North Georgia GMRS linked systems

[MTS2000des]

A quote from your post #13 above:

"You can always put your repeater up and use the same PL combo. Everyone has to share. If they don't like it, they can disable their repeater, but at the end of the day, you have just as much authority to use those frequencies as authorized under 95.359 and everyone has to follow the rules. ".

You are suggesting intentional interference which in my opinion denies you any high ground in this discussion.

Nope, try again. I am suggesting he put up his repeater and enjoy his privileges the same way any other licensee should. At the end of the day, NGMRS has to SHARE the frequencies as any other licensee. Hogging all 8 pairs with linked repeaters essentially bolsters my point that one can't effectively NOT interfere with someone else as one can't possibly monitor all 8 pairs at geographically disparate sites.

The O/P has a valid point. He's being obstructed by utilizing his license by another licensee who feels to the need to simulcast on all 8 available repeater pairs in his vicinity and beyond by that single licensee.

Suggesting he be forced to pay to join an organization is ludicrous. If he desires to put up a system, he should have every right to use his license as the next guy.

These large, linked systems are not congruent with the basis and purpose of personal radio services. That's either an SMR disguised as a personal use model, or more appropriate for part 97 use where there is a copious amount of spectrum, coordination of repeaters, and no restrictions on things like digital modes, closed repeaters, etc.

 

[W2JEL]

I appreciate everybody's input. Looks like I have no option but to join and pay the yearly fee or give up. I will not be joining, it's total hogging in my book. Who wants to support or represent a group who behaves in this fashion or manner? This is wrong in so many ways. I appreciate y'all's help and efforts. There website has a boatload of repeaters listed that are sitting at scary high elevations. 90 percent are linked and the few that aren't will be linked soon! 👎

Could you ask them to let you on if you set up your repeater on their system and wave the fee since you are supplying the equipment. Worst thing they could say is no.

 

[MTS2000des]

Could you ask them to let you on if you set up your repeater on their system and wave the fee since you are supplying the equipment. Worst thing they could say is no.

Why should he have to join? He indicates he wants to use his own equipment.

Again, 95.359 is pretty crystal clear to me. No one has exclusive use of ANY PRS allocation. Everyone has to SHARE.
This means one has just as much right to use a given pair as another.

So, since no one answered, I'll ask again:

How can a user of one linked repeater effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters to ensure ALL frequencies are clear before transmitting so as to operate in compliance with 95.359?

Simple answer: it is not possible henceforth the interference the O/P gets when he's trying to lawfully enjoy HIS equipment from HIS site he's paying for, and some linked border blaster keys up automatically because of a linked repeater connected to it, as that user at a distant site has no clue the O/Ps pair is in use. Nevermind ROIP like Zello, etc being thrown into the mix.

Seems it's time for an FCC answer. Maybe I'll reach out to them and ask for clarification. They are, after all, the only authority that matters.

 

[tweiss3]

Why should he have to join? He indicates he wants to use his own equipment.

Again, 95.359 is pretty crystal clear to me. No one has exclusive use of ANY PRS allocation. Everyone has to SHARE.
This means one has just as much right to use a given pair as another.

So, since no one answered, I'll ask again:

How can a user of one linked repeater effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters to ensure ALL frequencies are clear before transmitting so as to operate in compliance with 95.359?

Simple answer: it is not possible henceforth the interference the O/P gets when he's trying to lawfully enjoy HIS equipment from HIS site he's paying for, and some linked border blaster keys up automatically because of a linked repeater connected to it, as that user at a distant site has no clue the O/Ps pair is in use. Nevermind ROIP like Zello, etc being thrown into the mix.

Seems it's time for an FCC answer. Maybe I'll reach out to them and ask for clarification. They are, after all, the only authority that matters.

Not to mention the $25,000 minimum in user fees they collect a year based on their published numbers.

 

[W2JEL]

Why should he have to join? He indicates he wants to use his own equipment.

Again, 95.359 is pretty crystal clear to me. No one has exclusive use of ANY PRS allocation. Everyone has to SHARE.
This means one has just as much right to use a given pair as another.

So, since no one answered, I'll ask again:

How can a user of one linked repeater effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters to ensure ALL frequencies are clear before transmitting so as to operate in compliance with 95.359?

Simple answer: it is not possible henceforth the interference the O/P gets when he's trying to lawfully enjoy HIS equipment from HIS site he's paying for, and some linked border blaster keys up automatically because of a linked repeater connected to it, as that user at a distant site has no clue the O/Ps pair is in use. Nevermind ROIP like Zello, etc being thrown into the mix.

Seems it's time for an FCC answer. Maybe I'll reach out to them and ask for clarification. They are, after all, the only authority that matters.

It was only a suggestion. Some clarification from the FCC would be helpful.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I want to put up my own repeater for my family and friends, respect the rules and not cause interference? As MTS 2000 stated I have just as much of a right under my license to operate a station as you do. I guess you were here first so that makes you entitled to the frequencies? I will not put up a station because I will interfere with yours. And I'm not that type of person who wants get into a p*ssing contest. So I get your point. Do you get mine? You can sleep good tonight knowing you won the battle. I'm throwing in the towel and no thanks on the membership. Super tacky BTW putting an advertising spot on a public forum. My grandad was right.

I don't understand your repeated use of the words " you and yours". I have nothing to do with the N Georgia system. Nor have I put up any advertisements. I see you are a newbie on here. Perhaps you should read some threads to understand the rules and also what PL squelch is all about. at the end of the day you have three options play your own game with your own repeater, join the cooperative, or don't play at all.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Nope, try again. I am suggesting he put up his repeater and enjoy his privileges the same way any other licensee should. At the end of the day, NGMRS has to SHARE the frequencies as any other licensee. Hogging all 8 pairs with linked repeaters essentially bolsters my point that one can't effectively NOT interfere with someone else as one can't possibly monitor all 8 pairs at geographically disparate sites.

The O/P has a valid point. He's being obstructed by utilizing his license by another licensee who feels to the need to simulcast on all 8 available repeater pairs in his vicinity and beyond by that single licensee.

Suggesting he be forced to pay to join an organization is ludicrous. If he desires to put up a system, he should have every right to use his license as the next guy.

These large, linked systems are not congruent with the basis and purpose of personal radio services. That's either an SMR disguised as a personal use model, or more appropriate for part 97 use where there is a copious amount of spectrum, coordination of repeaters, and no restrictions on things like digital modes, closed repeaters, etc.

This is exactly what you said. Don't be backing away from it.

"You can always put your repeater up and use the same PL combo. Everyone has to share. If they don't like it, they can disable their repeater, but at the end of the day, you have just as much authority to use those frequencies as authorized under 95.359 and everyone has to follow the rules. ".

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Not to mention the $25,000 minimum in user fees they collect a year based on their published numbers.

Have you priced the lease for commercial tower rentals? This is why so many ham repeaters have shut down.

 

[MTS2000des]

This is exactly what you said. Don't be backing away from it.

"You can always put your repeater up and use the same PL combo. Everyone has to share. If they don't like it, they can disable their repeater, but at the end of the day, you have just as much authority to use those frequencies as authorized under 95.359 and everyone has to follow the rules. ".

I am not backing away from anything.

The O/P can use whatever PL/DPL combo they wish. If it happens to be the same as someone else, so be it. Nothing illegal about that. If anything it ensures that everyone will hear everyone and be cognitive of others use of the channels before keying down.

Oh wait, linked repeaters can't do that.

Again...

How can a user of one linked repeater effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters to ensure ALL frequencies are clear before transmitting so as to operate in compliance with 95.359?

Crickets chirping..

 

[MTS2000des]

Not to mention the $25,000 minimum in user fees they collect a year based on their published numbers.

I really don't have a problem with that. Repeaters cost money. I know I have several and I've funded them out of pocket.

What I have an issue with is dominating all 8 channels with linked repeaters that clearly preclude one from following the rules without causing interference to others.

95.359 is cut and dry. The O/P's point is he should be able to use those pairs as much as NGMRS, you or I or any other licensee.

 

[tweiss3]

Have you priced the lease for commercial tower rentals? This is why so many ham repeaters have shut down.

Yes, I have. The even bigger problem is to get someone to even talk to you anymore.

 

[ur20v]

Setting your repeaters output frequency to their input frequency might get their attention and open a channel of communication, so to speak...

(I realize this behavior is no better than the clown monopolizing all the frequency pairs, but maybe if the op plays dumb he can ascertain whether the repeater network owner/operator really is a bully acting maliciously or if they're actually just ignorant to the consequences and repercussions of their actions. Maybe some kind of public dispute, altercation, or confrontation is needed for the FCC to take notice and modify the regulations to prevent this exact situation.)

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Ok here is the sitch;
I want to set up a free coffee shop for my friends and family. I inherited the brewing equipment from my uncle. I have a lease on a corner here in Atlanta but folks are lined up in front of my sidewalk to go into a Starbucks next door. They are charging for coffee ($5.00!!) at the place next door and the folks are noisy and cliquish. Some of them, the noisiest ones, I have seen at the Ham club. The smell of their powerful coffee overwhelms the senses and makes my coffee seem weak, though I have had the kettle, filter and strainer all checked good. My landlord has not charged me until we sort this out. This big awful Starbucks organization has stores at every other corner in my city and moving to another location, will be just the same. We just want free coffee without having to be with strange cliquish people (and Hams). Some of them are entire families. Can you imagine that? The nerve of them.

 

[ur20v]

Ok here is the sitch;
I want to set up a free coffee shop for my friends and family. I inherited the brewing equipment from my uncle. I have a lease on a corner here in Atlanta but folks are lined up in front of my sidewalk to go into a Starbucks next door. They are charging for coffee ($5.00!!) at the place next door and the folks are noisy and cliquish. Some of them, the noisiest ones, I have seen at the Ham club. The smell of their powerful coffee overwhelms the senses and makes my coffee seem weak, though I have had the kettle, filter and strainer all checked good. My landlord has not charged me until we sort this out. This big awful Starbucks organization has stores at every other corner in my city and moving to another location, will be just the same. We just want free coffee without having to be with strange cliquish people (and Hams). Some of them are entire families. Can you imagine that? The nerve of them.

I respect you as a very knowledgeable and experienced contributor here, and I usually agree with you, but not in this instance. And here's why - you're conflating business (coffee shops, etc.) with a public resource available to anyone with a license (that's easily attainable) and the equipment to utilize it (easily obtainable).

A (hopefully) better analogy:

The city streets are available for everyone to drive upon, as long as they have a valid license issued by the government, and the vehicle they drive is safely equipped operate on the roads and has been taxed by the government. A group of citizens formed a club, which is not prohibited, that charges its members dues and has get-togethers, outings, and group drives on the public roads. Recently those same people have started blocking off some of those public streets, only allowing club members to pass through their blockades and drive the roads. They have permission to use one road for their club activities, but they're supposed to share that road with other motorists who aren't club members. Instead they have taken over all the main thoroughfares, choking traffic in town. When the town constable does his patrol, he doesn't ask questions or look too closely at who is participating in the activities, he just believes there are several clubs taking advantage of their privileges, and since his cruiser gets waved through at every roadblock, he assumes so does everyone else who isn't a club member. Meanwhile a new club has formed, and they'd like to have an event of their own on one of the main roads, but the first club has all the available streets blocked off, and suggest that the newly form club dissolve and join there's if they want access to those public roads...

 

[MTS2000des]

Still waiting for an answer as to my original question. All the non-sequiturs about coffee shops are duck and dodge to my question:

How can a user of one linked repeater effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters to ensure ALL frequencies are clear before transmitting so as to operate in compliance with 95.359?

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Still waiting for an answer as to my original question. All the non-sequiturs about coffee shops are duck and dodge to my question:

How can a user of one linked repeater effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters to ensure ALL frequencies are clear before transmitting so as to operate in compliance with 95.359?

Well that is a good question because the FCC does not require anything beyond these scarce words.

"§ 95.359 Sharing of channels.

Unless otherwise provided in the subparts governing the individual services, all channels designated for use in the Personal Radio Services are available for use on a shared basis, and are not assigned by the FCC for the exclusive use of any person or station. 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."

I am finding it hard to believe that N Georgia group has simultaneously linked all 8 repeater pairs in the vicinity of the OP. Rather he can hear activity on all 8 from various points, some much more distant than others. If I were the OP I would construct on the channel that is most distant and weaker and call it a day.

I have a repeater in midtown. I operate it respectfully and pursuant to GMRS rules meaning I (and other users) must monitor to ensure no one is using the frequency before keying up. It isn't linked so it can't cause interference and we aren't hogging all 8 pairs either.

How any linked system can maintain compliance with part 95 rules which clearly state all frequencies are shared and no one can have exclusive use has been a question I have asked for years. How can one effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters before transmitting over a wide area and ensure they aren't stepping on someone?

Put your repeater up. It is just as much your right to exercise your privileges as any other licensee. If they aren't following the rules, they should be held accountable.

So by your own words you were able to construct and operate in "Midtown" (Atlanta?) successfully? I read elsewhere that you have several repeaters. Maybe the OP is just too late to the game.

 

[mmckenna]

Still waiting for an answer as to my original question. All the non-sequiturs about coffee shops are duck and dodge to my question:

How can a user of one linked repeater effectively monitor ALL linked repeaters to ensure ALL frequencies are clear before transmitting so as to operate in compliance with 95.359?

Obviously they cannot effectively do that. Best they could do would be to busy channel inhibit that repeater, but that's going to solve only the immediate collision issue. I'd guess that they are like many GMRS users and don't care about the rules and do whatever they want. Sometimes when someone feels the rules are too restrictive or it's too much of a challenge to meet them, they get really loose with the justifications for blowing off the rules. I could probably site this several times a day on the ham bands….

As I said above, if this group really is tying up all 8 repeater pairs in such a small area, then they are wasting a natural resource and disrespecting other GMRS users in the area.

On the other hand, there is zero guarantee in the FCC rules that any user gets unrestricted access to any frequency, in fact, it says we must share. A large group tying up all the repeater pairs may be extremely inconsiderate and wasteful, but it doesn't mean another GMRS user cannot put up their own machine on one of the 8 pairs with a separate PL/DPL. Where I used to live, there were repeaters on every GMRS pair, some where high level and had really good coverage. There were no 'free' GMRS pairs that didn't have a repeater on them. Users were adult enough to pick unused PL/DPL tones and set up accordingly. But none of those groups tied up each and every GMRS pair for their system.

It sounds like this specific group that is tying up all 8 pairs is doing the minimum on their system. If they really want that much coverage, a simulcast system, while expensive, would make them better neighbors. If they have enough money to run a system that covers all 8 pairs linked together, it's not a huge stretch to collapse all that down onto one repeater pair. I suspect that they want to keep costs down, but they should be respectful and design a system that doesn't impact the entire radio service.

Thankfully I'm several thousand miles away, so none of this directly impacts me. But, I can feel your pain.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I respect you as a very knowledgeable and experienced contributor here, and I usually agree with you, but not in this instance. And here's why - you're conflating business (coffee shops, etc.) with a public resource available to anyone with a license (that's easily attainable) and the equipment to utilize it (easily obtainable).

A (hopefully) better analogy:

The city streets are available for everyone to drive upon, as long as they have a valid license issued by the government, and the vehicle they drive is safely equipped operate on the roads and has been taxed by the government. A group of citizens formed a club, which is not prohibited, that charges its members dues and has get-togethers, outings, and group drives on the public roads. Recently those same people have started blocking off some of those public streets, only allowing club members to pass through their blockades and drive the roads. They have permission to use one road for their club activities, but they're supposed to share that road with other motorists who aren't club members. Instead they have taken over all the main thoroughfares, choking traffic in town. When the town constable does his patrol, he doesn't ask questions or look too closely at who is participating in the activities, he just believes there are several clubs taking advantage of their privileges, and since his cruiser gets waved through at every roadblock, he assumes so does everyone else who isn't a club member. Meanwhile a new club has formed, and they'd like to have an event of their own on one of the main roads, but the first club has all the available streets blocked off, and suggest that the newly form club dissolve and join there's if they want access to those public roads...

Not sure about your analogy. Maybe you live in LA.

Nobody is going to be happy with GMRS. Either they live somewhere with no local GMRS activity and are frustrated that their 10 watt Baofengshui radio cant reach the only GMRS repeater over in BigTown 100 miles away, or they live in Georgia where someone has brought the coverage to them for a measly $55 a year. Or they want to build a backyard repeater and are frustrated why two Baofengshui portables and a cheap Chinese duplexer work as a "repeater" for only a few hundred feet.

The technology can only do so much. Maybe they would be happier with a "Network Radio" that operates PTT over the 4G wireless?

 

[MTS2000des]

Well that is a good question because the FCC does not require anything beyond these scarce words.

"§ 95.359 Sharing of channels.

Unless otherwise provided in the subparts governing the individual services, all channels designated for use in the Personal Radio Services are available for use on a shared basis, and are not assigned by the FCC for the exclusive use of any person or station. 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."

Right, so like I have said multiple times in this thread. Linked repeaters can't exists and be in compliance based on the verbiage as written as a linked system will, without a doubt and as the O/P is stating is his/her experience, cause harmful interference to co-channel users.

So by your own words you were able to construct and operate in "Midtown" (Atlanta?) successfully? I read elsewhere that you have several repeaters. Maybe the OP is just too late to the game.

Uh wrong again. I have a single GMRS repeater in midtown ATL.
The rest of the repeaters are part 97.

Obviously they cannot effectively do that. Best they could do would be to busy channel inhibit that repeater, but that's going to solve only the immediate collision issue. I'd guess that they are like many GMRS users and don't care about the rules and do whatever they want. Sometimes when someone feels the rules are too restrictive or it's too much of a challenge to meet them, they get really loose with the justifications for blowing off the rules. I could probably site this several times a day on the ham bands….

And finally,a voice of experience and reason, versus more ad homimen nonsense on this subject. An old time SME has now spoken. A linked GMRS repeater system has the tendency and nature to cause interference to users of those shared frequencies by design. I believe the intention of such a system is to drive users to being subscribers on that mega-system versus being a good neighbor and following 95.359 as written.

 

[mmckenna]

I believe the intention of such a system is to drive users to being subscribers on that mega-system versus being a good neighbor and following 95.359 as written.

Intention, indifference or ignorance. Without knowing the individuals involved myself, I'd not venture a guess. No matter how you look at it, it's wrong.

But, nothing at all stopping the OP from putting up a GMRS repeater on a different tone and just dealing with it.
However, with non-coordinated repeaters, and lopsided coverage, being able to monitor for interference from a handheld with a less than ideal antenna, and a large GMRS groups repeater that may be out of range, could easily result in a user thinking the channel was free, but their own repeater causing interference to another user on the far side of the coverage area.

In other words, all this stuff depends on people being good neighbors —AND— understanding that interference happens and dealing with it. I believe this is the intent behind the GMRS rules. "Get along, but deal with it, and we're not going to try to coordinate this particular S#¡† show"

GMRS is limited, we should all work within those limitations. Large GMRS repeater group sounds like they are not taking that into consideration. If I was going to run such a system, I'd do it much different. But I ain't, and I'm not going to.