gortex2

My honest feedback is the GMRS is not a "hobby".

I agree with much of what you said. 
Ham radio clubs or ham radio repeaters owners definitely can be charged for tower space. They can be charged for power usage. They can be rented space for the rack. They’re subject to all the same charges any other tenant is. 
But exactly as you say ham radio clubs can’t charge for access to repeaters by amateur radio operators. 
In some cases the landlord/tower owner might donate their power/tower/facility space to a charity, like a 501c3 ham club. The club I’m secretary of isn’t charged for tower rent, but we have our own meter and pay monthly for energy usage. Our landlord could change that if they wanted and we’re painfully aware of that. 
 

Huh?  American Tower, Crown Castle and the others give discounts for ham??? When did that start?  I know of a couple sites that they bought that the previous owners had extended low rent leases for hams that carried over.  But at least in once case, when that lease finally expired, they went to full rent of over 1K a month and then tried to force the repeater owner to have their antenna removed by one of their 'approved' tower contractors at a cost of over 5 grand.  They ended up abandoning the antenna system
 
 

Yeah, it’s just not true. It would be great if it were. In fact I think radio manufacturers should be required to give their radios to hams. 

And that is another reason why Clubs have membership dues to cover those expenses for having a repeater at a remote site and pay the American Towers of the world for the space and services for housing the repeater at their sites. A couple of my GMRS Club's have repeaters at commercial remote sites and have to pay monthly lease payments for the space and services.

This!!!
Forums are always full of people who just can’t believe that rules and laws mean nothing more or less than what is actually written in the rule or law, not what is written elsewhere. They always attempt to explain the intent, but the fact is that intent is worthless. The only thing that ever matters in a courtroom is the letter of the law. 
But the reality is that the road to the courthouse can be very expensive and most of us know that we can’t afford to fight as long as it might take to get to the letter of the law. That’s where risk aversion comes from. 

It's literally in the Part 95 definition section.  I  have no idea how you can read this definition and not get it.
"Operate: Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. "
Remote control:   Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control. "
 
The combined rules literally say to remotely cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting.  You know, like the push the PPT button, hold the PPT button, release the PTT button. No where in those definitions does it say anything about turning the repeater on and off.  It's transmit or not... put it in a transmit state... or stop transmitting... remotely.
If these rules weren't meant to describe remote communications/messaging, why the hell would they waste the effort and ink to specify that if you are in the immediate vicinity of the radio (on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located) and operating it, it doesn't fall under the legal definition of Remote Control for the purposes of GMRS rules?
 
I'm not sure how else to spell it out.  Either you're messing with me or reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

An employee of the FCC in an unofficial capacity gave the guy a heads up.  The two talked to each other, don't know if it was on a regular basis or not but he gave him a heads up.
Same thing as a cop friend of yours telling you they see your car speeding down Main st and you might want to take care of that.  Just an unofficial notice by a friend.
 
But again, all hearsay.

As I said, calculate the difference between six feet and nineteen feet to see whether there’s any real difference.  I doubt that it will ever make a difference in range, especially if he has no experience with terminating cables. 

This is why my rpeeaters are not published in the open. Myself and my friends spends alot of money on maintenance, equipment and tower fees. It comes from my pocket. If my friends give me somecash towards it then fine but its not about that. I can see a club having a site thats costs and dues would help keep it at a good site vs a garage repeater. At one point a site we were in housed a 220 rpt for the local ham club. My agreement was donate to our electric bill annually. Somehow bills need paid. 

There is a ton of info online for the kenwood stuff. The 690/790/890 series is a good unit. On UHF changing to low power its a great GMRS deck. I ran one of each in my truck for years. There is a on board jumper that gets touched depending on heads and other options. You may peak at that. 
https://www.repeater-builder.com/kenwood/pdfs/tk-890hb-svc-man.pdf
I'd start with the manaul and double check stuff. 

I have often wondered the same so I am curious to read all of the conflicting legal opinions from our in-house legal scholars and constitutional experts.... following...

Wait.. What??? polite manner?  You some kind of kinder gentler leftist that believes words are violence or some stupid crap like that?  If someone deserves to be told to F OFF you look them in the eye like a man and tell them to F OFF.  There is no polite at that point.  If that's what they have coming, that's what they get.  You don't try to be polite.  You don't try to sugar coat it or attempt to spare their feelings.  At the point that F OFF is appropriate, that's what they get.  
Speaking of F OFF,
You sit here going on over and over on the forum that HOSTS the linking servers for the ROGUE REPEATERS and continue to pop off at the mouth about how these ROGUE REPEATERS are the bane of GMRS and will no doubt destroy the very fabric of the GMRS service, and anything else related to Part 95. 
You don't like the idea of linking repeaters.  We get it.  All too well. 
THE HORSE IS DEAD.... leave it be already. 

That's what I thought.

That's because it didin't.

Didn't know it went over state lines.  I thought there were 3 simulcast repeaters all in NY.

I don't want you to say anything at all.  I was simply trying to explain that your overaggressive attitude and unfounded insistence on being right in the face of logic and evidence presented to the contrary a) make you come off as a dick, and b) will never convince anyone of anything.

But hey, by all means, if you want to just be blocked by half the people who read your posts, keep it up!

Thanks for the help everyone.
Turns out the ignition sense wire was in the wrong spot in the 9-pin on the back of the radio.  I was told wrong by the seller on ebay (big surprise, right).  He even circled for me, but wrong.  The radio powered up, but I suspect the speaker was getting no power.  Once correct, it all works as it should.  I'm very happy with the radio.  
 
 

I have to agree with @marcspaz on this one. Its all varue and until the FCC actually changes rules it will be. The system in question regardless of what you think was a simulcast voted system. To me that 100% different than a linked repeater all over the US or state. Its the same input and output on each repeater. In the past there were multiple voted GMRS repeaters that REACT teams and others used. Back then it was 4W circuits on microwave. It worked and worked well. It really wastn't until GMRS turned into HAM lite that this linking crae started. I'm for one looking forward to see what the FCC comes back with but to be honest other than the folks on this forum 99% of the GMRS user base could care less. They push a button and talk. 

You keep sayign this was a "rougue" linked system. It was a simulcast system in NY and NY only. Not sure why this system gets singled out but the others aren;t ? I just looked a the main page and see this area of linked repeaters are they not rougue ? 

 
The "inside dope" as you call it is a well respected radio tech in the LMR/Public Safety world in his area. I dont know you folks think the real LMR world operates but its not even remotely like GMRS or HAM radio and the guys in the field know what they are doing. I dont understand how all these keyboard warriers are so smart yet there is a definate need for RF guys in that field.   

You keep sayign this was a "rougue" linked system. It was a simulcast system in NY and NY only. Not sure why this system gets singled out but the others aren;t ? I just looked a the main page and see this area of linked repeaters are they not rougue ? 

 
The "inside dope" as you call it is a well respected radio tech in the LMR/Public Safety world in his area. I dont know you folks think the real LMR world operates but its not even remotely like GMRS or HAM radio and the guys in the field know what they are doing. I dont understand how all these keyboard warriers are so smart yet there is a definate need for RF guys in that field.   

It's obvious that some are reacting to the shutdown of this network with extreme glee, and are expecting the FCC to drop the hammer on every other linked GMRS system any day now.  Could that happen?  Sure.  Could that NOT happen?  Yes.
But many of the allegations that are being thrown about are simply not true.  This was not a multi-state system.  I have no idea where that idea even came from.  The system used ONE repeater pair (hence simulcast).  There were (and are) a number of other repeaters in the region using different frequencies and some pairs that are vacant, so the system wasn't crowding anyone out.  The system was not owned by the club ... the club had permission to use it.  Yes, the club collected dues ... but so do most if not all amateur radio clubs.  Did some (or all) of those collected funds get used to support the repeaters?  I believe so, but since I was not a member I cannot say for sure.  But this was NOT pay-to-play ... the repeater system was open to ANYONE, club member or not.  I know, because I used the system, and am friends with others who WERE members.
As others have pointed out, this was NOT precipitated by an official notice from the FCC.  The owner of the system got a "heads-up" email from someone at the FCC and reacted as they felt best.  I also find it interesting that the letter seemed to call out the voting receivers specifically, rather than the liniking of the repeaters.

I have to agree with @marcspaz on this one. Its all varue and until the FCC actually changes rules it will be. The system in question regardless of what you think was a simulcast voted system. To me that 100% different than a linked repeater all over the US or state. Its the same input and output on each repeater. In the past there were multiple voted GMRS repeaters that REACT teams and others used. Back then it was 4W circuits on microwave. It worked and worked well. It really wastn't until GMRS turned into HAM lite that this linking crae started. I'm for one looking forward to see what the FCC comes back with but to be honest other than the folks on this forum 99% of the GMRS user base could care less. They push a button and talk. 

What we think we know happened is only hearsay as we have never directly heard from the repeater owner himself or the FCC on the subject.
Exaggerating  what the facts are doesn’t make an opinion fact.  
As long as there is no comment by the actual parties involved and I mean the FCC or the actual repeater owner, then this argument will go no where. I really can’t get all worked up over some private citizen shutting down his own repeaters if they are not saying anything on the subject. Nothing to see here.
It’s like saying Alvin said Bob up the street won’t let his friends use his bathroom anymore because the city is going to fine him for using too much water. But you don’t know Alvin. You don’t know Bob. And Bob has never said anything to you. And the city hasn’t said anything to you. And who cares if Bob doesn’t want anyone in his bathroom. It sure isn’t conclusive that you or anyone else can’t share their bathroom. Even if it was on YouTube.
 

I have to agree with @marcspaz on this one. Its all varue and until the FCC actually changes rules it will be. The system in question regardless of what you think was a simulcast voted system. To me that 100% different than a linked repeater all over the US or state. Its the same input and output on each repeater. In the past there were multiple voted GMRS repeaters that REACT teams and others used. Back then it was 4W circuits on microwave. It worked and worked well. It really wastn't until GMRS turned into HAM lite that this linking crae started. I'm for one looking forward to see what the FCC comes back with but to be honest other than the folks on this forum 99% of the GMRS user base could care less. They push a button and talk.