myGMRS Network Shutting Down August 28th, 2024

[rdunajewski]

Recently, the FCC has clarified its interpretation of the GMRS rules regarding repeater linking by stating that linked repeaters are against the rules. For years, the Part 95 rules have been unclear about whether repeater linking falls under Remote Control, Interconnection, or something else entirely.

FCC Clarification (Click the Operations tab)

A GMRS user asked the Commission for clarification several years ago and received a response that it was indeed allowed. This letter had been posted online. Given that decision and the nebulous state of the Part 95 rules, we have operated under the assumption that this was permitted.

While this clarification is not binding and does not update the actual Part 95 rules, it shows that the FCC is against repeater linking and at least intends for it to be prohibited.

Given this new information, it is in our best interest to begin shutting down the myGMRS Network, which allows repeater owners to link using VoIP technology over the Internet. We will shut down the myGMRS registration server in one week, on August 28th, 2024. The main myGMRS website will not be affected and will continue to serve the GMRS community as it has for nearly 20 years.

Connections between repeaters or audio are not carried through our servers; only the registration server is used to keep a listing of which nodes are online at any given time. Disabling the registration server will not break the connection to existing nodes; it will only prevent new connections from occurring. Repeater owners who continue using VoIP or other means to link repeaters together will do so at their own risk.

myGMRS is committed to operating within the FCC rules and aims to maintain a positive rapport with the Commission. Should the Commission's stance change, we will reconsider whether to bring the network back at that time.

If you wish to sign, there is a Change.org petition to request that the FCC allow network connections.

Change.org Petition to Allow GMRS Linking

[marcspaz]

Rich, as I FYI, I have started an IPT here in the DC area to work on a Petition for Substantive Rulemaking, rather than simply trying to sway Policy Statements.  Right now we have a team of 5 communications professionals, some also with experience in writing bills and several have direct POCs in the FCC.  If you have any interest in hearing about our plans or potentially joining the IPT, please send me a PM. 

Anyone who has looked at previous FCC proposed changes relating to PRS/GMRS, has seen how much consideration is given to MyGMRS and its members.  I believe you would be a great addition to the IPT.

[marcspaz]

Signed and posted comment...

 

I believe that the ability to link repeaters over an internet connection is crucial to the success of public safety networks.  There are a tremendous amount of GMRS repeater owners who allow volunteer response groups such as REACT, ARES and RACES that support the federal, state and local government in emergency response, as part of logistic divisions and moving critical information.  Terrain often is the largest obstacle, reducing radio coverage.  The ability to link multiple repeaters (network and RF) would greatly increase the coverage area for the emergency volunteer groups, helping preserve life and property during a mass-casualty crisis. 

[WROU959]

This site and the growth of linked GMRS repeaters has been one of the most exciting things regarding radio.  The FCC's position is not only frustrating it is nonsensical.  There may be some reasonable rationale, but no one has been able to explain it beyond a dismissive claim of potential interference.  It's reminiscent of a parent saying "because I said so".

I'll sign the petition.  I'm just shaking my head at their rule absent any explanation that makes sense. 

Thanks for all you do and have done!

73 

[Hoppyjr]

Hopefully people will see this as yet another reason to vote correctly, with liberty as the first priority.

[WRXL702]

Great Job Rich !

Finally An Intelligent Approach To Maintain The Required Compliance With FCC Rules.

Good Stuff......

[wayoverthere]

3 hours ago, marcspaz said:

Signed and posted comment...

 

I believe that the ability to link repeaters over an internet connection is crucial to the success of public safety networks.  There are a tremendous amount of GMRS repeater owners who allow volunteer response groups such as REACT, ARES and RACES that support the federal, state and local government in emergency response, as part of logistic divisions and moving critical information.  Terrain often is the largest obstacle, reducing radio coverage.  The ability to link multiple repeaters (network and RF) would greatly increase the coverage area for the emergency volunteer groups, helping preserve life and property during a mass-casualty crisis. 

Marc,

Thank you for the well written template, and your outside efforts.  I used yours as a starting point, and added some additional input as well.

Quote

. I believe that the ability to link repeaters over an internet connection is crucial to the success of public safety networks. There are a tremendous amount of GMRS repeater owners who allow volunteer response groups such as REACT, ARES and RACES that support the federal, state and local government in emergency response, as part of logistic divisions and moving critical information. Terrain often is the largest obstacle, reducing radio coverage. The ability to link multiple repeaters (network and RF) would greatly increase the coverage area for the emergency volunteer groups, helping preserve life and property during a mass-casualty crisis. The low bar to entry for GMRS makes it especially accessible to nearly everyone, widening the pool of volunteers and availability of information in an emergency.

In addition, linking has been allowed to continue and become exceptionally established under the previous unclear rules that were only recently clarified. While the previous prohibition of connecting to the telephone network was understandable in the days of auto patch (and no cellphones), the restriction no longer makes sense. 

 

[JLeikhim]

Regarding the Change.org petition. There is a typo in the number of the rule # in a subsequent paragraph shown as  95.1722 where 95.1733 is correct.  And do we want 95.1749 removed? It is a permissive paragraph simply spoiled by 95.1733(8).  I sent a letter to FCC DRO and CC'd decision.makers@change.org.

Here is what I added:

NOTES ADDED BY Joe Leikhim: 

During the 2017 NPRM to rewrite the GMRS rules I questioned the rule 95.1733(8) which conflicted with new rules pertaining to network connection. It appeared on one hand that remote control via Internet was permitted, yet on the other hand 95.1733(8) prohibited such. My comment was met with a reply that the FCC could did not have resources to research the rule at the time.  If you check the Federal Register you will see my comment and the reply and reference in footnotes (Leikhim). I have done some research and the wording in  95.1733(8) predates the 2017 ruling by decades. I believe that it once pertained to a control operator being required for repeater operations.  (Prior to rules permitting Automatic control) That prohibition and other fragmented rules persisted for decades and were as such, scriveners errors. The original intent was to permit remote control of a repeater (enable and disable) via tones carried on the PSTN along as voice was not carried. This prohibition has now created great confusion within the community and I suspect within the Commission itself because the rule was written decades ago, by folks who are no longer able to say why it was there.

This raises additional questions: Why were 95.1749 and 95.1745 crafted if not to permit interconnection with the Internet (or other networks)?

§ 95.1745 GMRS remote control.

Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.

What constitutes "Remote Control"? In all other services, operation by remote control does not preclude transmission of information (Voice).

I urge the commission to revisit the rules with an eye toward permissive linking of repeaters.

1) Linking is often required because it is no longer economical to obtain prime tower height in most of the country. 

2) Linking can provide a public service to the community. This has been demonstrated.

3)  Linking can enhance public safety for the community. There are numerous outages of power and cellular services every year.

4) Natural and Manmade disasters occur daily.

We can agree that linking poses some problems. The following address those issues.

5) Linked repeaters should operate on a secondary basis to repeaters that are for local use.

6) Linked repeaters should monitor their repeater input frequency (467.xxx) for co-channel traffic having a different or no selective squelch code. This has been employed in Part 90 systems to protect co-channel repeaters. This is a simple addition of hardware or software to apply logic and timers to provide polite monitoring of the channel. For example, if a co-channel repeater user transmits within 15 second period prior to a linked control signal arriving at a remotely linked repeater. The linked repeater shall hold off linked transmissions for another 15 seconds.

7) Linked repeaters should have a secondary selective squelch code for local traffic. In that way repeater users can hail one another over the link and then switch to the local repeater operation minimizing traffic over the wider area.

Linked repeaters should transmit a valid callsign of the custodian within 15 minutes after being activated.

9) Linked repeaters should not extend outside the state where they are to be operated. No interstate systems. This is unnecessary and only creates unneeded traffic.

10) Linked repeaters should not overlap such that three or more channels are utilized in same area. This will require minimal engineering by the operators to ensure that their repeaters do not monopolize resources.  The guidelines should be made simple enough to utilize open source coverage software.

11) The above rules should be phased in over a period of time to allow for modifications to existing systems.

I hope these suggestions are helpful in allowing permissive use of linking in the GMRS band. I hope these address the concerns voiced by some.

Back to the petition some of which may differ from what I stated above:

 

[JLeikhim]

Now I am sure that MyGMRS.com may have a contrary opinion to what I have stated above, especially with limiting operations within boundaries of each state, however the community needs to police itself and set some guidelines. If not, then the FCC will not take a second look and will ban linking outright.  The detractors are mainly from Part 97 users who are attacking GMRS linking practices vehemently. I am not saying they are right, but there are improvements that can and should be made if GMRS wants to chart its own course.

[WRUU653]

7 minutes ago, JLeikhim said:

The detractors are mainly from Part 97 users who are attacking GMRS linking practices vehemently

I’m not sure I agree. Maybe you are right but I also think you will find a large number of the people linking repeaters are also part 97 users. 

 

14 minutes ago, JLeikhim said:

10) Linked repeaters should not overlap such that three or more channels are utilized in same area. This will require minimal engineering by the operators to ensure that their repeaters do not monopolize resources.  The guidelines should be made simple enough to utilize open source coverage software.

I am glad to see you included this in your list. Along with keying up on channels in other areas without even knowing I think taking up multiple channels in the same area is the biggest problem. I’m not sure how you get people to not do this but I appreciate that you are looking at the issues with linking in your proposal. So good on you for that. 

[WRXB215]

1 hour ago, JLeikhim said:

The detractors are mainly from Part 97 users who are attacking GMRS linking practices vehemently.

Is this true? I know there is always a turd here and there but it makes no sense for a ham to attack GMRS. Seriously there is no logic to it at all.

[JLeikhim]

7 minutes ago, WRXB215 said:

Is this true? I know there is always a turd here and there but it makes no sense for a ham to attack GMRS. Seriously there is no logic to it at all.

There are forums that are predominantly hams and yes, they are the most vocal. Many have GMRS licenses as well, but for the most part they are complaining about something that does not affect them . Lets think about this. Has any GMRS licensee lodged a formal complaint to the FCC about linking? I have spent hours looking at the Enforcement Bureau database and no complaints about linking.

[JLeikhim]

1 hour ago, WRUU653 said:

I’m not sure I agree. Maybe you are right but I also think you will find a large number of the people linking repeaters are also part 97 users. 

 

I am glad to see you included this in your list. Along with keying up on channels in other areas without even knowing I think taking up multiple channels in the same area is the biggest problem. I’m not sure how you get people to not do this but I appreciate that you are looking at the issues with linking in your proposal. So good on you for that. 

Yeah, I am not sure I would want two repeaters overlapping. Ideally the overlap should be at the edge of the contour . This one is a hard nut to crack as it has to account for the fact that you can probably find a high point in Georgia where you will hear 8 repeaters. But that should not be a consideration. There may be a case where you need three repeaters to cover a county and the coverage will nearly touch and someone in a high rise will hear all three, though on the ground, you hear only one. . This is not mission critical stuff and should not be regulated such that it is.

[JLeikhim]

As a disclaimer, I do not operate a linked repeater. But I would consider it and I think it can be appropriate. Decades ago a GMRS repeater in Chicago extended portable coverage well into the suburbs using SpectraTac voting and satellite receivers, over leased (Not PSTN) phone circuits and did so without any problems.

[WRWW447]

These comments from detractors complaining about tying up frequencies have no merit.  I have yet to encounter an area with multiple repeaters within the same coverage area being linked.  Whether it is linked or not a repeater will still occupy the single pair it configured for.  The owner decides what traffic is allowed on the repeater they have installed.  Don't like the constant chatter, put up your own repeater.  Some repeaters will fall silent now because local user will not have the breadth of the network.  Yes as stated it against the rules but if we were really rule adherent then we apply that to every aspect of our lives or we are just being hypocrites.

[ArizonaMatt]

Remember Government was never your friend.

White Mountain GMRS

[GreggInFL]

As a poorly qualified noob I have the constant feeling that I'm missing something. According to the obviously qualified posts here, no GMRS users have complained about linking, technical complaints such as tying up frequencies are baseless and everyone who tries it likes it.  Yet there remains afoot a movement to terminate all this happiness.  What am I missing?

This is more of an opportunity for the FCC than it is a problem.  The ability to communicate with others over long distances via linked repeaters is very appealing, with little if any apparent downside.  If there is a problem with the rules then perhaps the FCC needs to change the rules. 

 

[WRUE951]

16 hours ago, JLeikhim said:

Now I am sure that MyGMRS.com may have a contrary opinion to what I have stated above, especially with limiting operations within boundaries of each state, however the community needs to police itself and set some guidelines. If not, then the FCC will not take a second look and will ban linking outright.  The detractors are mainly from Part 97 users who are attacking GMRS linking practices vehemently. I am not saying they are right, but there are improvements that can and should be made if GMRS wants to chart its own course.

Simply put,, there is not enough bandwidth for linking repeaters in the GMRS band while not effecting the intended users of GMRS..   The FCC has already allocated tons of bandwidth for this practice were it has rules and procedures to manage those networks..  Also the FCC requires a specialized license to use  those frequencies allocated  for repeater linking, which requires users to demonstrate more radio knowledge and hopefully responsibility..  I can guarantee the FCC is not going to change the GMRS rules to include world wide repeater linking in the GMRS band.  Why? because they already have an allocation of frequencies for this practice known as the amateur radio.   The practice of repeater linking requires a higher level of knowledge/expertise, not commonly found or expected, with an entry level license such as GMRS , . Repeater Linking requires a lot of coordination, procedures and managing skills which is well established in the Amateur Radio world and (not in the GMRS world).  If the FCC even thought of changing the GMRS rules to include repeater linking in the GMRS band, the first thing they would want to do is re-classify that frequency band segment to the Ammeter Radio Band where they already have rules and process set up for the purpose of repeater linking  They are not gong to re-write a set of rules to allow repeater linking in the GMRS band, knowing the practice will destroy the intended purpose of GMRS.  Myself and many many many of my friends whom enjoy GMRS for the intended purpose have alreay written to the FCC opposing any attempt to change the rules permitting repeater linking  in the GMRS band. I encourage anyone that does not want the GMRS band destroyed by repeater linking to do so as well.  For you people that enjoy the hobby and beniffits of repeater linking, you all need to obtain and or use the Amateur Radio benefits already set up..    

[JLeikhim]

4 hours ago, WRWW447 said:

These comments from detractors complaining about tying up frequencies have no merit.  I have yet to encounter an area with multiple repeaters within the same coverage area being linked.  Whether it is linked or not a repeater will still occupy the single pair it configured for.  The owner decides what traffic is allowed on the repeater they have installed.  Don't like the constant chatter, put up your own repeater.  Some repeaters will fall silent now because local user will not have the breadth of the network.  Yes as stated it against the rules but if we were really rule adherent then we apply that to every aspect of our lives or we are just being hypocrites.

 

2 hours ago, GreggInFL said:

As a poorly qualified noob I have the constant feeling that I'm missing something. According to the obviously qualified posts here, no GMRS users have complained about linking, technical complaints such as tying up frequencies are baseless and everyone who tries it likes it.  Yet there remains afoot a movement to terminate all this happiness.  What am I missing?

This is more of an opportunity for the FCC than it is a problem.  The ability to communicate with others over long distances via linked repeaters is very appealing, with little if any apparent downside.  If there is a problem with the rules then perhaps the FCC needs to change the rules. 

 

To date, the FCC has never issued any notice of  violation to any GMRS licensee for linking. These letters are all accessible on the FCC website by general search or via the Enforcement Bureau. In my opinion, the majority of the detractors have some sour grapes and just want to condemn something others enjoy.  I doubt they live somewhere where all 8 channels are unavailable for whatever reason. Perhaps NYC/Long Island, but not the Carolina's or even Florida.

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, JLeikhim said:

 

To date, the FCC has never issued any notice of  violation to any GMRS licensee for linking. These letters are all accessible on the FCC website by general search or via the Enforcement Bureau. In my opinion, the majority of the detractors have some sour grapes and just want to condemn something others enjoy.  I doubt they live somewhere where all 8 channels are unavailable for whatever reason. Perhaps NYC/Long Island, but not the Carolina's or even Florida.

Congestion in one area is enough..  there are a couple states where 20+ repeaters are setup for a linking network.  It doesn't matter when a person lives, the fact that it is happening and beggingng to go out of control is enough at this point to stop this bandwidth hogging insanity.  There are other people that want to enjoy GMRS and have no where to go..   

[JLeikhim]

2 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

Congestion in one area is enough..  there are a couple states where 20+ repeaters are setup for a linking network.  It doesn't matter when a person lives, the fact that it is happening and beggingng to go out of control is enough at this point to stop this bandwidth hogging insanity.  There are other people that want to enjoy GMRS and have no where to go..   

Where are you located? Which channels are being linked around you? Curious, seeking facts..

[WRUE951]

4 hours ago, GreggInFL said:

As a poorly qualified noob I have the constant feeling that I'm missing something. According to the obviously qualified posts here, no GMRS users have complained about linking, technical complaints such as tying up frequencies are baseless and everyone who tries it likes it.  Yet there remains afoot a movement to terminate all this happiness.  What am I missing?

This is more of an opportunity for the FCC than it is a problem.  The ability to communicate with others over long distances via linked repeaters is very appealing, with little if any apparent downside.  If there is a problem with the rules then perhaps the FCC needs to change the rules. 

 

if you dont think complaints have not been lodged with the FCC in regards to the ongoing illegal repeater linking in the GMRS band,, you are very numb and asleep...  The 'afoot' movement you speak of is defiantly part of the complaint process currently in progress..   I proudly admit, i'm one of those individuals.   The FCC has already allocated space in the frequency spectrum for repeater linking.  I advise you folks to move your operations over to the side of the fence where the practice is legal and also managed by experts and has rules already established.  It's that simple and very easy to 'be happy'  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

if you dont think complaints have not been lodged with the FCC in regards to the ongoing illegal repeater linking in the GMRS band,, you are very numb and asleep...  The 'afoot' movement you speak of is defiantly part of the complaint process currently in progress..   I proudly admit, i'm one of those individuals.   The FCC has already allocated space in the frequency spectrum for repeater linking.  I advise you folks to move your operations over to the side of the fence where the practice is legal and also managed by experts and has rules already established.  It's that simple and very easy to 'be happy'  

 

[WRUE951]

13 minutes ago, JLeikhim said:

Where are you located? Which channels are being linked around you? Curious, seeking facts..

where  I live and what channels are being 'linked' around me is irrelevant..  If you want to know that information, i'm obviously a member here.  Where i live does not change the FCC rules.  

[Lscott]

2 minutes ago, JLeikhim said:

Where are you located? Which channels are being linked around you? Curious, seeking facts..

Michigan

https://mygmrs.com/repeater/7242

https://mygmrs.com/repeater/6815

https://mygmrs.com/repeater/8451

Part of the Mi8 linked system.

We're past "Line A", so 2 of the 8 repeater pairs are not available. With 3 being used by high power wide area linked repeaters doesn't leave much left for the little guy.