DanW
-
Posts
131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by DanW
-
-
11 minutes ago, KAF6045 said:
Based on the images at Cobra's web site, this new version puts a lot more into the "interface box". The old 75 did have pretty much everything in the handset, and just a small box with the power, antenna, and handset connections (and maybe the final amp taking a low power signal from handset to the 4W allowed power). The new one looks to have most of the circuitry in somewhat larger box, and just put the speaker/microphone, controls/display into the handset -- looking more like my antique Standard Radio [Marantz period, pre-merger with Vertex, then Yaesu, then Motorola -- Vertex seems to jump more than fleas on a dog] 2m/70cm dual-band.
The "wireless" is that it has BlueTooth which supports pairing with headset or a wrist (or steering wheel?) worn PTT button.
It looks like it also wirelessly pairs with the box. The power cord looks like just a USB. Interesting.
-
Just saw this new AM/FM CB radio. Looks like Cobra finally replaced the venerable 75 all in the mic unit, which is a bit of a legend in the Jeep community.
Anyone tried one of these yet? I've got a Bearcat CM760 all in the hand unit that works well, but I may upgrade to this unit for the FM. Of course my Midland MXT575 is my preferred way to communicate in my Jeep, I keep a CB for highway use and to talk to Jeeps who don't have GMRS, of which there are still many.
I'd love to see Randy (Aka: NotARubicon) do a review of this. It appears to have some interesting features.
Chime in if you've seen one in the wild. I'd love to hear thoughts!
-
18 hours ago, WRTP691 said:
I'd also be interested in possibly purchasing it.
A couple others are interested but have not committed. So it is up for grabs as I type this. PM me if you want more info or want to purchase it.
Thanks!
-
7 hours ago, WRQD721 said:
Possibly. How much?
I'll send you a PM.
-
On 7/29/2022 at 1:51 PM, WRQD721 said:
So, has the radio been sold?
Nope. I haven't really tried to market it outside of this thread. Interested?
-
10 hours ago, chappys4life said:
I have been looking at the mxt575 and the gmrs-50x1 radio for my f250 camper tow rig. Curious to see how yours comes out
I'm loving it so far. It is louder and seems a little more clear than the Wouxun. But I've only used it on simplex channels. It plays really well with the Radioditty GM30 handheld and my Baofengs.
-
14 hours ago, Drumbic said:
I got $50 on it.... LOL
I have seen a couple people swapping out the KG for a 575... Can I ask your reason for getting away from the KG?
There are several reasons with the big one being that the Wouxun makes my Jeep cluttered. I like that the Midland is all in the mic. The quality feel of the 575 is another, and then the simplicity. So when I'm not using it, it disappears, or at worst, hangs on a mic holder out of the way and without looking like clutter. It also has better volume so I can hear it with the top down. I had to use an auxillary speaker with the Wouxun, even with the mic speaker and the base speaker turned on. The mic speaker is so weak it might as well not even be there. The Wouxun's backlighting is terrible, too. Too bright at night. You can't dim it or change the color. And the best location of the face plate, which worked well for info and usage put that light in a bad spot for me at night. (Top center of the dash.)
The Wouxun has performed well in terms of range and reception, but the 575 is just as good there. But again, the higher volume makes it superior.
So I liked the Wouxun from a performance standpoint, but ergonomically, it just doesn't work for me.
It is going on Ebay or FB Marketplace soon if I get no reasonable offers here. I have the box and all the cords. There isn't a scratch or mark on it, so it is in new condition. $320 takes it, shipping included within the continental US. If local, then $300.
-
I've got my MXT575 up and running in my Jeep, so the Wouxun KG1000G is up for sale. PM me if interested.
-
11 hours ago, gortex2 said:
Thats the reason I have the 275 in both my JT and JK. Overlander in the center. CB is the CMX series all in head. Simple and effective.
Yeah, I had the 275 before and will be mounting it in my wife's Jeep. I love the 2 channel monitoring of the KG-1000G but I really miss the quality feel of the 275, and the simplicity. I also miss the loud speaker, as I mentioned before. Its just a better radio for a Jeep. If I was a big time GMRS hobbyist, the Wouxun would be better.
-
-
The KSG1000G just has too many features that I don't use and it clutters the dash of my Jeep. Since I had to mount the base under my seat, it isn't loud enough. I had to add an external speaker. The mic speaker is nice, but still not loud enough for a Jeep with the top opened up.
I've got a lot going on with a Garmin Overlander, CB, and the GMRS. (The CB is an all-in the mic Uniden) So it'll be a cleaner setup. The KSG1000G has been a great radio, though. Lots of power and I like being able to monitor two channels.
So I'll be selling the Wouxun. It is less than a year old. I've got the original box and a RAM mount ball on the remote faceplate mount. PM me if interested. I'll be taking it out and boxing it up this weekend.
I'll post the setup with the MXT when I get it mounted up. It will be hidden and very clean. Can't wait to get it set up.
-
-
12 hours ago, kidphc said:
True. It's the ones that don't know about line a and c. Read the internet or watch clips from influencer and are unaware they just violated a international treaty.
It is our job as a community to watch out for it as a whole. How many times are the same questions asked? It is the nature of the hobby. Not like gmrs actually requires a test.
As someone who use to cross line a to visit in laws on a regular basis pre covid. Thos frequencies are very much in use, by public safety and other services.
So it behoofs us to use a frequency that is ok to use for the entire country.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
Channel 19 is a no brainer for the reasons that have been hashed over and over. KISS method. Simple. Simplex. 19.
And the Canadians are now able to use channel 19. So if 12,000,000 people petition the FCC, I'm sure they'll get their attention and can scratch the agreement. Then everyone will be happy.
Let's see how many signatures we can get in that border zone and get that changed.
-
On 5/13/2022 at 11:42 PM, Sshannon said:
I would support the idea if it weren’t for the fact that 10 - 12 million people live far enough north that they are not allowed to use channel 19 because of an agreement with Canada.
And 300+million can use it on 99% of the highway miles through the US. And then there's the little thing that the agreement is moot because Canada doesn't appear to really restrict its use anymore.
-
3 hours ago, marcspaz said:
No, I am not saying that 79 million people live above Line A. They would be packed ridiculously tight.
What I am saying is, the total population of the northern states that Line A is present in, per the Census Bureau, is about 79,633,000+. That is enough people whom driving to or north of Line A is a distinct possibility, that they should be considered in a standardization proposal.
Ahhh, ok. That makes more sense.
I certainly respect that point of view but still believe 20 will never get off the ground. It's had decades to do that already and has nothing to show for it. But who knows, maybe if GMRS really takes off then that might change.
-
2 hours ago, marcspaz said:
Something I was thinking about with regard to Line A... 90% of the US population lives on the the US borders and coast lines. ~79,633,000 people live on the northern border. That means that Line A has the potential to impact communications for more than 24% of the people in the lower 48 states.
As much as I like the idea of picking a channel, a channel other than 20 to avoid conflict with potential ORI type repeaters, a solution that potentially excludes almost one quarter of the population doesn't seem like a solution at all, IMHO. In fact, I would be more prone to encourage people to use 20 over 19, since many repeaters have light traffic and operators are supposed to be mindful of not causing interference as part of their license agreement, anyway.
I don't know the right answer. Just thinking.
Interesting. Define "live on the northern border." Are you saying that 79 million people live above Line A? That'd be in the ballpark of 24% of the US population. I'd have to see the source on that statistic. It just doesn't sound correct.
-
3 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:
Keep poking at the bee hive!
Ok. If you say so.
Hey, I changed my signature. It'll help spread the word!
-
40 minutes ago, Sshannon said:
Here are the agreements. Knock yourself out.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/international-agreements
And, here is the original agreement:
https://transition.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-nb/above30r.pdf
Yeah, that narrows it down.
-
4 hours ago, Sshannon said:
The rule for Line A is required of the FCC by a treaty between the USA and Canada, not by lack of motivation by the FCC. Until Canada and the USA amend the treaty the FCC cannot change the rule.
If the FCC was motivated, they'd start talking to the Canadians about it, since they've made changes since the treaty was signed. In fact, it might be interesting to look more closely at the fine print in the agreement. There might actually be language in the agreement that allows one side to change things if the other side makes a change. That is fairly standard in international agreements. And I would not be so sure it has to go through congress if there is a clause or language in the agreement that nullifies it if the conditions or need for it changes. Congress doesn't have to revisit treaties that expire due to certain conditions being met that grandfather the agreement.
But someone have to work pretty hard to convince me that the FCC moves with any kind of urgency on anything beyond emergencies or things that actually do get politicized.
-
1 minute ago, AdmiralCochrane said:
The licensing fee has been authorized to change for a year, it has NOT CHANGED. Its not going to change until they have the software in place to charge for ham licensing, upgrades and vanity call signs. Glad I did my ham license upgrade before the fee was initiated.
Yep, and that drives home the fact they are SLOW. I don't think anyone can find many examples of the FCC moving quickly on anything other than maybe a serious crime being committed. (At least I hope they'd move quickly on something like that.)
They really are almost encouraging rule breaking. There are people waiting for the fee to drop and in the meantime have purchased radios. I'd bet a dollar that many have gone ahead and transmitted on them, in their own minds justifying it by their intent to buy the license when the fee drops.
-
9 hours ago, Lscott said:
Here is a link to some info on the Canadian GMRS service. Note this link just high lights some changes. The complete list of frequencies are found elsewhere.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08144.html#s3.1
However that doesn't really tell the whole story. While GMRS use in Canada is license free the power limit is set at 2 watts maximum, effectively just FRS radios. Look at section E.1.5 in the following link for the power limits.
http://peppersradio.net/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=26
Here in the US we can run 5 watts on HT's, 50 watts on the repeater channels. The potential for interference at higher powers is not a moot point.
Have a look at section 7 at this link.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08655.html
So if a Canadian GMRS user causes interference to a licensed service on a GMRS channel the GMRS user likely has to cease operations on that frequency.
I got my GMRS license in 2018 and the prohibited frequencies are clearly stated on the license. Further the FCC's web site still shows "Line A" and "Line C" for frequency restricted used on UHF.
If one wants to propose a frequency, channel, for travel use at least pick one that isn't questionable due to various regulatory usage restrictions. While one may think the restrictions are "moot" it's still on your license, and you're legally required to comply with it. Until the FCC officially changes the rules we're stuck with it.
Being in the Detroit area I have to pay attention to these frequency restrictions. There are also some for the Ham Radio service too since I'm licensed for both services. In fact there was a GMRS net on the local repeater last night and the above was one of the topics of discussion.
Some good points there.
Remember, their licensing fee has been $35 for a year but their website says $70 and they still charge $70. They are VERY slow to respond to changing conditions. So if the FCC rule is no channel 19 use at all, even at low power, above line A, then it is clear they are already wrong and out of date. I'm betting when the rule was made, Canadians weren't allowed on that frequency, at all. So the FCC's rule appears to be in need of an update. Just like their website and pricing. So they should at least be saying now that you can use up to 2 watts above the line, or move the line further north. Or eliminate it altogether. I'm sure if they did address it, they could work something out that would be agreeable with our friends in the Great White North.
It think FCC should revisit it. But I'm not holding my breath that they will do that anytime soon. But hey, I'll start by filing a request to revisit it. It can't hurt. The worst case is they ignore it. But if enough people made the suggestion/request, maybe they'll eventually get around to it.
So I'll go with 19 except on the rare occasion I cross Line A. I've never advocated ignoring the rule. I only pointed out that Canadians are not banned from those channels. So the rule has a flaw that it probably did not have when it was enacted.
-
-
40 minutes ago, kb2ztx said:
As reference this does come up on other forums also.
https://forums.radioreference.com/threads/calling-channel.429825/#post-3547729
An interesting read here that I think was linked in the past...
http://www.nsea.com//index_files/nseainfo.htm
In the end it really doesn't matter what anyone uses. Unless the FCC mandates or defines something folks don't need to follow along. I still do a lot in the NE and 19 is off limits. There is more chatter up there on simplex channels as cell is spotty. In the end you will still head more on CB than on GMRS as you travel as so many people still have CB. Its not like it was in the 70's but if you travel the interstates like I do you see alot of antenna's on more that just trucks. Especially in the south. (then again I think to register a pickup in SW VA you need a CB and a Dog box
)....
Many GMRS users use the service for a specific task, like talking to friends or family, 4x4 trail riding, traffic control or farm use. I don't come across many folks calling on the radio wanting to just talk to someone. To some extent Ham radio is not much different. I have traveled down the highway and seen HAMs with huge stickers "monitoring 520" or similar. I'll switch over and never hear a peep. When I travel my HAM rig is on APRS and normally turned down. If I'm traveling I'm normally talking to the wife or navigating. If I'm in the motor home the CB is on 19 and my GMRs is on 20/20 as that's what my dad would be on. My on board repeater is on on 21 so its just channel up when I get where I'm setting up for the weekend/week. Around home I sit on my repeater channel and that's it. Even at home I don't scan other GMS channels other than my repeaters and PL.
Good thing someone put a pole up but as said in an earlier post we are about 1% of the GMRS users. Many come and go from the forums as they either get GMRS and find out it doesn't do what they want or just loose interest in it. That could be a huge topic on another thread....
That was my experience in VT/NH/ME in October. Nobody but our group used GMRS. But the CB was indeed active at times, even in small towns and a couple times in remote areas of Maine.
-
2 hours ago, DownEastNC said:
I can't help those who only want to see what they want to see. At this point you're acting like a troll. This is between me and offroaderwhatshisname so run along and hump somebody else's leg.
You are cute. And I was right. You do indeed have a beef with @OffRoaderX . So I was right. Again. (Bet that hurt.)
And I'll jump on your leg for one more round: Canadians can now use channel channel 19. So the line A rule is out of date. That makes the whining about line A moot. But I doubt it will make it mute, at least around here.
You call me a troll and yet you call names and sling insults. Nice. I think your fundamental problem is that you can't handle disagreement. Hell, you've twice said you are done, and yet here you are.
)....
CB Mount/Cable Question--Midland GMRS Cable
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
I'm wanting to use the trunk lid lip mount for a CB/antenna. Will the Midland mount/cable work with CB? It appears to be the same coax cable that CB antennas use.
Also, any recommendations for a good CB antenna with an NMO mount that is 3 to 4 feet long?
Any help is appreciated!
I'm going to run a President Bill I picked up a year or so ago in my Jeep Gladiator. It has poor options for ground plane, so the lip mount for the hood is probably the best that can be had. So that's why I'm going that direction.