WROZ250

Not sure what you are describing here. Are you talking about a 'simplex repeater' (Parrot) or a real, full duplex repeater? If the latter, are you expecting to hear your transit audio in your mobile, while transmitting? Even if you have a dual receive mobile, it is unlikely that you would hear the repeater transmitter as you would likely, assuming a dual receive mobile, de-sense/overload the mobile receiver. If you are hearing a squelch tail, then your tones settings are probably fine. That said, the question as asked/described is confusing/unclear.

Thanks all for responding... I actually got through to them and after getting all my questions answered satisfactorily, ordered a new repeater. My big concern was whether or not it could be programmed across the advertised range without major re-tuning (it can). The motivation there being the later possibility of reselling the repeater. Most later generation radios are just programming, but I hail from the age of Motorola Micors, where moving 1 MHz meant re-alignment! LOL! Ordered it with the internal duplexer to get it up and running ASAP. I'm not a fan of 'mobile duplexers' but it will do until I can get my hands on a quality duplexer. Lead time isn't bad and they do offer express option for $100 which can be requested anytime before it ships, but I'm not in that big of a hurry (the old machine is limping along for now). The guy I worked with gave me his 'direct line' for contact. He also seemed quite knowledgeable on the product. As far as post sale support, I guess time will tell. Thanks Again to all for the replies! 73, WROZ250

Interesting, most of the hand held radios I have that are Part 95, actually say Part 95 on the Label/Compliance tag. Again, this is what confused me with this mobile, purchased as GMRS and showing up labeled and configured as Ham. Nevertheless, when configured for GMRS it does behave as a compliant radio.

@MichaelLAX I'd have to go through all of the ones I found. Just search for AT-779UV (on YouTube) and it's in one of them. (Sorry)

Was my initial thoughts as well. FWIW, one of the videos I watched on the 'mod', they guy stated that some are showing up as GMRS and others as Ham? Gotta Love it! LOL!

LOL! No, it doesn't say "Ham Mode". Just the frequency Range (144-148) and (420-450) Mine has as band choices, Europe, Australia, GMRS, and then the two frequency range choices (144-148), (420-450) and, (136-174), (400-470). So I don't know what if any changes V2.33 might have enabled. I already have dual band radios coming out my ears, so I got this one to test. The other intent was for a cheap GMRS base radio. I have currently it set to GMRS, because that's all I need at the moment. My only motivation for setting it to fully open would be to access additional memories for GMRS TX/RX, but that is unnecessary for my location. The memory restrictions follow the selected band, a feature over-site for GMRS IMHO. But for $100, I'm not complaining, especially when there are 'options'. CCR or not, this is a nice radio for the price.

When the radio is set to Ham Mode, it will not transmit out of ham band. Yes, you can put out of band frequencies into the memories, but they will be RX only. The same is true when set for GMRS, only those frequencies will transmit. The only setting that doesn't restrict is the full range (136-174) (400-470). Set to that, the radio and all memories will take any frequency in those ranges and allow transmitting. Firmware was V2.33

I looked up the FCC ID https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/T4K-779UV and quite frankly I'm still confused! LOL! I'll have to read through the documents, but a quick scan seems to suggest that the AT-779UV is Part 95 certified and, again, when set for GMRS does function the same as a complaint radio. The confusing part for me, is why would a radio with, in this case, have amateur radio frequencies on the ID label have Part 95 certification? Not complaining at all, but... The radio in your photo is identical to mine and while the label does have the FCC compliant sticker, it does not explicitly show Part 95 anywhere. Indeed, yours has 144-148, 420-470 MHz checked, just like the one I have. However again, looking at the files associated with that FCC ID (above link), the radio does appear to be Part 95 compliant. Again, it's confusing. I ran the mod sequence again (didn't change anything this time) and Ver 2.33 was displayed. As far as power output, mine would probably squeak out a couple of additional watts off a vehicle or fixed power supply. The displayed voltage was 12.9 while testing, as was running it off off a Bioenno Power battery pack. i used the Anytone software, downloaded from their site, and had no installation issues from Windows 10 Pro and, Windows balks at virtually all 3rd party packages (I wish these manufacturers would routinely offer Linux based programming software). Dunno, maybe the software is a later version or had an updated certificate? Whatever, it works and that's all I care about! LOL! Confusing labels or not, as you noted "not too much of a gamble for the price." 73, WROZ250

After watching several reviews of the Radioddity DB20-G, I stumbled across reviews of the Anytone AT-779UV. Fundamentally, these appear to be the same radio. Indeed, there is a European version as well under yet another manufacturer's label/brand. Ironically, this AT-779UV was purchased with the understanding that it was a GMRS radio (according to the description). That said, what arrived today was actually ham band. However... Given the above, I am not sure this radio is considered Part 95e, so if completely legal is concerned, this might not be the radio for you and/or you can purchase the DB20-G. I am assuming the DB20-G is in fact Part 95e certified (I don't know). Again, the AT-779UV appears, for all purpose and functionality, to be an identical radio. That said, several of the videos showed an interesting (not published) feature/mod, which is reversible, to change the possible TX/RX frequencies and memory usage. Power off the radio, hold down the V/M button and turn on the power. You will be presented with a menu of radio configurations, one of which is 'GMRS'. Selecting GMRS, the radio has all of the same features (and restrictions) as the DB20-G (after reset/power cycle). Basically it behaves as a fully legal Part 95e radio. FWIW, I believe the aforementioned feature works on all versions of this radio, including the DB20-G. One of the other items in the menu opens up the radio to the full TX and RX spectrum and, most importantly, allows all available memories to hold transmit frequencies which, will in fact transmit. Again, the beauty of this mod/feature, is that it can be changed as often as you like. The only downside is that whatever was in the memories prior to the change will be replaced by the selected band defaults upon reset. For example, selecting GMRS, all memories are repopulated with the standard channels and the Part 95e restrictions. Set it to ham band and 144-148 and 430-450 gets a couple of simplex frequencies in the memories and does not transmit out of band. This radio is tiny but packs a lot for the price. For more information on the model in general, see Randy's review of the DB20-G (see link) Remember, the AT-779UV and the DB20-G are virtually the same radio. Both radios retail right around $100. Yes, it's Chinese, but IMHO, it's still pretty cool for a 15-18ish watt mobile (not the advertised 20W).

As to legal power, I understand the rules to mean 50 watts (MAX) at the antenna port of the transmitter, as opposed to ERP (Effective Radiated Power/what the radiated signal is). That said... No matter what you do, there is going to be loss between the TX/RX and the antenna. I don't know about 4dB 'in the box' but... The average (decent) duplexer has (or should have) 1.5dB or less insertion loss (each respective side, TX and RX), so there goes a 'watts' or so. If you really like your TX, a circulator in the TX side is nice, but rarely done and, would likely add about, or just under, another dB of loss, so there goes another watt or so. It's fair to say that even if your TX is putting out 50W from the PA, by the time you connect to the antenna system, that 50W is going to be 30-40W (if you're lucky). That is, again, typical. I'd add that the losses go both directions so your RX sensitivity just got a little worse as well (but not earth shattering). This is why antenna system design is a make or break scenario. The gain of the antenna ideally makes up for some of the line and perhaps even the duplexer loss and, if it has some gain, maybe focuses what energy it does radiate and receives where you want it. As for tweaking the PA for more power, it doesn't really help, because once again, there is loss on the receiver side too, so upping the power is only going to make your repeater talk where it can't hear the people trying to talk into it. As noted by another poster, it also risks cooking the PA itself and/or the power supply feeding it. Now I know in the 'hobby' it isn't practical, but the ultimate goal of a repeater design/system is to be able to have the talk-in balanced with the talk-out for a given user radio and antenna combination. You really can't do that thinking in watts, which is why the practice (for people who do all of the above) is to work in dB (decibels). Why? Because losses and gains can be added up and subtracted to find out what you actually are dealing with. Watts equates to a level of dB as does cable and other losses, antenna gain (or loss) and, the sensitivity of the receiver. Indeed, for all the hoopla about tweaking a PA and squeaking out a couple more watts, if you look at power output in dB as apposed to watts, you find even doubling the watts isn't really a whole lot of gain in the bigger picture. FWIW...

The correct answer for given the information is it depends/can't be answered with any accuracy... Are they all using the same power, antenna & height above the ground? Basically are you talking about site configurations that mirror each other? Doubt you are violating any FCC rules here in any event. Can't really offer anything but unqualified speculation without more information/detail.

Anyone have any experience with Bridgecom and/or their Repeater? I have two questions which, I believe I know the answer, but would like confirmation. I tried calling and even leaving a message and 4 days later they have not responded. That leaves me wondering about the company despite their videos and website. Anyway... Q) The BCR-40U is advertised as 400-470 and so, duplexer aside, is the unit programmable across that range? Q) 'Pandemic" shipping issues aside, the website shows they currently have 4 of these repeaters in stock, but also notes call for 'lead time'. Does anyone know what that actually means? Are they talking about configuration time, is the unit being shipped in from Timbuktu, what? Also, if you have one of these units, what was your order to delivery (ballpark)? As noted, I have called them twice now and left messages with contact information and they simply don't return calls, or at least they don't return my calls. Q.) If you are an owner/operator of one of these units, what is your impression of the unit and/or the company? Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!

We referred to that as "Talk Back Scan' (at Motorola). The KG-935 (and other radios) has a function similar to that as well as the dual monitoring (listen to two channels at once) which I am not a fan of (personally) However, the a radio channel and/or scan list can typically have defined a priority channel as well as how to deal with a non-selected channel receives a call. Honestly, without the radio in front of me, I could not tell you how to do it, but I know mine is setup to do something similar to 'talk back scan'. I also don't recall the manual going into much depth on the function. I came across it while playing with the programming software. ?

Nets are not a 'Ham Radio' thing, but are admittedly common in that hobby. Many (non ham radio) disaster agencies operate nets on a regular schedule. That said, national nets, especially those that depend on links (i.e. internet) tend to get unruly when participation is large, not to mention multiple time zone issues. The links can (and frequently do) drop, however long or short in duration, leaving many participants in the affected area out of the conversation. Occasionally the net control falls into that issue as well. As @gortex2 suggested, and this is quite true for GMRS being analog FM, national nets tie up a lot of repeaters. At least with digital technologies such as, for example, DMR, nets can be national in nature (above negatives not withstanding) and not tie up communications for others. There are check-in nets and there are 'rag-chew' nets (which can be fun with or without a discussion topic), and many others types. Having said all that, some nets do serve a very good purpose. However, I have to agree with @mbrun regarding a national net and opt for more 'localized' nets with a clear purpose. Personally, I'm not a fan of (most) nets, but neither am I against them ('to each their own'). Just my personal opinions...

LMR-400 is about as 'economical' as I would go for a base/repeater setup, assuming one is serious about the installation and then, only if the main cable run was less than 50ft. I would not recommend any of the RG series cables for anything but short jumpers and even then, only if a tighter radius bend was required and, there are better alternatives. Your cable and associated connectors are as important as the antenna itself. Speaking of connectors, all connectors need to be weatherproofed/sealed. That said, the connectors available for one type of cable, and even the cable itself, contribute to the overall quality of the installation. Antenna network losses and vulnerability to the elements, can stack up quickly when one takes the cheaper path. Personally, I look at fixed installation costs as an investment, and so saving a couple of bucks here or there usually will cost you somewhere else later. As always, just an opinion (based on years of experience)

I was just looking into the cost of putting up a relatively small, self supporting, tower and was shocked to discover that the concrete (and labor) for the just base will be nearly twice the cost of the tower itself! It's still on the to-do list, but is going to have to wait for the additional funding. And I thought the difficult part was going to be the permits! ?

Right, Sorry. It was the OP who asked about club callsign (or at least inferred the idea of operating under a club call).

There is no such thing as a club license in GMRS, only individuals may hold a license.

This is an extremely valid point. With all of the changes in technology, it's the lower sites that are attracting customers. As Radioguy7268 notes, cellular carriers would have zero interest in such a high tower. Not to mention they typically want to control the site (their written contracts are full of legal weasel wording to ensure that). Indeed, other than perhaps a broadcaster, (some) public safety, and Amateur radio, there really isn't a need or desire for such heights. Public safety is migrating to newer technologies where, like cellular, there is no need for towers over 150-200ft, again as Radioguy7268 stated. Even in Amateur radio, most frequency coordinators would likely deny a repeater on such a site/height because the coverage would in many cases, overlap with co-channel users. Not saying you can't make money building such a tower, but your return on investment would likely take longer than the tower would last. You'll need a LOT of paying customers to make money. Good Luck

The only downside to that, is that the RX light will also activate on noise and interference. Any signal that exceeds the basic noise (carrier) squelch setting in the radio. So depending on the design of the receiver, and/or how extreme the environment, you could find yourself politely waiting to talk because of said noise/interference. ?

No Worries! (Not like you're the only one and, well it's text not voice)

For most radio services that are 'shared frequency' the rule is monitor before transmitting. (although I doubt anyone actively does this anymore, rule or no rule) On a lot of commercial systems, at least in years past, the microphone hanger would enable a RX coded squelch when hung up, but would be carrier squelch receive when the microphone was removed from the hanger. Most portables have a monitor button which, when pressed, likewise disables the receiver's coded squelch. I think the 'big lie' by many manufacturers, is using the term 'privacy'. Even with CTCSS or DCS, other people can still hear what you are saying and, where GMRS is concerned, the only 'privacy' would be encryption, which is not allowed under the rules. This, encryption, was (apparently) once allowed as my other half has a pair of old Radio Shack 'bubble pack' FRS portables that do have encryption! I discovered this when checking the radio out one day on a service monitor. The point is, and marcspaz did a great job of explaining it, there are sub-audio coding options, CTCSS and DCS (also various forms of paging and select call), to keep your radio silent except for who you want to hear. This again, is NOT 'privacy'.

Yes, she did return the radio. LOL! For the high price, the 50X1 just didn't seem like a very good deal considering all the limitations and, for about $80 more you can get the KG-1000G which is a far superior radio with none of the limitations and even a few more options. Alternatively, and if you don't mind hunting around, there are, as many have pointed out, numerous used (and even new) programmable Part 90 radios on the market. The latter are not certified for GMRS, but the average part 90 commercial radio is far better than even the best Chinese radio (IMHO). I don't advocate using non part 95 radios, but that is a personal choice for me. I have too much to lose in the extremely unlikely event the FCC knocks on my door.

Could not agree more! Say what you want about dipole arrays being 'old school', but the reality is they work, and work well. Very low angle of radiation (<10 degrees in most cases), last for years in the crappiest conditions and, none of the issues found in the cheap multi-section verticals, all of which as noted, eventually suffer from 'water ingestion'.