marcspaz

Edit: Never mind. Its not worth it.

So... talked to a couple friends of mine here in the DC area. We're going to get the ball rolling on this. I appreciate the inspiration.

If I was a Gambling Man, I would put money on a significant majority of that decline being related to politics and people's opinions about Elon Musk. The real question is, what is revenue like? If the user base fell by more than 20% but profitability went up, I would say that's a success. Of course I don't know the answer to those questions I'm just thinking out loud.

@NavyBOFH I understand you are trying to help. I do... but you aren't the only guy in the room. I studied Constitutional law for years and helped write bills that have gone to my state legislature for votes. I work for a massive firm, engineer solutions and write technical contracts for a living. I can read and comprehend the rules in the totality and there are definitions of words that contradict the means and methods those words are used in the rules. The definition of Operate (in brief) is to start, continue and stop a station from transmitting, and the rules state you can execute remote operation over a network (again, paraphrasing). Then there are other rules that say you can't convey messages over the air and wireline. So, which is it? We can remote operate over a network or we can't? You can't justify interpreting a definition of a word in a sentence when the definition is specifically and explicitly provided in the rules. The contradiction needs to be fixed and the rules updated. An SA telling a web admin to change a webpage isn't the way to clarify a conflict in the rules.

I was not aware of that. I appreciate the info.

You are correct. Those station types can only transmit on those frequencies when they are communicating through a repeater. Its not that they can't transmit on any other frequencies. It is to prevent those device types from having simplex communications on those frequencies... that is it. When it comes to laws and rules, anything not expressly prohibited is allowed. There is no expressed prohibition on repeater inputs being on any other channel/frequency. Also, its a good indication that you know you are loosing the debate when you stop discussing opinion based on fact and switch to insults and attacks. Just for future reference...

Not only is that kinda mean... I am starting to think you aren't as smart as you pretend to be.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say that at all. I can read. It says only mobile, hand-held portable, control and fixed stations may transmit on these 8 channels. Not that those are the only allowed repeater inputs.

A good portion of the people debating these points had no idea GMRS existed during the last NPRM comment period. Its evident with the conversation here that for those who had a license at the time, a small number of them understood the implications of the rules surrounding network connectivity (or why the restrictions were even put in place) and struggle to realize that there are contradictory statements and definitions requiring clarification... so, places like FB, reddit and MyGMRS are the only remaining place to vent frustration. At least until the next comment period, assuming they realize that is even happening when it does.

@OffRoaderX fair enough. Sound logic, for sure.

How is that dude not on your ignore list. I stopped reading his retarded posts awhile ago.

This is what I was talking about earlier. If everyone is right and linking a repeater over the internet (or any other network) is a rule violation, then the only option to link repeaters with by with multiple radios, a.ka. RF linking. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is actually ZERO rules about RF linking in the Communication Act as amended by the Telecommunication Act, nor in any of the FCC Part 95 rules. There are also no restrictions or mandates on what repeater inputs have to be. Only that repeaters transmit on the 462 mains. So, using multiple radios to link repeaters over GMRS frequency is completely legal and within scope of the rules. The only limitation that I can think of (beyond the repeater transmit frequency) is that any linked repeaters would need to be in line of sight of each other to establish the link.

I don't know how my SETI team is going to feel about this. The FCC is reducing our processing capabilities by reducing the network size.

Bill Paxton has forever enshrined that line in movie history. Dana Carvey did a great job on a close second with the SNL parody.

@WRKC935, well written and I agree with a vast majority of what you wrote. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. @RayP I agree that the situations you describe are terrible for a service that has so few available frequencies. There should be some regulation. I am not against regulations. As a civilized society, we all agree to live by a certain set of rules. However, our nation is a Constitutional Republic designed to protect the Rights of the minority. There should be some allowances or concessions made, to some degree. For example, remote receivers for repeaters with a large footprint, to fill in receive gaps that impact mobile and portable stations. Or, restricting linked repeaters to only 2 machines per link and they must be on the same frequency (I'm just generalizing for example, of course). As I mentioned, mandating things you like and banning the things you don't is tyrannical behavior. The People collectively agreeing on rules to live by are not the same thing as the Government arbitrarily changing their mind on what is right or wrong when there has been zero law or rule change reviewed and approved by the people.

I appreciate the kind words... I do. And honestly, I don't have any skin in the game since I don't have a linked repeater system. However, I am on the side of freedom. I am also on the side of demanding rules be clear and make sense so the average person has the ability to operate within the rules.

Why would you say that. The purpose is to facilitate the needs of the licensee. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's not desired by others. The idea of mandating things you like and banning the things you don't is what tyrants do.

Those are advertised as a 1dB loss... pretty good. Mine are closer to 3dB... but they were a gift and I am thrilled to have them.

My unsolicited opinion, people who don't like linked repeaters now, are REALLY going to regret bitching about network linked repeaters in the near future, if the courts end up agreeing. I can't find a single entry in the Communication Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that gives the FCC the authority or purpose to prohibit repeater linking. There are zero FCC rules that prohibit repeater linking. What there is, are some debates on if a repeater link that traverse a network AND provides some form of message relay both over the air and on the network, is allowed by the rules or not. This is because the rules are not clear due to contradicting entries, when reviewing the rules and the definitions as a whole. Updating a web page is not the same as updating rules or statutory code to be more clear. Now, the bad news for people who hate linked repeaters. Again, there are zero laws or rules prohibiting linking. Lets say this network issues goes all the way to the SCOTUS and the court sides with the Link haters and the FCC... you haters are going to be even worse off, because then, 100% of all repeater linking will be limited to using RF links. This is gonna suck for GMRS users (except for the linked repeater owners) because if we follow the rules of the PRS, we can only use in-service frequencies for relaying information. Let me explain... the rules say that repeaters can only transmit on the 462 main channels. There are exactly zero rules about what the repeater input frequency should be, outside of being one of the GMRS frequencies. That means while repeater outputs will stay the same, legal linking can and will start occurring with uplinks on every single GMRS frequency... not just the 467 mains... flooding the channels with linked audio. So, right or wrong, if you hate linked repeaters and are bitching about it here or to the FCC in hopes that if the networked repeaters go away, somehow your quiet RF utopia will somehow be restored, my forecast is that you are going to be very, very wrong. It's probably going to get much worse due to spreading to all channels.

It's possible to build a radio with an internal duplexer. If it meets the certification requirements, you could have the full 50w at the output. However, I an not aware of any such radio existing at the moment (built-in duplexer and 50w). That means you are going to be restricted to the 50w out of the radio and the ~25w out of the duplexer.

It's funny, the ATF had the same attitude about bump stocks, arm braces and forced reset triggers, all the way up until the SCOTUS told them to sit down and stop talking. Not to mention, the entire premise is flawed. First, the page says that linking repeaters violates 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 and possibly other rules. There is exactly ZERO rules saying you can't link repeaters for communications outside the coverage area of a handheld or mobile. That is a a flat-out lie. There are restrictions about how and when networks can be used, but no prohibition on linking, itself. Also, the page says that "linking increases the potential for interference" and "uses up a limited spectrum". That's funny. So, let me get this straight... all of the repeaters are there and in use, but it only has a potential for interference and only takes up spectrum when they are linked? That is just dumb. If a repeater is in place, the potential for interference and the spectrum it uses is 100% unaffected by having it link to another repeater. Im not sure who writes this stuff, but they need to be fired.

So, I have a similar issue at my house and it is 100% due to terrain and surrounding objects. I have my base antenna at 35+ feet and it's 10 feet tall, running a 60 foot piece of LMR400. There are only a handful of places I can mount my antenna on the roof. If I move the antenna a few feet in any direction, the recieve gets significantly better or worse depending on the other stations I'm trying to reach. The thing is, I can move my car to a sweet spot and just park it. That really isn't an option for my base antenna. Sometimes I just sit in the car and use the radio, depending on the station I want to talk to.

I suspect you are teasing me about the Jeep, but just in case... Yep... full-sized vehicles. No ATVs/UTVs/etc. are allowed in my group. Buggies, Jeeps, Blazers, Broncos, short-bed F150s and 1500s, etc. should all be fine. 250/2500 class and larger will probably be too big for the trails we will be on. There are other groups at the event that are geared toward ATVs/UTVs/etc..

I know many folks in this group like to go offroading with your full-size vehicles. GMRS is one of the tools we use to enhance our experience while enjoying outdoor hobbies. This ride is in 2 months and a bunch of openings are available. My son and I are guiding a Blue/Black group for Krawling 4 K9’s at Anthracite Outdoor Adventure Area, in PA, on October 19th. This is a fundraiser for a good cause and a good excuse to go wheeling. If you would like to join us, go to the link below to sign-up. Select “Full Size Vehicle Registration”, choose your full-size vehicle group type of "Blue/Black", and then pick the group trail guide named OCD Offroad Shop – Group 9. https://brushfire.com/protection4paws/krawlingfork9s/564418/register?fbclid=IwY2xjawEVOHlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHS0S1ef1v03wnrB9mpDFxg-U7CNC0rpG2lsv47DBqro1adclVyYAFMcLPQ_aem_xPGnhbnaBmkFotJRGc1TIg We only have 4 slots left for this group at the time I am sharing this info. If you are looking for a little more or a little less of a challenge, there are plenty of other groups available. Hope to see you there! There are going to be some aggressive trails for our group. Please be sure your rig is built for the type of wheeling we will be doing. If you have questions, let me know. Protection4Paws FB Event Link - https://www.facebook.com/events/649665953824067