gortex2

+1 on this. I have found many people that do not even seem to realize there is a difference, Japanese made Yaesu FT-8900 series radios, versus Chinese copy of that radio. Quality is very much an issue, and I have found many of these in state Emergency Operations Centers, often as spares or replacement for the original Yaesu. One person even told me that for the price, they expect them to fail and will replace them with another Chinese knockoff, as they can afford it. (Never mind the time to get another radio, supply chain, procurement, and so on adding to lost time as downtime). 

Who sits around and thinks up this kind of stupidity?  No!  Not just no, but hell no!  This is another hairbrained attempt to make GMRS into "ham radio lite".  I am an Extra class ham, and I am 100% against this.  GMRS (Class A CB) was originally another means of personal (and at one time, business) communication.  It should remain that way.  It should remain 100% analog.  GMRS allows for reliable communication with a short wavelength (think being able to use an ht in a car without an outside or excessively long antenna).  It is great for families, friends, and even properly licensed hams, to keep in touch, especially with family and friends who just do not want to be bothered with testing, radio theory, etc.  If someone wants to enjoy the hobby aspects of ham, play with digital, etc; then let them get off of their dead behind and study and take the tests or shut up! Those who are already hams and who want to turn GMRS into ham lite or other extension of ham radio, please use the privileges you have on ham or upgrade if that is not enough.
People are continuously trying to wreck a great thing that GMRS is with these bright ideas.

It seems as though every newbie who wants to dive into putting up a repeater(s), for some reason feels the need to link it/them to other repeaters or some big network.  Before doing so, please consider that there are ONLY eight GMRS frequencies which may be used for repeater or 50W simplex.  More often than not, when you have multiple repeaters linked, you will have situations where a rag chew in progress is only taking place on one or two of the repeaters, but that conversation will necessarily tie up ALL repeaters linked to the used one(s) at the time, as well as the simplex aspect of each repeater frequency for anyone in range of it.  The guy trying to use one of those uninvolved repeaters, another repeater in range of any of them, or 50W simplex in range of any of them, will have a difficult or impossible time connecting with his family or friends.  Because someone thinks it kewel and trendy to link a bunch of repeaters together, people trying to use any of those eight GMRS channels in range of repeaters so connected, for the original purpose of GMRS, will likely be out of luck.
Please take this into consideration before adding to the congestion of those eight channels with unnecessary linking.  If you wish to provide a service to the GMRS community in a given area, an open stand-alone repeater capable of covering as much area as feasible will be a far greater service to a given area.
I understand that in San Francisco, it is perfectly legal to relieve oneself on the sidewalks.  This is probably not considerate of others who use the sidewalk for its original intended purpose.  Just because we "can" do something doesn't mean we necessarily "should" do it.

It amazes me in some areas hams are all over GMRS, crying over usage but on the 70cm band its crickets. Maybe we should petition the FCC to give us the 70cm band for GMRS use ? The only UHF repeaters I hear around me are linked repeaters and 90% of the folks talking are not in the area I am in. The others are crickets. 

The various Jeep and Off-Road clubs in my area have designated a specific channel and tone for their Club and use the same channel and tone each time they make a run. So, I have programmed all the channels and tones for each of the respective clubs in both my XTL and XTS 5000 radios.
I set up a Zone specifically for the Jeep Clubs and programmed all their club channels. Just in case they decide to run a different channel and/or tone, I'll have my laptop and cable handy to make the change prior to starting out. Also, in case if one of those just-in-cases comes up I'll have my MXT500 along with me..

I tell this to people over and over about the Midlands. I run APX8000 and APX8500 mobiles in all my vehicles but 99% of my off road use is on my midland 275 just becasue its simple. Go to channel 4, boomch 4, go tochannel 21 go to 21. Simple and wife can even manage it. Dont get my wrong I'm a blue blooded MSI fan and will alwasy have a motorola radio in all my vehicles but KISS is the way to go for GMRS. The other advantage is size and wiring. I hd an XTL in my parents truck. When they got the Jeep Renegade there was absolutely no where to mount stuff. A 275 HHCH worked perfect and was in and being used in 30 minutes. 
 

I tell this to people over and over about the Midlands. I run APX8000 and APX8500 mobiles in all my vehicles but 99% of my off road use is on my midland 275 just becasue its simple. Go to channel 4, boomch 4, go tochannel 21 go to 21. Simple and wife can even manage it. Dont get my wrong I'm a blue blooded MSI fan and will alwasy have a motorola radio in all my vehicles but KISS is the way to go for GMRS. The other advantage is size and wiring. I hd an XTL in my parents truck. When they got the Jeep Renegade there was absolutely no where to mount stuff. A 275 HHCH worked perfect and was in and being used in 30 minutes. 
 

Essentially, yes it is same model antenna but I ordered the KG450UDPL which is without the connector. I didn't want to pay for a connector that I would end up whacking off and not use. I ended up putting on a mini-UHF connector because that is what is used on the XTL5000 mobile radios

I have two Motorola mobile radios I bought brand new in the mid-late 1990's, and they still perform flawlessly on both transmit & receive.  But, one is only 8 channels, while the other is 16, and GMRS has more channels than that. The biggest issue with them is that it takes someone with a DOS computer and the OEM software to program them. Yes, DOS. Not something new fangled like Windows 95, lol. It want to say they cost in the $500-$700 range back then, when gas and diesel were barely $2 a gallon.
I also have a Wouxon KG 1000+ in my RV, and a KG 935+ HT. They are very easy to program, have tons of features*, and I find both the Tx and Rx quality to be excellent. Now, as to whether they will still work in 2048, that remains to be seen. I'm 62 so that may be moot.
Here on the NGGMRS network, the Kenwood TK-8180 is highly respected, and a lot of members run them.
*The Motorolas have only 4 features--Tx, Rx, volume and squelch, lol.

Laird FG4605 5 dB Omni with LMR400 coax. No tuning required very good VSWRs on GMRS freqs.

Start over. 

Start over. 

Lets put how our legal system works... or SHOULD work:
Does your action have a direct effect on someone else's life or wellbeing/living? Is your action able to be construed as malicious or harmful? Is your action only going to affect YOU? If you cannot answer "no, no, yes" to the above - the rule exists for good reason. The FCC exists because while you can gnash your teeth about "laws" and "natural phenomena" or whatever else... it boils down to simply this. There is only so much EM spectrum in the current technical realm - and anything YOU can do with it will directly affect someone else's non-malicious use of it as well. The decision will come down to that - pure and simple. The FCC acts as a traffic director more than a law enforcement agency so the idea of "enforcement" doesn't have much weight behind it on its own - but that is not to say the FCC is "useless" or "toothless".
TL;DR: Don't be a prick and do things that will affect how someone else uses the same spectrum you think you have the "natural right" to use. Problem with that is - there's way more people spewing this "sovereign citizen" take than not - which makes me think the FCC's enforcement bureau needs to step up their game instead of taking a knee. I pay good money for my licenses, equipment, and my "time is money" for doing all of it as well, and I will gladly move everything I own 100% to Part 90 coordinated if it means having the ability to go after malicious interference with actual legal precedent at my back as well.
The only reason I even care to comment at this point is because THIS type of BS is what the FCC looks at while an NPRM is open, and will laugh their way to the bank as Midland gets to vendor-lock an otherwise "self regulating" service. So please, either get with the program or find another service like CB that has been relegated to being an RF trash can. 

With the newest NPRM out, I think it is time that I re-visit this before submitting a public comment... if I end up choosing to do so.
The NPRM needs to address that 95.335(a) should fully codify Part 90 radios into the rule, as all of them meet or exceed technical standards for Part 95 use. Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR. On that end, narrowbanding would become mandated with a transition period, and interstitial frequencies assigned to the service to further leverage the narrowbanding "side-effect". Using all of the above, then in-band GPS signaling along with cadence-based GPS and other "data" functions become "tolerable" in the service since there would be more channels, more talk paths, and more opportunity to use the service that has grown exponentially. I am only writing this here because I want to see if the GMRS groups can even remotely come to some sort of agreement... because to be fully blunt Midland is the only one putting a compelling argument out with no one coming out with an actual comment to the proposal short of a long-winded "yes" or "no".
I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.

Yup hams trying to inter-fear in yet another service. My hopes are the FCC laughs at this one. 
 

I have a large UPS on my office. I also do have a Jackery if I was to need it. My house also has a GENERAC Standby Generator so I guess I'm overly ready. 
 
When away from home I have the Jackery but my vehicles can run as long as they have fuel in the tanks. 

Which they seem to have abandoned on the VP8000. 
 
Other than the Quantar/Quantro having built in MDC decode, any other hardware or external controllers that are currently in production that can handle MDC? I was looking just to point of researching it, and haven't found anything.

..I was going to say the same thing, but when i say it 'some people' get butthurt.
 

You need to login to the ULS system and select your FRN then do a modification of your license. Follow the prompts. 

It depends on the subscribers and the radios. a CCR radio wont do what you want. Motorola supports RAC (Repeater Access Control) but that's a form of MDC. There are not many options for analog options. I also use DCS for input and CTCSS on output. This helps eliminate many users but isn't a fail safe. 

Motorola does have RAC for analog, but it's can be scanned.
A better option is to spend the money and get a part 90 license then you have better options.  First is you can run DMR (MOTOTRBO) and run a digital RAC and run basic encryption.  It would also allow you TWO talk paths on the same frequency.  Something that's no possible with analog radio. 
And the other thing with a part 90 commercial license is if others come in, outside of your family unit, they can use the license under your authority.  You can 't grant a non-family member access if they don't have a GMRS license.. so day workers and laborers that are not family can't use the radios. 
The basic encryption will also keep your radio traffic semi-private.  The 6 digit numeric RAC code will keep all but the most determined off the repeater.  And it really sounds like it would be a better option for your specific application. 
The issue is that you are so limited with analog radio.  And there is a greater limitation with the lack of encryption due to the regulations of GMRS.
I know that someone brought up using a trunking controller that would look at radio ID's to grant or deny access to the system, but there again, I don't know the regulations specifically for GMRS would allow that.  Would it work, sort of, until someone with a scanner that could display the LTR data was used to pick apart the information and then it's going to be screwed with if you are really expecting issues with others trying to gain access. 
I wouldn't typically go to these length's but you seem adamant in you post about it to the point you foresee issues before you even have equipment on the air.  And in truth, if you haven't bought any equipment for this yet, now is the time to look at other options that better match your listed requirements.
Personally, I am a P25 and AES encryption guy all the way.  That will always work and NO ONE gets to listen in.  But none of that fits within the rules governing GMRS.
 

One problem with solar panels at tower sites is that you have to keep them far enough away from the tower so that ice won't fall and break the solar panels. Now if you live in an area that stays above freezing and/or low winter precipitation then solar panels close to a tower is fine.
We have a shed at the tower site for all of our repeaters and we had to build a cage above it to keep ice from falling off the tower and caving the roof in.

You need to login to the ULS system and select your FRN then do a modification of your license. Follow the prompts. 

You need to login to the ULS system and select your FRN then do a modification of your license. Follow the prompts. 

Agree. In my field of work I see many ham and other repeaters and crynge with what I see at sites. Sadly this is also why many get tossed from sites. A properly instaleld and engineered system for any service (HAM, GMRS, Public Safety, LMR) will run for years with little to no issues if installed and maintened properly. Even with linking there are really good setups and others that are just a hotspot laying on the repeater in a poor cell coverage area. I think back 20 years ago you saw good thought out installs. Now its just throw it in to say its there.