My own opinion

[nhmeskywarn]

In regards to the GMRS repeaters the state of Maine has poor cellular areas in which is difficult
to deal with. using the system link is not as bad as long as it's not linked to the internet like VOIP
voice over internet protocol. A lot of those doing it is more used and linked to ZELLO a two way walkie talkie app
The people who linked the repeaters to ZELLO and the internet are there ones breaking the rules. From
where I'm from we use system linked repeaters but are not linked up or hooked into the internet.

So far as I'm concerned the FCC has not said too much on it since its a debated issue especially
when it came to discussion of DELETE DELETE was brought up this past summer

Just wanted to share my thoughts

 

[AK9R]

Linking GMRS repeaters is not a "debated issue" in the FCC's eyes. The FCC clearly states on their website:

"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."

The fact that the FCC has not taken action against particular linked GMRS repeater systems is not an indication that the FCC is OK with that practice. IOW, link at your own risk.

As for the FCC's "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative, any proposed rule changes would have to be published by the FCC and time allowed for public comment. All that the FCC has done, so far, regarding "Delete, Delete, Delete" is clean up some out-of-date and no-longer-applicable language in some of its rules. No changes to allow linking of GMRS repeaters have been proposed by the FCC in recent history.

 

[mmckenna]

GMRS isn't the right tool for this. Never was.
GMRS was intended to be a short range radio service for families:

"The GMRS is available to an individual for short-distance two-way communications to facilitate the activities of licensees and their immediate family members. Each licensee manages a system consisting of one or more transmitting units (stations.)"​

General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS)

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

www.fcc.gov

​

Trying to twist the rules into making GMRS into something it was never intended to be, and then claim the rules are wrong, isn't going to fly with most of us. FCC has made it abundantly clear.

 

[W8UU]

Out of curiosity, what are you hoping to do in New Hampshire with linked GMRS repeaters?

• If it's wide-area (non-business) communications with other radio users, ham radio is a much better fit.
• If it's point to point communications with family members and friends, the cell phone network is an excellent choice.
• If cell service in your area isn't great -- and you qualify as a business or license-able organization -- a VHF (high band or low band) business band frequency may fill the bill.
• Renting space on a community business repeater may also be an option but they tend to be pricey.

As others have mentioned, GMRS is designed for very local voice communications. Your neighborhood, your block watch group, your CERT team, your part of town, or maybe citywide coverage (or part of a small county) with a well-placed hilltop repeater and mobile radios.

Prior to the FCC's clarification, there were GMRS repeater owners and groups that locked up all eight frequency pairs with these linked multiple-site UHF monsters. And they did it for rag-chewing. That's not what GMRS was designed to be. GMRS is a personal radio service for your family (or a small business, like a farm, that employs family members) to communicate over short distances with the clarity of FM and without the skip interference present on the 27 MHz CB channels.

I'm very happy keeping things as they are. There is no other service that offers this low cost flexibility.

 

[nhmeskywarn]

W

Linking GMRS repeaters is not a "debated issue" in the FCC's eyes. The FCC clearly states on their website:

"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."

The fact that the FCC has not taken action against particular linked GMRS repeater systems is not an indication that the FCC is OK with that practice. IOW, link at your own risk.

As for the FCC's "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative, any proposed rule changes would have to be published by the FCC and time allowed for public comment. All that the FCC has done, so far, regarding "Delete, Delete, Delete" is clean up some out-of-date and no-longer-applicable language in some of its rules. No changes to allow linking of GMRS repeaters have been proposed by the FCC in recent history.

Let me make this clear your attitude sucks the frequencies for scanners are poorly out of date the data base is really bad in fact your approach to my opinion was poorly immature *******s like you should be shutdown

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Linking GMRS repeaters is not a "debated issue" in the FCC's eyes. The FCC clearly states on their website:

"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."

The fact that the FCC has not taken action against particular linked GMRS repeater systems is not an indication that the FCC is OK with that practice. IOW, link at your own risk.

As for the FCC's "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative, any proposed rule changes would have to be published by the FCC and time allowed for public comment. All that the FCC has done, so far, regarding "Delete, Delete, Delete" is clean up some out-of-date and no-longer-applicable language in some of its rules. No changes to allow linking of GMRS repeaters have been proposed by the FCC in recent history.

Except... That FCC "position" is not actually how the rules read. The 2017 rules read as if interconnection via internet is now permitted. However there is a prohibition of sorts, (Prohibiting voice plus remote control) which conflicts, which is an ancient rule dating back to unattended repeaters requiring a control operator (on/off control) which could only be practically accomplished by PSTN. Old hams will remember the early days of repeaters and the need for an out of band remote control. Such option does not exist in GMRS. Now we have automated control of repeaters, so the original requirement is no longer required. However the prohibition survived several rule revisions. If you do the research, in old rules you will find now deleted paragraphs that reference this. During the NPRM I raised the question about this apparent scriveners error . The FCC was caught off guard and kicked it down the road. My questions are in the official record. The FCC has not punished anyone for this "infraction" likely because the rules were not meant to prohibit, rather to endorse interconnection with internet. I will agree some common sense corrections to the rule putting emphasis 1) Protecting co-channel repeaters. 2) Limiting numbers of linked channels that overlap to some number and % of area. 3) Making local repeat operation the priority over linked traffic.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

As others have mentioned, GMRS is designed for very local voice communications. Your neighborhood, your block watch group, your CERT team, your part of town, or maybe citywide coverage (or part of a small county) with a well-placed hilltop repeater and mobile radios.

GMRS is a high performance service. Wide band moduilation 50 watts, virtually unlimited antenna height (subject to FAA) and antenna gain. There are no restrictions on the miles that a GMRS radio system may cover. None. That was another "myth" promoted on the FCC website.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

GMRS was intended to be a short range radio service for families:

See my reply above

 

[mmckenna]

See my reply above

Right, there's no limitation on range, other than the horizon.

I believe what the FCC was trying to do was keep it a useful radio service, as it was originally intended. Short range communications for families. Not a 'radio club' sticking up linked repeaters all over the state tying up pairs/simplex channels with 'nets', and long winded QSO's.

I've traveled through the Southwest where there was a large linked system like this and it was a pain in the ass. Some places the same conversations would be happening on multiple pairs. Conversations were not short, but long winded ham type rag chews, weather discussion, colonoscopy prep, etc.

Maybe what we need to do is have the FCC allow linking, but it -MUST- be done on a single pari and only a single pair. If repeaters overlap, simulcast systems must be used no exception. Each repeater must yield to local traffic on the output at all times. Time out timers must be set to 1 minute. A clock must be running that keeps the repeater quiet after 5 minutes of use for at least 5 minutes. No weekly 'nets'. No recorded messages.

If GMRS clubs want to play radio system operators, then they need to step up and play with the big boys.


Or, use one of the other suitable radio services. It's not hard to get a ham ticket. There are plenty of radio system operators that will lease space on trunked systems. LTE/WiFi radios are an option.
Basically the same thing that everyone else has to do.

 

[Quickcall]

I didn't know you could get a negative reaction score. OP must be fighting for his life in these forums.

 

[W8UU]

If we need to add more FCC rules to clarify multiple repeater overlap percentages, designate certain frequency pairs for linked systems, and mandate synchronized multicast systems for wide area coverage, you're well beyond what GMRS was ever intended to be. I'm in favor of leaving GMRS alone as is. We already share low power frequencies with FRS. Adding several or many high profile linked repeaters just makes the interference increase and the band becomes more unusable.

For those who just want to ragchew, Amateur Radio is always available and there are idle repeater pairs in multiple bands just about everywhere in the USA. The actual hourly use of many repeaters is so low, the owners may treasure your offer to share costs to build out or link their repeater to a wider geographic area. A technician class ticket is easy to get and it opens a world of communications possibilities.

A community service nonprofit group like CERT, Skywarn, REACT, or an emergency communications club may qualify under 90.20 (a) 2 (vii) for a public safety radio frequency and license as a disaster relief organization. The understanding here is the frequency can only be used for an impending or actual emergency situation and any training necessary to prepare for that event. No personal business. No ragchewing.

You might also make the argument that community service groups qualify as philanthropic organizations under 90.35 (a) 2 for business band frequencies. The authorized communications guidelines are less rigid than public safety, but again, its not for personal communications or general conversation.

LTE systems, WiFi portables, and cellular phones are other viable options depending on what you need.

For what you'd spend building a GMRS network, there are other options that are just as good or better and that may be more economical.

 

[AK9R]

Let me make this clear your attitude sucks

My supervisor said that...once. So, I retired with my full pension and 401(k).

the frequencies for scanners are poorly out of date

Oh, really? I actually have nothing to do with the database. But, you are welcome to make submissions to help improve the database.

the data base is really bad

Please contact @wa8pyr and @blantonl to let them know how the database can be improved. Again, the database is not my responsibility.

in fact your approach to my opinion was poorly immature *******s like you should be shutdown

My approach to your opinion was to quote what the FCC says in their website. So, maybe you want the FCC shutdown, too? You could ask your Congressional representatives to get right on that.

 

[J-Wrock]

Let me make this clear your attitude sucks the frequencies for scanners are poorly out of date the data base is really bad in fact your approach to my opinion was poorly immature *******s like you should be shutdown

You created this thread to express your opinion about GMRS repeaters in Maine. I respect your opinion and am not going to get into the weeds of what the FCC or any other regulation says about GMRS use. However, the post I quoted above clearly suggests you do not like hearing people disagree with your opinion, to which I have to ask: then why post your opinion on a public forum?

Is there a reason to this thread?

 

[nokones]

There are a couple true simulcast systems in the southwest that use the same frequency pairs. One is a three site system and I am not sure how many sites the other system involves. The three site system has a transmitter at the 7,600 foot elevation and the other two sites are apparently are low level sites.

It appears that the system is phased pretty good. Very little wah wahs and an occasional warble. I'm not sure how they are controlling the system, it may be by microwave.

 

[rf_patriot200]

W

Let me make this clear your attitude sucks the frequencies for scanners are poorly out of date the data base is really bad in fact your approach to my opinion was poorly immature *******s like you should be shutdown

I didn't see a problem with his Reply, could it just be Your misunderstanding ... Perhaps?

 

[KevinC]

I didn't see a problem with his Reply, could it just be Your misunderstanding ... Perhaps?

It's not the answer he was looking for, so he lashed out.

 

[J-Wrock]

I didn't see a problem with his Reply, could it just be Your misunderstanding ... Perhaps?

Entirely possible. His last line of "in fact your approach to my opinion was poorly immature *******s like you should be shutdown" hit me wrong.

 

[nokones]

Out of curiosity, what are you hoping to do in New Hampshire with linked GMRS repeaters?

• If it's wide-area (non-business) communications with other radio users, ham radio is a much better fit.
• If it's point to point communications with family members and friends, the cell phone network is an excellent choice.
• If cell service in your area isn't great -- and you qualify as a business or license-able organization -- a VHF (high band or low band) business band frequency may fill the bill.
• Renting space on a community business repeater may also be an option but they tend to be pricey.

As others have mentioned, GMRS is designed for very local voice communications. Your neighborhood, your block watch group, your CERT team, your part of town, or maybe citywide coverage (or part of a small county) with a well-placed hilltop repeater and mobile radios.

Prior to the FCC's clarification, there were GMRS repeater owners and groups that locked up all eight frequency pairs with these linked multiple-site UHF monsters. And they did it for rag-chewing. That's not what GMRS was designed to be. GMRS is a personal radio service for your family (or a small business, like a farm, that employs family members) to communicate over short distances with the clarity of FM and without the skip interference present on the 27 MHz CB channels.

I'm very happy keeping things as they are. There is no other service that offers this low cost flexibility.

Rapid Radios could be a cheap option contingent on any available and compatible supporting networks.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I'm in favor of leaving GMRS alone as is.

Actually I am as well, even with the error I have mentioned. If we start trying to change things willy nilly, that could really have an unwanted effect. As an individual licensee I have neither the time, money or legal support to Lobby, navigate and educate the FCC staff on rulemaking. On the other hand, the FCC has had almost zero enforcement activity against GMRS operators. My last review of the Enforcement Bureau activities, if I recall correctly were 1) An unlicensed station used at a car dealership. 2) An operator in PA(?) abusing the airwaves. If one compares to other services, including Part 97 and 27 MHz CB this minuscule. The best things we can do as stewards of GMRS is to 1) Be licensed as those numbers add up and that gives protection against FCC reallocating this inviting piece of real estate that is in the way of potential repaving of UHF band for actual profit making services. Job creators get first bite unfortunately. 2) Don't be a jackass. Again don't be a jackass 3) If you do something you think bumps up against the guardrails, Like part 90 radios, be discreet and reasonable. Don't be cranking out 100 watts with your APX radio because you can. 4) This is primarily a service for individuals and their families. If a licensee has a legitimate business, they may conduct it using GMRS amongst family members (Not ranch hands from over yonder), and other licensees (Ranch hands with own licenses and their families). 5) There is no restriction on how far your system reaches. If you have a high mountain, go for it. This goes back to rule 2). 6) If you can operate a shared service (community repeater) you will make folks happy. But you are not obligated to accommodate them.

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

Let me make this clear... the frequencies for scanners are poorly out of date the data base is really bad

The database relies on user submissions to stay up to date. If you feel the frequencies you are seeing are "poorly out of date" then by all means make submissions with all pertinent info to get them correctly listed. Petulant name calling will get you nowhere fast here!

RR Database Submission Guidelines - The RadioReference Wiki

wiki.radioreference.com