WRTE806

If you want to see several of the different threads about this topic, search the forums for “95.1749”

Thanks for sharing the link.

I really appreciate solid answers.

73


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem I have is that you keep saying "linking" is prohibited.  The regulation only says "connecting to a network other than for control purposes" is prohibited.  Although a network is the most likely (and easiest) way people would link repeater, it's not the only way.  Two repeaters could be directly connected (linked) which would not involve a network.
Also, the fact that probably hundreds of GMRS repeaters are linked, using the internet, and FCC has done nothing about it, including no "do-better" letters, makes me think it's a tempest in a teapot.

Nope.  The wording of the rule has been changed.

Go read the blog entry and decide for yourself.  Note this change to 95 E, which is referenced in the letter posted on that blog:
§ 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.
Note that it says "may be connected to ... other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control ..."
Remote control means things like turning the repeater on or off, changing the power level or tones, etc.
My interpretation of that is, "You can hook your repeater up to the Internet, but only for remote control".  In other words, not to link it to other repeaters for voice traffic.

Somewhere between sometime and never, I suspect.

Nope. Sorry Im not a fan of nets. They should be on Ham radio in my opinion. A national net just ties up repeaters when no one is listening to them.

When I became a ham I joined ARRL. I just renewed it for two years last month. 

The League does a LOT for amateur radio, beyond QST (and other publications).

The radio insurance is a value to me.  My homeowners and auto insurance does not cover the gear as well as the League insurance does.
The League represents amateur radio well before the Federal Communications Commission and Congress.  Is the League perfect here?  Probably not as perfect as they could be if THEY wrote the laws, rather than Congress.   <G>
The League is the ONLY group with a seat with the International Amateur Radio Union.  That's important when it comes time to decide allocations involving treaties and such.
The League also supports licensing, testing, and renewals.  Those email reminders can come in handy, in the event of time to renew.

The field organization, ex. Section Managers and Division Directors, are the rubber meets the road points.  IF the League did not do anything for YOU, YOU did not use the field organization to the full potential.  (Former SM here)
Hope that helps. 
73
Lloyd, KC5FM/WRTE806
 
 
 

Who will be the national voice for our Service, other than the ARRL? Without their efforts, it's likely we'll lose all our spectrum to commercial interests. As Lscott pointed out, business interests have been sharpening their knives for years, waiting to carve it up.
The cost of an ARRL Membership is cheap, considering what you get in just the magazine alone. Ads? Most pubs carry ads as the primary way to support their efforts. Ads can cover up to 90% or more of magazine revenue. Would you rather pay nine times more for a magazine with no ads?
Suppoting local efforts are vital as well. Do whatever you can from where you are, but recognize the bigger picture. But it's not an either/or choice between supporting local or national efforts that benefit our Service (ask any ARES Member, it's not a "hobby," it's a Service). 
A group of passengers were stranded in a life boat. The lifeboat sprung a leak. Everyone joined in baling the water except for one guy. When asked why he wasn't helping save the boat, he replied, "Why bother? It's not my boat."