GMRS repeater linking and the FCC

[mmckenna]

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

I agree, however as mentioned in a few posts earlier, most of the people running these systems, or otherwise ignoring FCC rules, don't like being told no, and won't stand for an automated system controlling their repeater.

They'd find a way to disable it if it was required. Similar to snipping diodes or button pushes in ham gear to make them work outside the ham bands. They'd always find a justification.

And that wouldn't address all those 30-40+ year old GE repeaters out there still chugging along.


But, yeah, if it could be done, I say we take it a step farther. I'd suggest a small explosive charge* on the circuit board, preferably by the CPU or other critical component. Said charge could be remotely triggered and render the radio permanently inoperable. A great way to deal with the issue and get the point across.

*yes, I'm joking, but we can dream, can't we?

 

[celestis]

I agree, however as mentioned in a few posts earlier, most of the people running these systems, or otherwise ignoring FCC rules, don't like being told no, and won't stand for an automated system controlling their repeater.

They'd find a way to disable it if it was required. Similar to snipping diodes or button pushes in ham gear to make them work outside the ham bands. They'd always find a justification.

And that wouldn't address all those 30-40+ year old GE repeaters out there still chugging along.


But, yeah, if it could be done, I say we take it a step farther. I'd suggest a small explosive charge* on the circuit board, preferably by the CPU or other critical component. Said charge could be remotely triggered and render the radio permanently inoperable. A great way to deal with the issue and get the point across.

*yes, I'm joking, but we can dream, can't we?

Maybe they could get Apple to do it, they have experience in internal components that self-destruct for no good reason

 

[mmckenna]

Maybe they could get Apple to do it, they have experience in internal components that self-destruct for no good reason

Ugh.

Or, like CCR's, never worked in the first place.

 

[KevinC]

FCC Changes – Texas GMRS Network

 

[mmckenna]

FCC Changes – Texas GMRS Network

"In the meantime, the Texas GMRS Network will continue to seek additional clarification from the FCC regarding this matter. We are also exploring the possibility of petitioning the FCC for a rule change to support the linking of GMRS repeaters."​

Anyone can comment on proposed rule changes, or submit their own requests, so others interested in GMRS will need to make their feeling known when/if this hits the FCC docket.

​

"The purpose of the Texas GMRS Network is to promote the use and development of the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) and foster a natural interest in radio communications within the community, thereby enhancing public well-being, safety, and emergency preparedness. "​

​

Seems like they took a page from the FCC rules regarding the purpose of the amateur radio service here. While it's honorable, it doesn't necessarily align well with the FCC stated purpose for GMRS. Seems like maybe they are on the wrong radio service and could move their operations to amateur radio, where this would fit in better.

 

[marcotor]

FCC Changes – Texas GMRS Network

Well good on them. Thoughtful, and no "we don't give a hoot about the rules!". At the same time looking into petitioning the proper authority for a rule change under the current system.

 

[MTS2000des]

​

"The purpose of the Texas GMRS Network is to promote the use and development of the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) and foster a natural interest in radio communications within the community, thereby enhancing public well-being, safety, and emergency preparedness. "​

​

Seems like they took a page from the FCC rules regarding the purpose of the amateur radio service here. While it's honorable, it doesn't necessarily align well with the FCC stated purpose for GMRS. Seems like maybe they are on the wrong radio service and could move their operations to amateur radio, where this would fit in better.

Again, a bunch of whackers who want to be the elite 8 channel army. In the meantime, the FCC is watching as our ham bands wither away into dust. Sad hams are are own worst enemies.

Can't wait to see the first EB response to the rule breakers.

 

[KevinC]

In case anyone missed the gist of the link provided…

Texas GMRS Network Board of Directors is aware that the FCC has quietly updated the wording on their website, providing additional clarification that linking GMRS repeaters is not allowed. As of midnight, Monday, August 19, 2024, we will be disconnecting the link between our repeaters, including nodes and IAX access. However, we strongly encourage our members to continue using the local repeaters, which will remain operational, to communicate with family and friends as usual.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

Thank you for the update, Kevin. I wonder if whoever is patching GMRS to MURS will knock it off too, WalMart is getting annoyed lol.

 

[ProBlab]

Curious what the response will be from the North Georgia GMRS group.

 

[AK4PY]

Curious what the response will be from the North Georgia GMRS group.

Same here. I am hearing their Sunday evening net live on the air right now, so they certainly are not jumping on it right away.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

They have a huge issue in front of them, not only with the FCC but the members who pay money for access. I dont think they are going to let their cash cow go so easily.

 

[barntt]

They have a huge issue in front of them, not only with the FCC but the members who pay money for access. I dont think they are going to let their cash cow go so easily.

I am not 100% clear about this but no money is suppose to change hands on a Free Band to use????? I could be wrong.

 

[Echo4Thirty]

I am not 100% clear about this but no money is suppose to change hands on a Free Band to use????? I could be wrong.

They charge for access to their network.

 

[12dbsinad]

Thank you FCC for clarifying the rules you already had in place. We (not I) started to get tired of repeating ourselves to people who "just didn't want to believe it". They can't read nor comprehend rulings, good thing they are not lawyers.

So all these clubs that are so hell bent on saying your callsigns, well it's time to shut your linked crap down. No double standard now, you're running illegally, can't have it both ways. Please return GMRS to it's intended purpose, thanks. Oh, and get your ham tickets and ya'll can link away until your brain explodes.

 

[mmckenna]

I am not 100% clear about this but no money is suppose to change hands on a Free Band to use????? I could be wrong.

Repeaters are private property and owners can charge for upkeep/maintenance/power/site lease etc. Totally legal and allowed under FCC rules. Pretty sure making it a career/business model is kind of outside the intended purpose of the radio service.

But, running a good repeater costs a lot of coin, and a big system like the one in Georgia probably costs a whole lotta coin.

I agree, those paying for "lifetime service" are probably going to be expecting some sort of refund, if anyone was dumb enough to pay for that.

 

[mmckenna]

Seems like the FCC could just utilize this rule to address this until a proper rewrite of the rules is done:

§ 95.327 Restricted operation.​

The FCC may deny or restrict the use by any operator(s) of any specified channel(s) in a specified geographic area if, in the judgment of the FCC, such use is not in the public interest. Furthermore, the FCC may restrict the use by any particular operator(s) of any channel as to geographical area of operation, transmitting power, or other operating conditions.​

Man, I'd love to see the FCC whip that one out and use it judiciously.

Mmmmm, that's yummy right there.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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

Actually a voted system would be illegal if you interpret the prohibition in the rule 95.1733(a)(8) to apply in that way.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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.

Yup. Nobody anywhere should link any damn radios anywhere, on any band or service, especially across the CONUS.

 

[AK9R]

They have a huge issue in front of them, not only with the FCC but the members who pay money for access. I dont think they are going to let their cash cow go so easily.

I see a different problem.

Many of these GMRS groups have required (extorted?) payment from "members" in order to get access to the repeaters that are part of the group. A selling point for these groups is "you pay for a 'membership' and you get access to this wide-area linked system". If the links are turned off, what recourse do the "members" have? Can they sue the groups for breach of contract? Granted, only the lawyers would get rich from this, but I think there'd definitely be some hard feelings. I hope these groups are incorporated and have liability insurance.