intermod

I will also add that if an analog signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the digital signal you are trying to listen to, the analog will either make it impossible to hear the digital signal or you just wont hear it at all. 

Linking repeaters through the Internet, or via a private broadband connection (private point-to-point microwave radio, like using Ubiquity radios) is not prohibited by the rules.   The FCC rep's opinion in the video is “hearsay” and is not considered authoritative.  The female rep even notes this earlier.       
Here is a brief tutorial on this matter. 
§ 95.349 Network connection.
Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749.
Fact 1:  The Internet is not a “public switched network”.
§ 47CFR § 9.3 - Definitions.
Public Switched Network. Any common carrier switched network, whether by wire or radio, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, and mobile service providers, that uses the North American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched services.
Fact 2: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not considered a “Common Carriers”.  They were between 2015-2017, when Net Neutrality was in place.  Net Neutrality was eliminated in 2017.
§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.
Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745.
§ 95.303 Definitions.
Remote control. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.
§ 95.1745 GMRS remote control.
Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.
Fact 3: While “control” or “remote control” normally refers to the act of enabling or disabling the ability of a transmitter to “activate”, the term “operation by remote control” refers to people using the repeater remotely. 
 
Conclusion:  Linking GMRS repeaters through the Internet is not prohibited.  Linking through a private connection (not routing through the internet) is certainly fine as well.  Just don't install an autopatch on GMRS.   
If anyone is aware of a formal case where a licensee received a formal NOV for linking after 2017, please let us know.  I suspect one does not exist.   
What typically occurs is that an NOV is issued for harmful or destructive interference (IX).  For example, if I operate a repeater in Boston, which activates a repeater in California, and the California repeater walks on top of another local repeater, then we have harmful IX.  This is a violation.  Not the linking.   

High noise floor, particularly in the metro and suburban areas, can be the controlling factor.  This is primarily caused by microprocessors, associated clocks and switching power supplies in electronic products (including many LED light sources).  This effectively deafens VHF receivers so that they are no longer as sensitive as they used to be.   If you ever get a chance to use 700, 800 or 900 MHz, or even 1200 MHz, it will become immediately obvious.  As was said above, while VHF propagates really well outdoors, in some cases the 700-1200 MHz bands can actually do better, except when the signal hits dirt (hill or mountain) or a dense foliage.
Another factor to consider in VHF is portable antenna efficiency.    Most portable radios are equipped with the 10" flexible helical antenna, versus something that more approximates a 1/4 wave length (18").    The 10" has an effective gain of -11 dBd.  That takes a 2-watt MURS radio and degrades it to less than 0.2 watts.  And it does the same to reception of signals......so VHF is really being hammered. 
UHF has become degraded but not as bad.  But the antennas (for a given length) are more efficient. 

IEEE TECH TALK: IS VHF DEAD?
Date: 13 Feb 2024
Time: 05:30 PM to 06:50 PM
Online Join link
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87613850683?pwd=VGhYQmxsU0dlbE5qRnMyS3o2Vmxqdz09

Meeting ID: 876 1385 0683
Passcode: IEEESEA https://events.vtools.ieee.org/m/401815
 

Linking repeaters through the Internet, or via a private broadband connection (private point-to-point microwave radio, like using Ubiquity radios) is not prohibited by the rules.   The FCC rep's opinion in the video is “hearsay” and is not considered authoritative.  The female rep even notes this earlier.       
Here is a brief tutorial on this matter. 
§ 95.349 Network connection.
Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749.
Fact 1:  The Internet is not a “public switched network”.
§ 47CFR § 9.3 - Definitions.
Public Switched Network. Any common carrier switched network, whether by wire or radio, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, and mobile service providers, that uses the North American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched services.
Fact 2: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not considered a “Common Carriers”.  They were between 2015-2017, when Net Neutrality was in place.  Net Neutrality was eliminated in 2017.
§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.
Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745.
§ 95.303 Definitions.
Remote control. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.
§ 95.1745 GMRS remote control.
Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.
Fact 3: While “control” or “remote control” normally refers to the act of enabling or disabling the ability of a transmitter to “activate”, the term “operation by remote control” refers to people using the repeater remotely. 
 
Conclusion:  Linking GMRS repeaters through the Internet is not prohibited.  Linking through a private connection (not routing through the internet) is certainly fine as well.  Just don't install an autopatch on GMRS.   
If anyone is aware of a formal case where a licensee received a formal NOV for linking after 2017, please let us know.  I suspect one does not exist.   
What typically occurs is that an NOV is issued for harmful or destructive interference (IX).  For example, if I operate a repeater in Boston, which activates a repeater in California, and the California repeater walks on top of another local repeater, then we have harmful IX.  This is a violation.  Not the linking.   

See attached model number chart.  These are 450-512 MHz models.  These will work on GMRS but not amateur.   I have many XPR4550 radios and a few 5550. They have superior receivers from a susceptiility/overload perspective.  They are perfect radios for creating a repeater.  Their accessory outputs are easy to program.   They have a design flaw where their accessory port output of low frequency CTCSS codes (below 114.8 Hz) or DCS are poor.   But that is fine.  Not sure about cables.         
XPR 4550 Model Number Chart.pdf

According to the CDC, since 2012, about 400 people have been struck by lightning. According to the FCC, since 2012, less than 10 people have gotten into trouble for transmitting on GMRS at over 50watts, not using a callsign, etc.   To me, it would seem that @WRXB215 MIGHT be exaggerating or fear mongering..  

Maybe you can stop throwing hams under the bus. You're ranting to and expecting support from an audience that in many cases have both our GMRS and ham licenses. 

Looks like that's were we should start, get the FCC to enforce the rules.
The whole point with enabling digital voice, in some limited manner, on GMRS has nothing to do with experimentation or making it a "Ham Lite" type service. It's more about improving the quality of service.
As it exists now the general GMRS user really only "practically" use channels 1-7 and 15-22 due to the above restrictions on channels 8-14.
The proposal I made in that paper would take the nearly useless narrow band low power interstitial channels and put them to better use. The topic of this thread was more "repeater" channels. While not exactly adding more channels by allowing using digital voice on 8-14 and at a reasonable power, 5 watts in simplex mode, we effectively gain 5 more channels without asking the FCC for more spectrum, which likely won't ever happen. Better than nothing and a kick in the butt from the FCC.  

Sounds like to me the battle is already lost. 
What your complaint is really all about is no FCC enforcement. Not really about digital voice, although you pick on it as an example. We also have reports by others of illegal use of GMRS by businesses with no licenses etc. This topic deserves a whole thread on its own. But that’s not what this one is about.

I will also add that if an analog signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the digital signal you are trying to listen to, the analog will either make it impossible to hear the digital signal or you just wont hear it at all. 

I will also add that if an analog signal comes along and happens to be as strong if not stronger than the digital signal you are trying to listen to, the analog will either make it impossible to hear the digital signal or you just wont hear it at all. 

The eight current GMRS channels can handle eight simultaneous conversations today (in the same area).  The proposal below would allow for 32 simultaneous conversations without expanding the GMRS service.
For those not familiar with DMR technology, each DMR repeater signal has two "timeslots" which allows for two independent talk channels.  Two DMR signals can fit within the same space as one analog FM signal today.  This is possible because a DMR signal only requires about 7.6 kHz of spectrum, while todays wideband analog signals need 20 kHz of spectrum.
Thus, four conversations can be supported within each of the current GMRS channels. 
The center frequency of each DMR repeater (and the radios it supports) would be programmed 5 kHz above or below the current center channel.   +/-12.5 kHz might also be used.   
Below shows how this would work in reality. 

The FCC would not need to allocate new radio spectrum.  They only have to allow more efficient use of what we already have.
The other benefit of DMR is that two different repeater groups could invest in one DMR repeater, which splits the cost in two while each maintains their own "channel".   As a DMR repeater takes the same rack space as an analog repeater and only requires one antenna, the repeater site lease costs could be split between the two groups as well.
It would take the FCC some time to accomplish this, so if they started now, they might be able to complete this rule change in 2024.
 

Ah yes. The infamous CB Keydown competitions. I've said it here before, I'll say it again. Keydown competitions are what's missing from GMRS.

But we have had two classes of users for almost 30 years - the "common folk" or bubblepack users (all direct-mode/simplex) and the more professional users that operate repeaters.    100% of our DMR users figured out their radios within about 1 day when first getting on.    

Is this problem limited to one city or state?  Or maybe neither of us really know.  Are you suggesting a "one size fits all approach" is the only way? 
The FCC has created a list of "major metro areas" in Part 90 where different rules apply.  Why not apply this same concept to GMRS?
It is highly unlikely that additional radio channels will be allocated for GMRS in specific regions.  So it seems logical that the best approach is to make better use of what we already have.  Digital provides 4X the capacity within the same spectrum.  It is not clear if this will actually increase perceived interference or reduce it since far fewer repeaters would be needed to support the same number of users.   
For example:  I have two separate user groups operating simultaneously on a single DMR repeater today, as it provides for two simultaneous channels (slot 1 and slot 2).  If I were to lose the DMR license for this and have to go back to legacy analog operation, I now need to build a second repeater and use yet another GMRS channel for that second repeater.  I suspect this might increase interference to those on the new channel......

Has anyone considered asking the FCC to permit digital direct-mode (simplex) such as P25, NXDN, DMR, on the 462 MHz channels?  Some posters in other threads have been concerned about digital repeaters causing more interference than analog ones (although nobody has yet been able to show how this occurs).  So why not allow it on the eight 462 MHz channels?
We already have many people using digital in this manner daily here anyway - listening to them tells me they are commercial users.   
Digital radios are less susceptible to interference from analog or other digital signals, so this would be of great benefit in areas subjected to all the commercial 2-watt bubblepack radio traffic.   Range would be limited so it would not disrupt a significant number of analog users - particularly those using CTCSS/DCS. 
I am not suggesting requiring anyone to use digital - it would just co-exist with legacy analog radios and be another buying choice.  
This would apply to both portable and vehicular radios.
They would not be permitted to transmit on the 467 MHz repeater input/uplink channels.    

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.   

Oh - you are referring to repeater-capable radios.  Most OTS radio don't have repeater capability because its way too complicated, as you say.  Just allow them to change the color code - done.   There are only 16 to choose from.  The same way an analog radio user would change CTCSS/DCS codes if the same thing happened.   No different. 
Play nice - agree.  That is the general guideline.  What about BCLO and dual-mode would not be a way to play nicely?
Also - I just considered you may be the kind of user that operates carrier-squelch.  Digital signals are more annoying to listen to (but they don't cause more destructive interference than analog).  If so, CTCSS/DCS can take care of that.  We have to run CTSCC/DCS full time in this area so that we don't hear all the commercial bubblepack and digital traffic.   I just create a channel for each repeater I want to listen to (with CTCSSS/DCS) and scan them.
The bubble-pack radios come with CTCSS/DCS enabled so they won't know any annoying signals even exist.  

Has anyone considered asking the FCC to permit digital direct-mode (simplex) such as P25, NXDN, DMR, on the 462 MHz channels?  Some posters in other threads have been concerned about digital repeaters causing more interference than analog ones (although nobody has yet been able to show how this occurs).  So why not allow it on the eight 462 MHz channels?
We already have many people using digital in this manner daily here anyway - listening to them tells me they are commercial users.   
Digital radios are less susceptible to interference from analog or other digital signals, so this would be of great benefit in areas subjected to all the commercial 2-watt bubblepack radio traffic.   Range would be limited so it would not disrupt a significant number of analog users - particularly those using CTCSS/DCS. 
I am not suggesting requiring anyone to use digital - it would just co-exist with legacy analog radios and be another buying choice.  
This would apply to both portable and vehicular radios.
They would not be permitted to transmit on the 467 MHz repeater input/uplink channels.    

If you like animals, carrier pigeons are great, too.

1. No test required.
2. License fee is now only $35.
3. Licenses good for 10 years.
4. Cheap Chinese radios.

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.
 

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.
 

If you like animals, carrier pigeons are great, too.