SteveC7010

Interesting. The radios on that list are either too powerful or repeater capable, but there's not a one that is both. I'd also point out that they say: "The simple act of purchasing the radios gives you a license to use them on all 22 channels." which we all know is not quite how it works. Following the rules for the radio service is what grants and maintains the license, not the purchase of the radios.

Since the OP can hear activity on a Cobra, presumably a FRS/GRMS bubble pack handheld, I am thinking that the specifics of his antenna and coax need to be set aside. If his radio is properly programmed and working correctly, he should hear the traffic that Cobra is picking up, regardless of the type of antenna. I don't think the Cobra is a 10M CB since he's hearing GMRS traffic. I suppose it might be CB but until he gives us some more specifics, we're all guessing. More likely issues: Improper programming - Need to know what radio he has and exactly how and what he has programmed into it.Since we don't know what kind of radio, we don't even know that it can be programmed with GMRS (and other UHF) frequencies.He's hearing other traffic on the radio on 2M and local dispatch which suggests that the coax is ok and intact from antenna to radio.There's just not enough information to offer real solutions.

Wayne, The "travel tone" is simply an designated TPL (or PL if you will) tone that is accepted as a universal tone to access repeaters by travelers especially on Channel 20R which is the commonly accepted assistance or emergency calling channel. LIke any other PL, only one can be used at a time so there is no overlay. The travel tone is 141.3. Just a word of caution... Not everyone in the GMRS world follows this plan, but most do.

No ground plane required for a J-pole. But the coax needs to return to the radio properly. I am not deeply schooled on antenna theory, but with the J-pole that proper coax return may actually be the rf ground.

A j-pole doesn't need a ground plane like a quarter wave does. But the coax shield from the antenna to the radio is a chassis ground. It's part of what makes the j-pole work so well. Since you plan to place this in the attic, a ground for the mast as lightning protection probably is not necessary, and you probably won't need a lightning arrestor installed inline on the coax either. In fact, for an attic install, you really don't need a mast, at least in the traditional sense. I have two j-poles from Ed Fong. They're a wire ladder designed to be installed inside thin wall PVC piping, and there is little chance of them being a lightning rod if I were to mount them on top of the house. I'd still place a lightning arrestor inline for outside use like that. My amateur radio club uses a j-pole fabbed out of 600 ohm tv antenna lead. It's not in any kind of encasement. They just fasten it to a 15' pole with some rubber bands and tie the pole to one of the legs of an outdoor shelter. The only ground there is the coax from the antenna to the radio. I would check continuity on the coax shield from the antenna to the radio just to be safe.

My expectation is that we won't see any new radios right away. There's a time lag to these things. They need to modify their designs, tool up the factories, and procure parts before they can build them. They also need to go through the FCC Type Acceptance procedure. Then they need to build then, ship them, and get them into stores for retail sales and warehouses for internet sales. My best guess is that we might see something in time for Christmas, probably repackaged existing FRS/GMRS radios with new advertising claims, etc. as FRS only. Somebody might surprise us with new products by then, but I think we'd see those in the spring of 2018. I don't think we'll see a ground swell of 5 watt GMRS portables in the stores for quite a while.

Just give 95.1705 a read and tell me where you see a limitation of 6 family members per license. One of the most important things we try to do in these forums is to give correct and accurate information to each other.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the rules that limits the number of family members covered by the license. Would you know which section of the new Part 95 you're pulling this info from?

If you use a PC, get Irfanview. It will resize just about any pic. No need to enhance the forum software.

If it is possible to easily generate an email list from the database, it would be fairly straight forward to send out an email asking that all listings be updated or confirmed once or twice a year or face automatic deletion. I don't think that is unnecessarily harsh or unrealistic. It's a free listing so expecting the lister to keep it up to date is not an unreasonable condition. If there's no email address associated with the listing, I see no reason not to delete it. Or at the very least, flag the listing as unreliable. If the word around the net is that MyGMRS is becoming unreliable, then it's time for some action.

Uh, there really is not Part 97 type acceptance like the other services. Remember that hams can build their own gear from scratch. So any Part 95 radio could be used in the amateur service by an appropriately licensed ham. My experience with Part 90 gear is pretty much limited to Motorola radios. I can't speak to anything older than the 1225 product line although it is easy enough to research Part 95 type acceptance if you have a specific model in mind. The 1225's, both mobiles and portables, were the last radios to be Part 95 certified. (Except, of course, for Motorola's bubble pack FRS/GMRS products.)

I take it that you kept your cool and explained the situation to the police in fairly simple terms so that they gained a clear understanding of your side of the situation. Obviously, the camp manager forcibly blocking a state road didn't help his case. I would loved to have witnessed this.

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/974-unlicensed/?do=findComment&comment=8079

They were adopted on May 18th and published on May 19th. (I posted that same info a few days ago in another currently active thread.)

Looks like the official adoption date was May 18th and the publication date was the following day. So 90 days is just a few weeks away. At this point in time, I would suggest that any debate over two watts vs. a half watt under FRS rules is almost nonsensical and completely unproductive. As far as the OP's situation, the real issue is that of a "grandfathered" licensee who most likely never bothered to renew the license. If memory serves, failure to renew would clearly negate the grandfathered status once and for all. If they're using low power gear (2 watts or less) they're only a couple of weeks away from being legal. If they're using higher powered portables or mobiles or base radios, they're clearly operating illegally, regardless. If I was the OP, I'd be reminding the camp that their grandfathered status holds only if the license has been properly renewed and is not expired at this time. The second thing I would remind them of is the fact that FCC rules clearly require users to share the frequencies and that there is no guarantee of a private channel, even under the old rules way back when they were first licensed. If their license is valid, they are obligated to play nice in the sandbox. If their license expired, then they are no longer grandfathered, and the lower power FRS rules would apply. I think it would be a waste of time to try to explain today's rules which will be obsolete in less than 30 days so I'd just mention the new rules that will be effective in August. If they complied with the new rules now, it would probably eliminate most of the interference to the repeater, but they'd still be stuck with hearing the repeater unless they figured out how to enable PL. Then the big question would be what radios they have. If they're bubble pack, that is easily fixed at no cost. If they're commercial grade stuff, then there's a visit from a radio tech needed and that costs money which it's unlikely that the Salvation Army would pony up give the fact that they most likely haven't spent the buck to keep their grandfathered license current.

Uh, under the new FRS rules, aren't they legal up to 2 watts on the 462.xxx repeater out channels? I am pretty sure that is the case so you really don't have much of an argument other than to negotiate shared use of the frequency.

I was thinking the same thing, but you beat me to it.

On that note, doesn't the shift for FRS from 0.5 watt to 2 watts on 1-7 and 15-22 offer you some opportunities to improve coverage? Probably the limiting factor for the moment will be the existing FRS/GMRS radios that will only do 1/2 watt on some of the channels.

I maintain several Part 90 licenses for a local government. The fee waivers are for the agencies themselves, not individuals. That seems to be the general rule of thumb throughout FCC licensing. I worked for several local governments for my entire career, and I never heard of individuals being licensed with fees waived in the manner that you suggest. I am very doubtful that they'd do that for GMRS. The only way to be sure is to ask the FCC directly. Any answer you get on an internet forum would not be reliable. So my single recommendation is to go ask the FCC. Since you raised the question, please remember to tell us what the FCC says. You've raised an interesting question, and I am certain that many of us would like to learn the outcome.

First, i do not find the language you are quoting in the revised Part 95 subsequent to the R&O which was recently adopted. If you are using a copy of Part 95 older than 2017, it is no longer relevant to the conversation. There is language in there that concerns grandfathered business and governmental entities, but the grandfather clause is for licenses issued prior to sometime in 1987. If you can show us exactly where in the new Part 95 is language resides, perhaps we can continue the discussion. I am pretty sure that most, if not all of us understand and believe that GMRS is now licensed only to individuals,not entities of any kind. Licenses issued to individuals only cover their family members as defined in 95a. In the case of GMRS, It's almost certain that governmental entities and business are simply not eligible for GMRS licenses and have not been for 30 years. The wording about fees that you quote appear to be in regards to station licenses and that generally holds true for Part 90 licenses. Since there are no station licenses now issued in GRMS, whatever fee exemptions that may exist in other services simply don't apply.

There are all kinds of helmet radio solutions for commercial gear as well as GMRS. Just look around net a bit. Racing teams and motorcycle folks use them a lot. A typical race car has a mobile radio and a helmet mic and earphones plus a remote PTT button on the steering wheel. Motorcycle setups are similar but with a PTT button on the handle bars. On motorcycles, you have the option of using an HT or a mobile. I use a similar setup, but with an NFL style headset with an HT on my belt for EMS field operations.

You can only transmit on frequencies for which you hold a license. Listen to ham all you want, but no transmitting until you get your ticket.

In other words, you're just using the charger base as a stand for the radios part of the time?

I would read through the links provided by the FCC in their response. There are some detailed definitions in there that may answer your question. My personal reaction is that hotspots and such via wireless providers are probably more closely related to landlines and thus not OK. YMMV

This just popped up over on radioreference: https://forums.radioreference.com/gmrs-frs/354230-response-fcc-linking-repeater-audio-over-internet-its-legality.html I have no reason to doubt its veracity. The poster is a moderator of a reddit section on GMRS. It seems pretty clear to me: If your internet connection for the VOIP link is via the cable company, it's OK, if your connection is via DSL or dial-up through the phone company, it's not. I know it makes no sense, but it is what it is. It's the old protections for Ma Bell still in effect.