meaningless jibber jabber

[OffRoaderX]

1 hour ago, WRXB215 said:

"Demand?

That just means that they are really serious about the temper-tantrum they are throwing in the cereal-isle of the grocery store...

[WRYZ926]

19 hours ago, Raybestos said:

Uhhh....no.....

I am not going to ask or demand that the FCC allow unnecessary clogging up of the eight few channels we have for repeater and 50W simplex use, thereby turning GMRS into something it was never even remotely intended to be.

I have to agree with you on this. We setup our GMRS repeater for local use only. It's intent is for families and such to use during normal times and as a backup to our 2m and 70cm repeaters during actual emergencies.

[WRKC935]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:33 PM, WRXS592 said:

https://www.change.org/p/demand-fcc-to-allow-all-network-connections-to-gmrs-repeaters-and-radios
 

Demand FCC to Allow All Network Connections to GMRS Repeaters and Radios

Take the next step!

Not going to work. 

Why????   Read my signature.  That will work.  This will not.  It doesn't give a fix for the issues, just makes an unreasonable demand.

 

[WRKC935]

OK, I have a minute to type this all out.  Again.

According to the statements made by the FCC regarding the issues created with linking multiple repeaters together are as follows. 

First is the inability to 'monitor' the frequency before transmitting.  This is a carry over from Part 90 regulations when you have an FB2 commercial repeater pair.  There is a requirement that you monitor the repeater output frequency in CSQ (no PL/DPL) before transmitting to verify that the frequency is not in use by another entity that's also assigned the frequency for their repeater / base station.  FB2 frequencies are shared (issued to multiple entities) in a specific geographical location.  They are NOT exclusive use frequencies like an FB6, FB8 of 'market frequency'  meaning you 'own' that frequency in your geographical location.  With an FB6 you can key up at any time and NOT monitor but can't transmit continuously.  For a TRUNKED radio system the control channel has to be an FB8.  With that designation, you can transmit 24/7/365 on that frequency.  Same with a market frequency.  The FBx designation sets a standard distance from the transmitter in kilometers that you can operate in.    Market frequencies are similar but the 'allowed coverage' are is much larger.  These were a carryover from the days of pagers where a paging company had a market area of operation and that market area was covered with a single frequency with total saturation (strong signal).  To eliminate interference, a market frequency was only used once in some states and may not be available in any neighboring state depending on distances between transmitters.  Power levels for the transmitters would exceed 1 kilowatt and ERP could be in the 10's of kilowatts depending on the antenna system.  We don't have ANY of that with GMRS.  We have 8 pairs that are NOT assigned or coordinated in any way that we can select from for a repeater and share (like an FB2) with other users. 

Since we WERE doing this, I can be specific.  My repeater was in the Columbus Ohio area linked to others.  But I will only discuss one repeater in Indiana for simplicity.  I can't possibly hear any traffic NOT on the repeater I am linked to in Indiana, unless it's traffic on that specific repeater I am linked to.  And likewise, users in Indiana can't hear a repeater in Columbus that I am sharing the frequency with before they key up.  When they key the repeater in Indiana I am linked to, my repeater also begins to transmit and causes interference in Columbus with the local repeater I share the frequency with.  And that's the problem that the FCC has issue with pertaining to interference.    So how can it be addressed?  Easiest way to address it is the repeater linking controller (Raspberry Pi) could have an input from a second receiver that monitors for traffic on the repeater output frequency in CSQ that would inhibit the transmit line from keying the local repeater it's connected to IF there was local traffic on the frequency.  If a minimum height of the antenna for that receiver was established at no less than 50% of the height of the transmit antenna, then it would actually be BETTER than the user of the local repeater listening from their location since they aren't going to hear another user that's on the other side of the repeater in questions coverage area.  This would 100% eliminate the concern of interference from a remote repeater keying on other users in the coverage are of that remote repeater. 

Over utilization of pairs is also a concern.  And is easily addressed with requirements of how linking is done and WHERE it's done.  Meaning, if a repeater owner has a linked repeater in a geographical location, that linked group can have no more than ONE repeater in that linked group in that area.  If coverage infill is needed (addressing of poor coverage spots within the major coverage area of the repeater) it would have to be done with simulcast on a single frequency or not at all.  That leaves other pairs open for other users.  And an additional requirement that the repeater owner / linked system owner doesn't allow for others in a given geographical area to link to a running system where coverage is already established.  Meaning if I have a repeater linked to a system in Columbus Ohio, that is the ONLY repeater / frequency / channel allowed to be linked to that system in Columbus.  If another repeater owner wants to link their equipment to that system, they have to link to me, since I am established, with a same frequency simulcast setup or not link to that system. Of course if it's in another geographical location, that's not covered, like Cleveland for example, then they would be allowed to link to the system.  But that repeater would be the ONLY one in Cleveland linked to the specific system in question.  This would address the over utilization of the 8 repeater pairs we have for use in the GMRS service.

That addresses the two major concerns with the FCC.  Now we get into the PSTN / WIRE LINE control issues.  This is pure and simple a rule change or better definition of each and what's allowed and what's not.  There is an argument that the rule regrading linking to the PSTN was purely a 'phone patch' regulation.  Back when that rule was set, long distance fee's were a thing.  And long distance fee's were NOT applied to wire line (dry pair) connections for radio service, only telephone calls from a telephone customer to another customer outside of their exchange.  It's believed that the phone companies were concerned about loosing out on revenue from long distance calls that could be made from a GMRS radio to a repeater in another exchange that had phone patch capabilities so they petitioned the FCC to ban that, and they did.  

There is nothing in the regulations specifically about 'wire line' control outside of remote control (telemetry) for GMRS, and I think the wire line thing is someones interpretation of the PSTN link, calling it wire line when they are two different things.  Yes, this would need to be clarified / a rule change to get this dealt with.  But again, not impossible to address, just one more small thing to address. 

Last issue is providing local coverage to an area covered by a linked repeater.  Simple enough. Set a requirement to the owner of any linked repeater that a repeater of similar coverage that was NOT linked be available to users of that area.  Meaning if there is a repeater owned by others, that is publicly available and OPEN to all licensed users and NOT for private use only, then you can just put up your repeater and link it without doing anything else. If such a repeater does NOT exist in the coverage area of your proposed repeater, you as the linked repeater owner should be required to provide that local repeater as well.  And it be open for use with no more access requirement than the linked repeater has.  Meaning fee's or club membership requirements.

So yes, it's gonna take some rule changes, and it's NOT gonna be the 'wild west' like it was.  And in truth, I think this would create usable linked systems that could co-exist with non-linked repeaters and GMRS users that would contribute to the service as a whole. 

 

 

[WRUE951]

3 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

OK, I have a minute to type this all out.  Again.

According to the statements made by the FCC regarding the issues created with linking multiple repeaters together are as follows. 

 

 

 

The FCC will never spend a millisecond  changing the rules to allow linking in the GMRS Band when linking is already established and managed under Ameture Radio. Plain and simple, GMRS does NOT have the allowable bandwidth and nor does it have responsible groups to manage the spectrum. And  secondary, it will never consider DMR in the Band for the same reasons.. (But i do think DMR has a better chance)    To you folks that constantly wine and cry about wanting to legally 'get off' on repeater linking in GMRS..   It's time to become a 'Sad Ham'    Bring Randy with ya,  he just might enjoy himself.    

[CaptainSarcastic]

[WRKC935]

1 hour ago, WRUE951 said:

The FCC will never spend a millisecond  changing the rules to allow linking in the GMRS Band when linking is already established and managed under Ameture Radio. Plane and simple, GMRS does NOT have the allowable bandwidth and nor does it have responsible groups to manage the spectrum. And  secondary, it will never consider DMR in the Band for the same reasons.. (But i do think DMR has a better chance)    To you folks that constantly wine and cry about wanting to legally 'get off' on repeater linking in GMRS..   It's time to become a 'Sad Ham'    Bring Randy with ya,  he just might enjoy himself.    

Oh,, I 100% agree, it's done gone and needs to be forgotten.  The BS nonsense crap of 'CHANGE.ORG' is a TOTAL joke though.  It's so pointless it's not funny any more.  Yeah, I tossed out a word wall to address the ACTUAL issues with it.  But the point of that was NOT to actually get the change to occur, but to MAYBE,,,,, just MAYBE get people to SHUT UP about this damn topic and move on.  I too am tired of hearing about it. And whats more I have actually posted IN DETAIL now, what it would take to get it done.  Do you think anyone will read it, learn from it and actually do it.  F NO... they are gonna continue to get in here and continue to post BS about it and how the FCC sucks and the rules still don't ban it and all the other drivel they seem to come up with about it. 

Personally I think the moderators need to just start banning people if they create topics pertaining to linking until there is a rule change and they post about that.  But I don't have a say in it. 

Now, specific to YOUR comments. 

Yes, it's allowed in Amateur Radio.  But this is NOT that service.  You trying to draw comparisons to the two different services is dumb.  Part 90 commercial allows for it as well.  But I don't see anyone comparing those two services.  Far as the 'coordination' of frequencies.  So me what regulation in Part 97 where is specifies the FCC has ANYTHING to do with coordination of ham frequencies at all.  The FCC took pieces of the RF spectrum and handed it to the hammies and said 'here you go, deal with it'.  Yes, there are coordination bodies for ham repeaters.  They have ZERO actual authority outside of what we have in GMRS.  That being the ability of filing a complaint with the FCC pertaining to interference.  Which ANYONE has.  That's all they have, same as here.  They can't DEMAND anything of a repeater owner that's not in the FCC regulations just like on here.  They can imply they do, and saber rattle all the want.  The FCC is the only ENFORCEMENT body for anything RF related.  The ARRL, frequency coordinators, and other SAD HAM's have ZERO power to cite you, pull your license or even issue a legal warning with any teeth to it at all.  And how anyone thinks any different only tells me they have NO CLUE about what the F they are talking about.  So again, saber rattling and narcissistic ramblings that amount to NOTHING.  And anyone that KNOWS how it really works can tell them to get off their lawn.  

Then you bring up my very favorite BS topic for GMRS.  D M R.  Can't happen and more over be careful for what you wish for.  Because it could.   And this would truly be a mess for the reason I posted above as it would pertain to radio ID management.

  Do you think anyone will read it, learn from it and actually do it.  F NO... they are gonna continue to get in here and continue to post BS about it and how the FCC sucks and the rules still don't ban it and all the other drivel they seem to come up with about it. 

NO one will take on the responsibility of creating a database and issuing radio ID's for DMR on GMRS.  So every clown that ever heard the Rush album will want 2112 for their ID.  Or their birthday, or their GF's chest measurement until she moves on and they will then want a DIFFERENT ID.  How many ID's do you issue to a single person?  With ham you get ONE.  Ham License is exclusive personal use, so you get ONE ID per call sign.  FCC has GMRS as a family licensed service, so one license can have multiple radios and users requiring multiple ID's for said radios.  Who's managing that?  The ham's don't manage the ID system for ham radio.  A company that is in the business of selling and supporting DMR on ham radio runs the database.  And what do you gain with DMR on GMRS?  the repeaters can't be linked, since we are actually discussing that.  So what do you gain?  Another talk path via the second time slot.  The requirement to buy a new radio and figure out the programming of that radio if you choose to go down that path.

  And you get TONS of interference in the analog repeaters that are preexisting.  The on /off RF switching that DMR does causes an otherwise unintelligible signal if it were FM that can't be captured in an analog receiver to interfere with analog communications.  Channels will fill with pulsed noise floors that would render the service unusable by others.  And if you think that the lack of frequency coordination causes issues with GMRS now.  DMR on GMRS would really create issues with the machine gun noise that DMR creates, from repeaters much farther away than what we see with analog wide band transmissions now.

And how do you travel with DMR on GMRS.  Lets say that it comes to pass and we get DMR on the service.  The individual repeater owners are task with managing ID's.  How do you get in a car and travel with DMR?  Not only would you need to know the group call ID's for the repeater systems you want to communicate on but you would need a unique ID for that system.  And the next system down the road has different group calls and ID's so then you need that info.  And guess what? not all radios support multiple radio ID's (Motorola) so you have to reprogram the radio for each system that you want to communicate on.  Yes, there are radios that support multiple ID's but they are the cheap import junk, not the Part 90 stuff that everyone wants.  So you are stuck with a DMR Baofeng, or reprogramming your Motorola out on the road as you pass through the coverage area of various repeaters. 

Take it a step further, and say the FCC allows linking of DMR.  Now you have Brandmeister / DMR-MARC  for GMRS.  And we come back to who is gonna manage the ID's group calls and repeater ID's for the system?  There are 650 thousand ham's in the US.  so that's a total of 650K ID's that COULD be issued.  What's the family unit size for the possible number of required ID's?  Grandparents, Parents and kids... lets call it 10 radios per call sign.  All with individual ID's.  336K GMRS operators licensed is the number I found.  Not sure on the number of GMRS repeaters out there that would all need an ID. But these are BIG numbers.  And a BIG database.  So I don't see it working and the ones asking for it have no idea what they are really asking for and would never be a part of dealing with the aftermath of getting it. 

 

 

[nokones]

On 10/17/2024 at 9:59 AM, WRUE951 said:

you know they won't put them in jail.  I don't think the FCC as ever put anyone in jail.. 

Yes, they have, maybe not for on GMRS freqs.  Ask the guy who told me to go "F" myself over the air on a Part 90.20 freq one time and he spent three years at a Terminal Island Federal Institution, paid a $10,000 fine, was prohibited from owning any radio equipment, and had to write me an apology letter, if the FCC doesn't take action and have people end up in jail. This guy was arrested and charged with both federal and state statutes.  He was popped when he was getting off a LA RTD Bus with a portable radio illegally programmed with public safety freqs.

[nokones]

On 10/17/2024 at 3:26 PM, WRQD922 said:

Most of the above post sounds like 11 meter crap to me. Very sad. 

Speaking of "Sad" and now I have to bring this fact up.  Although, it wasn't on 11M, it was on 2M.  I was going to lunch with a friend a couple days ago and he is a HAM guy, and he had his 2M radio on and there was a true real life to God "Sad HAM" on the air crying and whimpering for about 30 minutes with another HAM dude.  I could not believe it. Yes, its true, there really are "Sad HAMs" in the world, the Queen was right.

[SteveShannon]

39 minutes ago, nokones said:

Speaking of "Sad" and now I have to bring this fact up.  Although, it wasn't on 11M, it was on 2M.  I was going to lunch with a friend a couple days ago and he is a HAM guy, and he had his 2M radio on and there was a true real life to God "Sad HAM" on the air crying and whimpering for about 30 minutes with another HAM dude.  I could not believe it. Yes, its true, there really are "Sad HAMs" in the world, the Queen was right.

I briefly heard a very angry ham on 40 meters a few nights ago. Angry, threatening great violence, and very obscene. No ID so of course he’s not totally stupid. An equally idiotic person was baiting him by making kissing and cooing noises. He was almost funny to hear as the other guy got increasingly more angry. Perhaps they both had substance abuse issues. 
So, I changed frequency and heard nicer hams. Tried another frequency and heard more nice ones. I heard several nice ones and just the two acting out. 
They do exist, just as in every demographic; it’s up to us all to act better. 

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, nokones said:

Speaking of "Sad" and now I have to bring this fact up.  Although, it wasn't on 11M, it was on 2M.  I was going to lunch with a friend a couple days ago and he is a HAM guy, and he had his 2M radio on and there was a true real life to God "Sad HAM" on the air crying and whimpering for about 30 minutes with another HAM dude.  I could not believe it. Yes, its true, there really are "Sad HAMs" in the world, the Queen was right.

You are just 'Full of' all kinds of fairy tales..   aren't you..    N E X T..          

[nokones]

2 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

You are just 'Full of' all kinds of fairy tales..   aren't you..    N E X T..          

Your comment definitely does not warrant a response nor do I want to come down to your level.

[amaff]

4 hours ago, nokones said:

Yes, they have, maybe not for on GMRS freqs.  Ask the guy who told me to go "F" myself over the air on a Part 90.20 freq one time and he spent three years at a Terminal Island Federal Institution, paid a $10,000 fine, was prohibited from owning any radio equipment, and had to write me an apology letter, if the FCC doesn't take action and have people end up in jail. This guy was arrested and charged with both federal and state statutes.  He was popped when he was getting off a LA RTD Bus with a portable radio illegally programmed with public safety freqs.

You kinda buried the lede there. I'm gonna say his arrest was <1% to do with telling you to go "F" yourself, and >99% to do with what he was doing on those public safety frequencies.

 

So, again, ain't no one going to prison for linking GMRS repeaters.

"My neighbor who never cut his grass against city code? They put him in prison for that! They arrested him after he set fire to a fire station"

[WRUE951]

47 minutes ago, nokones said:

Your comment definitely does not warrant a response nor do I want to come down to your level.

Go to your bedroom..  NOW    

[nokones]

26 minutes ago, amaff said:

You kinda buried the lede there. I'm gonna say his arrest was <1% to do with telling you to go "F" yourself, and >99% to do with what he was doing on those public safety frequencies.

 

So, again, ain't no one going to prison for linking GMRS repeaters.

"My neighbor who never cut his grass against city code? They put him in prison for that! They arrested him after he set fire to a fire station"

You're right, no one is going to jail for a violation of a city code and they can't go to jail for a violation of a city code. A violation of a city code is civil and not criminal and can only be assessed a civil penalty thus, pay a fine and/or could have a lien placed against his property.

[SvenMarbles]

.....but. lots of us also DONT want them linked..

Believe it or not,  there's lots of us out here who appreciate and find utility in a 30-50 mile radius repeater, knowing that the traffic on the repeater might actually be a real and useful person.

So all of this "let's get signatures to allow linking!".. You're rallying only part of the GMRS user base. We're not all Team You on this...

And, I mean as long as "linking anyway" is an acknowledgement that they're operating outside of what is allowed, there's lots of ways people who don't appreciate a linked system jamming up RPT channels can render their system unusable "by also doing things that aren't allowed", and with far less of an investment required..

Just don't do it... Go be ham radio people on 70 cems.. It's right there for ya. This thing is a utility service with wives, kids, groups doing recreation,.. Less as much for hobby radio, or radio for the sake of radio. Some people might once in a while want to erect small repeaters for temporary use and such. It's more in the spirit of what the RPT spots are for..

You all have been a much unwelcomed guest .

 

 

[WRUE951]

3 hours ago, SvenMarbles said:

.....but. lots of us also DONT want them linked..

Believe it or not,  there's lots of us out here who appreciate and find utility in a 30-50 mile radius repeater, knowing that the traffic on the repeater might actually be a real and useful person.

So all of this "let's get signatures to allow linking!".. You're rallying only part of the GMRS user base. We're not all Team You on this...

And, I mean as long as "linking anyway" is an acknowledgement that they're operating outside of what is allowed, there's lots of ways people who don't appreciate a linked system jamming up RPT channels can render their system unusable "by also doing things that aren't allowed", and with far less of an investment required..

Just don't do it... Go be ham radio people on 70 cems.. It's right there for ya. This thing is a utility service with wives, kids, groups doing recreation,.. Less as much for hobby radio, or radio for the sake of radio. Some people might once in a while want to erect small repeaters for temporary use and such. It's more in the spirit of what the RPT spots are for..

You all have been a much unwelcomed guest .

 

 

the lack of support signatures pretty much says it all..  The % supporting it is very very low..  

[WRXL702]

........And The Best Part About The FCC Mobility Division Making A Clarification On GMRS Linking - Is That Several Repeater Owners Wether By Choice, Violation Threats Or Servers Shutting Down - Are No Longer Congesting GMRS Frequencies With Ridiculous & Non Essential NETS.

I Have Never Seen Any Purpose In The Midwest Area, To Tie Up All 8 Repeater Frequencies, With 20 To 30 Repeaters, In 4 Or More States - Discussing How To Cook A Hot Dog Properly In The Event Of A Nuclear Attack.

Glad That The Linking Issue Has Been Addressed With A Degree Of Modernization From The FCC.

Some Folks Just Need To Move On & Get Over This........

My Name Is Bob Somers (WRXL702) & I Approved This Message.......

[SteveShannon]

2 minutes ago, WRXL702 said:

Discussing How To Cook A Hot Dog Properly In The Event Of A Nuclear Attack.

Just string them up on an inconel wire during the fireball. 

[WRXB215]

9 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

Just string them up on an inconel wire during the fireball

And then lick the residue off the wire.

[WQAI363]

I know that I signed a petition for the FCC to give approval to link GMRS repeaters via VoIP or Telephone Networks. But until the FCC gives the approval, those of us who are in favor of linking GMRS repeaters, we must work within the parameters that the FCC has. Of course, most of the Amateur Radio Community will say, that what Amateur Radio is there for. I would tend to agree with that statement. However, not everyone has the desire to take an exam just to have an alternative other than landlines or mobile phone to stay touch with friends or family members who maybe more than 100 miles away.  Then again, even in the Amateur Radio Community, a lot of commercial telecommunication systems do go down during storms. 

 

[WRXL702]

.....So Then Just Buy A Satellite Telephone, Use For Emergencies, If Needed In Excess Of One Hundred Miles - And Get Over The Ruling For The Original Purpose & Intent Of GMRS Radio.

No Need To Worry About Any Of The Excuses For Not Advancing Into The Ham Radio Spectrum As An Alternative.

[CentralFloridaGMRS]

Interesting that a few linking networks claim they're actually legal. Not sure how they could be, but I guess it's a wait and see if the FCC does anything to them. 

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, CentralFloridaGMRS said:

Interesting that a few linking networks claim they're actually legal. Not sure how they could be, but I guess it's a wait and see if the FCC does anything to them. 

It’s because their interpretations of the regulations don’t agree with the FCC’s interpretations, and although I am not a fan of linking GMRS repeaters I agree that the FCC’s interpretations seem incorrect.

[WRKW566]

Any idea of the total people count involved in GMRS?

Ok, I know that's a weird question but it leads into my next question.

Considering the number of people involved in the use of GMRS, why is this issue not resolved? Can no one provide a definitive answer? Why does this go on-and-on. </retorical>