Linked Repeaters

[WRQC527]

25 minutes ago, CaptainSarcastic said:

Very few folks here have commented on this part of the Operations Tab in the FCC rules...

Give it another six months or so of mass pontification and I'm sure it will be covered ad nauseam. This topic refuses to die. On the contrary, it keeps reproducing. Like mitosis in the biology realm.

[amaff]

26 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

it keeps reproducing. Like mitosis in the biology realm.

Or cancer.

[WRXL702]

Here Is A Link For Synonyms & Antonyms For Pontifications - Guessing There Is A Grammar Issue:

 https://www.powerthesaurus.org/pontification

Also, Sorry To Hear You Are Afflicted With Mitosis, Or Assuming That Is What Is Affecting Your Judgement.

A Definition Provided If Needed...

What is Mitosis

Mitosis is a method of cell division where the mother cell divides to produce two genetically identical daughter cells.Itis similar in both plants and animals. In lower animals such as amoeba, mitosis is a means of asexual reproduction without the involvement of sex cells or gametes.

The term ‘mitosis’ was coined by Walther Flemming in 1882 and derived from the Greek word ‘mitos’ meaning ‘warp thread’.

Example: Healing of wounds, where damaged cells are replaced and repaired by forming new cells.

[AdmiralCochrane]

Don't confound government agency opinion with its actual regulations.

[emory]

On 9/20/2024 at 3:44 PM, OffRoaderX said:

Nice try FedBoi !

i haven't won a game of Spot the Fed in over a decade 

put me down for "may possibly interfere with linked GMRS repeaters used for d-bag contesting and DoSing my household, but since there isn't a GMRS repeater in my town until about 45 miles out, i'm not too worried about it. when i'm at my other place in PA though a couple of repeaters i use are busy enough i don't need to hear about the grooming strategies of neckbearded weirdos. i could tolerate a few before it got annoying but it sounds like some of y'all are dealing with saturation that disrupts normal people.

[WRUE951]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:11 PM, WRXL702 said:

Please Select Operations Tab & Make A Simple Attempt To Understand It.

Just As Driving While Intoxicated Is Illegal In All 50 States, It Doesn't Require States To List All Types / Brands Of Alcohol Which Makes Driving Drunk Illegal. Same Goes With Every & All Other Types Of Laws.

If Wanting To Talk Longer Distances - Get A Ham License Or Get Over It. 
Linking GMRS Repeaters Is Done..........

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

 

Except the outlaws are still gonna do it until the sheriff comes in town  

[WRXL702]

Well - The Sheriff Did Come To Town.......

In May & June Of This Year - One Of The (4) Repeater Owners (Owned At That Time 8 Repeaters,) On The Midwest GMRS Group, Received An Email & Phone Notification To Vacate His GMRS Linking Operation Of His Repeater Stations.

He Ignored & Was Totally Not Transparent With His Paid Users, As He Felt Self Justified On His Linked GMRS Usage. 

In August, 2024 - He Then Received, Thru USPS Mail, That He Is now In Violation Of GMRS Linking & A $20,000 Fine Is Pending If Compliance Is Not Corrected.

This Is All Documented In The FCC Website For Violations.....

Enforcing Radio "Sheriff" In Town - Yep....

 

 

[GreggInFL]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:06 AM, SteveShannon said:

Playing devils advocate here, why should there be an exception to talk to the opposite side of the mountain? That’s usually no longer local.

It would be local if the mountain weren't there.

On 9/21/2024 at 10:06 AM, SteveShannon said:

Of course the real solution is to put a single repeater on top of the mountain. 

Agreed, but what if you don't own the mountain?  What if this were an urban setting and rather than a mountain the object blocking transmissions is a building, which you don't own?

I understand how a bunch of repeaters connected by a bunch of links could cause problems, but in this example the objective is to maintain a normal transmission range, not to spread RF over the continent.  What's the downside?

Simple wording: "A GMRS repeater shall not be linked to more than one other GMRS repeater."

[WRUU653]

On 9/21/2024 at 6:57 AM, GreggInFL said:

I agree with all of the above with one exception --  which was first brought up by a poster on this forum, so no credit to me.  If you have two local repeaters that are separated by a mountain, seriously limiting the range of both, linking the two should be allowed.  More than two, no.

I have made that very statement here so perhaps it was me. I did feel this way at one time but I understand the desire to keep GMRS a separate thing from amateur radio and the idea of linking just two is a slippery slope. What’s to say someone wouldn’t link two repeaters hundreds or thousands a mile apart? 

Either linking is allowed or it’s not and the verdict is in.

…there is a solution.

 

[WRUU653]

I got my GMRS license first. As I got more interested in radio the idea of being able to get over that hill was what pushed me to get my amateur license. I learned that while hiking locally I couldn’t always reach a GMRS repeater. There is however an established amateur radio network where I live. One in particular that can be reached almost anywhere in the county. I could hear these ham repeaters while I was on the trail and I decided yeah I need to be able to use those too. So I studied and took the test, now I can. What’s not to like about that?
There are networks that go throughout the state and further if that’s what you’re interested in. I like the idea I can do that if needed or wanted but I generally keep it closer to home in respect to repeaters.
Whatever the reason someone likes linking, if it’s to talk to other people at greater distance about the weather, rag chew with friends at home while traveling, being able to reach a friend while on a hike whatever, I would encourage you to get your amateur license and be able to do all that and more. There are good people out there in amateur radio and always room for more. Also the ability exists to use it in many different ways and as one ham told me regardless of what anyone else thinks how you choose to use it is fine, you don’t have to do what someone else thinks is the best thing.
Why limit yourself? Don’t let silly prejudice, reluctance, a sad ham or u tube personality or whatever it is prevent you from expanding and experiencing radio the way you want. Amateur radio is just people that like radios, not some secret society that you can’t get into. It’s all available for you. Go get it and make it yours if you want it. GMRS is great for some things and amateur radio others, you can do both.

End of soap box rant.

[wrci350]

3 hours ago, WRXL702 said:

In August, 2024 - He Then Received, Thru USPS Mail, That He Is now In Violation Of GMRS Linking & A $20,000 Fine Is Pending If Compliance Is Not Corrected.

This Is All Documented In The FCC Website For Violations....

Link?

[WRUU653]

3 hours ago, WRXL702 said:

Well - The Sheriff Did Come To Town.......

This Is All Documented In The FCC Website For Violations.....

 

 

Well that’s something. Yeah, we’re gonna need a link on that. Not saying you’re wrong but I didn’t find it. 

[SteveShannon]

4 hours ago, GreggInFL said:

It would be local if the mountain weren't there.

Agreed, but what if you don't own the mountain?  What if this were an urban setting and rather than a mountain the object blocking transmissions is a building, which you don't own?

I understand how a bunch of repeaters connected by a bunch of links could cause problems, but in this example the objective is to maintain a normal transmission range, not to spread RF over the continent.  What's the downside?

Simple wording: "A GMRS repeater shall not be linked to more than one other GMRS repeater."

Very few of us with repeaters on mountains own the mountains they’re on. We have agreements whoever are the stewards of the mountains, usually US Forest Service, sometimes BLM, or possibly some state agency. For the most part  they are very familiar with repeater sites and even have policies that enable us to use their facilities, such as old lookouts. 
Second, if it’s a building similar policies may be in your favor. The tallest buildings in cities often have a wide variety of antennas on them. 

[GreggInFL]

2 hours ago, WRUU653 said:

What’s to say someone wouldn’t link two repeaters hundreds or thousands a mile apart?

Okay, let's go there.  If a family member moves across the country, what's the problem?  How does that single link threaten anything?  Where's the downside?

[SteveShannon]

6 minutes ago, GreggInFL said:

Okay, let's go there.  If a family member moves across the country, what's the problem?  How does that single link threaten anything?  Where's the downside?

Obviously it’s no longer short range, so it is contradictory to the express purpose of GMRS according the regulations. Good luck getting them to change the rules. 

[WRUU653]

1 hour ago, GreggInFL said:

Okay, let's go there.  If a family member moves across the country, what's the problem?  How does that single link threaten anything?  Where's the downside?

What @SteveShannon said…

1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:

Obviously it’s no longer short range, so it is contradictory to the express purpose of GMRS according the regulations. Good luck getting them to change the rules. 

I don’t know that I would go so far as to use the word threaten but the downside has been debated ad nauseam. But since you asked, for one it has been pointed out there are limited channels available for GMRS repeater use. How will you know that the frequency is clear in the other area across county? You won’t.  
Amateur radio has more frequencies and coordination to avoid these issues.

I merely pointed out that a single linked repeater is the same issue but to a lesser degree as many linked repeaters. Ergo a slippery slope. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the decision about linked repeaters the issue and reasoning behind banning them is the same for two repeaters linked as it is for three or four or twenty.
If a family member of mine moves across country I’ll probably get their phone number. 

[DONE]

On 9/22/2024 at 5:40 PM, WRXL702 said:

Well - The Sheriff Did Come To Town.......

In May & June Of This Year - One Of The (4) Repeater Owners (Owned At That Time 8 Repeaters,) On The Midwest GMRS Group, Received An Email & Phone Notification To Vacate His GMRS Linking Operation Of His Repeater Stations.

He Ignored & Was Totally Not Transparent With His Paid Users, As He Felt Self Justified On His Linked GMRS Usage. 

In August, 2024 - He Then Received, Thru USPS Mail, That He Is now In Violation Of GMRS Linking & A $20,000 Fine Is Pending If Compliance Is Not Corrected.

This Is All Documented In The FCC Website For Violations.....

Enforcing Radio "Sheriff" In Town - Yep....

 

 

I didn't see anything of the sort.  Just looked

 

[DONE]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:43 AM, nokones said:

It depends on how you link the repeaters. I don't see in the rules where a network of linked repeaters by RF such as any operational fixed equipment such as Microwave or even an in/out of band FX1 station, such as 70 Meg control, is prohibited by rule. Anyone?

Well, 70 Mhz was sold off and is no longer used for STL.  So can't use 70 Mhz for it.  But it would still be wireline control if you did that.  So no,,not an option.

Microwave.  What sort of microwave?  Lets pick that apart. 

Analog Microwave first.  Which would be E&M which is wireline.

Then how about TDM (T-1) which is a data channel (24 actually) requiring channel banks then classifying it was a 'network'.  It does say NETWORK, not IP network.  And TDM is a phone system technology so that may or may not play into the whole PSTN thing.  But ultimately, the channel banks are going to create E&M ant both ends which is WIRELINE.  NOPE.

So then we say that anything above 1 Ghz is Microwave,,,, all the way up from there.  Most of the stuff, be it WiFi or some other band is going to still interface as Ethernet.  And regards less of you using IP (not sure any other transport is available) it's a network connection.  Then it connects to some sort of node device.  That device is either taking audio and putting it into a data stream, or taking it off a data stream and putting it back on a pair of wires along with telemetry (PTT and COR) and that once again is E&M which is,  drum roll please.... wireline.

You can't get past the wireline part no matter what you do unless you are running the repeaters back to back, and that is forbidden as well.  Repeater pairs are fixed with a specified with an input and output frequency.  You can't put the repeater output on a repeater input frequency to avoid the wireline rule without violating the frequency use rule for repeater pairs.

So you understand.  If you connect ANYTHING to a repeater that consists of TX /RX audio and telemetry and the source is anything besides the receiver output of the repeater in question, it's wireline control  if you split hairs.  If the source originated from a location OUTSIDE the repeater equipment location, it's absolutely wireline. 

So wireline is linking, Zello, running a controller remotely across phone lines, console connection from dispatch type equipment.  And it's not limited to repeater control   The rules say NO WIRELINE at all for ANY GMRS radio.  So that means you can't connect any of that stuff to a 'control station' or 'base station' either and use it legally. 

Think about it like this.  If the FCC decides it's coming for you.  They are like Bubba in prison that's taken a liking to someone.  You're gonna get it from behind.  Bubba don't play 'fair'.  He's ten times your size and he's got buddies (other 3 letter agencies).  If he's decided that your cute (in violation) you are getting violated.  Others might JUST hold you down for him. Or they may take a turn by auditing you, arresting you and putting you in WITH Bubba, or whatever else a 3 letter agency might come up with to come beating on your door at 3 am and apply to you. 

 

You want linking back?  Pull a group together, then seek out other groups and combine as one.  Get someone that knows FCC regulations like an FCC attorney to represent your group.  Put together something that would be found as acceptable for the FCC to CONSIDER and have the attorney file a petition with the FCC for a rule change.  Sitting and complaining about it on here accomplishes NOTHING.  It's not going to come back without a rule change and in reality it's probably not coming back at all.  But you are going to need to figure out ALL of the parts of why the rules exist and how to build out a linked system that would NOT violate those rules (like the interference thing).  Then you get a proposal together that addresses the problems that it would create, how they would be mitigated and then ask for changes to the stuff like the wireline ban that can't ever be worked around.

 

[WRUE951]

16 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

You want linking back?   IMO  I doubt the FCC would ever consider Linking in GMRS, there simply is not enough bandwidth and a GMRS license is not sufficient to warrant the expertise required to operate and manage linked repeater systems.   

 

[nokones]

A microwave link with frequencies allocated and ruled by Part 101, Fixed Microwave Services, is not a wireline link. A wireline link is involving the regulated public switching network of a telephone communications company.

So, with that being said, how do you figure that a microwave control link of GMRS stations is a violation of Part 95, subpart E? Please cite the affected rule saying a microwave control link is prohibited. Also, where did you come up with that a microwave control link is a wireline control link? I would like to hear your definition on that one.

[Raybestos]

1 hour ago, nokones said:

A microwave link with frequencies allocated and ruled by Part 101, Fixed Microwave Services, is not a wireline link. A wireline link is involving the regulated public switching network of a telephone communications company.

So, with that being said, how do you figure that a microwave control link of GMRS stations is a violation of Part 95, subpart E? Please cite the affected rule saying a microwave control link is prohibited. Also, where did you come up with that a microwave control link is a wireline control link? I would like to hear your definition on that one.

"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."

The above pretty much says it all.  In particular, the part about:

"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."

Any connection to another repeater constitutes one of the dictionary definitions of "a network".  

 

"From Vocabulary dot com:

1. noun

    (broadcasting) a communication system consisting of a group of broadcasting stations that all transmit the same programs
   “the networks compete to broadcast important sports events”

   see more
2. noun

    (electronics) a system of interconnected electronic components or circuits"

    

   FROM IONOS

    

   "Definition: Network

   A network is a group of two or more computers or other electronic devices that are interconnected for the purpose of exchanging data and sharing resources."

   Regardless of the method of linking used to attempt to circumvent FCC rules regarding GMRS linking, it is still an obnoxious practice that attempts to change the scope of GMRS from its intended purpose of personal communications into a hobby in and of itself, aka "ham radio lite".

 

[SteveShannon]

2 hours ago, Raybestos said:

"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."

The above pretty much says it all.  In particular, the part about:

"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."

Any connection to another repeater constitutes one of the dictionary definitions of "a network".  

 

"From Vocabulary dot com:

1. noun

    (broadcasting) a communication system consisting of a group of broadcasting stations that all transmit the same programs
   “the networks compete to broadcast important sports events”

   see more
2. noun

    (electronics) a system of interconnected electronic components or circuits"

    

   FROM IONOS

    

   "Definition: Network

   A network is a group of two or more computers or other electronic devices that are interconnected for the purpose of exchanging data and sharing resources."

   Regardless of the method of linking used to attempt to circumvent FCC rules regarding GMRS linking, it is still an obnoxious practice that attempts to change the scope of GMRS from its intended purpose of personal communications into a hobby in and of itself, aka "ham radio lite".

 

But again, you’re quoting the most recent FCC interpretation, not the actual rules. That’s why this argument hasn’t been settled. The rules say one thing and the FCC interpretation says another.

For the record I am not in favor of linking GMRS. I am against government being overly restrictive in their interpretation. 

[WRXL702]

FCC  Title 47  Part 95  Subpart E  Rules Were Revised & Are In Sync With The FCC Mobility Interpretation Site.

See Link Below :

 

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E

[WRXL702]

FCC Mobility Division Home Page :

 

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/mobility-division-wtb

 

 

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, WRXL702 said:

FCC  Title 47  Part 95  Subpart E  Rules Were Revised & Are In Sync With The FCC Mobility Interpretation Site.

See Link Below :

 

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95/subpart-E

How were they changed?  95.1733(a)8 still prohibits passing messages through a wireline control link. That hasn’t changed. 
95.1749 still has the same language regarding telephone networks.