gortex2 Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 Yup...but I love the Crescend amps. I just installed a site with a 250 watt amp on a LMR system. It wasn't cheap but they are out there. We used to use alot of the TPL unit but most of those max out at 125 watts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lscott Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, gortex2 said: Yup...but I love the Crescend amps. I just installed a site with a 250 watt amp on a LMR system. It wasn't cheap but they are out there. We used to use alot of the TPL unit but most of those max out at 125 watts. I was just looking at an "untested for parts or repair" RFC 4-110 UHF amp on eBay. It's 10 watts in and 100 watts out. I have one now and was looking at maybe picking up another one I could use with a UHF power splitter/combiner to get 200 watts. I would need two identical amps to equalize the phase delay on each path for the power splitter/combiner to work effectively. WRXB215 and gortex2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lscott Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 17 hours ago, Lscott said: I was just looking at an "untested for parts or repair" RFC 4-110 UHF amp on eBay. It's 10 watts in and 100 watts out. I have one now and was looking at maybe picking up another one I could use with a UHF power splitter/combiner to get 200 watts. I would need two identical amps to equalize the phase delay on each path for the power splitter/combiner to work effectively. Guy doesn't want to lower the price. He's selling it "For Parts or Repair" untested, no returns. For what he's asking on a long discontinued model is too much. If the output transistors are shot I might not find any replacements. Then I have an expensive paper weight. The one I have now had to get repaired some years back as it was. https://forums.mygmrs.com/gallery/image/415-amplifiersjpeg/?context=new The idea was to use them with an 11 element Yagi for sat communications on the UHF up link. The down link was on 2.4GHz, 24 DBi BBQ grill dish antenna, with a down converter to 2M. The mode was SSB on a linear translator. https://forums.mygmrs.com/gallery/image/469-antenna-collectionjpg/?context=new RF_Concepts_RFC-4-110_RFC-4-310_user.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkInTampa Posted June 25 Report Share Posted June 25 18 hours ago, Lscott said: I was just looking at an "untested for parts or repair" RFC 4-110 UHF amp on eBay. It's 10 watts in and 100 watts out. I have one now and was looking at maybe picking up another one I could use with a UHF power splitter/combiner to get 200 watts. I would need two identical amps to equalize the phase delay on each path for the power splitter/combiner to work effectively. Spotted this amp on eBay... https://www.ebay.com/itm/126545075186 gortex2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnE Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 Quick question Was there any other meetings like this anywhere else or was it just the northeast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRQC527 Posted June 27 Report Share Posted June 27 19 minutes ago, JohnE said: Quick question Was there any other meetings like this anywhere else or was it just the northeast. I haven't heard of any. That doesn't mean there weren't any, just not any as laughable or that have gone viral like this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamdaj Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 I can't really say that I understand the FCC rules and regulations when it comes to linking up GMRS repeaters, because I really do see the benefits of being able to connect systems. Sure, there are Amateur Radio Operators that would say, that's what Amateur Radio Service is there for. Granted, they would have a point and GMRS is really meant for shorter distances less then 100 miles. However, not everyone has the desire or patience take an exam and if they do, their license only covers them, not family members. I have had a ball talking on the GMRS networks, even though technically violates the FCC's Rules and Regulations. I hope the FCC makes changes to allow repeater owners to link up repeaters to allow users to stay in touch with friends and family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkInTampa Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 I spotted this on the FCC website, the "or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications" line caught my attention.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveShannon Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, MarkInTampa said: I spotted this on the FCC website, the "or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications" line caught my attention.... That has been mentioned more than a few times on myGMRS , but the regulations don’t say the same thing. The difference is why lawyers and judges are well paid. WRUU653 and gortex2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoG Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 So this part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveShannon Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 On 2/16/2024 at 8:58 AM, SteveShannon said: Absolutely 100% agreed. Here’s the actual paragraph: You can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain and repeater use. You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations. It must be pointed out that that is the FCC’s interpretation (which counts! ) of 95.1749. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t have a GMRS repeater and if I did I doubt that I would link it. I think it boils down to this, based on the definition of remote control, I can connect to a repeater and remotely control it via the Internet. But connecting one repeater to another repeater to carry traffic between them over the Internet goes too far for the FCC. But my understanding should not be taken as any kind of authoritative source. 11 minutes ago, LeoG said: So this part The quote above yours is from my post on the first page of this thread, back in February. As you can see, we understand which part is meant. But the thing is that the actual regulations are what matter, not an interpretation of them on another FCC page. WRUU653 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoG Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 So that makes Zello against regulation. I hear that on one of my repeaters a lot that they were talking on Zello. But since I don't have or use Zello I'm not exactly sure what it is. SteveShannon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davichko5650 Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 2 hours ago, LeoG said: So that makes Zello against regulation. I hear that on one of my repeaters a lot that they were talking on Zello. But since I don't have or use Zello I'm not exactly sure what it is. **********Google is my friend People also ask What is Zello used for? Zello makes a free push-to-talk (PTT) walkie-talkie app for personal use. Users interact one-on-one with other users, join a variety of public channels, and create private group conversations. It allows users to share their locations, pictures, and conversations with Contacts or within Channels. ************ An app for cell phones (and PC's) - there are many Ham based groups on Zello linked to repeaters world-wide, so in that regard, similar to how EchoLink works. But it's more used by regular folks as a POC type of app. There are some GMRS based links on there as well, but I've never used them. And with the current confusion as to legality, don't plan to for now. I used Zello very briefly to try it out, but went back to EchoLink as I use that to get on friends in TN and FL repeaters. ORX did a video on the Zello HT radios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLeikhim Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 This topic is totally incorrect. 95.1749 reads exactly as it did in the NPRM and Federal Register in August 2017. Any idiot with half a brain can look at the current rules as posted today and the Federal Register in 2017 and they will see no change by the FCC The FCC did not have knee jerk reaction to all the "Sad Hams" lamenting the rules of the GMRS service and operators of said service. Nothing changed, Nobody cares. WRQC527 and JarrGen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRQC527 Posted July 31 Report Share Posted July 31 59 minutes ago, JLeikhim said: Nothing changed, Nobody cares. You are absolutely correct that nothing changed, and in fact a number of us have pointed that out. However, what is notable is that this thread has been going on since February with no end in sight, and it's as contentious as the day it started. And since the FCC dictates and maybe even enforces policy, not the MyGMRS forums, to steal a line from Crocodile Dundee, it amounts to a bunch of fleas arguing over who owns the dog we live on. Davichko5650, WRUU653, JarrGen and 1 other 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medic535 Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 With the SCOTUS overturning Chevron Deference, I wonder how this will play out now? The three letter agencies now have to go by the exact letter of the law and nothing is open to their agency interpretation anymore. Looks like the FCC might have been neutered now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRXR255 Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 27 minutes ago, medic535 said: With the SCOTUS overturning Chevron Deference, I wonder how this will play out now? The three letter agencies now have to go by the exact letter of the law and nothing is open to their agency interpretation anymore. Looks like the FCC might have been neutered now. NEVER think the fact that UN-elected officials that have had a taste of power will give that up easily no matter what their "checks and balances" branch says will go belly up on that decision. They always double down and get more stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveShannon Posted August 6 Report Share Posted August 6 1 hour ago, medic535 said: With the SCOTUS overturning Chevron Deference, I wonder how this will play out now? The three letter agencies now have to go by the exact letter of the law and nothing is open to their agency interpretation anymore. Looks like the FCC might have been neutered now. It's not that simple. Regulatory agencies still have the ability to write, edit, and amend regulations. They just have less leeway in interpreting statutes. WRUU653 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emory Posted August 9 Report Share Posted August 9 i just can't stop thinking that TDMA time slots for DMR aren't that far from the next hot digital format for amateur radio being GSM. are we going to end up with an operator-supported and funded regional babybells without the baggage or utility of SS7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emory Posted August 9 Report Share Posted August 9 On 7/10/2024 at 2:40 PM, Davichko5650 said: An app for cell phones (and PC's) - there are many Ham based groups on Zello linked to repeaters world-wide, so in that regard, similar to how EchoLink works. But it's more used by regular folks as a POC type of app. There are some GMRS based links on there as well, but I've never used them. And with the current confusion as to legality, don't plan to for now. I used Zello very briefly to try it out, but went back to EchoLink as I use that to get on friends in TN and FL repeaters. ORX did a video on the Zello HT radios. I installed it because Vero's HT App HTs and the GMRS-PRO have some network/channel capability and I was curious what other options were out there. but I can't get over the fact that the reason I've built a GMRS service for the household is because the things that Zello needs aren't hard to have disrupted. Also having people blurt things out from your phone at all hours of the night is amusing and impressive once (there's a Zello Skywarn but guess what: they're never anywhere near your town for that 5am briefing they do) and then rapidly becomes an interruption. I've learned that if i'm using my phone it's because I want to be messaging and calling people for intentional conversations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkInTampa Posted August 18 Report Share Posted August 18 On 7/10/2024 at 11:05 AM, MarkInTampa said: I spotted this on the FCC website, the "or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications" line caught my attention.... The FCC changed the GMRS operations page last week. Now shows this.....(https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs#:~:text=You must cooperate in the,or through a repeater station) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19 Report Share Posted August 19 On 8/6/2024 at 5:17 PM, medic535 said: With the SCOTUS overturning Chevron Deference, I wonder how this will play out now? The three letter agencies now have to go by the exact letter of the law and nothing is open to their agency interpretation anymore. Looks like the FCC might have been neutered now. https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/rulemaking-process#:~:text=Most FCC rules are adopted,received in developing final rules. TL;DR: The FCC has already been operating under congressional oversight the entire time. The Chevron Deference was for agencies that DO NOT have such a mechanism within US Law to operate in the manner which they did. Those agencies cannot just "defer to the experts" anymore - but the FCC was chartered to be "the experts" from the start with a mechanism in place to allow for regulatory proposal, comment, notice, and execution/enforcement autonomously within the defined laws. Also - the FCC has traditionally been open about their congressional oversight, the ability for citizens/private entities to bring challenges to the court, etc. - and nothing in this clarification has changed from the 2017 law except to clarify what a "network" is to anyone that was unable to ask. By another section in 47 CFR 95E - it also can be argued that the FCC is exercising their ability to control/restrict use of the service in a way to benefit the public. Seeing as there's only 8 repeater pairs and a regulatory agency's vested interest in preventing almost abusive control of them by widespread linked systems - go ahead and challenge it in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.