UncleYoda

I think that's because mobile (in a vehicle) or portable (walking around) can't be connected to a landline. As in other places in the regs, the modern wireless technology isn't addressed.

Ray, I'm not new and your explanation wasn't clear to me. I think node is a computer networking term that isn't well defined for radio. Are nodes always connected to the internet? Do they transmit and receive on the same frequency? Is there anything else different from using repeaters? Another term not well defined is hub.

Speaking of idiots, I'd include you guys who don't have a clue what thread topics are for. @rdunajewski it's your forum, you have to do something - it's a forum-wide issue.

DIscussion is off-topic.

also @gortex2 I saw your replies this morning and didn't think I'd respond. But I decided it is tangentially related to the thread topic. So, I'll take a stab at further explanation. Nothing here will be citing regs or legal precedence, so if that is what you expect, just skip this. I do not have a repeater and do not intend to research or see any personal benefit from researching the legal issues; I'll leave that to those involved. I know people on both sides of the issue. I know at least one (maybe another) who pays for some of his HAM repeater tower usage. He doesn't take donations that I know of, and it isn't a typical club (there is a loose organization that is the primary user). And I've been told or heard discussions by several hams all the way back to when I started that the repeater tower owners can't charge for HAM usage. Similar to what 935 said above, I know of one club repeater on a commercial tower on the coast where emergency use by non-profit organizations is a major factor. [Emergency use and public benefit are the main reasons HAM is supposed to be non-commercial/non-profit.] And this tower owner, according to club members, told them they would not be allowed to do any maintenance on the cable and antenna and that when it fails they're done. The tower owner wants to sell the space to commercial users that pay (or pay more). The way it was stated by the club members is the tower owner did not want it there because they could not charge for it (or maybe charge as much as the commercial users). It's possible that the differences in the two views is how things are being stated. It is true, at least in my area, that repeater owners can't charge HAMs to use their repeaters. All the HAM repeaters I am familiar with are open to any licensed HAM, except an individual who has been singled out and banned but that's off-topic. I have seen listings for private HAM repeaters on Repeaterbook but I have never used or had any further info on those. Although clubs maintain many of the repeaters, I don't know of any (other than those private ones) where club membership is required for use. So, since the repeater owners can't charge users, the repeater owners may be telling the tower owners they can't pay or can't afford the full commercial fee. But I also know of cases where a prospective repeater owner told the tower owner the tower owners weren't allowed to charge for allowing installation of HAM repeaters. No reg/law was ever cited in any of what I heard as far as I recall. That's different from GMRS where private, members only repeaters are common. But even with GMRS, I've never seen or heard what the fees actually are. Most of us pay dues (if we choose) without knowing what the costs of operation are. If it is all non-profit, the financing should be made available. I don't know if understanding the differences in this between HAM and GMRS would be helpful or just add to the confusion.

That is different from my experience; it was the club/owner's requirement to use member ID, of course in addition to the FCC ID requirement..

I do not like your implication that I haven't looked at the regs. I would almost never bring anything up without reading the regs (I've read all of parts 97 & 95 more than once already anyway). I do not see any substantive difference in the two relating to this. Ham clubs charge for membership. AFAIK, prior to joining and maybe even after joining there is no accounting provided of how the dues are spent. And that was true for the one gmrs club I was formerly a member of; members were not even told how many members there were. The main issue I know of with HAM repeaters is the commercial tower owners cannot charge for HAM repeaters. I have not heard that brought up with GMRS. It's interesting to see all the varied interpretations posted so far - but not really good feedback for the clarity of t he regs.

Does the practice of clubs allowing only paid members to use their repeater(s) violate GMRS regs? Is it different than similar practice in HAM? (These questions are prompted by comments in various threads here.) No trash posting please; if you don't care, ignore.

I don't remember any more. It's up to FCC to cite or make a new statement.

Some rules applicable to Amateur are not specific to it. And there is a lot of common meanings of terms. There was a ruling/statement some years back that the internet was not included in the restriction on PSTN. That should apply to all services. I know you'll want a citation/link/quote but all I have is what I remember.

Power and height, e.g. 10-20 W, 40-60 ft. Problem then is putting them on mountains.

If they do change the rules, I think they should place some restrictions on private repeaters.

That is for you controlling your own radio. Anyway, remote control is a false path to pursue regarding repeater linking. What we need is an official statement on whether internet linking is covered by the prohibited network clause.

Yes, but operate/use is not "control". We control our radios but not someone else's repeater.

This part: I don't want to break it down word by word since that isn't the actual wording of the regs. But the part I bolded is the main objection. I don't see any point in further debate on this word salad however.