UncleYoda

That's just your meaningless characterization. There's nothing wrong with following rules - our society depends on it.

Base can talk to handheld (and mobile, and other base), so I'll answer just on the repeater part. If one uses a base station to talk through a repeater, that station is still a base, just operating in violation of regulations.

Some users try to stay "legal" while the enforcement agency still exists. The fact that someone you're talking to doesn't know what type of setup you're using (unless they ask, which they often do at least on HAM) doesn't make it OK. The rationale that you're not likely to get caught can be used for many other things if you choose to take the risk. But that won't-get-caught approach is not how our system of government is intended to operate.

Correct. I don't like it and did not notice that until after I got the license and ordered radios. I do most of my radio usage at home, not on the road much anymore. I even tried asking FCC about this and got nothing but BS like reading the regs to me which I already knew. So, yea, it appears most users routinely break that rule.

Read the regs carefully. Base stations are not included for the 467 repeater input freqs.

Yes, for the sole purpose of remote control. IMO, your interpretation is correct. But everyone has chosen their side on this and other rules and no one other than FCC can convince them otherwise.

UV-5R (and similar Baofeng models) has a Reverse button, the asterisk "*", that lets you see the transmit frequency when display is set to FREQ.

@RayP I see it now; I didn't notice the owner circle button (that needs to be enlarged or changed so the callsign is fully visible). I did reprogram one radio channel based on the bogus listing. I'll have to look for the last update by the real owners I guess. I'll help Ray out: @rdunajewski bogus listings: 9299 ... real is 9024, 9296 ... real is 2898 9295 ... real is 6541 and I think also 9297 and 9298

Hours are not the issue. Could be something local I guess (like the old all circuits are busy). Or they just don't want to hear from me. I tried again, an hour later, this time using the 1 (typically unnecessary), same result.

https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact under Contact Us by Phone, Toll Free Voice

I just tried to call FCC at their toll free number listed on their web site, and the call would not go through. No ringing sound, no recording, no operator type response, nothing. And as far as I know, they don't offer an email option.

Ray, as you may have noticed before (a while back), the 725 repeater, formerly at 600, was listed twice, once under each frequency, for a time. That may explain part of it, if the 600 listing was later updated. As I know you know, that owner changes things so much it's hard to keep up with. I'm not sure on Hopkins, except it was listed as permission required for a while recently before going back to open. I got permission from the owner during that time and he didn't say anything like it was supposed to open. And I don't know if it's relevant to the problem you bring up here, but last time I got the list for SC, sorted by last update, there were multiple entries for some of the same repeaters. I hadn't noticed that before; I was expecting each one to be listed only by the last update..

11 and 10 are HF.

Such a half-assed merging of CB and GMRS seems crazy to me. How would one tell who is a GMRS user? You want some to be required to use call signs and others not? Since a listener can't always tell who is using high power it would be a free-for-all for everyone to use 50 watts if they have it. It would be a regulatory disaster, kind of like their past mistake of putting FRS and GMRS together on shared frequencies.

I think that's because mobile (in a vehicle) or portable (walking around) can't be connected to a landline. As in other places in the regs, the modern wireless technology isn't addressed.

Ray, I'm not new and your explanation wasn't clear to me. I think node is a computer networking term that isn't well defined for radio. Are nodes always connected to the internet? Do they transmit and receive on the same frequency? Is there anything else different from using repeaters? Another term not well defined is hub.

Speaking of idiots, I'd include you guys who don't have a clue what thread topics are for. @rdunajewski it's your forum, you have to do something - it's a forum-wide issue.

DIscussion is off-topic.

also @gortex2 I saw your replies this morning and didn't think I'd respond. But I decided it is tangentially related to the thread topic. So, I'll take a stab at further explanation. Nothing here will be citing regs or legal precedence, so if that is what you expect, just skip this. I do not have a repeater and do not intend to research or see any personal benefit from researching the legal issues; I'll leave that to those involved. I know people on both sides of the issue. I know at least one (maybe another) who pays for some of his HAM repeater tower usage. He doesn't take donations that I know of, and it isn't a typical club (there is a loose organization that is the primary user). And I've been told or heard discussions by several hams all the way back to when I started that the repeater tower owners can't charge for HAM usage. Similar to what 935 said above, I know of one club repeater on a commercial tower on the coast where emergency use by non-profit organizations is a major factor. [Emergency use and public benefit are the main reasons HAM is supposed to be non-commercial/non-profit.] And this tower owner, according to club members, told them they would not be allowed to do any maintenance on the cable and antenna and that when it fails they're done. The tower owner wants to sell the space to commercial users that pay (or pay more). The way it was stated by the club members is the tower owner did not want it there because they could not charge for it (or maybe charge as much as the commercial users). It's possible that the differences in the two views is how things are being stated. It is true, at least in my area, that repeater owners can't charge HAMs to use their repeaters. All the HAM repeaters I am familiar with are open to any licensed HAM, except an individual who has been singled out and banned but that's off-topic. I have seen listings for private HAM repeaters on Repeaterbook but I have never used or had any further info on those. Although clubs maintain many of the repeaters, I don't know of any (other than those private ones) where club membership is required for use. So, since the repeater owners can't charge users, the repeater owners may be telling the tower owners they can't pay or can't afford the full commercial fee. But I also know of cases where a prospective repeater owner told the tower owner the tower owners weren't allowed to charge for allowing installation of HAM repeaters. No reg/law was ever cited in any of what I heard as far as I recall. That's different from GMRS where private, members only repeaters are common. But even with GMRS, I've never seen or heard what the fees actually are. Most of us pay dues (if we choose) without knowing what the costs of operation are. If it is all non-profit, the financing should be made available. I don't know if understanding the differences in this between HAM and GMRS would be helpful or just add to the confusion.

That is different from my experience; it was the club/owner's requirement to use member ID, of course in addition to the FCC ID requirement..

I do not like your implication that I haven't looked at the regs. I would almost never bring anything up without reading the regs (I've read all of parts 97 & 95 more than once already anyway). I do not see any substantive difference in the two relating to this. Ham clubs charge for membership. AFAIK, prior to joining and maybe even after joining there is no accounting provided of how the dues are spent. And that was true for the one gmrs club I was formerly a member of; members were not even told how many members there were. The main issue I know of with HAM repeaters is the commercial tower owners cannot charge for HAM repeaters. I have not heard that brought up with GMRS. It's interesting to see all the varied interpretations posted so far - but not really good feedback for the clarity of t he regs.

Does the practice of clubs allowing only paid members to use their repeater(s) violate GMRS regs? Is it different than similar practice in HAM? (These questions are prompted by comments in various threads here.) No trash posting please; if you don't care, ignore.

I don't remember any more. It's up to FCC to cite or make a new statement.

Some rules applicable to Amateur are not specific to it. And there is a lot of common meanings of terms. There was a ruling/statement some years back that the internet was not included in the restriction on PSTN. That should apply to all services. I know you'll want a citation/link/quote but all I have is what I remember.

Power and height, e.g. 10-20 W, 40-60 ft. Problem then is putting them on mountains.