Hans

You've done quite a bit of homework. It sounds much like my experiences over the years. That's how I ended up with MURS, GMRS, FRS, and amateur radio. I split my time mostly between GMRS and amateur radio; some FRS with a very minute smattering of MURS. The first two are most useful to me because of repeaters. I certainly share in your frustration!

I'd rather it be that penetration and range that we could see from 2 watt handhelds. Wireless microphones are going to be weak by comparison. Also, that doesn't solve the handheld <-> mobile <-> handheld range increase from cross band repeating.

Yep. I was thinking taking from the color-dot pool as well but was hoping some spectrum gurus would know of a niche VHF group in that region that could be sacrificed easier. Additionally, I was also playing with the idea of merging MURS and FRS. I like both ideas.

Ian, Commsprepper tried unsuccessfully to make a repeater from the Midland Micromobiles https://youtu.be/lwpe_0-QeLA *** These are NOT type accepted. This is for informational purposes ONLY. *** AFAIK,the LT-590 UHF Mobile Radio is the basis of the Midland MXT400 MicroMobile. http://luiton.com/product/lt-590-uhf-mobile-radio/ LT-590 manual http://luiton.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/LT-590-user-manual.compressed.pdf

However, as I was reasoning earlier, the manufacturer's responsibility lies in them honestly pursuing FCC certification in good faith for their designs and sticking to those designs. The FCC's responsibilities include making sure that it is not certifying non-compliant designs. The licensed individual's responsibilities, license by rule or by application, is to adhere to the parameters of relevant regulations. With FCC certified hybrid bubble pack radios, I don't fault the manufacturers. Rather, I fault the FCC for certifying them and I fault the user for not reading and following the requirements.

Yeah, there is enough information on the internet now that even a caveman such as myself can get most of the way, if not all of the way, to a working analog repeater. Between the websites and all of the forum posts at different boards, someone new to repeaters should be down to asking some focused questions on things they don't understand or for troubleshooting. On the other hand, these threads improve my own skill because I have to think it through again in order to answer. Also, I believe it keeps this information at the forefront of the search engines. But, I do understand how one may no longer have energy for these threads.

Does this... ... conflict with that? If I take a part 95 repeater in a trailer or in a Pelican box to a location and string up an antenna or put an antenna on a tripod or have an antenna on the trailer; is that a violation of part 95? There is no permanent structure.

Yes, they are complex devices but this is more speculation without evidence. With more modern electionics, it can be a relatively trivial thing to lock firmware down to part 95 operation. The Chinese did it with the UV-82 and the GMRS V1. One could argue that there isn't the potential profit in designing and submitting part 95 repeaters. This, especially since so many part 90 repeaters are currently being used as GMRS repeaters. How big do you think the GMRS repeater market is? That's one of the things we are discussing. What are the intentions of GMRS per the FCC and how can crossband repeating fit within those intentions. Crossband repeating can extend the distance two simplex users can communicate. It can also allow a user to reach an otherwise unreachable repeater. What about when network interconnection is not available to that individual user? If crossband repeating had zero utility, it wouldn't still be a thing. I respect your opninon. However, I and others have been in situations where crossband repeating would've solved a problem for us and it is not currently available in the rules of GMRS. That's what we are here to discuss. You asserted that such a repeater is a violation of the rules so it is upon you to provide the evidence. Do relevant regulations specify what constitutes a fixed station? Does the repeater in question (driven to a location and parked) violate that definition in light of the fact that a location for a repeater is not part of the GMRS license application? I do not know the answers yet but intend to research when I get a chance. The enforcement arm of the FCC does make such determinations but they are predicated upon what the actual regulations state. Now, the task is to find the relevant regulations.

Type acceptance ensures nothing. It does is make it more likely that equipment will be used within the rules because the technical aspects of the device are being certified as operating in a way which conforms to the rules. You are missing the point. Even though I might have (or might not, I would have to look back) unintentionally played fast and loose with the term mobile repeater, we are talking about a part 95 repeater installed in a vehicle with the intention of parking and then using the repeater from a fixed location. Is that a violation of part 95? If so, please cite text. Type acceptance and license are a bit different. One is from the manufacturer's perspective and the other is from the user's perspective. Not all licensing involves a knowledge or skill test. Does that not make them licenses anymore? You aren't addressing my assertion about the nature and function of licensure. The fact that FRS is license by rule and GMRS is license by application means that the bar to enacting penalties is set lower for the FCC than it would be without licensing; by rule or application. No, that responsibility is not on the shoulders of the manufacture. This is a myth that I've seen far too much out there. The responsibility of the manufacturer is to honestly present their product for certification and to continue to manufacture their product in accordance with the parameters and rules of that certification. If they should change their product in any way that it no longer fits the original parameters and rules of the certification, they have a responsibility to follow FCC procedures in amending, withdrawing, or re-applying. Manufacturers have no responsibility for the misuse of their product when they have honestly submitted their design for certification in good faith. No, that is a choice of manufacturers (i.e. Motorola). If they enter into certification in good faith and continue to manufacture in good faith, having been granted certification; that is the totality of their responsibility. There is no need to "shift blame" as their responsibility does not encompass your or my possible violations. That is what the certification process is all about; the FCC approving the design. If anything, the FCC might have a teeny-tiny sliver of responsibility for having potentially lax certification procedures. However, responsibility ultimately lies squarely on the shoulders of the individual. Please link the report as I would have to read it before commenting. This calls for speculation unless supporting evidence is provided. Are their any admissions of this on record? EDIT: I thought you meant manufacturers added channels to facilitate user's errant behavior. I misunderstood. Yes, the FCC probably did make that decision for that reason. But it is still speculation unless it is on record; which it might very well be. However, let us not conflate the responsibilities of a regulatory agency and those of a manufacturer. If a manufacturer honestly submits their design in good faith for certification and the FCC grants that certification, how is misuse the responsibility of the manufacturer?

Basics of English Common Law; that which is not prohibited, is permitted. Besides, from a regulatory standpoint, how does the FCC keep anyone from doing anything that it is illegal? The short answer is that it cannot. Any other system is unrealistic and tyrannical, but wholesale prior restraint systems are unethical and doomed to failure. Rather, it typically works like this; if Johnny commits a crime and if Johnny is caught and if Johnny's guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a proscribed penalty against Johnny is enacted. Where the FCC has an upper hand in this system is through licensing. By taking a license, either overtly or through license by rule, one operates under granted privilege. That makes the burden of the FCC lower than it would without a licensure scheme. Those operating under a license are assumed to have accepted being regulated. That's how all licenses work. Regarding the question as to if a GMRS repeater in a parked vehicle is legal... We can take a part 95 legal repeater for GMRS, place it in the car with mobile duplexer and mobile antenna, and drive it to a location. Then we can park and turn on the repeater. Is that prohibited? I don't see where it is but I am very open to the possibility that something in the language clearly makes it verboten.

By the way, if I would have been a bit more brave before we purchased the pre-made two mobile repeater, I would've bought the radios separately at a much cheaper price and assembled it myself. I had the knowledge at the time (thanks to you fine radio folks on the interwebs!) but did not have the experience. So, instead of paying $200 for two mobiles linked, I might have been able to make it myself for $100. Since I wanted Motorola, knowing about programming cables (BlueMax49ers on eBay!) and deciphering Motorola's label codes (thanks Batlabs and Repeater Builder!) made all the difference in locating and working with the components. ETA: On these mobile radio repeater setups... big, slow fans... much air flow... need them. You don't want your hard work cooking itself.

Good deduction but you will tear your hair out getting there. Save the stress and pick same mobiles that have been tried and tested through the years in the repeater configuration. Scanner front ends are wide so they are really unsuitable; or so I'm told. There will also be connection and control issues if they aren't tried and true combinations. Vox sucks. Drop it from consideration. Now you are left with signalling and controlling the transmitter at the low voltage level. Mobile radios already capable of doing this make life so very much nicer.

You're welcome. The replies started to seem like you were missing the edits. You did not give that impression and I didn't mean to imply that you were or were not looking for pre-made. I was pointing out that you can purchase the components and make it yourself, purchase them already assembled by someone else, or any stage in between. Regardless, with repeaters made from used mobile radios, it's possible to have spares already programmed up and ready to replace at minimal cost. If you are using two mobiles, you can program each for the reverse function so if the Tx goes out on the transmitting radio, you can quickly swap the Rx for the Tx radio, change channels, swap the duplexer cables, and you are back in business in minutes. I don't believe that is permissible as it is linking radio services. I'm no radio expert but, unfortunately, duplexer tuning doesn't work that way as far as I know. Sure, some people talk about tuning the duplexer to the center of the service and changing channel. However, I've always been told that the duplexer needs to be tuned to each frequency pair or you will end up with lousy performance or no performance at all. Go with the best antenna and feedline you are willing to pay for. Between that and height, it will pay for itself. Height is king! Even a good system is made lousy by insufficient line, antenna, and height. (That said, my budget allows for a cheap antenna and only 50' off the ground right now.) For the garage repeater, don't close the door to purchasing a good used repeater from eBay or other sources. The two mobile radio repeater cost us $200 a few years back as there were no good full repeater deals found. We needed a duplexer so add another $100. Then, add a power supply at $20 or less from Amazon. We just found a commercial, 100% duty cycle repeater with duplexer for $350. It will cost around $60 to have the duplexer tuned if we cannot find a local fellow Amateur to do it for less. So, the mobile radio repeater would end up costing us about $320, would not be 100% duty cycle, and would not be able to identify as is. The commercial repeater will end up costing us about $410, is 100% duty cycle, has many options (including automatic battery backup with trickle charge), and can identify. On top of that, the latter has a good quality, brand name mobile duplexer as opposed to an iffy China franken-plexer. No problem. I think we can all now make better headway. Thanks for clarifying. As to replacement parts for the mobile radio repeater... I would suggest that you take a look at the common mobiles used for these setups and evaluate the vast supply of used parts. I image that you could squirrel away some backup radios at bottom dollar prices. Once you have your repeater working, you could program each and swap them out to test before storage. In all likelihood, you could have enough backup parts to last decades. I do understand where you are coming from as this research soothed my nerves at the time. I planned on purchasing a couple of radios each month for a little while and a duplicate of the other parts. My nerves were happy with that plan. With the commercial repeater, I will probably spend the next year looking for another identical one on the cheap and have it ready to go into service should something fail on this one.

I would think a parked vehicle would be a fixed location for the purposes of GMRS repeater operation. It's no different than a portable repeater since the location is not part of the FCC license application for GMRS. You get to a location. You park. You turn on the repeater. Of course, one could not legally drive down the road with a repeater operating. However, I don't *yet* see a distinction between carrying a boxed repeater, setting it down, firing it up and driving the repeater, parking it, and firing it up. Both are portable. One is removed from the vehicle and the other stays in the vehicle. It's a difference of structure around the repeater, no? One is a box and the other is a vehicle.

We just got our used Vertex VXR-7000U and it works very well. We have PDFs of the manuals, including the programming manual. I'm able to program the repeater fine except for two channels that have the transmit frequency set to "Tx Inh", which I assume means "transmit inhibit." I can enter a frequency but it reverts to "Tx Inh" whenever I go into other menus or save the file. I have tried to read the radio, change the Tx frequency, and then write to the radio with the same results. I am using CE27 version 1.01 under Windows 7 and everything else programs just fine. I tried with the "-d" switch and without. I am concerned that it might be a corrupt codeplug but don't think so as it is only channels 2 and 3. The firmware version is 1.19; the latest. If I can find CE27 version 1.08 (International - not 1.08W USA) it might fix it as perhaps 1.01 is missing the feature? Anyone know how to get Tx frequencies programmed in those two channels?

I was thinking something in the 150 MHz range because of handheld antenna length. Although, 46/49 MHz would work. Yep. That thread finally got me to post this thread that I've been putting off. I've wanted to crossband repeat with GMRS since first using the service but have been frustrated by part 95.

True. I was sneaking up on the problem but there's no reason not to look all the way.

I agree. Good post. This is why I put this bit in our repeater description: (Tone is edited out for this thread.) "In the very unlikely situation that our family should need the repeater during an important event or family emergency, a private tone will be used and all public tones temporarily locked out. We do not foresee this happening often, if at all. In such a situation, we will try to keep the repeater lock out to the absolute minimum time necessary. !The only tones authorized for non-family to use the repeater are XXXX.XX and the Travel Tone!" The public currently has two tones to choose from. If the need would arise, they would be temporarily locked out with ease. If a member of the public accesses the repeater at any time with anything other than the afforded public tones, then I would consider them trespassing and they will be asked to change it or stop using the repeater. I consider this description to be ample notice.

Yeah, it's a pipe dream but since there is discussion on petitioning the FCC for changes to GMRS... It would be very nice to get some VHF frequencies channelized into GMRS with the express allowance for cross-band repeating. These could be from somewhere around MURS (or even MURS itself; I'm not picky.) Under the proposed rule changes, the VHF channels could be limited to simplex and cross-band repeat "local" side only, 2 watts maximum. Even just one VHF channel addition would increase the usefulness of GMRS, IMHO. I know that something like this has probably a snowball's chance. However, I don't think there is harm in putting the idea into GMRS user's heads now, in case an opportunity to propose it comes up later. What say ye?

This is one of those extraneous bits of information that throws me off in these posts. Getting into the mobile repeater takes whatever watts it takes to get in. If you are relatively close enough and the propagation is good enough, it might only take a few milliwatts. BUT, in everyday use, it is merely the settings on the handheld used; low, medium, or high if ya got em. Low might be more than a few milliwatts but it's what you have at the time. Too much minutuae in some of this description is muddying the waters, IMHO. Again, cross-band repeat would be simplest but we don't have that option in GMRS. So, a basic mobile repeater is the way to go. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. There is affordable used gear available right now to do it.

Simply put, a mobile repeater would do this part. Two used mobile radios from eBay that are part 95 accepted and a repeater controller. If I remember correctly, the Motorola M1225 radios are part 95 (verify first). They would only require a cable to connect them (dirt cheap or roll your own), programming, a duplexer, and an antenna. Easy peasy. Not particularly rocket surgery. We have a repeater like that sitting in our radio room. You can purchase the two radios with cable, programming, and a microphone; often for under $200. We used the seller "mineforyours" on eBay for our initial look-see into this type of repeater. The cheap China duplexers are under $100 tuned on eBay. Add feedline and a mobile antenna. Consider solutions to battery drain on the vehicle. You could also purchase two Motorola or similarly suited part 95 radios and a repeater controller (there are a few out there new production on the cheap). It doesn't have to be pre-made. Does this not satisfy this part of your project?

Yeah, I'm well aware. The wireless mic/repeater comparison was yours. Again, the closest and cheapest thing I can think of would be dump GMRS and rely on 100% networking; like the Inrico network radio products. https://network-radi...-network-radio/ They also produce handheld models. Good luck. Edit: If you are relying on email notifications to reply to messages then you are missing edits. There is more to these messages than to which you appear to be reading or replying.

Yup.

Perhaps I'm dense because I still don't get it. Wireless mics vs full on repeaters... Although similar, one is not quite the other. Perhaps you are looking at a handheld to car solution. From my humble perspective, it looks like a lot of unnecessary thrashing about because of not starting with a simple, concise premise. I wish you well with it and I'll watch from the sidelines. Edit: Okay, I think I understand some. *If* we were able to use two different bands, something like a cross-band repeat from your handheld to the car then out to family or a base repeater would be what you are looking at... I think. Unfortunately, I can't think of anything that fits GMRS regulations that would give you what you want. Hopefully someone here can find a solution for you. Edit again: The closest and cheapest thing I can think of would be dump GMRS and rely on 100% networking; like the Inrico network radio products. https://network-radios.com/index.php/product/inrico-tm-7-3gwifi-mobile-network-radio/ They also produce handheld models.

I still don't have a good grasp of why you want *mobile* repeaters. Can you elaborate on your need for this, please?