Considerations about linking GMRS repeaters.

[cavmedic]

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.

In the ancient times , mobiles used to be programmed for off hook monitor.

But even in the commercial world, that really isn’t done these days, at least in these woods as EVERY commercial pair is shared. You wouldn’t be able to transmit due to all the IPSC beacons, and over saturation of licenses on frequencies.


Trying to operate like that on GMRS is not possible, for the simple fact of bubble packs on every channel. Kids being kids etc.

 

[tomk62]

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.

Doesn't that effectively make the tone squelch feature useless if you're always having to "disable" it before you talk? That doesn't sound practical.

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

What GMRS radios have a meter?

 

[tweiss3]

What GMRS radios have a meter?

I see that most of the Midland radios have one, plenty of commercial radios do as well. In fact most, if not all have at a minimum TX/RX light that is red when transmitting and green when receiving. If there was someone using the frequency on a different tone, you would see the green light but not see anything.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Doesn't that effectively make the tone squelch feature useless if you're always having to "disable" it before you talk? That doesn't sound practical.


What GMRS radios have a meter?

My radios have a monitor button, and a blinking TX light when the channel is busy. More modern radios also have a busy lock out on the TX. All those effective for monitoring the channel. Most radios I have seen have at least two if those functions.

 

[Citywide173]

Doesn't that effectively make the tone squelch feature useless if you're always having to "disable" it before you talk? That doesn't sound practical.


What GMRS radios have a meter?

You misunderstand the purpose of tone squelch. It is a convenience to allow people to limit the traffic they hear-not to block out all users other than those they wish to talk to. All other part 95 rules still apply-you MUST monitor the frequency before transmitting to ensure that you are not interfering with another user.

 

[bill4long]

How about we petition the FCC to give up some of that wasteland 70CM ham band to GMRS?? I'm all for that, what do you all think? Then we could have 100 repeater pairs and linking would not be an issue.

Probably a non-starter given that ham usage of 70cm has always been on a secondary basis. Although a no-test Tech license that gives privileges on, say, 900 mhz, might work.

 

[03msc]

70cm is pretty heavily used in some areas.

It’s like the people who say that ham repeaters are dead yet around here they’re active all the time.

Location location location.

 

[DeoVindice]

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.

Likewise, noise-based busy channel lockout will inhibit transmission until no activity is detected on the frequency.

 

[Smac61]

Regarding monitoring, whats the purpose of a repeater if not to allow communications between stations that can't hear each other?

 

[03msc]

Regarding monitoring, whats the purpose of a repeater if not to allow communications between stations that can't hear each other?

Correct. I think the part about listening first was to not step on another user that may be using the same frequency but not intending to use the repeater? I guess. But in that case I would say all have equal access to the frequency/channel?

 

[prcguy]

In the ancient times , mobiles used to be programmed for off hook monitor.

Brings back memories of the tube type GE Progress line GMRS transceiver in my 67 Plymouth station wagon in the late 70s. Radio is tone squelched with the mic hung up, remove mic and hear anyone else on channel, which was not much in the 70s.

 

[cavmedic]

That’s how I have my control station setup at home. I run two repeaters, both use the same pair, just different PL’s. So when off hook , I can hear both. If I initiate the link, I then go back to non monitored and only hear the closest one with minimal heterodyne.

Played with simulcasting, but to get timing and launch correct was almost impossible with using internet as backhaul due to changes in ping times between the sites and third party hosting of the main node etc etc. Had it real close a few times but wasn’t worth spending all my time chasing a moving target.

 

[mmckenna]

Regarding monitoring, whats the purpose of a repeater if not to allow communications between stations that can't hear each other?

Some GMRS repeaters have multiple tones in use. For many years, I had my own tone on a high level repeater. There were other users, all with their own tone. Using the off hook function on the radio would let me know if someone was already on the repeater with a different tone.

In some urban areas, there may be more than one repeater on each pair, each repeater running a different tone.

I think the other angle that has been talked about here is that it would be valuable for remotely linked repeaters to check the frequency to see if it was in use before retransmitting from their link. A remote user on another linked repeater has no way of knowing if a channel is in use halfway across the country.

 

[MTS2000des]

I think the other angle that has been talked about here is that it would be valuable for remotely linked repeaters to check the frequency to see if it was in use before retransmitting from their link. A remote user on another linked repeater has no way of knowing if a channel is in use halfway across the country.

This highlights why linked repeaters aren't appropriate for GMRS, as the FCC communique recently posted states, the spectrum is limited and thus, interference potential is high by operating in this manner.

 

[bill4long]

Dear GMRS, I'm sorry we let the nincompoops take over. Except it's the FCC's fault because, like, you know, it's their job.

But I don't actually care.

 

[mmckenna]

This highlights why linked repeaters aren't appropriate for GMRS, as the FCC communique recently posted states, the spectrum is limited and thus, interference potential is high by operating in this manner.

"It's not a problem if I can't hear them complaining".

 

[12dbsinad]

Dear GMRS, I'm sorry we let the nincompoops take over. Except it's the FCC's fault because, like, you know, it's their job.

But I don't actually care.

Well it's the nincompoops who just want to make something legal that isn't, don't know the laws, and take their own personal opinions as to how it's regulated. Those people should stick to ham radio, as that's the intent of the spectrum.

You're exactly right, it is the FCC fault especially if they do nothing with complaints, which will probably be the case. They don't care. Heck, they don't even care about part 90. They don't work for the average Joe Schmoe anymore, they are run by the big dogs as you're we'll aware. If GMRS doesn't stay somewhat self policing then guess what is going to happen to the repeaters? Best way to not deal with a problem is to get rid of it.

 

[bill4long]

Well it's the nincompoops who just want to make something legal that isn't, don't know the laws, and take their own personal opinions as to how it's regulated. Those people should stick to ham radio, as that's the intent of the spectrum.

You're exactly right, it is the FCC fault especially if they do nothing with complaints, which will probably be the case. They don't care. Heck, they don't even care about part 90. They don't work for the average Joe Schmoe anymore, they are run by the big dogs as you're we'll aware. If GMRS doesn't stay somewhat self policing then guess what is going to happen to the repeaters? Best way to not deal with a problem is to get rid of it.

I agree, except that I doubt the FCC will get rid of it. It will just keep going feral. Within 10 years nobody will even bother being licensed.

But again, I don't care personally, except for academic discussion. I have zero use for GMRS.

At least they aren't bootlegging on the ham bands (yet).

(I am all for people getting licensed on ham radio and using that.)

 

[KV4BL]

Playing devils advocate here. Lets say that you or family were out during this weather event and had car trouble in some desolate spot (no phone coverage), would it not be a miracle if you could reach out on GMRS and contact someone via the nearest of those linked systems? If not for some folks using ingenuity and plenty of money from own pockets, these repeaters would not exist.

Linking really adds nothing to your chances of getting help. In fact, if you have a bunch of ratchet jaws tying up the system on some distant repeater, quick-keying and long winded, they may prevent you from getting help. I wish people putting up these linked megasystems would just put up good, high-quality, stand alone repeaters. A good stand-alone is a far greater service to a local community than a linked noise generator. I always cringe when I hear some bozo talk about putting up a repeater in the local area and then he adds, "...first thang, I'm gonna link it to... ".

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Linking really adds nothing to your chances of getting help. In fact, if you have a bunch of ratchet jaws tying up the system on some distant repeater, quick-keying and long winded, they may prevent you from getting help. I wish people putting up these linked megasystems would just put up good, high-quality, stand alone repeaters. A good stand-alone is a far greater service to a local community than a linked noise generator. I always cringe when I hear some bozo talk about putting up a repeater in the local area and then he adds, "...first thang, I'm gonna link it to... ".

For you silly talky and baofeng portable users out there, "linking" actually does increase your chances.

There was a system in Chicago that successfully operated a SpectraTac voting system (many sites with common input frequency (+5 MHz input)) that reached out into the far suburbs enhancing portable radio talk back to the 50 watt repeater on a tall building. According to "popular interpretation" of

§ 95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses
(8) Messages which are both conveyed
by a wireline control link and
transmitted by a GMRS station;

by sad hams, such operation would be prohibited. However the system operated that way for decades and likely other similar systems exist today.