Can GMRS Repeaters be Linked? | TWRS-193 

I am not against linking but it should be restricted to repeaters on the same frequency. I live in an area that I am able to reach 4 different GMRS repeaters. There is an organization locally that linked all four of these repeaters and a few more throughout the state and neighboring states. 4 repeaters all on different frequencies all linked togetrher litterally wipes out 30% + of the available spectrum resources. That I do not agree with. I am glad that the FCC finally took action on this.

I agree with Danny. I’m in Atlanta and I never hear anyone taking on the GMRS 8 repeater channels.

In answer to the question at 17:15 - yes, if there is a repeater using a channel, regardless if it is linked or not it will be using that channel and make it harder for another repeater or simplex users not using that repeater to us that channel... BUT the difference is that a linked repeater means that MORE that one location (the others linked) can now use up that channel in every location where the repeaters are linked and restrict other use in MULTIPLE locations not just that one area that hte one repeater covers. In some places where there are not many repeaters maybe this does not matter but where I live... pretty much EVERY ONE of the GMRS repeater channels has at LEAST one repeater on it. (Southern California Area) There are some that share a channel and even with CTCSS, they can interfere with each other a bit at times.

The ham radio repeater system here uses RF to link: they just crossband. It makes sense since it is the primary repeater system for ARES, and if the internet is down, so are the links. If the FCC ever does allow DMR on GMRS, that could open up to repeater linking using single frequency repeating.

Ham users have continue bands of frequencies on 10m, 6m, 2m, 1.25m, 70cm, 33cm, and the 24cm band. GMRS is one band and 8 channels. No linking! Should be obvious why.

It is already a stretch to get people to follow the rules on GMRS. The more unreasonable the rules get, the more people just do as they please.

I'm for that, adding or allocating more frequencies for GMRS. Two dozen or so frequencies is just too few for millions of people, especially since it's getting more familiar, not to mention a lot of hams and "sad hams" are also "invading" an already crowded spectrum.

What if you wanted to set up a private voip system, similar to allstar but only using Asteriks without the app_rpt as party line? Not using radio GMRS.

If the FCC would allow DMR digital mode on GMRS frequencies(maybe even just a repeater pair or two), then GMRS users could design a network, that leverages the DMR color codes and talk groups to reduce interference and make more efficient use of the RF spectrum that is allocated to GMRS. Then users could control the amount of traffic they hear by selecting the talk groups on their device. Then it would not be an issue with wide area coverage repeater systems.

I realized that the FCC did not intend GMRS to be used for long distance communication, however I will stay neutral on this particular subject. I don't think that we should be ignoring the rules but we have to righ to inquire to change the rules,

If GMRS people want long distance communications, they should obtain their ham licenses. GMRS was not meant to be a substitute for HF. Linking repeaters limits communications. For instance linking 15 GMRS repeaters only allows for one conversation at a time across 15 repeaters instead of 15 different communications. GMRS linked repeaters to create Fiefdoms. Danny, you sound like a CBer who then became a GMRS person. Zello and other such services should never have been allowed. It's Cut and Dry. What don't you get about that??????

The USSC "Chevron" Ruling may come into play here.

I really thought there was a reference to VoIP as being "Ok" Recording technology has been around a long time, and is a completely non-issue for the sake of this discussion

My only comment is, If you are not happy with the limited range, rules and restrictions of GMRS, Then DO NOT AGREE to the rules and get the license. Instead people are getting their GMRS license, then being unhappy with the range, rules and restrictions decide on their own, Hey, lets make it just like amateur radio so we don't have to get an amateur radio license to do it.

And the question about recording and replaying transmissions (like on youtube replaying it...) I see it as the same as photography in public places. In publiic places there is no expectation of privacy ... you can talk photos and do whatever you want with them if you are taking them in public places and of public places. Same with radio... you are putting your voice out on a GMRS channel which is IN THE PUBLIC" ... you have no claim or expectation of privacy. People are free to record and use it.

I see no problem sending your repeater traffic over “zello” as a receive only. That said I don’t have a problem with linked repeaters as long as it’s locally linked

You guys ramble on a clearly defined definition of illegal GMRS linked repeaters as the channel hogs do on their linked networks

At one point ham's only had HF and repeaters only came around when the pubic sector started to flip over their hardware and was allowed from a different band / service. So...GMRS is doing the same thing and now being "clarified" is just gatekeeping as many tower owners and HAM operators are often in the same industry...but the thing is that public safety have issues finding people in their own government sector who are hams or are willing to get their ticket so they can have emergency comms in house without needing to rely of older hams who many are aging in a way that they cannot be as mobile for deployment as they once were. In my area, there is only one big boy repeater, another other private ones only get out 5-10 miles if they are lucky..so I would need to have a linked system to reach out the FCC's claimed range if I lived in flatland and towers were accessible to non-hams or people in the RF world. GMRS repeaters does serve the public as there's a wall for many not in the in-group.

The FCC needs to explain their rationale behind this ruling.

Linking repeaters have become an issue because of SAD HAMS. Linking repeaters has been beneficial covering areas lacking cell coverage. All the Hams say get a ham license if you want to do this. The problem is a ham license doesn’t cover the whole family. More of a problem has been all the Ham Operators coming to GMRS to get away from the arrogance, control and politics in the Ham community. Then they become the GMRS Police. Ham operators believe they are above the law enforcing everyone else to follow the rules. They have tainted GMRS and caused this whole issue with the FCC updating its ruling. The FCC has known for years about GMRS linking across the United States, and while maybe the were violating the rules? The systems were very beneficial to the Community. More interference has affected GMRS as an example, people running their business, everything from hotels, salvage yards, public schools and even drug trafficking on GMRS. When will the FCC and the ARRL be concerned about that? Example: thousands of government public schools using GMRS for day to day activities including safety for children. Many of these schools use radios that are not part FCC part 95 approved. So, is that the next step for the ARRL -HAMS to shut down all the public schools making it unsafe for our children? Yep, go ahead SAD HAMS and keep opening this can of worms and changing the way America feels about HAM RADIO OPERATORS and the ARRL. If anything, the FCC should open more frequencies to the general public serving millions of people instead of this huge number of frequencies the SAD HAMS have. Ham radio is dying because it is not even useful for emergency s because of satellite and many other technologies we have now. And look at the cost of purchasing all that HAM Equipment that you can only communicate with other SAD HAM OPERATORS. It just isn’t going to be feasible in the future.

my pov still same/// former 1999_2007 operator,,,,,,Gods given rights to breate.. still airwaves....how gov can enforced while asking this comm for help when disasters strikes........then becomes legal?....air is god given free for all...respect all EMS and PD locals transmisión !!!

Rather than linking repeaters together, I want a plug and play interface to connect my GMRS repeaters to the internet for remote monitoring and control. Any suggestions (for a poor guy).

Who will coordinate the linked repeaters if alloud?

I'm guessing you guys both hams?

It is not what all GMRS people want Example, if Bob is in city a chatting through Link repeaters to Joe and city be 1000 miles away for 15 minutes about fishing then all the other people and them repeaters in them cities have no access to the repeaters. Thus all of that system is being used for two people GMRS is for local communication communications with families, friends, going jeep, etc. I say keep linking totally illegal

in new zealand GRMS is called PRS here, as repeater owners we arnt allowed to link them but the repeater licencing is $150 per year same cost as some of the other repeaters registered. i think 2024 its time to move with the times, DMR is taking over the world.

The desire to link repeaters is a selfish endeavor. There is no good reason for one radio operator to tie up more than one repeater at a time. One operator taking control of multiple repeaters robs other operators of rightful use of the repeaters in their area. Example: No one operating in Birmingham, AL should be tying up repeaters located in Montgomery, AL, or Meridian, MS. It's ridiculous that some people think it should be okay to do so. GMRS was set up for short range family and community use. Taking control of distant repeaters takes away the ability of others to use them. The rules haven't changed, they've just been clarified for people who insisted on violating the FCC's no-linking rule, using their dumb-card. Thousands of Americans are very pleased that the FCC has stepped forward to finally to put an end to the nonsense. Now let's have a discussion about Amateur radio licensees who are constantly chit-chatting on 2 meter repeaters, violating FCC 97.113, a, 5.

The GMRS Repeaters can be Link Point to Point as long that the Link go thru Radio Frequency. Linking GMRS Repeaters thru the internet network is ilegal .

Dear Mr. Feemster, the rule prohibiting repeater-linking has no affect on the archiving of traffic. The rule does not prohibit anyone from saving audio on distant computers via the Internet, or any other means. The subject of the rule isn't an Internet-use prohibition, it's a rule prohibiting the linking of repeaters. Sending traffic audio via the Internet to another computer in the next room, or across the country, is a completely different subject, and the FCC has not mentioned it, much less prohibited it. Let's not try and create confusion about problems that don't exist.

I love you

I see no problem sending your repeater traffic over “zello” as a receive only. That said I don’t have a problem with linked repeaters as long as it’s locally linked