intermod

Thanks....I probably should have read the submission date on the FCC site.   My attention span continiues to diminish....
G 

However FRS is an UNLICENSED service which would be causing interference to a LICENSED service in this case GMRS. I would hope the FCC realizes GMRS users paid for the use of the spectrum and should have some reasonable protection from an UNLICENSED service interference.

Agree.
Another question:  As GMRS licnesees, are we obligated to accept interference by the rules, regardless of the shared channel environment?  I believe that FRS users are obligated to not cause IX, and must accept IX.  

The great thing about the scenario you describe in the original post is 98.93736452367263554327% of all GMRS communications are generally radio checks, so interference is not an issue. 

Mistake #2: Ignore the 467 MHz "Uplink" Problem
You choose a unique repeater CTCSS / DCS / PL / Privacy code, but other incumbent repeater owners become unhinged and pissed off.  That is because signals from users trying to access your repeater are still being heard by the incumbent's repeater *receiver*.  Those signals don't activate the incumbent's repeater - but they still exist and can block or walk on the incumbent's users, particularly when the incumbent’s users are operating handheld radios.  CTCSS / DCS / PL / Privacy Codes, etc. only prevent inadvertent repeater activation - they cannot prevent uplink IX.
Clue - your repeater's transmitter is not causing the interference;  it’s your users' transmitters that are causing this type of interference. This cannot be fixed by making any adjustments to your repeater.  Of course.

Mistake #2: Ignore the 467 MHz "Uplink" Problem
You choose a unique repeater CTCSS / DCS / PL / Privacy code, but other incumbent repeater owners become unhinged and pissed off.  That is because signals from users trying to access your repeater are still being heard by the incumbent's repeater *receiver*.  Those signals don't activate the incumbent's repeater - but they still exist and can block or walk on the incumbent's users, particularly when the incumbent’s users are operating handheld radios.  CTCSS / DCS / PL / Privacy Codes, etc. only prevent inadvertent repeater activation - they cannot prevent uplink IX.
Clue - your repeater's transmitter is not causing the interference;  it’s your users' transmitters that are causing this type of interference. This cannot be fixed by making any adjustments to your repeater.  Of course.

This is correct.   
After working with business frequency coordinators in the Part 90 bands (450-470 MHz) for many years, the same approach applies there - if you can't find a clear channel, you can still coordinate, license and install your repeater at the same site as another licensee operating on the same frequency (assumes neither is an FB8 class - centralized trunked).   Just don't interfere.   This often works out fine because the incumbent repeater is not being used (user moved on, or seasonal), or no longer exists, even though a license still exists.  It really is the best way to fully utilize spectrum.  However, the FCC's disservice was to lengthen the license term from five to ten years, resulting in tens of thousands to Peper" or non-existent repeaters.
 

This is correct.   
After working with business frequency coordinators in the Part 90 bands (450-470 MHz) for many years, the same approach applies there - if you can't find a clear channel, you can still coordinate, license and install your repeater at the same site as another licensee operating on the same frequency (assumes neither is an FB8 class - centralized trunked).   Just don't interfere.   This often works out fine because the incumbent repeater is not being used (user moved on, or seasonal), or no longer exists, even though a license still exists.  It really is the best way to fully utilize spectrum.  However, the FCC's disservice was to lengthen the license term from five to ten years, resulting in tens of thousands to Peper" or non-existent repeaters.
 

Why would anyone be foolish enough to use a utility that is on the internet that is absolutely free and only gets updated when the crows fly upside down? This applies to all sites, not just this one. The onus is on you, not the site giving misinformation.
Only way to do it correctly is to do a site survey for a predetermined amount of time to be 98% sure you're not going to cause or receive interference.

I have operated amateur DMR since 2011 and legacy analog repeaters since the 1990's.  What I increasingly find in amateur are many abusive people with closed minds that lack loyalty to friends.   Also very cliquish.  They want to consider amateur an exclusive club...no thanks.  I find those in GMRS - many very new to radio - as more open-minded and less abusive (except for here . )    
I am guessing that of all the people that want or need a radio, likely ~90% will never get their amateur license.  So we miss out on all of them.  GMRS is a great service for the vast majority of these people.   The familial license is just the right amount of regulation to keep business and large incompatible organizations from monopolizing it and running legit GMRS licensees off.  
But the other nice thing is less content moderation by the government.   I can actually conduct my small business communications over GMRS legally.  The ability to hand a radio to another family member for quick comms is also great. 
Lets expand GMRS capabilities, not cripple it with inflexible rules.   

I feel your pain.   The Zetron community tone panel we are using on both repeaters have a mode where it will repeat all traffic (like a carrier squelch mode).  However, if the incoming tone is one that is enabled, it will encode that on the output.  Otherwise it just uses no encode or a single encode code I set for carrier or "wrong code" traffic.   This does not impact our users as most run tone squelch, but allows me to hear all the maritime trash.  Or the unlicensed users...
 
G    

Are you thinking we want to implement DMR because we want to use digital?   The San Francisco/Sacramento region is heavily congested and interference among repeaters is increasing.   There is no practical solution using the same amount of spectrum unless you move to digital technologies.   
You are also trying to compare apples to oranges.  GMRS is a more attractive solution to the majority of people because their priority is communication as opposed to technical pursuits.  Here in California, CERT, neighborhood or fire watch, militia groups, etc. have implemented GMRS because 80-90% of their members have no direct interest in the technical aspects of amateur radio.
 

This is where many groups should really start.  The organization can pay for one commercial (or public safety) license for ~$300 (for 10 years) and be assigned one callsign that everyone uses.   As opposed to every member having to figure out CORES, FRNs, and pay $35 for a GMRS license.   
GMRS may have been used originally due to the low-cost radios, but Part 90 radios are just as low cost today. 
Eventually PII (Personally Identifiable Information) will be enforced for CERT and SAR organizations, and FCC rules permit encrypted transmissions on commercial and public safety channels.    And they allow for digital for greater clarity and capacity.  And they can be linked easily and without controversy.  And have slightly greater protection from interference, particularly if the groups chooses to use public safety catagory channels.               
Downsides?

This is where many groups should really start.  The organization can pay for one commercial (or public safety) license for ~$300 (for 10 years) and be assigned one callsign that everyone uses.   As opposed to every member having to figure out CORES, FRNs, and pay $35 for a GMRS license.   
GMRS may have been used originally due to the low-cost radios, but Part 90 radios are just as low cost today. 
Eventually PII (Personally Identifiable Information) will be enforced for CERT and SAR organizations, and FCC rules permit encrypted transmissions on commercial and public safety channels.    And they allow for digital for greater clarity and capacity.  And they can be linked easily and without controversy.  And have slightly greater protection from interference, particularly if the groups chooses to use public safety catagory channels.               
Downsides?

Good job!  A commercial license might have been another alternative to GMRS for this, though.

I thought I would start this thread as LScott noted elsewhere:
"Hummm… This could be the topic for another thread. GMRS seems to be mutating into a hobbyist type service. It seems the original primary intent by the FCC was a radio service simple enough to be used by ordinary people with basically no background in radio communication technology for their personal use, and immediate family members."
GMRS traditionally had been for personal use (family, small groups and very small business), in direct or repeater mode.   Repeaters were stand-alone (not linked).  Large business use was discouraged as the FCC saw this as incompatible with personal communications (which is the main reason the service requires individual licensing).   But the number of users have risen dramatically over the past 5-6 years (particularly in the metro areas), and the service is experiencing some growing pains (busier channels, more IX from businesses, other repeaters, etc.). 
What are the top three causes of this?   In no particular order, here is a potential list: 
General experimentation with repeaters (duplex or simplex), increasing interference in some areas FCC permitting unlicensed 2-watt direct-mode usage Unlicensed 2-watt users operating direct-mode digital (NXDN, DMR, etc.) Entry by new unsophisticated users Linking repeaters using input frequencies (467 MHz; causes interference (IX) to other co-channel repeaters) Low cost (primarily Chinese) user equipment and repeaters Some sporatic use of digital repeaters on GMRS Linking (e.g., Local, Regional, National) Low-cost / long-duration licensing Russia? Other ideas?

Are you thinking we want to implement DMR because we want to use digital?   The San Francisco/Sacramento region is heavily congested and interference among repeaters is increasing.   There is no practical solution using the same amount of spectrum unless you move to digital technologies.   
You are also trying to compare apples to oranges.  GMRS is a more attractive solution to the majority of people because their priority is communication as opposed to technical pursuits.  Here in California, CERT, neighborhood or fire watch, militia groups, etc. have implemented GMRS because 80-90% of their members have no direct interest in the technical aspects of amateur radio.
 

Fixed....thanks. 

I vagely remember this article.  Our numbers are a bit differnt - but I dissagree with Jay on the 6 dB degradation.   If you reduce the receiver bandwidth by half (25 kHz to 12.5 kHz), the receiver noise floor should drop 3 dB (improving C/I by 3 dB), offsetting his 6 dB to 3 dB.    But the rest seems right on the money. 

I am not completely following what happened - but if its not in the rules or provided in writing, then its not not official and considered hearsay.   Although it might be smart to work with the FCC and start a conversation.   
I hope they did not ask who else uses the repeater; this would be a bit agressive and would warrant a call to your elected represenative (hopefully republican) to have them suggest the FCC back off.     
But everyone seems to forget this rule: 
"§ 95.1705 Individual licenses required; eligibility; who may operate; cooperative use.
(f) Cooperative use of GMRS stations.
(4) All sharing arrangements must be conducted in accordance with a written agreement to be kept as part of the station records."
Normally, the best policy in any organization is to keep a limited number (or no) records....but this rule requires something.  This is why I have always said that open repeaters may not be permissible unless they meet this requirement. 

They've had free reign over us for 40 years because of that bad decision in '84.  I think even though the decision was unconstitutional it would have been best for the people who knew better to make the decisions instead of a court that really didn't have the knowledge/experience to make those decisions.  Unfortunately we are talking about bureaucrats who love power and would do anything to have more and more.  And herein lies the problem with giving agencies power like that which they aren't authorized to have.  They make decisions that give them more power and continue to do so and then make rules/regulations with the power of law behind them without any congressional oversight or even input.  The courts got lazy and either didn't want to do their jobs or outright refused to do the job and deferred all authority to power hungry bureaucrats that only had their own interests in hand.
This took way too long to get rid of.  But at least now we are on our way to slowing new things way down because of overloaded courts.  And we won't have bureaucrats making decisions that give them power over the people to expand the govt to give themselves more power.
 
Yes, I'm one of those.

This will change given the SCOTUS ruling Friday re Chevron deference.  Agencies will no longer be able to fill in the blanks on ambiguous laws.  It's now back to the courts.

I was unable to pass them. 

I was unable to pass them.