Considerations about linking GMRS repeaters.

[665_NJ]

Considerations about linking GMRS repeaters. Something to be aware and watchful of. Unfortunately, some areas GMRS linking has become detrimental to this service as a control mechanism.
Example: There are 8 GMRS pairs allocated for repeater usage. With In certain metro areas in the country of about 35 to 50 miles radius. A repeater group / org / radio shop will set up one or two repeaters on each and every GMRS repeater pair.
Then interconnect all of them to simulcast. So in most instances you hear the same exact conversation no matter what GMRS repeater pair you tune to. This is usually done without regard to the other co channel users and repeater.
What’s happening on GMRS in these certain geographic and metro areas thru out the country is not very different what unscrupulous radio shops did in the 70’s - 90s. “The Repeater Wars” They set up a high power or jamming repeater to clear the frequency of all co-channel users with in a certain mile radius. Once the frequency was cleared, they set up shop again as the only game in town.
Etc, Etc…
Is There’s not enough RF spectrum for Amateur Radio? Is GMRS now becoming the UHF version of 27MHz Free Band? A mixture of “wanna be” hams but never become one, so they imitate ham like operations. So why not “Free Band” GMRS? Is it a control and money making scam? I definitely think so.
Perhaps this a reflection of GMRS frequencies especially repeaters not being coordinated. It’s a general “free for all” attitude. Repeating my thought, What this is? It’s the total control of GMRS for an over given geographic area by a group or organization. I call it the “Radio Mob”
The goal here is to drive off all the co-channel users. The controlling organization would then so called “own” the frequencies. In their thinking, You want talk on GMRS repeater, OK that’s cool but forget about doing it yourself. For we are now the only “game”in town. Wanna Talk? You’re
going to have to go through us and us only (The Local Radio Mob) and pay much $$ and then and only then you can talk on our repeater systems. Something to think about. 🤷🏻‍♂️😑

 

[03msc]

Currently the local (in our state) GMRS group with a linked system has in several places that there is to be no fee for use of the repeaters. So, while I understand what you're saying about it clogging up the available frequency pairs, at least here it isn't so they can make money.

I'm not a huge fan of linked systems (ham or GMRS) but several feel it is beneficial so here we are.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I have no problem with linking as long as the intention is to expand the usable footprint. The days of finding a tower or mountaintop to provide wide area coverage for one repeater no longer exists as tower ownership is now heavily commercialized where as they were somewhat co-op in the past.

There is a technique to allow linked repeaters to coexist politely with private repeaters on same pair. It is not that difficult.

The FCC rules for GMRS do allow a co-op agreement among users as a non-profit organization. So collecting a user fee is permitted as long as it is entirely for upkeep of the repeater.

There may be some move from Ham to GMRS as in some areas, the Ham repeater coordination councils have become dysfunctional..

 

[mmckenna]

I think the last thing GMRS needs is some self appointed frequency coordinator. Like @RFI-EMI-GUY said, the current ham coordination groups are dysfunctional.
I'd make it a #1 priority to keep the ham coordinators out of the GMRS band. Some hams already have a hard time remembering their band limits, last thing we need is GMRS becoming 70cm+.

FCC could clarify the rules and establish some limits on linked repeater systems, channel usage, etc. Yeah, some might thumb their noses at the FCC, but it would be a starting point.

Zero reason these groups need to take over as many pairs as they do. Absolutely no reason anymore that they cannot use linked systems on a single pair over a wider area.

 

[03msc]

use linked systems on a single pair over a wider area.

They did that in central Arkansas recently. They call it the Central Arkansas Simulcast 700 system. I think it has voting, too.

 

[Craigmoe]

As I recall, one of the rules before transmitting is to 'listen' and make sure the frequency is not being used.
If a 'linked' repeater is, let's say 700 miles away, how do you do that? The answer, you can't. Linking GMRS
repeaters is a very bad idea but it's not going to stop. Have been involved with GMRS for many years and
it continues to degrade and attract many rule breakers. The next town over from me a fellow set up a repeater
and has it linked to some kind of GMRS network. He apparently doesn't want locals or traveler's, families, beach
goers, etc. to access his machine. In his rules he also states the system wasn't intended or designed for that.
Amazing to me. I have two (2) repeaters myself and both open to travelers seeking information, emergencies,
a short chat, etc. And both my machines are 'stand-alone' and will stay that way...

 

[03msc]

If a 'linked' repeater is, let's say 700 miles away, how do you do that? The answer, you can't.

I don't follow this. If your local repeater is on a linked system and guys 700 miles away on the same system are talking, you will hear them on your local repeater because it's linked to the same system they're on. I'm not sure what you were intending to say but this is how I took it.

 

[MTS2000des]

As I recall, one of the rules before transmitting is to 'listen' and make sure the frequency is not being used.
If a 'linked' repeater is, let's say 700 miles away, how do you do that? The answer, you can't. Linking GMRS
repeaters is a very bad idea but it's not going to stop.

I've said this but like everything else in "consequence free USA", no one wants to be told they are wrong, and especially told that dirty word NO.

One simply can't effectively monitor ALL connected linked repeaters before transmission to ensure they aren't interfering and follow the rules as written.

But then, the intention of many of these systems is to preclude others from using the limited spectrum and force them to join their linked system, for a fee of course.

Until the FCC starts cracking down on these hogs, it will continue. I don't see that happening, do you?

 

[MTS2000des]

I don't follow this. If your local repeater is on a linked system and guys 700 miles away on the same system are talking, you will hear them on your local repeater because it's linked to the same system they're on. I'm not sure what you were intending to say but this is how I took it.

Very simple: you're on 462.625 repeater in town A, talking to someone else in town A on repeater, being simulcasted on distant repeater on 462.600 100 miles away. You have no way of knowing another 462.600 in that area is in use, and your linked conversation just pops up and smashes whoever is using that frequency, in violation of the rules as written- and being a general EF Johnson as well.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

As I recall, one of the rules before transmitting is to 'listen' and make sure the frequency is not being used.
If a 'linked' repeater is, let's say 700 miles away, how do you do that? The answer, you can't. Linking GMRS
repeaters is a very bad idea but it's not going to stop. Have been involved with GMRS for many years and
it continues to degrade and attract many rule breakers. The next town over from me a fellow set up a repeater
and has it linked to some kind of GMRS network. He apparently doesn't want locals or traveler's, families, beach
goers, etc. to access his machine. In his rules he also states the system wasn't intended or designed for that.
Amazing to me. I have two (2) repeaters myself and both open to travelers seeking information, emergencies,
a short chat, etc. And both my machines are 'stand-alone' and will stay that way...

As I mentioned before, there is a technique, and it has been employed in commercial systems.

Lets say there are three repeaters A and B are linked and located some distance from each other, 30 to "700 miles".

Repeater C is not linked but operates on same pair as, but with a different tone from repeater B, and is nearby repeater B coverage to be a concern.

Repeater B can be configured to be polite in its use of the pair it shares with repeater C.

This is done with some simple logic and timers.

If repeater B detects carrier squelch activity on its input (467 MHz) frequency, but does not detect a CTCSS tone or DCS code associated with its own users, it will set a timer that will inhibit its own transmissions , primarily those from the far end of the link. The timer can be set to inhibit for many seconds. This is a simplistic explanation of the logic required.

In this way, the repeater B is self monitoring the activity local to it generated by repeater C users or users of any other repeater nearby.

It will not self monitor for simplex operation on the output (462 MHz), however it is often the case that simplex operations do not propogate reliably enough, mobile to mobile or portable to mobile such that monitoring local simplex traffic is much of an aid.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Very simple: you're on 462.625 repeater in town A, talking to someone else in town A on repeater, being simulcasted on distant repeater on 462.600 100 miles away. You have no way of knowing another 462.600 in that area is in use, and your linked conversation just pops up and smashes whoever is using that frequency, in violation of the rules as written- and being a general EF Johnson as well.

See my response above.

 

[R8000]

In my opinion, GMRS has no room for linking at all.
None.

 

[Craigmoe]

In my opinion, GMRS has no room for linking at all.
None.

Couldn't agree more! Thanks R8000...

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

MotoTrbo IPSC feature:

2.2.3.2
Polite to All Operation
Polite to all operation is also known as the admit critearia of "Channel Free".
When configured for Polite to All operation, the radio checks if channels are idle or busy, prior to
allowing a transmission. The radio is polite to all analog or digital transmissions, another system’s
transmission, or other traffic on your system. This option is often used, when there are neighboring
6880309T12-ZC
Chapter 2 : System Feature Overview
82
communications systems, to prevent radio users from disrupting other transmissions. However, when
this option is used, any strong signal on the channel blocks other users from transmitting.

 

[jeepsandradios]

I have said it over and over linking is killing GMRS. As a long time GMRS user it is discouraging. On top of the linking its the new ham lite. I hear the exact same conversations on repeaters that I heard 2 hours earlier on a 2m repeater. Then add in all the CCR trash out there. Normally same guys.

 

[smittie]

I'm the new guy here. I currently live in a GMRS repeater free zone. There is one 70 meter repeater in the area that is linked to some network.

I am considering putting up a repeater. My intent would primarily be to serve the community and travelers along I-15. Initially, I thought linking might be kind of cool. I have listened in to net events in Arizona. There's a certain cool factor in using a GMRS radio to talk to someone several hundred miles away. Linking my repeater would allow me to talk to family members on the other side of the country.

However, GMRS (and VHF/UHF in general) is really a short haul communication venue. There are other systems that are far better suited to long haul communications; 10 meter, 11 meter, HF in general, hell even SSB on CB. Cell phone users can get the radio experience using Zello and similar.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[bill4long]

I think the larger issue is the fact that GMRS has become ham-lite ragchew, which was/is not the intention of GMRS. All these linked repeaters are only serving the ham-lite ragchew crowd. We already have a service for hobby radio and ragchew: ham radio. Given how easy it is to get a Tech ham license, there's just no excuse not to get one and use the ham bands.

 

[jeepsandradios]

Exactly. Dont link. Use Zello or some other cell app if they want. Then again many hams buy hotspots to talk 10' to a portable..,..

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Much as some folks may gripe, the greater the numbers of licensed GMRS users, the less chance the service gets; 1) converted to license by rule, 2) that power gets reduced to 2 watts ERP, 3) that repeaters get banned. These are all awful things that were on the table prior to 2017 when many of us long time GMRS licensees (I once had a KAEnnnn license) commented against those changes. Ultimately this swath of spectrum, which sits inconveniently within prime Part 90 space, could be abolished altogether so that commercial operators might bid on it.

MRA has already encroached 4 KHz into both upper and lower band edges for those who are unaware.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Exactly. Dont link. Use Zello or some other cell app if they want. Then again many hams buy hotspots to talk 10' to a portable..,..

Well Hams are idiots. You don't see many GMRS hot spots.