Motorola > Kenwood... I want to reiterate what many wide-area / high profile repeater owners preach and now I *REALLY* get it!!!

[JB007Rules]

Preface:  This thread isn’t to start a war against 2 different manufactures…  you do you!  I’m sharing the FACTS of what I’ve done here and the experiences that me and my users have had!  You can leave the arguments off this thread!  Kayyyyyy, thanks, bye!

 

I have to share this success story because it’s worth everyone reading IMO.  I will start by stating that I’m well over 5 figures in on the Rugged 575 repeater in Naperville, IL on a commercial tower which has the receive antenna at the top at 300’ and the transmit 50’ further down at 250’ (Which I paid to install).  It’s been quite a learning experience and I don’t care how much money you may have; experience wins here!  You can check the repeater listing for the back-story and read from the bottom up:  https://mygmrs.com/repeater/3838

 

I’ve had this repeater on air since 8/17/2020.  As a whole, it’s worked VERY well for what I need for my family and for the hobby in the suburbs of Chicago.  While it doesn’t have near the traffic as other local repeaters (Joliet 550 which is another local only repeater (Not linked) which is also taller), it’s stayed on the air 24/7/365 with zero down time.  The repeater was the VERY CHEAPEST component in this ENTIRE build with the antenna, feed line, and tower climbers costing FARRRRRRRRRR MORE of course.  In the words of Corey, a $1,000 radio with a $30 antenna is a $30 radio and a $30 radio with a $1,000 antenna is a $1,000 radio.  This is and always will remain true and he is correct 100%.

 

With this theory, off I was with a cheap $365 Kenwood TKR-850 which was also aligned by Corey up in Wisconsin (Thanks again for your help here sir!) with a massive antenna and feed line system.  It worked VERY well for the last year and a half and is still a working backup system at this point.  I was also lucky to finally tie into the sites master UHF receive antenna at the top through a 1-8 split multi-coupler (so no duplexer as I’m using 2 different antennas) which made ALL the difference in the world VS using 1 antenna with a duplexer.

 

Fast forward a year and a half later we come to the Motorola Quantar which I finally had the time to take on and install and has been installed for about 2 weeks now with ZERO changes since I left the tower site!  This Motorola Quantar repeater *IS*, up until now 2/26/2022, the best repeater you can get according to the people I’m surrounded by that know more than I do about it – You all know who you are!  They are *ALL* right (again, I never said they were wrong!).  I never doubted them or thought they were wrong, but I wasn’t “in tune” with the whole, IMO, “overhyped” Motorola game to say the least.  (Can you blame me?!)  Here it is in plain text:  I WAS WRONG ABOUT MOTOROLA.  In particular the receive is INSANE, which always has been the selling point of this particular repeater and it’s one of the main reasons why this repeater excels over Kenwood (and others I’m sure but I cannot comment as I have no personal experience) ...  It’s hard to fully explain in writing but the Quantar has *ALL* the things that “normal” repeaters (any brand other than Motorola) simply don’t have and simply put, it runs C-I-R-C-L-E-S around the Kenwood TKR-850.  Without getting too complicated, a pre-selector being the most important part is key here combined with a receiver that makes a Kenwood look like a children’s play toy.  The experts that know more about it can explain better but it’s more of a “system” than “just a repeater”.  This is why it takes up 3 times more rack space and sucks down electricity like Darjeeling even at standby…

 

Anyways, getting on 2 separate antennas with 50’ of vertical separation was the first BIG step basically doubling the usable coverage especially for hand held radios which was done last year.  The 2^nd step was the Quantar which doubled everything yet again.  Many of you see Quantars on Ebay for $800 or $1,000 bucks and its hit or miss… I can assure you that by the time you’re done getting it CORRECTLY tuned and shipping it to and back, you can simply DOUBLE that number.  I’ll put the numbers below so you can actually see but it’s NOT cheap.  Sunny Communications out of Cali has done me right numerous times and they are the one that provided this Quantar this time too!

 

Now for the tuning:  A big shout out to Mark Dannon at Northcomm in Plano, TX.  This man deserves a gold medal and is a FORCE to reckon with.  His intelligence, experience, and overall willingness to not only help and DO IT RIGHT from beginning to end is just the start in addition to his post-sales support.  He has equipment that your normal “radio shop” simply doesn’t have, and he *DOES* do it better.  I’d even challenge ANY radio shop to tune a Qunatar, then send it to him and he’d make it even better.  I’m LITERALLY not a spokes person for this guy or his company and I am *NOT* being paid to put this review here but what he has *IS BETTER* than any other “radio shop” and he specializes in Motorola Quantars too.  I have to iterate this loud and clear that your repeater is only as good as the equipment that tuned it and this guy has it all dialed in and WILL run circles around others even with “$40,000 worth of equipment” (measly) … Trust me here as he has far more than that…

 

In closing, I want to state some insane improvements which the numbers show in plain text proving its worth.  I’m redacting names and call signs but if you read this and recognize the scenario then you know who you are!!

 

1) A gentleman in the SAME TOWN only 6 miles east, in a VERY, VERY hard to service area in low elevation next to several high rises blocking the signal couldn’t even get in on an HT 6 miles away, had to stand on his balcony to BARELY SCRAPE IN now get in now gets in FULL QUIETING on a 5W HT anywhere in his apartment.

2) A gentleman 59 miles away who could barely scrape in 2/10 quality on his 50W mobile and couldn’t even hear the repeater on his HT now gets in 9/10 almost full quieting on his mobile and can hear a conversation loud and clear in his living room on an HT 59 miles away with the same 50W of power going back out.  Even better, he can get in 4-5/10 quality on his 5W HT but he has to be OUTSIDE to do so…  Literally how is this possible… The curvature of the earth alone is in the way.  No this isn’t a band opening; this is EVERY DAY….

3) Personally, I could scrape in with a 1/10 quality (literally all static) on the first level of my sister’s house in Downers Grove, IL which is only a measly 11.15 miles away from the tower is now 8/10 almost full quieting on the first level on a 5W HT (Tree city, trust me here).  Was 6/10 on house level 2 is now 10/10 loud & booming full quieting from the 2^nd level of her house on the same 5W HT.

4) Another gentleman hasn’t EVER even been able to even key the repeater from his work on a 5W HT can now get in with a 7/10 in quality.  More perfection…

5) And for me personally… I’m only 9.5 miles from the repeater at my house…. Not far, right?  Except when I wiggled/moved around just a bit people couldn’t tell I was moving around…. Now I can be crazy with my 5W HT and hold it sideways like you see in the movies (DUMB), walk around while talking and literally no one even notices…  Literally no picket – fencing…  Like some magical sorcery…

 

Literally I’m not making this up…  Upon talking to others, we’ve noted that the Kenwood TKR-850 was a $1200 - $1600 repeater when new VS the Quantar being $20,000 - $25,000 new…. Well, it shows…  Damn does it show…

 

I’d encourage ANY wide area repeater owner to upgrade whatever system you have to a Motorola Quantar (With the right tuning!!!) and TRUST me, you and your users will be glad you did.  I’m not knocking Kenwood (Well I am for their repeaters) but literally the Quantar has it beat hand over fist!  Sorry, this might sting to some but for others it’s a “Duh, I told you so” situation!  I still have THOUSANDS of dollars’ worth of GOOD Kenwood radios…  (NX300’s, NX800 Mobiles, TK8360’s, etc etc etc) and I’m *NOT* going to go and replace them all…. I’m still going to use them; but I’ll be DAMNED if I don’t think twice…. THREE times before considering another radio purchase and trust me, I have a LOT of radios lol!

 

They say Motorola invented the 2-way radio and now I see how & why.

 

Thanks for your time and feel free to comment and leave questions below.  I’ll do my best to answer them between work and life.

[gortex2]

Thanks for the real world experience from a repeater owner. When some folks talk about spending good funds on doing it right it gets over shadowed by the do it cheap crowd. I ran very similar equipment for SAR up until last year more because we can only afford what we can afford. 2 sites had the Kenwood TKR850 (VHF). All sites got replaced with Quantars and also went simulcast. Granted its night and day with simulcast but the biggest advantage is the sound quality in my book. It sounds like a radio. Good luck with your site. 

[PACNWComms]

As a former Zetron/JVC/Kenwood Group engineer, I'll second the, "I'll spend my money on Motorola first" epiphany, due to real world experience. Great write up on the details and advice given here. Currently, I am sitting on about 100 corporate Quantar repeaters, 800 MHz units that served the company well for a decade, only to be replaced with GTR8000's as a planned replacement/upgrade. They sit in storage until a new site needs to be stood up, as they just work. I mentioned how they were the "cockroach" of the radio world when corporate wanted me to surplus them, as they would probably still work throughout the next ice age, doing their job until something physically breaks. Sadly, 800 MHz spectrum is becoming hard to come by, and I wish they had been UHF 450-470 MHz Quantars, as they would be more useful to me now in 2022. Like the OP, I will not be getting rid of any of my Kenwood gear either, but look at the use case and decide from that what to spend. (Often being Motorola, but I did buy a Radioddity GM-30/DB20-G package and an Anytone AT-878DUV II Plus a while back as well.) 

Also a +1 on SunnyComm, has worked with them for many years as well. Out of several hundred radios, only two were ever received in non-working order, both due to damage in shipment. However, they made good on them, and have a great repair policy as well. Will continue to work with them as much as possible. Great people, and business there. (I have made purchases on behalf of my employer and my own hobby use with Used-Radios.com/SunnyComm.)

[gman1971]

Congrats!!, it sounds like you've reached the same conclusion I've reached as well. Motorola is not hype as they would have you believe, that is for sure.

Totally agree, experience wins a lot of contests, for sure.

@gortex2The only reason the "do it cheap crowd" gets away with their cheap stuff because guys like @JB007Ruleshave spent 5 figures on their repeater setup, so the overpriced pieces of garbage trash CCR radios have any hopes of working: Simple as that.

Well, I think depends on what 30 dollar radio you are talking about, but in general most cheap radios mated to a 1k antenna will desense really bad, so you'll end up with a deaf radio. You'll need to add several hundreds of dollars of filtering to the 30$ radio front end (or lack thereof) just to make it work.

I am certain the ISOtee on that Quantar is off-the-charts good... and all Kenwood radios I've ISOteed were not that great. Even the Vertex Standard radios were only marginally better, but there was a jump going from everything else to Motorola, even the 6550 receiver beats every Kenwood radio I've tested to date.

Tuning goes a very very long way (understatement here). as I've found that tuning the radios correctly can make the difference between 3 miles and 30 miles with ease!!

Given the cost of used Motorola gear, IMO, once your eyes are opened, there is no reason to ever go back to inferior equipment.

G.

EDIT: Forgot to say this (again), but there is a reason why the longest running, furthest reaching radios ever made by humanity are made by Motorola. Yes, the Voyager probes have Motorola radios...  been running non-stop since the 70s, and they are past the Heliosphere, or about 14.4 billion miles from Earth (as of 11/2021)... so, if you want range, think only Motorola (except the R7 turd... ) How far does your light shine?

 

[Radioguy7268]

Beyond having a very sensitive (hot) front end, the Quantar was also very selective, a difficult combination to achieve. 

I'm surprised to hear that the Quantar transmitter at 50 watts greatly out-performed the Kenwood transmit at 50 watts. I'd have to think that the Kenwood was falling short in either Deviation or it was off frequency. Lesser radios do tend to have some frequency drift as they warm up. The good stuff will be rock steady on frequency center.  

The biggest thing I've noticed with Quantars (and their cousins the MTR2000) is that all the internal audio processing is done with PCM (pulse coded modulation) - so any noise or hum is filtered out, and only the audio is passed. That would effectively mean that the MTR's and Quantars were full quieting with a receive signal strength of less than .35uV (around -116 dBm)  - which is where many commercial radios are just beginning to break squelch. 

[gman1971]

Could be related to intermod in the TX. When some RF gets into your transmitter, the range drops like a rock...

[PACNWComms]

37 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

That would effectively mean that the MTR's and Quantars were full quieting with a receive signal strength of less than .35uV (around -116 dBm)  - which is where many commercial radios are just beginning to break squelch. 

I recall when my previous employer in the oil industry started to receive Motorola Trbo XPR8400 repeaters and XPR6550 handhelds. I used my Aeroflex 3550A test set to check for receive sensitivity (UHF), which was between 0.17-0.20 uV. My boss said "I don't believe you", so he walked down to the lab and grabbed a few handhelds and checked for himself. He was impressed, as previous radios (Motorola PR1500's) were no around  0.25-0.35 uV, everything else being the same. In spec for UHF, but not as good as the digital capable handhelds. The XPR8400's and Quantars were essentially the same, with the XPR series repeater having digital capability, it was a one for one swap infrastructure wise. Those surplus UHF Quantars ended up in many local Auxiliary Communication Service (ACS) roles ever since (this was around 2010 or so). Quantars are one of the best repeaters ever made, and will serve any person or organization well.

[WRFP399]

Yeah...whatever you Motorola Snobs are just angry my 200 dollar Retevis RT97 does the same thing.

 

 

 

::Heavy sarcasm::

[gman1971]

So does my 9.95 dollar BF-888s...

[WROZ250]

On 2/28/2022 at 8:45 PM, JB007Rules said:

This thread isn’t to start a war against 2 different manufactures… 

Funny how that is exactly what it did. 

[Lscott]

3 hours ago, WROZ250 said:

Funny how that is exactly what it did. 

I'm a Kenwood guy, but I'm sitting this one out.

[tweiss3]

I'm glad you have your system up and running. Its wonderful you got a good site, and yes, there is a massive difference between using a duplexer or combiner and having separate TX & RX antennas. What Coax did you end up with, 1/2, 7/8, 1-1/4? Also, did the tower owner stick you with the bill for the structural analysis, or did he let you split that with other users? Around here, that's usually $3000+, and a big issue.

I do want to point out a handful of things that I think are important to note:

1) The quantar is a wonderful quality repeater that can take abuse. It is however, according to every FCC ID I have checked for the UHF quantars, none are certified for GMRS (Part 95). If you were running it at your house or private site, and kept the power to 50W, not a single person would batt an eye. But, being at a commercial site, it may be a target when tracking down issues on adjacent systems and sites, and someone may say something.

2) The quantar does have a better receiver than the TKR-850, but the older TKR-820 is right on par with sensitivity when tuned up correctly, and can match the power of the 850 without problems. It of course, won't hit the 100W output of the quantar ever, but that's not a problem in most cases.

3) The difference between Moto and Kenwood repeaters is indistinguishable when you start tossing in cheaper options, like Bridgecom, Retevis, etc. Of course, some sites have these cheaper repeaters, and they work wonderfully, but there is also significant additional infrastructure backing it up, like full size 6 cavity bandpass+band reject duplexers, pre-amplifiers, filters, etc.

 

I'm glad you had success, and yes, its much more than just buying $1k in equipment, and the overall maintenance, upkeep is continuous. I do suggest you check your tower lease, and make sure you aren't putting yourself in a tough spot with the FCC certification, but keep on trucking. Getting a site and following through is tough these days.

[gman1971]

Well, the money has to be spent somewhere, either going straight with a Quantar that just works, or go cheap and then have to buy additional infrastructure just to make them sort of work... but in the end its all a matter of $$$. 

I doubt the Quantar will ever have issues interfering other equipment due to missing Part95 certification. Most of these trash CCR repeaters, Retevis, etc, those even though they are Part 95, they are far more likely to cause interference with the rest of the tower equipment, or desense like cheap POS, or even catch on fire and bring the whole tower down... yep... 

You buy cheap, you buy twice.

G.

[WRFP399]

I thought the FCC pretty much put out a memo saying part 90 stuff is fine for part 95 use and they won't touch it if it's operating within the technical specifications.

[tweiss3]

30 minutes ago, WRFP399 said:

I thought the FCC pretty much put out a memo saying part 90 stuff is fine for part 95 use and they won't touch it if it's operating within the technical specifications.

The FCC memo you are thinking of said something along those lines, just if they end up coming after you, they can use it to add another charge in an attempt to make things stick.

Because the FCC won't go after you, doesn't mean your lease won't get you in trouble. I've talked to a few local tower owner/operators that manage the RF engineering, and due to the liability to the company, everything would have to be by the book, including but not limited to correctly type accepted equipment, structural analysis of the tower, having to provide a separate shack and access without accessing the secured area holding the company equipment and shutoffs accessible by the company. Should you violate a term of your lease (I sure hope he read it completely), you could end up blacklisted and cause issues for other GMRS or ham users wishing to put up equipment.

[gman1971]

If the FCC admits in writing that Part 90 equipment is perfectly legal to use in GMRS, again, in a written memo that you can show to the tower owner, then that would be "by the book". I don't understand what the issue is here.

Again, without reading the memo, and the proper legal representation on the matter, anything said here is just speculation, hearsay, and to me its also fear mongering from the Kenwood guys that after a Motorola repeater beat the crap out of a Kenwood repeater... so now lets attack Motorola superior equipment because it lacks certification, and that black SUVs and fines can come piling down your door.... so you should instead buy inferior Part 95 equipment... Sorry, I've played that game before: and I'll stick with Motorola and their superior Part 90 stuff.

In fact, in my opinion, the Quantar is most likely superior to anything repeater Kenwood has ever made (hence why it costs x10 times more, right?), and the OP post just confirms it. Also, the OP post also confirms what I've been seeing for the past two years from ISOteeing different brand radios. The question is, why is it so hard to admit that the Quantar its just a better repeater out of the box? Get one, stop complaining that the Kenwood could be better if tuned, etc... just get a Quantar and be done with it, just like the OP did, or just like I did I went Motorola on all my equipment, sold the inferior stuff, and never looked back.

Making any claims that the XPR7550e could be an equal to the APX8000 with some tuning or whatever will server no purpose, these two radios will never be equal, not even close. So when I see threads of APX guys bashing the XPR radios I simply steer clear, there is no point in denying a fact, except indicate someone might be jealous. Now, what I can tell you I'll do is that when I have enough cash burning holes in my pockets I'll get myself a whole fleet of these shiny APX8000 radios and join the Luxury Transceiver exclusive club with style, and probably dump the inferior XPR7550e...  until then, the order of things is APX8000 > XPR7550e

G.

[JB007Rules]

On 3/2/2022 at 1:56 PM, tweiss3 said:

What Coax did you end up with, 1/2, 7/8, 1-1/4?

1-5/8" on the transmit line I installed.  I believe the receive is 1-1/4".  If you'd like to see pictures (outdated now showing the TKR-850 of course) and a coverage map go to http://rugged575.com/

I'm good with my tower owner, all things have been considered and signed off for as far as studies.  Trust me on that one lol.

[gman1971]

Mighty impressive coverage... a few more miles would've reached Madison WI!!

G.

[WROZ250]

On 3/3/2022 at 3:41 PM, gman1971 said:

... so you should instead buy inferior Part 95 equipment... Sorry, I've played that game before: and I'll stick with Motorola and their superior Part 90 stuff.

In fact, in my opinion, the Quantar is most likely superior to anything repeater Kenwood has ever made (hence why it costs x10 times more, right?), and the OP post just confirms it. Also, the OP post also confirms what I've been seeing for the past two years from ISOteeing different brand radios. The question is, why is it so hard to admit that the Quantar its just a better repeater out of the box?

I usually stay out of this Motorola verses other brand Frey, and similarly, I don't always agree with gman1971.  In this case I could not agree with him more!

The reason site operators insist on type accepted equipment is to ensure said equipment will not cause harm/interference/etc.. to existing and/or future users.  And for the record it doesn't start or stop with the type acceptance.

So, to suggest that a GMRS operator needs to be 95e (legal grey area notwithstanding), and that using a part 90 repeater (Motorola Quantar for example) would be rejected and/or a basis for contractual violation is, IMHO, ludicrous. 

The likelihood of a properly adjusted Quantar causing, 'legally actionable' or contractual issues at a commercial tower site is again, ludicrous.  As pointed out, generally speaking, Part 90 equipment is superior to 95e.  Indeed, some (not all) of the part95e equipment is more likely to cause site issues than the more common Part 90 stations, which in the vast majority of commercial tower sites, is the dominant type of two-way equipment.

One would be hard pressed to argue that the (properly adjusted) part 90 Quantar GMRS repeater is inferior and/or a problem for the part 90 commercial repeater a few Khz away.

All that said, my own aversion to Motorola equipment is, when it comes to GMRS, price.  For me personally, it is also the legal concerns over possession of the programming software.  The FCC is not the concern by any stretch. Motorola legal on the other hand can, and has, destroyed the lives of people who violate the license terms and, Joe Private Citizen typically cannot even get a license agreement.  Only qualified service shops and large volume, self maintained, users.  If not for the software issue, I would always go with the Motorola if I could afford it!

But back to price...

The average GMRS user just can't pay for that level of quality.  This is not a shot at Chinese (or Japanese) equipment.  Neither is it 'snobbery' as I read somewhere else.

Desiring/owning Motorola equipment is not 'snobbery' (except perhaps for a few individuals), it is simply superior hardware that any serious operator would aspire or strive to own and operate.

To each their own in any case

So if you want to play strictly 'by the book', then only purchase and operate Part 95e equipment. 

However, please don't try and tell someone else they cannot or should not use part 90 equipment.  If it isn't obvious by other posts throughout the forums, you are in the minority and generally talking to yourself.

Besides, what someone else does isn't your proverbial ass on the line, it's theirs.

 

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, WROZ250 said:

The reason site operators insist on type accepted equipment is to ensure said equipment will not cause harm/interference/etc.. to existing and/or future users.  And for the record it doesn't start or stop with the type acceptance.

I've heard stories where Hams can't get their equipment colocated with commercial equipment on building roof tops and towers because the commercial guys don't want to waste their time trying to trouble shoot issues with their equipment caused by poorly maintained or modified Part 90 stuff to get it on the Ham bands. They have a business to run and people pay good money for the service(s) they provide.

[WROZ250]

29 minutes ago, Lscott said:

I've heard stories where Hams can't get their equipment colocated with commercial equipment on building roof tops and towers because the commercial guys don't want to waste their time trying to trouble shoot issues with their equipment caused by poorly maintained or modified Part 90 stuff to get it on the Ham bands. They have a business to run and people pay good money for the service(s) they provide.

That's not entirely untrue. 

In my own experience, I'd heard that as well from site managers and yet, there were some commercial sites that allowed hams (or they knew somebody who looked the other way) and, some of those 'ham' repeaters were pretty disgusting in how poorly assembled the 'system' was.  Many times, when discovered they were thrown out and their equipment held for 'Back Rent", many times if they were stupid enough to mention who let them in, that person was terminated. 

Not so much of the 'free rides' since 911.  Even the professionals have to go through some serious screening for access, just to just maintain equipment.  Site access in general changed quite a bit, almost overnight, after 911.  Started in the big cities first and has been slowly migrating out to the rest of the country.

All that said, there are a lot of ham repeaters that are part 90, didn't have to be modified for that service, were properly maintained, and nobody takes issue with them on site.  "Ham' by definition isn't a bad thing, but there is a perception in commercial radio circles is that Hams are a problem because they 'kluge together junk'.  Both statements are accurate, but not necessarily so (if you get my meaning). 

When I was much younger and still in field service, my manager had a saying 'Hams can fix anything, just not the right way".  He said things like that because that was his experience.  Additionally, commercial radio is about service and revenue and so he had no reason to care if his experience was accurate or not.

The (SAD) fact is, there are 'Hams' who do just cobble shit together to serve a purpose ('repeater'), and many times that 'system' ends up being an RF nightmare or, as we use to joke, a DIY wide-band noise generator.  So the concern about allowing a ham repeater into a commercial site is somewhat justified, just not in every case.

However, in my own experience there are far more Hams, when talking about repeater systems, who take a very serious and professional approach to system design and site conformity.  Indeed, most of the latter are, or are overseen by, professional RF engineers who also happen to be Hams.  Those are the 'Hams' who, even in this post 911 world, are still are able to obtain access to commercial sites for their systems.  It's their (site managers) game.  Play by their rules and you're cool.  Otherwise, go elsewhere.

For all the bad mouthing about 'hams' in the forums here, the reality is that Ham Radio operators, like any large group, represent a cross section of society.  So don't condemn and entire hobby/group because of a generalized stereotype. 

The same can be said of GMRS users. 

The "Sad Hams" OffRoaderX refers to a lot, are real but (fortunately) do not represent the majority of Hams. 

That said, there are far too many Hams for which the statement is accurate.  I also think many of them haunt the forums and YouTube (or maybe just Randy LOL!), just waiting to point out things they really don't know anything about (but "think they read somewhere").

This (GMRS) is really just another aspect of the radio hobby.  We have noobs and we have genuine experts, neither of which should take themselves too seriously!

[WROZ250]

One last thing, sort of related to the subject/topic...

During my career at Motorola, over 65% of the engineers in the company were licensed amateur radio operators (Hams).  These are the same people who designed those radios so many love and want.

Indeed, in many of the communications fields, the engineers and maintenance people (not all) are also hams. 

In the day, Milwaukee County Wisconsin's radio department had a policy of only hiring technicians who had both a commercial license and, at least a General class amateur radio license.  As I recall, they were not the only agency to follow that practice.   The logic was they wanted to hire people who not only knew how to fix radios, but had an active interest in the job. 

I don't know if that still exists today, probably not because the FCC changed the rules regarding who may legally repair radios (It was better back then IMHO).

So while I am not suggesting non hams should suddenly  like 'Hams', that level of respect from public safety, despite the stereotypes says, IMHO, a lot about that 'hobby'.

Not to mention, but I'd venture a guess that a lot of GMRS users, indeed, many here, are also Amateur Radio Operators ("Hams').

[gman1971]

@WROZ250

Thanks. It really never had anything to do with snobbery, but everything with being tired of crap equipment not working, crap stuff needing constant attention, stuff not delivering on any promises, etc.... but whatever, let people fumbling around with trash equipment wasting some money in the process, always wondering the same things I wondered, and certainly let them think its all about being a Moto-snob... because the sooner they give up on their radio "excursion" due to piss poor equipment and range measured in tenths of a mile, then the more RF space left and available for the rest of us to use with our Moto-snob radios.  

@Lscott

Hacking part 90 equipment to work on the ham bands is not the same as using unmodified Part 90 equipment for GMRS.

Doing that would be the same thing that hams frown upon: when non-hams are using hacked Ham gear to run on GMRS or MURS, etc; and while that might work, just don't expect top performance out of modified equipment (any equipment). Let alone on a tower... where it can cause all kinds of problems.

The moment a Part 90 device is hacked to do something they were not designed to do, then they are no longer Part anything certified, so that should be no grounds to call that Part 90 stuff will get black SUVs or fines rolling on your driveway. That is pure BS.

G.

[tweiss3]

@JB007Rules 1-5/8" is nice. Did you pay by the foot, or did you end up buying that whole spool? I'm glad you have a cool tower owner/crew. Is yours the 100W version? Set right at 50W, that thing could key up for days.

@WROZ250 My comments were never about the FCC actually doing something, or showing up, but on conversations I just had about getting on commercial towers with multiple people. Like or not, getting tower space is more or less not up to the system RF engineer, but in fact up to corporate lawyers, many of which wouldn't be able to tell coaxial cable from power cable, but their job is C.Y.A. for the business. If I had the opportunity he did, and could get away with that equipment, yes I'd go for it. But since this is a public forum, since any goof can pull this up from google, it does need noted that technically, its not compliant.

@gman1971 You are correct, modified anything means it no longer has it's certification. There are plenty of options that will do in-band and meet the spirit of the rules without hacking them up.

 

My big point is, with the difficulty of obtaining sites, lets not do anything that would make it difficult for people in the future to obtain space. I'm currently helping a group look for space, I'm part of another group that is currently month to month (no phone calls returned to get a new contract) that needs some long overdue maintenance, but is too scared to perform and get booted completely, three others lost tower space in the last year with no negotiations, just come get your equipment, not even a discussion about rent/terms.

[Lscott]

12 hours ago, gman1971 said:

Hacking part 90 equipment to work on the ham bands is not the same as using unmodified Part 90 equipment for GMRS.

Doing that would be the same thing that hams frown upon: when non-hams are using hacked Ham gear to run on GMRS or MURS, etc; and while that might work, just don't expect top performance out of modified equipment (any equipment). Let alone on a tower... where it can cause all kinds of problems.

The moment a Part 90 device is hacked to do something they were not designed to do, then they are no longer Part anything certified, so that should be no grounds to call that Part 90 stuff will get black SUVs or fines rolling on your driveway. That is pure BS.

Depending on the vintage of the equipment yes it may have to be hacked. Some of the older Part 90 stuff has to be "re-crystaled" and re-tuned to work outside of the original specifications. Yeah there is some REALLY OLD Part 90 junk out there that should be in a land fill being used on the Ham bands. There are all sorts of things that can go wrong, a few you might not have considered. One nasty type is caused by mixing in the output stage of a transmitter caused by signals getting in through the antenna port. The transmitter looks great on the bench with a spectrum analyzer and dummy load until it's installed on site in close proximity to other high power transmitters then the problems crop up.

https://www.softwright.com/faq/support/intermod_finding_solving.html

I in noway inferred the Black SUV will be rolling out. My comment is simply Ham built systems have a bad reputation with some people, justified or not.

Some site owners will not allow Ham equipment just so as not to piss off their paying customers. Hams are basically cheap and look for no rent locations. Some even get free electricity and network access. A buddy at my Thursday night coffee group has one at a local school. He's not paying a cent for his UHF repeater with free power, including backup and Internet access. So, if a site owner can use the objection from his paying customers over a Ham system, who are likely paying basically nothing, and sell the space to somebody else for good money that's all the motivation they might need to reject the Ham equipment. Is that fair? But that's business.