UncleYoda

What are you trying to do? Are you able to get into any repeaters? Orangeburg is about 35 miles from Columbia, so which one is your location? If you have a question, ask.

I have a Baofeng K5+; don't know what the difference is. I know nothing about firmware updates for it, if any. But I would not trust firmware from any source other than the manufacturer.

Some repeaters have a courtesy tone that you hear when you or the other person let go of the PTT button. The purpose of the courtesy tone is so you don't have to let the repeater drop every time before speaking.

Talking through repeaters doesn't make you a control station. A control station controls operation. A repeater user is a control station only for his own radio(s) not the repeater. This is not in question at all; it is well established and clearly stated by FCC. A base station is not a fixed station, even though it is at a fixed location. Asking FCC to clarify/interpret the rules is pointless unless you have some special access to the guy in charge. It's amazing that so many members here can post so much stupid crap.

Even though Amateur has 420-450 officially, the practical use part is 441-449. One good reason for HAMs to use GMRS is communicating with non-HAMs. I recommend the owner rename this forum to HAM-HATE-FORUM.

It might help us help you if you explain what you're doing in detail. Adding or changing tones should be easy. What do you mean by a radio with all the keys? The Baofeng UV-5G has the number keys and the typical extra keys. Can you post a picture of the radio you have?

Check the Part 95E regs -- base stations not allowed to use repeaters (as others here will say, you can likely get away with it).

But that should have happened in the 2017 revamp. I don't see FCC doing it now.

No. 000.500 is1/2MHz = 500KHz. You need 005.000 (5 before decimal) Yes, but look again at what he wrote.

I almost bought one. I cancelled because there were no accessories for it. Secondary concern was company owner is on the liberal left side politically.

I agree but I got over the anger years ago.

Linking has similar issues on HAM too, except there we can usually switch to other repeaters. For HAM temporary, user-initiated linking is an alternative. I don't know if that is feasible with GMRS linking systems, but if so, would be better than permanent, full-time linking. Linking just at scheduled times is another option.

I can only refer to how mine works, but AFAIK others should be the same. Ch. 40-500 are RX only; it's hard coded in the firmware - it's part of their approach to get GMRS certification. Of course, I'm referring to the default GMRS mode as shipped, not the possible unlocked mode which breaks certification. I can't follow some of what you're asking because you are not giving enough detail. And I don't know the intended use of the extra PL, PH, VFO channels (manual is useless).

Channels above 39 are RX only. 31-38 (on mine) can only be programmed using the software; 39 can be programmed for simplex from the radio but need software to program a repeater transmit.

I've been trying for over a decade to do that mostly with 2m HAM, but with more focus on statewide than national. The only reason it won't work is the attitude of the HAMs. I hate the answer that HF is necessary; it is only if people are to stubborn to cooperate on another approach. HF is faster for long distance but there's a possibility that conditions won't be good for propagation. We should be practicing using all the options available. What I plan on doing with GMRS is a neighborhood radio watch. My GMRS base station can reach those FRS users around me who don't have HAM or GMRS. I can give them info even if they can't talk back, arrange meetings, call for reinforcements, etc. What most of them do is volunteer to work with agencies. They don't seem to want to work with individuals. So after 10 years in ARES, I quit and I'm following my own plan.

It costs more (more time and effort) to process a new, first-time licensee than to add another ID that requires no testing. But I sure am not wasting time on proving anything to you or the FCC. (They know already and there was info made public about the costs back when they proposed changing the fees.)

What's the "it" you're referring to as sloppily written? If you mean the original rule change referenced in your OP, then yea, that's obvious. And it's hard to believe a lawyer wrote that, thus my comment about a hoax/joke. There's a very good reason to eliminate the extra payment IMO: it doesn't cost anywhere near that much to process, and HAM used to be free at the FCC end.

Yes, I think that would be one of the most important things for a serious rule change proposal. I'd like to also see GMRS added for free to those with a HAM license who request it (obviously I already have mine so that's for newcomers). It can't cost $35 just to have software assign an extra alphanumeric string to an existing licensed user. But at least let us use our UV-5Rs, dang-it, instead of buying one with a different label; there's no need for duplication.

Nevermind. Are y'all sure this isn't a hoax/joke?

And your repeater users are tying up the same (output) frequency that is for simplex use, not to mention possible use by an open repeater. [But it's FCC's fault for creating that mess.] The only really relevant point here is you having a repeater doesn't give you control over stations that are not using your repeater.

Yea, I did decide a while back to use .575 simplex for my local area base station. (The nearest repeater listed for that never went live AFAIK and probably would've been out of range. I do receive one up on a mountain 60mi away.) And to try to use open repeaters if any are available when mobile. But this was about what to do with the other channels/frequencies to maybe make some use of them. So, I've got it worked out for now (but things do keep changing).

I'm not going to explain my motivation for this or anything here. It's usually pointless to try to change anyone's mind, especially on the internet. We have 7 channels at 5W, and 8 channels at 50W for simplex. I don't monitor 1-7 regularly because it's mostly FRSers. Repeater use dominates those 8 50W simplex frequencies. And I have to set a separate tone if I want to block hearing repeater traffic. FCC screwed up by not having repeater output separate from simplex. I'm not going to get into issues with specific repeaters. But almost all recently updated or new repeaters are either permission required or members only. They're turning this public spectrum into something more like business radio.

@WRYS709 See, that's the issue; it's all based on perception. Do repeater club members have exclusive use of the frequency and tone? I kind of expect some of the users to feel that way. But nobody owns a frequency. And it ain't interference to talk as long as you don't transmit over someone else.

I am reprogramming some of my repeater channels that have been for private repeaters to simplex. But I want to include the output tone for the repeaters where known because people may be listening with the receive tone set. Would that violate any protocol that would upset the repeater owners? I'm sure it wouldn't violate any regs but that doesn't mean it won't be objected to, as in they think their members have exclusive use of that frequency/tone pair..

Slim-jim (no ground plane needed) or stacked 5/8 wave on pizza pan. Good coax matters a lot too.