KAF6430

If that's the case, why does amateur radio have linked repeaters? Modes such as DMR routinely carry worldwide traffic over linked repeaters. The HF amateur bands are not the entirety of amateur radio. In terms of numbers, there are more hams on "short range" 2M/UHF using links on DMR, C4FM, APRS, etc. than there are hams on HF. A whole lot of hams are using an HT on 2M/UHF -- intended for short range -- to communicate with people all over the world. I certainly do. Anyone that would say "That's not what VHF is for!" would be laughed at. Nobody points out that repeaters weren't intended to be used in amateur radio when it was created in 1921. The "original intent" of amateur radio was people tapping on keys with Morse code. If we would have stuck with that, there wouldn't be much of an amateur service today. When amateur radio moved from CW to AM phone, there were those who invoked the "original intent" argument. They lost. And when AM phone moved to SSB, and now digital modes, there are always a few who say " That's not what was intended!". It's a poor argument, and one that continually loses. In every case, it's not the FCC saying, "We must remain in the past!". Whatever the technology, people tend to find new uses for it. Once upon a time, the internet you are using now was "intended" for geeks to discuss IT matters. When a dime is minted, it isn't "intended" to be used as a screwdriver, but few would gasp in horror if it were used as one in a pinch. This idea that GMRS must be forever locked in the 1970's isn't supported by the FCC. They've added new capabilities, such as digital messaging, which weren't part of the "original intent".

So... this horrible problem that you feel the need to complain about consists of two pairs out of eight being occupied by linked repeaters in your area. And that leaves you with 'only' six channels for your preferred 50W simplex activity. IOW, you have the exact same number of linked repeaters in your "general area" as we have here in the MSP/STP metro. Yet no one gets bent out of shape over that situation here. If they don't want to listen to linked traffic, they use the other six channels. Using a repeater is not "tying it up". Perhaps other people would consider your use of the other un-linked pairs to be "tying up" the frequency with "useless chatter" that has no relevance to their lives. It really doesn't matter why GMRS was created. Many of the Services created by the FCC have taken off in different ways than the FCC originally envisioned. What matters to the FCC is that they are used in compliance with the regulations. So please don't imply that the FCC is backing you up in your crusade against "useless chatter". CB, for example, strictly forbade "skip" contacts since its creation (QSOs over 150 miles, specifically). Yet, in the last Part 97 overhaul, they eliminated that restriction. CB was originally conceived as a licensed service, yet that didn't matter to the FCC when they eliminated the need for a license. VHF marine used to require an examination and a marine operators permit. Yet, the FCC did away with that and reduced it to a Restricted Radiotelephone permit with no exam. When the FCC created GMRS, they didn't envision the FRS. Yet, they made sweeping changes to expand FRS use in traditionally GMRS space. Certainly, linked repeaters were never envisioned when the FCC created the Amateur service, nor packet or satcom. Instead, these new uses were accommodated. There is nothing in the GMRS regulations that require conversations be erudite, sparkling, or serious. There are limitations on profanity, of course. But I've heard plenty of "family" conversations that would fit the category of "useless chatter". That doesn't bother me, or anyone else. Change the channel. You admit that only two pairs in your area contain this "useless chatter", so you have options. It's not that dead air is "worrisome", as you put it. Not even sure where you came up with that strawman. As a licensed ham, I can recall curmudgeons bitterly complaining about Echolink and IRLP traffic on local repeaters when that began a decade ago. They employed the same arguments as you do: it's not what 2M FM was intended for, and some people didn't have deadly serious discussions of RF theory. If that's what you want, you should get your General license and operate on HF, they said. They lost that battle to keep ham radio firmly in the past. As it turned out, a lot of hams enjoyed being able to talk to people in other countries simply by accessing their local FM repeater. Those that didn't like it went elsewhere, and nobody missed them. In short, it seems to me that you simply resent people enjoying themselves on the radio. I'd suggest that you move to amateur radio, but those attitudes have faded away in that service over the past decade. There are still a few sour hams shaking their fists at the clouds, snarling about Dumb People, and pretending the FCC would be outraged about it if they only knew. But they are dwindling rapidly. GMRS is now seen as a tool to build communities on-air. That's the purpose it serves here. And I really doubt the FCC is bothered by that. - KAF6430

How many parts of the country have all eight repeater channels dedicated to linked repeaters? I live in a major metropolitan area (Minneapolis/St. Paul), and we have only two linked repeaters. One of those is a low-coverage repeater operating from a home, so the vast majority of the metro isn't 'disturbed' by the horror of linked traffic on that pair. The other linked repeater is the most popular, because it allows metro operators to connect with a few rural MN repeaters that would otherwise have no traffic. Most of Minnesota has no repeater at all available. I see the same situation in the neighboring states of IA, SD, ND, and WI. So, this idea that everyone is living in some linked repeater hellscape without options seems unfounded. Also, from what I hear on the linked repeaters here is not a case of non-stop activity. It's very sporadic, with few roundtable conversations going beyond 15 minutes, and the operators are always willing to cede to others. If you live in an area with no unlinked options, I would suggest you discuss it with your local repeater owners, rather than railing against something that is quite useful in most parts of the country. Or suggest that they turn the link off during certain times.

I use a lighting stand: a telescoping aluminum tube with a tripod on the bottom. These are available for $10-$25 depending on height. Next, I clamp a three-element Yagi to the mast of the lighting stand and set it next to a window. You could do the same on a balcony, and attach your vertical antenna to it. To conceal it outdoors, you could simply attach a flag to the antenna. No one would give it a second look. The tripod on the lighting stand makes it stable and easily folded up and tucked away in bad weather. The Yagi, of course, will give you more gain. If you are primarily operating on repeaters, there's little value in an omnidirectional vertical compared to pointing a beam at the repeater.

Yeah, I agree with this. I also don't see the major issues that others are complaining about. That doesn't make their complaints invalid; it means that they aren't universal. Linking is very useful to widen the coverage in a metro area, and bring in some rural repeaters in the state. Here in Minneapolis/St. Paul, we have a mix of linked and unlinked repeaters. Unlike others with a 100-mile reach, we don't have any mountains and 10 miles is average. That means linking repeaters on the fringes of the metro can provide more continuous coverage, and connect local operators. We do have a few repeaters 50 to 100 miles away that are linked to the metro, but that just means that the rural repeaters that would normally be dead now have a little activity. If someone doesn't like the activity on the linked repeaters, we have two nice unlinked repeaters; a third is going up soon. I own two of them, and the issue is more of a lack of internet connectivity at the sites than any antipathy toward linking. I don't really care what the FCC considered the "purpose" of GMRS was when they created it. CB didn't evolve the way the FCC anticipated, either. If anything, the FCC has opened up both GMRS and CB to *accommodate* the new uses. What I see is people using GMRS in the same way that they would use amateur UHF FM -- which also has Echolink, AllStar, and other analog VOIP modes. As long as people comply with the rules, I don't care how they use my repeaters or if that operation conforms to the FCC's "vision" from 50 years ago. Aw, I made a "multi-paragraph" post. Apparently, that means something bad to some people. KAF6430 / KD0TLS