Jump to content

WRKC935

Members
  • Posts

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by WRKC935

  1. 20 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

    How DARE you sir!  Have some respect!  After all, he memorized a test, he has been a H.A.M. for OVER 30 years and a radio tech for over 15 years!  By God, he is even R-56 certified!!!   That is why he put all that in his forum-signature, because he DESERVES respect!🫡 

    What ever..... you win, you're the greatest.

     

  2. 22 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

    Pro Tip: Normal people only answer questions when someone asks a question.

     

    You're welcome.

    Don't be a dick because I know more than you. Quick scanning Grinder, do some research and learn stuff.  Then maybe you will know as much as I do.... but  I doubt it.

    You're the one doing GMRS video's.  How about you explain it detail what I was talking about in my post?  I mean that was a really watered down version of how that all works.  You could go into the weeds about how path loss is actually effected by different environments, the amount of expected per city block and how the calculations are done and averaged in a 360 degree plot for a distance specified by the user.  You could explain the time  it takes depending on the granularity of the mapping.  How it's normally only done in 5 or 10 degree increments but can be done in finer increments at the cost of processing time.  That a 10 degree map is averaged and can miss certain things that might block a signal that will show as good on a map.  How the maps that are used for a reference are really important to be up to date so that they will indicate those area's that will have the signal blocked.

    You could go into what HAAT (height above average terrain) is and how it effects things.  How the same maps are used for those calculations.  The 6dB realized gain that you get every time you double your antenna height and how radio stations ERP is actually calculated using that information.  There is a LOT that can be discussed with UHF coverage.  Could talk about multipath fading and why moving less than a foot in some instances can get a poor signal full quieting.  Lot's of things to cover. 

    But I know Grinder is waiting for you.  SO you go boy. 

  3. 3 hours ago, adnjacob said:

     

    Interesting, thank you for this. Just glancing through Zello and it may very well be an option I explore in the future. Obviously more expensive than just a wireless transceiver/receiver, but with additional functionality that, so far as I can tell, can't be achieved with just a wireless transceiver/receiver type device. Thanks!

    There are some RoIP boxes out there that allow radios to be connected to IP networks for remote control.  But I don't know of any that have a phone app that are reasonably priced. 

    That being said.  And mind you, this will require some Linux and Asterisk knowledge, but there is the apt-rpt add on for Asterisk that will allow a radio to be connected to an Asterisk server as an extension and then you can use Zoiper or another soft phone app on your mobile to connect to the radio.  Cost is no more than the interface to the radio which can be built with a few parts and a CM108 USB sound card dongle.  I think they are about 10 bucks all in if you build it.  But you are going to need to load and install all this (Linux, Asterisk, apt-rpt, and Zopier) and configure it.  If you are computer savvy, and know how to solder, then it's not a huge deal. 

  4. One option is Zello or one of the similar applications that link a radio to the internet for remote operation.

    You would need to run an app on your phone that would connect to your radio directly and allow you to operate it from the phone. 

    The cost for this sort of thing can be reasonable or expensive depending on how you interface it and what service you use. 

    I will not go into the specifics of it here but it's worth researching if you are wanting a solution that basically works anywhere you have phone or wifi service.

     

  5. Hold on for a minute.... before we start looking at more power, lets look at something else.  Namely your receive signal level.

    Is the signal coming from the repeater full quieting and strong or is there noise with it?  Do you have a 'bar' type signal level meter on the radio?  If so is the receive signal full bar's or just one or two?  Increasing power output can correct poor signal to a receiver / repeater, but it does NOTHING for your receive.  And having some sort of obstruction between you and the repeater can NOT be corrected with you increasing power. 

    What do you know of this repeater?  Is it a high profile repeater on a tower with 200 foot or better antenna height or is it some mail order antenna built in a piece of PVC pipe 12 feet in the air on somebodies garage? 

    Is this the only repeater in your area, or are there others?  If there are others, what sort of performance do you get with those other repeaters?  Are those repeaters closer to you or farther away and are they in the same direction from you or different directions? 

    Next question, do you have a metal roof on the house or is it shingle?  You are not going to get signal out through a metal roof.  You would be better off to put the antenna in a corner on the highest floor that wasn't in a metal roof if that's what you have.

     

    Point is that 7 miles to a good repeater shouldn't be an issue from a handheld radio.  Even a really cheap one.  I am surprised that you even need an external antenna to talk 7 miles to a repeater.  But since you do, I am wondering why that is and if putting more power in the air is going to solve anything.

     

  6. 7 hours ago, WRYZ926 said:

    Safety first. A club member had an ID10T run off the road and hit one of the guy wires on his 70 foot tower and it tweaked the tower and guy wire mounts. He had several beam antennas on the top and it was not safe to climb the tower. He called in carne to drop the tower. Cranes can average about $200 an hour with a minimum 2 hour charge. But that is cheaper than medical bills and lost wages.

    Then he goes after the guys insurance company.  That's why people are required to have insurance.

    And he gets a NEW tower, professionally installed at the guys expense. 

     

  7. First question is how bad is it bent? 

    If the tower is bent to the point the leg / legs buckled then you can't fix it.  It has to come down.  At that point you need to figure out the cost to get it down safely.  It's obvious that it can't be climbed in the condition it's in.  Leaving you with few options.  You didn't mention the height of the bend, the direction it's leaning, what it could fall on or what access there might be to get up to it with a bucket truck and crane. 

    Give a detailed description here and pictured if you can get them be fore a real discussion can happen.

     

  8. Well, it's gonna depend on the situation.  The terrain that you are communicating across, the gain of the antenna's at both ends, the height of the antenna's at both ends and lastly the power at both ends. 

    First scenario.  Simplex communications between two vehicles since we are talking about using 50 watts.  Antenna heights are roughly the same, and no obstructions between you and the other vehicle.  Yes, there is a difference here, being the distance that stable communications can exist.  You are not limited by the other end being lower, or having less antenna gain.  So it will matter in this specific situation. 

    Second scenario, Simplex to a portable (handheld radio).  In this instance the 50 watts is completely useless.  The other end of the conversation has neither the ability to match your power or antenna gain.  Height may be similar, but they are giving up 10dB of signal level (5 watt radio).  They are also giving up an additional 3 to 6 dB of gain or possibly more due to the portable radio having an antenna that has little to no gain.  You will loose the ability to hear them long before they can no longer hear you.  

    Third scenario, repeater use, repeater with 200 foot or better antenna height, antenna has gain.  Here is where the power MIGHT have some advantage, but typically not.  For every time you double the height of an antenna you gain 6dB of perceived gain.  It your antenna is at 10 feet (a bit high for a mobile but easier to run numbers) you get to the point that curvature of the earth plays a bigger role in creating an obstruction than the path loss for the distance given.  On flat ground, the horizon due to curvature is 11 miles.  Meaning that LOS or Line Of Site exists at ground level for that distance. Once you are further than that away, the ground becomes the obstruction.  As you raise the antenna up, you regain LOS for a specific distance per 10 foot of height of antenna.  It's not really allowing you to 'see' over the horizon, it actually placing the antenna back into the LOS due to the increased height.  Remember with this, UHF signals travel in straight lines.  Lower frequencies behave differently.  But GMRS is 462/467 so we are staying with that.  The 'path loss' which is the amount of signal loss over a given distance between two antenna's in open air isn't going to be great enough to attenuate the signal of a 50 watt radio before the curvature blocks the signal.  This even applies with antenna's that are significantly higher than 200 feet.  Consider that ham operators operate portable radios with modest gain directional antenna's and communicate with satellites that are hundreds of miles away from them in space.  With 5 watt handheld radios.  SO again, path loss is NOT going to have any effect.  And 50 watts or 500 as you stated, will NOT defeat the ground blocking your signal.

     

  9. Well, this is a loaded question.  And the owner of the tower is the one that's going to load it. 

    You are going to have 3 main types of tower owners.  Knowing who owns it and the ground under it is going to be key in how you proceed and what to expect.

    First you have the 'vertical real estate' companies like American Tower and Crown Castle.  They own a vast number of the towers that you are going to see.  They are teh most difficult to deal with but the most willing to take your money (a LOT of your money) to allow you to access their site and put up your gear on their tower.  First requirement is going to be the climbers or 'tower crew'.  Some of the major players will allow anyone that is licensed and bonded to work on their towers.  Others will require that you use only specific companies that are 'on their list'.  Sort of like preferred body shops in the auto insurance business.  But be assured that YOU will NOT be climbing their tower and working on it at all.  They also may or may NOT have a structure on the site that they will rent you space in.  Mind you this is a separate fee from the tower access fee.  Then they may or may not require you to install at your expense, an electrical service for your equipment.  Lastly, most any of them will charge you a civil engineering fee to verify your antenna and line are not going to overload their tower. I have seen this fee charged to people to access old microwave towers that you could literally hang a truck from without overloading it.  This is usually around 3000 to 4000 bucks.  And if it doesn't pass they will then ask you, at your expense, to reinforce the tower (tens of thousands of dollars typically) before you are allowed to pay another company to put your single antenna and line on their tower.  These people deal with cell providers that make thousands of dollars a month on these towers.  The cell companies don't care about all this because they make all the money back in a few months to a year.  Or, because they rent thousands of other sites from the company, the owner does the work and increases the rent a few bucks and gets their money that way.  Of course marking up the work a good bit.  Again, the cell companies don't care.  They have the money.  Oh, and your install better be top notch.  Not to mention that they will only write multiyear contracts that are going to typically be at bear minimum 500 a month in really rural areas to thousands a month for urban areas that have more people. 

     

    Second is going to be the private owners that know the business, or are a small player (own a few towers and not thousands).  Some times you will run into these folks and they might even be a ham operator that might support your endeavors that will rent you space for a reasonable fee, provide power and a place to put your gear but still has the good sense to require licensed climbers.  However he may know a guy that he uses and will allow you to work with him directly to do your work as he is doing other work on the tower (maintenance or whatever) for a really reduced fee.  These are the folks that you hope to encounter in truth. 

     

    Last ones are the unicorns.  These are the property owners that got a tower dumped on them due to the previous tower owner going bankrupt (lots of old paging and small cell upstart companies did this).  They have little to no idea about the tower, how to maintain it, what requirements for lighting it may have and typically shut the power off to the building years ago.  If you know radio, towers, and building maintenance, you can sometimes work yourself into dealing with all that for the property owner and getting access.  But if there is no utility, you will be the one to deal with that too. 

     

    Last ones are the owners that are somewhat radio savy, or at least ham / GMRS friendly and will allow access for a fee, or not based on no given reason.  These situations are great until they aren't great.  And this sort of goes for the guy above as well.  When they hear that they could be getting thousands a month in rent and you aren't paying that, you have no agreement, and you will be out the door.  They may even try to keep your gear.  It just depends on the person.  So good lick and I hope it works out for you.

     

  10. 19 minutes ago, WRZY946 said:

    The pedantry behind the rules perpetuated by the community wanting a straight answer,

    and the bureaucracy not giving a straight answer, instead opting to encourage reporting if it's needed,

    tells me that the actual stance on the issue as of this moment is "if it isn't a problem, don't worry about it."

    Well, they are indicating that they welcome reporting.  But the reporting they want isn't of the specific violation, rather the act of the violation causing interference to another user.  So it basically reads they don't care unless you are specifically interfering with the operations of another on the frequency. 

    Mind you I am not trying to say it's legal through a lack of enforcement, nor will this cause me to put my repeater back on line. 

    I just banned from my equipment an entire group that owns and manages a repeater to the east of me due to the actions of another operator.  He decided to send me this long text about an operator that was using their repeater without permission, then causing issues on a ham repeater.  Problem was that I have been friends with the guy he was accusing for over 30 years.  He expected me to get enraged about the situation, so I did.  I banned him, and his group of repeater owner / managers from using my equipment.  And I am about to the point I will be putting up a repeater on a different frequency that will have double the coverage of theirs and try to make daily contacts with the individual that he was complaining to me about, hell I may put HIS call sign on it and turn it over to him once it's operational, just to drive the point home.  And I can do that as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of their repeater and there isn't ANYTHING they can do about it.  Of course I will not have he laundry list of demands to belong to their group and have access to their repeater either.    Because, yes, I am that guy. 

    Problem with banning all those folks is they / he (no names given on purpose) are the type that will turn me in for interference even when none exists.  I have the GMRS repeater with arguably the greatest coverage in the Central Ohio area.  And I am not going to risk, at this time getting a report of causing interference placed on me because I wasn't fair when I banned them from my gear.  And the person that started all this, well it isn't the first time that he's caused issues.  I am pretty certain that he's the one that got all bent a couple years ago when the operator up in the Northwest got drunk and was on the radio.  I believe it was that same individual that contacted me then and ask what I was going to do about an operator that was 3 states away from me operating a radio while drunk.  When my reply wasn't to his liking, he then got mad at ME for not doing anything about the actions of another operator.  So I banned him then and forgot about it.  Since I forgot about it, he got back on and I just let it go.  Then he pulled the latest thing and I banned him and his group from my repeater.  So he got to explain why his entire group got banned from the repeater.  Because, again, I am that guy at times.

     

  11. 17 minutes ago, WRYK453 said:

    I believe that this debate will continue until the FCC provides a specific clarification on what "Or any Other Network" means or until some type of enforcement action takes place to make it clear. Until then, it's vague language and open for interpretation.

    And in this case, they don't seem to want to provide that clarification.

    So let's try to decipher their version of interference, because that's the sticky part.  There is a requirement to monitor the airwaves before transmitting on a frequency or any frequency used in the output of a repeater.  So the situation would need to exist where two repeaters on the same frequency existed, one being linked and the other not linked.  To create interference, a user would need to know there was a second repeater on the air in a given location that was not linked and know that it was in use when you keyed up into another repeater that is linked to that other linked repeater then causing interference.

    Here's the problem with that.  No GMRS type accepted radios that are truly Part 95 compliant have a HUB defeats PL/DPL in them.  At least none I am specifically aware of and others are welcome to comment if they do exist.  Going on the fact that functionality doesn't exist in all type accepted radios, there isn't a way to 'monitor' the frequency prior to transmitting on a local repeater that shares the frequency with another repeater.  So the fact that you are talking through a linked repeater in another state that you can't hear for obvious reasons, or that you grab the mike on your part 95 radio and go to use it, due to the fact you don't have a hub defeats PL OR an unprogrammable busy channel lockout that can't be defeated, you would be in violation of the 'interference' regulation in both instances but the FCC not requiring a busy channel lockout or hub defeats PL function in the radio that wasn't able to be disabled gives anyone that would do this a way out and arguable defense in court. 

    Basically, it would use their regulations and type acceptance rules against them when they accused you of causing interference based on what they came up with for a reply to you. 

    I am not a lawyer, and don't claim to be.  I just take their logic in this case and their written regulations and turn them around as a defense. 

     

  12. So basically they are not answering the question and instead asking if you are aware of it causing any interference and then directing you, IF you know of it causing interference to report the INTERFERENCE.  Not that people are doing it, but if the repeaters that are doing it are causing interference by doing it. 

    We know that they know that it's being done.  And they seem to be unfazed by that specifically being done and only seem to be interested if it's causing interference. 

    I have no idea what the take away is on all thins, but is sounds like they really don't care or are willing to take a stance on it one way or another if there is no interference present due to it happening. 

     

     

  13. 15 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

     a lot of HAM beginners listen to NETS and probably feel they are suppose to say their call sign phonetically because that's what they do on NETS..  Just a few weeks ago i was listening in on WiN and a net controller was calling for new HAMS to identify.. One person identified in alpha and numeral sequence,  NET controller asked him to repeat phonetically, guy repeats again in alpha numeral.  NET controller get's pissed and tells the guy if he wishes to use the club repeater he will follow club requirements/rules, one of them being phonetic call signs when requested. Guy went silent.  I then went to their club rule page and no where did i see anything applying to use of phonetic call signs.   Most Net controllers on WIN and PAPA (less on PAPA) require phonetic call sign and i would bet it all started by ex-military HAMS because the military actually teaches phonetic use which in turn rolled over to Law Enforcement..   The FBI seldom uses phonetics.   You are right, no where in the rules does it apply phonetic requirement for call signs other than suggesting morse code is acceptable.   

    And that right there is what I am afraid of happening on GMRS.  I don't make many friends by running repeaters and having that sort of thing go on.  That would get Net Control banned from my repeater pretty much on the spot if I heard it happen.  Newbies hear what we do and will imitate it because they don't know any better.  That's the reason we don't let folks get drunk off their ass and talk on the repeater, because the minute one guy does it, everyone else thinks it's OK if nothing is said.  But I would still rather hear some one three sheets to the wind on the air, than a guy that believes he needs to ID every 10 minutes and use phonetics for his call every time he ID's when he's full quieting into the repeater.  Again, personal opinion but we all have those.

     

  14. 7 hours ago, Sshannon said:

    Did someone say that phonetics were required?

    No, that wasn't said specifically.  Just commenting that it's NOT required, and can be annoying when you have people that do it all the time on an FM repeater, regardless of the service. 

    And I did say that on HF it certainly has it's place.  Of course I got gifted with Victor Uniform Lima, which sort of sucks both phonetically and with CW for trying to work a pile up.  So I went a different route dealing with that.  Big Amplifier, bigger antenna.  Gonna slip an audio compressor, gate and processor in the mike path and get the 'voice of God' thing going too.  But that's another story for another time.  And there will be no doubt that some will find that as irritating as I find phonetic call signs used on FM repeaters as a default rather than only when needed. 

    But yeah, there is a bit of jealousy in there too.  I would rather be hollering some like Kilo Siera trying to work a rare bit of DX than Victor Uniform Lima.  Might have to put a digital voice recorder in the audio path as well and just have a button to do that. 

     

  15. So, I am gonna scuttle all the SAD HAM dreams of full phonetic call signs here and now.

    There is ZERO requirement for a call sign to be said phonetically.  It is done when needed to communicate a call sign to a receiving station when signal levels are not great and you are wanting to get that information through. 

    My call sign as assigned by the FCC is WRKC935, NOT Whiskey Romeo Kilo Charlie niner three five.  NO WHERE on my FCC license is listed anything similar to that. Or even sort of close.  All it says is WRKC935.  Ham is the same way.  KB8VUL is my ham call,,,, not the phonetic equivalent.  Hammie's use phonetics a lot on HF and for good reason.  You are trying to communicate great distances at times with less than 100% copy-able signals and are fighting noise (QRM and QRN) to make contacts.  We are not using HF, SSB, QRP (weak signal) and typically not using simplex, we are talking through repeaters that provide us solidly copy-able signals.  So using ITU phonetics, LEO phonetics, or adhoc Phonetics (crap we make up on the fly) just adds to the syllable count.  I know guys that do it, some have a Z at the end of their call sight and can't help but say Zed.  Other guys are all phonetics all the time.  But there have actually been questions raised by others if ONLY giving your call sign phonetically is actually legally IDing you station at all.  Because we come back to what was issued by the FCC.  Especially if non-ITU standardized phonetics are used for a call. 

    Consider this.  How many radio stations, commercial radio operators, public safety dispatchers or for that matter, ANY other radio user outside of Ham radio use ITU phonetics outside of maybe the military use phonetics for anything outside of reading license plates, VIN numbers and other specifically alphanumeric number/letter groups including their call signs. 

    Phonetics are used to save time when signal degradation is expected, such as in HF or weak signal communications.  And it has it's place there.  Not on FM repeaters with full quieting signals.  Or when someone is copying alphanumeric groups that need to be accurate.  If there was a specific requirement for us to log every contact we made with date, time and call sign then it MIGHT apply, but only if you are ask to REPEAT your call because the other party didn't get it accurately. 

    That's my take on it.  Of course you know what they say about opinions. 

  16. On 2/25/2024 at 8:00 PM, kidphc said:

    Tell me if you find a suitable amp.. since that .09 watts of output make it pretty difficult.

    Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
     

    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. 

  17. On 2/25/2024 at 2:17 PM, PugetSounder said:

    Clipped from an ARES 2m Net instruction page:

    The repeater is linked into the (Name Removed ) network of repeaters during the net, so remember to pause for a full second or two before talking when transmitting to allow for all of the repeaters in the network to sync up.

    Given the nature of many GMRS users, I would expect a total mess so be careful of what you wish for.

    Also, network of repeaters seems to be the appropriate term in this context.

    Glad the FCC doesn't allow it.

    (My bold)

     

    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. 

  18. 5 hours ago, WRQC527 said:

    Because last week they heard "Reading-Impaired Al from the FCC" say it in front of a few folks at an ARRL luncheon in a Chinese restaurant in Pennsylvania, and they're taking it as The Word Of God. Maybe what Al said means enforcement is imminent, maybe it's yet another empty threat by the FCC to enforce their rules. But the risk of getting fined by the FCC is there, no matter how tiny that risk is.

    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. 

     

     

  19. 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. 

     

  20. On 2/19/2024 at 11:33 AM, RayP said:

    Sorry, but I must disagree.  Given the original intent of Class A Citizens Band/GMRS radio, of facilitating reliable local area communications between family and friends, linking is neither normal nor expected in this radio service.  In areas with cellular dead spots, or where people may wish to have backup comms for the possibility of a cellular outage, a well-engineered and fortuitously located stand-alone repeater can be a real blessing to the community, county, or larger area that it provides coverage to.  A cellular outage lasting a few hours could create a minor panic if a family member were not heard from in some time when they normally call or "check in" by a given time each day.  Likewise, emergencies such as severe weather, missing persons where a community fields volunteers to search an area, etc, could be well served by such a repeater. Linking to other repeaters outside of your area, especially across the state or across the nation provides no practical or necessary comms for your local area.  Instead, more often than not, they jam up one or more of the only eight repeater/50W simplex channels with inane and pointless chatter from other areas which have little or no bearing or interest to your local area.  Frequently, chatter on only one or maybe two of the linked repeaters, ties up multiple repeaters and frequency pairs unnecessarily, hampering efforts to use the remaining repeaters in their local area, or just someone wanting to use 50W simplex to communicate locally, only to be washed out by the linked repeaters.  The only real purpose I have seen in linking to distant repeaters and networks is to give the repeater owner doing the linking a level of Freudian "compensation", as they imagine the masses gathering to admire how far theirs can reach.  In reality, most who are not newbies are not impressed.

    The technology used in linking is the same technology that allows most cell phones to make long distance calls.  If you really get your jollies talking long distance over a commonplace network, call a friend or relative in another state.  If you have no friends or relatives in another state, call a motel desk clerk elsewhere and ask them questions about their rates.  You have just achieved the same exact thing as you do talking to or listening to a bunch of ratchetjaws many states away on a GMRS linked system, but without jamming scarce spectrum.  If you really want to do VOIP DX, talk with the nice man or woman in India who calls to help you get a better rate on your credit card, next time they call.  YEEEE HAW!

    IF that still leaves you dissatisfied, do the minimal studying required to get your Technician Class ham license and put up or utilize one of the many VHF/UHF networks there.  While the linking there is annoying too, they at least have a lot more pairs (than our GMRS eight) to do these networks on.

     

    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. 

     

  21. 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. 

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.