Question: Paid Subscription Repeaters?

[WRYZ926]

29 minutes ago, wilbilt62 said:

Yes, I see that now.

Unfortunately, where I live in rural Nor Cal, you can't swing a dead cat around without hitting somebody's "private" repeater.

Often on the same frequencies and tones.

Might as well shut my radios down and throw them away. A shame that "public" frequencies aren't "public".

One advantage of amateur radio is that there are repeater counsels to help prevent that kind of mess. Though that is harder to do with GMRS repeaters since there are only 8 repeater channels available.

[WRCR724]

On 4/28/2025 at 7:38 PM, OffRoaderX said:

If that makes you sad, you should set up your own repeater so everyone can use it for free and teach them all a lesson.

[WRKC935]

On 4/29/2025 at 3:08 PM, wilbilt62 said:

If no rules or laws have been broken, what would be the basis of the complaint? A serious question. 

Well, if you are operating on someone's repeater, and have been 'told' (documented) to NOT use their repeater, then the complaint is malicious interference with the repeater.  Which is one of the few things that the FCC will in fact look into.  But the repeater owner needs to have documented proof that you have been informed that the repeater is for private use, which is also legal under GMRS, and you are still interfering with the repeater.  Randy mentioned that there are FEW enforcement actions in the GMRS service. But those that do exist are for interference. 

Now here's the rub.  If you are contacted by the FCC about interfering with someone's private repeater and you tell them it's a paid repeater.  Then, since they are doing an investigation, they MIGHT look into that.  If the owner has his documentation together and can prove it's either a club machine and he collects 'club dues' or he can show that the money collected is ONLY for the maintenance of the repeater, he's in the clear.  If not, then he might get a notice too.  But YOU are getting a notice if it goes that far.  Regardless of what he's going or not doing legally, you are interfering with his repeater. 

Interference is one of those really broad regulations that most anything fits into.  Broken radios that are transmitting off frequency is interference.  Putting up a repeater on the same frequency as another one in your town when there are other pairs open.  Again, interference.  This one needs a bit more to it, like the new repeater owner needs to KNOW there is another repeater there, or at minimum your repeater needs to be well documented as preexisting the new one.  And your not gonna get any assistance with this if your repeater is on your garage and talks 2 miles.  But a high profile machine that is documented and public, yeah, the FCC is gonna be on their side of it. 

But, in this case, being told, with documented notice (first class mail with signed receipt) that you are interfering with the operations of a private repeater can get the FCC's attention.  But it's gonna need to be more than a telephone call to the FCC office to get the ball rolling.  But if the repeater in question is well used by other's and they are paying their fee, and you aren't.  It's not difficult for the owner to request the membership file complaints, and actually get part of them to do so.  If you get multiple complaints from multiple license holders, you are going to get a letter from the FCC about your actions. 

[WRUE951]

Although I've never really used it, my repeater is set up to remotely disable/enable and i can even send the commands via my cell phone.   

[LeoG]

On 4/29/2025 at 2:08 PM, OffRoaderX said:

CORRECTION: Not "illegal", but a violation of FCC rules.. 

Ahhhh.... the administrative state that makes up rules and regulations and enforces by being judge, jury, prosecutor along with fee collector.

 

 

[WRTC928]

I think it would be very hard to prove that someone is profiting by operating a repeater. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it would be hard to prove. For example, if the tower is on his property, he could possibly plausibly argue that he's entitled to some rent. After all, commercial entities rent their towers to repeater owners. I think subscription repeaters is one of those things that we will grumble about, but ultimately, we'll just have to accept it.

[SteveShannon]

4 minutes ago, WRTC928 said:

I think it would be very hard to prove that someone is profiting by operating a repeater. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it would be hard to prove. For example, if the tower is on his property, he could possibly plausibly argue that he's entitled to some rent. After all, commercial entities rent their towers to repeater owners. I think subscription repeaters is one of those things that we will grumble about, but ultimately, we'll just have to accept it.

I think it would be fairly easy to show that a person is profiting, if it’s true.  Because a GMRS repeater is not allowed to be operated commercially, placing your own repeater on your own land would not include an assumption that rent is entitled. The IRS would eagerly participate if a person were not declaring income and if the person were declaring income the FCC would have a case. The owner of the repeater would be expected to have records showing that every dollar of income went to a reasonable expense.
But, it can cost a lot to own a repeater and folks who provide them for the rest of us should not have to bear the full burden; they just can’t profit.  

 

[WRUE951]

54 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

But, it can cost a lot to own a repeater and folks who provide them for the rest of us should not have to bear the full burden; they just can’t profit.  

 

I think the only profit to be had is going to be barely enough to recoup the investment, if even that..  A guy i recently met whom is also a HAM operator had over a dozen GMRS repeaters.  And he wasn't using cheap equipment.  He admits to charging membership fees to make money. His membership numbers aren't that great to make him a fortune.  My math tells me he was barely scraping the barrel to pay for the operation. The guy is a 'radio nut' he enjoys radio and nothing else.  He is obviously doing what he does to keep himself occupied and happy.   He was linking all his repeaters and he believed he was operating his repeaters within the rules, but after the FCC clarified the rules on GMRS linking he is in process of decommissioning..  I bought one of his repeaters and it's a damn nice piece of equipment.   Some of his sites, he does pay tower lease so even an added expense.   I still scratch my head why someone will spend the amount of money they do.  I finally concluded, it doesn't matter to me,, it's there 'business'   

[The219]

On 4/29/2025 at 1:47 PM, wilbilt62 said:

Yes, I see that now.

Unfortunately, where I live in rural Nor Cal, you can't swing a dead cat around without hitting somebody's "private" repeater.

Often on the same frequencies and tones.

Might as well shut my radios down and throw them away. A shame that "public" frequencies aren't "public".

The public frequencies are free. You can transmit on simplex without incurring a charge using the hardware you own. If you want to use a privately owned repeater then you either need to have permission from the owner or pay the membership fee / dues of the club. Complaining that a privately owned repeater should be free to use is just plain dumb. Would you let a stranger off the street drive your car on public streets because it free to drive on public streets. Like what OffRoaderX said, if you're upset about it, go set up your own repeater and open it to the public.

[TDM827]

2 hours ago, SteveShannon said:

I think it would be fairly easy to show that a person is profiting, if it’s true.  Because a GMRS repeater is not allowed to be operated commercially, placing your own repeater on your own land would not include an assumption that rent is entitled. The IRS would eagerly participate if a person were not declaring income and if the person were declaring income the FCC would have a case. The owner of the repeater would be expected to have records showing that every dollar of income went to a reasonable expense.
But, it can cost a lot to own a repeater and folks who provide them for the rest of us should not have to bear the full burden; they just can’t profit.  

 

Exactly,

If I were a repeater owner using "creative accounting" to avoid showing a profit, I would be much more worried about the IRS getting involved.

If those folks think you aren't declaring income they can get pretty intense. In other words, Audit TIme.  

[tcp2525]

Why, for Christ's sake would anyone be stupid enough to use a pay for use repeater? I have to say it, it breaks every terrestrial and celestial boundary of human stupidity to do so. If you operate a repeater professionally and it has great features the members will voluntarily donate to it. Too many choices out there than paying some clown for nothing. 

[TDM827]

5 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:

Why, for Christ's sake would anyone be stupid enough to use a pay for use repeater? I have to say it, it breaks every terrestrial and celestial boundary of human stupidity to do so. If you operate a repeater professionally and it has great features the members will voluntarily donate to it. Too many choices out there than paying some clown for nothing. 

Not sure how common this is, because lots of us are fortunate enough to have easy access to public and high quality repeaters.  

But what if you are in area with no public / open repeaters which work for you? And the repeater owner just happens to own the only repeater in the area you can reach? And without it you have no repeater to access. And your comm plan includes the use of a repeater.

Meaning you have no other options than to pay to play, or build your own high quality repeater.    

Not looking for specific examples of this scenario. Just wanted to let any members in this situation know paying might indeed be your only option. And if paying is their only option, they really are not breaking any boundaries of human stupidity if paying is the only way to meet their needs.

They are simply meeting market supply and demand expectations. Not apples to apples, but kind like the person living in a very rural area is not stupid for paying a lot for satellite internet if they want it.

[LeoG]

24 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:

Why, for Christ's sake would anyone be stupid enough to use a pay for use repeater? I have to say it, it breaks every terrestrial and celestial boundary of human stupidity to do so. If you operate a repeater professionally and it has great features the members will voluntarily donate to it. Too many choices out there than paying some clown for nothing. 

On Long Island they have the BTG repeater system that sucks up at least 3 of the channels and covers the entire area.  Not sure if they have more.  So it's hard to escape them.

[tcp2525]

12 minutes ago, TDM827 said:

Not sure how common this is, because lots of us are fortunate enough to have easy access to public and high quality repeaters.  

But what if you are in area with no public / open repeaters which work for you? And the repeater owner just happens to own the only repeater in the area you can reach? And without it you have no repeater to access. And your comm plan includes the use of a repeater.

Meaning you have no other options than to pay to play, or build your own high quality repeater.    

Not looking for specific examples of this scenario. Just wanted to let any members in this situation know paying might indeed be your only option. And if paying is their only option, they really are not breaking any boundaries of human stupidity if paying is the only way to meet their needs.

They are simply meeting market supply and demand expectations. Not apples to apples, but kind like the person living in a very rural area is not stupid for paying a lot for satellite internet if they want it.

Simple, use other forms of communication as GMRS isn't the only form of it. What did you do before you heard of GMRS?

[LeoG]

12 minutes ago, tcp2525 said:

Simple, use other forms of communication as GMRS isn't the only form of it. What did you do before you heard of GMRS?

Now why would I want to use the $250 Billion dollar system when I can use the $500 system.....

[tcp2525]

28 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Now why would I want to use the $250 Billion dollar system when I can use the $500 system.....

Simple, the $250 billion dollar one is not coming out of your pocket and is being paid for on my dime. Don't complain when you get a free ride.

[TDM827]

Kind of missing the point. Which is, I want to use GMRS. You have the equipment I "want to use." And I am willing to pay for access to it. So it's a win win if it solves the problem. And if I comfortable relying on older forms if communication I just won't pay to play. No Harm, no foul.  

Before GMRS I used lot of forms of communication. None of which I really want use as a reliable "secondary" form of communications.

I mean, my primary and most reliable form of communication since the mid 2000s was and remains cell phone. Which as of today I still can find plenty of dead spots and experience occasional downtime. Especially in rural areas. Which coincidentally may not have many repeaters. So cell really really doesn't address people who really want to have GMRS radio as a secondary / back up comm.

Otherwise, back in the day we used: FRS (Not even a close second to GMRS when it comes to range),CB (Still limited range). Land Line Phone (Fine if you are home. I find it a good form of communication if the person you are calling also has land line or has working cell service).

I mean, I could really go far back to the old Navy day's, and relearn basic semaphore / flag signaling, LOL