gortex2

I have to agree with @marcspaz on this one. Its all varue and until the FCC actually changes rules it will be. The system in question regardless of what you think was a simulcast voted system. To me that 100% different than a linked repeater all over the US or state. Its the same input and output on each repeater. In the past there were multiple voted GMRS repeaters that REACT teams and others used. Back then it was 4W circuits on microwave. It worked and worked well. It really wastn't until GMRS turned into HAM lite that this linking crae started. I'm for one looking forward to see what the FCC comes back with but to be honest other than the folks on this forum 99% of the GMRS user base could care less. They push a button and talk. 

What we think we know happened is only hearsay as we have never directly heard from the repeater owner himself or the FCC on the subject.
Exaggerating  what the facts are doesn’t make an opinion fact.  
As long as there is no comment by the actual parties involved and I mean the FCC or the actual repeater owner, then this argument will go no where. I really can’t get all worked up over some private citizen shutting down his own repeaters if they are not saying anything on the subject. Nothing to see here.
It’s like saying Alvin said Bob up the street won’t let his friends use his bathroom anymore because the city is going to fine him for using too much water. But you don’t know Alvin. You don’t know Bob. And Bob has never said anything to you. And the city hasn’t said anything to you. And who cares if Bob doesn’t want anyone in his bathroom. It sure isn’t conclusive that you or anyone else can’t share their bathroom. Even if it was on YouTube.
 

I have to agree with @marcspaz on this one. Its all varue and until the FCC actually changes rules it will be. The system in question regardless of what you think was a simulcast voted system. To me that 100% different than a linked repeater all over the US or state. Its the same input and output on each repeater. In the past there were multiple voted GMRS repeaters that REACT teams and others used. Back then it was 4W circuits on microwave. It worked and worked well. It really wastn't until GMRS turned into HAM lite that this linking crae started. I'm for one looking forward to see what the FCC comes back with but to be honest other than the folks on this forum 99% of the GMRS user base could care less. They push a button and talk. 

I have to agree with @marcspaz on this one. Its all varue and until the FCC actually changes rules it will be. The system in question regardless of what you think was a simulcast voted system. To me that 100% different than a linked repeater all over the US or state. Its the same input and output on each repeater. In the past there were multiple voted GMRS repeaters that REACT teams and others used. Back then it was 4W circuits on microwave. It worked and worked well. It really wastn't until GMRS turned into HAM lite that this linking crae started. I'm for one looking forward to see what the FCC comes back with but to be honest other than the folks on this forum 99% of the GMRS user base could care less. They push a button and talk. 

I just don't understand why people keep saying this.  It almost sounds like some people are jealous of successful clubs and networks, rather than interested the legality of the use and practical use cases.
The rules about voice moving between systems over network-linked repeaters are vague in most cases, and flat-out contradict themselves in others. The FCC refuses to make an official statement or charge anyone.  No operators "know" if its in scope of the rules or not.

In my 23 Wrangler IZARUBICON 2 Dr. I have a XTL5000 Remote high-powered, of course, I set the max RF output power at 50 watts, for three reasons. 1) to be legal for GMRS; 2) I really don't need the extra power; 3) I don't want to max out the Aux 1 circuit with the XTL5000 at max power draw, a CB Radio, Streamlight Flashlight Charger, and a Dometic Refrigerator.
In my racecar, I use a XTS1500 portable radio with a remote PT-T on the steering with the radio connected to a non-ground plane Antenex Phantom antenna mounted to my rollcage in the rear.

LOL. Well the muscle car is basically a garage vehicle...only 1200 miles on it... Wife kinda took over my JT once we took her JK for off road stuff. I have a work truck for most of my travel stuff. 
 

The system in question did not charge members. Nor was the system linked to PA or NC. Only some Western NY stuff.

I have specific vehicles for off-roading and for staying on the pavement.

I'm fairly new to the GMRS world, but I personally hope the FCC shuts down or severely limits linked GMRS repeaters. I get why folks want it and I see the appeal, and I also hate government over-reach just as much as the next guy, but I also am getting tired of hearing the exact same conversation on every single channel. I'm lucky/unfortunate enough to be smack in the middle of a fairly large club's repeater network that spans literally every single repeater pair.

That has been mentioned more than a few times on myGMRS , but the regulations don’t say the same thing.  The difference is why lawyers and judges are well paid.

There are some problems with your logic.  First.. Amateur radio rules have exactly zero to do with GMRS rules.  Don't waste time comparing them. 
 
Second, we (members of this forum and the GMRS community) have been debating on the rules and requested verification from the FCC if linking repeaters over public internet for the use of simulcast is within the scope of rules or a violation.  There are several contradictions and vagueness in the rules about network connections that the user community just can't say for sure and the FCC is refusing to comment. (plenty of posts here about that)
 
Last... this wasn't an FCC action.  It was reportedly two people (FCC employee and a GMRS repeater owner) who are either friends, acquaintances or have some type of professional association, and the FCC employee started some unofficial communications with the GMRS repeater owner.  It's unclear if it was a warning or a courtesy from an acquaintances/friend, or if an agent was subverting processes due to some pre-existing work relationship.  In either case, there will not be any official documentation in the FCC database.
 
Also, I personally am aware of several people in the professional comms world who are aware of this situation and asked their FCC POCs about this specific situation, as well as GMRS simulcast over public internet, in general terms.  Those FCC POCs are refusing to comment on anything.  Until formal action is taken and it ends up in court, everyone is just guessing at the regulation.

I'd recomend the 8180 and not the 8180H. You wont see a difference in 30 vs 45 watts and if 90% of your use will be simplex and low channels being able to program 5 watts is better. 
No need for an LMR license unless you want an LMR frequency. 

I'd recomend the 8180 and not the 8180H. You wont see a difference in 30 vs 45 watts and if 90% of your use will be simplex and low channels being able to program 5 watts is better. 
No need for an LMR license unless you want an LMR frequency. 

I'd recomend the 8180 and not the 8180H. You wont see a difference in 30 vs 45 watts and if 90% of your use will be simplex and low channels being able to program 5 watts is better. 
No need for an LMR license unless you want an LMR frequency. 

Geezus..  You should go outside.. and leave the radio in the basement.

Every DMR and P25 system I have implimented CWID is done in analog. Thats one of the first things I set in my P25 stuff. It can send it "digital" over control channel also but it in analog 99% of the time. 

Yeah,  what's going to happen is as the GMRS user base grows and more repeaters go on the air, it will get to a point where people will start complaining to the FCC about their repeaters they just put up are being interfered with by other established repeaters.  The FCC is going to react at that point.   Since the frequencies we are using sit in the middle of the commercial band that is saturated with users in about every urban area there are NO additional frequencies available for the service. 
So how do they react?  They can go back to assigning repeater pairs to the license holder.  Only allowing the license holder to have 2 pairs, one being 462.675 (traveler) and one other pair. 
They can narrowband the service and take it to 12.5Khz channel spacing.  This takes all the older wideband only radios and removes them from being used on the service. Now MOST radios built in the last 20 years will work with that channel spacing.   But be warned, you will LOOSE at least 1/3 of the coverage foot print of all repeaters when they are switched.  Of course that also doe's something for the interference issues since the repeater coverage drops.
Or, they can break in off in us and take the whole service to 6.25Khz channel spacing, which would remove the ability for MOST of the current radios to be used.  Effectively making everyone buy a new radio to operate on the service.  But I am talking that even Motorola XTS /XTL radios will go away.  If you want a Motorola radio, your getting an APX at over a grand each minimum.  But all the BTech, Midland, ETC ETC stuff will be illegal to operate.  You can have more channels, but you now loose 2/3 of the current wideband coverage footprint of the repeaters.  And of course it's not just the repeaters... simplex coverage will suffer just as bad.
Lastly, they could really do us dirty and go the way many on here seem to want them to go and allow DMR or some other digital format.  Problem with that is again, new radios as all the current GMRS specific radios like BTech and Midland are analog only and will not support digital modulation.  So again we buy new gear that's not going to be cheap since there are license fee's to be paid for the vocoder in the radios that exceed the cost of a new BTech for just the license.  Then we get to the interference issues from adjacent repeaters.  With analog, you get hetrodyne first,  then there is some noise and audio quality issues before the signal gets bad and the interference gets to the point that you can't understand the repeater you are listening to.  With DMR and other digital technologies..... you have BER.  That's Bit Error Rate.  The signal is good, then it gets a bit funky, then it's just gone.  The BER gets beyond what the radio can 'fix' and you get nothing after that.  Digital radios will blank out around the point that you are at the beginnings of audio quality issues with wide band analog.  So while digital will talk farther than analog on a quiet channel, a shared frequency will have less coverage due to interference from neighboring repeaters on the same frequency. 
So be careful of what you wish for. 
 
Oh, and if you think that this is going to get them to open up linking, it will do the exact opposite.  Linked repeaters don't allow you to monitor the repeater output for a repeater you are linked to.  So it could be creating interference at the other end that you wouldn't be aware of.  But just because you aren't aware of it, doesn't mean it's not causing an issue. 
 
 

Are people paying for repeater use, or are they members of a club that pay dues to be a club member, and only paying members can use club resources?  I would think if the only resource is the repeater... that would seem to be a violation.  Not that the FCC cares anyway. 
 
I am a member of a Jeep club.  There are free memberships and paid memberships.  Paid members can vote in club elections and have access to resources (such as training and trail guides) that non-paid members can't access. 

kind of reminds me of the 100's of new repeaters that people register but their status is always 'offline'..  Whats that purpose???  Are they trying to 'claim' a frequency they don't use...  some pretty crazy thinking...  

Yeah, i dealt with a guy that was thinking he was going to do that.  He had 15 paper repeaters registered on here.  When I started looking into his 'system' I even found a business registered with the state where he was marketing air time on GMRS. The tower owner already had one open repeater on the air that he made open.  I put my repeater on the air as well (675) that was open. My coverage footprint covered several of his 'pay to play' paper repeaters.  Of course he wasn't happy.  He threatened to call the FCC.  I reminded him of the regulations for selling air time on GMRS and his repeaters started disappearing, not that they existed to begin with.  In truth, I was never able to verify he had ANY repeaters on the air.  But I know due to the location of several of them, there was never any equipment at those locations for at least the last 15 years because I was in those sites and there wasn't any GMRS or even UHF equipment at those sites. 
But putting up free open access repeaters in the coverage area of pay to play repeaters typically makes them go silent.  People will go with the free option every time if it's a good quality and fills their needs.
 

It all depends on the owner and the site. Many have no backup power but a well installed thought out repeater would. If there is a repeater yours curious about I'd ask the repeater owner. Thats the only true way to know for sure. 
 

You're not going to be able to buy the software for that from Motorola. That radio is about 30 years outside the Factory support window.
There's a few different places online where you can find Radius mobile RSS available for free download, but you'll need to run something like DosBox to emulate a really slow old 386 PC processor.
Hamfiles is where I'd probably start looking for the software. You should probably also get familiar with the Repeater-builder.com Radius and Maxtrac Mobile page

For a GMRS and consumer grade radio, I would stay away from the cheap Chinese POS radios and take a look at the Midland GXT 67 Pro or the Rocky Talkie. They may not have any foo-foo bells and whistles that really don't make the radio better but, they are simple to use and of better quality than those radios produced by a non-english speaking government owned corporation in a far-away land.
There are videos comparing the two aforementioned radios that are produced by an English speaking non-government owned corporation located on the "Land of the Free".

Yes, what you are saying is true to a point.  But it's really going to depend on the infraction.  If it's linked repeater ownership... I disconnected the link and have no intention of reconnecting it.  Or I took the repeater off the air permanently.   With those corrective actions, there aren't any additional remedies.
Excessive power output... checked the programming of repeater in question and it was set for 100 watts. This was an oversite.. reprogrammed repeater to correct power level and verified power output with brand X watt meter that was calibrated on 6/2023, serial number 23252... or what ever with a E100 slug that was calibrated at the same time.  Again, nothing else to correct.  With GMRS specifically, we aren't limited to any Maximum EPR, antenna gain or height.  We just can't interfere with other licensed users attempting to use the frequency, and that's only within reason.  If you move into a house next to an active repeater site, you aren't going to be able to complain about not being able to use CH 16 if the repeater is on that channel.   Now if the site has all 8 pairs tied up, then there is the possibility of someone at the FCC considering it to be a complaint.   
Now if you are into an ERP power level issue with a commercial license, and you botched it by putting the antenna too high, with too much gain, and running over the licensed output power level to boot.  That's the one where they might keep banging away until you are completely compliant if you tell them you just turned down the power.