gortex2

Or if your really bored or really want a proper ground system read this...
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Lands_ROW_Motorola_R56_2005_manual.pdf
 
 

Or if your really bored or really want a proper ground system read this...
https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Lands_ROW_Motorola_R56_2005_manual.pdf
 
 

Just remember who these manufacturers are marketing to. There's a huge market for people who just want to buy a radio and use it out of the box with as little drama as possible. There's a much smaller market that wants to buy a radio and immediately connect it to their favorite software and change everything. The money is in the huge market.

It looks like in the manufacturer's efforts to maintain compliance with the FCC and channel number consistency with other GMRS and FRS radios, the firmware is looking at only the channel numbers when you press the PTT, and doesn't care about what the frequencies are. From a firmware simplicity standpoint, it's probably easier for them to just lock out those seven channels instead of programming the firmware to look for specific frequencies, bandwidth and power levels.

So if that's the case then anyone with any FCC license should get free use of GMRS ? And to be honest the HAM fee is about 20 years too late. 
 

I have been a ham for a long time.  But I have also been a commercial radio tech for half that time.  While I have run into a number of hams that seemed to have some level of superiority complex, he seems to have the same complex that is anti-ham. 
We have butted heads a couple of times on here (yes, he is a member) because he didn't care for my detailed answer on a topic or something to that effect.  
I don't bother with his videos.  But after doing commercial radio for 15 years, if I can't figure out GMRS radio, I need to find a different job. 

After reading several of his post I’ve come to the conclusion he’s just a special type of individual. If get my drift.

I wouldn't overlook the Midland GXT67 Pro for a GMRS Handheld Portable radio. It would be a better quality radio, than any CCR. Just so you know, it's a simple radio with very few features but definitely will get the job done better in performance.
And, you can ask the GMRS queen.

You bought a ham radio, you got a ham radio - no way that I am aware of to change that - Check your Google machine for "Unlock KT8900D" to see if it's possible to unlock it to allow transmitting on other bands.

And has been stated, you are entitled to your views on radios, but those of us who are regulars on this forum are very tired of your rant and claims of hitting repeaters 200 miles away with your handheld. 

I always hate when someone is completely incapable of grasping the concept that different people have different wants, needs, and priorities than themselves.  The only thing more perplexing than that, is how willing 'some people' are to demonstrate to everyone how they are totally devoid of these basic mental abilities.
But.. that's just me...

I thought I ask because there are repeater questions everywhere, yes, in all forums, but no dedicated section to ask technical questions.
 

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/arrl-cyberattack-takes-logbook-of-the-world-offline/

I'm not a fan of the Roger Beep but, I do like the MDC squawk.  As for the coolest MDC/PT-T ID signaling, I always thought that the old Saber analog MDC PT-T ID chirps were the best that LAPD use to use back in the day when they were on a 150 Meg system. When they went to the 500 Meg T-Band system they used the Astro Saber and PT-T ID with the digital MDC system.

The Larsen LP450NMO we installed on the Jeep JK is working great. We hit a repeater about 32 miles out, in the hilly terrain of Western Washington, with us being down in a valley with lots of overhead power wires.

Mounting on the cowl turned out better than expected. We’re very pleased.

For those looking for a good place we did Trailfest at Coalmont TN last month. Great off road park in a nice small town. It run by the town and doing a great job of building it. 

I have used alot of those antennas for control stations on towers. They work well for that use. I'm runnign the VHF version for my APRS Digi at home also with great results. All of my repeaters run folded dipoles of some brand. They also hold up very well in harsh conditions of the NE. 

The radio now ships with both enabled if ordered properly. If not it takes all of 15 seconds to get into radio central change the mode and push the job. In reality many folks that have the NEXT use it for SC and LTE with RC is just fine for what it is. If your not using the LTE function for mapping, tracking or SC then there really isn't a need to order a NEXT. The 8000 does everything and then some. There are many customers who prefer the Radio Central cloud version as it gives you the ability to change the radio on the fly from anywhere in LTE coverage. Even if an agency has RM to build a network to cover a state or country in wifi is not economical. LTE makes that function pretty simple. I can sit in any state in the US as long as I have LTE and push a file to my radio. If not I'll hook up the cable. Im not saying joe volunteer firefighter with 26 calls a year needs that function but can definately see where large agencies can benefit. 

I have used alot of those antennas for control stations on towers. They work well for that use. I'm runnign the VHF version for my APRS Digi at home also with great results. All of my repeaters run folded dipoles of some brand. They also hold up very well in harsh conditions of the NE. 

Folded dipole antennas work well and are very common for repeater use. We are using them for our 2m, 70cm, and GMRS repeaters. All are mounted on a local radio station's 900 foot backup tower.

Seems like nobody you know keeps much of anything.. Based on your posts, everyone you know has also dumped their Midland radios and their Revevis radios.  Do you guys get together every month and build a big bonfire out of all the things you dump?

Well, the commercial radio method of conducting this test is with a signal generator and an isolation Tee and something that will measure 12dB sinad.
You inject signal into the isolation Tee that is connected to the receiver of the repeater.  You adjust the signal generator so the test equipment indicates 12dB Sinad which is a 12 dB signal to noise ratio.  Once the initial number for signal generation is reached you turn on the transmitter and then increase the output of the signal generator until you have again achieved 12 dB Sinad.  The difference is the loss of receive sensitivity that the repeater is experiencing. 
The actual signal level numbers are NOT applied to the effect of the loss, you are ONLY looking at the difference.
You can also before or after do a signal test for 12 dB Sinad directly into the receiver, which will give you a real world number of what the receiver is capable of with out the interfering signal present from the repeaters transmitter.  This number typically is going to be between '117 and -119dBm of signal level for most repeaters.  Some are better some aren't quiet that good. 
Now you apply the change in signal level required to bring the receiver back to 12dB Sinad and ADD (remember it's a negative number) that to the direct receiver test. 
Not running a duplexer and getting that level of isolation (typically 75 to 95 dB) and instead applying your isolation numbers of only 38 to 47 dB, you are giving up 30 dB of signal sensitivity more or less.  Meaning instead of -115dBm of required signal, you need -85 dBm of signal level to achieve the same level of receiver performance.  Putting that into perspective, a typical subscriber receiving a signal from a transmitter at -95dBm signal level will indicate a full signal (four bars) on the front of it.  It's PAST the level needed for a typical receiver to have a FULL QUIETING signal.  And you are going to need 10dB MORE signal to achieve 12dB sinal which has a degree of noise in the receive signal but is fully copyible but is NOT full quieting.
And while I sort of understand your stance on using this solution for emergency repeaters during an activation, there might still be a better way.  Now for VHF, you are hung.  There is no simple way around a duplexer on VHF.  And if we are talking about HAM radio with the 600Khz frequency split, for a standard repeater, your really hung.  And tuning is going to be needed.  But there are even options here.  The first being a set of high Q pass cans that are tuned for each frequency (single can for each) and dual antenna's.  This is a far better option than just relying on horizontal separation for isolation.  If you can work that out, you will see a marked improvement in repeater performance.  It's not going to be a good as a duplexer, but it's FAR superior to what you are doing now. 
GMRS isn't that way depending on the type of duplexer you choose. 
A Notch duplexer (small mobile types) can be tuned for the middle of the repeater frequency range and be used for that full range with some degradation on the band edges.  A pass / notch duplexer, especially a good one isn't going to allow for that.  The SWR the transmitter see's will climb too fast for it to work. 
Now, one thing you can do with the ham allocation is look at the probable repeater pair assignments that will be offered and do something similar with those.  Tuning up a couple duplexers, as long as the frequencies are close enough together for them to fit in the notch duplexer. 
And please understand, I am not trying to poo poo on what you are doing.  I am only trying to give you options and point out the math on what you can gain by taking a different path.
 

Id rather use a Part 90 certified radio on GMRS vs a CCR or other ham radio with no certifications. But as @OffRoaderX said the FCC doesn't care and most on this forum use ham radios on GMRS already.
 
 

Well, yeah,  I don't have much invested in my setup either.
The batteries are as mentioned before.  I get them for the core charge on them.
Now the rectifier (48 volt charger and maintainer for those of you that aren't aware) came from a system wide upgrade a customer did.  He got a number of spares from another agency that did a similar upgrade and I ended up with two of those when he upgraded his and they would no longer act as spares for him.  I got the two 6 bay frames (6 module power supplies) with the DC breaker panel and monitoring unit.  I also ended up with 25 or so power modules.  So I have ZERO need for 48 volt power at this point.  I am actually only running 2 of the 6 modules currently as that's all that is needed with my current load to maintain the batteries.
The 48 to 24 volt buck converters were pulls from a telco site that is owned by a tower company I do work for from time to time.  They had no need of them and they were given to me.  I had to replace the capacitors in them to get them up and going again, but they work fine.  I also was able to get the 24 volt DC distribution panels from the site.  I also picked up a couple 70 amp feed panels at Hamvention one year for 10 bucks each.  Those are in the repeater racks distributing the 24 volt power in those racks to the repeaters. 
Plan is to add a 48 to 12 volt high current buck converter for the 12 volt gear, or maybe do several of them (one per control station rack) since the majority of the power I use is 12 volt.  I am looking to start converting my Ethernet switches and routers over to DC as well so I can run all the critical gear on DC plant. 
 

It looks like unless he makes a surprise appearance, the OP got disgusted and left a while ago, leaving the rest of us to debate ad nauseum. I'd like to see him come back just to see if the problem he's ranting about ever got resolved, but I'm not holding my breath.