New Repeater Channels for GMRS in 2024

[BoxCar]

You don't loose 1/3 of your coverage area by narrowbanding. The most I ever saw back in 2013 was about 1 or 2 miles at the extreme edge and some even gained some additional coverage area. I monitored ALL of the Public Safety narrowbanding request as part of my role as the national frequency coordinator for some frequencies.

[LeoG]

5 hours ago, wqnd300 said:

Let keep talking about it like it's a good thing to go digital instead of people understanding that gmrs is not a "hobbyist" radio service. People think Simulcasting is ok, and look what happened in NY. If you want all this extra crap just go Amateur radio.


Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 

I think digital on the current frequencies will be a big nuisance to any channel they're on.  If they want digital just make sure it has it's own place so the analog channels can still work properly.

[wqnd300]

Objection your honor, hearsay.
No one but that system's owner actually knows what happened. All we actually know is what he's told the club's president. I'm still not convinced that the 'official' story there is what's actually happened, especially given that no other linked GMRS repeater system seems to have received anything similar.

Fact, opinion, or just lack of information. I'm not really concerned about it. All this is about is a group of people who got bored of analog and the repeaters "lack of range" and want to change gmrs into what amateur radio is.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[Lscott]

5 hours ago, LeoG said:

I think digital on the current frequencies will be a big nuisance to any channel they're on.  If they want digital just make sure it has it's own place so the analog channels can still work properly.

I think there is a way to do this without affecting the vast majority of analog GMRS users. I’ve posted this several times before how it could be done.

GMRS Digital Voice - 20231127.pdf

[wqnd300]

I think there is a way to do this without affecting the vast majority of analog GMRS users. I’ve posted this several time before how it could be done.
GMRS Digital Voice - 20231127.pdf

Do you live in an area with not much gmrs use? Many areas experience "cellphone" type users who don't care to allow others to use as they spend 1 or more hours talking about bs. Go to amateur radio if you want digital!

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[Lscott]

1 minute ago, wqnd300 said:

Do you live in an area with not much gmrs use? Many areas experience "cellphone" type users who don't care to allow others to use as they spend 1 or more hours talking about bs. Go to amateur radio if you want digital!

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 

My area, Detroit Mi, has several linked repeaters spanning a wide area of the state. When the system is busy there doesn’t seem to be a problem with people jumping in for a quick contact.

As far as people trying up a repeater for hours, well that’s not mode specific. If somebody is going to yack on a repeater for several hours they are going to do it even on FM. 

[LeoG]

26 minutes ago, wqnd300 said:

Do you live in an area with not much gmrs use? Many areas experience "cellphone" type users who don't care to allow others to use as they spend 1 or more hours talking about bs. Go to amateur radio if you want digital!

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk
 

So you know Freddy on the 575..

[Guest]

Sooo how about…. if gmrs is not enough for YOUR current needs you move your self to ham. This is the fastest and easiest way to solve all of this.   Leave gmrs alone and use it the way it was ment to be used.  I have many repeaters in my area, 8 or more some span 100s of miles. We have 100s of authorizes users on a few of those repeaters.   We have almost zero issues communicating properly and within the current gmrs use. Actually the only problems come from 1 specific person that does things with malicious intent.  We have repeaters and simplex and off roaders and ranches and farms and businesses and kids in the back yards and road crews and warehouses.   And Still have next to no issues using gmrs the way it was intended.  

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, LeoG said:

So you know Freddy on the 575..

No.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, WRXP381 said:

if gmrs is not enough for YOUR current needs you move your self to ham.

I already have an Extra Class license.

1 hour ago, WRXP381 said:

Leave gmrs alone and use it the way it was ment to be used.

Business radio went narrow band, in some cases that was digital. TV went from analog to digital. Many people, like me, gave up on analog commercial radio and went with satellite radio etc. Sooner or later GMRS is going to end up partially, or fully, digital. Either that or the FCC will refarm out the spectrum for business radio that will make more efficient use of it. 
 

Don’t think that won’t happen? Well the FCC did that with part of the Ham 1.25 meter band when UPS wanted it. They, UPS, never ended up using that spectrum and Hams never got it back either.

 

[wrci350]

6 hours ago, wqnd300 said:

All this is about is a group of people who got bored of analog

If you are suggesting that the GMRS repeater network in western/central NY was shut down due to DMR (or other digital format) being used, I think you are incorrect.  What brought you to that conclusion?

[SteveShannon]

@wqnd300 and @WRXP381

You both are being obnoxious jerks. @Lscott has just as much right to be here and talking about what digital might bring to GMRS as either of you. He brings much more intelligent discussions and less judgmental rhetoric than you also. If you don’t agree with him, that’s no problem. He and I have disagreed about digital modes also, but it’s easy enough to disagree without becoming disagreeable. 

[DONE]

13 hours ago, amaff said:

Objection your honor, hearsay.

No one but that system's owner actually knows what happened. All we actually know is what he's told the club's president. I'm still not convinced that the 'official' story there is what's actually happened, especially given that no other linked GMRS repeater system seems to have received anything similar.

Well, you bring up an excellent point.  And this is something that I personally have wondered about myself. 

I errored on the side of caution and shut my linked repeater down.  Mostly because I don't want to be the guy that they make an example of if they go that route. 

But that being said, if the owners financial situation changed with his repeater system, or he just got bored with it but had agreements with others to use it, and got bored with that idea. Telling everyone that his 'buddy' the FCC agent told him to shut it down and then wanted his user list, that would first off be enough of an excuse to pull the plug, and with the member list thing, be enough motivation for the users to not ask too many question or raise too much hell because he might turn them in.  But it remains a good enough reason to pull the plug without any additional explanation and the lack of any other information would keep others guessing and partly scared about getting in trouble themselves.  Effectively shutting them up.  Of course if it's all bullshit and he made the whole thing up, there is NO WAY that will ever come out in the open.  The fact he lied to take away a bunch of peoples wide area repeater would not go well for him.  And of course, there was a call sign on the repeater, so it's not like he would be hard to physically locate.  There are people that would show up on his door step and demand answers, or possibly even become violent about being lied to and taking away their repeater access. 

I did take mine off the air.... but I didn't lie about it,,, I said I was tired of second guessing the FCC.  I was tired of worrying about being the guy they might come after and make an example of.  And I was the ONLY repeater in the entire state of Ohio that was linked all the time to other repeaters in other states.  Did that fact make me a bigger target for enforcement?  I don't know.... but in my mind it could have.  So I just shut down and will remain that way until the FCC specifically says we can link repeaters, run simulcast repeaters and all the rest.  At that point, I have a STACK of MTR2000's sitting ready to go.  And I am getting ready to build two node interfaces and configure two node SD cards for other users that want to link their repeaters together.  I don't have an issue at all with linking.  I just ain't gonna sit and worry about it every time one of these stories comes out and wonder if I am next on the list.  I am NOT here to tell others what they should do.  I am gonna do me, and the rest of it is up to others. 

But I will say this.  I certainly would NOT want to be that guy if this is all BS.  I also would hate to be The video creator that put those videos out there if it's found that this is all BS.  Because this was all closely watched and I am sure that those videos generated a LOT of income due to the number of views.  I wouldn't want to be the guy that profited from BS being put on YouTube and creating all this nonsense either.

 

[Lscott]

5 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

I did take mine off the air

As you’re the owner, and allowing people to use it for free, you don’t really need a reason. It would be different if it was paid access.

[LeoG]

So when you shut down your linked repeater did you think about just keeping it up as a standalone?

[intermod]

I am not completely following what happened - but if its not in the rules or provided in writing, then its not not official and considered hearsay.   Although it might be smart to work with the FCC and start a conversation.   

I hope they did not ask who else uses the repeater; this would be a bit agressive and would warrant a call to your elected represenative (hopefully republican) to have them suggest the FCC back off.     

But everyone seems to forget this rule: 

"§ 95.1705 Individual licenses required; eligibility; who may operate; cooperative use.

(f) Cooperative use of GMRS stations.

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

Normally, the best policy in any organization is to keep a limited number (or no) records....but this rule requires something.  This is why I have always said that open repeaters may not be permissible unless they meet this requirement. 

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, intermod said:

§ 95.1705 Individual licenses required; eligibility; who may operate; cooperative use.

(f) Cooperative use of GMRS stations.

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

If it's an "open repeater" there wouldn't necessary be an explicit "sharing arrangement", much less a written one, between the users and the repeater owner(s).

Another case, as an example, a formerly closed repeater, by me, one would request access and receive verbal permission from the owner after supplying a valid call sign, all over the air. Again there would be no written agreement.

So, would the above imply that a repeater owner must have have a record of who is using their repeater, open or closed? 

Maybe this is why the FCC requested a list of repeater users?

[intermod]

After you asked this, I re-read the rule section.  Maybe the answer depends on the definition of "sharing".    There is sharing through "use", but then there is also sharing through ownership and/or control.   I am thinking they are referring to "use", in which case a written agreement appears to be needed, along with record retention. 

Having said this - I know 95% of repeater owners or groups do not comply.....

G

[LeoG]

42 minutes ago, Lscott said:

If it's an "open repeater" there wouldn't necessary be an explicit "sharing arrangement", much less a written one, between the users and the repeater owner(s).

Another case, as an example, a formerly closed repeater, by me, one would request access and receive verbal permission from the owner after supplying a valid call sign, all over the air. Again there would be no written agreement.

So, would the above imply that a repeater owner must have have a record of who is using their repeater, open or closed? 

Maybe this is why the FCC requested a list of repeater users?

Nearly impossible if you have an open "travelers" repeater on 141.3Hz.  People come and go likely never to use it again.

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, intermod said:

After you asked this, I re-read the rule section.  Maybe the answer depends on the definition of "sharing".    There is sharing through "use", but then there is also sharing through ownership and/or control.   I am thinking they are referring to "use", in which case a written agreement appears to be needed, along with record retention. 

Having said this - I know 95% of repeater owners or groups do not comply.....

G

I also though about it could be simply a published code of conduct that anybody using the repeater must adhere to or they will be banded from using the machine. That would cover both open and closed systems.

[LeoG]

How do you establish this for an open repeater?  Unless you transmit a short "show" with the rules etc once a week or month.  Paper or text isn't a reality between radios.

This is one of the things I talk about with regulations being so broad you can't figure out what they really mean.  How can we come up with so many different interpretations from the same regulations written on paper?

 

Besides it's done on purpose so they can interpret it they way they wish at the time they need to use it.

[amaff]

30 minutes ago, Lscott said:

I also though about it could be simply a published code of conduct that anybody using the repeater must adhere to or they will be banded from using the machine. That would cover both open and closed systems.

Feels like this would have about the same legal weight as those posts all our aunts put on FB a couple years ago...

[LeoG]

He forgot about companies that go there and then sell the information to them.  Do you really think the govt would listen to that?  Or a court would give them the decision?

But good try. 

[intermod]

1 hour ago, LeoG said:

..... Paper or text isn't a reality between radios.

You can with DMR   Heck, I don't even say my callsign over the air.   Same and callsign is just imbeded in the digital stream....     

[nokones]

In response to the comment made about losing radio coverage when changing from wideband operation to narrowband operation, I was unable to identify any loss of radio coverage or poor audio quality for the public safety radio system that I was responsible for. 

Maybe that was because we were using quality radio equipment.