JLeikhim

It could very well be that the owners of those two repeaters are unaware of each other. When you are in a mountainous area in Tennessee, the signals can go quite far and since you happen to hear them, I assume you are in a good location to hear both repeaters. That does not mean 90% of the actual users of each repeater are experiencing a problem 90% of the time. But if you hear a lot of regular traffic hitting both repeaters, than yes it may be a problem needing attention. The custodians of those two repeaters could coordinate a change of tones between them. That is a normal thing. Looks like they may have discovered a legal method of linking!

It would be very problematic if someone were to use other than 5 MHz pairing for their repeater. If for example your output is 462.550 and your input is 467.725 , you will have no way to monitor the repeater output at 462.725 MHz and potentially will interfere with or block users on the 462.725/467.725 repeater.

OK troll. You are so full of BS it is now time to flush PLONK, there goes the ignore button. You are the first on this forum for me. Bye bye....

both very true...

Post a copy of the FCC complaint you have already filed regarding harm some specific GMRS linking has caused you. I will eat crow. But no fake stuff please, it will be verified...

The problem with this whole thread and threads just like it elsewhere, is that folks complain about stuff that "happened to someone else" Anecdotal stories. I am not here to denigrate the sad hams. For the Sad Hams who need a definition of that: "while there was much anecdotal evidence there was little hard fact". But I won't mince words. Most of the complaints expressed on line are plain cow excrement. No one to date, has actually filed a complain with the FCC nor have the FCC noticed anyone for an apparent violation (FCC terms) . If you have such hard evidence, post it here. Dare ya.....

They never can. Its all made up in their vivid imagination. You would have to believe that UHF has some special propogation power that they can hear linking on all 8 channels at their location. Nobody is going to that expense to saturate the channels.

Very true. Some cannot tell a white lie to save themselves. "Everyone in this room is ON THE SPECTRUM and don't kid yourself. .. Paraphrasing Frank Zappa.....

So you are apparently not a victim. You are just vocal about linking because it offends your "technological sensibilities". The co-channel issue can be mitigated by simple CSQ activity timer on repeater RX and transmitter lock timer out added to the linked repeater. This is a proven technology and done in Part 90.

I don't see a lot of overlap here. The "little guy" still has 4 channels or more. https://w8cmn.net/mi8/

Where are you located? Which channels are being linked around you? Curious, seeking facts..

If you are an individual who puts up a receiver to link one or more GMRS channels and broadcast them across the internet there is nothing illegal about that. Its like Broadcastify. The FCC rules do not preclude that. Now conversely, if you set up a small studio in your home and broadcast your bloviating across the country to GMRS transmitters, that would be a violation of the one way broadcast prohibition.

To date, the FCC has never issued any notice of violation to any GMRS licensee for linking. These letters are all accessible on the FCC website by general search or via the Enforcement Bureau. In my opinion, the majority of the detractors have some sour grapes and just want to condemn something others enjoy. I doubt they live somewhere where all 8 channels are unavailable for whatever reason. Perhaps NYC/Long Island, but not the Carolina's or even Florida.

As a disclaimer, I do not operate a linked repeater. But I would consider it and I think it can be appropriate. Decades ago a GMRS repeater in Chicago extended portable coverage well into the suburbs using SpectraTac voting and satellite receivers, over leased (Not PSTN) phone circuits and did so without any problems.

Yeah, I am not sure I would want two repeaters overlapping. Ideally the overlap should be at the edge of the contour . This one is a hard nut to crack as it has to account for the fact that you can probably find a high point in Georgia where you will hear 8 repeaters. But that should not be a consideration. There may be a case where you need three repeaters to cover a county and the coverage will nearly touch and someone in a high rise will hear all three, though on the ground, you hear only one. . This is not mission critical stuff and should not be regulated such that it is.

There are forums that are predominantly hams and yes, they are the most vocal. Many have GMRS licenses as well, but for the most part they are complaining about something that does not affect them . Lets think about this. Has any GMRS licensee lodged a formal complaint to the FCC about linking? I have spent hours looking at the Enforcement Bureau database and no complaints about linking.

What the rules actually read: § 95.1767 GMRS transmitting power limits. This section contains transmitting power limits for GMRS stations. The maximum transmitting power depends on which channels are being used and the type of station. (a) 462/467 MHz main channels. The limits in this paragraph apply to stations transmitting on any of the 462 MHz main channels or any of the 467 MHz main channels. Each GMRS transmitter type must be capable of operating within the allowable power range. GMRS licensees are responsible for ensuring that their GMRS stations operate in compliance with these limits. (1) The transmitter output power of mobile, repeater and base stations must not exceed 50 Watts. (2) The transmitter output power of fixed stations must not exceed 15 Watts. (b) 462 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of mobile, hand-held portable and base stations transmitting on the 462 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 5 Watts. (c) 467 MHz interstitial channels. The effective radiated power (ERP) of hand-held portable units transmitting on the 467 MHz interstitial channels must not exceed 0.5 Watt. Each GMRS transmitter type capable of transmitting on these channels must be designed such that the ERP does not exceed 0.5 Watt.

"the transmitter output into the antenna or impedance matching circuit" Easy enough. I have one of these Z-Match babies right after my duplexer.

Now I am sure that MyGMRS.com may have a contrary opinion to what I have stated above, especially with limiting operations within boundaries of each state, however the community needs to police itself and set some guidelines. If not, then the FCC will not take a second look and will ban linking outright. The detractors are mainly from Part 97 users who are attacking GMRS linking practices vehemently. I am not saying they are right, but there are improvements that can and should be made if GMRS wants to chart its own course.

Regarding the Change.org petition. There is a typo in the number of the rule # in a subsequent paragraph shown as 95.1722 where 95.1733 is correct. And do we want 95.1749 removed? It is a permissive paragraph simply spoiled by 95.1733(8). I sent a letter to FCC DRO and CC'd decision.makers@change.org. Here is what I added: NOTES ADDED BY Joe Leikhim: During the 2017 NPRM to rewrite the GMRS rules I questioned the rule 95.1733(8) which conflicted with new rules pertaining to network connection. It appeared on one hand that remote control via Internet was permitted, yet on the other hand 95.1733(8) prohibited such. My comment was met with a reply that the FCC could did not have resources to research the rule at the time. If you check the Federal Register you will see my comment and the reply and reference in footnotes (Leikhim). I have done some research and the wording in 95.1733(8) predates the 2017 ruling by decades. I believe that it once pertained to a control operator being required for repeater operations. (Prior to rules permitting Automatic control) That prohibition and other fragmented rules persisted for decades and were as such, scriveners errors. The original intent was to permit remote control of a repeater (enable and disable) via tones carried on the PSTN along as voice was not carried. This prohibition has now created great confusion within the community and I suspect within the Commission itself because the rule was written decades ago, by folks who are no longer able to say why it was there. This raises additional questions: Why were 95.1749 and 95.1745 crafted if not to permit interconnection with the Internet (or other networks)? § 95.1745 GMRS remote control. Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. What constitutes "Remote Control"? In all other services, operation by remote control does not preclude transmission of information (Voice). I urge the commission to revisit the rules with an eye toward permissive linking of repeaters. 1) Linking is often required because it is no longer economical to obtain prime tower height in most of the country. 2) Linking can provide a public service to the community. This has been demonstrated. 3) Linking can enhance public safety for the community. There are numerous outages of power and cellular services every year. 4) Natural and Manmade disasters occur daily. We can agree that linking poses some problems. The following address those issues. 5) Linked repeaters should operate on a secondary basis to repeaters that are for local use. 6) Linked repeaters should monitor their repeater input frequency (467.xxx) for co-channel traffic having a different or no selective squelch code. This has been employed in Part 90 systems to protect co-channel repeaters. This is a simple addition of hardware or software to apply logic and timers to provide polite monitoring of the channel. For example, if a co-channel repeater user transmits within 15 second period prior to a linked control signal arriving at a remotely linked repeater. The linked repeater shall hold off linked transmissions for another 15 seconds. 7) Linked repeaters should have a secondary selective squelch code for local traffic. In that way repeater users can hail one another over the link and then switch to the local repeater operation minimizing traffic over the wider area. Linked repeaters should transmit a valid callsign of the custodian within 15 minutes after being activated. 9) Linked repeaters should not extend outside the state where they are to be operated. No interstate systems. This is unnecessary and only creates unneeded traffic. 10) Linked repeaters should not overlap such that three or more channels are utilized in same area. This will require minimal engineering by the operators to ensure that their repeaters do not monopolize resources. The guidelines should be made simple enough to utilize open source coverage software. 11) The above rules should be phased in over a period of time to allow for modifications to existing systems. I hope these suggestions are helpful in allowing permissive use of linking in the GMRS band. I hope these address the concerns voiced by some. Back to the petition some of which may differ from what I stated above:

This topic is totally incorrect. 95.1749 reads exactly as it did in the NPRM and Federal Register in August 2017. Any idiot with half a brain can look at the current rules as posted today and the Federal Register in 2017 and they will see no change by the FCC The FCC did not have knee jerk reaction to all the "Sad Hams" lamenting the rules of the GMRS service and operators of said service. Nothing changed, Nobody cares.

Here is FCC Response to me in 2017 rulemaking : WT Docket 10-119 (FCC 17-57) "Finally, a commenter requested that we delete the GMRS prohibition on messages that are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station. [125] We find there is insufficient record in the proceeding to make a determination on these issues at this time." 95.1733 (#8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station;" The FCC kicked it down the road because FCC has no idea why that prohibition is in the rules. The issue is that 95.1733 prohibition #8 above, is not related to the current interpretation of network interconnection. I believe it and another paragraph are scrivenors errors, text that was left in place from deletion of old rules. It would take some research, however, there was a point in time when repeaters were a new thing in the eyes of the FCC and an actual control operator was needed to shut off the repeater if misused. Interestingly, you could use a dial up line to turn on and off the repeater, but you could not convey trafffic as that would be interconnection to the PSTN. Old technology, old rule, not removed. Detractors will try to leverage that mistake, and the FCC no longer has the institutional knowledge to determine that the prohibition should no longer exist. Getting this resolved should be done by a paid attorney like "AT" (Mr 800 MHz Rebanding) to research all of the records and determine for the FCC that it does not belong in the rules. Asking the FCC for an opinion, is likely to get an uninformed, negative result. It appears this unofficial heads up is from an FCC official acting without doing the research behind this conflicting prohibition in the current rules.

The rules were never changed. Same as written in 2017 Federal Register. The link you cite is not the rules, but is a staff interpretation. A misguided one.

The 50 watt mobiles will transmit on the 8 sole, repeater/simplex channels and create havoc for other GMRS users. Bad idea, even for "rural" .

There is only one day left to post YOUR comments on this critical item. Only 6 so far have commented in dissent. You can make an express comment filing if you wish . I did, and mine was wordy. My old boss had a saying about allowing a camel to put his nose in the tent. Eventually you have the whole camel in your tent. Midland is interested only in maximizing sales of product, not protecting the GMRS service. You might like their product, fine, but Midland wants to distort the rules to sell product, without any regard to the technology that has existed since the inception of GMRS many decades ago. Point of fact, they have no problem ignoring that GMRS is a wide band 16K0F3E emission and sell radios that are narrow band and are reduced in performance. They did some trickery on one already certified radio model and claimed it could be made wide band via software. If so, it would be illegal to do so. So far I have no evidence that the software slipped out the back door, actually works. That is the company Midland. 1) More digital noises on the channels will become very annoying. I can tell you from experience, that the rodger beeps from FRS radios at the national parks will drive you nuts. Now with 50 watts and persistent GPS locations from 5 or 10 ATV's and voice communications will be impossible. Yes you can use PL but, if you are in the wilderness, sometimes it can be a safety net to listen in CSQ. Midland can do all this SMS messaging and geolocation on 900 MHz ISM band like their competition in this space. They can have mesh networking as well and extend the footprint substantially. 2) A digital voice option in GMRS would be great. However Midland describes a 4:1 TDMA solution that will not work in simplex which is 99% of their market. They are apparently un-knowledgeable about this and have thrown it in for arguments sake. If Midland were to develop such a product, it would not be a standard like P25 or DMR, it would be proprietary and incompatible with everyone else (Like Yaesu C4FM Fusion). If the radios are strictly digital, there would be no interoperability with existing FM wide band radios. Good luck on calling for help with your radios as you hear only digital voice. Midland can also do this on 900 MHz ISM band like Motorola DTR. There would need to be no FCC rule changes as ISM rules are very flexible. None of what Midland has proposed should be approved. Especially adding digital data to high power radios. If a digital voice option is to be considered, it should be described by the user community and should be a recognized standard like DMR and should have FM wide band mode as a primary mode of operation for interoperability with existing radio population. Frankly, a blanket approval of part 90 DMR radios, would be sufficient. But Midland wants more than that as a proprietary option will be cheaper to make and will lock in users to their crappy brand. Please dissent on Midlands entire proposal and do so quickly. An Express Comment is fine. Just Say No to bad engineering. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/docket-detail/RM-11970