WRKC935

Actually, one book, or set of books, that I would possibly recommend is the ARRL Handbook.  Yes, there is FAR more information in that book than needed for a primer, but if someone with previous experience was to read through, all of the major parts of 'radio' would be there and you could figure out a list of chapters and pages to suggest to a new license holder to get them up and going.  I would put the following chapters as must reads, in no specific order.
SAFETY
VHF/UHF antennas
COAX
Signal propagation in UHF
FM radio 'technology'
VHF/UHF equipment
There is a LOT in the ARRL handbook.  In fact, there is enough in the Handbook that my college electronics instructor used the ARRL Handbook as the textbook for the class.
For those that aren't familiar, the book is probably the best compilation of electronics technology, communications theory and RF methodology in existence.  It covers everything from the most basic explanation of AC and DC circuits, Ohms Law all the way to digital microprocessors.  It covers RF techniques from 'DC to Daylight' starting with VLF at 136Khz clear through to Microwave technologies and wave guide design for 40Ghz.  There is information on any and every sort of digital modulation method and of course AM/FM/SSB is covered in depth. 
Sure, it's WAY more than an entry level person would want to try to absorb all at once, but again, if someone were to put together a list of the specific materials to read, it then becomes a reference for furthering the persons knowledge going forward.  This set of books and the ARRL Antenna Book are my goto reference for all things radio. 

So the first issue that they may be having is the fact the radios they have are in the Part 90 allocation.  And do you know what frequency they are on?  Could be VHF. could be UHF.  Hard to say.  All this has to do with the noise floor of the area around the facility.  Rural area noise floors are typically going to be lower than urban areas.  The type of license they have is also a consideration.  If they are saddled with an itinerant license, their neighbors across the street may have the same frequencies as they do further limiting their ability to talk.  Lastly, the squelch level of the radios they have, which is programmable only and not user adjustable may have a hand in the lack luster coverage they are experiencing.  GMRS and HAM UHF frequencies are typically fairly quiet and the noise floor there is very low typically.  Much lower than the noise floor in the part 90 allocated frequencies.
But what I can tell you is this.  There are a number of different radio services out there that are for different applications and users.  FRS radios that are sold in a big box store in bubble packs are meant by the service they are attached to to NOT be used for commercial / government entity applications.  Just because you can buy them across the counter doesn't mean they are for every application you can imagine.  FRS specifically stands for FAMILY radio service.  Meaning they are for family use in a similar way that a child's walkie-talkie is meant for that application and NOT as a radio system for public safety.  Could you use kids walkie-talkies in a public safety situation?  Sure, if the range was limited, and the interference was minimal, police could use them to communicate.  But that's not what they are for, and if a police department was to use them for law enforcement activities and the FCC caught wind of it there would be some fall out over it.  Same goes for FRS radios being used for school communications.  It's not what that service was intended for.  And improper use of a radio service is technically against the regulations.  Now, mind you seeing any sort of enforcement with this is pretty far fetched, BUT if the FCC were to get wind of it and decide to levy fines to the schools for using the FRS service as their communications system, those fines could reach over 10K in short order.  So messing about with things of this nature, not being aware of the regulations could get them in hot water.  And while the FCC can't really come for you for violations, the school could seek to create a civil case against you for sending them that direction.
 

Correct, the payload is the only ting typically encrypted, but the 'repeaters' in a conventional system are also transparent to the data stream.  They look at the signal to see that it's P25 and nothing else.  If it's a 'system' then the data stream is further processed to see that the talkgroup ID and radio ID are encrypted before allowing the traffic to pass.  But if you stand up a stand alone Quantar repeater in P25, and run encryption on the subscribers, the repeater doesn't care or even have the ability to look at the data stream.  Now the headers which carry the ID are NOT encrypted typically.  This becomes apparent when you have a radio that isn't encrypted listening to the secure traffic.  The transmitting radio ID will be displayed, but the audio is muted since there is no way for the receiving radio that's not encrypted or doesn't have the proper key in it to decrypt the radio traffic. 
As mentioned, to have 'wireline' control of the repeater, it requires a DIU with encryption in the DIU to communicate via wireline encrypted.  The repeater isn't encrypting the traffic, that is done by the DIU and the encrypted data stream is fed directly to the repeater and it puts that stream on the air.
 

You might have heard that someone had to 'buy back' an entire system over the issues with the interference that it was causing and getting from surrounding agencies.  I have first hand knowledge of that system.
Those issues were also why the APX line of radios never received the ability to do DMR.  That family of radios were built for public safety in mind of course.  And Motorola didn't want to even go down that road for interoperability.
I know of a Motorola shop owner that did setup a TRBO system after all the mess happened.  He told me that M said if it didn't work, they would pull his dealership from him.   He was a very accomplished RF engineer, and his system did work without issue.  But it was not a case of just taking out the analog repeaters and dropping in DMR on the same frequencies and power levels.  Some of the original frequencies were reused, but some couldn't be.  And the whole thing was re-engineered.  Different antenna's at different heights, and power levels were all significantly reduced.  But DMR requires a different mentality and effort than old school analog radio where you run as much power as allowed as high on the tower as you can. 
This is another concern that I, to this point, have been reluctant to bring up with DMR on GMRS. GMRS users typically do subscribe to the 'height is might' mentality with strong reliance on power.  We hear guys complaining that there 50 watt radio only does 48 watts on their meter (coax loss in the test jumper is the typical cause) and wanting those extra 2 watts.  With that line of thinking, dumping DMR into GMRS in a suburban or urban environment WILL cause interference problems of course.  And getting the max power thought process out of peoples heads isn't going to be possible.  So there is yet another reason to steer clear of the whole idea of DMR on GMRS.
 

Correct, the payload is the only ting typically encrypted, but the 'repeaters' in a conventional system are also transparent to the data stream.  They look at the signal to see that it's P25 and nothing else.  If it's a 'system' then the data stream is further processed to see that the talkgroup ID and radio ID are encrypted before allowing the traffic to pass.  But if you stand up a stand alone Quantar repeater in P25, and run encryption on the subscribers, the repeater doesn't care or even have the ability to look at the data stream.  Now the headers which carry the ID are NOT encrypted typically.  This becomes apparent when you have a radio that isn't encrypted listening to the secure traffic.  The transmitting radio ID will be displayed, but the audio is muted since there is no way for the receiving radio that's not encrypted or doesn't have the proper key in it to decrypt the radio traffic. 
As mentioned, to have 'wireline' control of the repeater, it requires a DIU with encryption in the DIU to communicate via wireline encrypted.  The repeater isn't encrypting the traffic, that is done by the DIU and the encrypted data stream is fed directly to the repeater and it puts that stream on the air.
 

You might have heard that someone had to 'buy back' an entire system over the issues with the interference that it was causing and getting from surrounding agencies.  I have first hand knowledge of that system.
Those issues were also why the APX line of radios never received the ability to do DMR.  That family of radios were built for public safety in mind of course.  And Motorola didn't want to even go down that road for interoperability.
I know of a Motorola shop owner that did setup a TRBO system after all the mess happened.  He told me that M said if it didn't work, they would pull his dealership from him.   He was a very accomplished RF engineer, and his system did work without issue.  But it was not a case of just taking out the analog repeaters and dropping in DMR on the same frequencies and power levels.  Some of the original frequencies were reused, but some couldn't be.  And the whole thing was re-engineered.  Different antenna's at different heights, and power levels were all significantly reduced.  But DMR requires a different mentality and effort than old school analog radio where you run as much power as allowed as high on the tower as you can. 
This is another concern that I, to this point, have been reluctant to bring up with DMR on GMRS. GMRS users typically do subscribe to the 'height is might' mentality with strong reliance on power.  We hear guys complaining that there 50 watt radio only does 48 watts on their meter (coax loss in the test jumper is the typical cause) and wanting those extra 2 watts.  With that line of thinking, dumping DMR into GMRS in a suburban or urban environment WILL cause interference problems of course.  And getting the max power thought process out of peoples heads isn't going to be possible.  So there is yet another reason to steer clear of the whole idea of DMR on GMRS.
 

You might have heard that someone had to 'buy back' an entire system over the issues with the interference that it was causing and getting from surrounding agencies.  I have first hand knowledge of that system.
Those issues were also why the APX line of radios never received the ability to do DMR.  That family of radios were built for public safety in mind of course.  And Motorola didn't want to even go down that road for interoperability.
I know of a Motorola shop owner that did setup a TRBO system after all the mess happened.  He told me that M said if it didn't work, they would pull his dealership from him.   He was a very accomplished RF engineer, and his system did work without issue.  But it was not a case of just taking out the analog repeaters and dropping in DMR on the same frequencies and power levels.  Some of the original frequencies were reused, but some couldn't be.  And the whole thing was re-engineered.  Different antenna's at different heights, and power levels were all significantly reduced.  But DMR requires a different mentality and effort than old school analog radio where you run as much power as allowed as high on the tower as you can. 
This is another concern that I, to this point, have been reluctant to bring up with DMR on GMRS. GMRS users typically do subscribe to the 'height is might' mentality with strong reliance on power.  We hear guys complaining that there 50 watt radio only does 48 watts on their meter (coax loss in the test jumper is the typical cause) and wanting those extra 2 watts.  With that line of thinking, dumping DMR into GMRS in a suburban or urban environment WILL cause interference problems of course.  And getting the max power thought process out of peoples heads isn't going to be possible.  So there is yet another reason to steer clear of the whole idea of DMR on GMRS.
 

Wow, so I finally broke down and added three specific individuals to my 'Ignore" list, and *man* is this a much more useful and enjoyable forum all of a sudden!

A sort of limited explanation of ERP vs power. 
Where the power or watts measured from a power meter, which is where the 50 watts thing comes in.  There is something called ERP or effective radiated power.  This has to do with antenna gain. 
Gain is typically figured off of an Isotropic radiator, which is really a theoretical antenna that radiates power in all directions evenly.  All directions meaning up, down and every degree of a circle around the radiator at all angles evenly.  It's not an antenna that really exists except on paper as a reference.  To achieve gain in an antenna, the elements are configured in such a way that the power that is radiated up and down is redirected more toward a flat plane horizontal to the center of the vertical radiator (vertical antenna).  Since even basic quarter wave antenna's have some amount of gain over the reference, it's better to consider those as a reference point when trying to figure out performance gain.  But it works like this.  3dB of gain, either from some type of amplifier or an antenna is going to effectively be a doubling of power.  If you consider the 3 dB of gain against the reference antenna, the antenna in question will perform at a level as if the reference antenna had double the power feeding it.  So an antenna with 0dB of gain will talk as far with 100 watts as an antenna with 3dB of gain will talk with 50 watts, as long as you are considering the antenna radiation pattern.  Meaning since the antenna is taking radiation away from the higher and lower angles off the horizontal plane across the center of the antenna, it will talk farther across that plane, but you LOOSE coverage in the higher and lower angles of radiation. 
Yes, this is a difficult topic to really understand.  And not having radiation pattern diagrams posted here make sit harder to see. 
 
All that being said. There is no 'limit' to antenna gain in GMRS.  Part 90 licenses do have a maximum TX power and a maximum ERP.  We luckily are not saddled with a max ERP.  So we can run right up to the 50 watts of maximum power, and if we so desire to get totally crazy, we can legally put up a 20 foot dish and feed that dish with 30 dB of gain with our 50 watts of limited power and have 5000 watts of ERP.  Now there are some safety issues that need addressed with that sort of ERP, and of course, a dish is gonna be pretty tight with the radiation pattern, but it's still technically legal to do it.
As a side note to that.  We are NOT allowed to operate with those antenna gain levels on the 467 interstitial frequencies and I don't believe we can do it on the 462 ones either.  So bear that in mind when getting crazy with an antenna system.
 

Actually, one book, or set of books, that I would possibly recommend is the ARRL Handbook.  Yes, there is FAR more information in that book than needed for a primer, but if someone with previous experience was to read through, all of the major parts of 'radio' would be there and you could figure out a list of chapters and pages to suggest to a new license holder to get them up and going.  I would put the following chapters as must reads, in no specific order.
SAFETY
VHF/UHF antennas
COAX
Signal propagation in UHF
FM radio 'technology'
VHF/UHF equipment
There is a LOT in the ARRL handbook.  In fact, there is enough in the Handbook that my college electronics instructor used the ARRL Handbook as the textbook for the class.
For those that aren't familiar, the book is probably the best compilation of electronics technology, communications theory and RF methodology in existence.  It covers everything from the most basic explanation of AC and DC circuits, Ohms Law all the way to digital microprocessors.  It covers RF techniques from 'DC to Daylight' starting with VLF at 136Khz clear through to Microwave technologies and wave guide design for 40Ghz.  There is information on any and every sort of digital modulation method and of course AM/FM/SSB is covered in depth. 
Sure, it's WAY more than an entry level person would want to try to absorb all at once, but again, if someone were to put together a list of the specific materials to read, it then becomes a reference for furthering the persons knowledge going forward.  This set of books and the ARRL Antenna Book are my goto reference for all things radio. 

Gee, couldn't get anywhere finding someone dumb enough to petition the FCC for DMR or some other digital modulation format on GMRS , so you decide to bring up the question of the actual existence of the FCC.  DO you actually work for a living or are you stuck in your house, just sitting there figuring out new ways to post stuff on the web to wind up the masses and cause trouble? 
 
I said this before, if YOU don't like the service, find a different one.  Or go entertain yourself with freeband, pirating on commercial frequencies, or just put Zello on your cell phone and use that.  It's become clear that you are not here to have a reasonable conversation about any topic that resembles reality and instead just post things that will stir up the best result. 
Welcome to the ignore list.  You have joined a rare bunch that up to now only included OffroaderX.  May the two of you find happiness in limbo.
 

Still didn't answer the question about why YOU don't bother to go petition the FCC about making a rule change allowing DMR on GMRS. 
And again, as myself and others have said in this thread.  This is a dead horse being beaten again.  This has been rehashed over and over again.  No one is going to petition the FCC for the rule change, including members here who have actually successfully petitioned the FCC for rule changes.  And the reason is simple.  DMR on GMRS will cause nothing but problems for the current users.  It's about as dumb as when the FCC decided to change CB radio from 23 channels to 40 channels making everyone's equipment obsolete when the change took effect.  The actual part 95 radios that are in service will be unable to operate with DMR.  Same issue exists for adding channels to GMRS or making GMRS narrow band. 
If you want to petition the FCC for a rule change, and get it to the point that it's open for public comment, we will certainly comment on the change.  Until then, be happy with what you have, and if it doesn't suit your purposes use a different service. 
Because while your numbers are correct, they apply to DMR being effected by Analog signals.  Not the effects of DMR on the ANALOG signals of the multitude of users out there currently using the service within the rules as they are now.
 

Gee, couldn't get anywhere finding someone dumb enough to petition the FCC for DMR or some other digital modulation format on GMRS , so you decide to bring up the question of the actual existence of the FCC.  DO you actually work for a living or are you stuck in your house, just sitting there figuring out new ways to post stuff on the web to wind up the masses and cause trouble? 
 
I said this before, if YOU don't like the service, find a different one.  Or go entertain yourself with freeband, pirating on commercial frequencies, or just put Zello on your cell phone and use that.  It's become clear that you are not here to have a reasonable conversation about any topic that resembles reality and instead just post things that will stir up the best result. 
Welcome to the ignore list.  You have joined a rare bunch that up to now only included OffroaderX.  May the two of you find happiness in limbo.
 

There is an 8 page discussion on this topic elsewhere on the board.
It's the same dead horse with a different bridal. 
Here's a thought.  Why don't YOU petition the FCC for a rule change allowing digital modulation on GMRS? 
And I have NO idea where you got the idea that DMR is somehow better suited to deal with analog signals than other analog signals.  Any type of signal getting into a DMR receiver will raise the BER and cause artifacting and digitization of the audio.  That's if it comes through at all.  Public Safety is discouraged by the FCC from using any sort of DMR because of the issues with it not playing well with analog signals and the fact that the public safety frequencies were issued multiple times in an area, sometimes within the same county and the end users would just run different PL's to filter out the other users traffic. 
There is a requirement under part 90 that a user much first monitor the frequency in use to be sure that there isn't another user on it.  That is what the MONITOR button is for, and why there is a 'Hub defeat's PL' that turns off the PL requirement on a mobile radio when you take the mike from the hanger.  Now I don't believe that GMRS has such a requirement.  It's also why there is a channel free and color code free setting in DMR radios.  When using a DMR programmed channel it's suppose to be set for channel free if there is another user close enough that their licensed coverage area overlaps your coverage area.  GMRS doesn't have 'licensed coverage area's.  We are power limited but that's it, as long as your transmitter is 50 watt's or less, the sky's the limit on antenna height and antenna gain.  Yes, if your tower is over 200 feet you have to have it registered and have obstruction lighting, but that's not a height limit, it's an additional requirement by the FAA not the FCC for towers exceeding a certain height. 
You ant DMR, go get a part 90 license, go get a ham license.  DMR is prevalent in both of those services.  It's not allowed on GMRS currently and I really don't see that ever changing.
 

Still didn't answer the question about why YOU don't bother to go petition the FCC about making a rule change allowing DMR on GMRS. 
And again, as myself and others have said in this thread.  This is a dead horse being beaten again.  This has been rehashed over and over again.  No one is going to petition the FCC for the rule change, including members here who have actually successfully petitioned the FCC for rule changes.  And the reason is simple.  DMR on GMRS will cause nothing but problems for the current users.  It's about as dumb as when the FCC decided to change CB radio from 23 channels to 40 channels making everyone's equipment obsolete when the change took effect.  The actual part 95 radios that are in service will be unable to operate with DMR.  Same issue exists for adding channels to GMRS or making GMRS narrow band. 
If you want to petition the FCC for a rule change, and get it to the point that it's open for public comment, we will certainly comment on the change.  Until then, be happy with what you have, and if it doesn't suit your purposes use a different service. 
Because while your numbers are correct, they apply to DMR being effected by Analog signals.  Not the effects of DMR on the ANALOG signals of the multitude of users out there currently using the service within the rules as they are now.
 

Still didn't answer the question about why YOU don't bother to go petition the FCC about making a rule change allowing DMR on GMRS. 
And again, as myself and others have said in this thread.  This is a dead horse being beaten again.  This has been rehashed over and over again.  No one is going to petition the FCC for the rule change, including members here who have actually successfully petitioned the FCC for rule changes.  And the reason is simple.  DMR on GMRS will cause nothing but problems for the current users.  It's about as dumb as when the FCC decided to change CB radio from 23 channels to 40 channels making everyone's equipment obsolete when the change took effect.  The actual part 95 radios that are in service will be unable to operate with DMR.  Same issue exists for adding channels to GMRS or making GMRS narrow band. 
If you want to petition the FCC for a rule change, and get it to the point that it's open for public comment, we will certainly comment on the change.  Until then, be happy with what you have, and if it doesn't suit your purposes use a different service. 
Because while your numbers are correct, they apply to DMR being effected by Analog signals.  Not the effects of DMR on the ANALOG signals of the multitude of users out there currently using the service within the rules as they are now.
 

We go over this topic monthly. Unless a big manufacture goes after the FCC it wont change. None are going to spend the time, research and funding to do this because folks with $20 portables want to use DMR, Fusion, P25 etc. Look at the ham world. Tell me how many manufacturers sell gear that does DMR ? Or P25 ? Fusion is made by Yasue only. DSTAR ICOM. They can't even have a standard there where it would semi work. Never going to happen in GMRS. As said in about 50 different threads on this topic just go use a ham cannel if you want DMR, or license a Part 90 Frequency and do what you want. 

There is an 8 page discussion on this topic elsewhere on the board.
It's the same dead horse with a different bridal. 
Here's a thought.  Why don't YOU petition the FCC for a rule change allowing digital modulation on GMRS? 
And I have NO idea where you got the idea that DMR is somehow better suited to deal with analog signals than other analog signals.  Any type of signal getting into a DMR receiver will raise the BER and cause artifacting and digitization of the audio.  That's if it comes through at all.  Public Safety is discouraged by the FCC from using any sort of DMR because of the issues with it not playing well with analog signals and the fact that the public safety frequencies were issued multiple times in an area, sometimes within the same county and the end users would just run different PL's to filter out the other users traffic. 
There is a requirement under part 90 that a user much first monitor the frequency in use to be sure that there isn't another user on it.  That is what the MONITOR button is for, and why there is a 'Hub defeat's PL' that turns off the PL requirement on a mobile radio when you take the mike from the hanger.  Now I don't believe that GMRS has such a requirement.  It's also why there is a channel free and color code free setting in DMR radios.  When using a DMR programmed channel it's suppose to be set for channel free if there is another user close enough that their licensed coverage area overlaps your coverage area.  GMRS doesn't have 'licensed coverage area's.  We are power limited but that's it, as long as your transmitter is 50 watt's or less, the sky's the limit on antenna height and antenna gain.  Yes, if your tower is over 200 feet you have to have it registered and have obstruction lighting, but that's not a height limit, it's an additional requirement by the FAA not the FCC for towers exceeding a certain height. 
You ant DMR, go get a part 90 license, go get a ham license.  DMR is prevalent in both of those services.  It's not allowed on GMRS currently and I really don't see that ever changing.
 

There is an 8 page discussion on this topic elsewhere on the board.
It's the same dead horse with a different bridal. 
Here's a thought.  Why don't YOU petition the FCC for a rule change allowing digital modulation on GMRS? 
And I have NO idea where you got the idea that DMR is somehow better suited to deal with analog signals than other analog signals.  Any type of signal getting into a DMR receiver will raise the BER and cause artifacting and digitization of the audio.  That's if it comes through at all.  Public Safety is discouraged by the FCC from using any sort of DMR because of the issues with it not playing well with analog signals and the fact that the public safety frequencies were issued multiple times in an area, sometimes within the same county and the end users would just run different PL's to filter out the other users traffic. 
There is a requirement under part 90 that a user much first monitor the frequency in use to be sure that there isn't another user on it.  That is what the MONITOR button is for, and why there is a 'Hub defeat's PL' that turns off the PL requirement on a mobile radio when you take the mike from the hanger.  Now I don't believe that GMRS has such a requirement.  It's also why there is a channel free and color code free setting in DMR radios.  When using a DMR programmed channel it's suppose to be set for channel free if there is another user close enough that their licensed coverage area overlaps your coverage area.  GMRS doesn't have 'licensed coverage area's.  We are power limited but that's it, as long as your transmitter is 50 watt's or less, the sky's the limit on antenna height and antenna gain.  Yes, if your tower is over 200 feet you have to have it registered and have obstruction lighting, but that's not a height limit, it's an additional requirement by the FAA not the FCC for towers exceeding a certain height. 
You ant DMR, go get a part 90 license, go get a ham license.  DMR is prevalent in both of those services.  It's not allowed on GMRS currently and I really don't see that ever changing.
 

NO I really think you need to explain your outburst here.  And I'm sorry, you own which repeaters that the 'non-serious' conversations are being had on and you did what to remedy the situation?
What violations of the FCC regulations occurred during these conversations that weren't serious?  Do you have recordings of said conversations and are submitting them for review, correct?  Need names, call sign's, times and repeaters accessed for these non-serious conversations so that we can check logs and recordings and make an informed decision about the validity of your claims here. 
The repeater owners take these sorts of things very seriously.  And will take action if there were infractions of the FCC regulations.
BUT, to be clear, there is ONE individual that has been banned from my repeater.  It was due to the user that had a bit to much to drink and was on the radio talking while intoxicated.  Sure, he was having fun with his conversation, and says some things that weren't necessarily appropriate.  But HE wasn't the one that got banned.
The clown that got on my repeater and DEMANDED I deal with it, and when I refused, got heated with ME about the actions of the individual in question, he did get banned.  I told him that since he had such an issue with the situation it was probably best that he not use my repeater any more.  He sort of missed the meaning until I told him point blank that he was banned and I was taking the repeater off the air due to his nonsense and I then shut the repeater down for a week.  I then told anyone that ask why it was down that the individual that was offended by the other guys actions took offense to me refusing to chastise the guy for being drunk on the air and saying dumb stuff.  He don't use my repeater any more. 
So, don't get on here and DEMAND that the repeater owners enforce your 'acceptable operating topics and procedures'.  If someone is abusing MY repeaters, I will deal with it.  You get to choose what's said on YOUR repeater, and that's as far as it goes.  If you are operating on someone else's repeater, shut up and deal with it.  It's NOT your concern.  If you don't like that answer, my best advice I can give is load up in your car, go buy yarn and needles and take up Knitting.  Then you can park yourself in front of your TV set and scream at it when something is on there since you don't seem to grasp the concept of changing the channel when something is being discussed that offends your personal belief structure. 
This was the most polite way I could come up with of telling you to build a bridge and get the hell over it.
BOTH services you mentioned are HOBBY RADIO.  We are not going to turn hobby radio we have casual conversations on into public safety dispatch level communications because you think we need to. 

Yeah,   If you take your mouse and hover over his name a box will pop up.  Bottom right is a button 'ignore'.  Just click that as many others have.
It's a pretty common practice.  He seems to be the self appointed court jester or something.  It seems he likes to keep his post count higher than anyone else around here by nitpicking every little thing he can find.  Other than that, he's a legend in his own mind with all things GMRS and even has a YouTube Channel to pass on his wicked smartness about hobby radio. 
Oh, and for some reason no one understands, and by his own admission, he is NOT a river in Italy that Romans can freely cross.  Never really understood that one.  But he openly states that in his YouTube persona.
Welcome to the board.
 

Yeah,   If you take your mouse and hover over his name a box will pop up.  Bottom right is a button 'ignore'.  Just click that as many others have.
It's a pretty common practice.  He seems to be the self appointed court jester or something.  It seems he likes to keep his post count higher than anyone else around here by nitpicking every little thing he can find.  Other than that, he's a legend in his own mind with all things GMRS and even has a YouTube Channel to pass on his wicked smartness about hobby radio. 
Oh, and for some reason no one understands, and by his own admission, he is NOT a river in Italy that Romans can freely cross.  Never really understood that one.  But he openly states that in his YouTube persona.
Welcome to the board.
 

That is a HUGE decision if you are going to any significant height.  And the biggest issue is cost.  Putting up a tower over 100 feet can easily exceed $50K in cost.  And that could double depending on property value. 
Any sort of 'group effort' tower should be placed on a neutral site, and not at any one members location.  Reason for this is simple.  Legally it's THEIR tower.  No matter how hard you lawyer that effort, it's on their property and locks it into them.  And there is the need to figure out income if a tower of any significance is erected and a prospective tenant approaches the group / land owner for access.  The land owner WILL want in on the income stream if a tower on his land is all of a sudden making 2 grand or more a month.  And yes, depending on location and other factors is a reasonable number.   BUT, do not expect a tenant on your tower as a method to pay for it. 
Another requirement is cost going forward.  Tower sites have maintenance costs, taxes, utility costs and anything else a piece of real estate would have.  And additional costs like obstruction lighting maintenance and registration that no other piece of real estate has.
But, renting space from one of the large vertical real estate companies has it's own set of issues.  Mainly that you would be hard pressed to get into an agreement of less than 5 years with them.  And their contracts are iron clad.  If you enter a contract with them, it doesn't matter if you are there 5 months, or 5 years.  You are going to be on the hook for the 5 year term of the contract.  The only plus to renting is you do have some way out at the point of the term of the contract ending.  Keep in mind that this is hobby radio.  Folks loose interest and ultimately there may come a time that no one is interested any more. 
With a rented space, you can hire a tower climber to remove your antenna's and such from a rented site and not extend the lease for another term.  With an owned site, it is real property and would need to be transferred to another or razed (tower and building torn down) and the property sold.  Which again, creates issues with the original group that funded the build.  The way that the ownership was worked out will have repercussions on how the money from the sale of the real estate gets distributed.  And those things need to be worked out  prior to building a tower site that will be for a group.
 
I understand this rat hole pretty well and can give you information on what needs to be done and how to do it, within reason. 

That is a HUGE decision if you are going to any significant height.  And the biggest issue is cost.  Putting up a tower over 100 feet can easily exceed $50K in cost.  And that could double depending on property value. 
Any sort of 'group effort' tower should be placed on a neutral site, and not at any one members location.  Reason for this is simple.  Legally it's THEIR tower.  No matter how hard you lawyer that effort, it's on their property and locks it into them.  And there is the need to figure out income if a tower of any significance is erected and a prospective tenant approaches the group / land owner for access.  The land owner WILL want in on the income stream if a tower on his land is all of a sudden making 2 grand or more a month.  And yes, depending on location and other factors is a reasonable number.   BUT, do not expect a tenant on your tower as a method to pay for it. 
Another requirement is cost going forward.  Tower sites have maintenance costs, taxes, utility costs and anything else a piece of real estate would have.  And additional costs like obstruction lighting maintenance and registration that no other piece of real estate has.
But, renting space from one of the large vertical real estate companies has it's own set of issues.  Mainly that you would be hard pressed to get into an agreement of less than 5 years with them.  And their contracts are iron clad.  If you enter a contract with them, it doesn't matter if you are there 5 months, or 5 years.  You are going to be on the hook for the 5 year term of the contract.  The only plus to renting is you do have some way out at the point of the term of the contract ending.  Keep in mind that this is hobby radio.  Folks loose interest and ultimately there may come a time that no one is interested any more. 
With a rented space, you can hire a tower climber to remove your antenna's and such from a rented site and not extend the lease for another term.  With an owned site, it is real property and would need to be transferred to another or razed (tower and building torn down) and the property sold.  Which again, creates issues with the original group that funded the build.  The way that the ownership was worked out will have repercussions on how the money from the sale of the real estate gets distributed.  And those things need to be worked out  prior to building a tower site that will be for a group.
 
I understand this rat hole pretty well and can give you information on what needs to be done and how to do it, within reason. 

That is a HUGE decision if you are going to any significant height.  And the biggest issue is cost.  Putting up a tower over 100 feet can easily exceed $50K in cost.  And that could double depending on property value. 
Any sort of 'group effort' tower should be placed on a neutral site, and not at any one members location.  Reason for this is simple.  Legally it's THEIR tower.  No matter how hard you lawyer that effort, it's on their property and locks it into them.  And there is the need to figure out income if a tower of any significance is erected and a prospective tenant approaches the group / land owner for access.  The land owner WILL want in on the income stream if a tower on his land is all of a sudden making 2 grand or more a month.  And yes, depending on location and other factors is a reasonable number.   BUT, do not expect a tenant on your tower as a method to pay for it. 
Another requirement is cost going forward.  Tower sites have maintenance costs, taxes, utility costs and anything else a piece of real estate would have.  And additional costs like obstruction lighting maintenance and registration that no other piece of real estate has.
But, renting space from one of the large vertical real estate companies has it's own set of issues.  Mainly that you would be hard pressed to get into an agreement of less than 5 years with them.  And their contracts are iron clad.  If you enter a contract with them, it doesn't matter if you are there 5 months, or 5 years.  You are going to be on the hook for the 5 year term of the contract.  The only plus to renting is you do have some way out at the point of the term of the contract ending.  Keep in mind that this is hobby radio.  Folks loose interest and ultimately there may come a time that no one is interested any more. 
With a rented space, you can hire a tower climber to remove your antenna's and such from a rented site and not extend the lease for another term.  With an owned site, it is real property and would need to be transferred to another or razed (tower and building torn down) and the property sold.  Which again, creates issues with the original group that funded the build.  The way that the ownership was worked out will have repercussions on how the money from the sale of the real estate gets distributed.  And those things need to be worked out  prior to building a tower site that will be for a group.
 
I understand this rat hole pretty well and can give you information on what needs to be done and how to do it, within reason.