GMRS repeater linking and the FCC

[MTS2000des]

If people would do their research, they'd see that the FCC did not change the rules. They merely posted clarifying wording on their website. Until they change the actual rules to clearly say what they mean, people are going to argue about GMRS repeater linking.

OF course it has always been, but the "don't tell me what to do" generation will always challenge rules. This is why ENFORCEMENT needs to commence to send the clear message. Can you hear me now?

 

[celestis]

I await their begrudged compliance

 

[MTS2000des]

Typical arrogant prick response. Hey FCC, time to send out an NAL.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

View attachment 167735

I await their begrudged compliance

It will take a fine for these folks to comply. It's the same mentality of the morons that want us to program their 110w MCS2000 and XTL radios and get upset when we tell them we will only program the frequencies at low power (50w). Its CB mentality all over again.

The FCC will make an example out of one group and then we will watch the rest of the "come and get me" crowd fold.

 

[celestis]

Typical arrogant prick response. Hey FCC, time to send out an NAL.

They've got a repeater a county southwest of me that I might actually be able to transmit into if they had put up a damn Yagi pointed at my town rather than a DB420

A voted system would be in the public interest, linking contributes nothing to me

 

[prcguy]

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

AboutRule Part47 C.F.R, Part 95 Subpart ERadio Service Code(s)ZA - GMRS

www.fcc.gov

On August 14, the FCC amended the language of this webpage to include the following on the Operations tab:

"A GMRS user can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain, and repeater use. GMRS stations cannot be interconnected with the public switched telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations. In other words, repeaters may not be linked via the internet—an example of an “other network” in the rules—to extend the range of the communications across a large geographic area. Linking multiple repeaters to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R. Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals.

In addition to violating Commission rules, linking repeaters is not in the public interest. Because GMRS spectrum is limited and used on a shared “commons” basis, the service only works well on a localized basis when users can hear each other and cooperate in the sharing of channels. Linking repeaters not only increases the potential for interference, but also uses up a limited spectrum resource over much larger areas than intended, limiting localized availability of the repeater channels.

GMRS and the Family Radio Service (FRS), which share many of the GMRS channels, are intended for individuals such as family members and friends, scouting troops, emergency response groups, and hobbyists to communicate with each other over short distances, directly or through a repeater station. Linking repeaters, via the internet or other networks, undermines the purpose and usefulness of the GMRS and FRS."

Interesting this one little webpage gets amended before the FCC releases a public notice telling us to knock it off with linking

This is great, basically a butcher knife through the spinal cord of linked GMRS repeaters. Its now past time to shut all that stupid sh*t down.

 

[FFPM571]

View attachment 167735

I await their begrudged compliance

Oh Randy .. you and Buddy's scam of running raffles to support your network is gonna come to a crashing halt..

 

[barntt]

The repeater linking is what the issue is and not the linked network with simplex nodes connected through the internet. The home nodes linked to the internet will still be around. It would be the linked repeaters would have to disconnect from the net.

Explain your thought process to me please...The use of the internet for any GMRS Communication goes away now other then Repeater control. Repeater linking, Personal Nodes, etc. Anything connected to GMRS.... What am I missing please? Explain it? Thank You!

 

[mmckenna]

The fcc probably anticipates this and has set the stage for enforcement. I don't think the usage of the word 'violation' was unintentional. The first NAL issued will cause the rest of them to unlink with a quickness. Like you I think they will have to make an example out of one of those 'ill do what I want' crowds.

Amateur and GMRS enforcement is always a glorious thing to watch.
Especially when the tears and whining start.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

The Facebook groups all seem to be in Unison that they are still legal and nothing will change Some even say that the FCC doesn't care about GMRS and won't do enforcement. Even though the FCC has issued a clarification to the existing part 95 rules, they say the rules have not changed so they are legal. Is the old POTS telephone network argument.

The ones that are really out there are referencing the recent Chevron case acting like no federal government agency can enforce any laws.

Gonna get interesting. I still hold that once a NAL is issued to one group, magically the rest will cave. I am wondering if all of this was caused by the North GA group and their $90 a month or $1800 lifetime fees while holding all 8 pairs hostage

 

[KK4JUG]

Amateur and GMRS enforcement is always a glorious thing to watch.
Especially when the tears and whining start.

But usually not in that order.

 

[mmckenna]

The Facebook groups all seem to be in Unison that they are still legal and nothing will change Some even say that the FCC doesn't care about GMRS and won't do enforcement. Even though the FCC has issued a clarification to the existing part 95 rules, they say the rules have not changed so they are legal. Is the old POTS telephone network argument.

I really think that the FCC, in order to cover all the arguments/bases on this, need to rewrite the appropriate sections of Part 95 to reflect this. The clarification on the webpage is a great start, but unless it is codified in Part 95 rules, there will be challenges.

And while they are at it:
Clarify the Part 95 type accepted radio requirement since there are those that keep confusing it.
And while they are at that:
Clarify Part 97 to make it clear that GMRS is -NOT- part of the amateur radio bands, and that Part 97 rules don't permit operation outside the amateur radio allocations anytime a ham feels scared or assumes they need to act like a first responder.

The ones that are really out there are referencing the recent Chevron case acting like no federal government agency can enforce any laws.

You left out the sovereign citizens.

Gonna get interesting. I still hold that once a NAL is issued to one group, magically the rest will cave. I am wondering if all of this was caused by the North GA group and their $90 a month or $1800 lifetime fees while holding all 8 pairs hostage

Like I said, it's going to be glorious to watch. Will be interesting to see if all those Booofing radios stand up to being soaked in their tears and runny nose snot.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

I really think that the FCC, in order to cover all the arguments/bases on this, need to rewrite the appropriate sections of Part 95 to reflect this. The clarification on the webpage is a great start, but unless it is codified in Part 95 rules, there will be challenges.

And while they are at it:
Clarify the Part 95 type accepted radio requirement since there are those that keep confusing it.
And while they are at that:
Clarify Part 97 to make it clear that GMRS is -NOT- part of the amateur radio bands, and that Part 97 rules don't permit operation outside the amateur radio allocations anytime a ham feels scared or assumes they need to act like a first responder.



You left out the sovereign citizens.



Like I said, it's going to be glorious to watch. Will be interesting to see if all those Booofing radios stand up to being soaked in their tears and runny nose snot.

Not just that but all of the 110w MCS2000s and XTLs that are running full power. We get asked constantly to program GMRS at high power in them. More CB crowd "fire in the wire" BS.

 

[mmckenna]

Not just that but all of the 110w MCS2000s and XTLs that are running full power. We get asked constantly to program GMRS at high power in them. More CB crowd "fire in the wire" BS.

And, no doubt, running a "low profile" antenna mounted down below the fender on the side of the Jeep?

 

[barntt]

And, no doubt, running a "low profile" antenna mounted down below the fender on the side of the Jeep?

Yup! Seen it myself!

 

[n0xvz]

And, no doubt, running a "low profile" antenna mounted down below the fender on the side of the Jeep?

Or a 1/4 wave mounted upside down in the engine bay...

 

[mmckenna]

Or a 1/4 wave mounted upside down in the engine bay...

That was a good one.

 

[AK9R]

Clarify Part 97 to make it clear that GMRS is -NOT- part of the amateur radio bands, and that Part 97 rules don't permit operation outside the amateur radio allocations anytime a ham feels scared or assumes they need to act like a first responder.

§97.301 specifies which frequencies are covered by the amateur radio service.

Likewise, §95.1763 specifies which channels are covered by the General Mobile Radio Service.

I'm not sure that more words would make it any more clear to licensees from the two services where they are allowed to operate and where they aren't.

 

[mmckenna]

I'm not sure that more words would make it any more clear to licensees from the two services where they are allowed to operate and where they aren't.

We both agree on that. But some people seem to have some challenges understanding it.

The FCC used to have a "plain language" booklet on FCC rules for CB radio. Aimed squarely at the hobbyists/noob that couldn't quite wrap their minds around the published FCC rules.

I think a suitable version for Part 95 and Part 97 would go a long way to help those folks. Without that, someone will over analyze placement of a comma, choice of words compared to their original Greek translation, font usage, or some other silly nonsense meant to justify ignoring them.

 

[celestis]

§97.301 specifies which frequencies are covered by the amateur radio service.

Likewise, §95.1763 specifies which channels are covered by the General Mobile Radio Service.

I'm not sure that more words would make it any more clear to licensees from the two services where they are allowed to operate and where they aren't.

Modest Proposal: Perhaps if the FCC merely suggested changing the rules to make the operation of repeater stations require registration of the stations work something like Part 96 they’d fall into line real fast

A computerized database tells Part 96 base stations which frequencies they’re allowed to operate on after registration and if the system notices the base hasn’t polled the DB in over 24 hours the base is configured to stop transmitting until it reconnects