FCC Banned GMRS Repeater Linking? Why?

It seems that the FCC is starting to look into GMRS repeaters linked over the internet. From their POV this is strictly not allowed. This is something that amateur radio operators don't have to worry about.
Links from the video:
21 Group FCC ARRL Luncheon: • 21 Group FCC ARRL Lunc...
Part 95: www.ecfr.gov/c...
Way Mach Machine FCC Website: web.archive.or...
NotaRubicon Talk: • Interview With New Yor...
📻 Want the best HT antenna? Signal Stuff Signal Stick signalstuff.co... (This is an affliate link)
📻 Looking for the best deal on the Ed Fong J-Pole? www.kbcubed.co...
📻 The Coax I use is ABR Industries (10% off with code: "abr10hrcc"): abrind.com/?sld=6
📻 I use Ham Radio Deluxe: www.hamradiode...
📻 You can find some of my favorite radios and gear at GigaParts: www.gigaparts....
📻 Good Value HTs: HTs: www.buytwowayr...
📻Check out Radioddity ham radio radios and get a discount: Xiegu G90: radioddity.refr...
📻 Support Ham Radio Crash Course Content 📻
Patreon - / hoshnasi (includes monthly newsletter, stickers and Patron perks)
📸KZbin - / hamradiocrashcourse (includes early access to videos, membership YT badge and custom emojis)
Shop HamTactical: www.hamtactical...
Shop Our Affiliates: hamradiocrashco...
Shop Our Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
★ FOLLOW ME HERE ★
🪩 Website………………………► hamradiocrashco...
📸 KZbin..................► / hamradiocrashcourse
💻 Twitch......................► / hamradiocrashcourse
Podcast………………………► hamradiocrashc...
💻 Discord………………….► / discord
📸 Facebook................► goo.gl/cv5rEQ
📸 Twitter.....................► X.com/Hoshnasi
📸 Instagram................► / hamradiocrashcourse
📨 Physical Mail...........►Josh Nass P.O Box 5101 Cerritos, CA 90703-5101
Music by Sonic D:
Soundcloud.com/sncd
Twitter.com/sncd
Facebook.com/djsonicd
#HRCC #hamradio #amateurradio

[@jhill4874]

How is everyone missing the "or any other network" part? Wouldn't the internet be an "other network"? Not confusing at all. Is it fair? I have both licenses.

[@gabrielsierra6890]

@@jhill4874 and it is not just limited to Internet; "any other networks" basically means everything else, including RF, which is even more serious, because GMRS does not provide frequencies for linking, like Ham Radio has.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

Agreed

[@matthewkowalsky4874]

The internet can be a telecommunication service or an information service… and depending on how you connect and what technologies used might be subject to different regulatory frameworks.

[@cw2gtc]

2 Meters is often an “other” network.

[@cw2gtc]

All this and more, coming at you by the Bidet Rogue Regime.

[@ChrisKD9YSW]

As both a Ham and a GRMS user. I find this interesting and sad at the same time.

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

There might be a pill for that!

[@johnrieley1404]

only sad as FCC lingers in enforcement, letting violators believe illegal operation is fine. But the average GMRS user, and ham, may have not understood the rules, till now.

[@squallywally]

I live in the middle of the country. I can tune nearly all of the repeater channels and hear the same guys from all over Indiana talking on all of the channels. I was hoping to set up a small repeater for my farm.

[@n1rbd]

Use DCS and pick a frequency pair with the weakest received signal.

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

No reason you cannot have your own repeater.

[@grigorirasputin5020]

It is truly a waste of precious and scarce GMRS spectrum to link repeaters. To be honest, I find linked ham repeaters to be the same, but at least there are dozens of ham frequencies for repeater AND full power simplex. GMRS does not have that luxury.

[@n1rbd]

@@grigorirasputin5020 Most Ham repeaters I know of use the 220 range for linking. At least that gives it some use.

[@thomaspolley4977]

Same here. I set up a small neighborhood repeater last summer to use with my kids. I checked MyGMRS for an open repeater channel. 2 months ago I started hearing traffic talking over my daughter. Some tw@ set up another linked repeater. So now we've got 3 linked repeaters in the city on the same network. Is like they don't check MyGMRS to see if they might be interfering with another repeater. Or they don't care. I'm typically a proponent of linked GMRS repeaters, but I'm starting to not be. Maybe instead of fighting it, the FCC could allocate 2 repeater channels for linking purposes. One for local networks, and one for nationwide networks. Just a thought.

[@donnakano3697]

Two things, it appears that many of the GMRS repeaters are put up and maintained by hams. The only real issue I can see is that with only eight repeater channels, linking repeaters in a geographical region can tie up most, if not all frequencies with a single conversation. Phoenix is one such case. I’ve been a ham for over 50 years and have had a GMRS license for a while and am a member of both local ham clubs and a GMRS group.

[@mmgreen31]

@@donnakano3697 Point is well taken, time for the FCC to add more frequencies to allow for more GMRS channels. Add 5 dedicated for repeater use, leaving several for line of sight communications. I would allow lines of sight to use all channels if they wish but restrict repeater linkage to the 5 new channels (to start).

[@TWX1138]

I've heard conversations on GMRS on repeater frequencies that are being used for business purposes without identification. One seemed to be some kind of mobile medical service, broadcasting to their field employees. This was in the east valley east of Phoenix.

[@Gruuvin1]

@@donnakano3697 with the right design a very very large network of repeaters need only use one to three of the eight channels in any given location.

[@Stevestefano85]

New York Northern NJ and Northeast PA are all linked together at times. Takes up most repeater pairs

[@BradKellison]

The other thing is GMRS is 8 channels for repeaters ever heard of pl tones or ctcss and dcs tones which allow you to have more than 1 repeater on the same frequency. Common they have been built into modern day gmrs radios to prevent interference. 8 repeater channels times 38 ctcss and 104 dcs tones so that equates to 142 times 8 repeaters equals 408 repeaters on the air not interfering with each other. And we are complaining about 8 channels. Hell hams are limited as well that is why we use the ctcss and dcs tones to allow more In operation. Come on people let's really think about what is going on.

[@news_internationale2035]

I can understand allowing a voted repeater system with multiple receivers for one output on a local system. But I don't think the intent of GMRS was to link repeaters across the US from California to Vermont for example.

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

It says "wireline" not "wire link" - no real distinction it was just that the text was not what you kept repeating.

[@jkn4088]

I don't know about the difference between "wireline" and "wire link" but I do know that there is a difference between "wireline" and "wireless". "Wireline" means a hard wire connection. Part 95 should say network if the FCC doesn't want you to use a network, but it doesn't.

[@Rusted_Link]

The simplest way to explain this is that linking is bad because there are only eight sets a repeater frequencies and there are also the same eight sets of simplex frequencies. If you are trying to use your GMRS in Simplex mode and there are all these linked repeaters in the area that's all you're going to hear. If they aren't linked they aren't that busy.

[@jamesbridges7750]

The answer there is to open up additional frequencies for repeaters- you don't restrict service because of popularity, you expand it.

[@TheRealLifeoutdoors]

its really not a problem , you just set tones on simplex maybe but there's a repeater within listening distance from me on almost every repeater frequency, has never hindered me from simplex just FYI I'm right in the middle lol in Houston i would say there's a lot of use

[@Rusted_Link]

@@jamesbridges7750 that's what an amateur buddy and I says too. Amen! 🙌

[@Rusted_Link]

@@TheRealLifeoutdoors calling CQ with tones? That's not going to work. The other factor is that once a tone opens your squelch you'll start hearing the repeaters. Happens on two amateur repeaters in our area and they are 124 miles apart from one another. It's actually pretty cool. But yes, open more frequencys is the answer. But then it just turns into amateur radio 2.0... But that's Jason's channel 😂 Study, become a technician, jump on the ECR. Talk to Japan.

[@Rusted_Link]

Wait, y'all both nailed it. Make the repeater frequencies different than the simplex frequencies.

[@mrflashport]

The problem that most of the 8 channel army folks don't get is that GMRS is a limited service intended and designed for local communication among family members- not a drop in replacement for part 90 or part 97. If one wants to construct a wide area system, for commercial purposes, go obtain part 90 licenses and coordination and built out network accordingly. If one wants to play radio, why not do it in the service intended for it where there is copious amount of spectrum, legal power limit is 1500 watts, one can run all types of digital voice modes, and more importantly, repeaters and systems are generally coordinated and plenty of spectrum for them, The frequency hogs who tie up all 8 pairs in a state or large part of it always have been breaking the rules. The FCC has received complaints and is slowly but surely acting on them.

[@k9policexj]

What I'd like to see is the FCC opening up more frequencies for gmrs and repeater pairs and considering the use of encryption on regular gmrs frequencies after an expansion. GMRS seems to be becoming quite popular among folks who don't necessarily want to get a Ham radio license (for whatever reason)...it really doesn't matter. A lot of us appreciate that one license covers an entire family, which is something a ham license doesn't do. One is not better than another. Each one has a purpose and one is not better than another.

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

EXCELLENT! I was one of those control ops for one of those networks. I argued early on about the legality issues, and after not being able to get my network team to understand the issues, decided to step down a few years ago. I was trying to make this a legitimate venture for GMRS. There is some limited value in linking the repeaters, but really should only be done for private(single owner) owned machines. I attempted interaction with the FCC and had limited success. I absolutely agree, that GMRS needs to be kept separate from the amateur community in those regards, even for those of us who hold both license.

[@sgtcrusher66]

are they actual laws or just fcc implementing rule changes ? i havent looked into that but im new to the radio world and am learning more and more its alot of fun just learning about the hobby

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

I'll refrain from the use of the word "law" and use "policy" or Rule" instead. Yes is the short answer. The FCC has always been horrible at language. Some say its on purpose so that with every question we ask, it allows the FCC to narrow the rules. I dont believe this to be true. I have had good relations with the FCC over my 40 or so yrs. and near 30yrs as a ham. The Policy has always been there, and prohibited GMRS users. People have just ignored it and interpreted how they desired. The same as they decided that VoIP isnt a Telephone is the argument. They have dismissed all the behind the scenes tech jumps of the real world of how shit is done. AT&T hasnt been a solid copper line, I dont think since before the "Cold War". So, if folks think a wired link is the only thing it applied to, oh my, they are sadly mistaken as our old Landlines hardly ever continuous copper lines. So, yep. The FCC is actually taking action on an old Rule because the Linked GMRS repeaters reached an absurd level. There was an actual turf war brewing behind the scenes about who controlled what, and that was becoming dangerous.

[@zanefischer1984]

Sad ham

[@mmgreen31]

@@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW If the frequencies between amateur and GMRS are different what is the harm in using repeaters. What is the FCC reasoning other than the circular argument of, ‘this was not the original intent for GMRS?’ Not that is likely to do much good but I intend to contact my confessional representative to see if legislation can be passed overriding the ‘chevron defense’ for limiting GMRS.

[@mmgreen31]

@@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW Dangerous how?

[@kenneykirk]

As an Ham operator and GMRS operator, I have yet to see link repeaters operating within the same geographical area. Whether they are linked or not, the repeaters will occupy the same pairs just with less traffic. There is no getting around the rules about linking but some of the arguments ring hollow. A lot of GMRS licensees ham become Ham licensees, due I believe to the popularity of GMRS link repeaters. As the links grow dark so will some repeaters and the loss of a pool of potential Ham operators. In the 70s and 80s Ham operator fought the FCC on a proposed rule to ditch the 150 mile communication limit for C.B. and won. But now, not only is the range limit gone but the FCC has added FM to 11 meters.

[@1johnmthompson]

Considering the FCC just lost Chevron difference why do they think they have the authority to "Draw a line" the courts just said they can't anymore. 🤔🤨

[@DONTTREADONME001]

@@1johnmthompson they don’t. That’s why months after this conversation nothing has been done. Just a guy with a opinion and a lot of hot air.

[@SHTFchef]

Exactly, they are preferences of the FCC, not law.

[@baculpojl]

Fact

[@puddleduck112]

I don't know the exact details on the recent SCOTUS ruling on the Chevron Doctrine so I am not going to comment on what it means. However, the FCC will still enforce their rules without consequence, legal or not. Unless you are willing to sue the FCC and take them to court and eventually the Supreme Court, nothing will change as a result of the SCOTUS ruling. The FCC will still regulate as they see fit and they will still come after those who choose to ignore them.

[@baculpojl]

The Supreme Court already ruled in favor of any federal agency creating enforceable rules or regulations that any Federal agency can impose a fine or imprisonment. Basically they realized federal agencies are creating laws which is the job of congress therfore any rules or violations a federal agency deems enforceable is unconstitutional. Whenever congress cannot agree on making something law they have relied on the various federal agencies to change definitions of laws or create rules they can enforce. The other method is Presidential Executive Order which is a temporary legality that can be challenged by the Supreme Court or when a new president is elected.

[@HamRadioA2Z]

I think the FCC probably doesn’t want GMRS to overlap with full commercial, land mobile service where users get licensed with their own specific frequencies. These are less common today with smart phones & internet, but they’re still out there. Those services can have multi-site and linked repeaters. GMRS was not meant to compete with them.

[@spaceflight1019]

GMRS was originally called Class A CB radio. The entire purpose of the CB service is inexpensive short range two way communication. As the commercial services pushed the improvements in the radio technology GMRS followed along, but the original intent remains the same.

[@Kq4hcuDan]

I can totally see this and I don't blame the FCC to smack violators using GMRS in the peepee for their f**k ups.

[@mixdupjoe]

and more importantly it's not meant to be HAM-lite. Many people are using GMRS as an easy way to get into two way radios without having to fully study and take the real amateur tests, but then turn around and use it in the same way. Locally where I live in Georgia there is a GMRS network that spans three states (TN, GA, FL), with many parts of Metro Atlanta being able to hit 2-3 repeaters in one spot. How is this fair to anyone else who may need to use those frequencies? It's clear GMRS was meant to be a small utilitarian service, not a cheap/lazy way to get into an amateur-like hobby where you tie up all the time ragchewing about Obama and George Soros

[@spaceflight1019]

@@mixdupjoe And, the ironic thing is that once the GMRS users get their ham licenses they stop getting on either radio.

[@Kq4hcuDan]

@@mixdupjoe I can see that, my family seen me struggle to pass the technician exam and I had to retake it a few times till I passed. My family is timid to take theirs and or they just want it easy when we travel on a trip and we are finding alternatives to not using our cellphones as much. I plan on going further to at least get the general and work cw. I been having not much success either with 10m even on VHF/UHF bands in my area but I'm sure in the future when I get better I'll be more successful 73, kq4hcu

[@irhutch007]

Glad they did it. There is a group in my state with a number of linked repeaters, they have multi tiered memberships you have pay for and pretty much dominate the state because they are linked and so high up. As nobody in my area has a repeater and I thought of putting one up but you hear the same group of people filling the channels and it does not leave a space for others to set one up.

[@Dred242]

I got both my GMRS and Technician license back in 2022. Here in my part of California I have about 17 repeaters programed into my GMRS radio and there's traffic on most of the repeaters throughout the day. It's not a train wreck but it's a good amount calls, net Check-In's, and other short conversations scattered throughout the day. But there's one repeater that's linked via the internet and before the recent FCC crack-down it had a crazy amounts of traffic all day long and well into the night. Most of the traffic was from States thousands of miles away…..it was awesome! But I can see the argument being made by local GMRS operators who may be hampered by other operators from out of State hogging their local repeater 24/7. GMRS was meant for local short range (line of sight) traffic or a bit farther with the help of a local repeater….not coast-to-coast transmissions. That linked repeater near me now has hardly any traffic on since the FCC put a spotlight on linking, traffic is down about 80%. So if GMRS linking gets completely shut down by the FCC and it looks like it will, I'm not gonna cry about it because GMRS is still pretty useful locally and fun the have.

[@wateroperator1972]

Great video Josh. In my area, we had a big linked GMRS repeater on Channel 21 that was constantly splattering into Channel 17. These guys were tying up the repeater, talking 24 hrs a day, mainly about their new Baofengs and how great it was they could talk to someone 1000 miles away with a $25 5W HT, not really knowing they were basically using Voip to talk. Oh, and all the noobs wanted to put their own repeaters up and link them too for when the SHTF, not knowing if the SHITF, bye bye internet and their repeater. Now, that the rules are clarified, the repeater was unlinked, and now the sound of silence on that channel. As a licensed Amateur and GMRS user, I am glad the repeaters finally got unlinked. Now, the GMRS frequencies can be used for what they are intended for...Local comms between family and friends. For al the GMRS users wrongly, ignorantly and/or naively bashing the "sad Hams" for ruining their party, it is plain and simple... Just take the 35 question Technician test, and see what real radio is all about! Very, very few of us are "sad". We are normal people just like you who enjoy radio, so come join us.

[@risingawareness13]

Just Big Brother doing it's thing.

[@jamieb9556]

You only have 8 repeater pairs. You don't need the entire county or state tied up with one conversation. A example would be Georgia GMRS.

[@robertvondarth1730]

The abolishment of the Chevron deference may change this interpretation. IMO only congress can change definitions. Just as bumpstocks cannot be deemed machineg*ns by the ATF

[@3rdpig]

Removing Chevron will help with vague rules that have civil penalties, but the removal of Chevron won't effect the ATF to any real degree and in the past they've always steered clear of invoking it because violating the ATF's rules is a criminal offense with the possibility of a prison sentence, which means the Rule of Lenity takes precedent over Chevron and that's an automatic loss to the ATF. The APA is what stopped the ATF from ruling that bumpstocks and forced reset triggers are machineguns.

[@sgtcrusher66]

@@3rdpig the atf regularly bends the rules they interpreted a flat piece of metal with a drawing on it to be a machine gun part which is complete bullshit I have a friend serving 5 years over that bullshit

[@tonytyler6390]

Gotta love living in a free country

[@dafunkmonster]

Gotta love people who are unfamiliar with the "Tragedy of the Commons".

[@N0LSD]

@@tonytyler6390 It's not a "free country". Whoever told you it was, lied to you.

[@rhone733]

@@N0LSD Yep. We're slaves and most don't realize it.

[@N0LSD]

@@rhone733 🙄

[@TELEVISIONARCHIVES]

Actually in this case it's a good thing the FCC is going after them. Get a Ham Radio License if you want to talk long distance

[@butchwilliams825]

Josh, please don't compare yourself with notarubicon, you style and presentation are light years ahead of his. He may be quite knowledgeable, but he is also a legend in his own mind. You Sir, do a TRULY GREAT job, thank you for taking your time to share your knowledge and information in an easy to watch and understand way.

[@michaelt.9372]

Notarubicon is a worthless meathead. I can’t stand him.

[@westonhall8472]

Judging by the physical fitness of the gentlemen in the room, the FCC isnt chasing anyone down anytime soon.

[@sgtcrusher66]

im interested to see how chevron deference being struck down in the supreme court will effect the FCC wether they will be able to just implement what they choose to do with no laws stating as such ?

[@dafunkmonster]

The only thing that changes with Chevron being struck down is that courts can no longer automatically defer to an agency's interpretation. It doesn't mean anything other than that.

[@kg4gav]

I think there is a HUGE misunderstanding of what the Chevron ruling means, and what it doesn't.

[@sgtcrusher66]

@@dafunkmonster exactly a rule isnt a law only a law is a law

[@nsixvl]

Josh your timing is personally relevant for me. I’m a long time ham, but recently got a GMRS license so I can communicate with other riders on a weekly Saturday ride bike. That’s a very nice use case. Four of us have GMRS radios and licenses. But less serious riders are encouraged to buy cheap FRS radios. So far so good. But the ham in me has tried to make this whole thing ham radio lite. It’s not working! There are only 8 repeater pairs. And in SoCal that’s a total nightmare. There are multiple repeaters on the same frequency. Using different tones doesn’t come close to solving the problem. So my first idea is to talk with my friend who leads the Saturday ride. We live 6 miles apart. There is only one open repeater. It’s often commandeered by unruly people speaking on unsavory topics. So my conclusion with less than a week with a GMRS license is I can’t compare it to ham radio. I’m a ham through and through. I’ll reserve GMRS for the Saturday bike rides and stop there.

[@markharrison1160]

It will become the new outlaw CB band.

[@burtcale6055]

@@markharrison1160 7.260 already is........

[@JustLearning]

I have both licenses (ham and GMRS). I do not agree with hams or GMRS persons connecting multiple repeaters. It is a waste of resources. If a string of repeaters are linked up from Maine to Florida only ONE conversation can be had at one time. Why have that kind of bottleneck? And in case of an emergency, you would want the local repeaters addressing local needs and not be tied up with traffic from another part of the country. I may be fun to link repeaters to test if it can be done but not on a permanent basis.

[@BigJohnsHamShack]

I find the phrase less unclear. It is extremely apparent to me, especially when it says "a telephone network" and then goes on to encompass all other ways of connecting with "or any other network." That is extremely evident to me. To me, that plainly reflects the FCC's intent. The most challenging aspect for me to understand is why. With being limited to specific ffrequency groups for repeaters and they have limited power. What possible harm might it cause? In fact, I am ready to wager that if they were given a little more levity in the GMRS craft, we would see more people extending their licenses and expanding into amateur licensing.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

“Telephone network” is far too narrow a term even in 2017. I agree I see intent, but it far to easy to make an argument to wiggle around it. “My internet is fiber, and I have no land line”.

[@BigJohnsHamShack]

@@HamRadioCrashCourse please understand I am saying this for discussion but it clearly has a blanket statement of "any other network," fiber is a network, broad canopy wi-fi is a network, ad-hoc radio backhauls are a network, technically a phone call on copper is still a network. A group or system of interconnected people or things. Am I wrong? 🙂

[@robertvondarth1730]

Only congress can make laws, the Chevron deference is abolished

[@SmallDisturbedChild]

@@robertvondarth1730 That's not quite how that works, they can still make a ruling, the removal of chevron means a judge can no longer just say "I bow to their expertise" and waive the case. The judge now has to subject the ruling to scrutiny and hear arguments for/against and make a ruling based on case law. This does mean he could still side with the FCC based on existing law, or he might find against them, it also means the ultimate decision on who they sided with in the case is on their record.

[@news_internationale2035]

​@@SmallDisturbedChildRead the US Constitution.

[@SHTFchef]

We radio users go out of our way to follow the rules, most of us. When the rules get unreasonable, we simply do as we like.

[@centralfloridagmrs]

It has always been part of the rules. They just updated the wording of the rules. If it was worded like this today I guarantee you they never would have started GMRSLIve linking

[@ThunderBear4WD]

I think that Chevron Deference being removed by the Supreme Court as a standard that three letter agencies rely upon to "interpret" law to create their own rules through unelected bureaucracy will be challenged in court and the rule could easily be eliminated.

[@TELEVISIONARCHIVES]

Not going to happen

[@Pyro1776]

The fall of Chevron Deference says that the law says “telephone”… what the FCC “thinks” it says is no irrelevant.

[@dafunkmonster]

Chevron deference only concerns how courts behave. It has nothing to do with whether regulations are valid. With Chevron deference in effect, the courts would "defer" to regulatory agencies concerning interpretations of vagaries in the law. With Chevron deference overturned, the courts do not automatically defer to regulatory agencies. They can come to their own conclusions regarding whether or not a regulatory agency's interpretation of the law is valid.

[@jonathanstevey1748]

​@dafunkmonster actually I does. The court case now says three letter agencies now have to follow the letter of the law and not an interpretation.

[@Pyro1776]

@@dafunkmonster the agency has to flow the letter of the law. There is no “interpretation” anymore.

[@kg4gav]

ok, so define Telephone. According to Oxford dictionary, "a system for transmitting voices over a distance using wire or radio, by converting acoustic vibrations to electrical signals." So if at any point outside of the repeater, the transmission hits a wire or radio outside of the GMRS radio/repeater, then it is using a telephone system. And that is using common dictionary definition, not FCC interpretation. Not saying I like it, just saying that is how things could be interpreted sans Chevron. I think it is also worth nothignt hat Chevron says the courts do not HAVE to use the interpretation of the agency, not that they cannot, or will not ask the agency what their intent is. They CAN still give deference to the agency, they just are not required to.

[@Pyro1776]

@@kg4gav nope. It uses the internet. NOT a phone system. And it’s likely mostly broadband internet through an air card. Still not a “telephone system”

[@mikes2607]

I’ve had my GMRS license for about 8 months. My area has many repeaters; some linked some not. Every single person on that network is polite and conducts themselves in a professional manner. The repeaters are scattered in a way that they don’t interfere with each other. My experience with GMRS is what prompted me to study for my technician license. I take my test in two weeks and I’m confident that I can pass it. If I wouldn’t have explored GMRS, I would have never been motivated to be a licensed HAM operator. I’m sure that there are certain GMRS networks that are a train wreck, but that’s not the case with my local network. In fact, if the call signs weren’t the giveaway, you’d be hard pressed to tell that you’re operating on GMRS. I guess I’m just a wanna be Lid at this point, that doesn’t know anything, but I can say that the network that I run on definitely doesn’t cause any interference. I also find it funny that the FCC ignores the guys with modified CB radios running huge power and causing a scene, but they’re picking at a radio service such as GMRS.

[@N2YTA]

Josh just showed the portion of that meeting that covered this issue. They did talk about CB. Josh did a longer video covering more to the meeting and he gave a link where you could watch the whole thing. It was very interesting and worth the time (two hours)

[@Randy-xs4wm]

It doesn’t say “wirelink” … it says “wireline” … wireLINE control link. That means any network, including Internet networks, since they are connected by wire.

[@RandyWF5X]

The original intent of that rule was to keep from having patches between a GMRS radio and a phone line for the purpose of using it as a mobile phone. In this age of cell phones, that is a moot point, but back in the 1990, that was a major concern that GMRS would compete with mobile telephone services.

[@Rusty-Williams]

I am a ham and a GMRS radio operator. When the GMRS band opens up I can hear the same conversation on 5 of the 8 repeater channels which makes the majority of those channels unusable even for local communication. I am hoping that the FCC cracks down on it and makes them all stop the internet linking. If you want to have the privileges of a ham pony up, take the test and get a Tech license and have at it. Especially on 1.25 meters where it is a wasteland of unused frequencies.

[@tuckymilky]

I have exactly the same issue in my town. I love GMRS but there just isn’t enough space for linked repeaters

[@bobrogers9785]

Of course you understand that during a band opening the repeaters would trip each other even though they are not linked via internet. Given the limited number of repeater pairs the linking is not a good idea, although, I understand how useful it could be maybe one local repeater linked for emergency or weather events.

[@levisorenson7873]

@@bobrogers9785 You'd think it would be a good idea until you hear an analog ham repeater network dedicated to emergency/weather events when it's activated. It's usually random people kerchunking the repeater all night and dudes hopping on to ask the net operator for a personal weather report or a radio check. And this is when the state emergency services are using it during a weather event. In a state where it's a felony to cause interference on those repeaters. People don't care, they do it anyway. It sort of made me understand why some sad hams lament it becoming so easy for anyone to get on a radio nowadays.

[@ronmcc100]

I'm a little bewildered as to why this urks so many Ham operators, such that it is a topic at an ARRL seminar. Ham freq.s are Ham concerns while GMRS should concern those operators. I've been an SWL for decades and following Ham issues for quite some time. GMRS struck my fancy within the last year as I played with a number of SDRs. As I got more involved and licensed for GMRS, I've had conversations about this issue with some of the repeater owner/ops in my and neighboring states. these folks are not only GMRS operators, but also Hams AND the current version of what used to be First Class Radio Telephone op/tech licenses (not sure who has what kind of licenses these days as the nomenclature has changed). What it seems to boil down to is that there are a bunch of "Sea Lawyer" equivalents in the radio world that claim to know what's going on and others who claim to have direct contact with the appropriate channels (pardon the pun) in the FCC. Wish there was a lot less finger pointing and a bit more attempt to understand what's actually happening and why the GMRS linked systems appear to work as well as they do."

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

You likely didn’t start watching the talk I was referencing. The 2-1 group runs amateur repeaters and GMRS repeaters. The talk was about FCC enforcement and covers things all the way to Pirate Radio. It was a fantastic talk and I made a larger video covering many aspects of it.

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

I agree, the folks most bothered by this are licensed hams. I went round and round about this on FB with a sad ham. Then I looked up his FRN and saw that his GMRS license had recently expired. I asked him why he thought he had any standing with this as he had no GMRS license, that was the last i heard from him.

[@dakotahrickard]

I'm not GMRS licensed at the moment, although I wish to be, although I am a Ham General. I do occasionally listen in on GMRS, because there's a linked network throughout Georgia, and the conversations on there kind of look like what conversations were supposed to look like on Ham repeaters." In fact, unless I'm much mistaken, a number of the voices on GMRS are familiar from Ham meetings. In a lot of ways, I'm really ambiguous about this decision. My first blush, knee-jerk reaction, was to be rather upset that all these folks who depend on the linked repeaters are suddenly out of luck. Radio friends are now too far apart to communicate by radio. On the other hand, a lot of GMRS people are Hams anyway, and even the ones who aren't basically act with the same professional courtesy that Hams are supposed to show (and almost always do). So if GMRS people all become Hams, they can mostly do what they've been doing, just with a new callsign. And to a degree, it makes sense given the pricing model the FCC recently implemented. GMRS licensing used to be a flat $70 and Ham was free. Now both are $35, so if you get both, you're still paying $70. The implied intent here seems clear. You could easily end up with both and use each for its intended purpose. Then again, the lines are already blurred. I simply don't have the electronics knowledge to build a radio. So I buy one. So I'm an Appliance Operator, just like any GMRS user. But again, most of the time, the local repeaters are dead air, whereas GMRS is hopping. I often think of GMRS as either Ham Jr. or as the place to ragchew, depending on my mood, and it often proves true. The difference between a Han on a local repeater and a GMRS on their local repeater is a matter of frequency and callsign and occasional terminology. I guess, at the end of the day, it's all radio, so it's all awesome.

[@lilricky2515]

Something that is going to be showing its head, is, can the FCC create law without Congress? The ATF is learning they cannot....

[@jwiger]

Not laws, rules.

[@Sam2sham]

Congress created the agency and allowed them to make rules.

[@Sam2sham]

The purpose of gmrs is for local and family communication. Amateur radio is for hobbies like this.

[@ChappyTrails]

Allowing a government entity to create rules eliminates that whole tedious checks and balances thing. Why would we want checks and balances? Circumventing the constitution most certainly couldn’t cause issues could it? Captain Obvious statement here, because sadly it’s necessary, the above statements are nearly 100% sarcasm.

[@AECRADIO1]

FCC HOLDS ZERO LAW MAKING AUTHORITY, THIS IS WHY THEY CAN ONLY MAKE 'RULES', NOT LAW ..NO JURISDICTION.

[@davef5595]

Exactly! Why can't the FCC just update the rules to remove the ambiguity? This part and other parts of the rules are worse than legalese.

[@3rdpig]

Because they want them to be vague.

[@lonewolftech]

The fcc is a regulatory agency they have no legal authority to make laws period! Chevron deference is gone. They have to be approved by congress which wouldn’t approve 90% of the fccs bullshit as it’s a violation of free speech…

[@sgtcrusher66]

@davef5595 update the rules ?? The fcc doesn't have the authority to just willy nilly make rules

[@slick8086]

How long will that last? The ambiguity stems for technological advancement.

[@RKingis]

Stop being logical 😂

[@TheTechPianoPlayerKid]

I use GMRS, and don’t plan to get my ham license anytime soon. I actually kind of wish that the FCC would open GMRS to more frequencies, and allow digital on there as well, but that probably won’t happen anytime soon. The only reason why I don’t wanna get my ham license, is because I don’t feel like studying for a test, and I’m actually completely blind and don’t plan to build anything. I just want to talk and communicate. That’s why I got GMRS, because you just pay, and you’re good to go.

[@SparkyRF]

The new FCC interpretations of 95.1749 and 95.1733(8) are curious. When the GMRS service was first enacted, there were no cells phones and very limited (and expensive!) VHF/UHF mobile phone service. I interpreted the rules to strictly forbid autopatch functionality being added to GMRS, creating a makeshift mobile phone service. We have to remember that 40 years ago Ma Bell was VERY protective of Her turf, so to speak! Back in that era even Ham Radio autopatches were extremely limited in how they could be used. This makes me wonder if the current FCC rule making body realizes the historical precedents or if this if simply another political stunt to limit "uncontrolled" communication methods??

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

The words in 95.1733(8) were copied from previous rules that predate the current ones by decades. It appears to be a scriveners error. I commented on this in the 2017 NPRM and you will find that comment and footnote regarding my asking FCC to clarify. Instead they kicked it down the road if you read their response to me. I believe this prohibition predated automatic control (repeaters) at a time where a control operator was required to turn on and off the repeater and was permitted to use the PSTN solely for that purpose. The 2017 rules then permitted network connections and did not address the conflict at 95.1773(8). So the rules are fuzzy. What is remote control of a repeater? In Part 90 it is exactly what is done in linking. Control of TX and audio conveyed to a remote station. To answer your other question, the old timers at FCC who knew what was meant in 95.1773(8) are long gone. The current staff is too young to remember the nuances. Oh Part 97 rules had a requirement for a control operator when repeaters first were developed. Look back at that rule book and you will see functional similarities, though UHF frequencies were used to control VHF repeaters.

[@SparkyRF]

@@rhyoliteaquacade I agree that some of the rule changes are baffling. It's also curious that Class-D CBR service appears to directly allow network connections! See: 95.949. Yes, I remember the FCC rules regarding 97 and repeaters of yesteryear---very restrictive.

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

@@SparkyRF Interesting! Also see the limitation of operating remote control: § 95.945 Remote control of a CBRS station.

[@jeremyringulet5787]

As a “silly gmrs baby” user and attempting to stay a free American, this all feels like more fundraising BS for the most part. Someone figured out a way to vastly improve the abilities of products they purchased, seemingly without creating victims, but a not govt funded entity didn’t get paid for it even though they didn’t provide a reason to pay them. I don’t believe the FCC is pointless, but this seems petty and feels like Big Brother making up rules for us to play with our toys. I have a really hard time believing this type of data passing through the internet to a walkie talkie does any more interfering to anything than a garage door opener does… it’s still just radio waves passing through the air from point a to point b. But again, I’m just a silly toy user that feels grossly over taxed and regulated…

[@TWX1138]

Another problem with the concept of linked repeaters is the scant number of repeater channels when compared to the number of "closed" repeater systems, ie, repeaters that are not open for any GMRS operator to use. While ham radio may also have closed repeaters, where one is supposed to be a member of the club in order to use the club's repeater, there's enough spectrum on most of the VHF and UHF bands that closed repeaters don't deny spectrum use to other operators too much. Additionally at least in the part of the country I'm in, there are not that many closed repeaters, nearly all of them are open whether one is a club member or not. If a disproportionate number of GMRS repeaters are closed in an area then this disallows spectrum from other GMRS and FRS users. If those closed repeaters are linked and on different channels then possibly no channels are available in the repeater range.

[@TheMicroTrak]

So a GMRS repeater consisting of two mobile radios connected BY WIRE would be prohibited? Did Congress actually pass a law specifically that says that the internet is the public phone network, or did the FCC just command that it was so? ( Like the BATFE passing it's own "laws" that make shoelaces into machineguns?) If I had a receiver on a mountaintop just monitoring GMRS traffic, and putting it on to the the internet, would that be a major crime too? Shoot my dogs? Stomp my kittens? Take my money?

[@michaelstora70]

Just to be clear, the Supreme court did not take away agencies' ability to make regulations. The now defunct Chevron Doctrine (Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 1984), said lower courts had to defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous law in making their regulations. So if you claimed in court that Part 95 went beyond what statutes authorized the FCC to do that previously would have been covered by Chevron. If instead you wanted to make the argument that Part 95 is valid but the current interpretation which twists "wireline control link" to mean "any network" is not, that would involve interpretation of a regulation into policy not interpretation of law into regulation. The latter is covered by Auer Deference (Auer v. Robbins, 1997) and is different than Chevron. Auer Deference has not been explicitly overturned and I'm not sure it will be. Saying agencies are the experts in interpreting their own regulations which they wrote is not as pernicious as saying agencies are the experts in interpreting law (which Congress wrote). Hopefully an honest court would say "wireline" is not ambiguous and not even have to touch Auer. I really don't understand why the FCC chose to go the route of reinterpreting their own regulation rather then using the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act to update it (draft a regulation, publish it in the Federal Register, and allow a public comment period). In summary I believe that the FCC is violating their own regulation which might be an Auer issue but has nothing to do with the previous Chevron Doctrine. I also suspect as a purely practical matter that there is not enough money in GMRS to support a legal challenge.

[@levisorenson7873]

To me it's not a a big deal, but I can understand why the FCC sees it this way. GMRS is set aside for a specific purpose. And it's great imo. And though I hear some GMRS only operators say they have no interest in amateur radio, it's clear that many of them do, but for whatever reason they don't want to get an amateur radio license. I know that's gonna make some people salty, but there are also a lot of people who just want to use GMRS as it was envisioned to be used. And don't want to get deeper into the weeds of radio stuff. I don't think it's really fair to them for other operators to try to push the limits and attempt to bend GMRS into being some kind of amateur radio lite. GMRS gives people something a little more powerful and versatile than FRS to use, but without complicating things too much. And I personally think that should be preserved. If you want to get into interlinking and networking systems together, experimenting with radios, and testing out new technologies...well, there is already something out there for you. It's called amateur radio. 😅

[@lonewolftech]

I don’t want one because it’s fucking gay as hell and nobody uses it but old fucks taking about the weather. If ham had more younger people in it that would be better but these old fucks just annoy me majorly.

[@dafunkmonster]

I think it's a big deal. If all the repeater pairs in my area are tied up because people have parked their 50W repeaters on all the highest peaks in the area, and then linked them to the entire state, or to repeaters across the country, then that prevents me from being able to use them for local traffic anytime someone is ragchewing on those networks. People are definitely trying to turn GMRS into "Amateur Radio without a license test".

[@levisorenson7873]

@dafunkmonster yeah, I guess I should have worded that differently. It's not like something I'm personally upset and fretting about. I agree with what you have said here. The issue you raise is precisely the issue that's raised in the talk Josh linked. The primary concern is interference. The fact that this will inevitably prevent people who want to use the GMRS service for what it was intended for from doing so is the issue. These other things people are looking to do can be done with another service. I'm not sure why some of these people are so averse to getting an amateur radio technician license. I know people debate over whether it should require a test or not. I personally think it should. I learned a lot studying for the test(s). Regardless, The technician test is not hard. You can study for a few days, sign up for a test online, have your paperwork submitted electronically, and have a call sign in 2 or 3 days. And then you still have your GMRS license for GMRS stuff.

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

@@levisorenson7873 I am going to add insult to all of the conversation! My daughter has been reading along and commenting in the background like the peanut gallery usually does. She is just 15 and working on her Tech license now. If all these little kids around the globe can get their license, what is the issue for a few grown men? She has been doing radio with me all her life. Nope not always interested in getting her license. She comes and goes. She challenged a question with the pool a handful of years ago, and they too agreed, and puled the Q. I wish she had gone on to finish her exam that year but she didnt. Such is life of a young girl. She is interested now for multiple reasons. I am a VE, she likes the Santa Nets at Christmas time still, and really loves the GOTA table at Field Day.

[@Mike_MFn_Jones]

Did someone at the FCC not get the Supreme Court memo ? What LAW says this , NOT some rule or policy ?

[@3rdpig]

Congress and the 3 letter agencies love vague laws. Vague laws leads to vague rules. This opens the landscape to selective enforcement, redefining the rule to create new law and causes average people to fear exercising their rights because they don't know when some unelected bureaucrat will decide to change a rule or start enforcing one that's lain dormant for years. Removing Chevron will fix some of it, but not all. And if you take the agency to court, they'll get it mooted due to the fact that "Oh well, we never enforce that rule". But that doesn't remove the fear, in fact IMO it heightens it.

[@dafunkmonster]

This particular rule seems pretty clear to me. GMRS is not for long-distance communication, or experimentation, etc. That's what Amateur Radio is for. GMRS is for local communication with more transmit power than FRS, with the added benefit of being able to use repeaters to overcome unfavorable terrain. Repeaters were not included to allow cross-country communication.

[@slick8086]

My opinion, if they should get licensed to do what they want to do and use 70cm amateur band. I think they (FCC) were as clear as they need to be and enforced accordingly.

[@srb6101]

Why not just put this in the FCC Rules - "You may only transmit a signal from one repeater", "Repeaters may not be interconnected to other repeaters by any means."

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

That’s definitely cleaner verbiage!

[@centralfloridagmrs]

They did update it on the 14th. It's not legal via internet. I'm not going to be using my node for now. Don't want to lose my license.

[@andrewscharbarth2099]

Honestly my opinion is if the GMRS people wanna do ham things they should just get ham licenses. I'm sure this logic played a part of the FCC's thinking as well.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

I agree.

[@terryevans1976]

I can see advantages to linked repeaters in our area. I live in North Idaho where people recreate far back in the mountains. These 4WD and ATV users will use GMRS but are very unlikely to ever become amateurs. Due to the extreme terrain a group of linked but local repeaters would provide a much needed level of communications in the mountains for appliance users.

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

When I lived in Sandpoint, at the base of Sweitzer, I saw this, but linked GMRS wouldn't work in the area without a few other considerations. Not to mention IDOT also uses FRS/GMRS and are VERY protective over this. I know from experience, and had a run in with LEO's, and had to get FCC involved to resolve that one. IDOT believes they have an absolute right to run anyone off a freq if they are using it for traffic control, and will call law if you do not submit. The police chief and I went rounds about this in 2013.

[@dafunkmonster]

@@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW I'm pretty sure that's a violation of the FRS/GMRS rules. IDOT should be using public safety or business band, IMO.

[@EvanK2EJT]

@@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW It's funny you say that. That happened with a road crew today a few blocks from my house. They were on GMRS15. Some kids (most likely on FRS radios) were talking on the same channel, and the road crew guys had a fit. Now, yes, there are 21 other channels the kids could be on.........but dude, you're a road crew, you should be on a business license frequency, and don't get pissy when some kids hop on with wal-mart radios and interfere.

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

@@dafunkmonster Our opinions, and legal positions do not matter to Idaho! The Ponderay Police Dept was made completely aware of the rules and policies of the FCC by the FCC in 2013. They do not care. While IDOT is a different entity, and does not answer to the police dept. I also imagine the police dept failed to carry out its duty to uphold pass on/notify/inform/instruct any laws it was aware of, after all we are discussing Idaho, and its opinion of Federal laws, are we not?

[@christophermcclellan8730]

@@dafunkmonsternothing in the rules prevent business use of FRS or GMRS. That’s by design, since many small farms/ranches, etc are family run businesses who can definitely find GMRS useful.

[@kleinbiker1]

I’m in central Ohio and have listened in on a local GMRS repeater and have heard traffic from NY, Indiana, etc.

[@mmgreen31]

Roger Beep!

[@octothorpian_nightmare]

snitches get stitches

[@jonathanstevey1748]

Love that network

[@gabrielsierra6890]

​@octothorpian_nightmare are you menacing him?😮

[@kleinbiker1]

@@octothorpian_nightmare give me a break dude. 🙄

[@mikesum32]

Wireline, not wirelink, but I understood.

[@Model_Student]

Thank goodness it was mentioned

[@dennisjones8991]

Imagine this, one or two people decide to put repeaters up on all available repeater pairs in a given geogrphical area and link them. By doing so, they have effectively reduced the number of people or repeaters that can be in use or use any individual repeater. Mr. Smith who wants to set up a repeater on his mountain top house for just his family to use, which is legal, must compete with the BIG group to use the repeater as they will undoubtedly complain about interference. Which each repeater MUST tolerate. But I have seen where the BIG group will hunt down the offending repeater and cause denial of service by nefarious means. By NOT allowing repeaters to be interconnected, this eliminates the BIG guy in favor of the individual repater for private use. Just like out Constitutional Republic protected the rights of the individual instead of the group, or conglomerate of persons. The issue gets more complicated as the repeater outputs can still be used for simplex operations so you still may hear comms that are not on a repeater. A GMRS repeater of 50 watts with a short coax run into a 12 db gain antenna at a very high altitude where other repeaters are can net results of 100 or more miles one way. Every other radio service, including Ham Radio, requires cordination to ensure that repeater operators do not interfere with each other. Ham radio has several bands that can have repeaters so the interference is minimal anyway.

[@AAPSG]

Did you ever think about they use the Frequency but different TX & RX tones

[@AECRADIO1]

You can also UNLINK connected systems, just like phone interconnects.

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

There is a technical solution to co channel interference between two or more repeaters, any one of which is linked. It is pretty easy to do. Requires a 556 timer , a relay and some logic . It has been done in Part 90.

[@Mandalore06]

All this is the FCC saying "You want to play around? Then Get a license." They want everyone registered and paying.

[@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu]

Uhm, they want people educated and competent, and not interfering with everyone else.

[@TWX1138]

If paying was a big deal then they wouldn't have reduced the fee from $70 to $35, and even $7.00 per year wasn't a burden before to the user and really wasn't a revenue source for the agency either.

[@christopherthomas7446]

Key Word! “registered” which means they have control.

[@AECRADIO1]

FCC converting free people to slaves to their employees. Sorry, the FCC HOLDS NO JURISDICTION, LEGALLY. WE OWN THE NATION, BUT GOT LAZY AND ALLOWED UNELECTED EMPLOYEES TO CONTROL MORE AND MORE OF OUR LIVES, AND WE DO NOTHING TO STOP THIS CRAP!

[@roflchopter11]

The money and test are laughable. They want you registered so they or anyone can show up at your house.

[@_RadioMadeEasy]

Make sure you check the website for any changes every time you use your radio.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

Lol

[@TheRealEtaoinShrdlu]

Well, yes, you need to be familiar with any updated regulations every time you use a regulated device. Simple.

[@HowToHam_Tom]

Fortunately they don’t (yet) restrict repeaters connected by an RF link. I hold both Amateur and Appliance licenses, we’ve a good thing going in my area. The 2m machines purr along almost silently. But they’re there. The 462 machines are active and invaluable.

[@gabrielsierra6890]

did you read the rules? it clearly says "Or any other network". GMRS does not provide frequencies for linking son using an FRS channel for linking is also a violation.

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

I have Q's about this. My understanding is that we still cannot actually link them for the purpose rag chewing, but we can RF Link for controlling them such as turning them on and off and functions of the repeater. Actually, my main Q, are you using GMRS or what set of freqs are you using to carry the traffic between the repeaters? You are using a ton of radio spectrum so I am curious as to how oyu are accomplishing this all through RF. I am a former Communications company owner, that specialized in RF comms, I understand you have to have a control link and then you have 2 audio freqs in between the repeaters as well as the two repeaters themselves, so, I am truly curious as to your setup. You have 5-6 freqs tied up for 2 repeaters!

[@dafunkmonster]

@@gabrielsierra6890 Also, if you're tying up other repeater channels for backhaul, you're violating the entire purpose of having separate channels and power limits. You're bogarting two channel pairs instead of just one.

[@dafunkmonster]

Linking repeaters forms a network. It doesn't matter whether you do it over copper, fiber, or RF. It's still a violation of the rules.

[@robertmeyer4744]

I am in Boston NY and that linked system was near ne. I have listened quite often when traveling thru NY. Just was shocked on how the FCC took action and information requested from FCC . All threw a email . Yes FCC rules were broken by linking GMRS . I work in broadest and work with FCC inspections and compliance and filling out station logs . Even knowing FCC employees. Just the email was very odd. Looks like a way to avoid a lot of paperwork. Was just a warning to take link down. They did . But they did not have to remove all repeaters. The repeaters did comply with FCC rules. was only the linking. I saw the email . it was posted online. The part of FCC stating illegal activity on repeater and requesting a list of names of those that use repeater is very strange. Possibly a outher agency is involved. Just a SAD thing for local users that did nothing wrong and benefit from a nice system. I have many licenses . I understand the confusion hear. The FCC does need to update the website. This should not be so hard to look up and understand the rules. 73

[@N2YTA]

I believe the email was informal (personal) from an FCC agent telling the operators of the network that they were in violation of the rules, giving them a chance to shut down the network to avoid FCC action.

[@robertmeyer4744]

@@N2YTA They did comply . They went way beyond that taking all repeaters down. all that had to do is remove the link. The FCC did request a list of names and addressee of the users because of illegal activity . That got the owner scared so all repeaters were removed completely. Only the link had to stop. What I have herd is lack off call signs being used and some talk about politics and foul language. the crime of the century ! The FCC should listen to 7200 KHZ 40 meters HAM.

[@N2YTA]

@@robertmeyer4744 there’s no prohibition of any subject the air, however there is a requirement to identify. . . There is quite a bit of “trash talk” on 7.200, which isn’t a violation of the rules, but many don’t identify which is a violation. The FCC doesn’t allow “obscene or vulgar” language but who decides what’s obscene or vulgar?

[@robertmeyer4744]

@@N2YTA Yes ! GMRS was like 7.200 a lot of times. We have a growing list of disgraced politicians that where talked about on GMRS linked repeater system. and with GMRS hardly anyone will ID. just how it is in NY. one of them repeaters did not ID. The FCC requesting list of names for repeaters users because of illegal activity. This was a bit odd that was done on personal email . I live in range of listing to that NY repeater shut down. I know some users and they do not under the illegal activity. The no ID and language being the worst. I can see the FCC wasting $$ to send 100s of letters out. please ID and watch your language . The the joke going around hear.

[@VTXHobbies]

​@@N2YTA FCC vs. Hildebrand proved that the FCC cannot regulate speech on the air. So the part about vulgar language is unenforceable due to a 1st amendment conflict.

[@trippgeiger]

I think they are trying to prevent a group from covering an area across many channels and over powering a smaller footprint repeater. Where I live we have a “pay for use” club that has link repeaters on most of the prime mountain tops for a stretch of 170miles or more down the valley. Where I’m located I can hear the linked transmission on channels 16 through 21 on GMRS. It’s frustrating to try to find a frequency for my friends and family to use that’s not covered up by these repeaters. I understand the need to pay for these larger groups, but when you consume the entire repeater allocations, less two, it’s can be frustrating to find a repeater to use or frequency available. We have to use TX and RX tones to communicate when using mobile radios( ie on 50w).

[@polymath5119]

Nice one Josh. Wireline is a standard term in the telecom industry, in contrast to VoIP and wireless (cellular and satellite comms), including old trunked services. POTS is an acronym for Plain Old Telephone Service, which is legacy wireline service like most households had in the past. As you noted, agree or not, the FCC is applying or interpreting the spirit of that GMRS regulation to also apply to VoIP links.

[@TheRetiredtech]

Well much of the problem is even many at the FCC don't understand the technology.

[@grob25]

Thank you for sharing.

[@minarchisttrucker2775]

I get peoples complaints about linking tying up networks but linking also allows repeaters that would otherwise be dead to have some activity. Where i live there is almost no activity on the gmrs repeater. I could call out all day and maybe get one call back. By linking to the bigger cities nearby that means theres always someone available to talk to . If they modify the rules i think there should be an exemption for linking in the same geographical area

[@JDHood]

As both an Amateur and GMRS licensee, I don't know that a regional or statewide GMRS linked-repeater network would necessarily be a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I think it could VERY MUCH be a good thing! I do not buy the idea that only hams should be allowed to link repeaters -- remember, no one is building repeaters or routers from scratch (ham **OR** GMRS). Perhaps the GMRS folks just need better repeater freq coordination if they are interfering with each other.

[@srb6101]

For most normal times, A statewide linked repeater system wouldn't really be practical. If all you are doing is general talking then yes, but lets say you are running a small group to travel or camp with. You get on the repeater to talk to your immediately located group but are not talking completely across the entire state when it is not needed.

[@JDHood]

@@srb6101 Yeah, I don't understand a compelling need for 24/7 linked repeaters -- ham or gmrs. But I can see a need for temp linked gmrs repeaters, just like in the ham world. So while there are likely perfectly valid use cases, the federal code precludes it.

[@markharrison1160]

More fuel for the Not a Rubbiecon types. The outlaws have now moved over to GMRS. Enjoy the fines when they do enforce it.

[@LatitudeSky]

Using the term "messages" is unfortunate. POTS messages were voice traffic, like any phone call. An analog voltage representation of a voice. That's very different from how IP packets work. Instead of a voice, it is of course a glob of data that could be anything. Telemetry, remote control, or a digitized voice. What transfers is the packet itself, not the contents. And what is connected or linked is the infrastructure to do that transfer. So in a sense, a repeater linked this way isn't transfering the voice traffic. It's transferring data. If you listened to the packets somehow, in this context or some random packet you found lying on the ground, if you could, it would just be digital noise. There would be zero indication it was a voice or anything else without decoding it. It is not a usable message in that form. So if a voice message isn't what is being linked, and the rule only mentions messages, is this technically a violation? The FCC needs to update this.

[@pascalbruyere7108]

Why would I want to hear people from far away crowding the air? That would kill GMRS. GMRS is for the occasional outdoor activities. A repeater might not even be needed but if it is then it must remain local.

[@carmp3fan]

The law/rule is what matters though. If the law/rule says telephone network or POTS, then that does not include the internet. They don’t get to redefine things without going through the rulemaking process. IIRC the law/rule doesn’t prohibit wireless linking either.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

Sure they do. They’re tasked with enforcing the communications act. One of the ways they do that is through the remaking process.

[@RKingis]

In Part 68 there a close to fifty references to a wireline, in regards to POTS.

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

Even with the wording as is in the the regs and on the website, people are just ignoring the plain and obvious intent of the rules and looking for some loophole to exploit. Should the verbiage be made more comprehensive and clear? Yes. But isn't it pretty obvious what the intent is even if it is not clarified? Yes.

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

Are you suggesting that people have no respect for authority, and will do what they want anyways? In my years with the association, I ran into this logic many times. people simply said they were going to do it anyway, they didnt care what the govt said. As far as they were concerned the FCC wasn't a real govt agency and couldnt enforce anything and could go do things to itself. from my readings even here in the comments section, I hear the same things. the people just dont care what the FCC says. I wonder how they would think of that when its they who are infringed upon with RFI or a family member who is unable to communicate in an emergency because of someone tying up the local repeater in Vermillion, SD from high populated area of say Houston TX.(just an example).

[@Ammed_KN6STX]

Thanks for another in-depth informative video Josh!!! Keep it up!👍🏻

[@JohnLeger]

So here is another issue that most people are not considering, yes many GMRS repeaters are communicating through the Internet network state to state. People who call them selves GMRS operator have hardly or never hit a GMRS repeater in their local area. they all connect to the Internet network GMRS hubs with a two way radio and a Raspberry PI node and not even using the 462 or 467 frequencies, and are talking to people with the same. How can they call themselves GMRS operators, even though they have a call sign and paid the $35 dollars. This whole Idea of GMRSLive and the Internet is nothing more than Skype on VoiPover the internet, c'mon man. GMRS communication is either Simplex mode handheld radios between two people 3-5 miles apart or through an actual GMRS repeater that can span 30-40 miles. Please lets stop the nonsense... like NOW! GMRS = HAM Wannabe's (such a joke)

[@paulk8io445]

This rule is as old as the service. The fcc just got around to enforcing it. When I first heard of all this linking I wondered how they got around the rules. I guess they didn’t.

[@silentbob1236]

Remember, now that Chevron deference has been repealed, we can challenge these regulations in court without the presumption that the FCC's interpretation is correct. This is worrying, to say the least, especially the "or any other network" part. What possible good could this lead to?

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

Unlikely. But we shall see. The FCC was stood up to enforce the communications act.

[@adubs.]

I think the rule was pretty clear, but the intent is less so anymore. My understanding was, repeater linking was frowned upon because it was a way to bypass long distance charges and therefore the FCC was protecting telecoms. I dont necessarily agree with the FCC protecting telecoms, but its still my understanding of the issue. These days, long distance charges are effectively non-existent and everyone has cell phone plans with unlimited talk/text within CONUS at least. Phones today at least are much less friction to having a direct conversation than a large repeater network would provide.

[@dafunkmonster]

The rules around spectrum use are predicated on communication distance. Spectrum, being a scarce resource, is allocated based on its scarcity. The longer the frequencies can travel, the more scarce they are. When you transmit on UHF, the signal doesn't go very far at all. When you transmit on HF, the signal can go halfway around the planet, depending on conditions. This is why it's harder to get permission to transmit on HF frequencies. Your home wifi router's 2.4GHz or 5GHz signals barely escape your house before being absorbed. Your VHF handheld can reach the neighborhood. Your 100W HF rig can reach across the country. That's why the rules differ. Linking GMRS repeaters means extending the range of GMRS transmissions indefinitely. That's a problem, because there are only 8 repeater pairs. Those pairs were not allocated with the intent of allowing cross-country or intercontinental communication. They were allocated with the intent of allowing marginal range extension for local communication in unfavorable terrain. For example, extending communication to the neighboring valley by placing a repeater on a ridge line.

[@adubs.]

@@dafunkmonster This is a scarcity they have created, and could also resolve if they wanted to. Its only that we arent a large corporation that they dont. This goes back to me not agreeing with the FCC protecting telecoms, which functionally do exactly the same thing.

[@dafunkmonster]

@@adubs. No, it isn't a scarcity the FCC created. It is a scarcity created by the laws of physics. When somebody shouts at the top of their lungs, only people within earshot can hear it. When someone amplifies their voice through a PA, everyone in the neighborhood can hear it. Anytime someone is talking, they have monopolized the sound spectrum within earshot. When someone transmits an RF signal, no one else within range of that transmission can use that frequency at that time. The power and frequency of that transmission determine its range. A 5Ghz wifi signal doesn't even make it to your neighbor's house. So the fact that wifi devices in your house are constantly transmitting doesn't matter - it isn't that scarce, because only you and your handful of devices inside your house are competing for those channels. But at the other extreme, when someone transmits at 1500W on 80m, that signal goes a very long way. It can be received by millions of people. That slice of spectrum is much more scarce, because transmissions go much further, which means there can be many more people competing to use it. Anytime someone is transmitting, they have monopolized the RF spectrum at that frequency within range. The greater the range, the more scarce that slice of spectrum is. GMRS was allocated a slice of UHF because it's intended for local communications. Linking repeaters violates that intent. If GMRS was intended to be used for long-distance communication, the frequency allocation would have been different.

[@EvanK2EJT]

@@dafunkmonster This is 100% correct. RF spectrum isn't created by the FCC, it's just physics, and those RF frequencies are finite.

[@ChrisRobinsonKF6NFW]

@@dafunkmonster Lets add to this a little depth, because that spectrum doesn't travel far, it makes it ideal for short distance comms for LEO, business, and individual's who only needed short distance or local communications. Now LEO's have abandon that spectrum mostly, but there are many small business and individual's in the spectrum still. These communications were meant for small groups to communicate amongst themselves. Not for group A to communicate with Group B, etc. and it certainly was never intended to be a social network like that of the 11 meter spectrum. I got my GMRS license, in 2012 so I could communicate with my children over a vast amount of land. My wife and I were already licensed amateurs, but was unreasonable to expect our young children to get licensed. Now we encounter repeaters that are linked to whom knows where and the language used is often not family friendly. We are unable to break in and communicate amongst ourselves as needed or wanted. Which means we aren't able to break apart from each other and roam further then simplex range, defeating the purpose of the repeater.

[@EverettVinzant]

Even more confusing… If you look between the output of the amplifier and the speaker (in a GMRS radio) you will find a wireline.

[@SOCOM4653]

If GMRS was “hogging” frequencies as some have stated, it was for a set period of time. The Net in upstate New York was Monday night at 7:00pm for one hour. How is that a problem? It allowed rural folks in the southern tier to talk to city dwellers in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse for a brief period to discuss the topic du jour.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

Linking repeaters ties up that channel for all in the linked repeaters ranges. One conversation spanning potentially thousands of miles.

[@PrepOrd]

The linked repeaters here in the Twin Cities is about the only GMRS traffic you hear her. WHere is GMRS busy? It is about as deal here as CB. Except their is skip on CB

[@revadan]

I have a paid GMRS lic and not SAD Ham for having wider frequency spectrum to play with many modes.

[@paulhause9040]

I’ve been licensed in both GMRS and ham for many years, and I’ve always been aware that Part 95 says no linked repeaters! There is a big local GMRS group in my area that has many linked repeaters that seem to work well, but I am hesitant to join or support them because I see a Rule violation here.

[@JamieStuff]

My suspicion of the prohibition of wireline (non-OTA) repeater linking has less to do with stepping on Part 97 (Ham) toes, and more with Part 90 (Commercial). Multi-site commercial repeater linking is big business.

[@RKingis]

I believe a wireline link is a repeater controller and/or autopatch.

[@sondrayork6317]

There are thousands of repeater system that are linked together, so it is going to be hard for the FCC to enforce because of the fact that there are so many systems out there that are linked up to the internet.

[@anthonyrstrawbridge]

Great here comes the new Porsche 😊

[@DellFargus]

The 21 group is in the next county over from me, and I recognize a few guys in that video. That meeting was an after action (and public relations event?) from an FCC enforcement where people were QRM-ing the heck out of their repeaters. The guys that got busted were playing music, yelling over their nets, ragchews, etc. for months... if not years. It wasn't a one-off where someone made a mistake - it was persistent and deliberate. The club foxhunted the trolls, called them out, but they still kept up their tomfoolery. Then they got the FCC involved. The culprits were licensed members of the club.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

I made a longer video about the talk covering some of the investigation points. It was a very good talk.

[@DellFargus]

@@HamRadioCrashCourse Oh wow. I'll have to check that out.

[@insboswiz]

They could just clearly state that interconnecting GMRS repeaters is prohibited. That would make it fairly clear that while remote control is ok, linking repeaters to pass traffic is not. On a related topic, they use the term, "wireline" I'm wondering if you were to set up a microwave point to point network between two dishes on a couple of towers would be considered "wireline"

[@JohnLeger]

I agree, many are misunderstanding including myself... networked repeaters through the internet is no longer GMRS communication to me. Also people hitting repeaters through the internet using Raspberry PI nodes and people connecting to All-star like network hubs is NOT GMRS. So if you using two way radio to hit your "node" and not actual GMRS repeater is not GMRS "RF" communication. Don't need a license or call sign if you just basically want to skype to other people...

[@sustainlight1]

Thanks for all the info in this video of yours So, can I still set up an antenna and have my repeater? How do I do it ? Can you give me a little guid to it? Thanks man

[@bblauter]

I wonder if the Chevron decision being walked back, will limit some of this rulemaking

[@paulschimel3572]

So, moving forward, what Ham band would allow the use the GMRS clubs have been using with the networking? I have honestly been wondering how the linking was allowed because of the rules. It’s sad that all these networks will be shut down. It seems they had much interest. Hopefully these commercial radios can quickly be repurposed in a ham situation so as to be legal and keep momentum going. 🤞 The people running these are obviously intelligent enough to figure out which band would suit to quick grab a ham license and build this back on another band. Personally I don’t have much interest in the linking l, just because during an emergency the link could be gone and the network useless.

[@VickyGeagan]

The FCC has just Published July 3, 2024 in the federal register 8 new regulations pertaining to Part 95 subpart E for GMRS use. Effective January 1st, 2025. May have to use repeater synchronization similar to part 15 am broadcasting medium wave.. Works similar to cell phone tower.

[@SparkyRF]

...Trying to locate this document?? I don't see any reference in the 07/03/2024 edition of the Federal Register? ....I don't even see any kind of applicable changes to 47 CFR 95 in 2024?? What as I missing?

[@jamess1787]

We need to stop connecting everything to the internet. Our equipment is old, outdated and probably full of undiscovered software bugs and vulnerabilities. ... All of us raspberrypi users: we all know the last time you did an update.... When you last flashed the SD card 🤦. And, what about your UFW or iptables firewall rules that are empty...

[@garycook5125]

98% of Amateur Radio licensees in the Montgomery, Alabama area are completely clueless "Appliance Operators". Many of them are members of the Montgomery Amateur CB Radio Club.

[@HamRadioCrashCourse]

Local hot tea just dropped.

[@johnsmiley2922]

There is no doubt in my mind that the FCC is drawing a line between Amateur Radio and the lesser service, GMRS. I am all for that and I think as a ham you should be too. Left alone there is no doubt GMRS will morph into CB 2.0 unless some constraints are relegated. I think the FCC still has a scar from the CB debacle and don't want a repeat of that chinese fire drill. My opinion is that this is just the beginning of some GMRS FCC intervention...I hope.

[@dannydivine7699]

It really amazes me how deeply some people bury their head in the sand on topics like this, or for instance high dollar non type certified radios on GMRS, they really get wrapped up around the axle on that one also, but then they will quote rules for days if they're rules they LIKE!!

[@johnclark2849]

If GMRS is to be an "appliance" radio, FCC needs to drop the license requirement. I really don't understand the license given FRS uses the same frequencies. The license is a relic of a time gone by.

[@N2YTA]

FRS, MURS & CB are all low power services, the likelihood of causing harmful interference is very small, however GMRS can be as much as 50 watts. At that power there is the possibility of causing harmful interference. The FCC wants there to be a responsible party who they can contact if there’s an issue, hence the need to have, and use a call sign (license).

[@ssquirrel88]

GMRS needs more of its own frequencies not shared with FRS users.

[@N2YTA]

@@ssquirrel88 there’s only so much radio spectrum.

[@rhyoliteaquacade]

This was debated in comments to the 2017 NPRM and the majority of respondents wanted to keep the license. Primarily because license by rule would have eliminated high power radios and repeaters. It was a good thing that proposal was not adopted. GMRS is not a relic and is now more popular than ever.

[@johnclark2849]

@@rhyoliteaquacadeI was thinking 50 watts and no license. It's not like the current license scheme is anything but revenue. There is no education/test like amateur radio concerning things like causing interference. That is why I think the license is a relic. But I guess it does provide some means of ID for troublemakers...assuming they even care about having a license or not.

[@mattewmackes]

Let me draw you a parallel: Imagine if, in the late 1960's, original fans/user groups dedicated to the traditional "XYZ123" telephone exchange system of the 1950's could have stifled the growth and evolution of the Internet. Why? Because they did not like microwave towers added to the wired back hall..... "Telephone should be wired, Dammit! " They cried. "No Wireless in Telephone! Thats for Radio!" Imagine that world...

[@KingLoopie1]

Interesting topic! Thanks! 👍👍

[@tbo2341]

Ar repeaters here in the Midwest link repeater system are connected through Wi-Fi perfectly legal using Zillow is illegal but there is never no records that the fcc's ever enforced it.

[@joaopedroalbernaz]

Zillow? Damn, let them advertise their properties alone 😂😂😂😂😂

[@CharlesTersteeg]

Josh rambles! All good! Keep up the good work!!!

[@rustyb78]

It's annoying when all the GMRS repeater pairs in an area are transmitting the same information.