Man... it kills me to see people keep saying that GMRS is not a hobby but Amateur Radio is. It's like people forget the meaning of words and how subjective they can be.
First, I have to say, GMRS and FRS use can be a hobby. That includes rag-chew and anything else you can legally do on GMRS. GMRS can also be utilitarian. What makes it a hobby or utility is how YOU use it. That's it. Nothing else.
I would wager to state the opinion that Amateur Radio is far more utilitarian than GMRS would ever be. Just because you can legally conduct business on GMRS and FRS doesn't take away that fact that for many private owners, it's purely an entertainment device. It also doesn't take away the utility value of Amateur Radio.
Amateur radio is called such because of non-commercial exchanges, and no other reason. The organization and practice of amateur radio has led the world for more than a century with new inventions of methods for moving data, messaging and voice comms. There is wireless experimentation, self-training in electronics engineering, private recreational use, and emergency communications. If that isn't less a hobby and more utilitarian, I don't know what is. Radiosport, contesting and rag-chewing is just a small part of Amateur Radio culture. And again, what makes it a hobby or a service is how YOU use it.
The responses don't surprise me. Seems counter productive towards getting people interested in a radio hobby.
You want to talk money, we're currently burning in a brand new hytera ip addressable repeater going up with a DB420 antenna. Easily over $3k without counting duplexer, lightning protection, and cable.
This will be at 950' in downtown Miami. Open to all. Part of the reason it's being done is the general "you stay off my repeater" vibe we picked up from looking at the local gmrs listings. It was baffling to see how unfriendly this side of the radio hobby can feel.
I have discovered Chick fil A in my town uses FRS handhelds with their drive thru coordination. I have been sitting in line before listening to them say who goes where. Might try giving myself a shortcut and a free frosted coffee next time ?
Sorry to hear of your disappointment. Been there, done that. The misleading advertising of cheap radio brands is IMHO mostly to blame for the public’s unrealistic expectations of simplex radio range. In the real-world, range is a very tiny fraction of what the manufacturers assert. In my 20 years of experience with UHF, 1/2 mile HT-HT simplex range outdoors has become my only realistic expectation of coverage. Why? Because I have not yet experience less than that outdoors. It has always been that distance or more. I always hope for more depending local conditions.
I live about 20 miles SE of Cincinnati in an area where the RF noise floor is very low. When I tested range (reported on this forum) between Wouxun (KG-805G) radios and Part 90 radios (motorola and vertex ) there was no notable difference in usable range. .6 miles is all I could achieve reliably in my around-home test. Beyond that it was rapidly downhill, with hit and mis communications out to about 1-1/2 miles. Radios ranged in MSRP price from $30 each to $750. Terrain was mostly flat to slightly rolling, 60% trees, houses every 1-5 acres and some small fields.
Those same 805G radios have achieved HT-HT simplex coverage out to 2-1/2 +/- miles under more open outdoor terrain (fewer obstacles) conditions. Also, when connected to the base antenna above my home, the 805G has on a number of occasions communicated successfully through a repeater 50 miles to my north and whose antenna is many 100s of feet higher in elevation than mine. They have achieved 34 miles through select repeaters while using a mobile antenna on my vehicle, but can’t open a low-profile home-owner repeater beyond 1 mile.
So, my first takeaway from all this is that the more the obstacles between the radio antennas the less the usable distance. The higher the antenna, the fewer the obstacles, the greater the range.
My second take away is this. There is little to no difference in usable range between the inexpensive radios and the more expensive radios when both are used in a low RF noise environment. In my case, purchasing more expensive radios for use where I live would not yield me any more usable range. If I purchased them it would be for other reasons.
My third takeaway. If I were to move closer to the city or into an area with notably higher RF background noise, like perhaps where you live, I would expect my range to be reduced, perhaps even dramatically, and that to improve on that I would likely need to purchase radios with substantially more selective receivers. But even then, I would not be able to better the range I can achieve in a low noise environment. Only fewer obstacles and higher antenna elevation would help with this.
Some things for you to consider.
1) Put a base radio in your home complete with an external antenna as high as you practically can afford to. Rely on that station for communication between home and your HTs while on foot in the neighborhood. 2) Purchase higher-quality radios if you are able to conclude that your range is truly being limited by off-channel RF noise and not obstacles. Some well seasoned local hams who own spectrum analyzers or other technical radio professionals could help you with this. Contact a local ham club for recommendations. 3) Consider putting up a repeater that is much closer to your home if you or a group of friends have access to a very high antenna location and could afford the capital and operating expense. If the closest repeater is truly to far away for your local use, having one that is within range could be an asset for you and the community. Height is everything.
