What do you guys think of linked repeater systems?

[Lscott]

10 hours ago, UpperBucks said:

any communications platform you intend to use in emergencies needs minimal complexity

So many forget this point. I see many radio clubs building emergency communication trucks filled with radios. The owners manual for them is 100’s of pages long to cover all of the options and settings only accessible through multiple layers of menus. Expecting volunteers to figure out how to operate them under the stress of a real emergency is just going to contribute to the disaster. 

You need brain dead super simple radios to operate in these conditions.

[WRQC527]

15 minutes ago, WRZY946 said:

I could swear somewhere else here on mygmrs forums there was a post with actual details, and a video link from an ARRL meeting regarding that ruling.

Was it this video with a bunch of people in a Chinese restaurant talking about poorly-worded GMRS rule 95.1749 that (sort of) prohibits linking of repeaters if you refer to a completely different FCC website with a paragraph that is several years old that (sort of) expands on poorly-worded rule 95.1749?

If so, it's this thread.

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/6908-updated-fcc-rule-951749-now-includes-“or-other-networks”-jan-2024

 

[RayP]

48 minutes ago, WRZY946 said:

I could swear somewhere else here on mygmrs forums there was a post with actual details, and a video link from an ARRL meeting regarding that ruling.

Thank You!  I found the other thread!   

[WRKC935]

13 hours ago, UpperBucks said:

GMRS nets via internet-linked (which may or may not be illegal, depending on which argument you read on the internet today)  & uncoordinated repeaters (OMG what a mess, what a mess) is very complex, and fails to have some kind of at least regional fallback that is practical. There is no rational, cost-effective way to create an all-OTA network of autonomous (not dependent on internet-as-a-backbone) GMRS repeaters. Maybe not fully "autonomous", because a repeater site is power-dependent, but you can make and/or store power at a repeater site in about 100 different ways.

Anyway, just as GMRS repeaters were getting useful for something more like regional backup-backup communications, it's falling into CB radio territory in some areas. Where I live it's still useful, but when I drive to visit my son in a more densely populated area, it's 300 square miles of gibberish blasting into the repeaters. 

 

 

The part that you are forgetting is that in order to have a linked repeater, you first and foremost need a repeater.  Now depending on the repeater linking controller, it may well run as a stand alone repeater when there is no link present.  Mine did before I shut it off.  It ran without link several times while it was on the air.  But the repeater still provided coverage within the area that it was able to (about a 30 mile radius).  The local repeater I have had the same range, ran on a similar antenna system and was run at the same power output.  So a linked repeater shouldn't just die if there is no Internet to support the linking.  It just doesn't carry the traffic across to other repeaters.  Far as generator and battery backup.  The 48 / 24 / 12 volt plant will carry the SITE, not just the one repeater, for at least 12 hours.  The generator that will come on when the utility fails will go for 48 on diesel and then if it runs out of fuel, the plant picks back up and takes the load giving me time to fuel the generator.    I source 48 volts from a rectifier currently and that charges the battery storage, about 600 Ah.  Off that 48 volt system I have five 40 amp 48 to 24 volt buck converters in parallel.  So that will net me up to 200 Amps of 24 volt power.  That feeds the repeaters at the site.  Then there is another 450 Ah 12 volt plant that runs off a 75 amp rectifier that runs the 12 volt gear.  That will be migrated to 48 to 12 volt buck converters and the 450Ah battery string will be connected in parallel to the 48 volt string, which rewired will add 150 Ah to the 48 volt plant.  My goal is 1000Ah capacity with solar and wind generation.  If I can build a system that will generate 60 amps for 10 hours, I would be able to run the whole site off grid with a cushion.  Currently, with everything transmitting I only draw 30 amps from the plant.  That will increase as I move more equipment to the plant, but it's still a manageable level to hit with both wind and solar. 

Now, it's true that the linking will fail for sites that have terrestrial Internet service running the links in most instances.  But if a system owner has microwave links then the failure doesn't happen unless he looses a site, and that's dependent on the way his microwave links are configured and deployed.  If the system has redundant paths, then the failure becomes less likely.   But that does require a microwave mesh or at minimum a ring of links so the traffic can continue to flow.

Now all that is of course meaningless since the FCC is coming out and saying that you can't link repeaters.  I turned mine off, and I am waiting to see if there is going to be enforcement actions based on the statements made by the field agent in the video.  If they aren't going to enforce it, or if there is a change to the regulations, I will fire my gear back up and see about expanding a network in Ohio.  But I am not gonna be the one to find out the hard way we can't be linking.  My most probable course of action at this point though is to move the repeater that was linked to ham and find an ASL group that will let me link in and run it that way for the time being.

 

[WRQC527]

1 hour ago, WRKC935 said:

Now all that is of course meaningless since the FCC is coming out and saying that you can't link repeaters.

Both FCC Regulation 95.1749 and a paragraph in the Operations section of the GMRS service description were written and published several years ago. They're not coming out now and saying you can't link GMRS repeaters, that is something they implied years ago and have done nothing to enforce, address, or even clarify. A number of folks here are referencing a video of a meeting of "some people" in a Chinese restaurant in Pennsylvania as The Word Of God. The way 95.1749 and the paragraph in a separate section of the FCC's website explaining it are written are at the very least unclear and at worst, muddy as all getout. The fact that no one here or any other forum, after years of debate, can point to a consensus on whether GMRS repeaters can be linked or not, and the fact that linked GMRS repeaters go unnoticed and/or unpunished speaks volumes about the ineptitude of the people who wrote the Part 95 regulations.

[WRKC935]

5 hours ago, WRQC527 said:

Both FCC Regulation 95.1749 and a paragraph in the Operations section of the GMRS service description were written and published several years ago. They're not coming out now and saying you can't link GMRS repeaters, that is something they implied years ago and have done nothing to enforce, address, or even clarify. A number of folks here are referencing a video of a meeting of "some people" in a Chinese restaurant in Pennsylvania as The Word Of God. The way 95.1749 and the paragraph in a separate section of the FCC's website explaining it are written are at the very least unclear and at worst, muddy as all getout. The fact that no one here or any other forum, after years of debate, can point to a consensus on whether GMRS repeaters can be linked or not, and the fact that linked GMRS repeaters go unnoticed and/or unpunished speaks volumes about the ineptitude of the people who wrote the Part 95 regulations.

I don't disagree with any of that.  And the truth is that I would love to just turn my crap back on and go back to business as usual.  But the person at that meeting wasn't some disgruntled GMRS user or sad ham, he was a FCC field agent that seems to be a member of this site.  And specifically stated that.  While the regulations are nothing new, neither is the FCC regulation of CB radios being 4 watts.  Yet the FCC does nothing typically to enforce that on running 10 thousand times that level of power.  But the other piece of it is this, as stated before, the FCC is reactionary to filed complaints.  At this time they are not investigating violations without a complaint, but that is subject to change at any point.  My concern is what the enforcement action will look like IF it happens.  It's one thing to get a letter or a visit from the FCC and them telling a repeater owner you have to stop doing X or we will fine you.  And that I could live with.  But I am not in a position for them to decide to build a case, do the monitoring and then say 'On these dates we observed that you were running a linked GMRS repeater'.  The fines for doing that are 1000 bucks a day and we know you did it for 10 days so here's a 10K NAL.  Please mortgage your house and send us the money.  And it can go either way.  

[Lscott]

9 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

The part that you are forgetting is that in order to have a linked repeater, you first and foremost need a repeater.  Now depending on the repeater linking controller, it may well run as a stand alone repeater when there is no link present.  Mine did before I shut it off.  It ran without link several times while it was on the air.  But the repeater still provided coverage within the area that it was able to (about a 30 mile radius).  The local repeater I have had the same range, ran on a similar antenna system and was run at the same power output.  So a linked repeater shouldn't just die if there is no Internet to support the linking.  It just doesn't carry the traffic across to other repeaters.  Far as generator and battery backup.  The 48 / 24 / 12 volt plant will carry the SITE, not just the one repeater, for at least 12 hours.  The generator that will come on when the utility fails will go for 48 on diesel and then if it runs out of fuel, the plant picks back up and takes the load giving me time to fuel the generator.    I source 48 volts from a rectifier currently and that charges the battery storage, about 600 Ah.  Off that 48 volt system I have five 40 amp 48 to 24 volt buck converters in parallel.  So that will net me up to 200 Amps of 24 volt power.  That feeds the repeaters at the site.  Then there is another 450 Ah 12 volt plant that runs off a 75 amp rectifier that runs the 12 volt gear.  That will be migrated to 48 to 12 volt buck converters and the 450Ah battery string will be connected in parallel to the 48 volt string, which rewired will add 150 Ah to the 48 volt plant.  My goal is 1000Ah capacity with solar and wind generation.  If I can build a system that will generate 60 amps for 10 hours, I would be able to run the whole site off grid with a cushion.  Currently, with everything transmitting I only draw 30 amps from the plant.  That will increase as I move more equipment to the plant, but it's still a manageable level to hit with both wind and solar. 

Now, it's true that the linking will fail for sites that have terrestrial Internet service running the links in most instances.  But if a system owner has microwave links then the failure doesn't happen unless he looses a site, and that's dependent on the way his microwave links are configured and deployed.  If the system has redundant paths, then the failure becomes less likely.   But that does require a microwave mesh or at minimum a ring of links so the traffic can continue to flow.

Now all that is of course meaningless since the FCC is coming out and saying that you can't link repeaters.  I turned mine off, and I am waiting to see if there is going to be enforcement actions based on the statements made by the field agent in the video.  If they aren't going to enforce it, or if there is a change to the regulations, I will fire my gear back up and see about expanding a network in Ohio.  But I am not gonna be the one to find out the hard way we can't be linking.  My most probable course of action at this point though is to move the repeater that was linked to ham and find an ASL group that will let me link in and run it that way for the time being.

 

You need a bigger battery backup system.

 

PowerSafe GC-M Specs.pdf

[WRPZ296]

On 2/18/2024 at 6:51 PM, Lscott said:

So many forget this point. I see many radio clubs building emergency communication trucks filled with radios. The owners manual for them is 100’s of pages long to cover all of the options and settings only accessible through multiple layers of menus. Expecting volunteers to figure out how to operate them under the stress of a real emergency is just going to contribute to the disaster. 

You need brain dead super simple radios to operate in these conditions.

This is, I think, the BIGGEST strength of GMRS.

People like to imagine the Zombie Apocalypse but real world disasters happen all the time. When I was a kid, we had a massive tornado rip through. Ambulances and law enforcement were struggling to navigate because trees, landmarks, and street signs were all ripped out. (Those departments were some of the first in the state to adopt GPS once it became available.)

People were driving around, if they had a car that was still working, checking on homes and looking for injured people. That was on the "Shout if you find something" system.

If I imagine that same scenario today and think of how to be prepared for it; it's all about GMRS. If a tornado took out the local cell towers, it's taking the repeaters down with it. But Tornados tend to affect a small area. So this is where a neighboring repeater comes in incredibly handy. We have one 25 miles away, for example. And those folks very likely will still have power and cell service. So now I've got a radio in my truck, assuming it's still upright, and I can communicate with someone 25 miles away, reliably, and have them call emergency services if needed.

But; now I can ALSO communicate with anyone who has access to an FRS radio. Some kids radio somewhere they have, or we could literally just run to Wal-Mart and grab a bunch. Plus I've got a drawer full. And now volunteers on the ground could do the same sort of spotting and looking for people in need; while those with the right equipment can relay those messages through repeaters or even directly to emergency services if need be. That's pretty cool! And a whole lot more useful than other services with complex radios and capabilities you probably wouldn't actually need in a disaster. Frankly; if I need to setup a NVIS high powered HF station to reach someone 800 miles away; what the heck are they going to be able to do for me anyway? Some sort of massive, globe-wide catacylsm isn't the sort of emergency that radio is particularly helpful for. Short range and simple communication between folks at the epicenter of a local disaster is the sort of thing radios are actually used for in actual emergencies all the time.