SteveShannon

Up to 2 watts since 2017.

That’s what I assume, but we both know how that can go.

I don’t think Randy was arguing that other languages were a breach of etiquette (although a literal reading of his statement would be taken that way) so much as saying not to use ham radio Q codes, military/police/CBer 10- codes, etc.

Not necessarily. Some of us actually use it for the purpose intended. At rocket launches that I host I leave my radio on my work or LCO table. I may be placing a rocket on the launch pad or arming sensitive recovery electronics. We don’t like having radios too close while doing that. A friend who is out recovering a rocket can call me and I can hear his call signal even though I am well away from my table, better than his voice. The call signal is more of an attention grabber. i could also imagine that the call signal might get my attention better than a voice if I’m running my tractor or chainsaw. Yes, it’s annoying when abused, but it doesn’t have to be abused.

No. Lately you’ve been doing a great job of making your points without the vitriol. I’m very impressed.

BIOS listed comm ports are hardware comm ports. Comm ports created by USB drivers are software comm ports that would usually show up in Device Manager, rather than BIOS. Look in Device Manager for them if you haven’t already.

She’s not in your family, so technically she can’t use it. If you marry or adopt her she could. ? I doubt that there’s a way to transfer the license to her anyway. If there were it would probably cost the same $35 as just paying for a new license.

I truly didn’t understand some of what you wrote, but I’m amazed that when something made you amazed, repulsed, light headed, and nauseated, you hung around for half an hour to take it all in. So you based your opinion of amateur radio and hams in general on a very juvenile conversation on the 70cm band where they didn’t even identify as hams?

Perfect! I knew I subscribed for a reason. ?

I’m not interested in arguing, but I’m interested in knowing where you heard that conversation. What band(s)? HF (and if HF, which band), VHF, UHF? Listening to a group on a repeater or listening to two or three people ragchew? Many nights I sit down for a while and traverse the different HF bands. I’ve never heard anything like that. I hear some people (but not most) yammering on about their most or least favorite political parties. I just change the frequency. It’s a big knob and easy to turn. Life is too short to allow myself to become angry listening to idiots and there are some idiots in everything. I would almost expect such behavior though in some talk groups or rooms where the rooms and groups have descriptive names (“Married first cousin patriots”) and with a bunch of repeaters or hotspots connected via the internet. That’s still ham radio, but not representative of all ham radio. And by the way, I never ever have a problem with politics when I’m using FT8. ??

One thing I have found is that it’s extremely easy to find groups on Facebook (I assume the same about Reddit) that support a particular point of view. They exist solely to support and reinforce that point of view and they can’t be corrected. Anyone who tries becomes a target. A guy I know compares Facebook to the lead pipes of the Romans. It’s better to just avoid them. i am a member of a couple of antenna building groups and one for the HF rig I own. We don’t talk about GMRS and so far I haven’t seen any politics or negativity. Of course there’s always the guy who feels obliged to respond to every question with “RTFM”, usually without having read the actual question. Some people (sorry to steal your phrase @OffRoaderX) are just miserable and want to spread their misery. Every group has them. Anyway, as I’m sure you already know, GMRS can be a very fun hobby. It certainly can be used for much more than talking to friends and family if that’s what you want. And obviously there are GMRS groups to join. If not, start one. Choosing to take the ham exams is a personal decision that has nothing to do with GMRS. In my case I was interested in ham radio long before GMRS existed but never made the time to study or take the test. I got into GMRS because I wanted a two way handheld to talk to others on the rocket range and GMRS was what they were using. I signed up for an FRN a long long time ago, intending to get “legal” but didn’t like the price and kept hearing rumors (at that time) that the fcc was going to get rid of the license fee for GMRS. I never got around to it until last November . But I was far more interested in the radios and the technology behind them than just communicating on the range. Notarubicon videos fed that interest, which then led me back to ham radio because it covers an even wider range of subjects that interest me. For me, it all works together. I use and enjoy GMRS and learn something on this forum nearly every day. At the same time I continue to expand my technical knowledge and operating experience using ham radio. I don’t see it as needing to choose between them. Each has its enjoyable aspects. TL;DR @OffRoaderXis responsible for me becoming a ham. ?

Welcome to the forum. I hope you get everything you want here. There’s a lot to learn and different people learn differently. I greatly enjoyed studying and taking the ham tests but I also enjoy being able to communicate with my family without all of them having to study and take a test. GMRS and Ham Radio can be complementary to each other without requiring a person to choose a side. Thanks for your service.

Someone has to WTFM before we can RTFM. ?

Yes, GMRS radios can only operate in the GMRS frequency range (aka band) which is in the 462-467 MHz range. There are lots of different communications bands within the 100 and 200 MHz ranges. Broadcast FM, air traffic, business radios, MURS, public safety(police, fire, ambulance), television, animal trackers, and amateur radios.

Here’s the FCC page that discusses “intercepting and divulging” communications. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/interception-and-divulgence-radio-communications It’s interesting how it’s written. It appears that the FCC has a very narrow range of options available to them. For instance, listening to cellular conversations isn’t prohibited, but the law prohibits the FCC from authorizing equipment that provides the ability. My search also found that some places do attempt to limit ownership of police scanners. In some cases they prohibit using scanners in the commission of a crime. In other cases they simply prohibit civilian possession. I suspect a good lawyer could defeat those simple possession laws, but of course that costs money.

Prosecution on multiple fronts happens frequently. Agencies will band together to throw everything they can at a person, and jurors, hearing of the long list of charges will frequently vote guilty on something because if a person has been charged with that many offenses he must have done something wrong. im not saying that’s the case here. In this case I believe that the clear cut violation is to the fcc regulations. The forest service could also charge him with some type of interference, but they may want to wait and see how the fcc case proceeds.

I haven’t, but it sounds like it would be fun. I’ll look it up.

He transmitted five times on the frequency they used to direct aircraft the first day, “thwarting” their ability to effectively respond (according the the public statement). He transmitted three times on the second day. At some point during the second day a supervisor dropped what he/she was doing to tell him to knock it off, in spite of the characterization of the fire incident being described as an “all hands on deck” event. I could understand someone making an emergency transmission on an unauthorized band once, but eight times? The guy was trying to make himself more important than he is.

I never did find something that clearly states he transmitted after the personal warning, but I had to chuckle at this post: walrus01 16 hours ago | next [–] Oh wow I literally know this guy. Jason Frawley. He's a big part of a very vocal group of rural, deep red state WISP operators who think they're god's own gift to network engineering, and mostly worship at the altar of one specific political figure. Watching their antics has been an endless source of amusement. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen Jason and his cohort shoot themselves in the foot with some ill-advised network architecture, rf engineering or network engineering design choice... That he's out there interfering with licensed bands and emergency services is totally unsurprising. That's only the tip of an iceberg of weirdness. There are very, very few FCC enforcement bureau staff members in WA, ID, OR. You have to do something really egregious to get on their radar screen. Every time the FCC fines someone $10k+ it goes in their public daily digest emails as a "notice of apparent liability" and is quite a rare event in the Pacific Northwest. It is not at all as if the FCC has vans full of guys with spectrum analyzers and such driving around the area trying to hunt down and fine people for petty reasons. To get fined by them you really have to go far outside the accepted norms for two way radio or wisp operations in the area. He has network equipment and repeaters at the mentioned elk butte site and probably thought he was doing something to protect his gear. His FCC licensed part 101 fdd band plan ptp microwave links are all part of the public record as part of the FCC ULS public data for the curious.

I don’t know. In a ham group someone said that he did continue even after a personal visit, but I have no specific knowledge besides the article I quoted. But eight times he transmitted on their frequency with his ham radio handheld while they were trying to direct aircraft. I’m not full of sympathy for him. I’m surprised there aren’t criminal charges.

“According to the FCC account, a Forest Service supervisor drove to the airstrip, identified Frawley as the person and told him to stop.”

What version of Windows is running on your computer? See if this helps: https://thegeekpage.com/mscomctl-ocx/

When tone mode is set to Tone, that’s equivalent to having the receive tone left blank.

But within these forums (fora?) we have had accounts of Surecom 102 meters that did not match higher priced instruments which were known to be nearly accurate. I suspect most are pretty close, close enough for hobbyists like me anyway, and I would trust a Surecom if I had previously compared it to something better, like you have.

Actually you do. If you set Tone Mode to TONE, like MichaelLax said, it’s the same as turning off the receiver tone in CTCSS. If you set it to Tone SQL or Tsql or however your radio shows it, then you’re requiring a tone before your radio will unsquelch. And you really cannot have it set to DTCS. That is a different kind of tone.