RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,587
No. It further congests the availability of channels. Quasi hams can get a tech license like any other sad hams (tm)..
-
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.
Considerations about linking GMRS repeaters.
- Thread starter 665_NJ
- Start date
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
That doesn't fit the narrative or agenda of the quasi-ham groups who want to dominate all 8 pairs by tying them all up so anyone else wanting to have interference free use of the 8 available pairs in that area will be forced to using the dominant system.
Remember it's 2024 and no one likes being told NO.
12dbsinad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,013
For sure. What's going to happen is GMRS will become more of a CB cesspool full of wanna be hams then it already is with large linked systems. Linking is just too easy to do now and inexpensive, not like the old days. The FCC is going to get fed up with the complaints, etc. and say see-ya later for repeaters the next go around. It already ALMOST happened. The INTENT for GMRS as you know is family communications, short range, not some wide-area NET hogging all the channels for some Baofeng lovers with roger beeps talking about their hemorrhoids. That's why the GMRS callsign covers the entire family. Then everyone will cry about it.
Last edited:
Don't forget the elitists with their Motorolas sending MDC-1200 data.
bill4long
Member
Okay, just make linking repeaters against the rules. Problem solved. Then the wanna-be hams can get ham licenses or go away.
Again, I'm not a huge proponent of linking so I start with that caveat, but...
It's funny (to me) that some of you are acting like people use GMRS and want these linked repeaters because they don't have a ham license.
Around here, many who are on GMRS are also hams and use both regularly. I understand that each location is different and I have no doubt some use GMRS because they don't want to or can't get their ham license, but blanket statements as if that's everyone just aren't valid.
It's funny (to me) that some of you are acting like people use GMRS and want these linked repeaters because they don't have a ham license.
Around here, many who are on GMRS are also hams and use both regularly. I understand that each location is different and I have no doubt some use GMRS because they don't want to or can't get their ham license, but blanket statements as if that's everyone just aren't valid.
12dbsinad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,013
That's exactly what happens around here. Ham lingo and the whole 9 yards. It's too easy to fill out a form and pay a little bit of money then it is to study for a test, for each person nonetheless. I just have a strange feeling on what is to come with GMRS with very limited spectrum already. It just doesn't make sense to me anyway. I hope that someday digital voice can be introduced, now that would be a real benefit if implemented properly. I think deep down the FCC would just rather have GMRS repeaters go away as already seen. If GMRS had the spectrum that the ham bands do (even on 440) then I say link away... it does really expand things.
I guess we'll wait and see what the FCC has to say about it. Not trying to be a Debbie Downer here just speaking on my opinion from a reality standpoint.
bill4long
Member
Even worse with regard to the GMRS repeater linking question.
Last edited:
bill4long
Member
Too bad
I know several people who are blind and/or deaf and are licensed hams. Who are all these people that can't get ham licenses?
As an example, I know of one person who has failed the tech test at least 6 times over a couple years.
But, yes, it’s relatively easy to pass the tech for most people.
This elitist uses GEstar using a VP8000
celestis
Member
Fun fact: deaf and blind folk are also Public Safety eligibles for some reason (47 CFR 90.20(a)(2)(v)(A) and 47 CFR 90.20(a)(2)(v)(B))
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Now with repeater dominators threatening lawsuits and legal stuff as reported here, the FCC may be compelled to act and either introduce an NPRM or affirm that this operation of hogging the limited spectrum is a violation of 95.1763 which clearly states all license can use any and all available channels.
The bottom line is GMRS is not the place for networked style large scale radio networks. It is intended for family use and like you pointed out, this is why a station license covers multiple operators.
I still don't get why these elitists don't put those resources into part 97. Plenty of spectrum and bands to build repeaters and linked systems, no limitations on distance, digital modes galore, and in most areas, coordinated assignment of repeater pairs to minimize interference. CopSounds™ and FireSounds™ are allowed too (if repeater owners agree).
The sad part is that if done properly, one could link a few repeaters in a demographic and not kill multiple pairs if they would simulcast on just one pair. Granted that would take equipment, time ,access and brains. But as demonstrated on various platforms, the average GMRS user will not accomplish.
This is what is done is some locations. I know the Arkansas one has a simulcast in the central part of the state on, I think, .700 and recently when someone in another part of the state asked about putting up a repeater to link to the system, the managers of the group said no because there is already a repeater in that area and the remaining pairs need to stay open for other users.
I know some areas of the country deal with a different mindset and all pairs are taken but that is not the case with everyone and it isn't fair to lump every GMRS user into one group as some responders in this thread have done the last few days.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
With all of the contacts, questions and complaints the FCC may be getting, an NPRM or clarification may be forthcoming. GMRS is a FAMILY radio service for PERSONAL use, not intended for SMR or amateur use. I think it's way overdue for an official (and I mean official public notice or rule making) to pump the brakes on the nonsense but at the end of the day, GMRS is a ripple in a toilet bowl to the FCC. It isn't going to make AT&T, Verizon or T-Mobile a dime so they don't care too much.
I really wish folks in my little town of just over 6 million people with thousands of licensed HAMS would use the many fine repeaters but during most of the day, it's crickets and kerchunks meanwhile the 8 GMRS pairs are chock full of two or three people gas bagging tying up all 8 pairs with this linked crap. Did I mention 90 percent of that unnamed systems users are hams? SMH.
I really wish folks in my little town of just over 6 million people with thousands of licensed HAMS would use the many fine repeaters but during most of the day, it's crickets and kerchunks meanwhile the 8 GMRS pairs are chock full of two or three people gas bagging tying up all 8 pairs with this linked crap. Did I mention 90 percent of that unnamed systems users are hams? SMH.
And just because there is a linked system doesn't mean it isn't still for family use.
Many are making an implication that creating a linked system somehow changes the scope and purpose of the service. The purpose of the linked system, at least as they've stated for the one in Arkansas, is to expand the reach of family communications for times when people are traveling to other areas.
Again, I'm not stumping for linked systems all over the place but I still recognize that having a linked system does not somehow make it a non-family service. Done right, there's room for both linked and unlinked repeaters as well as simplex use. Maybe it isn't done right everywhere, but let's not lump those who are doing it right in with those who may not be.
I find it hard to believe that most the complaints on the linking, are actual users of the service. I have not heard many GMRS user making this complaint, but it appears to be mostly hams. Not sure why, if they aren't a user of the service, how does it affect them? But its no different than browsing over on the Zed, where many hams are not happy until they are arguing and complaining about anything and everything.
Is it jealousy that GMRS is getting more usage than most ham repeaters these days ? I hear more activity on GMRS than I do on V/U in EPA.
It resembles the complaining when the FCC dropped the code requirements, when DMR started to gain popularity, etc etc.
bill4long
Member
You can find people to complain about anything in this world. But I don't think this situation is analogous. GMRS is a very limited resource whereas ham radio is not. The GMRS ragchew-repeater-networks appear to be clearly defying the intent of GMRS by becoming a ham-radio-lite situation when they could be using the vast resources of actual ham radio.
They could, but the repeaters owners allow it. So until the actual owner of the machine steps in and lays down some ground rules, it will continue to happen.
🤷♂️
