MaxHeadroom

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?

That rule will NEVER be rolled back from 2017 - the entire reason it was changed was because no one was getting their license for their 2W bubble pack radios as it was. There's literally zero way that Pandora's Box will ever be shut again at this point. 
As others have said - this is for DE-regulation. The FCC I guarantee will not be hearing stuff about GMRS and linking and other hand-wringing issues that could have been in their own NPRM/petition that no one has bothered doing until now anyway. This is not the "lazy way out" of doing your own due diligence as the GMRS community as before.
I am surprised that yet again I have to comment about how FCC rulemaking works, but I am sure a bunch of armchair experts that have never dealt with the FCC outside their amateur/family service licenses will come once more to say how I am wrong. I will be sure to pop come popcorn and come back in a month or two to see the hilarity that ensues as always.

That rule will NEVER be rolled back from 2017 - the entire reason it was changed was because no one was getting their license for their 2W bubble pack radios as it was. There's literally zero way that Pandora's Box will ever be shut again at this point. 
As others have said - this is for DE-regulation. The FCC I guarantee will not be hearing stuff about GMRS and linking and other hand-wringing issues that could have been in their own NPRM/petition that no one has bothered doing until now anyway. This is not the "lazy way out" of doing your own due diligence as the GMRS community as before.
I am surprised that yet again I have to comment about how FCC rulemaking works, but I am sure a bunch of armchair experts that have never dealt with the FCC outside their amateur/family service licenses will come once more to say how I am wrong. I will be sure to pop come popcorn and come back in a month or two to see the hilarity that ensues as always.

That rule will NEVER be rolled back from 2017 - the entire reason it was changed was because no one was getting their license for their 2W bubble pack radios as it was. There's literally zero way that Pandora's Box will ever be shut again at this point. 
As others have said - this is for DE-regulation. The FCC I guarantee will not be hearing stuff about GMRS and linking and other hand-wringing issues that could have been in their own NPRM/petition that no one has bothered doing until now anyway. This is not the "lazy way out" of doing your own due diligence as the GMRS community as before.
I am surprised that yet again I have to comment about how FCC rulemaking works, but I am sure a bunch of armchair experts that have never dealt with the FCC outside their amateur/family service licenses will come once more to say how I am wrong. I will be sure to pop come popcorn and come back in a month or two to see the hilarity that ensues as always.

Nothing much sadly at this point - tower sites and getting any sort of access/agreement is seemingly the one and only hurdle to overcome. The 600 repeater is one I have access to and know that most members that were grandfathered in are still using it - just its REALLY quiet in the meantime. The repeater is in an odd situation between ownership and site access but I am hoping to "take over" that situation at one point to see what can be done if at all possible.

That could be a really good thing or it can open up a can of worms that we don't want.
I say that because we all know some people want to turn GMRS into HAM Lite. We don't have enough frequencies/channels available for linking repeaters or different digital modes, etc, etc.
I would hate to see GMRS turn into what the Chicken Band (CB) has become.

Any update or is this kaput?  Like most forum discussions, it seems to have died.
 
I just checked and there are 3 different listings for 550 in Lexington Co., none of which are working (2 are stale, most recent is offline).   I'm getting highway flagmen on 575 (I doubt they're using FRS radios because they are a few miles from me).  [Do these flagmen always use 575 in other places too?]  And the occasional activity from Crowders Mtn. 575 repeater is still there. The Lexington 575 repeater is offline too but anyway it was Permission Required with no response to requests.  So I'm looking for a different home base frequency to routinely monitor.  I had an idea that if those in the area would agree on a tone we could use the 600 that mostly sits idle.  So IMO 141.3 would be best to start with (typical for open repeater or travel use).  Without a repeater, my range will be short but we do have several local GMRSers in range if they want to use it.  FWIW, I heard users from Central Time zone on 725 so it is still linked.  I don't know about the 650 and 700 members-only repeaters but I'm not monitoring those anymore.

We all just wish we could be as smart as you.

They have people there who job it is is to make rules.  When all the rules are made do you think they will resign?  No, this is the govt.  They'll just make up more rules to justify their position.

You are correct.. But just because a government agency says so, it does not necessarily make it "the right thing".. 

Look up the doctrine known as Chevron deference.  SCOTUS had some things to say about it on On June 28, 2024.

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.

I completely understand the sentiment which is why I am looking myself to do something that is not linked to another club or entity. I called out last night on SCHEART between Florence and Columbia and never got a reply during rush hour no less - just tells me how the hams in the area respond to statewide linked repeater systems.
The CSRA GMRS group seems to be the closest. I tried to link up with them back in 2019 timeframe when they were just starting up and tried to offer some assistance/equipment but never got a reply. Sadly I sold those MTR2000s since then but getting a capable UHF repeater isn't monumental - I have a "throw away" VXR-7000 coming to me as we speak.
I can be available as well with a heads up - I work from home so I am usually close enough to a radio and repeater.

@MaxHeadroom  ETV's ham activity is mostly coordinated through SCHEART, now even including the unlinked 210 repeater.  I hope you don't get them involved; that would kill any interest I might have, assuming I could even reach what you put up.. I left SCSG long ago.  And I checked on CERT and decided not to bother.  I just want to stay an independent radio operator and make my own decisions; we should be able to have comms without having bosses.

What I heard is ham clubs are still getting accommodated so I would think GMRS would as well under the same non-profit/"community benefit" vane. I have not tried to talk to ETV since I moved back but I can acquire an MTR2000 or Quantar easily enough to put up a repeater that would cover the entire Lexington County area easily.
My personal battle around here is finding a tower for a private VHF repeater which I was hoping to coordinate for use for SCSG and CERT but that effort stalls every time I try.

I used to work for SC ETV and maintained that 147.000 repeater - the tower is empty minus the cell site on it now and the county's bus and bus maintenance repeaters.
There's definitely room on the tower and in the building at the base, but ETV is getting picky about people putting things on the towers unless they're a ham club (GMRS might be doable if I talk to my old boss) but otherwise they want to charge rent for the site.
 
I am down in the Gilbert/B-L area so I am hoping to get something to cover a little better. I did finally notice the .725 issue some time ago but I think its stopped since - unless my radio is just not unmuting for that mess anymore.

You might try Palmetto GMRS Columbia 725 and ask permission. Should cover your area also.
WRVZ964  patrick wharley
 

To your first 3 bullet points: ALL of that spectrum is already allocated to Part 90 (either as paging/radiotelephone or LMR) and will never be reallocated to a family service. Do a FCC ULS search for your proposed frequencies to see what I am talking about.
Requiring Narrowband would be theoretical if there was new spectrum available, but narrowbanding the existing frequencies will be utterly useless when there's already interstitial channels (FRS) between existing GMRS channels which would cause a lot of co-channel interference issues.
Digital Voice would not be within the rules either unless the point above with narrowbanding was able to be settled, and even then would only be one permitted modulation to prevent splintering of the service in a way that causes more issues than it solves. There's already super stringent regulation on data over the voice channels so I do not see a full digital modulation being easily accepted, never mind allowing multiple.
With all that said, there would not be any grandfathering allowed since these would be sweeping changes to the service that would mean that some of the currently grandfathered users would become unintentional interference to the other user base.
Moving the service definition will never happen either as all parts of 47 CFR have regulations which dictate frequencies and use cases for each service, none of which cross-over or are movable by current rule - FCC won't rewrite the book for GMRS especially with the current "attention" happening.
Part 90 equipment on Part 95 - that is actually doable and I was working on in 2017 and 2019 but would need to be a separate effort from everything else considering what I mentioned above about all the other pieces. Add type acceptance onto frequency/spectrum management for a service and this would stall before it got any traction.
 
I think you have a lot of spirit with this but sadly none of it is truly doable except the last part which should be tackled first to show that existing certified radios can be used in Part 95, which be default in 2024 opens up the "commonality of digital capable radios in a family service" and then work up from there. Sadly though there won't be any "free lunch" and GMRS will not see any change in frequency allocations unless something else is given up which this being my day job as well... I have yet to come to a workable conclusion that could be pitched to the FCC.

OK, I have a minute to type this all out.  Again.
According to the statements made by the FCC regarding the issues created with linking multiple repeaters together are as follows. 
First is the inability to 'monitor' the frequency before transmitting.  This is a carry over from Part 90 regulations when you have an FB2 commercial repeater pair.  There is a requirement that you monitor the repeater output frequency in CSQ (no PL/DPL) before transmitting to verify that the frequency is not in use by another entity that's also assigned the frequency for their repeater / base station.  FB2 frequencies are shared (issued to multiple entities) in a specific geographical location.  They are NOT exclusive use frequencies like an FB6, FB8 of 'market frequency'  meaning you 'own' that frequency in your geographical location.  With an FB6 you can key up at any time and NOT monitor but can't transmit continuously.  For a TRUNKED radio system the control channel has to be an FB8.  With that designation, you can transmit 24/7/365 on that frequency.  Same with a market frequency.  The FBx designation sets a standard distance from the transmitter in kilometers that you can operate in.    Market frequencies are similar but the 'allowed coverage' are is much larger.  These were a carryover from the days of pagers where a paging company had a market area of operation and that market area was covered with a single frequency with total saturation (strong signal).  To eliminate interference, a market frequency was only used once in some states and may not be available in any neighboring state depending on distances between transmitters.  Power levels for the transmitters would exceed 1 kilowatt and ERP could be in the 10's of kilowatts depending on the antenna system.  We don't have ANY of that with GMRS.  We have 8 pairs that are NOT assigned or coordinated in any way that we can select from for a repeater and share (like an FB2) with other users. 
Since we WERE doing this, I can be specific.  My repeater was in the Columbus Ohio area linked to others.  But I will only discuss one repeater in Indiana for simplicity.  I can't possibly hear any traffic NOT on the repeater I am linked to in Indiana, unless it's traffic on that specific repeater I am linked to.  And likewise, users in Indiana can't hear a repeater in Columbus that I am sharing the frequency with before they key up.  When they key the repeater in Indiana I am linked to, my repeater also begins to transmit and causes interference in Columbus with the local repeater I share the frequency with.  And that's the problem that the FCC has issue with pertaining to interference.    So how can it be addressed?  Easiest way to address it is the repeater linking controller (Raspberry Pi) could have an input from a second receiver that monitors for traffic on the repeater output frequency in CSQ that would inhibit the transmit line from keying the local repeater it's connected to IF there was local traffic on the frequency.  If a minimum height of the antenna for that receiver was established at no less than 50% of the height of the transmit antenna, then it would actually be BETTER than the user of the local repeater listening from their location since they aren't going to hear another user that's on the other side of the repeater in questions coverage area.  This would 100% eliminate the concern of interference from a remote repeater keying on other users in the coverage are of that remote repeater. 
Over utilization of pairs is also a concern.  And is easily addressed with requirements of how linking is done and WHERE it's done.  Meaning, if a repeater owner has a linked repeater in a geographical location, that linked group can have no more than ONE repeater in that linked group in that area.  If coverage infill is needed (addressing of poor coverage spots within the major coverage area of the repeater) it would have to be done with simulcast on a single frequency or not at all.  That leaves other pairs open for other users.  And an additional requirement that the repeater owner / linked system owner doesn't allow for others in a given geographical area to link to a running system where coverage is already established.  Meaning if I have a repeater linked to a system in Columbus Ohio, that is the ONLY repeater / frequency / channel allowed to be linked to that system in Columbus.  If another repeater owner wants to link their equipment to that system, they have to link to me, since I am established, with a same frequency simulcast setup or not link to that system. Of course if it's in another geographical location, that's not covered, like Cleveland for example, then they would be allowed to link to the system.  But that repeater would be the ONLY one in Cleveland linked to the specific system in question.  This would address the over utilization of the 8 repeater pairs we have for use in the GMRS service.
That addresses the two major concerns with the FCC.  Now we get into the PSTN / WIRE LINE control issues.  This is pure and simple a rule change or better definition of each and what's allowed and what's not.  There is an argument that the rule regrading linking to the PSTN was purely a 'phone patch' regulation.  Back when that rule was set, long distance fee's were a thing.  And long distance fee's were NOT applied to wire line (dry pair) connections for radio service, only telephone calls from a telephone customer to another customer outside of their exchange.  It's believed that the phone companies were concerned about loosing out on revenue from long distance calls that could be made from a GMRS radio to a repeater in another exchange that had phone patch capabilities so they petitioned the FCC to ban that, and they did.  
There is nothing in the regulations specifically about 'wire line' control outside of remote control (telemetry) for GMRS, and I think the wire line thing is someones interpretation of the PSTN link, calling it wire line when they are two different things.  Yes, this would need to be clarified / a rule change to get this dealt with.  But again, not impossible to address, just one more small thing to address. 
Last issue is providing local coverage to an area covered by a linked repeater.  Simple enough. Set a requirement to the owner of any linked repeater that a repeater of similar coverage that was NOT linked be available to users of that area.  Meaning if there is a repeater owned by others, that is publicly available and OPEN to all licensed users and NOT for private use only, then you can just put up your repeater and link it without doing anything else. If such a repeater does NOT exist in the coverage area of your proposed repeater, you as the linked repeater owner should be required to provide that local repeater as well.  And it be open for use with no more access requirement than the linked repeater has.  Meaning fee's or club membership requirements.
So yes, it's gonna take some rule changes, and it's NOT gonna be the 'wild west' like it was.  And in truth, I think this would create usable linked systems that could co-exist with non-linked repeaters and GMRS users that would contribute to the service as a whole. 
 
 

Not going to work. 
Why????   Read my signature.  That will work.  This will not.  It doesn't give a fix for the issues, just makes an unreasonable demand.
 

It's cute that you think "signatures" on a website are actually going to accomplish anything (HINT: it wont).

https://www.change.org/p/demand-fcc-to-allow-all-network-connections-to-gmrs-repeaters-and-radios
 
Demand FCC to Allow All Network Connections to GMRS Repeaters and Radios
Take the next step!

Sounds like the typical infantile behavior here that the owner always ignores and wastes our time wading through useless posts, if we even bother reading.   What I'd expect where a you-tuber is the hero.  Back to the topic, I haven't heard anymore yet.

Because you know that you just wasted all of that time reading something that will absolutely never happen.  Basically you just had a long mental-masturbation session with no final-end and you have blue-brain now...

It’s like the beginning of the “linked repeaters” silliness all over again.

SMH