GMRS Repeater Networks/Linking Legal?

[rescue161]

The repeaters on the mygmrs.net linked system utilize PBX software, so if you link a repeater into an already active conversation on a different repeater, both conversations will be heard at the same time, i.e., no heterodyning will occur as long as the two keying at the same time are not on the same repeater. Similar to three-way calling with all three people talking at the same time. 9 times out of 10, the users don't immediately start talking upon linking in anyway, so the repeater will link and if a conversation is taking place, the person that linked will stand by until the other parties have finished.

Also, as far as interfering with other users, the same can be said for any repeater. If there are unlicensed users on the output of a repeater, the repeater users can have no way of knowing if they are causing interference with the simplex users.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

my question is this:

for those who operate linked GMRS repeaters, following GMRS rules, specifically 95.359, which states the following:
Operators of Personal Radio Service stations must cooperate in the selection and use of channels in order to avoid interference and make efficient use of these shared channels.

So how can one ensure they aren't intentionally interfering with users on repeaters linked together if they can't effectively monitor (before transmitting) all of the linked repeater pairs to ensure no one else is transmitting?

Unlike part 90 and part 97 which utilize repeater coordination to ensure interference doesn't occur, in part 95, there is no such animal and everyone has to share equally.

It seems piggish and against the spirit of the law to utilize part 95 in the manner where one entity or individual sucks up all 8 repeater pairs with a linked system that can easily interfere with others and no realistic way for users of such systems to ensure they aren't intruding upon others.

Linked Ham repeaters have exactly this same potential problem. Lets be honest, no one bothers to disable CTCSS to listen to co-channel activity. It does not happen.

Now the FCC has authorized FRS to utilize the outputs of GMRS repeaters. These FRS radios have no means to monitor the channel if CTCSS is engaged, nor can you expect FRS users to understand the concept.

The FCC has basically said in these rules, that they have no interest in mediating co channel interference complaints. Historically there has been no GMRS frequency coordination and why start now? If you read the mail from a lot of GMRS newbies they complain about having no activity where they are located, rural areas which could benefit with repeaters and perhaps linking to make coverage more useful.

Also, truth be told, Frequency coordination is a shambles in the Ham world.

 

[mmckenna]

It does, but that would be up to the person running the individual repeater to make sure they were not interfering. Since most GMRS repeater users are running PL tones, it's unlikely they'd know even if they were on a local repeater.

 

[ecps92]

Depends on your region and,.....then if the Repeater owner wants to do things correctly

Also, truth be told, Frequency coordination is a shambles in the Ham world.

 

[AK9R]

The repeaters on the mygmrs.net linked system utilize PBX software, so if you link a repeater into an already active conversation on a different repeater, both conversations will be heard at the same time...

Which I find to be a bit annoying on the linked GMRS repeaters I monitor. These are full-time linked repeaters and the hardware/software doesn't seem to give priority to anyone. The result is two or more people talking over each other. Coming from a world where multiple inputs into a repeater system are "voted" so you only hear one person at a time, the linking system I hear now seems like a step backwards.

 

[tweiss3]

Which I find to be a bit annoying on the linked GMRS repeaters I monitor. These are full-time linked repeaters and the hardware/software doesn't seem to give priority to anyone. The result is two or more people talking over each other. Coming from a world where multiple inputs into a repeater system are "voted" so you only hear one person at a time, the linking system I hear now seems like a step backwards.

I would agree. Though even with a voted system, there seems to be doubles due to lag in the voter. There is one net that regularly has enough lag between echolink, allstar and RF voting that there regularly are doubles between RF and one remote input, though you can clearly understand both completely, unlike the heterodyne double of two local RF users doubling.

 

[AI7PM]

Depends on your region and,.....then if the Repeater owner wants to do things correctly

The other side of that coin is having a coordination group operated in an effective manner. When one can't even get an email reply, or "We are not currently accepting new members."

 

[MTS2000des]

Linked Ham repeaters have exactly this same potential problem. Lets be honest, no one bothers to disable CTCSS to listen to co-channel activity. It does not happen.

Yes, but part 97 rules do in fact, give precedence for coordinated repeaters versus non-coordinated ones when it comes to interference complaints. And there is a plethora of spectrum on multiple RF bands, not 8 pairs on one band. Apples to Oranges. The FCC has time and time again ruled that repeaters when properly coordinated and operated under part 97 rules, take precedence over simplex and non-coordinated repeaters and enforcement bureau rulings where individual licensees were told to refrain from using a given part 97 repeater even had privilege modifications to keep an unwanted user off a repeater.

Hogging 8 repeater pairs on GMRS is just a way for one to dominate a limited service that is supposed to be shared with no one person/entity/organization having exclusive use of the spectrum. The spirit of the service isn't to augment part 97 and in my opinion, part 97 is more appropriate a service for linked systems as spectrum is vast and less chance of interfering with others.

The other side of that coin is having a coordination group operated in an effective manner. When one can't even get an email reply, or "We are not currently accepting new members."

No argument here. In the "good old boy" system, the coordinators are often full of hypocritical double talk. But some coordination is better than nothing, which is what is in place on GMRS/Part 95.

 

[rescue161]

Who is hogging all 8 repeaters? I have two that cover in and around the Emerald Isle and Jacksonville, NC area. Other than that, the rest are wide open for someone else to put up a repeater or use for simplex. Anybody with a license is free to use my repeaters. That goes for the GMRS as well as the ham repeaters. I think the linking of repeaters has brought a lot more people into the fold on GMRS as it was dead around here for a long time.

There can also be an argument against coordination for those folks that will apply for and receive a coordination for a repeater that isn't on the air. People sit on frequency pairs or "paper-repeaters" for YEARS and because those pairs are already coordinated, the people that have the resources cannot put a coordinated repeater on the air utilizing those pairs.

 

[ChrisABQ]

People like GMRS because they don't like ham's.

 

[AK9R]

Draw a circle around Indianapolis with radius of approximately 40 miles. That circle will cover five repeaters that are part of the Midwest GMRS network. Two of them, which are about 80 miles apart, are using the same repeater pair. There's one more GMRS repeater in Indianapolis that's not part of the network.

I think GMRS usage varies quite a bit around the country. Making generalizations about GMRS based on what you hear in your area may not be appropriate.

 

[rescue161]

I think GMRS usage varies quite a bit around the country. Making generalizations about GMRS based on what you hear in your area may not be appropriate.

This is why I mentioned my area, because I keep seeing posts about "all 8 pairs" being "hogged." Obviously they are not hogged across the nation as there are plenty of areas where GMRS repeaters are not in use at all. Generalizations of any sort should be taken with a grain of salt. None the less, linking on GMRS is legal and in listening to the nationwide nets, I can't hear or detect any problems that some people claim there to be. As always, your results for your individual areas may vary.

 

[MTS2000des]

https://nggmrs.org/

14 linked repeaters many of which are overlapping and on high sites. Tell me again this isn't hogging.

 

[Craigmoe]

My 2 cents, I could not agree with MTS2000des more. I have been involved with GMRS for many years. My 1st call (wished I had kept it) was a KAC number, now KAE. I am also a licensed ham. (More on that later) A 'linked' GMRS repeater close to me is, for the most part 'political' and makes me sick. They also forbid families, travelers, camping, events, etc. Gosh I thought that was the intent to begin with. Have also heard digital (DMR I believe) on a GMRS repeater in Wisconsin. Do not believe that is legal at all. I have two (2) stand-alone machines up but low profile due to losing the site I had for some time. (Working on another) As far as the ham thing goes, I was paying dues to a club, as I think one should but stopped when comments were made that those who didn't go along or agree with a, well I'll just say a high political figure needs to leave the country. Not me! I won't give my money to any club that permits that crap on their radio system. I only mention this as I have read certain amateur club web sites by-laws which prohibits any talk of politics, religion, and so on. GMRS owners should have these conditions as well, especially in this day & age. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but should be kept off these mediums. There are other sources for this crap. I know, I know, some of you could care less who you offend. That's not how I live my life. Okay, 5 cents...
Happy Thanksgiving to all!

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

https://nggmrs.org/

14 linked repeaters many of which are overlapping and on high sites. Tell me again this isn't hogging.

Besides yourself, is anyone complaining? North Georgia has rough heavily foliaged terrain, the overlap might not be what you think it is.

 

[jeepsandradios]

Looking at the frequency list and locations Im sure you could drop a repeater in the mix in certain locations and cause no issues. Alot of GA has no repeaters. With that said I'd be curious to know how much of the "linked" stuff is actually at good sites. 75% of the GMRS guys who want a repeater build them with junk on there house or garage. Linking a repeater that covers 5 miles is the only way they can talk.

As said its all about location. I can drive 100 miles any direction from my house and not find a repeater even though there are some listed out there. None work or are even there. Traveling all over the east coast for work in my truck I rarely find a good GMRS repeater online. There are a couple in NY and PA but thats all I have found.

 

[rescue161]

The two that I have are on commercial sites. One is at 290 feet and the other is at 508 feet. They both do very well and cover the local beaches and surrounding counties.

 

[MTS2000des]

Besides yourself, is anyone complaining? North Georgia has rough heavily foliaged terrain, the overlap might not be what you think it is.

Yes. Many others have GMRS repeaters (including myself) and this hog operation is not within the spirit of the service or IMO, properly operating per 95.359 because one can't effectively ensure that all linked repeater frequencies aren't in use before keying up. Color it anyway you want, it's just being piggish.

What I don't understand is that most of these GMRS linked systems are run "part 97" style with nets, jaw jacking, etc. Why not build this stuff out on part 97 where it is more appropriate, a plethora of spectrum exists, and there are at least in most areas, some method of coordination in effect? GMRS is supposed to be for family and personal communications, not a replacement for part 97 or even part 90.

 

[MTS2000des]

I'll add this: the basis and purpose of part 97 and part 95 differ greatly. Amateur radio is all about expanding the art of radio, pushing the envelope, and encouraging licensees to build, experiment and construct linked repeaters, RoIP, cross band/modes, play with digital modes both commercial and new/upcoming digital modes. This is why as part 97 licensees we have freedom and flexibility. Basically, you CAN unless the rules specifically say YOU CAN'T.

Part 95 is not an experimenters' playground. With limited (channelized) spectrum of less than 8 pairs and another 14 simplex frequencies, it isn't practical or in the spirit or letter of the law to do what many are. While I myself would think it would be great if digital modes such as DMR, NXDN or P25 would be lawful for part 95 use, the rules as they are written prohibit it. Yet many do because, in what is now what I call "Consequence Free USA", they give the middle finger to everyone (including the FCC) and do as they wish without RESPECT for anyone else.

But at the end of the day, no amount of self-righteous justification negates the fact that they are being piggish and selfish and operating against the rules.

 

[jeepsandradios]

But at the end of the day, no amount of self-righteous justification negates the fact that they are being piggish and selfish and operating against the rules.

I don't see where they are operating out of the rules. If you want to use the system pay the cash and use it. I'm all about using my own stuff but if they have a good system and you can support it why wouldn't you just use that system ? I spend more than $45 a year for electric at one site....I'd love to be able to pay $45 for the entire year and not have to pay my bill...