WRKC935

Yeah, but at least in that case, you can go in the archives and grab the original design documents and put them in from of the guy and ask him how he's more familiar with the equipment than you are? Outside of one guy at work, we don't have that problem. We work together. The one boob.. I taught to tune a specific duplexer, and did it wrong. I went to him, applogized for the mistake and tried to retrain him. He was having none of that. The method that I taught him, mind you I am standing there telling this clown I had told him incorrectly, was fine and that was the way he was gonna do it. But that's the way this guy is. And he's scared of me. Like a LOT. Never really gave him a specific reason, he just is. And the other employee's can't figure it out. This clown will fart, burp, make noises, laugh in a loud and obnoxious way around anyone, except ME. Our boss included. I walk in the tech room and he pulls himself up to his desk, shuts his mouth and works. Minute I leave, he's right back at it. He did one day after I got on him for screwing off and not doing his job and butting into mine finally decided to muster the courage to tell me th 'go to hell' and called me an asshole. I IMMEDIATELY replied that my reservations for Hell were confirmed the prior week and as far as being an asshole, I appreciated the recognition of my continuing efforts. And it wasn't that he said it that was so funny.... It was the way he said it. Like he knew I was gonna pound him for it. So his voice was cracking and he was almost timid about it. When I fired back, the whole room got up and left. But of course as soon as they cleared the door they all busted out laughing. Gotta love co-workers

Yeah, I got involved with a forum that started as outdoor warning siren techs and manufactures. We would exchange info on different things we had seen, odd issues that we couldn't figure out and crap like that. Then the 13 year olds took it over. And they wanted to discuss leaning poles and what specific frequencies the sirens operated at and all sort of nonsense that had no bearing on keeping them running. Then of course they started disagreeing with people. Once case the guy that dude was arguing with was the guy that designed the equipment in question. He was the designer for that manufacture. And this clown is arguing with him about what he's saying about the equipment is incorrect. That was the beginning of the end. All of use that were in the industry left. And it was a shame, because at one point it was a very helpful took to reference. Now, not so much. But I actually am tired of stirring the pot. And any more, there is no need to stir it. It just happens on its own. And again, it just gets boring to see a horse beat to pink slime.

First off, I never said that keeping unauthorized users off a radio system was the only reason for trunking. But it WAS a sales point. Never heard of people using 'illegal radios to access a trunked system' Maybe not in your state... Ohio has had several instances of people being busted for selling radios that were programmed for the state wide system. Never heard of it prior to trunking? I have worked with the FCC and in one case the FCC and FBI tracking someone that was interfering with repeater systems that were County EMA equipment. All EMA's fall under Homeland Security. And due to that screwing with them can be considered a terrorist activity. And that's not some guess or interpretation, that was directly from the agents I was working with. We also figured out that the radio that was being used was indeed a cheap import. The 'roger beeps' on those radios are distinctive and the logging recorder that we had running did hear that specific set of tones multiple times in the case where the FBI was involved. The other times were fire and police repeaters that the FCC came out and tried to hunt the person or persons down but had no luck, other than whoever it was stopped doing it. But it was made public in the radio communities that the FCC was in town and that is what seemed to make it stop. Back to the trunking thing.. Yes, the primary reasons for trunking systems is frequency management and sharing. But interoperability, access control and radio resource management are also big parts of it too. And wide area coverage beyond the county level is a big piece of it was well. You simply couldn't use a single frequency across three or more counties that contained any significant population.

And this thread ladies and gentlemen is why some of us that actually work or have worked in the communications industry and might know a bit more about these topics than the casual user tend to steer clear of posts like this and giving technical answers to questions. There is always somebody that thinks that someone told them something else that they have ZERO first hand knowledge of will argue with guys that do this crap for a living. It gets old. And is one of the reasons that guys like me no longer bother with these forums like we did. But here's the sad part of all of this. There are some on here that DO know. And when they get driven off of here due to the BS, you loose that knowledge base.

Not really looking to 'microstamp' radios. Point I was making was back in the day the idea of fingerprinting was a thing. Now with the digital radios and assigned ID's it's really not needed. P25 standard has an additional feature called 'radio inhibit'. This fully disables the radio rendering it a brick. This can be reversed by the system admin that sends it out, but outside of that, the newest radios have to go back to the factory to be turned back on. And the factories require a pretty reasonable explanation of why the radio got that way to begin with before they will turn them back on and return them to you. In other words, it will be returned fully disabled, but only after the original owner according to their records and the system administrator of the system that inhibited the radio to begin with is notified. To that end. Technology has gotten us past the need of needing to 'control via regulation' radios abilities to transmit where ever. So even getting the regulations reviewed and changed pertaining to using a radio for multiple services is not gonna happen. And you need to remember that testing is done at the request of the manufacture by the FCC for a fee. If a radio is designed for LMR service, sure it could be used for GMRS if UHF or MURS / Marine if VHF. But those are additional tests that would need to be paid for at the time of testing. The manufactures are NOT going to build a radio for multiple services because there is simply no need. And if you think about the cost of a MURS or marine radio VS a commercial LMR radio, there is a huge difference. No one is going to spend the money for a commercial LMR radio when new to use on MURS when the LMR radio is hundreds of dollars more. And the manufacture see's no profit when the radio is sold used later on and the new owner wants to use it for something outside the original purpose.

Gonna expand on what I said a bit. There were / are technical reasons that the regulations were put into place that simply continue to exist even though the technical reason no longer does. I sort of spelled out the HAM VS everything else reason. And the real truth to that is if you had a radio that was full TX/RX from 400 to 500Mhz (UHF) and you started showing up on commercial and public safety parts of the band. The argument could reasonably be that the radio came that way and I just used it. Hence the TX block for the ham radios and of course the no end user programming for commercial and GMRS radios. It keeps people from doing dumb stuff and minimizes the calls about interference to the FCC. We as radio operators know that only goes so far. There will always be those people that will interfere with communications on any repeater they decide to. And that's part of the draw for public safety to switch their operations to 700/800 digital trunked radio systems that require a system key and assigned ID to communicate on the system. It's a more effective (not 100% effective) way of keeping purposeful interference to a minimum and offers ways of stopping it by disabling the radio ID from accessing the system. Some of this functionality has existed in analog for years in the signalling systems like DTMF and QC2 where the radio ID could be sent a stun command and the radio would disable transmit. That was effective for radios that were stolen or misplaced that were programmed to accept the command and be stunned. With the newer digital trunked systems, the ID can be disabled in the radio system. Since the radio ID is transmitted every time the radio is keyed, the system can ignore the radio and block it's access to the system regardless of the programming in the radio. This happens at a system / repeater level. This was looked at a number of years ago by some ham buddies of mine that were fingerprinting radios. Every radio as it goes into transmit 'rings up' as the transmit oscillator comes online and the modulation circuit becomes active. This 'ring up' is typically unique to every radio and can be used to identify a specific radio. That part they had down. The next steps were to compare that to a set of files that were banned radios and disable the repeater if a banned radio was attempting to transmit. The computers we had at the time were simply not fast enough for all that to occur before the person started talking. Of course this was all done in the days of 8 and 16 bit computers running DOS ( think Windows 3.1 time frame) and the first generation of SoundBlaster sound cards) Software was called XMITid. Written by Richard Rager.

OK lets look at the rules and start to tear this apart. First is HAM and anything else. Ham is the ONLY service that allows VFO access to any frequency that the radio is able to access. This applies to both transmit and receive. No other transmitting radio in non-government hands has this ability other than SOME Maritime and Avionics radios. They either need to be preprogrammed (CB, MURS, GMRS, Marine) Or they need to require programming with in their operating range in some fashion that doesn't give the end user direct access to program the radio without some key, or software (part 90 LMR radios). So that's reason one. As pointed out, ham radios don't need to be type accepted, but do need to meet certain criteria to be manufactured and sold by vendors. You can build anything you want for your own use. But radios from the manufacture have to ship with the ability to transmit outside of the allocated frequencies blocked. Of course, removing that block is simple enough usually, but it has to be there when it ships. So that's strike two. The third one, is the biggest and it exists in all services EXCEPT ham radio. No radio can operate outside the service it was designed for. So a commercial LMR radio can't be used for Maritime communications. It can of course be used for ham radio since no restriction exists but a radio designed for the ham radio service can't be used for any other service either. This is both regulated in the design criteria for ham radios that are manufactured and exists in the part 90 rules that a radio. This again is becoming a dead horse topic. It gets brought up and rehashed over and over again. So here's a better question,,,, why do you care? Are you gonna get a part 90 LMR license for VHF and want to use your Baofeng to talk on both VHF and UHF GMRS? Do you figure on running your modified ham radio on your boat? Or are you just complaining via a question that you don't understand the reasoning for what the regulations are and figured it would sound better if others were to complain about it so you didn't have to? Simple way to deal with it. Follow the rules. You obviously know them, or you wouldn't be asking why they exist to begin with.

I would be looking at drilling the rock and then using epoxy anchors to fasten plates to the rock face and then bolting the tower to that. We aren't talking about 'JB Weld' here either. THere are high performance epoxy products on the market for doing this sort of thing and they work well. But closely following the directions for the use of the chemical anchors is very important. But remember that light poles next to the highway may well be using this method for connecting to the concrete wall they are sitting on.

What frequency? Where at? You seriously can't come on here and ask that general of a question and expect an accurate answer. Could be ducting like Marc said. But it could be any number of different linked repeater systems. I was hunting around and just recently found a group that is using ham radio RF MMDVM hotspots on GMRS frequencies that are all linked together. If someone reasonably close has something like that you could be hearing it. Remember that there are other repeater systems out there besides this one.

Oh I am fully aware of how simulcast works. I am the specialist for design and implementation of such systems for the company I work for. I have built out, reworked and do ongoing support on several of them for public safety. I have designed several more systems that were implemented by our other shops or were too expensive for the client and weren't built out. But yeah, I am fully aware of the requirements. And I doubt that we are ever going to see a large (greater than 3 site) simulcast GMRS system. The cost is too great to pull it off. And 'free' site locations are never going to be in the needed location for the system to operate correctly and have the correct overlap of coverage. So you're gonna need to go on paid sites if they exist in the window they need to be in, or erect towers in those location windows which is gonna be a minimum of 75K per site before you start looking at the cost of equipment. My stuff all used channel banks that had T-1 interface between the sites and microwave links that provided that. I have looked at it at length. Considered POSSIBLY doing a two site system... but I seriously doubt it. And I have the channel banks and microwave gear to do it. Hell I have the repeaters, duplexers and GPS reference gear for two sites and possibly three. But I do all this out of pocket. No membership fee's or dues. So it would all fall on me and I lack the motivation.

Has anyone bothered to ask if the PL tones were listed in the posting for the repeater here on the site. If the tones are posted,,, chances are it's OPEN. I answer one or two requests per week and the repeater is listed as being OPEN. I would rather that people just use my repeater as they need to and NOT ask for permission. And yes, my tones are posted. No need to scan anything. Have you monitored the channel and even verified there is an active repeater on the frequency any more? Might verify it's still active before asking about getting access to it. But again, if the tones are posted, use the repeater. For those of you that don't want other people on your repeater either post the repeater as being CLOSED or don't post your tones. Better yet, don't post the repeater at all. But don't blow a gasket when someone comes in and parks an OPEN repeater on your pair. One of my favorite things to do.

OK, and where is that happening exactly? Certainly not on the MidWest system, or the MYGMRS system for that matter since that is specifically watched for and not condoned. Now, true simulcast would be nice on GMRS. Where the same frequency pair is used at multiple overlapping sites to provide coverage to a larger area without taking up additional frequency pairs. It's also quite expensive, requiring voters, simulcast audio controls that are GPS disciplined to enable the ability for it to work. Not to mention that EVERY repeater on the system would need to match exactly, same model and even firmware so the delay internally to the repeater would all match. Yes, that's possible, yes it works, and I have personally done it with public safety radio system on VHF / UHF and 800 Mhz. But again, it ain't even close to being cheap. I run two repeaters. One is linked and the other is NOT linked. Reason for the second repeater is simple. It allows locals to chat without tying up repeaters in 4 to 6 states for a conversation that is happening in the coverage area of my single repeater. The repeaters are all on the same antenna system and run the same power levels so the coverage is a dead on match. These three antenna's (one receive and two transmit) have a total of 3 GMRS repeaters and a UHF ham repeater currently. There will be an amateur radio packet data repeater added later this year. But since I have a large coverage footprint, I of course run all my GMRS repeaters as OPEN repeaters for all to use that have a license to access them. This keeps folks from needing to spend time and a lot of money to put up a repeater, but also leaves open pairs if they want to do so.

Yeah, as Shannon said there are specific regulations forbidding this. The other issue that comes up with doing this is the entire repeater allocated frequency range exists in a 200Khz bandwidth. Meaning that if you are trying to 'listen' to another repeater signal and then transmit to the next 'hop' you have a transmitter and a receiver in the same 200Khz bandwidth. The transmitter will swamp the receiver and you will either go deaf, or the receiver will lock on to the transmitter thinking it's the desired signal and the thing will loop up and not stop transmitting. If you are dead set on doing this. It needs to be engineered correctly and linked via some other means. This would typically be some sort of IP linking using either the internet or microwave links between the sites. The equipment and methods that are used for the MYGMRS repeater system are not some super secret proprietary technology. It's a reuse of a ham linking system called AllStar Link or ASL. This runs on a software add-on that runs on a IP PBX called Asterisk. In other words an IP based phone system. That technology could easily be used to link multiple repeaters together and be fully closed so that your repeaters were the only equipment on that specific system. And that would probably be the best option for this. Now I will also say that linking a bunch of repeaters together and taking up a number of the 8 repeater pairs we have available isn't going to make you real popular if there are others that are wanting to put up repeaters. So be aware of that as well. If you are going to do it make sure that it is going to fill a need.

Yeah, but YOU built it, not Hallicrafters. And I bet that they needed to send completed units to the FCC to test them before they could sell the kits. I don't know that for certain, but it could have been.

I do love how GMRS operators seem to argue the rules, where the hams flip the hell out if someone even comes close to bending one pertaining to ham. Well, outside of the whole cutting the MARS block so they can talk to the Po Po. And the continued argument of testing requirements. Part 15 testing IS TESTING for compliance. So if HAM radios have to meet PART 15, then they have to be tested. I never said it was specifically for part 97. Only that there was SOME form of required testing done by the FCC for MANUFACTURED radios for the ham bands.

I keep reading over and over that the FCC doesn't require any sort of testing or type acceptance for ham radio gear. Yet I have the July QST magazine in my hand with the new Kenwood TH-75A on the back cover and down at the bottom of the page it clearly says: THIS DEVICE HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THE FCC THIS DEVICE IS AND AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE UNTIL AUTHORIZATION IS OBTAINED. I think that the second most misunderstood regulation in ham radio is the type acceptance, manufacture authorization rules. As a ham operator you can build your OWN gear. You can sell that gear to others. No testing or type acceptance required. Manufactures don't have that. They have to meet certain requirements. Type acceptance, or some level of testing to be approved for sale in the US. Yes, there are requirements for MANUFACTURED ham equipment to be sold in the US. While that might not be 'type acceptance" testing, there is indeed testing that has to be done for manufactured equipment. So, not only is the idea that runs around some circles in the ham community that they can cut the TX block out of their ham radio to talk to the police "just in case" but the lack of a requirement for testing of manufactured ham gear is also not technically correct.

Seems I can't type...... Or proof read before posting at times.

Can't believe I am gonna do this again.... especially after saying I wasn't... but here we go. First issue. WHO'S GONNA MANAGE IT? Who's gonna assign talk group ID's and radio ID's? How is it gonna be linked if at all? Are we gonna allow some form of trunking? Motorola has Cap Plus trunking, but those levels of trunking are tier 2 and proprietary. Meaning your 50 or 100 dollar cheapie radio ain't gonna work. Motorola radios only. And no linking with that. Unless of course you are gonna want to pony up the 2000 bucks for the license for EACH repeater, and the grand for the special router that's required. No old analog radios can be used. So all your analog radio's are no longer usable. Period. Buy new radios. The biggest issue, is management. Someone needs to create a database and keep track of all the assigned radio ID's and talk groups so that nothing overlaps. This is going to be really important with linking two or more repeaters together. Speaking of which, a maximum of 15 repeaters can be linked together. To exceed that, you need a D-Bridge to route the talk group traffic. Who's buying those? Ya'll are gonna get me banned off here posting this damn question over and over. You want DMR, go sit a test and get a ham license. They use it all the time, and they have this worked out. We (GMRS community) don't. There are requirements to DMR we don't have currently with analog wide band FM. The service works fine on analog. And even the arguments for area's that are using it for 'sorta' public safety like SAR and such. Go get a damn commercial repeater license and a couple simplex frequencies for your group and put in your own communication system. Because that's the nonsense that will turn GMRS into HAM radio and ultimately CB. I have been a ham for 30 years and watched it happen there with people having zero respect for the service get licensed for EMCOMM use for their SAR and CERT groups. Sure commercial is a bit more expensive, but ONLY ONE license needs to be obtained. If you set the license up right, and get national frequencies, then ANYONE regardless of the license they might have on another service can use your radios, or you can grant them access to program their radios to be on your licensed frequencies. It's really not that difficult to see it's a better option.

Wait. I just looked up the call sign you posted. He has a repeater listed IN Kaufman. The PL isn't listed so I don't know if it matches what you have listed here. That repeater is NOT 70 miles away from Kaufman, It's in Kaufman. I don't see any other repeater in a 70 mile radius on 625, so I am gonna guess you aren't listed. Gonna guess you don't have a lot of footprint either. Not sure what to tell you on this. If he dropped a repeater in place on the freq you are using, running the PL YOU were using, and it has that sort of footprint I am seeing on the map on here. I would turn your repeater off and start using his instead. When he questions it, tell him you were there first and he started interfering and your just turned your stuff off. But you were operating on the freq with that PL in that area before he showed up. He can like it or reprogram his equipment and change his PL. But I can't find your listing. While there is no requirement to have your repeater listed. If you don't list it, then no one else is gonna know it's there when they are in process of putting up other equipment on the frequency.

So, he's 70 miles away, same freq and PL. And somehow he's 'interfering' with your local users during their nets? You're gonna need to explain the 'interfering' part a bit better. Are they just hearing that repeater when yours is not transmitting or are you getting hetrodyne interference when both are transmitting or is he completely blanking your repeater from being received? How far are your users from the repeater? Are they closer to that repeater than yours? I know this is a LOT of questions, but I need to know these things to actually tell you what can be done. If he's being heard at 70 miles at all, he's obviously got a good bit of elevation on his repeater antenna. What about yours? What power level are you running, antenna height, antenna gain and coax type you are using. Are HIS users bringing up your repeater at any point or are you just hearing his repeater in your operating area? Is the interference consistent or only certain times of the day? Some days and not others? What sort of coverage footprint did you system have prior to that repeater going on the air. Radius of 5 miles, 10 miles, 20 miles or greater? At first look, it would seem that he's running a high gain antenna and a power level far exceeding the 50 watt limit we have with GMRS. Or your system is under engineered and designed. But my system talks and hears 60 miles and is only getting 12 watts out of the building after the losses in the transmit combiner. Receivers work on 'capture' so to speak. A transmit signal need to be great enough to capture the receiver and hold the signal at a level high enough that other offending signals are NOT strong enough to interfere with that 'capture' and be heard over the other signal. This is regardless of the PL involved. If your users are only hearing that repeater when your repeater is NOT transmitting, then it's really not 'interference' in the eyes of the FCC. If his signal is overriding users within 5 miles of your site, and they are hearing that repeater over top your repeater, then that's considered interference. Some other questions. Is your repeater listed here or on any publicly searchable database? Does it have a coverage map that is CORRECT? If the answer no, then how would the other guy know that you were on the air, and if your coverage doesn't reach his site, then he would have zero idea that he was interfering at all. I am not trying to defend anyone here. I am just looking for technical solutions to your issue. But if you are running a 5 watt Retivis repeater on a 30 foot pole with a unity gain antenna. The fix is different than if you have 400 feet of height on a db-420 (9dB gain) with 7/8 cable and running a 100 watt MTR repeater turned down to 50 watts. And creating harmful interference to the Retivis is a bit easier than interfering with the MTR and 400 feet of height.

Noticed I had replied to a threat in every group except this one. Couldn't resist .... Now I am the last post in every group on the forum... for at least a couple minutes.

I will give it a try

Dumb question, but is 151.625 even have a license class attached to it. There is so much crap that is sold that uses that frequency, I don't know that iit has a requirement.

First thing I recommend is to stay away from the answer books that just give the questions and answers to memorize. While those will get you licensed, they aren't really in the 'spirit' of ham radio. You should want to learn something about the inner workings of radio as part of what motivates you to get a ham license. If you already have a strong background in radio, then closely study the rules of ham radio SPECIFICALLY for the license class you are testing for. Depending on the license class, the frequency allocations are different. And that's a LOT of what you are tested on. So know that stuff. Having that stuff down cold will help if you run into technical stuff that has complicated formulas and math to work out and get wrong. The test is not broken up in such a way that you have to pass each part. You just have to answer enough questions in the overall test. As others have mentioned.... do the online study practice tests. Take several and make sure the ones you are using randomize the questions each time. Taking the exact same test over and over will only teach you the answers to THOSE questions. If they don't ask those questions on the test, you are screwed and will probably fail. When testing, consider each answer. At least one will be totally wrong, but two will at least seem correct. So think on those two answers. Only one is right unless it asks for more than one answer Good luck. The tests are not super difficult. I am sure you will get through it and can become a Sad Ham too.

Yeah, don't lurk... get on and say hello. Ask questions and feel free to actually participate in the forum.