WRUQ758

Found this: § 90.461 - Direct and remote control of transmitters. (a) In general. Radio transmitters may be operated and controlled directly (as when the operating position for the transmitter and the transmitter being operated are at the same location), or remotely (as when the transmitter being operated and the position from which it is being operated are at different locations). (b) Control of transmitters at remote locations. Radio transmitters at remote locations may be operated and controlled through the use of wire line or radio links; or through dial-up circuits, as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. Such control links or circuits may be either those of the licensee or they may be provided by common carriers authorized by law to furnish such service. (c) Dial-up circuits. Dial-up circuits may be provided by wire line telephone companies under appropriate tariffs, and they may be used by licensees for purposes of transmitter control, provided: (1) The dial-up circuits serve only to link licensed transmitter control points and the transmitters being controlled. (2) The dial-up circuits are so designed that the transmitters being controlled cannot be operated from any fixed position other than the licensed control points for those transmitters. (3) Equipment used to provide the transmitter/dial-up-circuit interface is designed to preclude associated mobile units of the licensee from reaching any point(s) served by the wire line telephone facilities other than the control point(s) of the station(s) controlled. (4) Any direct electrical connection to the telephone network shall comply with applicable tariffs and with part 68 of the Commission's Rules (See § 90.5(j)). (5) Interconnection, within the meaning of §§ 90.7 and 90.477 through 90.483, may not take place at a control point which connects to its associated transmitter(s) through dial-up circuits; nor may such dial-up transmitter control circuits be used in conjunction with (or shared by) interconnection equipment.

I called the FCC and the opinion of the call taker was that it's OK to control your transmitter with a remote but he seemed confused too as to what constituted "control". I think a lot of what was written on the FCC site reg GMRS linking is opinion.

It is pretty clear that repeaters may not be linked via the Internet. With that said I am confused with "remote control". So if I have a base station or repeater on a silo on the farm and I use the internet to "control" that repeater from the farmhouse is this allowed? To me that equates to the old tone remote controlling a base station on a mountaintop with the remote on the desk in the office. Here is where what sounds contradictory: "Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals" Remote control if a GMRS station to me means using a remote to operate the transmitter AND turn the station on/off, yet "not carrying communication signals" seems to mean you can't send your voice to your remote base/repeater. Opinion: With the supreme court making rulings on guns based on "history and what is commonly used" than this same theory should apply in this regard. Historically remote control of a base or repeater was always done with a tone or DC remote with mic or handset on the desk. You are controlling or turning on the transmitter with the remote mic PTT. Again, I am talking controlling one bas with a remote desk set.

Great Point Ian!

And you don't want linked GMRS repeaters why? During disasters linked systems are invaluable. All the lined systems I have heard are very well run except for the GMRS Linked Network which allows cursing and adult content (there are kids listening). On the other hand Midwest GMRS is EXCELLENT! Nets prepare users for disasters. Stand alone repeaters in rural areas sit unused, a good example is Iowa. You can listen for days to several repeaters in Des Moines and hear no one. It seems there is always someone who wants to ruin a good thing, be it a jammer or complainer.

I realize this is an old post, but you have got to be kidding! Right now GMRS channels are underutilized in rural areas and it's akin to Motorola forcing small rural departments to go P-25 through various sales tactics vis-a-vis FCC lobbied rule changes. LUCKILLY, we have 20 KHz wideband on GMRS and that allows the use of cheap, obsolete radios that had to be dumped by small rural departments and business because of forced "narrow banding" (another Motorola FCC lobbied sales tactic). It's nice you can afford a $500 used XPR DMR radio, not all of us can. Frankly I don't want DMR on GMRS, I am happy with my $75 Maxtrac and loud, clear 20 KHz analog audio. If you want unlimited channels get a Network Radio and load Zello, 4G is a LOT clearer than DMR. Quite frankly DMR and P-25 sounds like $#!+. "Being from California, - we love sharing our great ideas with otehr states. But this will be different!" Californias sharing their "great ideas" does not go over well in most states including South Dakota where I live. I don't like hearing bubble pack kids on playing GMRS outputs and I certainly don't want to hear digital signals. If you want to use DMR get a ham license and get on DMR MARC! Perhaps you can put forward a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" to the FCC and include the phrase "this is how we do it in California". Not trying to be abrasive, just exercising my 1A opines.

Thats akin to busting a food joint who's owners are committing crimes and charging everyone who ate there with the same crime. It's the owner who is doing the linking, not the users. IF it is a violation (big IF) the users have done nothing wrong since there are using a local repeater that happens to be linked (illegally?)!

100 percent Randy!

What do you work for Motorola? This is what "M" did to volunteer FD's with no budget, forced P-25. Horrible audio (like DMR), expensive equipment, and a programming laptop and cables. I'll keep my clear, wideband GMRS frequencies where I can use a Midland VFO MXT400 or if I want to program a Kenwood mobile with WB capability. If you want DMR get your ham license and stay there.

So if that's the case why did GMRS groups like GMRS Live add Zello/linking via "any other networks" and SUDDENLY after this highly publicized video remove them in a flurry? Here I am with my MXT-400, no repeaters in my area and no one to talk to except "bubble pack" users on simplex.

I sure hope they don't take that system down next. I travel through that area and I am permissioned on all repeaters. it's a fun, busy system with great people (except for one idiot in Hammond). That would really take the cake if that system is shut down bec of this stupid nonsense promulgated by one idiot at a meeting.

Answers: 1. They JUST added "any other networks" after this meeting on the FCC website 2. Who stood up at that meeting and opened their mouth causing this "clarification" 3. Thats an absurd response. GMRS Nationwide was not a problem, a LOT of comradery, & PPL from all over talking and making friends. Now GMRS N.W., Not A Rubicon and others have pulled the plug. It's ridiculous. Not all of us live in urban areas surrounded by repeaters, but we all have cell towers and adding Zello made it easy to join the GMRS community - not anymore....

I "migrated" to GMRS from Amateur Radio (30+ years) because there are nice PPL there and a lot of activity. Pretty much wherever I go 2 meters is dead and I mean DEAD! So if this rule was promulgated for GMRS why not have the same rule for Amateur Radio? No more IRLP, DMR MARC network etc. SAR net in FL would be exempt because it's microwave linked courtesy of DOT towers. I really enjoyed using GMRS Nationwide, Not A Rubicon and other great networks, now most have gone silent. I made a LOT of good friends I can no longer talk to. Why do people at the top ALWAYS have to ruin EVERYTHING? Pull the ham linking down and see how fast they start screaming though the ARRL lobby.