely pretty close, and your lowest swr is in the gap between simplex and repeater frequencies. If you're in that dip and the repeater channels (overall) are higher swr than the simplex, you could probably take a small amount more off to bias it a tiny bit more toward the repeater channels. If the repeater channels are already lower swr than the simplex, or the top of simplex (22) and the bottom of the repeaters (15) are about the same, I wouldn't take any more off. And if I'm off base, by all means, let me know...I'm approaching from a logic/theory side of it, and know the real world doesn't always follow, and I'm always willing to learn. I know my 5/8 wave laird instructions said I should trim a good 3/4" to be centered where I want it, but nanovna and swr meter said it was almost spot on as is.