Linking GMRS Repeaters

[jenksjr]

Apparently the FCC has given from guidance on GMRS Repeater Linking. It appears that linking repeaters is not allowed at all.

\

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."

 

[WRXB215]

Mien Got!

[wqnd300]

Apparently the FCC has given from guidance on GMRS Repeater Linking. It appears that linking repeaters is not allowed at all.
\

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."
 

You didn't mention the most important part of the update.

"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."

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[WRXP381]

So is this the 3rd or 4th thread in this in the past 2 days. And anbout the 10th in the last few months.    And again it has no actual changes.  Linking has always Ben against the rules it’s just now they have to clarify it for people that never read or dont care    So let’s keep beating this dead horse. 

[JoCoBrian]

All I can say about this, is this will have some kind of effect on my fars.  

[BoxCar]

1 hour ago, JoCoBrian said:

All I can say about this, is this will have some kind of effect on my fars.  

If you want FARS, go ham.

[marcspaz]

I don't know how my SETI team is going to feel about this.  The FCC is reducing our processing capabilities by reducing the network size.

 

[CentralFloridaGMRS]

So we asked for a clarification and we got it. I'm not happy about it either. It's never been legal, now it explains why the New York network got the heads up before they started looking at enforcing it and shut down. For me, it was just another tool. Zello will work fine all by itself keeping in contact with my New England friends. 

[batt63]

Once again THE FCC has confused the issue ! This is NOT updated in Part 95 !

Rule changes have to go before Commissions and Congress  !

Just like the ATF that just got slapped in the face !

If this IS THE NEW RULE of the land as stated, then you will see ALL THE NETS AND LINKED station that put it out there start shutting down !

I know everyone will have an argument on it !

 

[JoCoBrian]

5 hours ago, BoxCar said:

If you want FARS, go ham.

I am an Extra Classy Ham already.  My ham fars go real far.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, batt63 said:

Once again THE FCC has confused the issue ! This is NOT updated in Part 95 !

Rule changes have to go before Commissions and Congress  !

Just like the ATF that just got slapped in the face !

If this IS THE NEW RULE of the land as stated, then you will see ALL THE NETS AND LINKED station that put it out there start shutting down !

I know everyone will have an argument on it !

 

Your argument was to be brought forward during a NPRM comment period. The FCC already has a mechanism thats congressionally approved for them to operate the way they have been, unlike the ATF or EPA or whoever else you can loosely associate to the SCOTUS ruling.

That being said - most of us in the industry that work in other areas of 47 CFR and know the process warned GMRS users that this can happen and that it and Part 90 radios being allowed in Part 95 needed to be spelled out in a rule update. The lack of effort and in-fighting in forums like this led myself and several others to abandon the effort that was for the benefit of the entire community - because a petition/NPRM cannot happen without user backing!

Let this be a cautionary tale for the people that like to chortle on the forums instead of actually spending time reading the rule, doing some research, and coming up with a halfway intelligent argument to submit to the FCC to defend their position.

[marcspaz]

11 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:

Your argument was to be brought forward during a NPRM comment period.

 

A good portion of the people debating these points had no idea GMRS existed during the last NPRM comment period.  Its evident with the conversation here that for those who had a license at the time, a small number of them understood the implications of the rules surrounding network connectivity (or why the restrictions were even put in place) and struggle to realize that there are contradictory statements and definitions requiring clarification... so, places like FB, reddit and MyGMRS are the only remaining place to vent frustration.  At least until the next comment period, assuming they realize that is even happening when it does.

[MarkInTampa]

Another one down....

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

 

A good portion of the people debating these points had no idea GMRS existed during the last NPRM comment period.  Its evident with the conversation here that for those who had a license at the time, a small number of them understood the implications of the rules surrounding network connectivity (or why the restrictions were even put in place) and struggle to realize that there are contradictory statements and definitions requiring clarification... so, places like FB, reddit and MyGMRS are the only remaining place to vent frustration.  At least until the next comment period, assuming they realize that is even happening when it does.

A petition to open an NPRM/comment period for a service can be brought about at ANY time - just need enough of y'all to want to do something other than bitch on a forum about it. I tried in 2017 as soon as the last update posted, again in 2019 - and even came around early this year to propose the same. I am done caring about GMRS - someone else can start reading 47 CFR 95 and come up with an intelligent argument to present to the FCC. What do I know - I am just an engineer.

[marcspaz]

2 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:

A petition to open an NPRM/comment period for a service can be brought about at ANY time

 

I was not aware of that.  I appreciate the info.

[WRQI663]

On 8/18/2024 at 10:57 PM, WRXP381 said:

So let’s keep beating this dead horse. 

But....but...but isn't that what dead horses are for??

[WRXB288]

Dont give up sign this. 
If everyone complains we will get action.
Forget about the FCC those are just rules not laws. The FCC is not in charge. 
Congress writes the laws. 
We can change this.

This is how Satellite C band owners got the laws changes that allowed dish and direct tv to exist before the internet.

There is a process to doing this and its been done many times. It works.

When congress starts getting all these letters from people and not lobbyist they listen,
Someone's going to ask the FCC WTF did they do.

This will cause several actions 1 there was no comments opened before the action that's a violation. 
They will withdraw the rule and delay it.
And congress may have hearings if we keep pushing.  If so someone will have to go talk for GMRS for each state.

 

If you want to keep linking this is what you need to do. call congress and the senate. or send this letter or send emails.
 

 

https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/gmrs-repeater-linking-freedom

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/whats-the-best-way-to-contact-your-congressperson-these-are-the-tips-you-need-to-know-8503943

 

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1

https://www.congress.gov/contact-us

 

[dirtnapwarrior]

Wouldn't it solve a lot of issues if they would give gmrs more repeater channels?  CB has 40, hams have a crazy amount. Make some channels for linking and others for non linking. 

[WRYZ926]

39 minutes ago, dirtnapwarrior said:

Wouldn't it solve a lot of issues if they would give gmrs more repeater channels?  CB has 40, hams have a crazy amount. Make some channels for linking and others for non linking. 

Where would the extra frequencies/channels come from without forcing us to use narrow band for all channels? The 70cm amateur band is right below GMRS. Some business band UHF frequencies are actually in the same range as GMRS plus public safety frequencies are right above GMRS.

I won't get into the narrow band vs wide band arguments here.

[AdmiralCochrane]

6 hours ago, dirtnapwarrior said:

Wouldn't it solve a lot of issues if they would give gmrs more repeater channels?  CB has 40, hams have a crazy amount. Make some channels for linking and others for non linking. 

With a few exceptions, ham does not have assigned channels.

[dirtnapwarrior]

Damn I didn't think of the narrowband part and I agree we don't want that. 

[MaxHeadroom]

On 8/19/2024 at 1:16 PM, batt63 said:

Once again THE FCC has confused the issue ! This is NOT updated in Part 95 !

Rule changes have to go before Commissions and Congress  !

Just like the ATF that just got slapped in the face !

If this IS THE NEW RULE of the land as stated, then you will see ALL THE NETS AND LINKED station that put it out there start shutting down !

I know everyone will have an argument on it !

 

Communications Act of 1934 renders your entire argument invalid - Chevron Deference was meant for agencies that did not have regulatory authority by charter - FCC has been congressionally approved to do so and still submits to congressional oversight to this day... and within those confines is the NPRM process that others have mentioned... like the quote below.

On 8/19/2024 at 2:27 PM, Guest said:

Your argument was to be brought forward during a NPRM comment period. The FCC already has a mechanism thats congressionally approved for them to operate the way they have been, unlike the ATF or EPA or whoever else you can loosely associate to the SCOTUS ruling.

That being said - most of us in the industry that work in other areas of 47 CFR and know the process warned GMRS users that this can happen and that it and Part 90 radios being allowed in Part 95 needed to be spelled out in a rule update. The lack of effort and in-fighting in forums like this led myself and several others to abandon the effort that was for the benefit of the entire community - because a petition/NPRM cannot happen without user backing!

Let this be a cautionary tale for the people that like to chortle on the forums instead of actually spending time reading the rule, doing some research, and coming up with a halfway intelligent argument to submit to the FCC to defend their position.

 

On 8/19/2024 at 3:04 PM, marcspaz said:

 

I was not aware of that.  I appreciate the info.

Wait a sec, didn't I read somewhere in this forum you claim to be some constitutional and contractual law expert? Shocking to see you're not aware of a process that has been on the books since before I was born by a long shot. 

On 8/20/2024 at 5:29 PM, WRXB288 said:

Dont give up sign this. 
If everyone complains we will get action.
Forget about the FCC those are just rules not laws. The FCC is not in charge. 
Congress writes the laws. 
We can change this.

This is how Satellite C band owners got the laws changes that allowed dish and direct tv to exist before the internet.

There is a process to doing this and its been done many times. It works.

When congress starts getting all these letters from people and not lobbyist they listen,
Someone's going to ask the FCC WTF did they do.

This will cause several actions 1 there was no comments opened before the action that's a violation. 
They will withdraw the rule and delay it.
And congress may have hearings if we keep pushing.  If so someone will have to go talk for GMRS for each state.

 

If you want to keep linking this is what you need to do. call congress and the senate. or send this letter or send emails.
 

 

https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/gmrs-repeater-linking-freedom

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/whats-the-best-way-to-contact-your-congressperson-these-are-the-tips-you-need-to-know-8503943

 

https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?Class=1

https://www.congress.gov/contact-us

 

This will do nothing - the FCC has a mechanism in place as I quoted above. I don't understand what everyone here thinks will be the result of trying to demand a petition through avenues that have nothing to do with how the FCC rule making/amending process works...

8 hours ago, dirtnapwarrior said:

Wouldn't it solve a lot of issues if they would give gmrs more repeater channels?  CB has 40, hams have a crazy amount. Make some channels for linking and others for non linking. 

There are no more channels. The GMRS allocation along with FRS is smack in the middle of a VERY congested business/public safety/industrial band that I can bet a paycheck does not have any "free spectrum" available on a nationwide basis... and I can take a double bet that the FCC will not reallocate spectrum from another service to one that has been unable to follow existing rules and cannot even have a decent unified discussion on it by the looks of this forum. Narrowbanding as you said in another reply is the only avenue you could take, and GMRS repeater owners need to accept that their 50 year old dinosaur needs to be buried to accomplish that change. 

8 hours ago, WRYZ926 said:

Where would the extra frequencies/channels come from without forcing us to use narrow band for all channels? The 70cm amateur band is right below GMRS. Some business band UHF frequencies are actually in the same range as GMRS plus public safety frequencies are right above GMRS.

I won't get into the narrow band vs wide band arguments here.

Its worth discussing because spectrum won't come from anywhere else. Narrowbanding is what the service needs, but still will not satisfy the original topic regarding linking.

Long story short is there's a 3-prong approach to a rule update that can benefit the community, but I have watched others on here argue it and get trolled to death so its not even worth repeating apparently.

[WRYZ926]

27 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

Its worth discussing because spectrum won't come from anywhere else. Narrowbanding is what the service needs, but still will not satisfy the original topic regarding linking.

Long story short is there's a 3-prong approach to a rule update that can benefit the community, but I have watched others on here argue it and get trolled to death so its not even worth repeating apparently.

Yes it is worth discussing. Though some will be against it. Most newer repeaters should be capable of narrow band. I know the Bridgecom repeaters will work with either 12.5kHz or 25kHz channel spacing. I bet most of the repurposed Motorola repeaters can be set to narrow band also.

And you are right, it isn't worth arguing or getting trolled by keyboard commandos (some people).

[MaxHeadroom]

4 minutes ago, WRYZ926 said:

Yes it is worth discussing. Though some will be against it. Most newer repeaters should be capable of narrow band. I know the Bridgecom repeaters will work with either 12.5kHz or 25kHz channel spacing. I bet most of the repurposed Motorola repeaters can be set to narrow band also.

And you are right, it isn't worth arguing or getting trolled by keyboard commandos (some people).

That is where having Part 90 equipment permitted in GMRS in the rule would have been the good first step. It was hotly talked about but nothing was ever done because largely the GMRS community seems afraid to talk to the FCC for any meaningful purpose until they're mad about something. Truly allowing Part 90 equipment would also slightly help the NY GMRS case, as there's never been any simulcast capable equipment certified for use in GMRS.

Narrowbanding just helps keep up with the rest of the industry where stuff like the Motorola GTR8000 repeaters won't even program a wideband channel anymore, so eventually it will be forced as Part 90 manufacturers stop caring about wideband fully. Problem on that end is FRS channels are already interstitial to GMRS channels - and the 2017 rule update removed any way for the FCC to go after what everyone called the "bubble pack pirates". That part will be tough to find a solution to that the FCC would even be willing to hear.

[WRYZ926]

2 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

Problem on that end is FRS channels are already interstitial to GMRS channels - and the 2017 rule update removed any way for the FCC to go after what everyone called the "bubble pack pirates". That part will be tough to find a solution to that the FCC would even be willing to hear.

There is no stuffing that cat back into a bag. And don't forget about all of the GMRS blister pack radios sold prior to 2017 that people never read the instructions where it stated a GMRS license was required.