Retevis RT76?

[Ian]

https://www.retevis.com/handheld-gmrs-two-way-radio-rt76

 

New repeater-capable handheld, currenly in production, $31.19.

 

Any experience with this, or am I going to be the one to write the first review?

[WRAF213]

Well, it's not type accepted (yet). I'd expect the FCC ID to be 2AAR8RETEVISRT78 or 2ASNSRT78.

[berkinet]

Just based on their web site, I'd say...

• At the price, I'd expect a receiver-on-a-chip, so probably subject to typical CCR reception issues.
• They say there is no antenna connector. If true, you could not replace the antenna or use an external antenna.
• With 30 channels (probably 22 simplex and 8 repeater) and no display this radio could be hard to use, especially for inexperienced users.

Summary: It is probably pretty much a toy and likely to be similar to the Baofeng-888

[gman1971]

I have a similar radio to that one, reception is lacking, and desenses fairly easily. If you can't replace the antenna then I would just get a Baofeng BF-888S for 9 dollars from Amazon. 

 

G

[berkinet]

According to Retevis, the antenna is indeed non removable, but, you can set different PL options for TX & RX on the same channel.

[berkinet]

With so many good quality used radios from Kenwood, Motorola, Vertex, Icom and others, most Part90 and many Part95 certified, and selling for more-or-less the same price, I don’t really see the point in bothering with The RT76. Also the quality brand radios usually have a huge number of branded and 3rd party accessories available as well: speaker/mics, antennas, batteries, group charging stands, etc.

[Lscott]

With so many good quality used radios from Kenwood, Motorola, Vertex, Icom and others, most Part90 and many Part95 certified, and selling for more-or-less the same price, I don’t really see the point in bothering with The RT76. Also the quality brand radios usually have a huge number of branded and 3rd party accessories available as well: speaker/mics, antennas, batteries, group charging stands, etc.

I agree. I've picked up several Kenwood TK-370's (wide band 32 channel, repeater operation, 4 watts), also have several TK-370G's (wide/narrow band 128 channel, repeater operation, 4 watts). Both have part 90 and 95 certification. If you search and wait you can get one at a fair price on eBay.

 

The programming software is easy to find on-line. These radios use the same exact cheap "Baofeng" programming cables. Just make sure the one you get doesn't have the cloned USB to serial chip in it, the newer windows drivers don't work with them.

 

Parts for these radios are easy to find. You can get the drop-in battery chargers, battery packs, antennas etc. The TK-370G uses the reverse SMA antennas. The TK-370 however uses a Motorola MX type but you can get a MX to BNC adapter to use an external antenna.

 

If you buy a used radio be sure you can get the programming software and cable for it! Just about every business band radio has to be setup using the software because there is no "front panel programming" typically, at least on the hand held radios.

[berkinet]

...If you buy a used radio be sure you can get the programming software and cable for it! Just about every business band radio has to be setup using the software because there is no "front panel programming" typically, at least on the hand held radios.

Same goes for the RT76 too. No keyboard, no display. CHIRP may work, as many Retevis radios are already supported.

[Lscott]

Oh, one more point. Be careful what version of a radio model you buy used! For example the Kenwood TK-370's and TK-370G's come in several variations that cover different ranges in the UHF band. You want to pick one that covers 462 MHz to 467 MHz.

 

There are 4 versions of the 370's and 370G's. 

 

450 to 470

470 to 490

490 to 512

403 to 430

 

If you get a 370 you want the "type 1". The ID tag, on the back of the radio on the aluminum chassis under the battery, should show "TK-370-1" or "TK-370G-1" on it. The type 1 is the 450 to 470 range. The radio will also program down in to the Ham 70 cm band to around 440 MHz. The Kenwood software will complain its out of range but will let you do it anyway. The radio will work there which is convenient for those dual licensed for Ham and GMRS. 8-)

[Elkhunter521]

There is a RT 97 portable repeater offered for 300$ an change. 10 watt output ??.

 

Any body know this radio?

[berkinet]

There was some discussion of the RT97 a couple of months ago. Unfortunately, the forum search feature can’t find anything. However, Googling for “site:mygmrs.com rt97” found two mentions.

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/1571-seeking-feedback-on-gmrs-plan/

and

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/1359-10-mhz-split-vs-filter-technology/page-3

 

Depending on your search string, you might turn up others.

[Ian]

There is a RT 97 portable repeater offered for 300$ an change. 10 watt output ??.

 

Any body know this radio?

 

It's split is backwards for GMRS, and frankly even ham conventions. 

 

Otherwise, I'd be rocking one with a balloon-lofted discone antenna for fairground communications.

[berkinet]

It's split is backwards for GMRS, and frankly even ham conventions. 

 

Otherwise, I'd be rocking one with a balloon-lofted discone antenna for fairground communications.

 

Did you look at the first thread I linked above where, in response to a comment from you, n4gix wrote:

Posted 09 September 2019 - 11:09 AM: Ian, I have only reports from a few people who have ordered and received +5 MHz split, with the correct Rx/Tx frequencies programmed and tuned.

I did point out to Retevis directly that there was absolutely no reason why they couldn't tune their repeater to use our convention of Tx low, Rx high. Since they never replied to me directly, I can only assume that from the reports I've read that Retevis at least took my comments to heart. It was from suggestions and comments made to them that they now offer 5 MHz split now.

 

In any case, as soon as I can free up $400 I'm going to order one. If I have to put it on my bench and re-tune it with my service monitor, so be it...

 

 

And then, all the way at the end, where bpendleton wrote:

Posted 09 September 2019 - 01:47 PM: Jumping in: I ordered an RT-97 programmed for GMRS. It just got here, so I haven't tested it out very thoroughly (I also just moved into a new house, so I'm still setting up *everything*). But I can confirm it works for GMRS. Plugged it in, set it up with the pre-programmed CTCSS codes into a pair of my GMRS-V1s, and had a repeater online in about 10m.  I haven't even unpacked the computer that will let me reprogram the CTCSS codes - I spent more time trying to figure out what codes they'd put in than anything else.

 

More when I have more time to put it through its paces.

[Downs]

Looks like a rebodied BF888.

 

Ive moved to motorola HTs mostly now and while i got my 2 MTS2000s for about this same price each (and a HT1000 for even less) the transition has been.......unpleasant lol. I still havent got it all worked out yet but i had to dig an old tower pc i had out that still has a serial port and tinker with it to be able to program.

 

Theres something to be said for a 30 dollar radio i can plug into my computer with a USB cable and program with a free easy to find and use program.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[bpendleton]

Did you look at the first thread I linked above where, in response to a comment from you, n4gix wrote:

 

 

And then, all the way at the end, where bpendleton wrote:

 

Still have the RT97. Still works. Small, pre-fabbed portable repeater that I ordered pre-programmed to GMRS. Since there's no ID board (and no trivial way to attach one), it's basically a single-license (eg, family) repeater, and I use it as such. Works fine. 

[n4gix]

As long as everyone using it is licensed and states their call sign clearly, there no reason it needs to be a "family only" repeater.

 

The repeater itself doesn't need to 'id' itself.

[WRAF213]

As long as everyone using it is licensed and states their call sign clearly, there no reason it needs to be a "family only" repeater.

 

The repeater itself doesn't need to 'id' itself.

Yes, it does. There's a million posts on this forum about it.

[RCM]

Yes, it does. There's a million posts on this forum about it.

Cite?

[marcspaz]

As long as everyone using it is licensed and states their call sign clearly, there no reason it needs to be a "family only" repeater.

 

The repeater itself doesn't need to 'id' itself.

 

 

Yes, it does. There's a million posts on this forum about it.

 

 

 

 

§95.1751   GMRS station identification.

Each GMRS station must be identified by transmission of its FCC-assigned call sign at the end of transmissions and at periodic intervals during transmissions except as provided in paragraph ( c. ) of this section. A unit number may be included after the call sign in the identification.

 

...

 

( c. ) Any GMRS repeater station is not required to transmit station identification if:

(1) It retransmits only communications from GMRS stations operating under authority of the individual license under which it operates; and,

(2) The GMRS stations whose communications are retransmitted are properly identified in accordance with this section.

 

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=da32e8ab3fc532a1dafa3370f95a6ace&mc=true&node=se47.5.95_11751&rgn=div8

 

 

 

The way the law is written, if the owner of the repeater and family members covered under the license are using the repeater to talk to each other, then there is no need to have the repeater transmit a station ID.  Of course that assumes everyone using the repeater is ID'ing correctly.

 

When the repeater is used to retransmit comms from other operators (not the owner), then the repeater needs to self ID with the owner's station identification using voice or CW.

[Ian]

Did you look at the first thread I linked above where, in response to a comment from you, n4gix wrote:

 

 

And then, all the way at the end, where bpendleton wrote:

 

I missed that somehow! 

[n4gix]

Odd then Marc that the founder of NSEA is the listed owner of three repeaters in northern Chicagoland, and none of them id themselves. He is also a licensed communications attorney who's frequently in contact with the local FCC field office.

[marcspaz]

Odd then Marc that the founder of NSEA is the listed owner of three repeaters in northern Chicagoland, and none of them id themselves. He is also a licensed communications attorney who's frequently in contact with the local FCC field office.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you there.  That seems to be normal behavior in the real world.  There are dozens of repeaters near me that are open for public use and only 2 of them self-ID (both in 20wpm CW).  The issue is, legally, the statute regulation is very plain language.

 

If its my repeater, me and my immediate family use the repeater... no need for the repeater to ID.  If another licensee uses my repeater, than the repeater must ID with my station identification. 

 

The only legal exception I can think of would be a grandfathered GMRS station license.  If a Trust holds a license and the Trust bi-laws states that anyone who uses the repeater is formally a beneficiary of the trust while using the repeater, than there would be no ID requirement.  (All purely hypothetical, BTW... just thinking about a legal exemption.)

 

 

 

Just a little understanding of why I am saying what I am saying.  I studied Constitutional Law for 7 year (2 in college and 5 years of independent study) and I have spent years helping both write pro-2a Bills and fight anti-2a legislation.  I am looking at it purely from a statutory prospective based on my training and experience.

 

That said, the FCC has the discretion to prosecute or not.  If laws are widely broken or those infractions are largely ignored by law enforcement, that doesn't make it legal, from a statutory standpoint.

 

A great example would be CB radio.  Maximum legal power on AM is the mean carrier power must not exceed 4 watts and its strictly prohibited to use any external amplifier of any kind.  That is the statute.  In reality, I don't know a single person who owns a CB that is running less than 30 watts without an amp and less than 200 watts with an amp.  Most CB operators I know have amps that are well over 2,000 watts.  Thousands of people are talking DX for 1,500 - 2,500 miles, every single day on CB.  Yet there is no known FCC enforcement that I am aware of, on any of these people who violate the law, and its all the same people for decades.  That doesn't mean its legal.  It just means the FCC is ignoring it, for the most part.

[ratkin]

47 CFR § 95.1751 is a regulation, not a statute.

[marcspaz]

47 CFR § 95.1751 is a regulation, not a statute.

 

True... I misspoke.  Regulations are still rules published in the Federal Register by the FCC (and other federal agencies) for the purpose of enforcing statutory code.  It is the legal guideline used to establish precedent. 

 

A good example is, the Bump Stock ban from the BATFE.  The statutory code defines what a machine gun is.  However, the regulations published by the BATFE redefined what a machine gun is.  The bump stocks are now included in the definition of a machine gun via regulation, thus, now a federal firearms felony to own a bump stock.  The regulations still carry the weight of law.

[Elkhunter521]

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.