GMRS repeater linking and the FCC

[KK6HRW]

As stated in an earlier post never seen so many Karen's.

“Paging, apostrophe police.”

 

[radioopperator]

Is it really down to $35 now? Last I heard it had dropped to $60 or $65 I think...cool...

I started back in about 1980 and all mine cost $85 the $35 is recent.

 

[dwh367]

According to this popular YouTuber, the FCC is finally taking action to end the practice of linking GMRS repeaters. It should be noted that it is common practice for the FCC to not publicly release information when conducting enforcement actions. Even when a rogue BDA jammed my public safety trunking system, the FCC EB did not place anything in their public file nor put out any public notice. A warning letter was sent to the party involved and case closed as compliance gained.

So taking that into consideration, it appears as if the FCC is finally enforcing 95.333 and 95.1733.8 and the repeater owners complied with their cease and desist request.
Time for sad hams to return to part 97 where copious amounts of spectrum are available for coordinated repeaters and linking is allowed and encouraged!

Exactly. There's absolutely no reason to link GMRS repeaters. There are only 8 repeater pairs and they are meant to be LOCAL. It was never the FCC's intention for Joe, on the east coast, to be talking to Bob, on the west coast. It goes completely against the reason the service was created, which is to provide for long range FAMILY communications. If someone wants to talk coast to coast they can get their amateur radio license or use something like Zello.

 

[MTS2000des]

Exactly. There's absolutely no reason to link GMRS repeaters. There are only 8 repeater pairs and they are meant to be LOCAL. It was never the FCC's intention for Joe, on the east coast, to be talking to Bob, on the west coast. It goes completely against the reason the service was created, which is to provide for long range FAMILY communications. If someone wants to talk coast to coast they can get their amateur radio license or use something like Zello.

Right.

But a few YouTube zealots with a middle finger to hams and a fetish for posting videos that get the wrong attention, along with a misunderstanding of the basis and purpose of GMRS, caused this pseudo-ham whackerism to spread worse than the Park wildfire.

 

[K3YGX]

Even as an amateur radio op, I don't like linking - I can hit one local 70cm repeater --- it is linked to a 2 meter one.....
I'd like to keep those bands separate too. Maybe link up for a net but not all the time. I would rather work simplex.
I can us HF for distant comms....(depending on band conditions).

Why constantly bash ham radio for only the smallest part of what we do? UHF and VHF are mostly for 'walkie talkie hams' and
trying to make a "base" station from a mickey mouse 'docking station' for your baofeng is laughable.
Understanding propagation, working various modes and making contacts are accomplishments that can't be had on GMRS

It's not better --- just different.

 

[prcguy]

So, we have 145 posts on this topic, what’s it gonna be? Has the FCC made it clear these systems are not legal or is it still fuzzy? If it’s determined without a doubt that linked GMRS systems are not legal, are we going to turn them all in immediately or let them live on and hog precious spectrum?

 

[WB5UOM]

This really is a discussion between our DC elected officials on an important topic, and it appears the result is about the same. lol

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

So, we have 145 posts on this topic, what’s it gonna be? Has the FCC made it clear these systems are not legal or is it still fuzzy? If it’s determined without a doubt that linked GMRS systems are not legal, are we going to turn them all in immediately or let them live on and hog precious spectrum?

 

[AK9R]

Has the FCC made it clear these systems are not legal or is it still fuzzy?

From the FCC website:

Click on the Operations tab: General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

 

[12dbsinad]

So, we have 145 posts on this topic, what’s it gonna be? Has the FCC made it clear these systems are not legal or is it still fuzzy? If it’s determined without a doubt that linked GMRS systems are not legal, are we going to turn them all in immediately or let them live on and hog precious spectrum?

Well, since the FCC sent a nice letter to a NY GMRS voted simulcast system, I'd say no, it's not the intention of GMRS. Obviously someone stirred the turd with that particular system. I guess you can do whatever you want until you get caught, but what do I know...

 

[mmckenna]

I guess you can do whatever you want until you get caught, but what do I know...

The FCC has it vaguely worded at best in Part 95. They really need to clarify it and modernize the language.

But I'm sure that won't stop linking. Like you said, there are those that will do it until caught, then probably keep doing it. Or those that will claim some sort of waiver to the rules for "emergencies", "public safety", "weather emergencies", etc, as well as the hambones that will insist on thinking it's an extension of the 70cm band.

But I think it's time for the FCC to address this. These guys belong on amateur radio. With it so easy to get a tech license, there's no reason for people to not easily migrate.
The FCC really needs to spend some time cleaning up rules and clarifying a lot of these areas that keep getting confused. GMRS linking should be one. So should Type Certification requirements. Clarify the Part 97 rules to remove all doubt for those hams that think hopping on Part 90 when they get a bad hang nail is justified, also.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Well, since the FCC sent a nice letter to a NY GMRS voted simulcast system, I'd say no, it's not the intention of GMRS. Obviously someone stirred the turd with that particular system. I guess you can do whatever you want until you get caught, but what do I know...

Do you have a link to the the actual FCC letter?

 

[12dbsinad]

The FCC has it vaguely worded at best in Part 95. They really need to clarify it and modernize the language.

But I'm sure that won't stop linking. Like you said, there are those that will do it until caught, then probably keep doing it. Or those that will claim some sort of waiver to the rules for "emergencies", "public safety", "weather emergencies", etc, as well as the hambones that will insist on thinking it's an extension of the 70cm band.

But I think it's time for the FCC to address this. These guys belong on amateur radio. With it so easy to get a tech license, there's no reason for people to not easily migrate.
The FCC really needs to spend some time cleaning up rules and clarifying a lot of these areas that keep getting confused. GMRS linking should be one. So should Type Certification requirements. Clarify the Part 97 rules to remove all doubt for those hams that think hopping on Part 90 when they get a bad hang nail is justified, also.

I agree 100 percent.

I'm still a firm believer that eventually the FCC is going to rid of GMRS repeaters in the next ruling change, especially if the bees nest gets kicked with linking, which means enforcement. You and I know that it's not how the field offices want to spend their time.

 

[12dbsinad]

Do you have a link to the the actual FCC letter?

Just google it. You can read all about it.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Just google it. You can read all about it.

Yeah right google all the other clowns talking about a letter that never existed. In the beginning it was a "verbal warning" then it morphed to an invisible letter.

I have been to the FCC database and searched there as that would be smarter than "Google" and guess what, no such letter.

Only two recent violations for GMRS, a stuck transmitter in PacNW, a very likely RF link surprisingly.

FCC: Please fix your broken transmitter.

And an unruly operator in PA.

I watch this stuff like a hawk and my BS Meter is pegged out on this discussion. Don't add to it with "just Google it". really, can't you do better??

 

[12dbsinad]

Yeah right google all the other clowns talking about a letter that never existed. In the beginning it was a "verbal warning" then it morphed to an invisible letter.

I have been to the FCC database and searched there as that would be smarter than "Google" and guess what, no such letter.

Only two recent violations for GMRS, a stuck transmitter in PacNW, a very likely RF link surprisingly.

FCC: Please fix your broken transmitter.

And an unruly operator in PA.

I watch this stuff like a hawk and my BS Meter is pegged out on this discussion. Don't add to it with "just Google it". really, can't you do better??

Wasn't there a email fired off to the FCC recently about linking, and the response was no? Right here in this thread?

Actually, may have been a different thread.

 

[mmckenna]

I watch this stuff like a hawk and my BS Meter is pegged out on this discussion. Don't add to it with "just Google it". really, can't you do better??

I've never seen it either, and I did look on the FCC pages.
There's been talk about it. There was a youtube video showing a snippet of video of other people talking about it. That's all I've seen.

I'll feel better when the FCC documents it. Until then, color me skeptical. But the FCC did update their GMRS page in the last few years to show this:

You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the 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.​

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

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

www.fcc.gov

But the Part 95 rules are still vague and from 2017. They really do need to improve the clarity of the rules section. I seem to recall when CB was really hitting its stride with popularity, the FCC issued a very simplified rules explanation booklet that was included with all CB's. Maybe it's time they do that for GMRS. In other words, an FCC issued/posted "GMRS for dummies".

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Wasn't there a email fired off to the FCC recently about linking, and the response was no? Right here in this thread?

Actually, may have been a different thread.

Opinions of staff are not binding. They will tell you that straight out.

I've never seen it either, and I did look on the FCC pages.
There's been talk about it. There was a youtube video showing a snippet of video of other people talking about it. That's all I've seen.

I'll feel better when the FCC documents it. Until then, color me skeptical. But the FCC did update their GMRS page in the last few years to show this:

You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the 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.​

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

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

www.fcc.gov

But the Part 95 rules are still vague and from 2017. They really do need to improve the clarity of the rules section. I seem to recall when CB was really hitting its stride with popularity, the FCC issued a very simplified rules explanation booklet that was included with all CB's. Maybe it's time they do that for GMRS. In other words, an FCC issued/posted "GMRS for dummies".

This from the Federal Register dated Tuesday August 29, 2017:

§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.
Operation of a GMRS station with a
telephone connection is prohibited, as
in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and
fixed stations, however, may be
connected to the public switched
network or other networks for the sole
purpose of operation by remote control
pursuant to § 95.1745.

The rules have not been changed to reflect any "new thinking" by FCC. They read as they did in the 2017 NPRM as cryptically as they do today.

 

[mmckenna]

Opinions of staff are not binding. They will tell you that straight out.

Right, and that's why I think most of us are waiting to see this in writing, either as an NOV or some other published document (like maybe updating 95.1749). Until then, this is just a bunch of rumors.

The rules have not been changed to reflect any "new thinking" by FCC. They read as they did in the 2017 NPRM as cryptically as they do today.

Right, the rules haven't changed, but the GMRS page has apparently been reworded at some point since 2017 (someone mentioned 2021) to reflect the "You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications" thing. To me, that's pretty clear, but it ain't in the rule book, so I think there are those that will argue it.

 

[cistercian]

My money says that those GMRSers motor mouthing, tying up all 8 pairs with gas wind are all sad hams, and your VHF and UHF ham bands are crickets. Now that's sad.

That's true where I live! I applied for my GMRS license and am waiting but in the meanwhile I have been scanning the frequencies. Lots of kids and parents on FRS as well as businesses....and sad hams. I have a ham ticket (extra) and applied for gmrs so I can use a rooftop antenna to keep track of my girls. I just hand them a motorola FRS talkbout and away they go! Zero interest in GMRS repeaters. But it is great for enhanced local coverage. A decent base antenna is all I need or want.
If I want to play radio I can work 160 meters to the 440mhz band. I have worked all over the planet and I like 80m for reliable regional communication. Getting your ham ticket is not that hard. Linking machines via wire on GMRS is silly. Want to talk statewide? Getting your general class is not hard.
And the local 2m and 440 machines are dead. I recognize some of the sad ham voices from the super boring nets from 2m.

VHF/UHF here is a wasteland...