Uncle Charlie has cracked down on GMRS repeaters linked over the Internet. Confusion in the wording of the rules is to blame. How would they stop it?
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
-
A Winner has been selected for the 2025 Radioddity Cyber Monday giveaway! Click Here to see who won!
GMRS Repeater Linking Banned
- Thread starter Shadetree Mechanic
- Start date
I personally don't care for linked GMRS repeaters. There is a large linked private network in my area and they've had up to three channels (channelized service so I'm calling them channels) monopolized at the same time on several occasions rendering all other local repeaters on the same channels essentially useless as most of them run max power or more. I'm pretty sure they also use receive tones as I've been stepped on by them right in the middle of a contact on one of the local open repeaters.
I also found it interesting that some of the folks argue that if linking isn't allowed, long range coms would suffer in a SHTF situation. Come on...who's gonna rely on an internet connection for coms in a true SHTF situation?
I also found it interesting that some of the folks argue that if linking isn't allowed, long range coms would suffer in a SHTF situation. Come on...who's gonna rely on an internet connection for coms in a true SHTF situation?
We need to know more about the facts that motivated that move. My hunch is that there is more of a back story than what is being let known.
That said, the FCC and other administrative agencies arguably no longer have the deference in rule interpretation they once had (before this last term of the U.S. Supreme Court). They should proceed with caution.
Finally, it strikes me that this approach is very hostile, needlessly combative and bordering on malicious. A more constructive approach would serve the radio community much better.
That said, the FCC and other administrative agencies arguably no longer have the deference in rule interpretation they once had (before this last term of the U.S. Supreme Court). They should proceed with caution.
Finally, it strikes me that this approach is very hostile, needlessly combative and bordering on malicious. A more constructive approach would serve the radio community much better.
Uh, that's exactly why distributed, multiply-interconnected networks were proposed. See Paul Buran's 1962 paper "On Distributed Communication Networks" from RAND Corp., page 2 attached below.
Last edited:
And keep in mind how drastically the technology has changed. A telephone line as originally defined had much more limited capabilities than a modern (fiber optic) line. Today's telephone line is capable of things that were barely imaginable a generation ago and certainly two. The action that is at the heart of this thread feels like a solution looking for problem - a way to bring relevancy to that which should be irrelevant.
Let's hope this gets sorted out in a constructive way.
Let's hope this gets sorted out in a constructive way.
Arkansas had a quickly growing link system. It was pretty slick. From two servers on opposite side of the state for redundancy to a zero channel to line of site auto switching beamed linked repeaters. Now that’s gone. The owners are out of pocket untold dollars and the users are going to suffer. From radio checks to storm chasing it was indeed built in the true heart of radio. My guess is it pissed off a ham repeater owner who insists his repeater stay quiet and had run off everyone in his local club and area.
I'm aware of two jurisdictions that expressly recognize GMRS as a back-up for comms in SHTF scenarios.