Honestly, I do not know if it works that way as I have never enabled it. I have been told that is the way it works on that repeater; when there is signal on the output frequency of sufficient strength to overcome the squelch setting then the repeater does not transmit. That's how it was explained to me by more than one tech. They could be wrong. I have no personal experience using it since not doing so on repeaters is standard practice across the board in my experience.
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
FCC seeking comments on allowing Garmin to produce GMRS/FRS with data beacon. Speak up to STOP this.
- Thread starter jiminpgh
- Start date
Goodness no to coordination. That is a mess we do not need in GMRS. The frequency parking, the power grabs, the butt kissing. That, IMHO, is a terrible idea!
I prefer leaving GMRS as it is right now; perhaps adding DMR and clearly allowing Part 90 radios and repeaters. FRS data bursts, as described in the proposal (which I still have not read yet) doesn't concern me a bit.
Wow, it just dawned on me that the duplexer would notch out the output frequency so it likely works as you were describing. I withdraw the assertion that repeaters now can listen on the output and inhibit transmission if there is signal on the output frequency.
However, that does not change the fact that, per the regulations, repeaters should not be interfering with simplex traffic anymore than simplex traffic, per the regulations, should be interfering with repeater traffic. Again, that is the way it is written. Technical shortcomings of the repeater equipment do not negate the way the regulations are written. And THAT was my original point and not the abilities of repeater equipment; the regulations do not provide for a repeater to interfere with a simplex communication. There is not priority. as far as I am aware, in the language of Part 95.
In reality, exactly how it is now is fine with me regarding priority. I have no problem when a repeater interferes with my simplex traffic as there are enough alternative channels for me to use. On the flip-side, with the way the regulations are currently written, I do not support the complaint that these data bursts shouldn't be allowed the same latitude that repeaters are allowed with no written exception for those repeaters. I was preferring BCLO on those data bursts and would've supported that requirement and am glad to now see that it was already in the proposal. In short, I believe it to be hypocritical to condemn the proposal because of potential intrusion into other simplex traffic whilst repeaters are ignored doing the exact same thing with no exemption written for them in the regulations.
The fix is to segregate repeater operation to their own frequencies and establish simplex-only channels within the existing GMRS channel structure. Then coordinate and license the repeaters and eliminate linking these gargantuan GMRS networks together. Nothing like getting your local GMRS simplex traffic obliterated by two guys halfway across the country having a yak-fest that pops up out of the blue on your local networked repeater. That isn't what GMRS was ever supposed to be. And FRS operating in overlay fashion with GMRS frequencies should have never happened. Move FRS somewhere else. This proposal would require new GMRS units to be incapable of transmitting on split frequencies for repeater operation. Instead, they are simplex. A simple manufacturer programming issue. Nothing else needs to change. Many problems solved with one FCC action.
I completely disagree.
K6GBW
Member
For the love of God, please no DMR on GMRS! When two transmitters key up at the same time you get signal collision and the data stream is corrupted. The end result is that receiving stations hear NOTHING. At least with NFM you can hear the stronger station and you know there was a second station there. It's simply more usable than DMR. When my agency switched to digital we had to learn that the hard way.
No digital voice of any kind (on GMRS) would be my preference.
The chances of these Garmins flooding the GMRS frequencies are slim . The price alone will prevent the majority of people purchasing them.
Lack of the benefit of FM capture effect with DMR is a good point; essentially all or nothing with DMR. Still, I currently support changes to allow mixed mode, FM and DMR, on all of GMRS.
Yep. Exactly. That coupled with the busy channel lock out and interstitial channels only requirements of the proposal makes this a tempest in a teapot; a really insignificant issue, IMHO.
Similar threads
