GMRS repeater access for non-members

[bill4long]

Florida SARNET has over 40 UHF Ham repeaters all linked together all for one, one for all, so when someone kerchunks a Baofeng anywhere in the state, the cumulative power CONSUMPTION is over 15 kilowatts. The repeaters were apparently individually coordinated with or without the now defunct Florida Repeater Council. So far nobody has freaked out over the audacity of those folks to provide statewide communications even though we all know two hams talking about their medical problems hogs 40 plus repeaters at a combined 4000 plus watts OUTPUT POWER.

I mean how can this possibly be legal? Does part 97 even permit such things. Definitely a violation: § 97.313 Transmitter power standards. (a) An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications. (b) No station may transmit with a transmitter power exceeding 1.5 kW PEP.

YES AN ILLEGAL FCC VIOLATION FULL STOP!!!!

Ok I am getting a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.

It's good to keep in mind that part 97 is a body of regulation, not law. There are numerous R&Os that clarify issues. At the end of the day, FCC enforcement has discretion over how they enforce the rules. Each repeater is a separate station. Linking is allowed. The "desired communiction" has each repeater running typical amounts of power that the FCC has long tolerated for repeater installations. De facto, nothing about what the Florida system is doing violates "good amateur practice."

 

[03msc]

It's good to keep in mind that part 97 is a body of regulation, not law. There are numerous R&Os that clarify issues. At the end of the day, FCC enforcement has discretion over how they enforce the rules. Each repeater is a separate station. Linking is allowed. The "desired communiction" has each repeater running typical amounts of power that the FCC has long tolerated for repeater installations. De facto, nothing about what the Florida system is doing violates "good amateur practice."

I suppose you've seen the video circulating of some club's ARRL FCC meeting where linking was discussed? I've seen it shared a few places. It seems to have only added confusion though I think they feel they were clarifying.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

It's good to keep in mind that part 97 is a body of regulation, not law. There are numerous R&Os that clarify issues. At the end of the day, FCC enforcement has discretion over how they enforce the rules. Each repeater is a separate station. Linking is allowed. The "desired communiction" has each repeater running typical amounts of power that the FCC has long tolerated for repeater installations. De facto, nothing about what the Florida system is doing violates "good amateur practice."

Florida's SARNET and the Georgia's NGGMRS are technically doing exactly same thing under a "body of regulation".

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I suppose you've seen the video circulating of some club's ARRL FCC meeting where linking was discussed? I've seen it shared a few places. It seems to have only added confusion though I think they feel they were clarifying.

That video and the discussion really don't convey much meaningful information. A transcript would help, however the presenters rambled a bit "folksy" and unprofessional and they jumped from topic to topic. The most meaningful thing said was from the spokeswoman who said "Opinions of staff are not binding". Plus it was an ARRL meeting, what possible say does ARRL have in the goings on in GMRS? I am Ex-ARRL member as of this year (was member for ~29 years) for full disclosure.

 

[bill4long]

Florida's SARNET and the Georgia's NGGMRS are technically doing exactly same thing under a "body of regulation".

One difference is that Part 95.1733(8) forbids "messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station." There has been a lot of heated discussion about what this exactly means, and I have no desire to enter the fray. However, recently the following video has come to my attention. What the outcome will be, and it's significance for GMRS, I can only guess.

Beyond that, I rather hope the FCC puts the kibosh on linked GMRS repeaters. In the past I didnt care, but I've changed my mind. These days, spinning across channels 15 thru 22, very often repeaters in my area (Indianapolis) are occupying all of them, and are all tied into the same Midwest network. It's getting rather ridiculous. IMO, these GMRS networks violate the intent of the service by trying to be a ham radio lite and hogging the channels, without any sort of mitigation (such as listen-before-transmit.) If you want to play radio like hams do, get a ham license. It's easy and there are tons of frequencies available for repeater networks and beyond.

 

[03msc]

Plus it was an ARRL meeting, what possible say does ARRL have in the goings on in GMRS?

I think there were ARRL guys there along with FCC. It was a ham club meeting. The interesting comments were from the FCC enforcement guy who was, I believe, answering a question from the floor about GMRS.

 

[nokones]

One difference is that Part 95.1733(8) forbids "messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station." There has been a lot of heated discussion about what this exactly means, and I have no desire to enter the fray. However, recently the following video has come to my attention. What the outcome will be, and it's significance for GMRS, I can only guess.

Beyond that, I rather hope the FCC puts the kibosh on linked GMRS repeaters. In the past I didnt care, but I've changed my mind. These days, spinning across channels 15 thru 22, very often repeaters in my area (Indianapolis) are occupying all of them, and are all tied into the same Midwest network. It's getting rather ridiculous. IMO, these GMRS networks violate the intent of the service by trying to be a ham radio lite and hogging the channels, without any sort of mitigation (such as listen-before-transmit.) If you want to play radio like hams do, get a ham license. It's easy and there are tons of frequencies available for repeater networks and beyond.

And then there is 95.1749 saying you can.

 

[bill4long]

And then there is 95.1749 saying you can.

That's about remote control, not passing messages thru a network while transmitting over the air.

 

[bill4long]

... but further reading seems to contradict my very last reply. [Shrug.] I'm glad I don't have to worry about it.

 

[nokones]

That's about remote control, not passing messages thru a network while transmitting over the air.

Then what do you think that gets passed along on the wireline network to the remote controlled stations and eventually on the air to recipient stations?

 

[nokones]

... but further reading seems to contradict my very last reply. [Shrug.] I'm glad I don't have to worry about it.

I just saw your last just after I sent my last, yes it is confusing. No worries.

 

[AK9R]

I think there were ARRL guys there along with FCC. It was a ham club meeting.

Exactly.

It was a meeting of the .21 Repeater Group in the Harrisburg PA area (145.210 repeater). The group has both amateur radio and GMRS repeaters. They invited people from the FCC and ARRL to talk about enforcement issues. Riley Hollingsworth K4ZDH was there and is a bit of a cross-over in that he is a former attorney with the FCC Enforcement Division, a former ARRL Vice-Director, and current manager of the ARRL Volunteer Monitor program.

Frankly, GMRS repeater linking was discussed extensively in this thread: GMRS repeater linking and the FCC We don't need another thread on that topic. The topic of this thread is "closed" GMRS repeater groups and how non-members can gain access.