MaxHeadroom

I'd challenge that someone would need to actually make a node that passes Part 95 or Part 90 technical standards. All MMDVM-based designs are barely Part 97 acceptable which adds a burden of not only proving use case to the FCC but that there's appropriate equipment to meet that need. Granted I understand that becomes a chicken-and-egg argument in some ways but point is most "hotspots" are not compliant by any means right now.

I'll put it into my perspective from both working at an entity that controlled tower space statewide (on gov owned land), and as a "customer" of that entity as well on the other side: Up until VERY recently with some "clubs" using non-profit status to actually profit off their repeaters, only "commercial" entities were charged for a lease - not even power/HVAC consideration was charged. Your tower site was F R E E as long as you were putting it up for hobbyist/community use Most of those towers had abandon-in-place feed line and antennas on VHF and/or UHF. National Weather Service was famous for that so ham clubs were quick to snatch up those spots since they had to do zero work except drop a repeater and jumper at the site Some repeater owners got lucky enough to even find an abandon-in-place repeater to re-tune for their use Those that had to have any of the above installed on the site were able to get tower work done for free by state employee climbers of said entity - just had to wait until they had a reason to climb the tower for something else because they would not "do requests". Most repeater owners either know someone that has the equipment to tune/program infrastructure, if not have it themselves. I have an in-cal Freedom R8100 and will happily use it for anyone that truly wants a community open repeater... and I won't charge either. I only start to talk about money when they do as well... I am not saying your experience is invalid - in fact it is how a lot of the sites get treated here. I have a Crown Castle 400' site literally in my back yard that they want an eye-watering lease for an LMR antenna on it, and the state entity I mentioned above is not allowing anyone other than hams on the tower thanks to some abuse of the policies from other "non profit" entities. Then add that I would have to pay one of my friends/acquaintances to climb the site for me and I have zero intention of putting up GMRS... I will save the money for such an effort and pay a coordinator for a VHF pair to be added to my Part 90 licenses. My point is this becomes much more of a "who you know" endeavor as much as "what you know". It is also why I mentioned the "barrier to entry" aspect that in previous generations of GMRS you needed to coordinate your repeater with the FCC, or needed a GROL to maintain such equipment, or other things on top of capital expense of the equipment itself or even the operating expense of paying someone else for their site. It shouldn't be a "race to the bottom" in the sense that wide area repeaters should not be trivial to install and affect other users in the area without an appropriate effort, because someone with their "roof top repeater" might want to have a smaller footprint and not fight the "big dogs" in the area for their chance to use the service the same as them without the massive wallet to back it.

You’re absolutely correct - and it’s something that was talked about directly with the FCC back in 2017. The issue comes down to while it’s not explicitly permitted, the FCC cannot enforce it on its own which means type acceptance fines will only happen when you’re already caught for some other misdeed - but having it formally worded in Part 95 would be a step to protecting any further “interpretation”. (I was one of the guys in 2017 that was talking directly with a now gone member of the forum and others with the FCC on this issue and others).

When the FCC has a congressionally approved method to petition for change for YOUR benefit directly - use it. This "free men don't ask" trope is worn out and many have warned since the 2017 update how apathy like this will lead to further issues down the line especially with the rapid increase in GMRS use that was to be predicted (and happened). This Fudd Talk needs to stop. If companies/carriers can petition the FCC for beneficial use of a service/band, so can private citizens who are licensed for a family band. Speak up and do your part or quit gnashing your teeth to internet strangers when something changes that isn't to your benefit.

This is a good moment to discuss a sad reality about GMRS: This is why linking has been an issue. Too many people think about their repeater footprint and that's it - but forget that RF still travels outside the circle on their map just not in a way that would be considered reliable or even usable. Because of that, Part 90 services not only look at the height/power of the transmitter but plots it for a known service area and then adds a "protection zone" further around the coverage footprint to avoid interference when a frequency is reused too close to another transmitter location. VHF is terrible for this because of atmospheric phenomena, but UHF is not exempt from it either. This is why sites like this are critical for the GMRS community, because frequencies/locations should be listed somewhere unified BUT there is no current rule/procedure to prevent adjacent reuse of channels outside of "don't be a bad neighbor". Add linking and super-wide-area systems that are motivated to build out to recoup capital expense, and this turns into a cesspool quickly. GMRS never had these issues until the last several years because there was a higher barrier to entry that gets removed with each generation of rule change to the point that we are trying to talk about coordinating a community/family service in a way that won't devolve into CB radio. Hopefully this provides some insight because there's "some influencers" in this forum that do nothing to discuss these issues civilly, offer input, or do anything except widen the divide between people that just want to talk and the ones that want to protect their investment in the service for their use. Time for everyone to swallow some ego and talk like adults.

That is a logical fallacy that I see used constantly in GMRS. This service is literally one of the last wideband outside of T-Band UHF in places like NYC/Boston/Chicago/LA, and Low-Band VHF. T-Band equipment is typically used in GMRS as well as most 450-512 equipment is relevant, but not ALL equipment will operate in GMRS (Quantars having multiple band splits for example). That leaves a LOT of equipment like MSF5000s, MSR2000s, and similar antiques that are still being used for GMRS, not to mention that a lot of the equipment I mention is Part 90 certified and this community has spun its wheels on agreeing that Part 90 equipment should exist in GMRS and push for THAT rule change among others. Point being: GMRS capable repeater equipment is not "expensive" by any stretch, just more expensive than the race-to-the-bottom radios everyone is buying to use on them. This is a snowball effect of GMRS users starting at the 2017 rule change acting like this is the modern CB and now everyone is feeling the effects. Part 90 equipment is not permitted explicitly and limits equipment options, the 2017 rule change deregulated bubble pack radios which with FRS channels being narrowband interstitials in-between GMRS channels means GMRS narrowbanding would be a monumental effort that assumes all those bubble pack radios would not be around to cause interference, THEN we can talk about linking and other resources. This should be a cautionary tale about how apathy and lack of engagement to keep a service beneficial to the public comes back to bite everyone. Now with all that said - its not hard to imagine why the FCC had to turn GMRS to a 10 year license and drop the fee to $35 - who wants to pay good money for this mess?

What about real questions? Some of us are still waiting.

Sounds good - I don’t come though often but always have some new toys to show off and some swag to go with it. I don’t mean any harm/hostility when discussing things on here in case that’s what you thought. I am only on here because I still use GMRS for family even though I have private coordinated repeaters to leverage instead - I do this for the spirit of the service more than my own personal use.

I work around your area, I don’t live there. I’ll be sure to bring some novelties over to OCD Off-road next time I’m around.

So is that telling me those systems are or are not getting the inbound/outbound coverage they were contractually guaranteed by Motorola? I’m still waiting to hear how GMRS provides an “essential service”, especially in an internet linked manner, that augments anything other than REACT’s brag sheet. And by that notion, anything “linked” would be guaranteed to be LESS reliable than the Stafford/Fredericksburg or STARS systems with dedicated microwave or fiber paths. I would like to have a discussion about this but please bring something to the table other than “that’s your opinion man”.

I know exactly where you’re talking about and I know between the regional trunk, state trunk, and two DOD subsites in the area that there is no “lack of coverage” or reliability that would ever even remotely necessitate other services carrying traffic for them. My point is that was a bit misleading to say GMRS has any sort of “public safety” role unless there’s something I’ve been missing about a family service carrying “business” traffic…. But I was willing to be proven wrong.

I wouldn’t expect anyone to. My point is that a LOT of what I’m reading on here has nothing to do with a legal process that will accomplish anything but is being done with some true confidence behind it.

That is where having Part 90 equipment permitted in GMRS in the rule would have been the good first step. It was hotly talked about but nothing was ever done because largely the GMRS community seems afraid to talk to the FCC for any meaningful purpose until they're mad about something. Truly allowing Part 90 equipment would also slightly help the NY GMRS case, as there's never been any simulcast capable equipment certified for use in GMRS. Narrowbanding just helps keep up with the rest of the industry where stuff like the Motorola GTR8000 repeaters won't even program a wideband channel anymore, so eventually it will be forced as Part 90 manufacturers stop caring about wideband fully. Problem on that end is FRS channels are already interstitial to GMRS channels - and the 2017 rule update removed any way for the FCC to go after what everyone called the "bubble pack pirates". That part will be tough to find a solution to that the FCC would even be willing to hear.

All good replies so far, but I will add a clarification: "Ground plane" is not a DC ground like your radio connection to your vehicle frame or battery - but a term for the RF ground which influences the antenna radiation pattern. A ground plane antenna will expect a flat metallic surface below it to give its rated pattern and performance - a "Non Ground Plane" NGP antenna is essentially a dipole antenna with a center feed point and your ground is part of the antenna element(s). Just wanted to clarify because in the post above a basket rack with an NGP antenna is what would be needed, since a ground plane wouldn't exist realistically on a Jeep hard top. NGP antennas are longer since you need your radiating and ground element versus a 1/4 wave, but is the proper answer. If you want a ground plane antenna - then the other answers are correct and I have seen it on fiberglass roofs where the shop will insert (as large as they can) a piece of sheet metal between the headliner and roof and then drill the NMO - still not perfect but as good as you'll get. Hope that helps clear up some of the "mystery" between antenna types/locations/methods!

Agreed. It has never been in the spirit of GMRS or any of its rules for any sort of repeater linking, via RF or otherwise. The community took what they thought was a loophole, exploited it, and are now big-mad when the FCC (very politely) tells them they're wrong. What makes it more absurd is seeing the comments on a Change.org petition (which is not the mechanism for pushing change with the FCC) acting like GMRS is amateur radio and all the comments about "making new connections" and such... sheesh. I am all for wide area coverage, but with a much more intentional way of doing it, and as others have said on here there's a way to accomplish it but GMRS community will have to suck up some things as well (like narrowbanding the service).

Communications Act of 1934 renders your entire argument invalid - Chevron Deference was meant for agencies that did not have regulatory authority by charter - FCC has been congressionally approved to do so and still submits to congressional oversight to this day... and within those confines is the NPRM process that others have mentioned... like the quote below. Wait a sec, didn't I read somewhere in this forum you claim to be some constitutional and contractual law expert? Shocking to see you're not aware of a process that has been on the books since before I was born by a long shot. This will do nothing - the FCC has a mechanism in place as I quoted above. I don't understand what everyone here thinks will be the result of trying to demand a petition through avenues that have nothing to do with how the FCC rule making/amending process works... There are no more channels. The GMRS allocation along with FRS is smack in the middle of a VERY congested business/public safety/industrial band that I can bet a paycheck does not have any "free spectrum" available on a nationwide basis... and I can take a double bet that the FCC will not reallocate spectrum from another service to one that has been unable to follow existing rules and cannot even have a decent unified discussion on it by the looks of this forum. Narrowbanding as you said in another reply is the only avenue you could take, and GMRS repeater owners need to accept that their 50 year old dinosaur needs to be buried to accomplish that change. Its worth discussing because spectrum won't come from anywhere else. Narrowbanding is what the service needs, but still will not satisfy the original topic regarding linking. Long story short is there's a 3-prong approach to a rule update that can benefit the community, but I have watched others on here argue it and get trolled to death so its not even worth repeating apparently.

I never said you did… I’m hoping to actually have a substantive discussion about the merits of GMRS instead of autistic trolling. You mentioned to gatekeep above that your stance is allegedly clear on linked systems and cases of abuse (or lack thereof), and marcspaz mentions the merits of it as augmentation to public safety. If those two truly intersect - let’s hear from the “community experts”. If the user base is ever to change the rules to their benefit, they need to start actually having real discussions. I’ll happily have one unless all you have in you is insults.

@OffRoaderX since we are challenging wild claims in this topic, I would love to hear from you or @marcspaz when GMRS has ever been used as an augmentation to public safety. Seriously asking for citations - if there are any it would be nice to know since it would strengthen GMRS case. However without any proof this sounds like some ARES reflective vest delusion.