weaverrm

Not to many in this area. Tabb repeater over in the Newport News ares works good with a pretty good coverage area too. I’ve hit that repeater a few times when over in that area. Nothing over here on the south side. I noticed a listing for a repeater popped up in the Chesapeake area but it quickly disappeared. I’m in Virginia Beach and have been thinking about messing around with the idea one day. Just haven’t got there yet I guess. LOL.

Looking at your first link referenced item…. All the military comm gear I’ve ever used, repaired, deployed with, etc. was all quite wide with respect to it’s operational spectrum capabilities. Both fixed site and tactical stuff…. Even the ‘fixed frequency’ stuff such as Air Traffic Control equipment could be easily re-tuned (involved procedures) to any frequency in a band that is quite wide when compared to GMRS and/or ham bands. As for the main topic question, I’d like to say NO!! No government agency, at any level of government, has a “need” for it. Their needs can be met through other methods (other nets / frequencies). In any and/or all instances to which someone knows of an agency that is doing such; I simply suggest that would be an agency staffed with personnel that lack the knowledge and understanding required to establish their required or necessary wireless communications capabilities… or… they are looking for a “quick fix” short-cut to an “aggravating problem” of some kind. Look, I’ve been there, done that, and wore the t-shirt. In my day using military equipment, I could step on just about any frequency I needed to in order to get the mission done. BUT!!! AIN’T NO WAY I WOULD HAVE EVER DONE THAT!!!!…because my capabilities were sufficiently robust such that there wasn’t (never would be) a ‘real need’ to do such a thing. But, in the world of ‘local governments’ there just happens to be people that don’t know, or understand, such stuff as radio frequency communications systems and the various resources that are allocated to people, groups, organizations, businesses, governments, etc. or how to make effective use thereof. So, wether they know it or not, there are separate sandboxes for those folks to play in. GMRS ain’t it.? Hope I didn’t hurt anyone's feeling here by shooting off my pie hole…??

I had this exact same questions / thoughts…. But, I also like being a cheap-skate too. Thought I’d try out the Anytone AT-779. Ordered it as a GMRS radio (but it was marked for ham 2M & 70cm when it arrived) and had to “fix” it. There is a good YouTube video on how to get to the “boot up” menu in that radio. Got a cheap CB as well. It’s all a “1-Bolt” installation to the front left passenger seat mounting bolt using a single piece of flat steel stock, bent at 90 degrees in two places and twisted so the radios face the driver. On the antenna… the near antenna (in the pic) is the generic VHF/UHF antenna that I spent a little time tweaking to an acceptable VSWR across the frequencies I have been messing around on. yea…yea…I know…CB…??? but it works! …and works well when I want / need it.?. Ain’t no sad ham here!! Can’t disappoint Randy!!

I totally understand the specific language used by the FCC. I tend to want to zoom-in on the, “…voluntary provision of assistance to the public during…”. It’s that ‘provision’-ing thing that tells me, … …“hey dude, don’t make this your primary means for reliance on emergency communications…but, if crap hits the fan and it winds-up being the only method available that isn’t otherwise knocked-out for whatever reason… then, by all means, use it for your/the emergency at hand.”… Now, as an old retired dude that has had a career in communications-electronics and all of it’s associated complicated electrical do-dad stuff, they HAIN’T NOT NO WAY (??) I’d pick a band or frequency for even back-up emergency comms that would / could possibly be busy with a bunch of young-ens playing on a bunch of walkie-talkies. Remember, it’s them kids’ pappy that has the GMRS license and he didn’t activate that ‘busy channel lockout’ feature on the dozen or so walkie-talkies he has for them to play with while they are visiting him and playing on the dirt bikes and four-wheelers all over his 100 or so acres… At least, that’s the way I put it when someone suggest (planning on) using GMRS for anything even remotely associated with an emergency. It’s the “planning” thing, see… To make GMRS a component of your “plan” (if / when formulating any kind of emergency response) is the mistake. But, in the event that ALL OTHER planned methods failed first, then, and only then, should someone in an emergency response role consider GMRS. Now, that’s my [(retired) comms professional] interpretation of that language used by the FCC. Does that get me into any trouble with any of y’all.???

My feeling is that the GMRS band is FIRST AND FOREMOST… for individuals and their families for those kinds of activities. It is not, again, in my opinion, for “primary emergency use.” Having said that, (some) groups are formed, or otherwise exist, for the purpose of some sort of an (community or area wide) emergency response. The problem is… the logistics involved with reliable point-to-point, mobile and/or hand-held communications is simply way too much for [some “rag-tag” bunch of fireman want-a-bees] an organization, both administratively and cost, to acquire, install and manage. Therefore, rather than do it correctly (by setting up a “local government affiliated emergency response organization” that can access “official emergency comms”, groups form and jump on GMRS and over-run it in the process. Not trying to bash anyone here… just attempting to point out that… before even getting to the issue of ‘comms requirements’ in those organizations, the purpose and/or point of and/or function, of the organization might outta be looked at first. Bottom line is… GMRS is not, and was not… set up to be an emergency services band. Now, how much trouble do you think I got myself into by saying this????