UncleYoda

Negative = no or none Traffic = messages to pass

I mostly agree, but I do not see the off-topic or irritating (especially useless wisecracks) getting voted down or ganged-up on in the sections that don't have voting. I hate all the BS that is allowed to be posted here. It makes this site just a playground for the forum regulars and drives other people away. But I'm putting them all on ignore (only works though if logged in). I really don't need this forum anyway.

I have seen it on other types of sites (Q&A, Reddit) but not standard forum software (Vbulletin, etc.) which is categorized, threaded topics. Anyway, it's no longer an issue for me; I'm done with posting in that section.

Since the jokers here want to bury this with down votes in Technical Discussion, posting here instead. 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.

Attorney, and you trust him because of that? What about a base station talking to another base station? That kills that whole ridiculous concept. And if there were no base stations why would they be addressed in the regs? Also, you say "base station radios", but you don't need a unit designed for tabletop use in order to set it up that way. Handheld and mobile units can be setup as base stations (that's in fact all I have).

Easy. The wording of the rules is ambiguous and therefore open to individual interpretation. And we see lots of examples of how that goes off the rails. Even if all I got was a phone call from the guy who writes the regs, it would have been meaningful to me. (They said they would forward my questions to him but in the email reply from customer service type folks there was no indication the expert was ever involved.)

I didn't say anything about the OP not being on top. But replies to replies do drift from the original post. I've never seen a forum category handled this way and IMO there is little to no benefit to it.

Absolutely. That's why I called them, to see if it was an oversight or something. I couldn't talk to a person that knew anything though.

@marcspaz @nokones I don't believe that is a correct interpretation at all. People say the same thing about fixed station. My opinion is the station type does not automatically switch back and forth depending on the station you're talking to. And if they did write the regs with that intent, they are blooming idiots.

as in Technical Discussion, is dumb. We see replies before the posts they're replying to. Not everyone replying is directly replying to the OP.

Sounds like you haven't been paying attention to what's happened to our law enforcement and court system.

Something is going wrong with display of posts (out of order, duplicated, disappearing).

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.