DONE

This is going to be an application that will require coming up with something on your own. You are going to need to design it and build it, or have someone do that. Obviously there was an option for them, and I don't doubt that there were a few factory made units. But those don't seem to be surfacing. Either the few that were purchased are still in use, or they were scrapped instead of making it to the secondary market. But designing an amplifier for this application shouldn't be all that difficult, at least if you have some sort of accessory connector on the radio that has a keying output for the low band to control the amp. It's going to be a bit more complex than a CB amp due to the requirements for proper biasing of the driver and output transistors for proper linearity due to it being FM and possibly P25 (don't know if the radio does digital modulation on low band. Power output is going to depend on your amplifier design, which will no doubt will need to be multistage since the initial power level being amplified is rather low. But if you design for a 10 dB increase in power per amplifier stage, then it's just how many stages are needed to reach the desired power output level starting with what you have. The other positive to this is it's low band (30 to 50Mhz). By that I mean that things like the trace length in the circuit board don't really become a factor at those low frequencies. If this were 900Mhz or even 440 to 450Mhz then even the design of the circuit board, trace capacitance and inductance comes into play and needs to be considered for the design. But again, that's not really a factor here.

This is due to the manner that they are linking the repeaters. My guess would be that they are using control stations that are tied into the repeater that is local to that site. That radio listens to the output of the repeater closest to it and when it hears that repeater come up it puts the local repeater in transmit. Then the next site does the same thing. With ASL or other IP based connectivity, that is not needed. All the repeaters have a controller that talks to all the other controllers (nodes) and via the IP link all the repeaters are put into transmit at the same time or reasonably closely. If there is latency in the network link the PTT will get to the sites first, before any of the audio traffic, because if the network is delayed, then all the traffic is delayed. So the way it works, the issues of needing to key it and wait aren't going to apply to the method used be at least the GMRS repeater owners here.

Not sure if I said this here before or not. If I am repeating it, then it needs repeated. The FCC is reactionary in enforcement. Meaning they need a complaint to investigate before they will begin looking into anything. The problem with videos like this, factual or not is it drops a 'hint' to others that something that someone else may or may not be doing is illegal. Now if you have a bone to pick with the individual or group that is doing the thing that the federal agent said is not legal then they call in a complaint. I shut my crap down for this reason. I am straight forward with people and have zero filter when it comes to telling someone they are being dumb. Of course, they get all incensed about being told they are a dipshit and that opens ME up to get investigated. So as long as what I am doing is 100% on the up and up, there is nothing to look into. But I did go back through the enforcement records of the FCC and there was ONE complaint filed about some guy that was transmitting a carrier for an extended period of time and causing interference. That was in the last 5 years. So one complaint in 5 years time that was investigated. So while the odd's are that I would see an investigation on my actions personally, I have pretty good odds that wouldn't happen, but they are not a 0% chance. So mine is gonna stay off for the time being.

I have not used it up to this point. But I have looked at it as a possibility for that. Much of my family lives within the coverage area of the repeater, at least if they are using a base antenna and radio. I started assembling bases and antenna's to put at family members houses so there would be a way for them to communicate with each other and myself in the event of a communications failure, storm or other situation. If for nothing else, piece of mind. The repeater is on enough power backup that I am not concerned with it failing due to anything short of a tornado hitting the building and tower. But I am still trying to convince the wife to let me put a radio in her vehicle for this use. She doesn't understand that the cellular network can be fragile in certain situations and a way to communicate outside of cell calls isn't a bad thing.

OK, but lets look at this from the other side of the coin for a minute. First is what's required for a linked repeater. Yes, there is a linking device and some sort of audio interface. Then there is the medium that is creating the link it self. This is typically going to be the Internet, but P2P Microwave technology can be used for a closed system with some semblance of redundancy that will deal a failure of the connected Internet. But you are NOT going to link a system the size of the MidWest group totally on Microwave hops. The towers are too far away from one another and the Maximum link distances are much shorter than the coverage area of a 2.4 or 5.8 Ghz hop with even the best dishes available. So to have minimum overlap to conserve frequencies as much as possible, there would need to be intermediary's in those links that didn't have a linked repeater on the tower, only a set of Microwave links to extend the distance enough so there wasn't miles and miles of overlap of repeater coverage. But the most important part of the linked repeater system is going to be the repeater it self. And that is going to be as stable and operable as the power supplied to it, regardless of the ability to link out to the system. My repeater would fall off the system do to my microwave link failing, but it never went off the air all together. It just stopped being linked when the link medium would fail. Now, I provided a second repeater with similar coverage for local access. I told folks that were local to use that repeater for local conversations and how to tell when their conversations were local via the sound of the courtesy tone on the linked repeaer. But my point is that my repeater wasn't going to fail because the Internet went down. So for Emergency communications, it was built out to be better than the public safety system that we have in this county. And that's still the case. Since I support that ssytem I can tell you how it's powered. Yes it has generators that are propane with thousand gallon tanks, but the UPS / battery system is only good for about 30 minutes. So when a tank goes empty, they have 30 minutes to get a PROPANE truck on site to fuel it. And the links at the sites are powered off that same system. My battery plant is gonna run my site for 24 hours as it stands right now. The diesel generator has a 100 gallon tank that I can fill with diesel fuel from any source that has diesel. The county has equipment there that they have committed to fuel the generator per the tower lease during a major outage (the system there is the backup to the other propane fueled system). They have a fuel truck and a 20K gallon tank of fuel to feed that delivery truck by. And they have 24 hours from the time it runs dry until the battery plant goes flat. So if you are following all this, MY repeaters are backed up better than the statewide public safety communications system. And if they can't feed it, I have 24 hours to go find fuel (diesel) get it to the site and in the tank before I go off the air. And I can extend that by turning off other equipment and only running the public safety gear and the GMRS repeaters. So reliance on my gear is gonna be assured. Even a full failure of the repeater is only a minor issue as I have cold spares sitting there to be cabled in place and spun up. And before you ask about the tower failing, anything that will bring the tower down will destroy the building first. So again, My repeater isn't going to fail. There are a number of the repeaters on the MidWest system that are solar. They too will continue to operate without utility power or the Internet. Now linking repeaters during a major disaster can be sort of useless, especially if those links cross great distances that are not easily to travel. If I am having a serious issue in Ohio, people in Wisconsin are not going to either care all that much or be able to provide much in the way of assistance in a timely manner. Which is the argument I have had about the whole Ham Radio HF communications thing. We just don't need it. Local comm's inside and directly outside of the effected zone, sure. Three states away, not hardly. But that seems to persist in the minds of the hams for whatever reason. So why link at all? First thing I would say is it provides a way to draw people to GMRS to begin with. Getting people involved is the first step. Repeaters with traffic on them will draw more people in than repeaters that are silent. That goes for Ham and GMRS. If you link a bunch of them together, a short conversation will turn into a large round table discussion from people in multiple locations. This breeds extended discussion and radio friendships that frankly bring people together that wouldn't communicate otherwise. I have met people on the radio that I have now also met in person that are literally hundreds of miles away from me. Had it not been for linked radio, I would have never met these people. So there is that as well. The other thing it does, since it's generating traffic, is it gets locals to recognize each other and builds on the local community of GMRS operators. That breeds cooperation and brings people together of varying technical back grounds that can assist each other with technical issues, creates study partners and groups for other radio endeavors and license study for them to get ham licenses. And once those people that are local to each other realize this, and that the repeater they are on will work with out the link when the Internet is down. They can create groups, look in on each other, and support each other in the event of a disaster. So while linked repeater in a disaster aren't really a handy thing, unlinked repeaters are. So, since you brought up the discussion of Long Distance calling. I am gonna slap you with a history lesson so you know where the moratorium on linking came from to begin with. If you look back to Class A Citizens radio Service from the 60's and the infancy of GMRS which started in the 70's, you might remember that the telephone company AT&T was the ONLY long distance carrier at that time. And most any telephone call outside of your local exchange was considered long distance. Pay phones were also a thing. So AT&T, concerned with their long distance fee's being circumvented by people linking repeaters lobbied the FCC to disallow linking via the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). And the FCC obliged them by codifying that in the regulations. It was done for that reason and that reason alone. Public safety radio service was mostly done at that time across dry pairs of phone wires and it was a know to work solution. But public safety wasn't going to be circumventing a long distance bill by doing so. That's where it originally came from. The ramblings of the guy in that video proved only one thing, he doesn't know his history. So how do we move forward? That's the real question. The FCC. like any other governmental regulatory body moves very slow if at all on changing anything. But enforcement efforts on current regulations will change with the federal funding of the body. If their funds get cut, their enforcement will increase to increase their intake of money. And the fed's are certainly not the only governmental entities that will increase their enforcement when faced with a financial shortfall. Every little town and burg when faced with money problems will first and foremost increase enforcement of traffic violations to generate revenue. So past that, what COULD be done. First thing is the FCC doing two things. First is allowing linking by any means. Requiring that linked repeaters will maintain their operation without the linking medium being present. Requiring that if you are putting up a linked repeater, that the area that repeater is covering is also covered by another non-linked repeater that has the same usage requirements that the linked repeater has. Meaning if there is some club fee to access the linked repeater that at minimum that membership is also provided access to the other non-linked repeater. Second thing is distance between linked repeaters or coverage overlaps. You are going to want a bit of overlap, but there should NEVER be two repeaters that are linked to the same system that overlap coverage by more than 25%. Back in the day when you had to use a slide rule and four pencils to calculate the coverage of a repeater, it was difficult to figure out the coverage of a repeater. Now, it's on line. You put in the height, power, antenna gain and line loss and it will spit out a map that is reasonably accurate. No rocket science involved. Another possibility is setting aside certain repeaters as the only ones that can be used for linking. This will address the coverage issue in a different way. If you only have two or 3 pairs that can possibly be used, then overlapping coverage gets eliminated due to technical issues created by not having your pick of pairs. If you want to link multiple repeaters, spend the money and simulcast on a SINGLE pair from multiple sites. Yes, it's possible, yes it's silly expensive, but it's completely doable. I am not gonna go into what's involved, but Internet links are not gonna be any part of it for the simulcast portion. And those systems, because of the requirements, will be redundant and high availability. But, here again the FCC needs to change things. Lastly is the FCC once it changes things is it gets back to enforcement of the changes. Get letters out to people that are violating and get them to cease and desist their inability to follow the rules. This stuff can be fixed. We don't need more pairs, we don't need digital radio technology to address these things, we just need a bit of change and a bit of enforcement help to get things going. And ultimately, GMRS people that find that radio is fun, by default will go get their ham licenses, which generates MORE income though licensing fee's for the FCC bank accounts.

Yes, actually, but you need to be handy with a soldering iron and understand the guys of your radio. There are boards that are designed to decode PL and then pass audio to the speaker if it hears the correct tone. These were from way back when radios used reeds and other forms of PL decoding and encoding. But if you had one of those boards and inverted the output so it would MUTE the speaker on a certain tone and allow all other audio to pass, it technically could be done.

I don't disagree with any of that. And the truth is that I would love to just turn my crap back on and go back to business as usual. But the person at that meeting wasn't some disgruntled GMRS user or sad ham, he was a FCC field agent that seems to be a member of this site. And specifically stated that. While the regulations are nothing new, neither is the FCC regulation of CB radios being 4 watts. Yet the FCC does nothing typically to enforce that on running 10 thousand times that level of power. But the other piece of it is this, as stated before, the FCC is reactionary to filed complaints. At this time they are not investigating violations without a complaint, but that is subject to change at any point. My concern is what the enforcement action will look like IF it happens. It's one thing to get a letter or a visit from the FCC and them telling a repeater owner you have to stop doing X or we will fine you. And that I could live with. But I am not in a position for them to decide to build a case, do the monitoring and then say 'On these dates we observed that you were running a linked GMRS repeater'. The fines for doing that are 1000 bucks a day and we know you did it for 10 days so here's a 10K NAL. Please mortgage your house and send us the money. And it can go either way.

The part that you are forgetting is that in order to have a linked repeater, you first and foremost need a repeater. Now depending on the repeater linking controller, it may well run as a stand alone repeater when there is no link present. Mine did before I shut it off. It ran without link several times while it was on the air. But the repeater still provided coverage within the area that it was able to (about a 30 mile radius). The local repeater I have had the same range, ran on a similar antenna system and was run at the same power output. So a linked repeater shouldn't just die if there is no Internet to support the linking. It just doesn't carry the traffic across to other repeaters. Far as generator and battery backup. The 48 / 24 / 12 volt plant will carry the SITE, not just the one repeater, for at least 12 hours. The generator that will come on when the utility fails will go for 48 on diesel and then if it runs out of fuel, the plant picks back up and takes the load giving me time to fuel the generator. I source 48 volts from a rectifier currently and that charges the battery storage, about 600 Ah. Off that 48 volt system I have five 40 amp 48 to 24 volt buck converters in parallel. So that will net me up to 200 Amps of 24 volt power. That feeds the repeaters at the site. Then there is another 450 Ah 12 volt plant that runs off a 75 amp rectifier that runs the 12 volt gear. That will be migrated to 48 to 12 volt buck converters and the 450Ah battery string will be connected in parallel to the 48 volt string, which rewired will add 150 Ah to the 48 volt plant. My goal is 1000Ah capacity with solar and wind generation. If I can build a system that will generate 60 amps for 10 hours, I would be able to run the whole site off grid with a cushion. Currently, with everything transmitting I only draw 30 amps from the plant. That will increase as I move more equipment to the plant, but it's still a manageable level to hit with both wind and solar. Now, it's true that the linking will fail for sites that have terrestrial Internet service running the links in most instances. But if a system owner has microwave links then the failure doesn't happen unless he looses a site, and that's dependent on the way his microwave links are configured and deployed. If the system has redundant paths, then the failure becomes less likely. But that does require a microwave mesh or at minimum a ring of links so the traffic can continue to flow. Now all that is of course meaningless since the FCC is coming out and saying that you can't link repeaters. I turned mine off, and I am waiting to see if there is going to be enforcement actions based on the statements made by the field agent in the video. If they aren't going to enforce it, or if there is a change to the regulations, I will fire my gear back up and see about expanding a network in Ohio. But I am not gonna be the one to find out the hard way we can't be linking. My most probable course of action at this point though is to move the repeater that was linked to ham and find an ASL group that will let me link in and run it that way for the time being.

Well, I took mine off the air. Which was the ONLY active linked repeater in Ohio. So now there are none in the state. I did enjoy having people to have actual discussions with. But I am not gonna wait to have the FCC decide to tell me I can't be doing it and giving me a fine in the process. I actually had two repeaters on the air, one was linked and the other one was not. This was done to combat the issue that you mentioned. There needed to be a repeater that locals could use to have local discussions that weren't carried across 4 states when the users having that conversation were 10 miles apart and no other users were involved in the discussion. And of course, my repeaters had the same coverage so there wasn't an issue with one having better or different coverage than the other. But that no longer matters as I have shut the one down. But I am curious, how many repeaters do YOU have on the air? You seem to take issue with three of the repeater pairs having the same conversations actively going on, and mentioned 2 more repeater pairs being used. So that's 5 of the 8 pairs in use, leaving 3 others that could be used. Are you seeing it as somehow limiting your ability to put up a repeater? Are the repeaters in question private use only and you don't have access to them? Do you have equipment and a tower site that you can't put a repeater on because the pairs are all taken up by others? Or is this a case of I need something to complain about, and this topic seems to be adequate to fill that need at this moment in time? Repeater owners of OPEN repeaters tend to get tired of listening to people complain about what they are doing with their equipment by people that are guests of their equipment and efforts. I certainly am.

Well, the one in your area HAS gone away. I shut it off last night.

At 1 hour 19 minutes and 48 seconds THIS web site is specifically mentioned by the FCC agent that is speaking. He seems to be a member here, and as such he knows and by extension the FCC KNOWS who is doing what.

Couple things. First is try loading a standard Raspian image to the card and verify that boots. While it says that it will boot and have the IP address of 192.168.something, and you can access it remotely. I would advise connecting it to a TV or monitor via HDMI with a USB keyboard attached so you can see what's going on. Pi 3 units are notoriously power hungry and not having enough power from the USB source will keep them from booting. First thing you should see when booting the Pi is a rainbow colored splash screen. It that's not being displayed or a lightning bolt shows up, it's a power issue. Try a phone charger or similar. Running them off a USB port on a computer rarely works.

Yeah, there is some info out there that the tower actually rotted out and fell and the station was off the air far longer than is being reported.

You do realize that there is a 'technical challenge' from the stand point of the repeater owners (considering ham here mostly) in getting the repeaters linked. Sure you can buy a certain repeaters that basically have the linking built in (DMR) or a certain repeater and linking hardware that is basically plug and play. But there are ways to do this that do require a soldering iron and a bit of knowledge and skill to get it all working. Which is the way I went with it. And to be honest, I was told to NOT do it that way because it's harder, and typically doesn't work well. I overcame all those challenges and made it work. So there is a feeling of accomplishment tied to that aspect of doing it as well. SUre there were easier (more expensive) ways of doing it, but I chose the harder, but less expensive route to get it done. Now, I will give you this. I REALLY don't like what the Pi-Star hot-spot movement has done to DMR and other digital modes when it comes to Ham radio. I own a couple of the things but rarely used them. When I do use them it's typically for checking my P25 repeater that's linked out as a testing tool to hear what my audio sound's like. But I do have a Quantar repeater on the air that's linked via a Cisco router to the outside world. It works as a local repeater or a world wide linked repeater depending on the TG ID that's transmitted into it. And that is a user choice. But the idea of doing ham radio were the RF path is across the room to a hot-spot and then on the Internet doesn't sit well with me. And I don't see what it has to do with ham RADIO, since there isn't much 'radio' being used.

I do believe that I went on to say that I have no issue with being direct. I understand that there are people out there that will not use linked repeaters. I understand that there are folks that even disagree with the fact that linked repeaters systems exist. And that's fine. We all get to have an opinion. But it still goes back to the ownership of the equipment at the end of the day. There are those of us that do support the idea, and have linked machines. Now I am not gonna tie up 4 pairs with repeaters that completely overlap coverage by linking them together. I will be the first to say I disagree with that thought process. But some having some level of overlap is gonna happen with a system that has better than average coverage. Some overlap means there are no holes in the coverage of the system. Could it be simulcast and all on one frequency, yes. There is no technical reason that it couldn't be. But there is the additional equipment that's required like a GPS reference. Those are a grand or so a piece. And whatever unit is used should be used at every site to eliminate issues. Then there is the receive voter that's required. Again, JPS voters aren't exactly cheap. And GMRS repeaters are paid for by their owners. Lastly, the repeaters have the repeaters have to match as well. No mixing of MTR, Quantar, with a Kenwood and a Tait stuck in there. If you are running Quantars, they have to be used at every site, the firmware needs to be the same in all the units as well. Lastly, you need to know how to do it. There are some of us out here that have that knowledge and have worked on these types of systems at a professional level. But ther is no requirement for a repeater owner to be a commercial radio tech. And hiring a commercial radio tech to build something like what I am talking about here is gonna be 100 to 150 bucks an hour. SO more out of pocket costs. So while it's certainly possible from a technical standpoint, the practicality of it isn't really there. Oh, I forgot the thousands of dollars per site that is required for the channel banks and microwave links between the sites. Simulcast links can't be run on the Internet. The latency variance is too great. But my point was this. It's the other guys gear he's talking about. Nothing stops him from putting up his own repeater. And again, I understand that some folks don't like linked repeaters. And that's fine. But griping about it in an open forum, when they don't have anything on the air isn't really the way to garner support for his stance.

Alright, there is a lot to unpack here but I am gonna try. First off, you don't have control of the repeaters around you because they don't belong to you. They are other people's equipment and are under their control. What you can do in this case is put up your own repeater and choose to link it, or not, and for that matter make it completely private where you control access to it completely. Because it's your equipment. "Making Contacts" Well, here's the thing with hobby radio. You can choose to do anything you want with your license once you have it. You can just rag chew on simplex or a repeater, or you can use it strictly for family communications and communicate with no one else. And everyone else has that same wide range of choices on what they choose to do. There is no requirement for you to use other people's repeaters, or talk to people on those repeaters. And by the sound of it, and the minute you said "I am not trying to come across as a jackass" I sort of knew that was EXACTLY what you were doing. See I never lead with that. I will tell you ahead of time I am being serious if I have a bone to pick, and I do it. Mostly because just like you, I am entitled to my opinion and have no problems voicing it. See, you come on here, praising the repeater owners and then pointing out your issues with their repeaters. Are you a repeater owner? How many repeaters do YOU have on the air? I have repeaters on the air. One is linked and one is not linked. But that might be subject to change. But it isn't going to be linked to the same system as the other kinked repeater since the coverage matches for both machines. The second one at some point will be linked to other repeaters in Ohio. Anyway, I can do that since I own the equipment. It's my choice to do with my gear what I see fit to do with it. But if you feel that the repeaters owned by others are 'clogged up" build your own repeater and use it how you see fit. That is part of what your license allows you to do. There are others that don't like the linking, and have came in here and voiced that before. They all got told the same thing. Go do your own thing, you are certainly allowed per your license. But questioning the actions of others, when it comes to THEIR equipment is not going to earn you much respect or acceptance by them.

Obrien Potato's (or my take on it) 3/4 sized cubed potatoes, enough to fill a 12 inch cast iron skillet half way up 1 pound breakfast sausage green pepper (I do half of one) cut into small pieces half a yellow onion cut into small pieces Brown sausage, I tend to hold back enough sausage for 4 small patties, but that's my preference. Break sausage into smallest pieces possible with spatula. Brown / cook potatoes in olive oil with Paprika (enough to lightly cover cubed potato's) garlic, salt and pepper to taste While those are cooking, cut up onion and green pepper. These need added just as potato's are starting to soften and brown. At that point add the onion and green pepper. Add browned sausage to potato's and stir it all together. serve with a sausage patty on top This one is a staple for us. I make this for breakfast or dinner. BTW, if I am posting it here, I make it in cast iron. But then again, i only use cast iron skillets to cook in. Sauce pans are the normal stuff but my skillets are all cast. I rarely cook in anything else.

Per a discussion on the MidWest system the other day, here are a few recipes that I discussed. Feel free to add to the post with your own favorites. Foil bags Pound of raw shrimp pealed and devined pound of smoked sausage sliced red skin potatoes corn on the cob broken in half ears Butter (full stick cut up) Old Bay seasoning to taste (I like a lot) Place ingredients in double layered foil envelope (foil folded in half and rolled shut then a second layer on it over top the first). cook on grill until potatoes are done. Can also be made in dutch oven in a stove Turn foil bags half way through cooking. I cook this between 350 and 400 in the grill or stove. Attention needs paid to it after 15 or so minutes to keep from burning it. Cook until potatoes are getting soft. Sausage 'Stew' No idea on real name. It's just really good. Cavenders Seasoning. Probably 2 tablespoons, but the more the merrier. pound of smoked sausage Sliced Red skin potatoes cubed to 3/4 size Red or Orange pepper corn on the cob broken to half ears one 2 liter of root beer or Dr Pepper Original recipe called for 1 or two cans and the rest water. Don't bother with that. Use the FULL 2 liter. Enough liquid to cover the contents for boiling Combine ingredients and light boil until potatoes are almost mashing soft. Serve in bowls.

While your numbers of repeater owners might be a bit off, repeaters being expensive is 100% true. Now there seems to be inference by the question, why would someone want to put up a repeater, much less multiple repeaters and not be able to 'charge' for their use. The short version is because we are in a situation that we can afford to do it. Some of us do it because we travel in the states and area's we cover so we always have access to the system. Others have a line on free or reduced cost gear and use that gear as we see fit to build systems. Most of the repeater owners have a standing invitation for GMRS license holders that have access to towers of significant height, to provide equipment to place on those towers with some stipulations pertaining to any rent, or other reoccurring costs to be paid for by the person or persons in the operating range of that repeater. We have the means and the knowledge to get it done, so we do it. And be assured that most owners are always looking for a deal on used gear that fits the needs of the system. None of the major players are running mobile radios and a repeater controller as a repeater. Everyone is using some sort of public safety / carrier grade equipment so it will stand up to the abuse of being keyed for hours on end during a net or a busy time. Repeaters that are NOT 100% duty cycle rated will not hold up in these applications. So there's part of the why. The other parts. It's a hobby. Take car collectors, big game hunters, motorsports competitors, coin and currency collectors, and a number of other hobby's. They spend just as much if not more on their hobby's that we do as repeater system owners. One owner has admitted he has over 100K invested in his repeater network. And knowing what he have, I have no reason to question that number and in truth I bet it's actually more. But these things are done over time. Lastly, and here's my motivation. The tower I have access to and the equipment I have to do this most people don't have. Since I do have it I sort of feel obligated to provide the service since I can. It's a unique situation to be about to park an antenna at 180 feet on the highest point in a county and put up a repeater on that antenna. I want people to enjoy it. If I didn't I would just sell all the gear and operate on repeaters provided by others, except when I got started, there were no others. So I did it myself and others have since followed my lead. And we continue to look to expand.

There is nothing out there that is going to be GMRS and any other band or radio service. I understand what you are asking, but it's not something we can openly answer due to the fact that amateur radios are NOT type accepted to be used on GMRS. There are a number of satellite radios out there, new and used, that have all the bells and whistles needed for satellite work. But I will say this. Sat radios are set to be operated in the lower part of the UHF ham band. So you are looking at the radio being designed for 420-430 Mhz operating range. Sure it's worked to 449.9 but possibly not as well. GMRS repeater inputs are at 467Mhz. That would be 30 plus Mhz away. Not to mention that antenna's for satellite work are all high gain stuff that are also tuned for 420 to 440 Mhz range. The issue here is this, when you build an antenna with gain, vertical or a yagi, the available bandwidth of the antenna drops because the elements are interacting with one another and are designed to do so at a specific frequency range. You try pumping 467 Mhz through a yagi designed for 430 Mhz and you are going to have little to no gain, and your SWR is going to be through the roof. Your best bet is get the satellite radio that you have had your eye on and NOT worry about modding it to operate on GMRS and then get a GMRS specific or commercial radio and program it for GMRS operations and have two. That way you can monitor one while operating on the other. And the better satellite radios are going to have window filters in them that will block RF outside their designed operating bandwidth to boot to give them better performance on the range they are designed for. So there is that too.

And I can promise you that no amount of detailed explanation and math will convince them otherwise. The manufacture says it's 10 watts or whatever and they wouldn't lie. And the reason they get away with it is the same reason that lawnmower engines no longer have a horsepower rating. The lies finally caught up with them and they were required to calculate horsepower the standard way it's done and not any other way. So they took the HP ratings off the motor's and now just tell you what CC they are. That way it conveys the idea it's as powerful as a motorcycle of the same displacement. If a 400 CC motor will propel a motorcycle to 100MPH, then if you took a 400CC motor off a lawn mower and put it on a motorcycle, they infer that the motorcycle would still go 100MPH. Of course that's not the case, but it's inferred and never stated. RF power of 12 watts pertaining to a handheld is the power draw from the battery during transmit, or some other odd thing that isn't specific, but no one is requiring them to rate the radio's based on a standard watt meter into a 50 ohm dummy load. It could be their antenna has 6dB of gain no antenna, or a dummy load or some other standard that would never be accepted if came to light where the numbers came from. But a 3 watt radio with a 6db gain antenna would technically have 12 watts of ERP or effective radiated power. But again, what are they basing the power reading on. GMRS power is legally regulated at 50 watts as measured at the back of a transmitter with a standard watt meter. So there is no 'interpretation' of the rule or how the measurement is to be done. If an FCC agent comes and checks your power output, that is how it will be done. Calibrated meter with a cable jumper of a known amount of loss for the frequency being tested with. If you read in here enough, you will see people that will claim they are sending their' faulty' radio back because it doesn't do the full 50 watts it's advertised at. It's only doing 46 or 48 watts on their meter. They are not taking into account that cable loss between the meter and the radio. And yes, it's that much.

Well, I can explain why that's not true if you are willing to listen to the reason. If there is a grounded and an ungrounded object in the same area at roughly the same height, or even shorter in the case of the ungrounded object, that object will take the hit over the object that is grounded every time. Reason. electricity will always take the path of least resistance. That's pretty well established. But it applies to more than a good conductor VS a poor conductor. Meaning the electric will flow through a wire instead of a nylon rope every time. BUT. the path of least resistance is ALSO going to be through something that already has some induced voltage on it instead of something that has NO voltage on it with reference to ground. People continue to get in their head that a ground wire to a tower, antenna or whatever is there to take a full hit of a lightning strike and shunt it to ground. And that's just not the case. Grounding and bonding is done to dissipate static charges from objects and shunt those charges to ground. If you look on the roof of a tall building, you will see a grounding grid. It's connected to everything on the roof that's metal. That is then attached to the building steel and the steel is grounded to a ground ring in the ground outside the building. During a storm, from wind, there is static built up on different metal objects. If you are a mason jar guy and ran the StarDuster CB antenna's that were notorious for building up static, you would hear the charge flash over in the jar and possibly see the small arc when it would do it. That was because the center conductor on those antenna's was a floating element with no DC ground by design. The distance between the radials and the angle of the radials made those antenna's a giant high voltage capacitor. It would charge up in the wind, without a thunderstorm even, and then you would hear it discharge once the air gap could no longer offer enough resistance to the flow of voltage (voltage got too high) and the air would break down and there would be an arc. Static electricity, pure and simple. When your ungrounded tower is standing there in the wind, it is building a charge. IF that charge is a couple thousand volts, it's a more direct path because there is less voltage difference than there is directly to ground.

Grounding is the most argues topic I can think of for hobby radio. The discussion ranges from folks that are commercial radio guys that would see a HALO around the tower and building with ground rods every 10 feet and thousands of dollars in wire being buried in the ground to the glass jar guys that don't think any of that stuff is needed. And while I am a commercial radio guy and the commercial / public safety towers I work with have all that, I am a realist about what a guy is goig to be willing to spend and how much effort they are willing to put towards a grounding system. And the safety / electrical ground system is NOT an RF ground. It might be resonant on some RF frequencies, but certainly not all. And the halo's and legs are not ever cut to any resonant length on purpose. BUT, an RF grounding system for HF and a safety grounding system does need to be bonded together so that the voltage potential on both stay the same in all situations. But discussing the 'proper' way to ground, and all that typically turns into a mess. I offer what I know of it and leave it at that. Now, there was also a question of height and antenna's. And here's the low down on that. The numbers used for reference for calculating the 'realized gain' of the height of an antenna are a 6dB increase in signal for every time you double the antenna height. Now, That goes both ways. And applies ONLY when it's a doubling of height. So if your antenna is at 40 feet, and you move it to 50 feet, the change is not real noticeable. If your antenna is at 10 feet and you go to 40 feet, which would double the height TWICE 10 to 20 and 20 to 40, then it's gonna have a pronounced effect. When the FCC does calculations for radio station ERP, height is taken into account this way. ANd if you don't thing that's the case, let me remind you there are UHF repeaters that have a 2700 square mile footprint that are running 2 watts. Of course they are in low earth orbit attached to satellites, but those are 2 watt transmitters. Back to the increasing antenna height. If you are 15 feet in the air, and are above the roof tops, unless you can go to 60 feet, it's probably not worth bothering with because it's simply NOT gonna have that much effect on your signal level overall. There are some calculations for what your horizon is as well. That has to do with the fact the earth is curved, and RF at UHF goes in a straight line. As you increase your height, you increase the distance to the horizon. Sailors can tell you all about that. I just know it exists and I have run those numbers a couple times dealing with Microwave shots, but I don't remember how many feet it is UP to increase the horizon by 1 mile.

I use radio primarily as a carrier. I am a field service tech for a Motorola Service Shop. But that is NOT what I use GMRS for. I am also a ham radio license holder and operator, that's the 'secondary' hobby radio use as of late. For GMRS it's communications with others and right now the research and application of different linking and dispatch consoles to the radios. But I will say that I use GMRS and ham radio as a test bed for many parts of the technology that I work with professionally. Outside of that I use GMRS for communications for tower operations and site work, communications with family and for emergency situations. Due to hosting public safety radio at the tower site, everything at the site has that level of redundancy. So it will work when other less redundand systems will fail.

Been down there and noticed it wouldn't take much to have most of that area covered with a modest repeater antenna height. It's pretty flat of course being right there at the ocean. Are you a local sown there or are you vacationing? I was done last year for vacation and found it to be rather relaxing. But back to the radio thing. If someone could secure a spot on one of the light towers out on one of the piers at about 50 to 100 feet, and installed a DB-404 or 408 on it and then put a small cabinet on the pole at a height that was above reach unless someone had a ladder it would serve that area well. With a proper mount, the antenna would stay on the pole to the point the pole would need to fail to bring it down. But even a 50 foot antenna height would cover much of the OBX area. Now that would be the more populous area of OBX mind you. Once you get way down south, it's gonna need another repeater to extend the coverage down there. I seriously doubt the lighthouse would allow an antenna on the structure, but if something with a similar height could be located and an agreement secured, I am sure the repeater would be busy much of the time with licensed travelers. I certainly would use it. Hell, if someone was able to secure the space and take care of the ongoing cost I might be willing to provide some gear to get the project together. I would want an Internet connection for it so it could be linked.