What do you guys think of linked repeater systems?

[WRXB215]

9 minutes ago, quarterwave said:

"ME THINK, WHY WASTE TIME SAY LOT WORD, WHEN FEW WORD DO TRICK."

Sounds like what I read in the manuals of CCRs. 

[WRXB215]

@Sshannon & @Lscott thanks for the info.

[MarkInTampa]

Mixed thoughts. I used linked repeaters around me for a bit and it wasn't for me, just too much out of state traffic. If it gets a new user on GMRS excited about the radio hobby I guess that's a good thing. 

The biggest issue I hear around here anyway if there is a bad user, repeater, kerchucker, radio, or whatever instead of affecting one repeater you are affecting many repeaters. The sad part is I was one of those bad users - I sit right between 2 repeaters on the same freq and tone, each around 35 miles from me and 70 miles from each other. One repeater is up 400ft and hits me full scale, the other is somewhat new that is networked at around 50ft hits me around S-2 on the meter. I can hear them if the 1st isn't in use but cant use it because the 1st repeater will bury it. I had no idea that I was hitting the 2nd repeater and causing a bit of chaos on the network. I have to drop my power down to 5 watts to avoid keying the 2nd repeater and have to monitor the 2nd repeaters network status page on the web to confirm I'm not keying it. It still happens even at 5 watts every now and then. Oh well, live and learn.

[SvenMarbles]

Someone touched on it a bit, but it was going to be my follow-up point. 
 

While the sentiment might be “it’s their repeater to do what they want with”.. They’ve also sort of helped themselves to occupying one of only 8 available repeater positions on the dial.. As far as I know, there’s no governing body that allocates these places to someone looking to erect a repeater. So with that being said I do believe there is SOME responsibility of good stewardship to the GMRS users at large when it comes to how you’re doing things.
 

Tones don’t really matter. If you plop two blow torch repeaters on the same frequency, the tone will open the repeater and let all traffic in. So the idea of “well I’ll start my own repeater then with my own rules” isn’t really possible if your local repeater spots are spoken for.. And you don’t want to just have an arms race of repeaters just trying to squash out the next…

[WRXB215]

57 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

I do believe there is SOME responsibility of good stewardship to the GMRS users at large

 

58 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

you don’t want to just have an arms race of repeaters just trying to squash out the next…

I totally agree. If we the people don't take personal responsibility, the government will step in even more and then it won't be fun anymore.

[SvenMarbles]

1 hour ago, WRXB215 said:

 

I totally agree. If we the people don't take personal responsibility, the government will step in even more and then it won't be fun anymore.

It’s worse than that. The FCC likely has no interest in getting involved and the end result in 15 years could resemble the babbling idiots on CB channel 20. 

[Lscott]

5 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

It’s worse than that. The FCC likely has no interest in getting involved and the end result in 15 years could resemble the babbling idiots on CB channel 20. 

More like the "Super Bowl" on channel 6.

[WQAI363]

I understand what that one person was saying, but linking GMRS repeaters for those who aren't licensed Amateur Radio Operators would be great, especially for those have no interest in getting into Amateur Radio. I'm not trying to discourage individuals from getting into Amateur Radio, but if just using voice or texting now, GMRS is perfect service. Sure, Amateur Radio has more to offer than GMRS, but not every want spend time studying for a test just a license to press that PTT.

 

[WRYZ926]

I see both the positives and negatives of linked repeaters. There is one node that gets linked to our 2m repeater and sometimes we get traffic from that node that is weak and mostly static. I know that is most likely on the node owner's setup. 

[SvenMarbles]

On 2/9/2024 at 5:27 PM, Adamdaj said:

I understand what that one person was saying, but linking GMRS repeaters for those who aren't licensed Amateur Radio Operators would be great, especially for those have no interest in getting into Amateur Radio. I'm not trying to discourage individuals from getting into Amateur Radio, but if just using voice or texting now, GMRS is perfect service. Sure, Amateur Radio has more to offer than GMRS, but not every want spend time studying for a test just a license to press that PTT.

 

I'd say, GMRS isn't a ham facsimile. I know that a ton of people on it seem to really want to treat it as such, but it isn't what it's for. It's closer to FRS. It's aim is to be a utility/domestic/family service. That's why the call isn't for an individual, but a household. It's for house:main radio, family cars:mobile and some handhelds for ski trips. Nobody constantly yelling out call signs and whatnot.. But, it's a novel radio service that attracted the ham nerds who took liberties with the 8 repeater channels and here we are.

[WRPL700]

I was in favor of linked repeaters for a while, but with only 8 frequency pairs, I vote no.

[jwilkers]

I've always opposed them.

GMRS is designed for families and small groups to communicate locally.

Of course, now that the FCC has finally, definitely, ruled linked repeaters illegal, we can now see a return to sanity.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk

[SvenMarbles]

6 minutes ago, jwilkers said:

I've always opposed them.

GMRS is designed for families and small groups to communicate locally.

Of course, now that the FCC has finally, definitely, ruled linked repeaters illegal, we can now see a return to sanity.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk
 

I just read that this morning as well. I wasn’t sure if that was a new ruling or if that language was always there.

[73blazer]

It's not in the actual rules, just some silly mention, which could be a misinterpretation of the actual rule, or a carry over rule from some other service, or even just a plain mistake, on a rogue web general informational page that 95% of people would never see. Your putting up a repeater, you check the rules. Not rogue informational pages.  So, I would dispute the  "ruled them illegal" . Until it's in the actual rules, it's not a rule. Even then it's just a "rule". Certainly not "illegal". There are so many linked repeaters, they wouldn't just go around and start issuing fines, which is the most they could do anyway They would most likely start sending warning letters. But, again, they can't even do that until it's in the actual rules. CB is supposed to be 4watts. But I've yet to see any of those 1500w jibber jabbers on there fined, sent letters, or have any enforcement whatsoever. So it appears, the FCC, doesn't care.

That said, When a new repeater, the 1st one within my access range, came online last weekend, it is linked. I was initially happy. Had some good conversations with some people. But then last night came. The Friday night tomfoolery. Holy cow the idiots on there. It was exactly why I stopped running a CB radio.  Yeah I can just turn it off or filter that repeater station out, but..they're broadcasting this stuff across 1/4 of the state.

The first actual law we need is to ban any radio from have that stupid emergency/call button!

 

[wrci350]

9 hours ago, 73blazer said:

It's not in the actual rules, just some silly mention, which could be a misinterpretation of the actual rule, or a carry over rule from some other service, or even just a plain mistake, on a rogue web general informational page that 95% of people would never see.

I'm curious how you classify a reference on an FCC webpage describing GMRS as "rogue".

[UpperBucks]

I can't stand it, that's what I think.  For me, from the first day I ever got a ham ticket, to me the purpose of a repeater was, is, and always will be - for lack of a better word - "tactical" - not "social." 

Use a repeater for a purpose. If you want to chat with your buddy about the weather and your health problems, call them on the phone or facetime or whatsapp or whatever. 

I use GMRS locally - no repeater - as much as possible, and for the most part, the only repeater I use with any regularity I use while I'm on a long fire call to check in with my wife because we have some epic cellular dead zones, and even when I'm not in a dead zone, the quick and easy "push-to-talk" does not require me fumbling with a phone while wearing gloves or whatever.  It also maybe more useful as we're thinking about banning use of mobile phones on calls for a lot of reasons that start and end with Social Media.

GMRS is now starting to get exactly like everything I hate about DMR - when these repeaters start joining up over the internet, all they are doing is making a radio and other equipment into little more than a complex microphone/speaker for an internet chat room.

Just use your smartphone and zello if you want to yak. Nobody wants to hear you.

 

[SvenMarbles]

53 minutes ago, UpperBucks said:

I can't stand it, that's what I think.  For me, from the first day I ever got a ham ticket, to me the purpose of a repeater was, is, and always will be - for lack of a better word - "tactical" - not "social." 

Use a repeater for a purpose. If you want to chat with your buddy about the weather and your health problems, call them on the phone or facetime or whatsapp or whatever. 

I use GMRS locally - no repeater - as much as possible, and for the most part, the only repeater I use with any regularity I use while I'm on a long fire call to check in with my wife because we have some epic cellular dead zones, and even when I'm not in a dead zone, the quick and easy "push-to-talk" does not require me fumbling with a phone while wearing gloves or whatever.  It also maybe more useful as we're thinking about banning use of mobile phones on calls for a lot of reasons that start and end with Social Media.

GMRS is now starting to get exactly like everything I hate about DMR - when these repeaters start joining up over the internet, all they are doing is making a radio and other equipment into little more than a complex microphone/speaker for an internet chat room.

Just use your smartphone and zello if you want to yak. Nobody wants to hear you.

 

I have to agree. As soon as you blend the "radio thing" with an internet connection, it lost the plot right there.

I got my jollies talking to internet strangers in 1997 on AOL chat rooms. It's not what I'm after in 2024..

Don't shoot me but I'm a bit of a... ::whispering voice:: Prepper. I want my radio to be it's own backbone. If you're 80 miles out and I can't reach you, I don't need ya lol. Laugh if you want, but when the phone towers and repeaters lose power, I got my house and cars and neighbors on the phone within 10 miles,.. When everyone else is sitting puzzled looking at their phones not even getting info from something as simple as an AM radio. Yes I'm the deep freezer with 12 months of meat and fussing over backup power type..

 

[73blazer]

2 hours ago, WSAK691 said:

He likely didn't understand that this was from the actual FCC website BUT,.. Believe it or not, that's actually still possible. Our government agencies are so broken at this point and full of DEI hires, that it's not uncommon for actual representatives of any given governing body to give incorrect information. Until they revise the actual rules sections with the lawyer print, none of it means anything..

I fully understand it was from an FCC website. But it's one guys stmt. I even watched the video given in the other thread of him actually saying it, "GMRS should not be linked."

But again, ti's ones guys interpretation, one FCC employee in one area of the country,  does not make a rule.

The Rules, are ambiguous at best. It somewhat leans toward no linking, but it's not clear. As a small business owner who pays a contract lawyer many times a year, in his words, having wording like that is basically unpurpose to create a grey area. If you don't want grey areas, you don't put wording like that and it's pretty easy to avoid grey areas with words.

I could really care less if they're linked or not. But rules are rules. Laws are laws. And silly stmts on pages nobody will ever look up because they're not rules or laws, are ....silly stmts. Make it a rule, at least. Better yet, enforce the rule as an agency they way they think it should be enforced. Mabey then people will listen. Until then,  new linked GMRS repeaters are coming online every few weeks.

[WRYZ926]

10 minutes ago, 73blazer said:

I fully understand it was from an FCC website. But it's one guys stmt. I even watched the video given in the other thread of him actually saying it, "GMRS should not be linked."

But again, ti's ones guys interpretation, one FCC employee in one area of the country,  does not make a rule.

The Rules, are ambiguous at best. It somewhat leans toward no linking, but it's not clear. As a small business owner who pays a contract lawyer many times a year, in his words, having wording like that is basically unpurpose to create a grey area. If you don't want grey areas, you don't put wording like that and it's pretty easy to avoid grey areas with words.

This reminds me a lot of dealing with the ATF. Ask 10 ATF agents for an opinion and you will get 25 different opinions.

[WRUU653]

2 hours ago, 73blazer said:

fully understand it was from an FCC website. But it's one guys stmt

I don’t understand how you came to the conclusion that the printed words from the FCC is one person’s statement.?? Or are you referring to the video posted? Which did have FCC representatives in it but wasn’t from the FCC website. 
link to FCC, see operations. 
“You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations.”

 

[73blazer]

Because, @WRUU653  in the context of enforcement, it's meaningless. If you look at any enforcement action the FCC has taken, they ALWAYS point to exactly what rule your violating. They can't point to an informational webpage, and say there, see, we said no linking. They can only enforce, actual rules. They have to point to a rule your breaking.

It'd be like your local city or township office publishing a web page saying, "Stairways in homes are dangerous as we see it,  no home is allowed to operate or use or install a stairway." Well, police can't arrest and prosecutors can't charge unless someone is breaking an actual law. So, it's just noise on a page.

I think what they're saying is we're trying to clarify the rule.  (but their clarification isn't being clear on the action of clarifying ) .

The Rule, as published 18Feb2024, is this:

Quote

§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.

Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745.

The first part is pretty clear, it says telephone connection not allowed. So, other networks are allowed?  Now the second part (and 95.349 says the same thing the 2nd sentence here does) says other networks are allowed for sole purpose of remote control and this is where it gets murky, because it says that, one can reasonably take that to mean other networks are not allowed for linking, just remote control. Any contract lawyer will tell you, and I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't even a law, it's a rule, that if any ambiguity is raised, what comes first is what goes. If the first sentence was omitted, then it would be clear, no linking. (to a lawyer). But the two stmts contradict themselves and the 1st one usually wins, when contested. (Which is why laws usually have some wording like "no part of section d will be invalidated by section a,b,c" etc. )

The point is, certainly it's arguable either way. They can't enforce what's not a rule. If they were to enforce it, it would be easily argued, and given their record of enforcement, it's hard enough for them to enforce clear violators violating clear rules.

And to be clear, I don't care. Given what I heard last Friday night on the 1st repeater to be in my range,  which happens to be linked to 3 others, I'd vote for not linking.

And if you watch the video in the other post, the woman FCC person says earlier on in regards to a question on enforcement ( in general, not gmrs linked repeaters) that they won't take unilateral enforcement action. Enforcement only happens when there is a) a danger to life or property b) someone complains about rules being broken. And by someone, they usually mean many complaints about a violation.

 

And the end of the day the rules are there for us. Certain rules need to be there protecting life/emergency services, etc. But there is no harm in GMRS linking or not linking, so it should be, up to us, the GMRS community.

[SteveShannon]

13 minutes ago, 73blazer said:

Because, @WRUU653  in the context of enforcement, it's meaningless. If you look at any enforcement action the FCC has taken, they ALWAYS point to exactly what rule your violating. They can't point to an informational webpage, and say there, see, we said no linking. They can only enforce, actual rules. They have to point to a rule your breaking.

It'd be like your local city or township office publishing a web page saying, "Stairways in homes are dangerous as we see it,  no home is allowed to operate or use or install a stairway." Well, police can't arrest and prosecutors can't charge unless someone is breaking an actual law. So, it's just noise on a page.

I think what they're saying is we're trying to clarify the rule.  (but their clarification isn't being clear on the action of clarifying ) .

The Rule, as published 18Feb2024, is this:

The first part is pretty clear, it says telephone connection not allowed. So, other networks are allowed?  Now the second part (and 95.349 says the same thing the 2nd sentence here does) says other networks are allowed for sole purpose of remote control and this is where it gets murky, because it says that, one can reasonably take that to mean other networks are not allowed for linking, just remote control. Any contract lawyer will tell you, and I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't even a law, it's a rule, that if any ambiguity is raised, what comes first is what goes. If the first sentence was omitted, then it would be clear, no linking. (to a lawyer). But the two stmts contradict themselves and the 1st one usually wins, when contested. (Which is why laws usually have some wording like "no part of section d will be invalidated by section a,b,c" etc. )

The point is, certainly it's arguable either way. They can't enforce what's not a rule. If they were to enforce it, it would be easily argued, and given their record of enforcement, it's hard enough for them to enforce clear violators violating clear rules.

And to be clear, I don't care. Given what I heard last Friday night on the 1st repeater to be in my range,  which happens to be linked to 3 others, I'd vote for not linking.

And if you watch the video in the other post, the woman FCC person says earlier on in regards to a question on enforcement ( in general, not gmrs linked repeaters) that they won't take unilateral enforcement action. Enforcement only happens when there is a) a danger to life or property b) someone complains about rules being broken. And by someone, they usually mean many complaints about a violation.

 

And the end of the day the rules are there for us. Certain rules need to be there protecting life/emergency services, etc. But there is no harm in GMRS linking or not linking, so it should be, up to us, the GMRS community.

After flip-flopping on this like a very lively fish, I have to agree with the logic and concern about poorly written rules expressed by 73Blazer.

95.349 covers all of the personal radio services.  It prohibits connecting to the telephone network but allows exceptions in the rules for each service..  It doesn’t mention other types of networks.

95.1749 is the exception baked into the GMRS rules, but as 73Blazer says the exception listed there is poorly written.  The phrase basically allows us to connect to the telephone network or any other network only for the purpose of remote operation.

But connecting to any other network was never prohibited in 95.349 or the first clause of 1749, so I think the FCC’s interpretation under the Operations Tab on that other page is wrong.  That might be what they want it to say, but wishes don’t make rules.

[UpperBucks]

12 hours ago, WSAK691 said:

...Prepper. I want my radio to be it's own backbone.

 

I'm a "practical prepper" - I don't think society is going to abruptly collapse and I'll be forced to shoot and eat my neighbor's goats, rather, I think that being prepared for various natural and man-made disasters keeps me out of the pool of people who need help and keeps me in the pool of people who can help. My focus is on mitigation; then response, then restoration.  My radios are a part of that MRR communication plan, without depending on the internet at all. FWIW, I also have a very nice "offline internet"  setup that ensures that nothing - not maps, not documents, not contact lists, is "internet dependent."

My prepping goal is always to be prepared to restore not "prepared to hunker down" - and communications are a part of it.  (aside: read this book and it will change your prepping mentality forever https://www.amazon.com/Paradise-Built-Hell-Extraordinary-Communities/dp/0143118072 )

Unlike many, I also get to think and do this stuff at a larger and more practical scale - I was a municipal emergency management coordinator for local government, I am currently consulting on small-community emergency management (e.g. "How to approach NIMS when you have no resources, no budget, and no people.") and I have been a fire/rescue technician and the resident "radio nerd" at the fire company for 22 years now. I think I got my ham radio license in 1994? Earlier? I personally experienced what it means to have others come save your a$$ when needed, and I've been the one doing the saving. Communications comes in handy when the poop is getting actual.

Point is that I do a lot of reality-based "prepping" and - to tie the knot on this - any communications platform you intend to use in emergencies needs minimal complexity and functional fallback.

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. 

 

 

[Raybestos]

On 2/17/2024 at 7:37 AM, jwilkers said:

I've always opposed them.

GMRS is designed for families and small groups to communicate locally.

Of course, now that the FCC has finally, definitely, ruled linked repeaters illegal, we can now see a return to sanity.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk
 

Can you tell us more?  Sounds great!

[WRZY946]

51 minutes ago, RayP said:

Can you tell us more?  Sounds great!

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.