• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

Considerations about linking GMRS repeaters.

03msc

RF is RF
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
4,110
Location
The Natural State
Way to many people with blinders on

I remember seeing a post well over a year ago from one of the main guys who manages a linked system where he said he had called the FCC to ask and they told him it was fine.

I’m not arguing here, I’m just saying that kind of information going around just leads to the confusion.
 

12dbsinad

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
2,008
I remember seeing a post well over a year ago from one of the main guys who manages a linked system where he said he had called the FCC to ask and they told him it was fine.

I’m not arguing here, I’m just saying that kind of information going around just leads to the confusion.
I agree. Don't believe everything you read.

The problem with linking and the rulings are they don't jive. Like with monitoring before convo, impossible to do on a linked system and even spelled out on your reply email, sighting only 8 repeater pairs. I know MTS and myself and probably others have been driving that 1 point home for ever.

But hey, I do appreciate you posting the response. Thank you.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
The jury is not out.
----------------------------
"95.1733(a)(8) which specifically prohibits messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station."
Adding to the confusion is the FACT that those very words predate the 2017 ruling permitting network interconnection and were associated with scriveners errors deleting obsolete rules pertaining to control operator requirements * that were eliminated when automatic control (repeater operations) were codified. The FCC is as confused as anyone. I raised this in comments for the 2017 rule making but the commission set the comment aside saying they had no time to research the matter.

* The FCC had difficulty understanding repeater control for Part 97 and part 95 when the concept of repeaters became popular. In past a human had to be at the controls in the middle, at the repeater itself.
--------------------------------
"However, using such network connections to carry VOIP GMRS traffic for rebroadcast on one or more GMRS repeaters at distant locations renders the listen before talk etiquette ineffective and undermines the basic structure of this service."

This problem can be fixed with a simple technical modification I have mentioned before.

--------------------------------
 

03msc

RF is RF
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
4,110
Location
The Natural State
The jury is not out.
----------------------------
"95.1733(a)(8) which specifically prohibits messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station."
Adding to the confusion is the FACT that those very words predate the 2017 ruling permitting network interconnection and were associated with scriveners errors deleting obsolete rules pertaining to control operator requirements * that were eliminated when automatic control (repeater operations) were codified. The FCC is as confused as anyone. I raised this in comments for the 2017 rule making but the commission set the comment aside saying they had no time to research the matter.

* The FCC had difficulty understanding repeater control for Part 97 and part 95 when the concept of repeaters became popular. In past a human had to be at the controls in the middle, at the repeater itself.
--------------------------------
"However, using such network connections to carry VOIP GMRS traffic for rebroadcast on one or more GMRS repeaters at distant locations renders the listen before talk etiquette ineffective and undermines the basic structure of this service."

This problem can be fixed with a simple technical modification I have mentioned before.

--------------------------------

Submit your own question to them, worded accordingly, and see what they say.

If we continue to message about it, maybe it will force some action one way or the other. In the least some clarification posted publicly or something.

Can’t hurt to message them. I encourage anyone to, even if it doesn’t lead to anything official.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
Submit your own question to them, worded accordingly, and see what they say.

If we continue to message about it, maybe it will force some action one way or the other. In the least some clarification posted publicly or something.

Can’t hurt to message them. I encourage anyone to, even if it doesn’t lead to anything official.
I think that by repeatedly asking the question has the very undesired effect of the FCC arbitrarily making decisions that may be detrimental for all. If you read the rules, repeaters are not mentioned much at all, except by definition, nor are any type certified repeaters even commercially available. Do you really want to create a situation where the FCC arbitrarily, at a staff level, decides repeaters themselves don't monitor the (462) channel and thus are evil. Or the Part 90 radios being used widespread are creating the problems? Then Midland swoops in to solve the problem?

I have been in this business since 1976 and the folks who wrote the rules for GMRS and the services predating GMRS were old school guys back then. The "kids" at the FCC today likely use a smartphone not a CB, GMRS or even ham radio. The FCC consists of Lawyers and Interns today. No engineers. Can anyone name one? (In managment in DC or Gettysburg, not the field)

I think a constructive move would be to present an NPRM acknowledging that linking exists (It always has) and proposing a logical solution to the co-channel monitoring. I have laid out a simple design to fix the remote monitoring problem. Is a linked repeater bothering you? Contact the owner and ask them to implement a fix. Make it work, write an NPRM to FCC requiring linked repeaters to monitor the carrier activity of the channel and hold off transmission if a local repeater at the remote end has mobiles using it. Not a perfect solution, but a polite one.
 
Last edited:

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
I sent this to a guy well known who makes widgets for linking via Allstar mode etc:

"I see you do a lot of custom work for repeater controllers, xxxxx etc. There are a lot of folks linking repeaters for GMRS and there is a lot of controversy (linking legal or not?) about the interference created when a distant linked repeater is activated causing potential interference on the channel local to the distant repeater.

As the convention and rules of GMRS require monitoring the channel, this cannot happen when the distant repeater(s) are on a different channel or geographically blocked and is activated remotely.

I have been suggesting to the community a solution that is present on some DMR repeaters and that is logic which listens to the repeater input 467 MHz side, and senses if a mobile or portable is talking (carrier detect) which lacks the valid tone or code to activate the (linked) repeater (IE a foreign repeater user). A "politeness timer".

This would simply be a couple of timers, the first to integrate a few seconds of carrier, the second to hold off the remote keying (Via IP or other link) of the repeater for a period of time 15 to 30 seconds so that local traffic can continue. There would be logic to override this timer if a valid mobile were accessing the repeater. The CTCSS tone detector would be the validating signal. The first timer could be set up so that if over two seconds there is sufficient pulses of carrier, the "politeness timer" would engage. This integrating period would accommodate weak portables at the 50% reliability contour.

I am throwing this out for your consumption as you make a lot of gadgets for repeaters and perhaps this can be incorporated into one of your products via hardware or software and marketed to the great unwashed GMRS linking population to make their systems less annoying., perhaps avoid the wrath of FCC by being proactive. "
 

bill4long

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
1,584
Location
Indianapolis
Please be advised that this staff advice is not binding to the Commission.

:D :D :D

Thanks for contacting the FCC. If I cared much about the issue (I don't except for sheer academic interest) I would fire back and ask who is authorized to provide a binding response.
 

cavmedic

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
799
Location
Pottstown Pa
Not sure about anyone else, but when i see “wireline control link”, first thing that I think of is status tone from the station on dedicated leased RTNA circuits not VOIP. But that’s just me working in an analog simulcast system that still uses them since not every RCV site has a MW shot or T-1’s
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
:D :D :D

Thanks for contacting the FCC. If I cared much about the issue (I don't except for sheer academic interest) I would fire back and ask who is authorized to provide a binding response.
The crew at the FCC is rather young. Not to disparage them, the customer service is excellent (Thank you Courtney for answering my ULS question), but the institutional knowledge is hovering at zero when it comes to GMRS service. I contend that the rules are riddled with scriveners errors from previous deletions, part of rules and concepts left in place from another era. This contest will not be solved by calling the help line or writing a letter. It will require legal means.

But before going there, does the GMRS community really want to devolve into the battles that plagued the Ham radio service before Riley Hollingsworth stepped up to clean it up?

If you think a repeater operator is hogging all 8 channels in your area; 1) Consider that you are on a huge mountain and can hear repeaters, albeit linked, from 40 miles away and maybe you need to consider a different service if that bothers you. Or 2) contact the repeater owner and ask him to AUTOMATICALLY monitor the input of his repeater for your mobiles when you want to access your repeater locally to his.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
1709603710302.png

Thanks to the AI, I present my channel monitoring gadget called POLITENESS MON V1.0. I asked the AI for a black box with a DB-9 connector and this was the best it could do.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
Or the cranky old hams that are doing most of the *****ing could just stay in their lane.
Probably true. I had some guy, a Ham harassing me on another forum about this very topic about 5 years ago and when I pointed out his GMRS license had expired he got very quiet suddenly.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
LOL.

Well, I don't know about you but most of our UHF ham repeaters sit idle and just ID. You scan the 8 GMRS repeater pairs and it's like driving down the highway listening to the CB during the late 70's! Mine as well put the spectrum to good use!
That is one concept of spectrum allocation, the greater good.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,517
GMRS licensees used to be allowed to have a point-to-point license in the 29-31 GHz band when Part 94 existed (it's now part of the auctioned Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service)

Seems to me the FCC had a change of heart about linking a long time ago
You have some great historical knowledge. Yes indeed that was available spectrum. No product existed, but it could have been utilized for that purpose. Try asking the FCC today why that spectrum had been allocated. I doubt anyone knows.
 

tomk62

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
102
Location
Charleston, SC
Not trying to be an ass but have an honest question ... doesn't the use of a tone squelch on a channel "render the listen before talk etiquette ineffective and undermines the basic structure of this service"? If you have a tone set on your radio for a channel that doesn't match other's, you will have no idea if someone else is talking before you as your radio will effectively ignore incoming signals if the tone doesn't match or is absent.
 

tweiss3

Is it time for Coffee?
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,229
Location
Ohio
Not trying to be an ass but have an honest question ... doesn't the use of a tone squelch on a channel "render the listen before talk etiquette ineffective and undermines the basic structure of this service"? If you have a tone set on your radio for a channel that doesn't match other's, you will have no idea if someone else is talking before you as your radio will effectively ignore incoming signals if the tone doesn't match or is absent.
Yes and no. You should have a "monitor" button on your HT that drops the tone and lets you hear if the frequency is in use. On mobiles, there is "hub defeats pl" which automatically drops the tone when you take the microphone off the hook, and lets you know if someone is on frequency.

You could also look at the meter on the screen, if you see activity, someone is likely using the frequency.
 
Top