All Activity

Where is it written? Nowhere. No one is saying that. OP was asking for a Charleston area repeater and we were just saying that one out in the boonies on Clements Ferry Road isn't really going to help the "Charleston area."

Where is it written a repeater installation by a private citizen MUST cover a population the size of Charleston, SC? Geezz...

I remember using pulse dial and even party lines.

I changed my phone settings from light to dark and it made no difference to the way notifications appear. I also adjusted my brightness way down and the notifications are still visible on my phone. Again I think it’s important to know what platform @UncleYoda is on, whether he is using a browser, and if so which one, or Tapatalk or the MyGMRS app. Im firmly convinced that the problem is exacerbated by his local settings but the light gray text on black background doesn’t help.

Well, I thought about going RV but decided against it. What I considered a decent rig was just too expensive with the limited use I'd put to it. I was looking at all-around unit, diesel powered of at least 20 foot. To address your question though, I would do both. Ham radio can be fun even with just the V/UHF bands and many radios sold for either service can do both ham/GMRS.

I used to hang around a bit with Kevin Mitnick back in the day building 2600Hz boxes until he started doing really crazy stuff.

I remember an interview with Steve Wozniak explaining how he would do this. I'm of the age but I wasn't privy to this info at the time... darn it

This would be my thought exactly Edit: that said I use Dark mode on my iPad and light on my Mac and don't have this issue, but the question remains what browser and setting is @UncleYoda using, or device for that matter

If you ever (knew anyone who) used the toy whistle from a Captain Crunch cereal box to get free long distance calling, you might be of that age.

The FCC has a ruling specifically exempting amateur radio. It's been 20 years since I read the most recent ruling, but the FCC published a docket in 2005/2006 time frame say something along the lines of 'amateur radio operators who volunteer to provide essential communications and warning links to supplement State and local government assets during emergencies, currently is sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency'. Due to Amateur Radio Services being used by the government for auxiliary communications services, they had been deemed exempt. Some people have debated if amateur repeater linking is a violation of 47 CFR § 97.113(a)(5), but there are zero examples of anyone actually being fine for it. Likely because of the aforementioned docket, which eventually lead to permanent changes in the rules in 2010, specifically 47 CFR § 97.219 and 47 CFR § 97.3.

"Once upon a time" You mean when I was a boy?

Search up :"Carterphone decision" Once upon a time, there was money to be made in Long Distance calling.

Let me ask you this. As someone who plans to RV full time starting in the next ten or so years; would you recommend I go for a HAM license? Or just stick with GMRS?

But if the argument for its "illegality" is because sending voice traffic through broadband is considered "theft of service," why would you allow the HAM community to do it? They have even more room to steal your service, so to speak. I am admittedly a neophyte in all this, but it seems to me far more likely that the FCC doesn't want "some people" talking too many fars. It's evident in the scalable nature of their licensing. FRS and MURS, no license, no fars. GMRS, license no test, some fars. HAM General, license and test, more fars. Ham technician, another test, even more fars. HAM Extra, one last test, most fars. Although to be fair, I think HF gets unlocked at level 2 HAM and that's about as far as you can talks. At least I think. No, I'm not sure it has anything to do with "theft of service." And if it does, I think one can easily make the case in 2025 that GMRS traffic is not taking money out of Verizon's pocket.

Probably more channels, but I'm not a HAM.

From an AI engine: No members of the U.S. Congress from Georgia directly oversee the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the sense of having sole authority or direct control, as the FCC is an independent federal agency overseen broadly by Congress through its committees. However, several Georgia lawmakers participate in committees that exercise oversight over the FCC and its policies, particularly those related to communications and technology. Key Congressional Committees with FCC Oversight The FCC is primarily overseen by: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, specifically its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. These committees hold hearings, review FCC policies, and influence legislation affecting the agency’s operations, such as broadband deployment, spectrum allocation, and telecommunications regulations. Georgia Members in Relevant Committees Based on available information, here are Georgia members of Congress involved in committees with FCC oversight as of August 2025: House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Representative Rick W. Allen (R-GA-12): Serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Led a bipartisan letter in 2021 with other Georgia lawmakers to the FCC, requesting updates on the implementation of the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act, indicating active engagement with FCC-related issues like broadband mapping. Representative Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA-01): Also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, giving him a role in FCC oversight. Signed the 2021 bipartisan letter to the FCC alongside Rep. Allen, focusing on broadband access for rural communities. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA): Serves on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which oversees the FCC. Co-signed the 2021 letter to the FCC, emphasizing the integration of Georgia’s broadband map data into federal mapping efforts. Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA): Also a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Engaged with FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks in 2023 to discuss expanding the Affordable Connectivity Program, showing involvement in FCC-related policy. Co-signed the 2021 letter to the FCC with other Georgia lawmakers. Other Georgia Lawmakers with FCC Engagement While not members of the primary oversight committees, other Georgia representatives have engaged with the FCC on specific issues, as evidenced by the 2021 bipartisan letter: Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA-02) Representative Drew Ferguson (R-GA-03) Representative Austin Scott (R-GA-08) Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA-09) Representative Jody Hice (R-GA-10) (Note: Hice is no longer in Congress as of 2025, having left office after the 117th Congress) Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA-11) These lawmakers signed the letter to the FCC requesting updates on broadband mapping, indicating interest in FCC activities, particularly those impacting rural broadband access in Georgia. Context of FCC Oversight The FCC is an independent agency created by the Communications Act of 1934, with five commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It regulates communications across radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Congressional oversight occurs through hearings, budget reviews, and legislative directives. The House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Commerce Committee regularly hold FCC oversight hearings, as seen in events like the June 21, 2023, House hearing and the June 24, 2020, Senate hearing. Georgia lawmakers, particularly those on these committees, influence FCC policies through legislation, letters, and public statements, focusing on issues like broadband access, which is critical for their state’s rural and underserved areas. Summary Georgia members of Congress actively involved in FCC oversight through committee roles include: House: Rep. Rick W. Allen (R-GA-12) and Rep. Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA-01) on the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Senate: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Other Georgia lawmakers, like Bishop, Ferguson, Scott, Clyde, and Loudermilk, have shown engagement with FCC issues, particularly broadband, but do not serve on the primary oversight committees. For the most current committee assignments or specific actions, checking the official House and Senate committee websites or recent congressional records would provide further clarity.

Good point!

OK, but then why is it legal to do so with HAM? They are still sending voice traffic over broadband, no? To be clear; I'm not disagreeing. Just looking for clarity.

Vocationally, I, on occasion, am paid to write things. One of my favorite lines to this day was a client talking to his clinically mandated psychologist. The shrink was trying to get him to open up and he, being sardonic and largely capable of bearing his own burdens, had been refusing. Also, he had some pretty dark passengers. When he finally decided to yield and talk about his issues, he led with "OK, fine. Let's put a Lambo in your garage." I thought it was witty.

This weekend I sat down and talked to an engineer who has been working with the FCC to shape rules for GMRS since before it was called GMRS. I got some pretty eye-opening information from him on the whole POTS v Broadband thing. He explained that linking a GMRS system to the POTS lines (no longer exists) and Broadband connections are legal (not a rule violation) for remote control... but not for voice traffic, because all POTS providers and now Broadband providers provide voice service for a fee. So, sending voice over POTS / Broadband is considered theft of services. That explains why remote operation of a PRS station from any location on the same premises where the transmitter is located, is not considered to be remote operation/remote control and why RF (non-network) linking for voice operation is not prohibited. No theft of services is occurring.

Here’s another notification.

Here’s what the pop-ups look like on my iPhone:

The rules don’t actually say that repeaters can’t be linked but the say that GMRS communications can’t be conveyed by any kind of network. The FCC has issued an interpretation that says that means no linking. It has yet to be tested and this is why lawyers have flashy cars.

Yeah, definitely nearly impossible to see. My notifications don’t look like that at all. I’ll try to catch one.