Marine VHF Radio for Truck

[rickman]

I am going to be providing shore monitoring for a kayak trip and will be
using a VHF radio from my pickup. I am thinking of installing a unit
rather than using a handheld. I took a look at what there is available
and it seems like the prices start at just over $100 for the unit itself
running up to $500 for a fancy unit that is mounted somewhere hidden and
all the controls in a hand held mic.

Other than the obvious features like the remote mic unit, what should I
look for in getting a quality unit that will work the best without
breaking the bank. I don't want to pay $500, but I will pay $200 or
more if there is a useful difference with the ~$100 units.

I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.

Words of advice?

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

The first question would be - what country are you in?

The next question woulds be - what licenses do you hold? (Very little
is available without a license). I am assuming since you are asking
these questions you don't hold an amateur radio license.

The third question would be - what radios/bands are legal for that license?

Without even knowing what country you are in, the rest of the questions
are meaningless.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/1/2013 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>> I am going to be providing shore monitoring for a kayak trip and will be
>> using a VHF radio from my pickup. I am thinking of installing a unit
>> rather than using a handheld. I took a look at what there is available
>> and it seems like the prices start at just over $100 for the unit itself
>> running up to $500 for a fancy unit that is mounted somewhere hidden and
>> all the controls in a hand held mic.
>>
>> Other than the obvious features like the remote mic unit, what should I
>> look for in getting a quality unit that will work the best without
>> breaking the bank. I don't want to pay $500, but I will pay $200 or
>> more if there is a useful difference with the ~$100 units.
>>
>> I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
>> someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
>> my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
>> expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
>> into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.
>>
>> Words of advice?
>>
>
> The first question would be - what country are you in?

From the wording of the post, most likely the US. The use of $100 and
$500 is a big clue, though he could be in Canada, Autralia, New
New Zealand, or Trinidad. I would highly doubt it is any of the Asian
countries that have the dollar as the national currency.

> The next question woulds be - what licenses do you hold? (Very little
> is available without a license). I am assuming since you are asking
> these questions you don't hold an amateur radio license.

If it is the US, no licence is required for VHF marine radio for any
vessel that is NOT required to carry radio equipment and traveling in
US waters.

If it is Canada, essentially the same applies.

> The third question would be - what radios/bands are legal for that license?

VHF marine radios are legal for the VHF marine radio band without regard
for country.

> Without even knowing what country you are in, the rest of the questions
> are meaningless.

Anyway...

Like everything else these days, the Internet is full of reviews of VHF
marine radios.

Google is your friend.



--
Jim Pennino

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/1/2013 9:22 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 9/1/2013 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> I am going to be providing shore monitoring for a kayak trip and will be
>>> using a VHF radio from my pickup. I am thinking of installing a unit
>>> rather than using a handheld. I took a look at what there is available
>>> and it seems like the prices start at just over $100 for the unit itself
>>> running up to $500 for a fancy unit that is mounted somewhere hidden and
>>> all the controls in a hand held mic.
>>>
>>> Other than the obvious features like the remote mic unit, what should I
>>> look for in getting a quality unit that will work the best without
>>> breaking the bank. I don't want to pay $500, but I will pay $200 or
>>> more if there is a useful difference with the ~$100 units.
>>>
>>> I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
>>> someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
>>> my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
>>> expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
>>> into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.
>>>
>>> Words of advice?
>>>
>>
>> The first question would be - what country are you in?
>
> From the wording of the post, most likely the US. The use of $100 and
> $500 is a big clue, though he could be in Canada, Autralia, New
> New Zealand, or Trinidad. I would highly doubt it is any of the Asian
> countries that have the dollar as the national currency.
>

Yes, but those make a difference. And BTW, last time I was in Hong
Kong, they also used $. It has been close to 20 years, though.

And I wouldn't want to get the op in trouble by providing information
incorrect to the country he is in.

>> The next question woulds be - what licenses do you hold? (Very little
>> is available without a license). I am assuming since you are asking
>> these questions you don't hold an amateur radio license.
>
> If it is the US, no licence is required for VHF marine radio for any
> vessel that is NOT required to carry radio equipment and traveling in
> US waters.
>

Are you sure about that? I do remember Dad had to get a radio license
for his boat, even though he was operating in U.S. waters off the Gulf
coast of Florida. That was a few years ago, though. And the license
was free.

However, he also was talking about SHORE monitoring - which definitely
requires a license, even for marine band.

> If it is Canada, essentially the same applies.
>
>> The third question would be - what radios/bands are legal for that license?
>
> VHF marine radios are legal for the VHF marine radio band without regard
> for country.
>

Not entirely true. Depending on the country. Some still require
licenses, for various reasons.

>> Without even knowing what country you are in, the rest of the questions
>> are meaningless.
>
> Anyway...
>
> Like everything else these days, the Internet is full of reviews of VHF
> marine radios.
>
> Google is your friend.
>
>
>

And many of those are illegal to operate in some countries, even though
they aren't marked as such. Since he is asking here, I would expect he
wants to ensure he is legal.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

$100 Hong Kong is $12.89 US; I doubt you will find many VHF marine
radios $12.89 US.

>
> And I wouldn't want to get the op in trouble by providing information
> incorrect to the country he is in.
>
>>> The next question woulds be - what licenses do you hold? (Very little
>>> is available without a license). I am assuming since you are asking
>>> these questions you don't hold an amateur radio license.
>>
>> If it is the US, no licence is required for VHF marine radio for any
>> vessel that is NOT required to carry radio equipment and traveling in
>> US waters.
>>
>
> Are you sure about that? I do remember Dad had to get a radio license
> for his boat, even though he was operating in U.S. waters off the Gulf
> coast of Florida. That was a few years ago, though. And the license
> was free.

And at one time CB and private aircraft had to have a license; none do
anymore. Air and marine radars also used to require a license; not
anymore.

> However, he also was talking about SHORE monitoring - which definitely
> requires a license, even for marine band.

Nope, there is a VHF marine channel specifically for chit chat from ship
to shore.

>> If it is Canada, essentially the same applies.
>>
>>> The third question would be - what radios/bands are legal for that license?
>>
>> VHF marine radios are legal for the VHF marine radio band without regard
>> for country.
>>
>
> Not entirely true. Depending on the country. Some still require
> licenses, for various reasons.

That wasn't the issue.

The VHF marine band seems to be essentially the same with some differences
in channel assignment world wide.

>>> Without even knowing what country you are in, the rest of the questions
>>> are meaningless.
>>
>> Anyway...
>>
>> Like everything else these days, the Internet is full of reviews of VHF
>> marine radios.
>>
>> Google is your friend.
>>
>>
>>
>
> And many of those are illegal to operate in some countries, even though
> they aren't marked as such. Since he is asking here, I would expect he
> wants to ensure he is legal.

I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
North Korea...

Oh, perhaps you meant buying a radio from the Internet; no I wouldn't
reccomend that unless the dealer was in my country if for no other reason
than to make sure the channels were set up for the idiosyncrasies of my
country.


--
Jim Pennino

[Fred McKenzie]

In article <l00fl2$qid$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I doubt I'll be mounting this in a boat although that is a possibility
> someday, I do have a ski boat. But more likely is that I'll mount it at
> my house on a lake to provide some amount of emergency monitoring. So I
> expect to mount it in the pickup so it can be easily removed and brought
> into the house. I guess that means a second antenna too.

Rick-

I am assuming you can manage the legal requirements for use of the
radio. As others mentioned, a license may be needed.

One question you must address, is what kind of range do you need to
cover? VHF radios are essentially line-of-sight. Due to the curvature
of the earth, the "radio horizon" will limit your range.

You can estimate the distance in miles to the radio horizon, as the
square root of twice the altitude of your antenna in feet. For example,
the antenna on the roof of your truck will be approximately five feet
off the ground. The square root of ten is about 3.2, so your horizon on
level ground will be about 3 miles away.

You can add the distance to the kayak's horizon to yours. So it would
matter if the kayak is on a mountainous stream or on the open ocean or
lake.

If vehicle mounting does not provide the range you need, a tall antenna
may be required at the house. (Have you considered using cell phones?)

Fred
K4DII

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
> North Korea...

The US has specific rules and regulations about land use of marine
frequencies. It would be best to find them out, there is a rumor floating
around the internet about an FCC officer happening to be at return end
of a boat rental stopping people and issuing NALs for people using
non approved or unlicensed radios for FRS GMRS and marine services.

Basically, you are licensed by use of a VHF marine radio ON A BOAT, but
having or using that radio in a car or building, or using it on land,
for example in a boat in your backyard is restricted.

There also is a story floating around the internet of a logging company
using marine radios on their boats and trucks being fined by the FCC.

Best to check it out from someone who knows the right answer before you
spend any money or get in trouble.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

[Jerry Stuckle]

There are amateur radios available for < $500 HK. That is not out of
the question.

And I don't know what other countries use the dollar, but I'm sure there
are.

>>
>> And I wouldn't want to get the op in trouble by providing information
>> incorrect to the country he is in.
>>
>>>> The next question woulds be - what licenses do you hold? (Very little
>>>> is available without a license). I am assuming since you are asking
>>>> these questions you don't hold an amateur radio license.
>>>
>>> If it is the US, no licence is required for VHF marine radio for any
>>> vessel that is NOT required to carry radio equipment and traveling in
>>> US waters.
>>>
>>
>> Are you sure about that? I do remember Dad had to get a radio license
>> for his boat, even though he was operating in U.S. waters off the Gulf
>> coast of Florida. That was a few years ago, though. And the license
>> was free.
>
> And at one time CB and private aircraft had to have a license; none do
> anymore. Air and marine radars also used to require a license; not
> anymore.
>

That could be for boats. I don't know, because I haven't checked.

>> However, he also was talking about SHORE monitoring - which definitely
>> requires a license, even for marine band.
>
> Nope, there is a VHF marine channel specifically for chit chat from ship
> to shore.
>

Which does not mean short stations do not have to be licensed. They
still do.

>>> If it is Canada, essentially the same applies.
>>>
>>>> The third question would be - what radios/bands are legal for that license?
>>>
>>> VHF marine radios are legal for the VHF marine radio band without regard
>>> for country.
>>>
>>
>> Not entirely true. Depending on the country. Some still require
>> licenses, for various reasons.
>
> That wasn't the issue.
>

It is exactly the issue. You can't say whether a license is required or
not until you know what country the OP is in.

> The VHF marine band seems to be essentially the same with some differences
> in channel assignment world wide.
>

That does not mean the licensing requirements are the same.

>>>> Without even knowing what country you are in, the rest of the questions
>>>> are meaningless.
>>>
>>> Anyway...
>>>
>>> Like everything else these days, the Internet is full of reviews of VHF
>>> marine radios.
>>>
>>> Google is your friend.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And many of those are illegal to operate in some countries, even though
>> they aren't marked as such. Since he is asking here, I would expect he
>> wants to ensure he is legal.
>
> I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
> North Korea...
>

But you don't know. As I said before, in the U.S., marine stations
still need to be licensed when on land (the same is true of aircraft
radios, BTW).

> Oh, perhaps you meant buying a radio from the Internet; no I wouldn't
> reccomend that unless the dealer was in my country if for no other reason
> than to make sure the channels were set up for the idiosyncrasies of my
> country.
>
>

It doesn't matter where you buy the radio. There are shady brick and
mortar dealers also who try to make a buck by buying cheap overseas crap
and reselling it at a higher markup.

And just because the radio is legal in your country for some uses does
NOT mean it is legal in your country for ALL uses.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 12:01 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

<snip>

>> $100 Hong Kong is $12.89 US; I doubt you will find many VHF marine
>> radios $12.89 US.
>>
>
> There are amateur radios available for < $500 HK. That is not out of
> the question.

$500 is 5 times $100, which is the amount in question.

> And I don't know what other countries use the dollar, but I'm sure there
> are.

I already told you what they are.

<snip>

> Which does not mean short stations do not have to be licensed. They
> still do.

Yes, but the original question was about monitoring, and no license is
required for that.

<snip>

> It is exactly the issue. You can't say whether a license is required or
> not until you know what country the OP is in.

How much are you willing to bet he is in neither the USA or Canada, both
of which have essentially the same rules.

Also, he said he wanted to monitor on land.

<snip>

> That does not mean the licensing requirements are the same.

They are for the USA and Canada.

<snip>

>> I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
>> North Korea...
>>
>
> But you don't know. As I said before, in the U.S., marine stations
> still need to be licensed when on land (the same is true of aircraft
> radios, BTW).

Which has nothing to do with what I said; read it again.


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
>> North Korea...

Another speed reader...

What I said was "I don't think *reviews* are illegal.

> The US has specific rules and regulations about land use of marine
> frequencies. It would be best to find them out, there is a rumor floating
> around the internet about an FCC officer happening to be at return end
> of a boat rental stopping people and issuing NALs for people using
> non approved or unlicensed radios for FRS GMRS and marine services.
>
> Basically, you are licensed by use of a VHF marine radio ON A BOAT, but
> having or using that radio in a car or building, or using it on land,
> for example in a boat in your backyard is restricted.

He said he wanted to monitor on land. Monitoring on land is not restricted.

> There also is a story floating around the internet of a logging company
> using marine radios on their boats and trucks being fined by the FCC.

Which is an obvious violation.



--
Jim Pennino

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/2/2013 12:59 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2013 12:01 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> $100 Hong Kong is $12.89 US; I doubt you will find many VHF marine
>>> radios $12.89 US.
>>>
>>
>> There are amateur radios available for < $500 HK. That is not out of
>> the question.
>
> $500 is 5 times $100, which is the amount in question.
>

Yup. Glad to see you can do multiplication. Shall we try division now?

>> And I don't know what other countries use the dollar, but I'm sure there
>> are.
>
> I already told you what they are.
>

That's all of them? I know you didn't mention Hong Kong in your earlier
post.

> <snip>
>
>> Which does not mean short stations do not have to be licensed. They
>> still do.
>
> Yes, but the original question was about monitoring, and no license is
> required for that.
>

No, but then you don't need a transceiver on land, either. A simple
scanner will suffice.

However, he specifically is asking about installing a radio. To me this
means he wants to monitor the *trip*, not the frequency - and to do so
is interested in talking to those in the kayaks. Why else would he be
asking about installing a radio, instead of just a receiver?

> <snip>
>
>> It is exactly the issue. You can't say whether a license is required or
>> not until you know what country the OP is in.
>
> How much are you willing to bet he is in neither the USA or Canada, both
> of which have essentially the same rules.
>

I'm not willing to bet anything, because I don't make assumptions one
way or the other. And I don't give advice based on facts I don't know.

> Also, he said he wanted to monitor on land.
>

Again - he said he wanted to monitor the trip - not the frequency. And
he specifically asked about installing a radio - instead of a handheld.
To me this means he also wants to talk.

> <snip>
>
>> That does not mean the licensing requirements are the same.
>
> They are for the USA and Canada.
>

No where did he say where he was from. You are making an unwarranted
assumption.

> <snip>
>
>>> I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
>>> North Korea...
>>>
>>
>> But you don't know. As I said before, in the U.S., marine stations
>> still need to be licensed when on land (the same is true of aircraft
>> radios, BTW).
>
> Which has nothing to do with what I said; read it again.
>
>

No, it doesn't have anything to do with what YOU said. But it has
EVERYTHING to do with what the OP said.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 12:59 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2013 12:01 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> $100 Hong Kong is $12.89 US; I doubt you will find many VHF marine
>>>> radios $12.89 US.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are amateur radios available for < $500 HK. That is not out of
>>> the question.
>>
>> $500 is 5 times $100, which is the amount in question.
>>
>
> Yup. Glad to see you can do multiplication. Shall we try division now?

Shall we try to pay attention to what was written, i.e. radios for $100?

>>> And I don't know what other countries use the dollar, but I'm sure there
>>> are.
>>
>> I already told you what they are.
>>
>
> That's all of them? I know you didn't mention Hong Kong in your earlier
> post.

I didn't mention all of them because the exchange rate make a $100 radio
a ludicrous idea.

>> <snip>
>>
>>> Which does not mean short stations do not have to be licensed. They
>>> still do.
>>
>> Yes, but the original question was about monitoring, and no license is
>> required for that.
>>
>
> No, but then you don't need a transceiver on land, either. A simple
> scanner will suffice.

Likely, but he also specifically said he might want to use it on his boat.

>
> However, he specifically is asking about installing a radio. To me this
> means he wants to monitor the *trip*, not the frequency - and to do so
> is interested in talking to those in the kayaks. Why else would he be
> asking about installing a radio, instead of just a receiver?

Because:

1. A scanner may have never occured to him.

2. He also might use it on his boat as he said.

>> <snip>
>>
>>> It is exactly the issue. You can't say whether a license is required or
>>> not until you know what country the OP is in.
>>
>> How much are you willing to bet he is in neither the USA or Canada, both
>> of which have essentially the same rules.
>>
>
> I'm not willing to bet anything, because I don't make assumptions one
> way or the other. And I don't give advice based on facts I don't know.

Ever heard the saying "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."? Everything he wrote
points to being from the US with a slight chance of Canada.

Also, your "advice" had nothing to do with the questions asked and instead
immediately took the position of net cop to make *sure* everything he
did was legal in your eyes.

>> Also, he said he wanted to monitor on land.
>>
>
> Again - he said he wanted to monitor the trip - not the frequency. And
> he specifically asked about installing a radio - instead of a handheld.
> To me this means he also wants to talk.

He actually said he wanted to monitor several things.

>> <snip>
>>
>>> That does not mean the licensing requirements are the same.
>>
>> They are for the USA and Canada.
>>
>
> No where did he say where he was from. You are making an unwarranted
> assumption.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
it probably is a duck.

Also where he is is irrelevant to the questions he actually asked.

>> <snip>
>>
>>>> I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
>>>> North Korea...
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you don't know. As I said before, in the U.S., marine stations
>>> still need to be licensed when on land (the same is true of aircraft
>>> radios, BTW).
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with what I said; read it again.
>>
>>
>
> No, it doesn't have anything to do with what YOU said. But it has
> EVERYTHING to do with what the OP said.

Nope, I said the Internet is full of *reviews*.

You immediately went off on legalities.

Two differnent subjects.


--
Jim Pennino

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/2/2013 3:55 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 9/2/2013 12:59 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2013 12:01 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> $100 Hong Kong is $12.89 US; I doubt you will find many VHF marine
>>>>> radios $12.89 US.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are amateur radios available for < $500 HK. That is not out of
>>>> the question.
>>>
>>> $500 is 5 times $100, which is the amount in question.
>>>
>>
>> Yup. Glad to see you can do multiplication. Shall we try division now?
>
>
> Shall we try to pay attention to what was written, i.e. radios for $100?
>

Exactly. And there are some awfully cheap radios coming from China
nowadays. Like this one:
http://www.radioddity.com/us/baofeng-bf-888-s-uhf-400-470-mhz-portable-handheld-2-way-ham-radio.html

Easily within the $100-500 HK.

>>>> And I don't know what other countries use the dollar, but I'm sure there
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> I already told you what they are.
>>>
>>
>> That's all of them? I know you didn't mention Hong Kong in your earlier
>> post.
>
> I didn't mention all of them because the exchange rate make a $100 radio
> a ludicrous idea.
>

Like the one I mentioned above? And are ALL Asian exchange rates the
same? I don't think so.

>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Which does not mean short stations do not have to be licensed. They
>>>> still do.
>>>
>>> Yes, but the original question was about monitoring, and no license is
>>> required for that.
>>>
>>
>> No, but then you don't need a transceiver on land, either. A simple
>> scanner will suffice.
>
> Likely, but he also specifically said he might want to use it on his boat.

Which would indicate a transceiver.

>>
>> However, he specifically is asking about installing a radio. To me this
>> means he wants to monitor the *trip*, not the frequency - and to do so
>> is interested in talking to those in the kayaks. Why else would he be
>> asking about installing a radio, instead of just a receiver?
>
> Because:
>
> 1. A scanner may have never occured to him.
>
> 2. He also might use it on his boat as he said.
>

In which case he would need a license to use it in his truck in many
(most?) countries.

>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> It is exactly the issue. You can't say whether a license is required or
>>>> not until you know what country the OP is in.
>>>
>>> How much are you willing to bet he is in neither the USA or Canada, both
>>> of which have essentially the same rules.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not willing to bet anything, because I don't make assumptions one
>> way or the other. And I don't give advice based on facts I don't know.
>
> Ever heard the saying "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and
> quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."? Everything he wrote
> points to being from the US with a slight chance of Canada.
>

To use your language: Quack, Quack.

Nothing he wrote pointed to any country.

> Also, your "advice" had nothing to do with the questions asked and instead
> immediately took the position of net cop to make *sure* everything he
> did was legal in your eyes.
>

No, I am making sure the advice I give is legal in HIS jurisdiction.
Obviously you don't care - you are more interested in arguing.

>>> Also, he said he wanted to monitor on land.
>>>
>>
>> Again - he said he wanted to monitor the trip - not the frequency. And
>> he specifically asked about installing a radio - instead of a handheld.
>> To me this means he also wants to talk.
>
> He actually said he wanted to monitor several things.
>

Sure. And he specifically mentioned he wanted a radio instead of a
handheld, and wanted to use it in his boat as well as his truck.
Everything points to him asking for a transceiver.

>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> That does not mean the licensing requirements are the same.
>>>
>>> They are for the USA and Canada.
>>>
>>
>> No where did he say where he was from. You are making an unwarranted
>> assumption.
>
> If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then
> it probably is a duck.

Quack, quack.

>
> Also where he is is irrelevant to the questions he actually asked.
>

Where he is is COMPLETELY relevant to the question he asked. But you
are more interested in proving your point than giving him correct answers.

>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> I don't think reviews are illegal to operate in any country, though maybe
>>>>> North Korea...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you don't know. As I said before, in the U.S., marine stations
>>>> still need to be licensed when on land (the same is true of aircraft
>>>> radios, BTW).
>>>
>>> Which has nothing to do with what I said; read it again.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't have anything to do with what YOU said. But it has
>> EVERYTHING to do with what the OP said.
>
> Nope, I said the Internet is full of *reviews*.
>
> You immediately went off on legalities.
>
> Two differnent subjects.
>
>

Obviously you can't read what I said. Once again - I wasn't talking
about what YOU said (I really couldn't care less). I was replying to
what the OP said.

But you are really hooked on you being right, aren't you? Me, I'd
rather give the OP answers which are legal where HE is. Which once
again, we don't know because he hasn't said.

Just because YOU are in the United States (or Canada) does NOT mean the
rest of the world is. This is a typical US-centric attitude I have seen
over and over again. There are other countries, you know. And some of
them even use radios.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry Stuckle, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Obviously you can't read what I said. Once again - I wasn't talking
> about what YOU said (I really couldn't care less). I was replying to
> what the OP said.
>
> But you are really hooked on you being right, aren't you? Me, I'd
> rather give the OP answers which are legal where HE is. Which once
> again, we don't know because he hasn't said.
>
> Just because YOU are in the United States (or Canada) does NOT mean the
> rest of the world is. This is a typical US-centric attitude I have seen
> over and over again. There are other countries, you know. And some of
> them even use radios.

Here is the orginal question:

"Other than the obvious features like the remote mic unit, what should I
look for in getting a quality unit that will work the best without
breaking the bank."

FYI a feature is something like how many memories, are the backlights
dimmable, or does it have a built in AC power supply.

Nothing in that question has any relevance to what country the asker is
in.

You ignored the only question he had and went off on a net cop tangent
about legalities and needing to know what country he is in. To be
complete in that line of thinking you also need to know of which country
he is a citizen as any good net cop should know most countries do not
issue radio licenses to foreigner.

As for me, I just like having fun poking at net cops that get their
panties in a wad and go of on irrelevant tangets when someone asks
a rather simple question.







--
Jim Pennino

[Jerry Stuckle]

You obviously don't understand what the term "net cop" means. Or you
wouldn't be one.

> As for me, I just like having fun poking at net cops that get their
> panties in a wad and go of on irrelevant tangets when someone asks
> a rather simple question.
>

So you admit you're a troll as well as a net cop? It figures.

<plonk>

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

> You obviously don't understand what the term "net cop" means. Or you
> wouldn't be one.

I guess to be accurate I would have to describe your actions as part
net cop, part barracks lawyer.

In any case, you are a pompous ass that insists that questions be asked
in your approved manner and answers questions that were never asked.



--
Jim Pennino

[Channel Jumper]

You can monitor anything - that does not require a license to do.

However, there is a range restriction when operating on land.
So many feet away from the water.

Your groups needs would be better served with a bunch of bubble pack
GMRS radios - the amount of power has very little to do with the range.

Range is dependent on a clear line of sight and the height of the
antenna's and the loss in the feed lines.




--
Channel Jumper

[rickman]

I have to say I didn't expect quite so much drama in what I thought was
a simple request. I don't mean you specifically, but the thread as a
whole.

Yes, I am in the US. The radio will be used to support marine
communications which is legal by my understanding. Shore operation is
ok as long as one end is a ship. My specific purpose is to support a
kayak trip in a couple of weeks. We have had some bad weather before
and found it difficult to communicate with the kayaks depending on their
location because of the limited power of the hand held units. I'd like
to improve on this by using a higher power transmitter and a better
antenna. This will likely be used for monitoring the emergency channel
at a lake house when not used to support kayaks. I thought I explained
this in my original post other than the country. Oh, and I don't have a
license.

BTW, I didn't find much in the way of reviews. Mostly I find ads. Is
there a good review site for marine VHF? For kayaks that would be
paddling.com

I also would appreciate any advice on mounting in the pickup. I'm
thinking on the back of the cab but I'm not sure how the cable would
then run. It might poke out behind a passenger's head...

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 9/2/2013 1:03 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Geoffrey S. Mendelson<g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
>
> He said he wanted to monitor on land. Monitoring on land is not restricted.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "monitor". I do expect to
communicate with the kayaks.

>> There also is a story floating around the internet of a logging company
>> using marine radios on their boats and trucks being fined by the FCC.
>
> Which is an obvious violation.

Where is the violation? As long as the trucks are only transmitting to
the ships, isn't that ok? Just having them shouldn't be a problem. The
issue is how you use them, no?

--

Rick

[rickman]

Hi Fred, I appreciate the response.

I'm not sure there is a lot of value to calculating the line of sight
for the antenna mount. I don't have much choice in the mount other than
having to make it lower because of some practical consideration like
hitting bridges... As to need, I want the max I can get of course. The
other end of the link will all be handheld radios.

The kayaks will be on the Chesapeake Bay, but close to shore. So land
obstructions will be the limiting factor most of the time. At least it
seemed that way on prior trips. But I don't have a lot of experience
with the hand held units we used so I'm not sure what I should have
expected.

The sort of issue I'm more interested in discussing are things like what
type of antenna and how best to mount and connect it to the radio. Of
course, I'm interested in the radios if anyone here has experience with
them. I see 25 Watt (which I'm assuming is the max available) units at
the bottom end for just over $100 and others which seem to be similar in
regards to the specs I understand for over $200 and of course the prices
run upward too. Are there aspects I should look for that I need to dig
deeper into the specs to find? For example is there some spec on the
internals of the receiver that would make a weakly received signal more
clear than another radio? What about the speaker itself? Would it be
better to have an external speaker or is the internal speaker usually ok?

I'm looking for advice from those who are experienced with marine VHF.
Of course, I don't know what I don't know, so I'm looking for help
figuring out the questions.

--

Rick

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

rickman wrote:
>
> Where is the violation? As long as the trucks are only transmitting to
> the ships, isn't that ok? Just having them shouldn't be a problem. The
> issue is how you use them, no?
>

No. It is NOT OK.

<http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

rickman wrote:
> Yes, I am in the US. The radio will be used to support marine
> communications which is legal by my understanding.

Not unless you have a license. Otherwise you risk a $10,000 fine.

<http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#

Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <slrnl2c6m...@cable.mendelson.com>,

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> writes:
> rickman wrote:
>> Yes, I am in the US. The radio will be used to support marine
>> communications which is legal by my understanding.
>
> Not unless you have a license. Otherwise you risk a $10,000 fine.
>
> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#
> Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>

Am I the only one who doesn't think a kayak on the Chesapeake would
be considered "a ship" and that none of this is relevant to what
he wants to do? Seems like a task for GMRS to me.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[Jerry Stuckle]

Rick,

You've answered a couple of questions here. First of all, you are in
the United States, so are governed by the FCC.

Marine radio licenses are not needed for the kayaks while on the river,
but land stations (i.e. your truck) would do.

You could be considered a "Private Coastal Station". You would have to
"provide a service to vessels..." to get this license. I'm not sure if
the FCC would consider talking to your kayaks to be "a service to
vessels" - I guess it could be argued that it is.

Another option would be a "Marine Utility Station" - these restricted to
handhelds with ten watts or less power. You still have to "provide a
service to vessels".

Another option would be the "General Mobile Radio Service". You don't
have to provide a service to vessels with this license, but it is
basically handhelds in the 1-5 watt range (and can have removable
antennas, so you could add an external antenna). You need a license
here, but family members can all operate under the same license
(individual licenses are not required).

Of course, every person operating a radio could get a ham license; you
would be much less restricted in your operation (power, frequencies,
etc.). You just can't use it for business - which it sounds like you
aren't. Each person would have to pass a test (not that hard and many
ham clubs around the country provide testing on a regular basis). Of
course, it gives you a lot of other options, also - like using a
repeater to extend the range of both the kayaks and your truck, assuming
one is available (I don't know what's available around the Chesapeake
River area, but this area is loaded with repeaters).

I hope this helps you with some ideas.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/3/2013 1:41 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <slrnl2c6m...@cable.mendelson.com>,
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> writes:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> Yes, I am in the US. The radio will be used to support marine
>>> communications which is legal by my understanding.
>>
>> Not unless you have a license. Otherwise you risk a $10,000 fine.
>>
>> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#
>> Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>>
>
> Am I the only one who doesn't think a kayak on the Chesapeake would
> be considered "a ship" and that none of this is relevant to what
> he wants to do? Seems like a task for GMRS to me.
>
> bill
>

Bill,

I'm not sure about that - it would depend on the FCC's definition of
"ship". Nothing I've seen indicates it has to be a big boat on a
navigable waterway; for instance a 20' fishing boat on a large inland
lake might be considered a "ship".

I agree GMRS is one way to go - but the limited range of such equipment
is what he's trying to solve.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

It depends.

Each truck has to have a license to transmit, but boats do not. If the
trucks are just monitoring and never transmit, they do not need a license.

Even if the trucks have licenses, the VHF marine band is restricted to
communications related to marine "stuff".

Do something like scheduling trucks would be a business use and would
not be appropriate for the marine band.





--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:

> rickman wrote:
>>
>> Where is the violation? As long as the trucks are only transmitting to
>> the ships, isn't that ok? Just having them shouldn't be a problem. The
>> issue is how you use them, no?
>>
>
> No. It is NOT OK.
>
> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>
> Geoff.

Note that the question asked was "Just having them".

If the trucks just have them, only monitor, and never transmit, they are
legal.


--
Jim Pennino

[rickman]

ccc>>

Jerry, yes, this helps a lot. Once I was told I needed the license I
found the FCC site to be less than clear. I appreciate you laying out
the options. I would like to have a more powerful transmitter than the
handhelds have, so I think I will research the Private Coastal Station.
One of the licenses mentioned on the FCC page says you can fill in the
form online and you effectively are licensed as soon as you make the
application. I believe this was the "marine utility station license",
but I can't find that info at the moment.

Does a private costal station have to be stationary? Could I swap the
unit between house and vehicle? Or do I need two licenses?

--

Rick

[David Platt]

What follows is just my own subjective "take" on the issue... please
don't treat it as gospel.

>The sort of issue I'm more interested in discussing are things like what
>type of antenna and how best to mount and connect it to the radio.

Broadly-speaking, you'll have a choice of antennas which do, or do
not, require a good ground plane to operate (quarter-wave monopoles
being an example of those which do, and end-fed half-wave antennas
being an example of those which do not). A lot of boat-mount marine
VHF antennas seem to be of the ground-independent type - they can be
mounted up alongside the mast, or connected to a fiberglass hull, and
will still work well.

There's a lot to be said for buying a "designed for boat mounting"
antenna even for shore or vehicle mounting... such antennas will
probably be made to withstand salt-spray corrosion, and will live
longer than an "inland" antenna.

For mounting such on a vehicle... plan to mount it up above the
roofline rather than down at the bumper. For hatchbacks, a trunk-lip
mount can work quite well. Mounting to a roof rack is also a
possibility. Depending on the antenna height and vehicle type, it's
also possible to drill a hole in the roof or side, and install a mount
through the hole (maybe not the best idea if you plan to sell the
vehicle anytime soon). If you use a ground-dependent antenna, the
mount will need to be connected directly to the chassis sheet-metal.

> Of
>course, I'm interested in the radios if anyone here has experience with
>them. I see 25 Watt (which I'm assuming is the max available) units at
>the bottom end for just over $100 and others which seem to be similar in
>regards to the specs I understand for over $200 and of course the prices
>run upward too. Are there aspects I should look for that I need to dig
>deeper into the specs to find?

Long-term ruggedness and reliability is an important factor in marine
radios, and it's probably one that you're going to find in the specs.
Reading on-line and magazine reviews, and talking to dealers (and
users) about problems, and the return rate, is probably a good idea.

Standard Horizon, and Icom, seem to be two of the big-name players in
the "commercial grade" marine radio business.

As to specs... one thing to look for is receiver selectivity. In a
"crowded" RF environment (such as the Chesapeake bay and its shores)
there's going to be a very great deal of transmission going on around
you, including full-power (25-watt) transmissions from shore stations
and boats. A strong signal on one channel can saturate a radio's
receiver, and block out weaker signals on other channels
("desensitization"). The better the strong-signal handling (dynamic
range) and adjacent-channel selectivity a radio has, the better it
will be able to receive distant signals in the face of a strong local
transmission.

Some of the higher-end marine mobile radios have a "dual operating
position" feature. You can connect a second microphone (often with
its own built-in controls and display) located well away from the main
radio, and operate the radio from the second location. This can be a
useful feature both on boats (e.g. put the second station up on a
conning tower) and in shore installations.

I haven't seen any marine mobile radios which have detachable
faceplates (i.e. intended for remote mounting).

> For example is there some spec on the
>internals of the receiver that would make a weakly received signal more
>clear than another radio?

Sensitivity, and selectivity are what you're looking for. The
sensitivity number will tend to dominate the performance under true
weak-signal conditions - that is, when there are no strong
transmissions on other channels in your neighborhood. The selectivity
number becomes important when there are other radios transmitting
nearby.

> What about the speaker itself? Would it be
>better to have an external speaker or is the internal speaker usually ok?

Depends on the radio. Some radios have good internal
speakers... although I suspect this is not terribly easy to achieve if
the radio has to be water-resistant... and some are just terrible.
The more compact the radio, the worse its internal speaker is likely
to sound (I think).

I'd be surprised if most mobile-type marine radios can't hook up to
external speakers, so you can always add one on if the built-in
speaker is not adequate for your needs. Bi-amping and subwoofers are
optional :-)

Other issues:

- Do make sure you buy a radio which has been fully certificated
for operation under FCC Part 80 regulations. Buying radios
intended for other services (land mobile, amateur, etc.) and
reprogramming them for the maritime channels is *not* a good
idea... it's legal to do so, but *not* legal to transmit with such
radios. Big fines are possible if you're caught.

- On the (somewhat noisy) issue of licensing... as I understand it,
you will not need any license at all if all you are going to do is
"monitor" (receive only)... at least, that's true around the
Chesapeake, which is entirely US territory and subject to US
regulations. The moment you transmit, though, the rules are
different. Since you're talking about a shore/vehicle station,
you'd have to have a "private coast" or "marine utility" station
license, and these are only available to a limited category of
people: see 47 CFR 80.501(a) for a list of qualifying categories.
Possibly (a)(8) would apply in your situation: "a person servicing
or supplying vessels other than commercial transport vessels"?

[Jerry Stuckle]

OK, I did a little more looking into the FCC regs (Part 80 governs
Maritime use). The supplemental restrictions for a Private Coastal
Station are listed at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=cc735d881c6a4bb62b95f154e6567bc1&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:5.0.1.1.1.11.78.1&idno=47.

It looks like you do not meet any of the requirements, so you would not
be eligible for such a license.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[rickman]

A friend who is a serious kayaker has been on the bay a number of times
when he communicates with the large cargo ships (like when he is doing a
crossing for example). They always address him as "Captain" Dubside.
He finds that amusing.

There are a number of reasons why VHF is used, the main one is for the
ability to send out a distress call that is likely to be received.
Where I have a house at Lake Anna, VA, the same is not true, I want to
be the first shore station which monitors channel 16.

--

Rick

[Patty Winter]

In article <l05btp$kt0$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

[whole bunch of unneeded previous quotage deleted]

>Jerry, yes, this helps a lot. Once I was told I needed the license I
>found the FCC site to be less than clear. I appreciate you laying out
>the options. I would like to have a more powerful transmitter than the
>handhelds have, so I think I will research the Private Coastal Station.

Jerry's suggestion of getting amateur radio licenses is a good one
if GMRS won't suit your needs.

If you're involved in kayaking, do you not have an outdoors or
marine store near you? They would certainly be familiar with the
best communications options for that sport.


Patty
N6BIS

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>>
>>> Where is the violation? As long as the trucks are only transmitting to

^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>> the ships, isn't that ok? Just having them shouldn't be a problem. The
>>> issue is how you use them, no?
>>>
>>
>> No. It is NOT OK.
>>
>> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>>
>> Geoff.
>
> Note that the question asked was "Just having them".
>
> If the trucks just have them, only monitor, and never transmit, they are
> legal.
>
>

No, he said, they would be transmitting. Reread what he wrote and I quoted.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
>>> rickman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Where is the violation? As long as the trucks are only transmitting to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>> the ships, isn't that ok? Just having them shouldn't be a problem. The
>>>> issue is how you use them, no?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. It is NOT OK.
>>>
>>> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>>>
>>> Geoff.
>>
>> Note that the question asked was "Just having them".
>>
>> If the trucks just have them, only monitor, and never transmit, they are
>> legal.
>>
>>
>
> No, he said, they would be transmitting. Reread what he wrote and I quoted.
>
> Geoff.

You reread it; there were several questions there.

Care to explain what is wrong with my all purpose answer to all those
questions, i.e. if the trucks just have them, only monitor, and never
transmit, they are legal?



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Bill Gunshannon <bi...@server3.cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
> In article <slrnl2c6m...@cable.mendelson.com>,
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> writes:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> Yes, I am in the US. The radio will be used to support marine
>>> communications which is legal by my understanding.
>>
>> Not unless you have a license. Otherwise you risk a $10,000 fine.
>>
>> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#
>> Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>>
>
> Am I the only one who doesn't think a kayak on the Chesapeake would
> be considered "a ship" and that none of this is relevant to what
> he wants to do? Seems like a task for GMRS to me.
>
> bill

While GMRS or amateur radio might be a better solution, there is no
minimum size for a "ship".



--
Jim Pennino

[rickman]

Actually I expect they would know what they sell, which for the most
part would be handheld devices for kayaks and such and 25 Watt devices
for powered vessels. Originally I thought I was asking simple questions
about installation, but it seems the licensing is the problem. Even
hand held use from land is not allowed if I am reading this correctly.

The initial use is to support a group of kayakers who are paddling
around Kent Island, an all day trip. In the past we have driven from
access point to access point so that we can stay in contact with them
and assist if required. We provide information on conditions and relay
information between groups in the paddle. This has been done with hand
held units and the reliability of the connection is spotty at best due
to the limited sight distance. I was hoping to get better coverage by
installing a higher power unit in my truck and using an antenna with
better figures as well as at a higher location.

So at this point it looks like the idea of getting a simple commercial
unit for the truck is not an option for this year (the paddle is two
weeks away). I will look into getting a ham license which I believe
would allow me to communicate with the paddlers. Also, as I have said,
I want to begin monitoring channel 16 at Lake Anna. But no point in
monitoring if I'm not allowed to respond. So maybe this will be an
option for next year...

--

Rick

[rickman]

I might be able to justify "(8) A person servicing or supplying vessels
other than commercial transport vessels;" Worth a try. I do fiberglas
repair as well as maintenance of the mechanical parts on the kayaks that
have rudders or skegs. This is not a profession, but they seem to be
pushing for non-commercial use on this one.

But a amateur license might be the best bet. Does this require my to
learn a bunch of technical stuff? That shouldn't be a problem, in
theory I'm an EE, but I've done mostly digital work and I know RF is a
whole different animal. Can you point me in the right direction toward
getting an amateur license that would let me operate a marine radio on
land? Who knows, I might end up doing a bunch of other amateur radio
stuff... I know it can be an addictive hobby... lol

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

I'm not sure you can justify it. You're doing it as a hobby, for your
club (or whatever), not as a commercial enterprise. The FCC seems to be
trying to limit the number of land licenses being issued.

> But a amateur license might be the best bet. Does this require my to
> learn a bunch of technical stuff? That shouldn't be a problem, in
> theory I'm an EE, but I've done mostly digital work and I know RF is a
> whole different animal. Can you point me in the right direction toward
> getting an amateur license that would let me operate a marine radio on
> land? Who knows, I might end up doing a bunch of other amateur radio
> stuff... I know it can be an addictive hobby... lol
>

You'll need to learn some rules and regs, and some theory. But it's not
hard - the question pool is published; nowadays people just memorize the
pool from which the questions are taken.

But an Amateur Radio license allows you to operate Amateur Radios - no
marine or any others. That's why I say everyone in control of a radio
(including on the kayaks) would have to have a ham license (and call
sign). But we have lots of frequencies available and lots of options.

You can find more information at www.arrl.org.

[Patty Winter]

In article <l0648m$hat$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:


[Please trim unnecessary quoted text!]

>So at this point it looks like the idea of getting a simple commercial
>unit for the truck is not an option for this year (the paddle is two
>weeks away). I will look into getting a ham license which I believe
>would allow me to communicate with the paddlers.

Yes, as long as at least one person in each kayak is also licensed.


Patty

[Ralph Mowery]

"rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l064q8$jm5$1@dont->

> But a amateur license might be the best bet. Does this require my to
> learn a bunch of technical stuff? That shouldn't be a problem, in theory
> I'm an EE, but I've done mostly digital work and I know RF is a whole
> different animal. Can you point me in the right direction toward getting
> an amateur license that would let me operate a marine radio on land? Who
> knows, I might end up doing a bunch of other amateur radio stuff... I know
> it can be an addictive hobby... lol
>
> --

I have not read all the thread, but the main thing for amateur license is
there any money changing hands in the process? If not and this is just a
bunch of friends, then the amateur (ham) license canbe the way to go. You
can use whatever ammount of power you want up to 1500 watts. There are some
5 watt hand held units for around $ 50 that seem to work fine. Mobile units
of around 50 watts for less than $ 200 .

You do not really have to know anything, just have the ability to memorize
the answers to around 300 questions. You can get a book (or down load it on
line) that has the exect questions and answers. The test will be a portion
of the question pool. I think that 70 % is passing. The questions have 4
multiple choice answers to choose from. I don't know the price to take the
test now, but probably under $ 15. The exams are given several times a year
in most states at differant locations.

You can go here to see some practice tests.
http://qrz.com/hamtest/

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

rickman wrote:
>
> So at this point it looks like the idea of getting a simple commercial
> unit for the truck is not an option for this year (the paddle is two
> weeks away). I will look into getting a ham license which I believe
> would allow me to communicate with the paddlers. Also, as I have said,
> I want to begin monitoring channel 16 at Lake Anna. But no point in
> monitoring if I'm not allowed to respond. So maybe this will be an
> option for next year...
>

As we have been saying, there is no problem with you monitoring in your
truck, but your state may have laws against using a scanner or other
receiver in a vehicle.

A good scanner and antenna at home would allow you to monitor them, and
a telephone list of emergency numbers would do you good. If someone is
in trouble, you could use your phone to call for help.

Note that a ham license only allows you to communicate with other hams
on ham frequencies. There is a provision in US law that allows you
to operate outside of the ham bands in an emergency, but it is very often
misunderstood, and you would be well advised to study it.

The law was intended for situations like the Titanic, where the ship was
going down, but unlike the Titanic, no one else was able to hear or
speak with them. I doubt that would ever occur on the Chesapeake.

If there is ANY other means of communication, e.g. a VHF radio, a cell phone,
etc, then it is still illegal for you to operate outside the ham bands.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> Care to explain what is wrong with my all purpose answer to all those
> questions, i.e. if the trucks just have them, only monitor, and never
> transmit, they are legal?

Now that is a real can of worms. In the US there is an overriding FEDERAL
law that allows licensed ham radio operators to have scanning receivers
as part of their transceivers in vehicles.

There are state and local laws prohibiting the presence of scanners and
other receivers that are not licensed. Not everywhere, and not all the
laws are the same.

So the answer is both yes, having a scanner or marine radio in his truck
would be legal, and no it is not. Depends upon exactly where he is.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Geoffrey S. Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> Care to explain what is wrong with my all purpose answer to all those
>> questions, i.e. if the trucks just have them, only monitor, and never
>> transmit, they are legal?
>
> Now that is a real can of worms. In the US there is an overriding FEDERAL
> law that allows licensed ham radio operators to have scanning receivers
> as part of their transceivers in vehicles.

Irrelevant; we weren't talking about amateurs or scanners. The question
was about VHF marine radios.

> There are state and local laws prohibiting the presence of scanners and
> other receivers that are not licensed. Not everywhere, and not all the
> laws are the same.

All those laws pertain to specific bands, e.g. radar detectors, public
emergency frequencies, cell frequencies, etc. None of them apply to the
VHF marine band.

> So the answer is both yes, having a scanner or marine radio in his truck
> would be legal, and no it is not. Depends upon exactly where he is.
>
> Geoff.

Nope, as long as it is as the question as stated, i.e. VHF marine.

Here's a site with details and links to the actual laws and regulations:

http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/


--
Jim Pennino

[rickman]

Hmmm... maybe I don't understand the amateur license. The need is for
using marine band radios, not just any radios that can be found. That
is not going to change. Are you saying that an amateur license won't
allow the use of a marine band radio in the context I have been
describing?

I found a few links on the tests and they seem pretty simple. As yopu
say, there is a little memorization of regulations and some technical
stuff which isn't hard. I can't imagine I wouldn't be able to pass the
test this weekend. But it sounds like it would be of no use for this
purpose. It seems rather restrictive to me that anyone can have a
marine band radio in their boat and use it freely, but if you need to
contact your house or other shore location you need to use something
else. I'm sure talking between ships is useful, but in many cases the
need is between ship and shore. I'm just not allowed to use a marine
radio on shore... what?

--

Rick

[rickman]

Is VHF outside of ham bands? I looked at the test data a little, but
didn't find that particular info. From the wording I found about the
licenses, I guess I thought ham use included the marine VHF band. There
seems to be concern about operating at frequencies below 30 MHz unless
you pass a tougher test.

It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore communications,
but it only seems natural to use the same radio for ship to ship and
ship to shore comms.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

Hams have frequencies all over the place - including VHF, but a ham
license only allows you to use the ham bands. Other bands have other
license requirements.

And yes, the marine band licenses are very restrictive, but for a very
good reason - there are a limited number of channels available, and they
are meant for ship business. The FCC doesn't want everyone and their
brother to use it to chat with the family/friends back on shore; in
busier areas the channels would quickly become too crowded to be usable.
That's why it is limited to shore stations providing services to ships.

Maybe your best bet is to just use cell phones. I would think coverage
around Kent island should be OK.

[Jerry Stuckle]

No, it won't. And FCC rules will not allow you to use marine band
radios in the way you wish.

> I found a few links on the tests and they seem pretty simple. As yopu
> say, there is a little memorization of regulations and some technical
> stuff which isn't hard. I can't imagine I wouldn't be able to pass the
> test this weekend. But it sounds like it would be of no use for this
> purpose. It seems rather restrictive to me that anyone can have a
> marine band radio in their boat and use it freely, but if you need to
> contact your house or other shore location you need to use something
> else. I'm sure talking between ships is useful, but in many cases the
> need is between ship and shore. I'm just not allowed to use a marine
> radio on shore... what?
>

Unfortunately for you, them's the rules (see my other post).

[Registered User]

On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 04:37:57 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
>their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
>allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
>understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore communications,
>but it only seems natural to use the same radio for ship to ship and
>ship to shore comms.

The National Marine Electronics Association document at
<http://www.nmea.org/content/newsm/printnews.asp?a=27>
may provide dome insights. Additionally the FCC document at
<http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations>
provides information about obtaining a marine utility station license in order
to operate a hand-held marine radio from land.

A hand-held radio may be well-suited for your needs. Much will depend upon what
sort of antenna is used.

[Bill Ogden]

Please understand that a "band" (such as VHF band) is a collective term for
a large range of frequencies. The FCC assigns different frequencies (or
ranges of frequencies) to different services. The VHF "band" terminology is
generally used for the 30 - 300 Mhz range. Within this range there are
frequencies assigned for amateurs, police, fire, marine, TV, commercial FM,
and so forth. In general, these assignments do not overlap. There are VHF
frequencies assigned for amateur use (such as 144-148 Mhz). There are
different "spot" frequencies or "channels" (as opposed to ranges) assigned
for marine usage, and so forth.

Marine users must have a "type approved" radio and it must be used on the
assigned frequencies (channels). Amateurs, in the general case, do not
require type-approved radios, but they must ensure that their radios operate
in the assigned amateur frequency ranges. An amateur could, in the general
case, operate a marine-type radio in an amateur frequency range but not vice
versa.

There is some informality about the terminology. The 144-148 Mhz amateur
allocation is usually named the 2-meter band. It is a VHF band. The
police/fire/etc frequencies in the 150-160 Mhz range are often collectively
known as "VHF". There are VHF television channels (although these are going
away in favor of UHF channels).

In marine use you might hear "VHF" as opposed to "HF" (or "SSB"). HF is
High Freuqency, generally considered to be anything in the 3 - 30 MHz range.
Generally, VHF is for local (more or less line of sight) communication and
HF is for much more distant communication. There are amateur frequency
ranges in HF, such as the "80-meter band, 3.5-3.0 MHz, or the 20-meter band
at 14-14.35 Mhz. There are a variety of marine assignments in the HF range.

Using VHF is generally simple if you are in the right distance range. You
simply press the button and talk. Using HF is considerably more complex due
the way HF radio waves interact with the ionosphere.

Amateur licenses and marine licenses are completely different animals and do
not overlap in any way.

Have you thought about CB? It is inexpensive and might cover the distance
ranges you are talking about. One problem is that there are some very odd
animals that play with CB and can occupy some of the 40 available channels.
However, in less dense areas you can probably productively use one of the
higher channel numbers. The CB "band" has 40 channels around 27 MHz. This
is still "HF" but is almost "VHF". On most days, the communication is
somehwat more than line of sight -- generally more than VHF--, but not large
distances. However, when the "band" is "open" there can be international
communication and considerable interference.

Bill
W2WO

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:


>> But an Amateur Radio license allows you to operate Amateur Radios - no
>> marine or any others. That's why I say everyone in control of a radio
>> (including on the kayaks) would have to have a ham license (and call
>> sign). But we have lots of frequencies available and lots of options.
>>
>> You can find more information at www.arrl.org.
>
> Hmmm... maybe I don't understand the amateur license. The need is for using
> marine band radios, not just any radios that can be found. That is not going
> to change. Are you saying that an amateur license won't allow the use of a
> marine band radio in the context I have been describing?
>

You're the one who started this by posting to an amateur radio newsgroup,
and then made it worse by adding other newsgroups in the
rec.radio.amateur.* hierarchy.

YOu say you are having problems getting licensed for the Marine band, so
people are offering information on other services that would be simply.
Amateur radio isn't "simpler" but for some uses the fact that it is
relatively wide open means it can be valuable. FRS and CB don't require
any licensing, cellphones are common nowadays, GMRS and MURS have
relatively simple license requirements.

If you "need" to stick with the Marine Band, then you need to offer up
reasons why.

Michael

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:

> It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on their
> boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not allowed
> except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can understand that
> marine radios are not for shore to shore communications, but it only seems
> natural to use the same radio for ship to ship and ship to shore comms.
>

The magic reasoning is that if you're on a boat or ship, then you are on
the water, and the marine band would then apply. You may need it for
emergency, or talking to other boats. I'm sure you used to have to be
licensed in order to have a Marine band license, so things have changed.
Indeed, it was only about the late sixties that the VHF Marine band came
into existence, before that you had to use the 2 to 3MHz Marine band, with
much longer antennas and I think more serious licensing requirements. The
VHF Marine band gave a lot more boaters the use of radio, and some of
that was because in putting the band at higher frequencies, the range
was limited, so more people could make use of the allocation. And about
that time, the equipment on the HF marine band got fancier and more
expensive, precisely to make better use of that allocation.

But, if anyone could get a marine band radio and use it from shore, what's
to keep them from just using it as a general radio band? The allocation
is for marine use, yet if anyone could use a radio for the band from
shore, then they might use it for any purpose.

That's the difference, it's now easy to use the radio from a boat, where
the band is intended for, and difficult to use from shore since you need
to justify that you actually will be using it for ship to shore use.

There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people who
might wish to use it for other things.

Michael

[Michael Black]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> In article <slrnl2c6m...@cable.mendelson.com>,
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> writes:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> Yes, I am in the US. The radio will be used to support marine
>>> communications which is legal by my understanding.
>>
>> Not unless you have a license. Otherwise you risk a $10,000 fine.
>>
>> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#
>> Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>>
>
> Am I the only one who doesn't think a kayak on the Chesapeake would
> be considered "a ship" and that none of this is relevant to what
> he wants to do? Seems like a task for GMRS to me.
>

I've looked at kayak magazines from time to time, and I've seen ads for
Marine band walkie talkies in them, so I'd say it's suitable.

This isn't the old days, when "marine band" meant 2 to 3MHz, a long
antenna and expensive and bulky equipment. The addition of the VHF marine
band was to make it more accessible. The commercial ships stayed at HF
(and paid the money to make the transition to SSB), but a lot of pleasure
boaters got radio as a result of the VHF marine band. Now it's even
simpler, you apparently don't need a license. A kayaker might have as
much need for radio as a yacht, and solid state has made it easy, a hand
held so you don't need a permanent installation or high cost.

Yes, other services probably would work here, they don't have restrictions
agains use on the water.

But, I was just near a lock a few weeks ago, and while I don't think the
boats were using radio to contact the lock, I would assume the lock has
marine band radio installed. So a kayaker coming along (and I've seen
taht there) wouldn't have the ability to contact the lock if they had CB
or GMRS or FRS or MURS, but if they had a cheap VHF Marine band handheld,
they could, and the fact that they don't need a license anymore for use in
the boat would seem to indicate this is completely valid.

Michael

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnl2c6m...@cable.mendelson.com>,
>> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> writes:
>>> rickman wrote:
>>>> Yes, I am in the US. The radio will be used to support marine
>>>> communications which is legal by my understanding.
>>>
>>> Not unless you have a license. Otherwise you risk a $10,000 fine.
>>>
>>> <http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=operations&id=ship_stations#
>>> Using Hand-Held Marine VHF Radios on Land>
>>>
>>
>> Am I the only one who doesn't think a kayak on the Chesapeake would
>> be considered "a ship" and that none of this is relevant to what
>> he wants to do? Seems like a task for GMRS to me.
>>
> I've looked at kayak magazines from time to time, and I've seen ads for
> Marine band walkie talkies in them, so I'd say it's suitable.

And i can show oyu hiking magazines with ads for aircraft ELT beacons
for hikers to carry in case they get lost. Don't confue reality with
marketing or sales. Remember, for most of this stuff, selling it isn't
illegal, using it for the advertised purpose is.

kayakers may be able to use a radio, but I hardly expect that makes them
a "ship". Even the navy has vehicles much larger than kayaks that are
craft and not ships.

>
> This isn't the old days, when "marine band" meant 2 to 3MHz, a long
> antenna and expensive and bulky equipment. The addition of the VHF marine
> band was to make it more accessible. The commercial ships stayed at HF
> (and paid the money to make the transition to SSB), but a lot of pleasure
> boaters got radio as a result of the VHF marine band. Now it's even
> simpler, you apparently don't need a license. A kayaker might have as
> much need for radio

Having kayaked, I don't seriously think so, but I'll let you have that one.

> as a yacht, and solid state has made it easy, a hand
> held so you don't need a permanent installation or high cost.
>
> Yes, other services probably would work here, they don't have restrictions
> agains use on the water.

Like cellphones.

>
> But, I was just near a lock a few weeks ago, and while I don't think the
> boats were using radio to contact the lock, I would assume the lock has
> marine band radio installed. So a kayaker coming along (and I've seen
> taht there) wouldn't have the ability to contact the lock if they had CB
> or GMRS or FRS or MURS, but if they had a cheap VHF Marine band handheld,
> they could, and the fact that they don't need a license anymore for use in
> the boat would seem to indicate this is completely valid.
>

Well, as far as I know it costs money to traverse a lock on a real
waterway (like the St. Lawrence) so the kayaker is going to have
to get out and talk to the lock guys cause I doubt he has an account
like a shipping company would. Personally, I can't imagine sharing a
lock with one of those big ships in something as small as a kayak
and I doubt they let you have the lock to yourself.

In any event what the original poster wants to do just isn't legal
and all the grousing about why not isn't going to change that.

Cellphones still look like the most practical to me.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/5/2013 3:20 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> writes:
>> I've looked at kayak magazines from time to time, and I've seen ads for
>> Marine band walkie talkies in them, so I'd say it's suitable.
>
> And i can show oyu hiking magazines with ads for aircraft ELT beacons
> for hikers to carry in case they get lost. Don't confue reality with
> marketing or sales. Remember, for most of this stuff, selling it isn't
> illegal, using it for the advertised purpose is.
>

Are you sure these are aircraft ELT's? There are personal ones also,
made especially for hikers. They are perfectly legal.

> kayakers may be able to use a radio, but I hardly expect that makes them
> a "ship". Even the navy has vehicles much larger than kayaks that are
> craft and not ships.
>

That doesn't mean they can't use marine radios. There are lots of
people who have small fishing boats (i.e. 21') which (legally) have
marine radios. I don't think those are considered "ships".

>>
>> This isn't the old days, when "marine band" meant 2 to 3MHz, a long
>> antenna and expensive and bulky equipment. The addition of the VHF marine
>> band was to make it more accessible. The commercial ships stayed at HF
>> (and paid the money to make the transition to SSB), but a lot of pleasure
>> boaters got radio as a result of the VHF marine band. Now it's even
>> simpler, you apparently don't need a license. A kayaker might have as
>> much need for radio
>
> Having kayaked, I don't seriously think so, but I'll let you have that one.
>

I can see where a kayaker could have a need for a radio. The biggest
problem I could see is keeping the radio dry.

<snip>

>
>>
>> But, I was just near a lock a few weeks ago, and while I don't think the
>> boats were using radio to contact the lock, I would assume the lock has
>> marine band radio installed. So a kayaker coming along (and I've seen
>> taht there) wouldn't have the ability to contact the lock if they had CB
>> or GMRS or FRS or MURS, but if they had a cheap VHF Marine band handheld,
>> they could, and the fact that they don't need a license anymore for use in
>> the boat would seem to indicate this is completely valid.
>>
>
> Well, as far as I know it costs money to traverse a lock on a real
> waterway (like the St. Lawrence) so the kayaker is going to have
> to get out and talk to the lock guys cause I doubt he has an account
> like a shipping company would. Personally, I can't imagine sharing a
> lock with one of those big ships in something as small as a kayak
> and I doubt they let you have the lock to yourself.
>

It depends on the lock (and the waterway). Some do not charge for small
craft, others do.

> In any event what the original poster wants to do just isn't legal
> and all the grousing about why not isn't going to change that.
>
> Cellphones still look like the most practical to me.
>
> bill
>

If the cellphone service around Kent Island is solid, then I would agree
with you. I know it is good along Route 50, but haven't ventured that
far off of it. And I've definitely not gone around the island in a
kayak or any other boat :)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

On 9/5/2013 5:31 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
>> Is VHF outside of ham bands? I looked at the test data a little, but
>> didn't find that particular info. From the wording I found about the
>> licenses, I guess I thought ham use included the marine VHF band. There
>> seems to be concern about operating at frequencies below 30 MHz unless
>> you pass a tougher test.
>>
>> It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
>> their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
>> allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
>> understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore communications,
>> but it only seems natural to use the same radio for ship to ship and
>> ship to shore comms.
>>
>

> You cannot operate in the marine VHF band with a ham licence.
>
> (the talk about disaster situations just clouds the issue as anyone can
> legally use anything just about anything under those conditions
> regardless of a ham licence or not).
>
> The restriction on ship to shore use in the marine band was there
> originally to protect the revenue of the commercial coast stations.
> However, a licence is still required for a shore station of any type.
>
> You *might* be able to get a shore licence if you say that you are
> providing safety cover for the kayaks.
>
> CB or one of the other licence free allocations such as MURS or FRS
> mighty be your best bet, but of course you will not be able to talk to
> the Coastguard or other vessels.

Thanks for your advice. I will look into this deeper. It just seems so
strange to have a marine radio band that doesn't allow communications to
shore other than a few specific commercial facilities. I guess that is
why there is no one monitoring channel 16 here at lake Anna. There are
only a small handful of marinas and they aren't located so as to cover
the whole lake anyway. I don't think the police monitor marine VHF
because they don't regularly patrol. But the next time I see one I will
ask them about it.

I'm relatively near the center of the lake and so not badly positioned
to cover a large hunk of it if my antenna is high enough. I'd be
willing to put up a reasonable tower for this.. and who knows, a ham
antenna or two might just appear on it some day.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Lol, if cell phones were remotely practical they would be used. We
carry them on board, but never count on them working... hmmm, sounds a
lot like VHF!

Your concerns with the usage of marine VHF is a bit pedantic. If you
monitor channel 16 in that area 90% of the traffic is, "I caught a large
one, start the grill and chill some beer". It doesn't seem to cause any
problems. I think you over estimate how many ships are out there. It's
not like trucks on the highway, "Breaker, breaker 19..."

Part of the reason for using VHF in kayaks is because that is the type
of radio actually designed for that sort of use. So there are any
number of features built in such as weather warnings, etc. But the main
reason is that if you need help and you use your VHF, you are likely to
get a response from someone very close by who can actually *help* you.
The goal is not to communicate with one person you are kayaking with or
even me on the shore. Other types of radios are just not realistic.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Faulty reasoning. I can use the marine band radio from shore now. The
only thing stopping me is the law. Last year I was told it was ok to
use it from shore if I was communicating with a boat (which makes
perfect sense), now I find that is *not* the case. During our trip I
heard any number of conversations between boats and what appeared to be
their homes. There was no congestion, no interference of the airways,
just ship to shore communications when useful.

> There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
> shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
> restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people
> who might wish to use it for other things.

The utility of a radio, especially in emergency situations, is greatly
diminished if you can't reach people on the shore. My understanding is
that the range of these radios is *very* short if you are close to the
water. There were kayaks less than 4 miles away who I could not raise
on the radio and I was likely the closest point of assistance. If they
had needed to call for help, who exactly would they be able to reach?

In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
in a boat?

--

Rick

[rickman]

Thanks for your response, I am learning a lot from this discussion.

It is not realistic to expect the sea kayaking community to change from
using VHF to CB to suit my needs. Marine VHF is what I need to use.

I will likely pursue the shore license and see if I can get something
for here at Lake Anna. I'm still not clear on whether I can get a shore
license to put a radio in my truck. Also, the only official info I have
seen on this refers to "hand held" radios. My goal is to use a mounted
radio with an antenna which will get better range than a hand held.

We'll see how it goes. Certainly I won't get this ironed out in time
for this year, but maybe next.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Your response comes across as a bit rude. I don't actually "need" to
offer up justification for my need. But the point is that I don't have
control over what the rest of the kayaking community uses. They are
using marine VHF for a number of reasons and I am trying to work within
that restriction.

Actually if you go back and read the thread I started asking about
equipment, not realizing I had a licensing problem. I was thinking of
what I would need to make this work in my vehicle and in a home.

I hope this thread doesn't offend you in any way. Since this is not
strictly amateur radio I am asking about, would it be better to label it
as off topic?

--

Rick

[Patty Winter]

In article <l0aq27$vve$1...@dont-email.me>,

Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>On 9/5/2013 3:20 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>> And i can show oyu hiking magazines with ads for aircraft ELT beacons
>> for hikers to carry in case they get lost. Don't confue reality with
>> marketing or sales. Remember, for most of this stuff, selling it isn't
>> illegal, using it for the advertised purpose is.
>
>Are you sure these are aircraft ELT's? There are personal ones also,
>made especially for hikers. They are perfectly legal.

Yeah, it's surprising if companies are trying to sell ELTs to hikers
given that Spot units were designed especially for hikers and, as you
say, are perfectly legal for them to use. I suppose there could be
some ELT companies that don't want to cede the market to Spot and
thus are continuing to try to sell to hikers, but it's unfortunate
if magazines are letting those run ads for products knowing full well
that they'll be used illegally.


Patty

[Jerry Stuckle]

I don't care what you think, or how many ships you think are out there,
or what you hear on the radio.

The bottom line is - what you want to do is illegal, and I gave a
perfectly reasonable explanation for it. You can accept that reason or
come up with your own. I really don't care any more at this point.

[Jerry Stuckle]

You need to look at the law, not listen to some armchair lawyer. We
pointed you to the actual regulations.

And if someone is caught using a marine radio on shore without a
license, it is a $10K fine - and chances are you will NEVER get ANY kind
of FCC license in the future.

>> There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
>> shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
>> restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people
>> who might wish to use it for other things.
>
> The utility of a radio, especially in emergency situations, is greatly
> diminished if you can't reach people on the shore. My understanding is
> that the range of these radios is *very* short if you are close to the
> water. There were kayaks less than 4 miles away who I could not raise
> on the radio and I was likely the closest point of assistance. If they
> had needed to call for help, who exactly would they be able to reach?
>

You can reach people on shore. For instance, the Coast Guard regularly
monitors the marine emergency channel, as do many other people. Not to
say other ships. There are lots of people they can reach.

And these *legal* stations have relatively high antennas - 4 miles is
nothing to them.

> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
> in a boat?
>

In a *real emergency*, then rules are out. But you need to learn what
the term emergency means to the FCC. It does NOT mean "there's a storm
brewing". It does, however, mean things like "My boat is sinking and we
need immediate help".

The radio in the boat is not meant to talk to *YOU* - it is to talk to
*anyone* who can help - be it the Coast Guard, a marine, another ship or
whatever.

You keep arguing - but the law is the law. If you don't like it,
petition the FCC to have the law changed. Constantly bitching here is
not going to change anything - and will rapidly turn people off (like it
has me).

[Jerry Stuckle]

Spot is not the only ELT legal to use by hikers.

Again - are you sure the advertised ELTs are aircraft? What makes you
think they are?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[rickman]

What I want to do is *not* illegal if I get the appropriate license(s).
I don't know why you are getting all huffy about it.

--

Rick

[rickman]

So how far is it to the nearest coast guard station at Lake Anna?

>> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
>> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
>> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
>> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
>> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
>> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
>> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
>> in a boat?
>>
>
> In a *real emergency*, then rules are out. But you need to learn what
> the term emergency means to the FCC. It does NOT mean "there's a storm
> brewing". It does, however, mean things like "My boat is sinking and we
> need immediate help".
>
> The radio in the boat is not meant to talk to *YOU* - it is to talk to
> *anyone* who can help - be it the Coast Guard, a marine, another ship or
> whatever.

I think we already covered the fact that neither the Coast Guard or
anyone else is monitoring VHF at Lake Anna. Marine VHF is *not* solely
for commercial uses and it is *not* solely for emergencies. As such it
is much more limited by not allowing communications with shore stations
other than the limited set currently allowed.

> You keep arguing - but the law is the law. If you don't like it,
> petition the FCC to have the law changed. Constantly bitching here is
> not going to change anything - and will rapidly turn people off (like it
> has me).

I understand what I've been told about the law. I'm saying it seems to
be a bit over strict. You seem to have a problem with the fact that I
have an opinion. If you don't like my posts, why do you reply?

I'm trying to find a legal way to do what I want. I still don't know
that this is not allowed. I do now know that I will have to file for a
license and possibly two. I appreciate the help and I regret that you
consider my posts to be "bitching". I would suggest that you reread
them with a different perspective.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 9/5/2013 3:20 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>

> In any event what the original poster wants to do just isn't legal
> and all the grousing about why not isn't going to change that.

I don't think that has been established yet. I think there is an
opportunity for a license for a shore station. What I'm not clear on is
whether this has to be a fixed station or if it can be mobile. I know
the FCC often has different regulations for the two. I have also seen a
different license for shore use of a hand held unit (unless I am
confusing the two). I don't think the issue is that it *is* illegal,
but rather just how I would justify my use and exactly what the
restrictions will be.

> Cellphones still look like the most practical to me.

That is because you aren't familiar with the area and likely aren't
familiar with most areas where people often kayak. Cell phones work
well in cities and near major roads. Other places the coverage can be
spotty or non-existent. Much of the Chesapeake bay has no cell coverage
regardless of what the coverage maps say. I know this from
experience... and my carrier is Verizon. Lake Anna is not much
different, more people, but not a lot more.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
reports to your pals.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[Jerry Stuckle]

I don't know, and I don't care. It is immaterial.

>
>>> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
>>> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
>>> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
>>> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
>>> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
>>> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
>>> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
>>> in a boat?
>>>
>>
>> In a *real emergency*, then rules are out. But you need to learn what
>> the term emergency means to the FCC. It does NOT mean "there's a storm
>> brewing". It does, however, mean things like "My boat is sinking and we
>> need immediate help".
>>
>> The radio in the boat is not meant to talk to *YOU* - it is to talk to
>> *anyone* who can help - be it the Coast Guard, a marine, another ship or
>> whatever.
>
> I think we already covered the fact that neither the Coast Guard or
> anyone else is monitoring VHF at Lake Anna. Marine VHF is *not* solely
> for commercial uses and it is *not* solely for emergencies. As such it
> is much more limited by not allowing communications with shore stations
> other than the limited set currently allowed.
>

I didn't say it was solely for commercial uses or solely for
emergencies. But it is not for talking to your pals in their boats when
you're on the ground.

>
>> You keep arguing - but the law is the law. If you don't like it,
>> petition the FCC to have the law changed. Constantly bitching here is
>> not going to change anything - and will rapidly turn people off (like it
>> has me).
>
> I understand what I've been told about the law. I'm saying it seems to
> be a bit over strict. You seem to have a problem with the fact that I
> have an opinion. If you don't like my posts, why do you reply?
>
> I'm trying to find a legal way to do what I want. I still don't know
> that this is not allowed. I do now know that I will have to file for a
> license and possibly two. I appreciate the help and I regret that you
> consider my posts to be "bitching". I would suggest that you reread
> them with a different perspective.
>

Then petition the FCC for a change in the law.

You have gone beyond constructive; you are just repeating yourself now.
It has become tiresome.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[rickman]

On 9/5/2013 11:35 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
> license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
> reports to your pals.

They don't need weather reports, they have access to that themselves.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Ok, then I guess you won't need to reply further. Thanks for the info
you have provided. It has been useful. I will be looking into
obtaining one of the licenses that have been discussed.

--

Rick

[Steve Crow]

You've missed the point.

Let's recap:

1. You want to use VHF Marine because everybody else is doing it.
2. You don't appear to fit into any of the requirements for a VHF Marine
license.
3. Unlicensed operation, or operation outside what is permitted by your
license, are both illegal.

Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want to
be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely operating
in a manner that runs afoul of the law.

Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.

There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which have
been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS, and, I
believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those will
grant you the type of interoperability you desire.

If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be able
to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type of
license to get.

Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!

Steve in Richmond

[rickman]

On 9/6/2013 3:37 PM, Steve Crow wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2013 11:35 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
>>> license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
>>> reports to your pals.
>>
>> They don't need weather reports, they have access to that themselves.
>>
>
> You've missed the point.
>
> Let's recap:
>
> 1. You want to use VHF Marine because everybody else is doing it.
> 2. You don't appear to fit into any of the requirements for a VHF Marine
> license.
> 3. Unlicensed operation, or operation outside what is permitted by your
> license, are both illegal.

You are making assumptions. Why is this such a big deal to you? I will
let the FCC decide if I can get a license. Why are some of you getting
your knickers in a knot about it?

> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.

Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.

> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>
> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.

You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is
justify the appropriate license.

> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
> of license to get.
>
> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!

Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this
weekend. :) Do you kayak or canoe?

--

Rick

[Steve Crow]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:

> On 9/6/2013 3:37 PM, Steve Crow wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2013 11:35 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's just it. You don't fit into any of the categories for which a
>>>> license is issued. "Providing services" does not mean giving weather
>>>> reports to your pals.
>>>
>>> They don't need weather reports, they have access to that themselves.
>>>
>>
>> You've missed the point.
>>
>> Let's recap:
>>
>> 1. You want to use VHF Marine because everybody else is doing it.
>> 2. You don't appear to fit into any of the requirements for a VHF Marine
>> license.
>> 3. Unlicensed operation, or operation outside what is permitted by your
>> license, are both illegal.
>
> You are making assumptions. Why is this such a big deal to you? I will let
> the FCC decide if I can get a license. Why are some of you getting your
> knickers in a knot about it?

Forgive me if it got lost in the noise, which is quite possible, but I
haven't seen where you have spelled out exactly what the intended
application is, so I'm forced to make assumptions.

As for why we're getting worked up about it? Personally, I'm not, but
based on the responses you've received from others in this group, I can
see where you might assume that I am. :) Let me attempt to explain some
of the, ehem.. hostility?

Amateur radio operators generally take great pride in their licenses and
the privileges afforded by that license. Likewise, they (we) generally
have a great respect for radio licensing, rules, and regulations, because
one component of the amateur radio service is self-policing of the
regulations and holding each other accountable for operating not just
within the letter of the law but with a high engineering standard.

As a result, when someone such as yourself comes along and has a genuine
concern and truly wants help with something he doesn't understand, too
many amateur radio operators ("hams") get up on their high horse and see
it as an opportunity to get all preachy and play FCC Police.

I don't play that game.

But that's why you're getting some of the responses you have.

Remember, too much of the ham radio crowd falls fully within the "cranky
old fart" category. :) Sadly, I'll be there myself in another 30 years or
so!

>
>
>> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
>> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
>> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
>> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
>> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.
>
> Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
>

Basically, the way I understand what you're after is a way to talk to your
friends/peers/etc within your kayaking hobby that are already using VHF
marine radio. Which comes across as an assumption on your part that
because others are doing it, it must be legal, which is incorrect.

>
>> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>>
>> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
>> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
>> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
>> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.
>
> You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is justify the
> appropriate license.
>

No. I didn't. VHF is not a radio service. As was explained elsewhere in
this lengthy thread, VHF refers to the frequency band. There are three
major bands -- HF, VHF, and UHF. Within each band there are a number of
"radio services" -- each with a specific intended application and its
corresponding licensing requirements and operating regulations.

You don't get a "VHF license." You get a license for a radio service that
falls within the VHF bands, and for your purposes that could be amateur
radio (which, among other bands, has frequencies in VHF) and MURS (which
is VHF). The VHF Marine radio service falls within VHF, but VHF itself is
not a radio service.

That might be a part of the big misunderstanding here. Let me know if I
can clarify further.

>
>> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
>> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
>> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
>> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
>> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
>> of license to get.
>>
>> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!
>
> Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this weekend.
> :) Do you kayak or canoe?

I've always wanted to, but it's one of many things on my very long list of
things to try!

>
> --
>
> Rick
>

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/6/2013 4:21 PM, Steve Crow wrote:
>
> Amateur radio operators generally take great pride in their licenses and
> the privileges afforded by that license. Likewise, they (we) generally
> have a great respect for radio licensing, rules, and regulations,
> because one component of the amateur radio service is self-policing of
> the regulations and holding each other accountable for operating not
> just within the letter of the law but with a high engineering standard.
>
> As a result, when someone such as yourself comes along and has a genuine
> concern and truly wants help with something he doesn't understand, too
> many amateur radio operators ("hams") get up on their high horse and see
> it as an opportunity to get all preachy and play FCC Police.
>

Steve,

Please allow me to clarify. I (and others) have tried to help him by
showing him the FCC regulations regarding the marine radio band, and
offering alternatives. From the regulations, he does not fit into any
of the categories regarding land stations on the marine band. He claims
he provides "services" to boaters, but has never explained what those
"services" are. All he's said is he wants to talk to his kayaking friends.

Then he argues that he *should* be able to do it, for various reasons
completely unrelated to the actual rules and regs.

I guess my mistake here was to try and provide a rational explanation to
him as to why the FCC has those rules. He doesn't care; he just thinks
he should be able to chat with his friends who are out kayaking.

Finally I just got fed up with it. I no longer care about trying to
help him. I'll just wait for him to get a $10K fine from the FCC and
come crying back here as to how unfair it is.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

Yes, I can see that, thanks for the rational response.

> Remember, too much of the ham radio crowd falls fully within the "cranky
> old fart" category. :) Sadly, I'll be there myself in another 30 years
> or so!

Yeah, well I *am* a cranky old fart too, hence my responses... There is
no point in arguing something like this. I will very shortly just quit
responding to the other cranks.

>>> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
>>> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
>>> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
>>> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
>>> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.
>>
>> Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>
> Basically, the way I understand what you're after is a way to talk to
> your friends/peers/etc within your kayaking hobby that are already using
> VHF marine radio. Which comes across as an assumption on your part that
> because others are doing it, it must be legal, which is incorrect.

The info on the FCC site says to me that kayakers *are* using the
"marine VHF" radios legally. I don't know why anyone seems to think
they aren't.

>>> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>>>
>>> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
>>> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
>>> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
>>> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.
>>
>> You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is
>> justify the appropriate license.
>>
>
> No. I didn't. VHF is not a radio service. As was explained elsewhere in
> this lengthy thread, VHF refers to the frequency band. There are three
> major bands -- HF, VHF, and UHF. Within each band there are a number of
> "radio services" -- each with a specific intended application and its
> corresponding licensing requirements and operating regulations.
>
> You don't get a "VHF license." You get a license for a radio service
> that falls within the VHF bands, and for your purposes that could be
> amateur radio (which, among other bands, has frequencies in VHF) and
> MURS (which is VHF). The VHF Marine radio service falls within VHF, but
> VHF itself is not a radio service.
>
> That might be a part of the big misunderstanding here. Let me know if I
> can clarify further.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. I think you are being a bit
pedantic about my use of VHF as shorthand for "VHF Marine Radio" which I
thought was clear from context at this point. So for the record, I will
say I understand the difference.

I admit that at one point when some were suggesting that I could get a
ham license I didn't realize that would not allow me to talk to the
"marine VHF" radios legally. I now understand that and am not pursuing
the amateur license discussion further.

>>> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
>>> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
>>> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
>>> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
>>> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
>>> of license to get.
>>>
>>> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!
>>
>> Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this
>> weekend. :) Do you kayak or canoe?
>
> I've always wanted to, but it's one of many things on my very long list
> of things to try!

You don't even have to come up here. We sometimes go to Richmond to
paddle the James. There is a very active meetup.com kayaking group
called Virgina Paddlers. They have one or two flatwater kayak trips
near Richmond every week in season. It is pretty easy to borrow
equipment most of the time. Kayakers tend to be a very friendly and
generous crowd.

--

Rick

[rickman]

On 9/3/2013 2:57 PM, David Platt wrote:
> What follows is just my own subjective "take" on the issue... please
> don't treat it as gospel.
>
>> The sort of issue I'm more interested in discussing are things like what
>> type of antenna and how best to mount and connect it to the radio.
>
> Broadly-speaking, you'll have a choice of antennas which do, or do
> not, require a good ground plane to operate (quarter-wave monopoles
> being an example of those which do, and end-fed half-wave antennas
> being an example of those which do not). A lot of boat-mount marine
> VHF antennas seem to be of the ground-independent type - they can be
> mounted up alongside the mast, or connected to a fiberglass hull, and
> will still work well.
>
> There's a lot to be said for buying a "designed for boat mounting"
> antenna even for shore or vehicle mounting... such antennas will
> probably be made to withstand salt-spray corrosion, and will live
> longer than an "inland" antenna.

This is very useful info, thanks. I had not seen any antennas that
require a ground plane, but I had only spent one evening looking at
equipment. I think I had seen 8 foot antennas described as 5/8
wavelength IIRC, and other antennas which were shorter. None said
anything about a ground plane and I didn't see anything on the antenna
other than the vertical pole.


> For mounting such on a vehicle... plan to mount it up above the
> roofline rather than down at the bumper. For hatchbacks, a trunk-lip
> mount can work quite well. Mounting to a roof rack is also a
> possibility. Depending on the antenna height and vehicle type, it's
> also possible to drill a hole in the roof or side, and install a mount
> through the hole (maybe not the best idea if you plan to sell the
> vehicle anytime soon). If you use a ground-dependent antenna, the
> mount will need to be connected directly to the chassis sheet-metal.

I aw aware that height is important. I was thinking of mounting on the
back of the cab, beside the window, just below the roofline. I might
also rig up some sort of pole which can be raised and lowered to get
more height. In the use I am thinking of the vehicle would be
stationary for an hour or two and then moved to track the kayaks.


>> course, I'm interested in the radios if anyone here has experience with
>> them. I see 25 Watt (which I'm assuming is the max available) units at
>> the bottom end for just over $100 and others which seem to be similar in
>> regards to the specs I understand for over $200 and of course the prices
>> run upward too. Are there aspects I should look for that I need to dig
>> deeper into the specs to find?
>
> Long-term ruggedness and reliability is an important factor in marine
> radios, and it's probably one that you're going to find in the specs.
> Reading on-line and magazine reviews, and talking to dealers (and
> users) about problems, and the return rate, is probably a good idea.

I assume you meant "*not* going to find in the specs". Since I am blown
out of the water for this season, I will have time to do the research.


> Standard Horizon, and Icom, seem to be two of the big-name players in
> the "commercial grade" marine radio business.

Those seem to be the big names in hand held units from what I have heard.


> As to specs... one thing to look for is receiver selectivity. In a
> "crowded" RF environment (such as the Chesapeake bay and its shores)
> there's going to be a very great deal of transmission going on around
> you, including full-power (25-watt) transmissions from shore stations
> and boats. A strong signal on one channel can saturate a radio's
> receiver, and block out weaker signals on other channels
> ("desensitization"). The better the strong-signal handling (dynamic
> range) and adjacent-channel selectivity a radio has, the better it
> will be able to receive distant signals in the face of a strong local
> transmission.

Yes, I am familiar with selectivity and sensitivity.


> Some of the higher-end marine mobile radios have a "dual operating
> position" feature. You can connect a second microphone (often with
> its own built-in controls and display) located well away from the main
> radio, and operate the radio from the second location. This can be a
> useful feature both on boats (e.g. put the second station up on a
> conning tower) and in shore installations.

Yes, that can be useful, but pricey. I saw radios for $120 and I saw
wired remote controls for over $200. Go figure! Do they have any
wireless remotes? That would allow me to mount a receiver in the
vehicle and park it on a hill where it gets better reception while I can
be on the beach.


> I haven't seen any marine mobile radios which have detachable
> faceplates (i.e. intended for remote mounting).
>
>> For example is there some spec on the
>> internals of the receiver that would make a weakly received signal more
>> clear than another radio?
>
> Sensitivity, and selectivity are what you're looking for. The
> sensitivity number will tend to dominate the performance under true
> weak-signal conditions - that is, when there are no strong
> transmissions on other channels in your neighborhood. The selectivity
> number becomes important when there are other radios transmitting
> nearby.

Yes, I used to be more into radios and had forgotten those terms.


>> What about the speaker itself? Would it be
>> better to have an external speaker or is the internal speaker usually ok?
>
> Depends on the radio. Some radios have good internal
> speakers... although I suspect this is not terribly easy to achieve if
> the radio has to be water-resistant... and some are just terrible.
> The more compact the radio, the worse its internal speaker is likely
> to sound (I think).

All the radios I have seen *are* water proof. Not much point to having
a radio in a boat if it isn't. Your boat turns over and your radio gets
wet... not much good to you then.


> I'd be surprised if most mobile-type marine radios can't hook up to
> external speakers, so you can always add one on if the built-in
> speaker is not adequate for your needs. Bi-amping and subwoofers are
> optional :-)

You laugh...


> Other issues:
>
> - Do make sure you buy a radio which has been fully certificated
> for operation under FCC Part 80 regulations. Buying radios
> intended for other services (land mobile, amateur, etc.) and
> reprogramming them for the maritime channels is *not* a good
> idea... it's legal to do so, but *not* legal to transmit with such
> radios. Big fines are possible if you're caught.

Everything I've seen so far was 100% marine VHF.


> - On the (somewhat noisy) issue of licensing... as I understand it,
> you will not need any license at all if all you are going to do is
> "monitor" (receive only)... at least, that's true around the
> Chesapeake, which is entirely US territory and subject to US
> regulations. The moment you transmit, though, the rules are
> different. Since you're talking about a shore/vehicle station,
> you'd have to have a "private coast" or "marine utility" station
> license, and these are only available to a limited category of
> people: see 47 CFR 80.501(a) for a list of qualifying categories.
> Possibly (a)(8) would apply in your situation: "a person servicing
> or supplying vessels other than commercial transport vessels"?

Yes, that is what I came up with from another post. But I think that
limits you to the use of a hand held unit, which seems very bizarre.
I'm sure there are reasons for the FCC regs, they just aren't sharing
what they are.

--

Rick

[Steve Crow]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, rickman wrote:

-- snip --

>> Forgive me if it got lost in the noise, which is quite possible, but I
>> haven't seen where you have spelled out exactly what the intended
>> application is, so I'm forced to make assumptions.
>>
>> As for why we're getting worked up about it? Personally, I'm not, but
>> based on the responses you've received from others in this group, I can
>> see where you might assume that I am. :) Let me attempt to explain some
>> of the, ehem.. hostility?
>>
>> Amateur radio operators generally take great pride in their licenses and
>> the privileges afforded by that license. Likewise, they (we) generally
>> have a great respect for radio licensing, rules, and regulations,
>> because one component of the amateur radio service is self-policing of
>> the regulations and holding each other accountable for operating not
>> just within the letter of the law but with a high engineering standard.
>>
>> As a result, when someone such as yourself comes along and has a genuine
>> concern and truly wants help with something he doesn't understand, too
>> many amateur radio operators ("hams") get up on their high horse and see
>> it as an opportunity to get all preachy and play FCC Police.
>>
>> I don't play that game.
>>
>> But that's why you're getting some of the responses you have.
>
> Yes, I can see that, thanks for the rational response.
>

You're quite welcome.

>
>> Remember, too much of the ham radio crowd falls fully within the "cranky
>> old fart" category. :) Sadly, I'll be there myself in another 30 years
>> or so!
>
> Yeah, well I *am* a cranky old fart too, hence my responses... There is no
> point in arguing something like this. I will very shortly just quit
> responding to the other cranks.
>
>
>>>> Combine those three things and you have quite the quandry. Your peers in
>>>> the hobby are using VHF marine with some degree of success and you want
>>>> to be able to communicate with them. If your intended communications are
>>>> anything like those of your friends, then they, too, are likely
>>>> operating in a manner that runs afoul of the law.
>>>
>>> Can you be specific here. I have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>
>>
>> Basically, the way I understand what you're after is a way to talk to
>> your friends/peers/etc within your kayaking hobby that are already using
>> VHF marine radio. Which comes across as an assumption on your part that
>> because others are doing it, it must be legal, which is incorrect.
>
> The info on the FCC site says to me that kayakers *are* using the "marine
> VHF" radios legally. I don't know why anyone seems to think they aren't.
>

I'm not in a position to decide that, not being well-versed in the
modern-day requirements of the VHF Marine radio service. My point was
that you, as the (prospective) license holder, are responsible for
operating within the FCC rules, and you can't necessarily base your
operating practice on the actions of others.

In fact, I dare say it's a pretty safe bet that a good chunk of the people
on the VHF Marine band aren't licensed at all. It's common within the
radio services where radio gear is readily accessible off-the-shelf,
particularly in retail stores. Illegal unlicensed use is rampant in GMRS,
and we also have problems with certain seasonal users (hunters) using
amateur radio gear in our bands without a license. It's likely going on
in the VHF Marine band, too.

Just be careful out there.

>
>>>> Remember, just because everybody else is doing it doesn't make it legal.
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of radio services that might fit your needs, which
>>>> have been discussed elsewhere in this thread, including MURS, GMRS, FRS,
>>>> and, I believe to a lesser extent, amateur radio. However, none of those
>>>> will grant you the type of interoperability you desire.
>>>
>>> You left out VHF which is the one of choice. All I need to do is
>>> justify the appropriate license.
>>>
>>
>> No. I didn't. VHF is not a radio service. As was explained elsewhere in
>> this lengthy thread, VHF refers to the frequency band. There are three
>> major bands -- HF, VHF, and UHF. Within each band there are a number of
>> "radio services" -- each with a specific intended application and its
>> corresponding licensing requirements and operating regulations.
>>
>> You don't get a "VHF license." You get a license for a radio service
>> that falls within the VHF bands, and for your purposes that could be
>> amateur radio (which, among other bands, has frequencies in VHF) and
>> MURS (which is VHF). The VHF Marine radio service falls within VHF, but
>> VHF itself is not a radio service.
>>
>> That might be a part of the big misunderstanding here. Let me know if I
>> can clarify further.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is exactly. I think you are being a bit
> pedantic about my use of VHF as shorthand for "VHF Marine Radio" which I
> thought was clear from context at this point. So for the record, I will say
> I understand the difference.
>

Cool. I wanted to reiterate the difference because it is a pretty common
misunderstanding.

> I admit that at one point when some were suggesting that I could get a ham
> license I didn't realize that would not allow me to talk to the "marine VHF"
> radios legally. I now understand that and am not pursuing the amateur
> license discussion further.

Awesome. Now expect the rest of the folks here to run you out of the
amateur radio newsgroup. :)

On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so many
hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to any
communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one such
instance.

While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably get
some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.

(I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder why?)

>
>>>> If you still have your heart set on using VHF Marine, the absolute BEST
>>>> thing you could do is to pick up the phone and call the FCC.
>>>> 1-888-CALL-FCC. You can get in touch with someone there who is familiar
>>>> with the laws surrounding VHF Marine radio licensing and they will be
>>>> able to tell you whether you meet the requirements and exactly what type
>>>> of license to get.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck, and have fun on Lake Anna. I wish I were there!
>>>
>>> Hey, you are welcome to come up sometime. We should be here this
>>> weekend. :) Do you kayak or canoe?
>>
>> I've always wanted to, but it's one of many things on my very long list
>> of things to try!
>
> You don't even have to come up here. We sometimes go to Richmond to paddle
> the James. There is a very active meetup.com kayaking group called Virgina
> Paddlers. They have one or two flatwater kayak trips near Richmond every
> week in season. It is pretty easy to borrow equipment most of the time.
> Kayakers tend to be a very friendly and generous crowd.

I'll likely end up sitting at home, on my gradually widening ass, watching
infomercials and eating frozen pizza... though it does sound appealing!

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:
>
>
> On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so many
> hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to any
> communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
> such instance.
>
> While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably get
> some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.
>
> (I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder why?)
>

Two things:

1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?

2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing
additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
what he's said.

But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you are
giving your opinion on it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry, AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:
>

Yes, that is the current state of marine VHF. For certain users in
boats there is *no* licensing requirement. So unlicensed use is rampant
in marine VHF, but it isn't illegal.

Kayaking is awesome! I have a place on the water and I would take the
canoe out from time to time. But if there is any wind a canoe just gets
blown away. Then I got a kayak and the difference is amazing. In a
canoe you are a foot or so off the water, in a kayak your rear is
actually below the water line and you feel so much more a part of it.

The widening profile is not just mythical and not without consequence.
If you think you might enjoy the water, I strongly encourage you to get
out there and do something. Not only is it fantastic exercise, it is a
very social activity and the people are *great*. Don't just sit
there... Oh, did I mention there are lots of women who kayak? Often
more women than men show up at paddles... can you say that about ham fests?

Thank you for being a rational voice here. I don't think what I want to
do is unreasonable. I am sorry that some folks here responded so
strongly to my comments about the purpose of the marine VHF rules.
Maybe they can take a lesson from you... :)

--

Rick

[rickman]

Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.

Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
the conversations?

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

I wasn't talking to you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[rickman]

No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
conversation you might consider an email.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.

But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

[rickman]

On 9/7/2013 2:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/7/2013 2:03 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 9/7/2013 1:22 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2013 10:50 AM, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2013 7:43 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2013 12:11 AM, Steve Crow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a more serious note, I'm always amazed that the response from so
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> hams is to immediately suggest ham radio as the ultimate solution to
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> communications dilemma, and quite often it is not. This was just one
>>>>>> such instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While there's no doubt it's an enjoyable hobby, and you'd probably
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> some use out of it, it doesn't address your immediate needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I was never a top performing sales guy at my last job. I wonder
>>>>>> why?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Two things:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. What do you expect from an Amateur Radio related newsgroup?
>>>>>


>>>>> 2. Amateur radio is a perfect solution for him, except he's placing

^^^
-------------------------------------------------|||

See this part? Now read the rest of the post...

>>>>> additional, unnecessary constraints. He has multiple bands he can use,
>>>>> can run much more power, and no restrictions on base or mobile usage.
>>>>> The only restrictions are he can only talk to other licensed hams, and
>>>>> cannot use it for business. I don't see the latter as a problem, from
>>>>> what he's said.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then you obviously don't know anything about ham radio, yet you
>>>>> are
>>>>> giving your opinion on it.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you continue to argue about this? I have explained repeatedly
>>>> that I won't be able to get anyone else to use ham gear. So I would not
>>>> be able to talk to anyone I wish to talk to.
>>>>
>>>> Is this one of those groups where a small number of people dominate all
>>>> the conversations?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wasn't talking to you.
>>
>> No, you are speaking in a public forum. If you want a private
>> conversation you might consider an email.
>>
>
> You need to figure something out - this is a public forum. Not
> everything is about YOU. And not everyone is talking to you.
>
> But now you're just trolling. Next will come the ad hominem attacks.

I think it is about me because... well, because you *were* talking about
me ("him" in this case), see the quote above.

I know it is a public forum. That is what I had to point out to you.
You seem to object to me using it as a public forum. You don't like
what I say and you don't like who I say it to.

If you don't like my posts, why do you keep replying to them?

BTW, by calling me a troll, *you* have started the ad hominem attack.
If you don't like the conversation you are free to not participate. You
are also free to killfile me. Then you won't be bothered by me anymore.

I'm sorry it got to this point. I don't try to antagonize people like
you, but there are no small number of folks on the Internet who seem to
want to run things and that doesn't work with me.

Thanks for the good information you have provided.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

You just don't get it, do you?

I can talk ABOUT you all I want. But that doesn't mean you are worth
talking TO you.

And yes, this is a public forum. If I don't like what you say, I am
free to speak my view, also. But you don't seem to like that.

And no, calling you a troll is not an ad hominem attack on you. But it
just might be to trolls.

BTW - I'm not trying to "run things". I WAS trying to give you good
information on ways to solve your problem. But you kept on arguing,
even though the FCC regs say what you want to do is illegal.

You don't like the FCC's rules? Well, T.S. That's what they are. As I
said before - if you don't like them, petition the FCC to change them.
But your continued arguing in this or any other forum will get you no
positive result - and a lot of negative ones.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

Jerry,AI0K
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================

[rickman]

Dude, you are a tough cookie. Ok, you win. I'm a troll and you are
the... well, whatever you are picturing yourself to be.

Does that make you feel better?

BTW, you were trying to run things. You seem to be incensed that I
replied to your post. Are you not saying I shouldn't reply? If not,
just what *are* you going on about?

I never suggested that you shouldn't speak your mind. I'm just pointing
out that you seem to be saying I don't have the right to reply which is
bogus.

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

Nope. I didn't say you couldn't post. I just said I wasn't talking to
you. But you still felt it necessary to object to my post. And you
complain about ME trying to run the conversation? No, those are the
actions of trolls.

And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
waste of time.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address

[Reader]

>> There is every need for a boat to have a radio, no need for everyone on
>> shore to have a radio, so the licensing is restrictive. Likely not as
>> restrictive as you perceive it, but still there to weed out the people
>> who might wish to use it for other things.
>
> The utility of a radio, especially in emergency situations, is greatly
> diminished if you can't reach people on the shore. My understanding is
> that the range of these radios is *very* short if you are close to the
> water. There were kayaks less than 4 miles away who I could not raise
> on the radio and I was likely the closest point of assistance. If they
> had needed to call for help, who exactly would they be able to reach?
>

> In the sea kayaking community VHF radio is both regarded as an important
> safety device because of the importance of communications and as a joke
> because of how often it communicates with no out outside of your paddle
> group. I don't think it is unreasonable for shore stations to be able
> to monitor VHF and respond in an emergency situation or to prevent one.
> In the situation at Lake Anna, if I am not allowed to have a VHF
> license for my shore station, then what is the use of having a VHF radio
> in a boat?
>

As someone mentioned earlier, the law was made to insure profits for the
corporations that built shore stations that were hooked up to the
telephone lines. This law of course is still in place. There is no more
profit for the corporations, but the law remains on the books.

I personally find much of the FCC rules and regulations to be simply a
means to insure profits for business. A perfect example is the law that
makes it almost impossible for a private person to put in their own low
power radio station to cover their town. In the rural area where I live
there is mostly dead air. I am retired and I would love to put in my own
station to broadcast music and local news.

That is one of the very serious problems with our form of democracy in
the USA. Most of the laws are actually written by companies or
corporations who bribe politicians to enact the laws they want. This
form of bribery has been found legal by the supreme court. However, if
you attempt to bribe your way out of a speeding ticket, you will most
likely suffer the full force of the law. Politicians get a special card
to allow almost any form of corruption.

If you go ahead and use the marine band as you would like to do, you may
or may not get away with it. If you do not use it a lot, you probably
will not get in trouble. I find absolutely no moral turpitude in your
plan to use that frequency as a kayak to shore communication. Legal and
moral are often 180 degrees apart in the USA.

Of course there are some who believe that any statute on the books comes
directly from God.

Michael

[Ian Jackson]

In message <l09fu8$jtn$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
writes

>


>
>It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
>their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is not
>allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
>understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore
>communications, but it only seems natural to use the same radio for
>ship to ship and ship to shore comms.
>

Although I've been a licensed radio amateur for over 50 years, I haven't
really got a clue about using the marine VHF radio band, and the
regulations appertaining to it.

However, Wikipedia indicates that "It is used for a wide variety of
purposes, including summoning rescue services and communicating with
harbours, locks, bridges and marinas".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_VHF_radio

The question therefore is essentially whether the land side of the
two-way communication could also include things like the support teams
for water-based events. I would have thought it would be standard
practice for them to have two-way marine-band communications equipment
for this purpose, and if so, it could be argued that the OP falls into
this (presumably) permitted category. If they don't use the normal VHF
marine band, what frequencies (and equipment) do they use? The obvious
course of action would be to get the FCC to advise on the matter.
--
Ian

[rickman]

Go back and read my post. I didn't complain that you posted. I
complained that the content of your post contradicted the facts and that
you continued to make these wrong claims. You continued to say that I
could use Ham radio for my needs long after I have explained that I
can't get the rest of the kayaking community to switch radios.

You can go on about it all you wish, but that is not a realistic
expectation. So your comments are far off target. That is my point.
But you are free to continue to state them.

> And with this post, I'm tired of trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a
> waste of time.

After the first few posts, yes, the rest of this conversation *has* been

a waste of time.

--

Rick

[rickman]

Interesting. I considered that once myself. But the FCC has to license
you and they aren't accepting any new applications for license. They
don't say when they *will* be accepting new licenses either. Amazing!

> That is one of the very serious problems with our form of democracy in
> the USA. Most of the laws are actually written by companies or
> corporations who bribe politicians to enact the laws they want. This
> form of bribery has been found legal by the supreme court. However, if
> you attempt to bribe your way out of a speeding ticket, you will most
> likely suffer the full force of the law. Politicians get a special card
> to allow almost any form of corruption.
>
> If you go ahead and use the marine band as you would like to do, you may
> or may not get away with it. If you do not use it a lot, you probably
> will not get in trouble. I find absolutely no moral turpitude in your
> plan to use that frequency as a kayak to shore communication. Legal and
> moral are often 180 degrees apart in the USA.

I fully plan to apply for a license.

Thanks for the support.

--

Rick

[rickman]

I will be working on this in the coming week. Thanks for your comments.

--

Rick

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

"in Canada" non commercial vessels do not need a radio licence, but
operators require an operator's certificate..

[rickman]

Yeah, I read on the FCC site that I am ok as long as I am in US waters
or *not* communicating with a foreign station. Something like that. I
don't expect to have any issues related to this though. It gets pretty
cold up there near Canada and the water is even colder.

--

Rick

[Reader]

As someone mentioned earlier, the law was made to insure profits for the
corporations that built shore stations that were hooked up to the
telephone lines. This law of course is still in place. There is no more
profit for the corporations, but the law remains on the books.

I personally find much of the FCC rules and regulations to be simply a
means to insure profits for business. A perfect example is the law that
makes it almost impossible for a private person to put in their own low
power radio station to cover their town. In the rural area where I live
there is mostly dead air. I am retired and I would love to put in my own
station to broadcast music and local news.

That is one of the very serious problems with our form of democracy in
the USA. Most of the laws are actually written by companies or
corporations who bribe politicians to enact the laws they want. This
form of bribery has been found legal by the supreme court. However, if
you attempt to bribe your way out of a speeding ticket, you will most
likely suffer the full force of the law. Politicians get a special card
to allow almost any form of corruption.

If you go ahead and use the marine band as you would like to do, you may
or may not get away with it. If you do not use it a lot, you probably
will not get in trouble. I find absolutely no moral turpitude in your
plan to use that frequency as a kayak to shore communication. Legal and
moral are often 180 degrees apart in the USA.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

You DO realize that most Canadians live south of Duluth? Kitchener
is just north of the northern border of California - Great beaches on
Georgian bay and Lake Erie.. Great warm water canoeing and kayaking on
the Grand River.

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 9/7/2013 4:44 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <l09fu8$jtn$1...@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>
>
>>
>> It seems very restrictive that anyone can use a marine VHF radio on
>> their boat, but if they want to speak with someone on shore that is
>> not allowed except for special cases like drawbridge operators. I can
>> understand that marine radios are not for shore to shore
>> communications, but it only seems natural to use the same radio for
>> ship to ship and ship to shore comms.
>>
> Although I've been a licensed radio amateur for over 50 years, I haven't
> really got a clue about using the marine VHF radio band, and the
> regulations appertaining to it.
>
> However, Wikipedia indicates that "It is used for a wide variety of
> purposes, including summoning rescue services and communicating with
> harbours, locks, bridges and marinas".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_VHF_radio
>

Ian, you should be reading the regs at www.fcc.gov, not trusting Wikipedia.

> The question therefore is essentially whether the land side of the
> two-way communication could also include things like the support teams
> for water-based events. I would have thought it would be standard
> practice for them to have two-way marine-band communications equipment
> for this purpose, and if so, it could be argued that the OP falls into
> this (presumably) permitted category. If they don't use the normal VHF
> marine band, what frequencies (and equipment) do they use? The obvious
> course of action would be to get the FCC to advise on the matter.

Not according to the FCC regs. See the references earlier in this
thread for requirements for a land marine station. There is no
"standard practice" for licensing people for this purpose. There are
only *very* limited options available.

And if there were an "official" event, large enough and sponsored by
someone, I am sure there would be marinas, etc., and the Coast Guard
(or, on lakes, Coast Guard Auxiliary) monitoring the radios.

And the op has repeatedly been advised to contact the FCC.

[rickman]

The Great Lakes are a well known death trap for the unprepared kayaker.
Check out some of the accident analyses on the cold water safety web
site...

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/

As for Grand River, here is a table of water temps. Seems Grand River,
on the average, is only has a safe temperature for two months out of the
year, July 10 to Sept 10.

If I were to be kayaking near Canada it would be more likely East Coast
and that is ocean and even worse. That's all I meant.

BTW, being south of Duluth is no indication that the water is safe...
Check out this case study that happened right here in Virginia...

http://www.coldwatersafety.org/Rule2.html#rule2Case7

If you can't use the above link go to the cold water web site and click
through to Golden Rule 2, case 7. When you read many of these reports
it gets to you after a while.

Many of these accidents could have been prevented if the kayakers had
used a marine band VHF or other radio to contact help. That is one of
the reasons why I want to get a marine radio here.

--

Rick

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

The grand on an AVERAGE year is safe as far as temps go from late june
to early October - and the water is generally (relatively) shallow and
slow moving through most of the watershed. This summer has been an
exception - running full almost all summer. THOUSANDS of canoeists
and kayakers all summer in the Kitchener and Cayuga areas in
particular.