What do you guys think of linked repeater systems?

[SvenMarbles]

I'm really trying to figure out how to articulate this in a way so as not to come across as a jackass. Let me preface this by saying that I appreciate what the custodians of some of these high mounted and well maintained repeaters do. I'm fortunate to live in an area that is well covered by such repeaters.  

But,.. It's getting a bit tired when I tune into 3 different repeater frequencies and am hearing the same conversation being had by a handful of guys in metro Indy. Nothing against them. They sound like swell guys. 

I'm personally not super interested in "making contacts" on ham radio, and to extrapolate that sentiment, I'm especially not interested in "making contacts" over VOIP. It's already a bit of a concession from my sort of "radio hobby mission statement" that I'm using a local repeater to begin with. But,.. They're there and they boom the signal out nicely across the Chicago metro area. But that's KINDA where I wish it would end. If we're going as far as to route radio voice comms through the internet, my GMRS radio just became a cordless phone handset. To me that's just sort of antithetical to the entire thing that interests me in this realm. Having a resilient mode of comms that's peer to peer, achieved by my equipment to yours, with radio,.. Now I already know that some will be quick to point out that the repeater in and of itself is already a 3rd party backbone that I can't have control over. I recognize the slight degree of hypocrisy. But it's a tolerable concession to make knowing that these systems are often on managed towers with backup power and often times set along side public safety radio systems and would likely enjoy the same resilience and backup measures that are likely in place to keep those systems online on a bad day.

I think like, perhaps there could be chunks of hours during the day that these links go active? But then the remaining time we're working within standalone repeater range only...?

I dunno.. Where do you guys stand with this? I just kind of think it only serves to "clog up" the repeaters.

[SteveShannon]

30 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

I'm really trying to figure out how to articulate this in a way so as not to come across as a jackass. Let me preface this by saying that I appreciate what the custodians of some of these high mounted and well maintained repeaters do. I'm fortunate to live in an area that is well covered by such repeaters.  

But,.. It's getting a bit tired when I tune into 3 different repeater frequencies and am hearing the same conversation being had by a handful of guys in metro Indy. Nothing against them. They sound like swell guys. 

I'm personally not super interested in "making contacts" on ham radio, and to extrapolate that sentiment, I'm especially not interested in "making contacts" over VOIP. It's already a bit of a concession from my sort of "radio hobby mission statement" that I'm using a local repeater to begin with. But,.. They're there and they boom the signal out nicely across the Chicago metro area. But that's KINDA where I wish it would end. If we're going as far as to route radio voice comms through the internet, my GMRS radio just became a cordless phone handset. To me that's just sort of antithetical to the entire thing that interests me in this realm. Having a resilient mode of comms that's peer to peer, achieved by my equipment to yours, with radio,.. Now I already know that some will be quick to point out that the repeater in and of itself is already a 3rd party backbone that I can't have control over. I recognize the slight degree of hypocrisy. But it's a tolerable concession to make knowing that these systems are often on managed towers with backup power and often times set along side public safety radio systems and would likely enjoy the same resilience and backup measures that are likely in place to keep those systems online on a bad day.

I think like, perhaps there could be chunks of hours during the day that these links go active? But then the remaining time we're working within standalone repeater range only...?

I dunno.. Where do you guys stand with this? I just kind of think it only serves to "clog up" the repeaters.

I think networked repeaters have their place, but I agree with you for the most part. I want at least a few unlinked repeaters so I can contact people who use the same repeater. 
I don’t understand hams making QSOs on networked repeaters. 
I do understand enjoying the challenge of “conquering the airwaves” to make distant contacts, not for the joy of talking to strangers (nothing wrong with that, just not my thing), but for the technical challenge it represents. 
 

[WRKC935]

Alright, there is a lot to unpack here but I am gonna try.

First off, you don't have control of the repeaters around you because they don't belong to you. They are other people's equipment and are under their control. 

What you can do in this case is put up your own repeater and choose to link it, or not, and for that matter make it completely private where you control access to it completely.  Because it's your equipment.

"Making Contacts"

Well, here's the thing with hobby radio.  You can choose to do anything you want with your license once you have it.  You can just rag chew on simplex or a repeater, or you can use it strictly for family communications and communicate with no one else.  And everyone else has that same wide range of choices on what they choose to do.  There is no requirement for you to use other people's repeaters, or talk to people on those repeaters.  And by the sound of it, and the minute you said "I am not trying to come across as a jackass" I sort of knew that was EXACTLY what you were doing.  See I never lead with that.  I will tell you ahead of time I am being serious if I have a bone to pick, and I do it.  Mostly because just like you, I am entitled to my opinion and have no problems voicing it. 

See, you come on here, praising the repeater owners and then pointing out your issues with their repeaters.  Are you a repeater owner?  How many repeaters do YOU have on the air?  I have repeaters on the air.  One is linked and one is not linked.  But that might be subject to change.  But it isn't going to be linked to the same system as the other kinked repeater since the coverage matches for both machines.  The second one at some point will be linked to other repeaters in Ohio.   Anyway, I can do that since I own the equipment.  It's my choice to do with my gear what I see fit to do with it. 

But if you feel that the repeaters owned by others are 'clogged up" build your own repeater and use it how you see fit.  That is part of what your license allows you to do.   There are others that don't like the linking, and have came in here and voiced that before.  They all got told the same thing.  Go do your own thing, you are certainly allowed per your license.  But questioning the actions of others, when it comes to THEIR equipment is not going to earn you much respect or acceptance by them. 

[WRQC527]

55 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

Where do you guys stand with this?

All of this is just my opinion, but since you asked... I don't like or use linked repeaters. Not on GMRS, not on amateur radio. I have three stand-alone repeaters on a 6,000 foot peak and one out in the desert near Barstow. None of them are linked to anything and never will be. There is an amateur radio system called the Winsystem with linked repeaters all over the U.S. as well as nodes linked in internationally. Not only do you have to hear conversations possibly taking place in other states or countries taking up valuable local repeater bandwidth, the entire system is a target for jammers. Many of the nodes sound like crap. I find little value in linked repeaters.

[SteveShannon]

33 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

And by the sound of it, and the minute you said "I am not trying to come across as a jackass" I sort of knew that was EXACTLY what you were doing.  See I never lead with that.

You might as well have. 

[WSAQ843]

Hello to all - First post/reply on myGMRS. Thank you, thanks, please be seated. 

I personally like using a well constructed link system. Our local ham radio club has done an excellent job of connecting small areas around us to make a small club much bigger, with bigger reach that wouldn't normally be there for folks out of the vast regions of Texas. The same goes with GMRS and one reason I got my license recently after finding there was a local repeater close by that had traffic on it, I was stunned. Being in a small town I was expecting nothing at all in the way of making contacts. Quite the opposite, it's been a great deal of fun - especially in my current health condition/situation - and i've already had qso's with several great people via my HT. 

843 Chris Texas

 

[gortex2]

Linking may have its place but I dont believe GMRS is it. I'm in the same boat of listening to long drawn out ragchewing from guys states away. Ive heard the same on ham. Heck there are times I hear thesame conversation 2 hour apart on ahn or GMRS. I never got into GMRS for contacts or to make a statewide system. I prefer my small repeaters, and use them for a purpose. With a good repeater setup there is no reason a town, county can't have good coverage. As of late I use my Part 90 stuff more and more. GMRS was once a great family/friend service. Linking, nets and all the ham radio stuff is not what GMRS started as. I know things change but you asked for opinions.

 

[WRKC935]

7 hours ago, Sshannon said:

You might as well have. 

I do believe that I went on to say that I have no issue with being direct.  I understand that there are people out there that will not use linked repeaters.  I understand that there are folks that even disagree with the fact that linked repeaters systems exist.  And that's fine.  We all get to have an opinion. 

But it still goes back to the ownership of the equipment at the end of the day.  There are those of us that do support the idea, and have linked machines.  Now I am not gonna tie up 4 pairs with repeaters that completely overlap coverage by linking them together.  I will be the first to say I disagree with that thought process.  But some having some level of overlap is gonna happen with a system that has better than average coverage.  Some overlap means there are no holes in the coverage of the system.  Could it be simulcast and all on one frequency, yes.  There is no technical reason that it couldn't be.  But there is the additional equipment that's required like a GPS reference.  Those are a grand or so a piece.  And whatever unit is used should be used at every site to eliminate issues.  Then there is the receive voter that's required.  Again, JPS voters aren't exactly cheap.  And GMRS repeaters are paid for by their owners.  Lastly, the repeaters have the repeaters have to match as well.  No mixing of MTR, Quantar, with a Kenwood and a Tait stuck in there.  If you are running Quantars, they have to be used at every site, the firmware needs to be the same in all the units as well.  Lastly, you need to know how to do it.  There are some of us out here that have that knowledge and have worked on these types of systems at a professional level.  But ther is no requirement for a repeater owner to be a commercial radio tech.  And hiring a commercial radio tech to build something like what I am talking about here is gonna be 100 to 150 bucks an hour.  SO more out of pocket costs.  So while it's certainly possible from a technical standpoint, the practicality of it isn't really there.  Oh, I forgot the thousands of dollars per site that is required for the channel banks and microwave links between the sites.  Simulcast links can't be run on the Internet.  The latency variance is too great.

 

But my point was this.  It's the other guys gear he's talking about.  Nothing stops him from putting up his own repeater.  And again, I understand that some folks don't like linked repeaters.  And that's fine.  But griping about it in an open forum, when they don't have anything on the air isn't really the way to garner support for his stance.

 

[SvenMarbles]

19 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

I do believe that I went on to say that I have no issue with being direct.  I understand that there are people out there that will not use linked repeaters.  I understand that there are folks that even disagree with the fact that linked repeaters systems exist.  And that's fine.  We all get to have an opinion. 

But it still goes back to the ownership of the equipment at the end of the day.  There are those of us that do support the idea, and have linked machines.  Now I am not gonna tie up 4 pairs with repeaters that completely overlap coverage by linking them together.  I will be the first to say I disagree with that thought process.  But some having some level of overlap is gonna happen with a system that has better than average coverage.  Some overlap means there are no holes in the coverage of the system.  Could it be simulcast and all on one frequency, yes.  There is no technical reason that it couldn't be.  But there is the additional equipment that's required like a GPS reference.  Those are a grand or so a piece.  And whatever unit is used should be used at every site to eliminate issues.  Then there is the receive voter that's required.  Again, JPS voters aren't exactly cheap.  And GMRS repeaters are paid for by their owners.  Lastly, the repeaters have the repeaters have to match as well.  No mixing of MTR, Quantar, with a Kenwood and a Tait stuck in there.  If you are running Quantars, they have to be used at every site, the firmware needs to be the same in all the units as well.  Lastly, you need to know how to do it.  There are some of us out here that have that knowledge and have worked on these types of systems at a professional level.  But ther is no requirement for a repeater owner to be a commercial radio tech.  And hiring a commercial radio tech to build something like what I am talking about here is gonna be 100 to 150 bucks an hour.  SO more out of pocket costs.  So while it's certainly possible from a technical standpoint, the practicality of it isn't really there.  Oh, I forgot the thousands of dollars per site that is required for the channel banks and microwave links between the sites.  Simulcast links can't be run on the Internet.  The latency variance is too great.

 

But my point was this.  It's the other guys gear he's talking about.  Nothing stops him from putting up his own repeater.  And again, I understand that some folks don't like linked repeaters.  And that's fine.  But griping about it in an open forum, when they don't have anything on the air isn't really the way to garner support for his stance.

 

I’m not on a crusade to garner support for a stance. I only asked who already shared the same point of view, and I’m not sure if you’re keeping score but so far it’s looking like I’m not in a small boat all by myself over here. 
 

Thanks for clarifying the whole “which things I own and which things I don’t” thing. That really needed to be laid out plainly.. 

But thanks for sharing. I’ve got you down for 1 “I disagree”. 

[WRKC935]

8 hours ago, Sshannon said:

I do understand enjoying the challenge of “conquering the airwaves” to make distant contacts, not for the joy of talking to strangers (nothing wrong with that, just not my thing), but for the technical challenge it represents. 
 

You do realize that there is a 'technical challenge' from the stand point of the repeater owners (considering ham here mostly) in getting the repeaters linked.  Sure you can buy a certain repeaters that basically have the linking built in (DMR) or a certain repeater and linking hardware that is basically plug and play.  But there are ways to do this that do require a soldering iron and a bit of knowledge and skill to get it all working.  Which is the way I went with it.  And to be honest, I was told to NOT do it that way because it's harder, and typically doesn't work well.  I overcame all those challenges and made it work. So there is a feeling of accomplishment tied to that aspect of doing it as well.  SUre there were easier (more expensive) ways of doing it, but I chose the harder, but less expensive route to get it done.

Now, I will give you this.  I REALLY don't like what the Pi-Star hot-spot movement has done to DMR and other digital modes when it comes to Ham radio.  I own a couple of the things but rarely used them.  When I do use them it's typically for checking my P25 repeater that's linked out as a testing tool to hear what my audio sound's like.  But I do have a Quantar repeater on the air that's linked via a Cisco router to the outside world.  It works as a local repeater or a world wide linked repeater depending on the TG ID that's transmitted into it.  And that is a user choice. 

But the idea of doing ham radio were the RF path is across the room to a hot-spot and then on the Internet doesn't sit well with me.  And I don't see what it has to do with ham RADIO, since there isn't much 'radio' being used.

 

[WRXB215]

@WSAQ843 Welcome to myGMRS.com. As you can see, discussions can get heated at time but you'll find that it is mostly peaceful and a great community.

I'm also in Texas and hope to hear you on the air either on GMRS or ham.

[Lscott]

10 hours ago, WSAK691 said:

It's getting a bit tired when I tune into 3 different repeater frequencies and am hearing the same conversation being had by a handful of guys in metro Indy.

I think you articulated the problem.

By having several repeaters in an area linked each one requires it's own pair of frequencies. Sticking to the usual standard of a 5MHz offset that leaves just 8 pairs. So, by linking several repeaters together when any one of them goes active all are now on the air. This effectively ties up several valuable repeater pair frequencies whereas one might have been sufficient.

The argument for this practice is now a much wider area is covered. However one forgets that another user may wish to setup their own repeater, and has NO desire to share it with anyone outside their family or group. The multiple linked repeaters now consumes the limited repeater frequency pairs, and possibility leaving none available for somebody to use on a limited basis. 

For example here in the metro Detroit area we have, I think, three linked repeaters, and one wide area standalone repeater. Since we are past the FCC's "Line A" two of the official repeater frequency pairs are not available. With four of the remaining pairs consumed by the linked system that leaves just 2 frequency pairs open for somebody else to use.

[WRQC527]

9 hours ago, WSAQ843 said:

Thank you, thanks, please be seated.

I sometimes preface my responses here, on other forums, and in real life with some variation of "Do you know what I think? Thanks for asking". With your permission, I would like to include "Please be seated" in the future. 

[gortex2]

Way back when our county linked the RACES ham repeater to the StasteWide system (all RF days no internet) one had to use a different PL to activate the link. After x amount of time with no traffic local the link would drop. think it was 15 minutes back then. Maybe 30. The goal of the link was to give us outside area help on an event when needed but not to have daily qso on the channel. It worked great for years. Then they linked via internet and since its been non stop chatter from the other end of the state. So basically no one uses the repeater. 

Thats been my issue with the GMRS repeaters I have come across that are linked. I have no cares in the world about stuff 300 miles from where I am. In a disaster its different. But not for every day life. If you need long distance traffic use zello or something else to talk on. WE do the samei n the SAR world. We have multiple repeaters across an area but none are linked full time. If there is a need for an incident then they can be patched. If you want to listen to one or the other you go to your zello app and listen in. 

As said earlier resource allocation is more of the issue. On top of that is the limited amoutn of repeaters. I have been in areas where I can hear 3 repeaters and its all the same traffic as they are all linked. There is no reason for that. Pick one channel and link it. If you need more coverage build out that repeater site. 

[WRXB215]

@Lscott and @gortex2, maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't proper use of tones alleviate the problem of multiple repeaters in the same area on the same frequency?

[SteveShannon]

11 minutes ago, WRXB215 said:

@Lscott and @gortex2, maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't proper use of tones alleviate the problem of multiple repeaters in the same area on the same frequency?

The tones don’t prevent interference.  They just prevent audio reproduction.  The signal must be received before the tone has an effect.  So, two transmitters on the same frequency can interfere with each other, even if they have different tones, as long as a receiver receives them.  

[Lscott]

5 minutes ago, WRXB215 said:

@Lscott and @gortex2, maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't proper use of tones alleviate the problem of multiple repeaters in the same area on the same frequency?

Not really on a linked system using separate repeater frequency pairs. Since several repeaters are "linked" when a station accesses one you hear the audio broadcast on the other linked repeaters. So instead of hearing the audio on the output of the one repeater its now on the output frequency side of the repeater pair frequency of the linked repeaters, effectively using those channels, even though the station is not directly accessing them.

Remember the linked repeaters will ALL be transmitting at the same time the exact same audio stream. If they were all on the same repeater pair frequency the linked repeaters would be transmitting at the same time on the same frequency effectively jamming each other if they were too close to the receiving station. Using a separate PL tone on the output for each repeater would be useless.     

[SteveShannon]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

You do realize that there is a 'technical challenge' from the stand point of the repeater owners (considering ham here mostly) in getting the repeaters linked.

Of course, and the people that do them deserve credit, but those are not technical challenges that I have overcome, so making a QSO using a linked repeater is very little more challenging than dialing the phone.  

I celebrate other’s accomplishments, but with ham radio I derive satisfaction from my own accomplishments in overcoming technical challenges.

[WRQC527]

While I'm not interested in debating the legality of linked GMRS repeaters, or even expressing my opinion or interpretation of the following excerpt from the FCC website concerning the interconnecting of GMRS stations through various networks, I present it here to further muddy this thread.

"You can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain and repeater use.  You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications".

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, WRQC527 said:

While I'm not interested in debating the legality of linked GMRS repeaters, or even expressing my opinion or interpretation of the following excerpt from the FCC website concerning the interconnecting of GMRS stations through various networks, I present it here to further muddy this thread.

"You can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain and repeater use.  You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications".

I’ve seen that before also but when challenged I was unable to find it again. Would you post the link?

[WRQC527]

5 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

I’ve seen that before also but when challenged I was unable to find it again. Would you post the link?

You bet. It's on the Operations tab.

 

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs

[SteveShannon]

4 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs

Thanks!  I see it there under the operations tab. 

[back4more70]

I see no reason to link GMRS repeaters.  Let the ham team enjoy that.  (Which makes me sound like I have dual personality disorder, since I have both licenses )

[WRUU653]

37 minutes ago, back4more70 said:

I see no reason to link GMRS repeaters.  Let the ham team enjoy that.  (Which makes me sound like I have dual personality disorder, since I have both licenses )

I resemble that statement

[quarterwave]

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

- Kevin Malone