marcspaz

I just run a good ole Springfield Armory 1911a1 with stock furniture and iron sights.

What? They make a .500 in something other than Nitro Express? When did that happen?

Have you seen a naked woman? My God... they are terrifying! They get whatever they want, win every argument, and suck all the sense out of your head. No thanks.

There is zero chance of that happening. Even the most diehard 9mm owners love and respect The Lord's caliber.

Bickering implies that a counter position is taken because I care about the other persons opinion and how it reflects on me and my initial position.... which definitely is not the case. LoL /wordsalad

^^^ This! Exactly this! There is nothing in the rules that explains 'why' the rule is what it is. There are several conflicting parts and sub-parts, that I have pointed out in the past, that support that 'linking' as a whole is not prohibited. Only a specific method is prohibited. Whatever is not expressly prohibited is allowed. The truth is, I may retire this year. If I do, my time would be freed up enough to stand-up a linked repeater network and then wait to see if the FCC is up to a lively debate in Federal court. I don't know if I will, but the opportunity would exist and lately I am feeling kinda spicy about government overreach. Don't get me wrong. I have no personal animosity toward anyone in the FCC for simply trying to do their job and I have no intent on purposefully and intentionally violating any federal laws or rules... but we need a court case to settle the debate. All I have seen from everyone, including the FCC staff, is conjecture and opinion based on something that is NOT written, implicitly nor implied.

I'm sure you folks are getting great coverage where you are, but there are a lot a variables that make it so that works in those situations. It becomes problematic for a vast majority of the US. On the ocean or in perfectly flat land areas, if you have an antenna that is on a 100' mast, you are only covering 14 mile radius. Even if you bump to a 300' mast (which cost over $1m for a good commercial grade 300' tower) you are only looking at a radius of about 25 miles. To cover 100 miles (200 total miles end to end) your antenna needs to be almost 1 mile above the average terrain. That simply isn't possible in a vast majority of the US. If you are able to put an antenna on a mountain that overlooks a valley, you are golden, though. We have one of our antennas 1,000 feet above average terrain and we are barely pushing it a 45 miles, with dead spots inside that coverage area due to terrain. That particular repeater is known throughout the mid-Atlantic for being one of the top 3 repeaters, even when we include amateur radio coverage, and the top coverage repeater for GMRS in the area. Due to the terrain limits here, people/companies running farms need networked radios for reliable coverage and most of them are using commercial radio for it.

I always love hearing/reading opinions of others. Especially if they are different than mine, because I may learn something new that could lead to a position change. Friendly chat is always welcome. You have some very good and very valid points. I don't see anything I disagree with. Good analysis, for sure.

I don't like the idea of linking any repeaters for the sake of rag-chewing... but there is some practical applications that many seem to overlook. Things like remote receivers for extended talk-in to a high power repeater than can't hear handheld and other low power radios. Or, in an area that needs expanded coverage for emergency response (such as areas prone to flooding or severe snow causing issues) and any number of other situations. Maybe you own a massive farm or ranch and one repeater just won't cover it. Also, people keep saying linking repeaters is illegal and it is not. It is 100% legal. There is, however, a rule against using networks to link repeaters. You can do RF linking over GMRS frequencies (which uses more bandwidth, not a very friendly idea) or you can link repeaters over another radio service that you are licensed for. Also... just because you do or don't like something... that doesn't mean you're right. We are not in a world, or at least we shouldn't be in a world, were the majority bans what they don't like and mandates what they do. That is not freedom. If you don't like how the radio service is used near you, then don't use it.

This bubbled up on my local feed today. I am not sure if this was an honest error or if this dude was legit trying to get into the law enforcement system, but the FCC only sent a no-no letter. Part of me thinks that if it was an honest error and the person was just trying to repurpose the radio, that's fine... don't do it again. Another part of me is thinking "he admitted to putting the radio on that frequency himself, which implies some nefarious behavior and he should get more than a warning." Anyway, just a reminder to try not to cause interference when you are attempting to repurpose those older LMR Part 90 radios. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-410850A1.pdf Snip of text...

Very odd. You can definitely ignore it. The treaty is long gone and the restrictions were removed almost a decade ago.

I have a copy of my license from 2018 and it's not on my license. I downloaded a new copy about 5 minutes ago, and no reference to it today, either.

While i think you are very antagonist/disrespectful in a vast majority of your posts, and have a tendency to be wrong in a lot of your posts about tech and rules, I actually agree with the general sentiment of your comment. However, cell coverage is far from 99% of the US. They fudge the numbers by saying 99%+ of the population... not 99% of the land mass. It's closer to to 3.5%-4% of the total square miles of the US having (somewhat) continuous coverage, and only about 53% (which includes that 3.5%-4%) of square miles has a 70% reliability rate of cell service. Things like two-way radios and satellite communications are critical in about 47%+ of the country.

The US/Canada treaty that established the Line A/B/C/D radio restrictions expired a decade ago. The FCC removed the limits from PRS (GMRS) with the 2017 updates.

I have done handheld antenna testing and it's not that easy. I wouldn't recommend an SWR meter, either. You can't replicate the ground plane of the chassis and the effects of having the radio in your hand, which makes taking the measurements difficult. The closest I have come without literally building a sampling circuit onto the radio was by making small metal table into a ground plane, mounting an SMA connector on it with proper length cable between the base of the antenna and the VNA. Depending on the cable type, you will want the cable to be almost 7 feet (6.9) to be sure you are outside of the near field while testing.