Linking GMRS Repeaters

[UncleYoda]

57 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

where the other guy admitted that they were aware of the FCC's clarification but that "the rule hasn't been officially changed" and that "until the FCC forces us to" they weren't going to change.

IMO, that indicates he knows they are violating the intent of the regs.  The argument that the regs haven't been changed to reflect the clarification is as bogus as a $3 bill, and it's been used in dealing with other issues.  In this case, and others like base stations using repeaters, the FCC provides explanations that affirm their interpretation of the existing wording in the regs.  Since the existing wording is sufficient to them, there is no change required to the regs.

[Northcutt114]

8 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

IMO, that indicates he knows they are violating the intent of the regs.  The argument that the regs haven't been changed to reflect the clarification is as bogus as a $3 bill, and it's been used in dealing with other issues.  In this case, and others like base stations using repeaters, the FCC provides explanations that affirm their interpretation of the existing wording in the regs.  Since the existing wording is sufficient to them, there is no change required to the regs.

I have only a cursory relation with the group. I do listen to them on occasion and I have yet to hear anyone say, on the air, "we are violating the rules." Someone, somewhere in the group has made very sure that they believe that they are not in violation. I don't know the rules well enough to say one way or the other, nor do I care to involve myself. It's just an interesting position in which to find myself. "The internet" seems to think they are one way, they seem to think they are something else, and here I am in the middle seeing a little of both.

 

[SteveShannon]

56 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

I have only a cursory relation with the group. I do listen to them on occasion and I have yet to hear anyone say, on the air, "we are violating the rules." Someone, somewhere in the group has made very sure that they believe that they are not in violation. I don't know the rules well enough to say one way or the other, nor do I care to involve myself. It's just an interesting position in which to find myself. "The internet" seems to think they are one way, they seem to think they are something else, and here I am in the middle seeing a little of both.

 

The rules don’t actually say that repeaters can’t be linked but the say that GMRS communications can’t be conveyed by any kind of network. The FCC has issued an interpretation that says that means no linking. It has yet to be tested and this is why lawyers have flashy cars.

[marcspaz]

38 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

The rules don’t actually say that repeaters can’t be linked but the say that GMRS communications can’t be conveyed by any kind of network. The FCC has issued an interpretation that says that means no linking. It has yet to be tested and this is why lawyers have flashy cars.

 

This weekend I sat down and talked to an engineer who has been working with the FCC to shape rules for GMRS since before it was called GMRS.  I got some pretty eye-opening information from him on the whole POTS v Broadband thing.  He explained that linking a GMRS system to the POTS lines (no longer exists) and Broadband connections are legal (not a rule violation) for remote control... but not for voice traffic, because all POTS providers and now Broadband providers provide voice service for a fee.  So, sending voice over POTS / Broadband is considered theft of services.

 

That explains why remote operation of a PRS station from any location on the same premises where the transmitter is located, is not considered to be remote operation/remote control and why RF (non-network) linking for voice operation is not prohibited.  No theft of services is occurring.

[Northcutt114]

1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:

It has yet to be tested and this is why lawyers have flashy cars.

Vocationally, I, on occasion, am paid to write things. One of my favorite lines to this day was a client talking to his clinically mandated psychologist. The shrink was trying to get him to open up and he, being sardonic and largely capable of bearing his own burdens, had been refusing. Also, he had some pretty dark passengers. When he finally decided to yield and talk about his issues, he led with "OK, fine. Let's put a Lambo in your garage."

I thought it was witty.

 

[Northcutt114]

40 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

 

This weekend I sat down and talked to an engineer who has been working with the FCC to shape rules for GMRS since before it was called GMRS.  I got some pretty eye-opening information from him on the whole POTS v Broadband thing.  He explained that linking a GMRS system to the POTS lines (no longer exists) and Broadband connections are legal (not a rule violation) for remote control... but not for voice traffic, because all POTS providers and now Broadband providers provide voice service for a fee.  So, sending voice over POTS / Broadband is considered theft of services.

 

That explains why remote operation of a PRS station from any location on the same premises where the transmitter is located, is not considered to be remote operation/remote control and why RF (non-network) linking for voice operation is not prohibited.  No theft of services is occurring.

OK, but then why is it legal to do so with HAM? They are still sending voice traffic over broadband, no? To be clear; I'm not disagreeing. Just looking for clarity.

 

[SteveShannon]

Just now, Northcutt114 said:

OK, but then why is it legal to do so with HAM? They are still sending voice traffic over broadband, no? To be clear; I'm not disagreeing. Just looking for clarity.

 

Good point!

[GreggInFL]

From an AI engine:

No members of the U.S. Congress from Georgia directly oversee the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the sense of having sole authority or direct control, as the FCC is an independent federal agency overseen broadly by Congress through its committees. However, several Georgia lawmakers participate in committees that exercise oversight over the FCC and its policies, particularly those related to communications and technology.

Key Congressional Committees with FCC Oversight

The FCC is primarily overseen by:

• House Committee on Energy and Commerce, specifically its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
• Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

These committees hold hearings, review FCC policies, and influence legislation affecting the agency’s operations, such as broadband deployment, spectrum allocation, and telecommunications regulations.

Georgia Members in Relevant Committees

Based on available information, here are Georgia members of Congress involved in committees with FCC oversight as of August 2025:

1. House Committee on Energy and Commerce:
   • Representative Rick W. Allen (R-GA-12):
     • Serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
     • Led a bipartisan letter in 2021 with other Georgia lawmakers to the FCC, requesting updates on the implementation of the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act, indicating active engagement with FCC-related issues like broadband mapping.
   • Representative Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA-01):
     • Also a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, giving him a role in FCC oversight.
     • Signed the 2021 bipartisan letter to the FCC alongside Rep. Allen, focusing on broadband access for rural communities.
2. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
   • Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA):
     • Serves on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which oversees the FCC.
     • Co-signed the 2021 letter to the FCC, emphasizing the integration of Georgia’s broadband map data into federal mapping efforts.
   • Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA):
     • Also a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
     • Engaged with FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks in 2023 to discuss expanding the Affordable Connectivity Program, showing involvement in FCC-related policy.
     • Co-signed the 2021 letter to the FCC with other Georgia lawmakers.

Other Georgia Lawmakers with FCC Engagement

While not members of the primary oversight committees, other Georgia representatives have engaged with the FCC on specific issues, as evidenced by the 2021 bipartisan letter:

• Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA-02)
• Representative Drew Ferguson (R-GA-03)
• Representative Austin Scott (R-GA-08)
• Representative Andrew Clyde (R-GA-09)
• Representative Jody Hice (R-GA-10) (Note: Hice is no longer in Congress as of 2025, having left office after the 117th Congress)
• Representative Barry Loudermilk (R-GA-11)

These lawmakers signed the letter to the FCC requesting updates on broadband mapping, indicating interest in FCC activities, particularly those impacting rural broadband access in Georgia.

Context of FCC Oversight

• The FCC is an independent agency created by the Communications Act of 1934, with five commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It regulates communications across radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.
• Congressional oversight occurs through hearings, budget reviews, and legislative directives. The House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Commerce Committee regularly hold FCC oversight hearings, as seen in events like the June 21, 2023, House hearing and the June 24, 2020, Senate hearing.
• Georgia lawmakers, particularly those on these committees, influence FCC policies through legislation, letters, and public statements, focusing on issues like broadband access, which is critical for their state’s rural and underserved areas.

Summary

Georgia members of Congress actively involved in FCC oversight through committee roles include:

• House: Rep. Rick W. Allen (R-GA-12) and Rep. Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA-01) on the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
• Senate: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

Other Georgia lawmakers, like Bishop, Ferguson, Scott, Clyde, and Loudermilk, have shown engagement with FCC issues, particularly broadband, but do not serve on the primary oversight committees. For the most current committee assignments or specific actions, checking the official House and Senate committee websites or recent congressional records would provide further clarity.

[GreggInFL]

2 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

OK, but then why is it legal to do so with HAM? They are still sending voice traffic over broadband, no? To be clear; I'm not disagreeing. Just looking for clarity.

Probably more channels, but I'm not a HAM.

[Northcutt114]

31 minutes ago, GreggInFL said:

Probably more channels, but I'm not a HAM.

But if the argument for its "illegality" is because sending voice traffic through broadband is considered "theft of service," why would you allow the HAM community to do it? They have even more room to steal your service, so to speak.

I am admittedly a neophyte in all this, but it seems to me far more likely that the FCC doesn't want "some people" talking too many fars. It's evident in the scalable nature of their licensing. FRS and MURS, no license, no fars. GMRS, license no test, some fars. HAM General, license and test, more fars. Ham technician, another test, even more fars. HAM Extra, one last test, most fars. Although to be fair, I think HF gets unlocked at level 2 HAM and that's about as far as you can talks. At least I think.

No, I'm not sure it has anything to do with "theft of service." And if it does, I think one can easily make the case in 2025 that GMRS traffic is not taking money out of Verizon's pocket.

 

[WRXL702]

"A GMRS user can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain, and repeater use.  GMRS stations cannot be interconnected with the public switched 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.  In other words, repeaters may not be linked via the internet—an example of an “other network” in the rules—to extend the range of the communications across a large geographic area.  Linking multiple repeaters to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R.  Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals. 

In addition to violating Commission rules, linking repeaters is not in the public interest.  Because GMRS spectrum is limited and used on a shared “commons” basis, the service only works well on a localized basis when users can hear each other and cooperate in the sharing of channels.  Linking repeaters not only increases the potential for interference, but also uses up a limited spectrum resource over much larger areas than intended, limiting localized availability of the repeater channels."

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

 

[Radioguy7268]

Search up :"Carterphone decision"

Once upon a time, there was money to be made in Long Distance calling.

[Northcutt114]

7 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

Once upon a time, there was money to be made in Long Distance calling.

"Once upon a time"

You mean when I was a boy? 

[marcspaz]

33 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

OK, but then why is it legal to do so with HAM? They are still sending voice traffic over broadband, no? To be clear; I'm not disagreeing. Just looking for clarity.

 

 

The FCC has a ruling specifically exempting amateur radio.  It's been 20 years since I read the most recent ruling, but the FCC published a docket in 2005/2006 time frame say something along the lines of 'amateur radio operators who volunteer to provide essential communications and warning links to supplement State and local government assets during emergencies, currently is sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency'.  Due to Amateur Radio Services being used by the government for auxiliary communications services, they had been deemed exempt. 

 

Some people have debated if amateur repeater linking is a violation of 47 CFR § 97.113(a)(5), but there are zero examples of anyone actually being fine for it.  Likely because of the aforementioned docket, which eventually lead to permanent changes in the rules in 2010, specifically 47 CFR § 97.219 and 47 CFR § 97.3.

[Radioguy7268]

38 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

"Once upon a time"

You mean when I was a boy? 

If you ever (knew anyone who) used the toy whistle from a Captain Crunch cereal box to get free long distance calling, you might be of that age.

[WRUU653]

11 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

If you ever (knew anyone who) used the toy whistle from a Captain Crunch cereal box to get free long distance calling, you might be of that age.

I remember an interview with Steve Wozniak explaining how he would do this. I'm of the age but I wasn't privy to this info at the time... darn it 

[MarkInTampa]

14 minutes ago, Radioguy7268 said:

If you ever (knew anyone who) used the toy whistle from a Captain Crunch cereal box to get free long distance calling, you might be of that age.

I used to hang around a bit with Kevin Mitnick back in the day building 2600Hz boxes until he started doing really crazy stuff.

[WRXB215]

I remember using pulse dial and even party lines.