Considerations about linking GMRS repeaters.

[DeoVindice]

"


Not yet, at least.

They exist, I've read discussions of "GMRS nodes" that appear to be functionally quite similar to hotspots.

While it was for the wrong reasons (intentional interference on a repeater in Albuquerque), full-time linking has been reduced down here and PTT-ID cut down on the jamming. Systems are more usable and carry more local traffic as a result.

 

[AK9R]

Please explain how a GMRS repeater owner could enforce the use of PTT ID?

 

[MTS2000des]

Please explain how a GMRS repeater owner could enforce the use of PTT ID?

I supposed it's possible for a repeater owner to install a repeater controller that validates MDC IDs and one could create a white list of "allowed" MDC IDs that would trigger the COR/COS.

Of course being that MDC is an open protocol one could also grab MDC IDs off the air and program them into a radio. GMRS is not part 90 so there is no "exclusive use" of any pair. I know this isn't a popular ideology, but that is what the rules say. Everyone must share.

 

[DeoVindice]

I supposed it's possible for a repeater owner to install a repeater controller that validates MDC IDs and one could create a white list of "allowed" MDC IDs that would trigger the COR/COS.

Of course being that MDC is an open protocol one could also grab MDC IDs off the air and program them into a radio. GMRS is not part 90 so there is no "exclusive use" of any pair. I know this isn't a popular ideology, but that is what the rules say. Everyone must share.

This is exactly what's been done, for MDC and DTMF IDs. It's merely idiot-resistant, not idiot-proof, but certainly raises the barrier to entry for someone kerchunking every 1-2 seconds with a CCR.

 

[12dbsinad]

According to the FCC own ruling, GMRS repeaters may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control. Meaning controlling a repeater, programming tones, checking operation, etc. It says nothing about linking for voice traffic. Which makes sense given the limited frequency pairs AND the inability to monitor the repeater frequency before use, also a requirement by the FCC.

 

[bill4long]

What I'm thinking is this moving forward...

Channel 15, 16, and 17, repeater pairs disallowed from networking.

Channels 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 can go ahead with the quasi ham radio situation.

Do you agree?

Let's file a petition.

 

[prcguy]

What I'm thinking is this moving forward...

Channel 15, 16, and 17, repeater pairs disallowed from networking.

Channels 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 can go ahead with the quasi ham radio situation.

Do you agree?

Let's file a petition.

No.

 

[bill4long]

No.

That's a very persuasive reply (not)

 

[prcguy]

That's a very persuasive reply (not)

GMRS is not ham radio so there should be no quasi ham situation. Get a ham license. There should be no linking. What might sound like a good idea in your area might not be a good idea in another area. In my opinion none of these ideas is a good idea in any area.

 

[03msc]

According to the FCC own ruling, GMRS repeaters may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control. Meaning controlling a repeater, programming tones, checking operation, etc. It says nothing about linking for voice traffic. Which makes sense given the limited frequency pairs AND the inability to monitor the repeater frequency before use, also a requirement by the FCC.

Nicely summarized in this post from a past thread:

GMRS Repeater Networks/Linking Legal?

I am sure this has been discussed somewhere, but has the FCC ever said if linking GMRS repeaters into a network is legal? I am curious because the moderator of a large GMRS group on Facebook noted that he will not tolerate any discussions on the group about networking repeaters because it is...

forums.radioreference.com

 

[12dbsinad]

GMRS is not ham radio so there should be no quasi ham situation. Get a ham license. There should be no linking. What might sound like a good idea in your area might not be a good idea in another area. In my opinion none of these ideas is a good idea in any area.

Agreed but the problem is -they- are trying to turn GMRS which is SUPPOSED to be used for short range personal family communications in to ham radio, statewide coverage with only 8 frequencies and you can't forget about the "nets". I say the rules state otherwise, and just because it's done all over the place doesn't make it legal or right. After all the FCC doesn't give a flying #### about GMRS, we all know that.

 

[03msc]

Agreed but the problem is -they- are trying to turn GMRS which is SUPPOSED to be used for short range personal family communications in to ham radio, statewide coverage with only 8 frequencies and you can't forget about the "nets". I say the rules state otherwise, and just because it's done all over the place doesn't make it legal or right. After all the FCC doesn't give a flying #### about GMRS, we all know that.

Have seen in multiple posts/places that the FCC has said linked on GMRS is allowed. I get that you don't like it. Heck, I'm not even saying I like it. But, from what I've seen in many places, etc., it is actually allowed. My only point in saying that is...stating that it isn't when it apparently actually is isn't going to actually make it not. It's OK to not be a fan of it, though.

 

[12dbsinad]

Have seen in multiple posts/places that the FCC has said linked on GMRS is allowed. I get that you don't like it. Heck, I'm not even saying I like it. But, from what I've seen in many places, etc., it is actually allowed. My only point in saying that is...stating that it isn't when it apparently actually is isn't going to actually make it not. It's OK to not be a fan of it, though.

Please post a FCC ruling that states voice linking is allowed and I will shut up. Not some subjective internet post.

 

[03msc]

Please post a FCC ruling that states voice linking is allowed and I will shut up. Not some subjective internet post.

You'll likely say it isn't acceptable, but this one is also even more clear...and others in some replies clarify or discuss/explain even further:

Response from the FCC on linking repeater audio over the internet and it's legality

Since this topic is always such a hotly debated one, I figured I would ask the FCC myself about the permissibility of linking audio between GMRS repeaters over the internet. Below was the response they gave me. Case Id: HD0000002998556 Summary: Licensing Requirements Description: There...

forums.radioreference.com

And I'll say again...I'm not pushing for linking but the reality seems to be that it's perfectly OK.

 

[12dbsinad]

You'll likely say it isn't acceptable, but this one is also even more clear...and others in some replies clarify or discuss/explain even further:

Response from the FCC on linking repeater audio over the internet and it's legality

Since this topic is always such a hotly debated one, I figured I would ask the FCC myself about the permissibility of linking audio between GMRS repeaters over the internet. Below was the response they gave me. Case Id: HD0000002998556 Summary: Licensing Requirements Description: There...

forums.radioreference.com

And I'll say again...I'm not pushing for linking but the reality seems to be that it's perfectly OK.

And here is a response from 9/2023 from the FCC after the latest rule changes.

Linking GMRS repeaters #GMRS

On Twitter, the author quoted Federal Communications Commission rules and said: It is illegal ... There was pushback to which the autho...

kc5fm.blogspot.com

 

[03msc]

As a note, I did submit a request earlier this evening via the FCC system asking for clarification on it just to see what they tell me.

I know someone in the local GMRS group that said a few weeks ago, when someone commented on a post that linking wasn't allowed, that he had received clarification from the FCC "a couple months ago" saying linking was permitted, no problem. Seems it depends on who you talk to. So, we'll see what they tell me "within 3 business days". It'll match one or the other, I guess!

 

[bill4long]

GMRS is not ham radio so there should be no quasi ham situation. Get a ham license. There should be no linking. What might sound like a good idea in your area might not be a good idea in another area. In my opinion none of these ideas is a good idea in any area.

I agree. And have said so. However, there is the pragmatic situation. The FCC fumbled the GMRS ball. I'm merely suggesting a compromise. The repeater linking retardation is not going away. But maybe splitting the difference could be a reasonable compromise. Personally I don't give a crap. Just making a suggestion.

 

[celestis]

What I'm thinking is this moving forward...

Channel 15, 16, and 17, repeater pairs disallowed from networking.

Channels 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 can go ahead with the quasi ham radio situation.

Do you agree?

Let's file a petition.

My modest proposal is similar except done how Part 96 handles 3.5 GHz base stations

You register your base with a database and the DB grants you a channel pair and you take it or leave it; if you go off the air the frequency is fair game for the next Joe Schmoe to be allocated by the system

:^)

 

[celestis]

You'll likely say it isn't acceptable, but this one is also even more clear...and others in some replies clarify or discuss/explain even further:

Response from the FCC on linking repeater audio over the internet and it's legality

Since this topic is always such a hotly debated one, I figured I would ask the FCC myself about the permissibility of linking audio between GMRS repeaters over the internet. Below was the response they gave me. Case Id: HD0000002998556 Summary: Licensing Requirements Description: There...

forums.radioreference.com

And I'll say again...I'm not pushing for linking but the reality seems to be that it's perfectly OK.

Even the FCC has said in forfeiture orders reliance on informal FCC staff opinions is ill advised

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

And here is a response from 9/2023 from the FCC after the latest rule changes.

Linking GMRS repeaters #GMRS

On Twitter, the author quoted Federal Communications Commission rules and said: It is illegal ... There was pushback to which the autho...

kc5fm.blogspot.com

I suggest careful read of this response. It reads more as an opinion piece ( " we believe" ) than an informed statement of fact from FCC legal counsel. There are also a couple conflicting statements as to the inclusion of other networks in the 2017 rules, if you read the context of the rules carefully you will understand.

The other fly in the ointment is the concept of remote control/ operation. In every other FCC service remote operation includes modulation. How suddenly does this become different in GMRS?

It doesn't. This from definitions in Part 95:

Remote control.
Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.