Pay to use repeaters

[zzz]

I have seen some discussion about private repeaters that folks have put up, that they do not want the masses to have access to. So they keep the tones private, unless someone is in their group or sometimes they charge money for access. I understand the moral implications to my question, but I am curious from a strictly technical point of view...

 

If I find a repeater that's access tones are private, why cant I just scan for the codes, assuming I know when someone is transmitting, and eventually gain access to that repeater?

[KAF6045]

10 minutes ago, zzz said:

If I find a repeater that's access tones are private, why cant I just scan for the codes, assuming I know when someone is transmitting, and eventually gain access to that repeater?

You could... and possibly rile up the repeater owner/group such that they decide it isn't worth running the repeater anymore and they take it down.

Ability to do tone scanning is a somewhat recent feature on radios, older equipment won't have it. I think I only have one radio that does tone scanning, out of five GMRS radios. Don't recall ever seeing (or, at least, using) tone scanning on any of my Amateur radios (heck, the oldest ones don't even have tone decode, only encode! Tone decode required $$$ modules to be installed))

[kidphc]

12 minutes ago, zzz said:

I have seen some discussion about private repeaters that folks have put up, that they do not want the masses to have access to. So they keep the tones private, unless someone is in their group or sometimes they charge money for access. I understand the moral implications to my question, but I am curious from a strictly technical point of view...

 

If I find a repeater that's access tones are private, why cant I just scan for the codes, assuming I know when someone is transmitting, and eventually gain access to that repeater?

Because unlike Ham repeaters. GMRS repeaters are usually privately owned, thus private party. Even ham repeaters don't need to be published or shared (most are, and are owned by clubs).

A local repeater to me is not published but open to GMRS users. We do have problems with unauthorized (non-license) and people whom are purposely/willingfully interfering with the repeaters. Yes, we have a semi active group hunting for this person. It so bad, so much so that the repeater owner is pulling tones. Requiring several dozen users to have to reprogram radios. He has even discussed the idea of completely pulling the repeater off the air or switching frequencies. 

 

Its better to be a contributor then one of the nuisances. You of course could spend the tens of thousands of dollars to properly setup a repeater, if you have a location (that doesn't cost you $2k a month, like a commercial site).

[WRQC527]

37 minutes ago, zzz said:

If I find a repeater that's access tones are private, why cant I just scan for the codes, assuming I know when someone is transmitting, and eventually gain access to that repeater?

Tones are not exactly secret. They're often unpublished, though. Repeaterbook lists thousands of amateur radio repeaters across numerous bands, and even a few GMRS repeaters. Some are open, some are private, some are closed. In probably the vast majority of cases, the tones are listed. Not so with mygmrs. Even if you have an account, the tones may not be listed. That said, you don't need to scan for tones while someone is transmitting.  You can simply painstakingly go through all of them until you stumble on the right one. However, this is cheating and will likely cause the repeater owner, who has a financial stake in the repeater, to harbor negative feelings toward you, because you are now mooching off his repeater without asking. I do not recommend this approach. 

[WRUU653]

Cooperative use of GMRS stations. GMRS licensees may share the use of their stations with other persons eligible in the GMRS, subject to the conditions and limitations in this paragraph. 

(1) The GMRS station to be shared must be individually owned by the licensee, jointly owned by the participants and the licensee, leased individually by the licensee, or leased jointly by the participants and the licensee. 

(2) The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license. 

(3) A station may be shared only: 

(i) Without charge; 

(ii) On a non-profit basis, with contributions to capital and operating expenses including the cost of mobile stations and paging receivers prorated equitably among all participants; or 

(iii) On a reciprocal basis, i.e., use of one licensee's stations for the use of another licensee's stations without charge for either capital or operating expenses. 

(4) All sharing arrangements must be conducted in accordance with a written agreement to be kept as part of the station records.

 

 I posted this in another thread here (a thread that must have gone sideways because it’s gone now) but technically the FCC says you can’t charge fees for repeater use. Contributions yes. 
As for the question of using a repeater without permission. It’s equipment that belongs to another. Get permission. 

[zzz]

54 minutes ago, kidphc said:

Because unlike Ham repeaters. GMRS repeaters are usually privately owned, thus private party. Even ham repeaters don't need to be published or shared (most are, and are owned by clubs).

A local repeater to me is not published but open to GMRS users. We do have problems with unauthorized (non-license) and people whom are purposely/willingfully interfering with the repeaters. Yes, we have a semi active group hunting for this person. It so bad, so much so that the repeater owner is pulling tones. Requiring several dozen users to have to reprogram radios. He has even discussed the idea of completely pulling the repeater off the air or switching frequencies. 

 

Its better to be a contributor then one of the nuisances. You of course could spend the tens of thousands of dollars to properly setup a repeater, if you have a location (that doesn't cost you $2k a month, like a commercial site).

Yes, as I said the ethics of doing so I completely understand. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone do it this way. I was simply curious if it would work. Thanks everyone for the feedback.