WSDD439 Posted August 26 Author Report Share Posted August 26 5 hours ago, SvenMarbles said: I kind of like the idea of my wife and son being able to raise me on the radio from home to car or vise versa and not have colostomy bag larry "jumping on" to ask my wife about what radio or antenna she's using . GMRS isn't a hobby band. Some of us actually just want to use GMRS for a utilitarian purpose (the correct usage). The repeater slots were getting jammed up with all of these linked systems. I had identical traffic on 2 of the 8 channels where I am. I'm more in favor of more localized standalone repeaters, and frankly maybe not so many of them. Leave some room for some of us who might want to put up a private Retevis thing for our own purposes some day. I frankly don't understand why so many hams got drawn over to GMRS to begin with, but they sure did because you'll learn of them being a ham within the first 2 minutes of talking.. Novelty I guess? Because they have the 440.. Just go do all of this stuff over there. Leave GMRS/FRS for the family/group coms stuff. It got so pervasive with the "WHISKEY SIERRA BRAVO FOXTROT" and "what's your callsign!" stuff that it made things unwelcoming for the casual "family licensees" to just get on and use the radio service that was FOR THEM. I can’t speak for all, but here in Michigan, we have a little bit of both. We have the husband and wife who talk together, we also have the husband talking to the wife a few hundred miles away at the cabin. For myself, I only use the phonetic pronunciation, when I think the guy on the other end doesn’t get the call sign. I wish more people would, because they slur the words and numbers all together. And… if someone is asking you about your rig set up ( it’s probably because it sounds great ), and you’d rather not, then ignore them. Easy peasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davichko5650 Posted August 26 Report Share Posted August 26 10 hours ago, SvenMarbles said: and not have colostomy bag larry "jumping on" Where shall I send my dry cleaning bill? Hot coffee on my nice work shirt and all....! TrucksNCoffee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SvenMarbles Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 19 hours ago, WSDD439 said: I can’t speak for all, but here in Michigan, we have a little bit of both. We have the husband and wife who talk together, we also have the husband talking to the wife a few hundred miles away at the cabin. For myself, I only use the phonetic pronunciation, when I think the guy on the other end doesn’t get the call sign. I wish more people would, because they slur the words and numbers all together. And… if someone is asking you about your rig set up ( it’s probably because it sounds great ), and you’d rather not, then ignore them. Easy peasy. Just maybe don’t worry about what anyone’s call sign is. I know that sounds nuts but, again, GMRS isn’t actually for “making contacts”. What anyone’s call sign is is frankly between themselves and the FCC. I’m aware of what the identifying requirements are, but let’s relax.. Did you know that I can rattle my callsign off in CW at 70wpm and be compliant? I’m not obligated to be sure anyone can copy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 On 8/25/2024 at 4:36 PM, MaxHeadroom said: Agreed. It has never been in the spirit of GMRS or any of its rules for any sort of repeater linking, via RF or otherwise. The community took what they thought was a loophole, exploited it, and are now big-mad when the FCC (very politely) tells them they're wrong. What makes it more absurd is seeing the comments on a Change.org petition (which is not the mechanism for pushing change with the FCC) acting like GMRS is amateur radio and all the comments about "making new connections" and such... sheesh. I am all for wide area coverage, but with a much more intentional way of doing it, and as others have said on here there's a way to accomplish it but GMRS community will have to suck up some things as well (like narrowbanding the service). FCC will never sacrifice the GMRS band for repeater linking. There are places in the Amateur Radio Band with tons of bandwidth to accommodate the Hobby.. Way too much would be needed to allow it in the GMRS arena, The only way i see them allowing it is allocating the GMRS band to the Amateur Radio Band and require at minimum a Technicians Lic.. I don't see that happening and one reason i among many people have wrote the FCC objecting to any such moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSDD439 Posted August 27 Author Report Share Posted August 27 2 hours ago, SvenMarbles said: Just maybe don’t worry about what anyone’s call sign is. I know that sounds nuts but, again, GMRS isn’t actually for “making contacts”. What anyone’s call sign is is frankly between themselves and the FCC. I’m aware of what the identifying requirements are, but let’s relax.. Did you know that I can rattle my callsign off in CW at 70wpm and be compliant? I’m not obligated to be sure anyone can copy it. (1) I like to run the call sign thru the call sign look up, on this site. (2) I don’t personally know of anyone on GMRS (family, friends), other than the ones I’ve made contacting them on GMRS. (3) 95% of the traffic, that I’ve heard, are people making friendly contacts, not mom, pop and the kids taking a hike in the woods…. (4) good for you, and your CW capabilities, scrounging around here with us lowly GMRS folk….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSDD439 Posted August 27 Author Report Share Posted August 27 37 minutes ago, WRUE951 said: FCC will never sacrifice the GMRS band for repeater linking. There are places in the Amateur Radio Band with tons of bandwidth to accommodate the Hobby.. Way too much would be needed to allow it in the GMRS arena, The only way i see them allowing it is allocating the GMRS band to the Amateur Radio Band and require at minimum a Technicians Lic.. I don't see that happening and one reason i among many people have wrote the FCC objecting to any such moves. From day one, when I eventually figured out how to do it, I’ve connected to a repeater, that was linked to other repeaters. It’s all I know, and it’s pretty cool. I’m hoping that the FCC doesn’t take away that technology, especially when it’s used correctly, by licensed US citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRQI663 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 ooops wrong thread WSDD439 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davichko5650 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 8 hours ago, WSDD439 said: From day one, when I eventually figured out how to do it, I’ve connected to a repeater, that was linked to other repeaters. It’s all I know, and it’s pretty cool. I’m hoping that the FCC doesn’t take away that technology, especially when it’s used correctly, by licensed US citizens. FCC doesn't affect the technology. What they do do is establish and clarify the rules for the service; these state that linking is against those regulations. Raybestos and WRUE951 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSDD439 Posted August 27 Author Report Share Posted August 27 2 hours ago, Davichko5650 said: FCC doesn't affect the technology. What they do do is establish and clarify the rules for the service; these state that linking is against those regulations. By using the internet. We’ll have to figure out another way. Maybe microwaves… WRUE951 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSDD439 Posted August 27 Author Report Share Posted August 27 2 hours ago, Davichko5650 said: FCC doesn't affect the technology. What they do do is establish and clarify the rules for the service; these state that linking is against those regulations. And just maybe they actually listen to the repeater system, and find out that no one is being denied access to any of the frequencies….. WRUE951 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davichko5650 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 5 minutes ago, WSDD439 said: By using the internet. We’ll have to figure out another way. Maybe microwaves… RF linking is permissible - but I don't have a dog in this fight as it is as I rarely use repeaters and have not idea if any that I have were linked at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSEG508 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 All the people saying just get a ham license, are missing the point. If we wanted a ham license we would get one but we chose gmrs. i dont care to have to study to get a license for ham or wish to spend the $$$$ for new equipment. Its kinda crazy in 2024 you have to take a test for a basic ham license any way, thats why people choose gmrs. Pay a fee start talking. If i want more range i got a CB. The FCC making people shut the link repeaters down is terrible. Well thats my rant on the subject. WSDD439 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveShannon Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 26 minutes ago, WSDD439 said: By using the internet. We’ll have to figure out another way. Maybe microwaves… That’s correct. The actual regulations specify “wireline” and POTS, but the FCC “updated” their interpretion to include the internet because the intent for prohibiting wireline and POTS was because it violated the purpose of GMRS which is short distance communication. That type of intent based reasoning is the kind of thing that ATF used to prohibit bump stocks after Trump ordered them to get rid of them. They reasoned that because the 1932 National Firearms Act placed a special tax on fully automatic firearms because they allowed a person to fire many rounds quickly, and because bump stocks allow a firing rate that approaches that of a fully automatic firearm they (ATF) had the authority to ban bump stocks. SCOTUS ruled against that because bump stocks don’t fit the definition of a full auto firearm. It’s possible that a lawyer versed in communications law could challenge the new interpretation if the fcc actually charges someone with violating their regulation. Which way it goes is anybody’s guess, but if their new interpretation is upheld, any other mechanism that links repeaters to achieve a wider coverage area might also be affected, whether it’s point to point microwaves or dedicated long haul modem. WRUU653 and WSEG508 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSDD439 Posted August 27 Author Report Share Posted August 27 3 minutes ago, SteveShannon said: That’s correct. The actual regulations specify “wireline” and POTS, but the FCC interpreted that as including the internet because the intent for prohibiting wireline and POTS was because it violated the purpose of GMRS which is short distance communication. That type of intent based reasoning is the kind of thing that ATF used to prohibit bump stocks after Trump ordered them to get rid of them. They reasoned that because the 1932 National Firearms Act placed a special tax on fully automatic firearms because they allowed a person to fire many rounds quickly, and because bump stocks allow a firing rate that approaches that of a fully automatic firearm they (ATF) had the authority to ban bump stocks. SCOTUS ruled against that because bump stocks don’t fit the definition of a full auto firearm. It’s possible that a lawyer versed in communications law could challenge the new interpretation if the fcc actually charges someone with violating their regulation. Which way it goes is anybody’s guess, but if their new interpretation is upheld, any other mechanism that links repeaters to achieve a wider coverage area might also be affected, whether it’s point to point microwaves or dedicated long haul modem. If so, then there will be a lot of empty airwaves, and that’s a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davichko5650 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 19 minutes ago, SteveShannon said: That’s correct. The actual regulations specify “wireline” The internet is filled with wireline control links as you know! Kind of a semantical argument, but that's that. I'm a sideliner on this anyway as I seldom use a repeater much less a linked one. I'm one of those short distance, point to pointers the service was originally intended for. OTOH, it's made for some entertaining reading at lunchtime here. Raybestos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUU653 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 4 minutes ago, SteveShannon said: any other mechanism that links repeaters to achieve a wider coverage area might also be affected, whether it’s point to point microwaves or dedicated long haul modem. wireline and POTS was to avoid widespread transmissions I agree. This is most certainly is the case as things are at this moment. The FCC has stated their position on linking and why. Any attempt to link multiple repeaters no matter what method would certainly fall within their reasons for prohibiting them. What people decide to do and what the FCC decides to do is another matter but their position has been clarified. “The GMRS is available to an individual for short-distance two-way communications to facilitate the activities of licensees and their immediate family members“ “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” “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.” Raybestos, WRHS218, AdmiralCochrane and 1 other 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OffRoaderX Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 1 minute ago, WRUU653 said: what the FCC decides to do is another matter Based on the FCC's past/current enforcement record against GMRS violators, what would you guess the FCC will decide to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raybestos Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 41 minutes ago, WSDD439 said: And just maybe they actually listen to the repeater system, and find out that no one is being denied access to any of the frequencies….. Because those on the linked system have no idea about anyone they may be denying access to/interfering with, nor do they give a flip. They have their noisy little toy that lets them pretend they are hams by talking unnaturally long distances, using the same technology that facilitates most long distance calla, VOIP. That is all that matters to them. AdmiralCochrane, WRUU653 and Davichko5650 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUU653 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 2 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said: Based on the FCC's past/current enforcement record against GMRS violators, what would you guess the FCC will decide to do? I certainly wouldn’t guess what they would decide to do? Your guess is as good as anybody’s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davichko5650 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 6 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said: Based on the FCC's past/current enforcement record against GMRS violators, what would you guess the FCC will decide to do? Continue the press against the Pirates, where the money is and people who are being actual dicks on the airwaves? Raybestos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveShannon Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 5 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said: Based on the FCC's past/current enforcement record against GMRS violators, what would you guess the FCC will decide to do? If they do as they have in the past, nothing will be done. But a public change to an interpretation often precedes a change in attempted enforcement. In other words, I have no idea what will really happen. Whatever happens won’t affect how I use GMRS. WRUU653, Hoppyjr and Raybestos 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUU653 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 5 minutes ago, Davichko5650 said: Continue the press against the Pirates The problem with Pirates is… they got such a cool name. SteveShannon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUU653 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 3 minutes ago, SteveShannon said: I have no idea what will really happen. Whatever happens won’t affect how I use GMRS. A better response than mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davichko5650 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 1 minute ago, WRUU653 said: The problem with Pirates is… they got such a cool name. Some pretty good ones down on the HF bands, but the enforcement has mostly been against FM pirates, especially the NYC bunch. Take a listen down around 6925 to 6950 kHz sometime, Radio Free Whatever is one of the better ones, they even sign off with cool sstv images at times. I can't think of even one FM pirate I've heard here in the Twin Cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveShannon Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 18 minutes ago, Davichko5650 said: The internet is filled with wireline control links as you know! Kind of a semantical argument, but that's that. But court cases are won and lost based on semantics. I also don’t use linked repeaters for GMRS, so whatever happens I don’t have a dog in the fight or “legal standing.” MaxHeadroom, marcspaz and WRUU653 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.