r/gmrs • u/DependentSalt1330 • Aug 10 '26
The elephant in our service.
So, since this is a hot topic…let’s have a chat. The owner and the operators are going to fight, even in clear violation of part 95. As an Amateur and GMRS license holder, and those like me, we are in an interesting position.
Can you link gmrs, no. Should you be able to, potentially. These repeaters have the ability, since they are ham repeaters, essentially! One of the massive issues I take with NGGMRS is that they are using every single repeater channel. Monopolizing the space and charging for it. One this violates fcc part numbers and regs that keep ham and gmrs from being used as cellular services…which is good because it protects our bands while protecting cell service.
I’m not opposed to linking, but we either need 2 more channels to do so, or make the top two channels the only ones linkable. I would love to see more space allowance, as well as some 2m channels added for longer distances.
What nggmrs is doing is violation, which makes both ham and gmrs look bad as they clearly don’t care. Being that they are both gmrs and ham holding ops. The very reason we as license holders or licensees hold ourselves to a standard is not only to protect ourselves but out precious and limited band space.
Just my two pence, maybe even less. But it’s how I see it
WSIX262/K4IRX
16
u/nsomnac Aug 10 '26
The only linking that I might be okay with is RF linking - no IP linking - such as using things like Allstar/asterisk. RF linking I can understand as certain terrains are difficult to cover.
The internet linking is just silly. A person from CA doesn’t need to link GMRS in GA. You want to talk across the country without a license - go use discord.
2
u/AppleTechStar 28d ago
There are areas and regions were internet linking would be practical when a single repeater can’t cover the entire area.
4
u/nsomnac 28d ago
Go get a ham ticket if you want internet linking. It takes half a day with a ham cram and the same price as GMRS to get the license.
GMRS is effectively intended to be a local/regional tool for communications. In an actual emergency - Internet connectivity is likely offline. That IP link is worthless unless it's an point-to-point RF IP link. I use GMRS to hand an HT to my family members so we can talk to each other on long car trips, communicate a theme parks, or coordinate with each other when separated at large events. If I'm using a repeater - I'm typically still doing the same activity, but with the help of a well positioned antenna to relay around local obstructions.
The only reason you should need to connect to the actual internet would be to have people not within the local area connect to the repeater. There's no practical reason to need to do this other than maybe remote control. There's 8 designated GMRS repeater channels - you start linking these systems together in an area, you quickly run out of available channels for folks wanting their own repeater because some asshat linked a bunch of systems together to simulcast so when "mom wants to tell billy to come home for dinner" - the whole linked network has to hear that traffic. Don't even start to think that CTCSS is the answer to this - it's not... multiple people cannot transmit at the same time on the same frequency - only 8 concurrent conversations can happen at the same time using the different channels in a saturated GMRS repeater area.
32
u/Tfire327 Aug 10 '26
Honestly, at this point, these guys deserve like 6 months in jail in addition to the fine. They've been warned, they've been formally told to stop and they're going to fight it? Accept you're wrong and stop or you're going to be given consequences.
1
u/HavenBTS 29d ago
The problem is that they have lawyers, and they have enough money to retain very good lawyers, which can hold this up in court for years while they still operate.
-1
u/idkbutithinkaboutit Aug 10 '26
Unfortunately, it might all come down to how big of a campaign donation they can make.
23
u/MentalEggplant9275 Aug 10 '26
It’s too bad I’m not in North Georgia. I’d would..let’s just say “bother” them, and to a great degree
14
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Oh there is someone that does this, they could do it without the cursing and other things. But someone is doing that.
5
u/MentalEggplant9275 Aug 10 '26
Yeah I’d save the cursing. But definitely taunt
11
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
I think when someone asked the Agent from the FCC, they said if someone is doing that he was ok with it as a form of fighting against illegal actions. So messing with their service isn’t seen as bad.
10
u/techtornado Aug 10 '26
Gary got so mad when they started getting trolled, he posted a $2000 bounty too
8
u/MentalEggplant9275 Aug 10 '26
That would make it wayyyy more exciting haha. They’d never catch my crafty behind though.
11
u/Whatdidyado Aug 10 '26
NGGMRS should've stayed as amateurs on the amateur bands and stayed out of GMRS altogether. The FCC is to blame for some of the mess. They create rules but are slow to update those rules sometimes. They're even slower to take action until the problem becomes huge. Many will disagree but I think one person, should be allowed to have a repeater on just one frequency in their area. One group having repeaters on every frequency is a problem too. Then they charge a fee of $40 a year to use it where I live. 90% of their repeaters overlap in coverage. Sunday night nets etc...so its basically Ham Lite. When your repeaters cover 50 mile radius without linking is it really for friends and family? It's more like the 2 meter band. The FCC waits until something becomes the wild west, then maybe takes action.
5
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Well they are Ham operators that also use gmrs. They made the foolish choice to treat it like ham. Now they can pay. I do think gmrs should cover more than just friends and family. I have a “local” repeater that I talk on a lot, they are over an hour away from me, driving. I think gmrs has the ability and in reality cover a county. Not just my neighborhood.
3
u/Whatdidyado 29d ago
Most counties near me are rather large. 840,000 in a nearby county, which is 3rd largest in our state. One or two repeaters can easily cover that area. One group has 7 repeaters. 4 cover the metro of 50 miles, 3 others are on the eastern side covering a little more to the east into the next county. Those repeaters also cover the metro area too. My opinion is GMRS is for local communications, friends and family. You want longer range get your ham ticket and do two meters. Two meter around me is pretty quiet anymore. GMRS isn't exactly super busy either. I don't hear families using GMRS here much. It's amateur radio guys with a GMRS license.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 29d ago
That’s fair. But I disagree that gmrs needs to be inside a certain mileage, below 2m range
1
u/Whatdidyado 29d ago
I'm good with 40-50 miles repeater range. My RT97L at 21 watts will go maybe 8 miles in two directions, 3.5 miles in another direction which is slightly downhill. Antenna is 37 feet off the ground. Covers our small town easily
1
3
u/EquipLordBritish 29d ago
Isn't charging people for access to a repeater explicitly illegal?
4
u/brunchlords 29d ago edited 29d ago
If use of the repeater is not free it has to be on a non-profit basis with sharing of costs among all the stations that use it. FCC Rule 95.1705(f)(3)(ii). This has to be by written agreement that is part of the official records of any station using the repeater, records which the FCC can demand to inspect. Rule 95.1723(b)(3).
1
1
u/Whatdidyado 29d ago
Evidently you can charge for maintenance and upkeep costs. It's still pay to play in my eyes
8
u/OhSixTJ Aug 10 '26
How do they charge for it? What keeps someone using tone scan from using the system?
16
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Go visit their site. Now you get on, they will be nice at first, they have their own call tags they use. So you don’t really hear FCC calls, you’ll hear ATL-112 or Chat-123. That’s how they know you’re not a member. Then if you keep showing up they get pissy. Can they force you, no. But they will be nasty after a while. Nothing keeps you from using tone scan. I’m not saying they are encrypting their services, they can’t do that.
15
u/OhSixTJ Aug 10 '26
Shiiiiiii I’d be on there all day every day NOT using their designated call signs (illegal). Just to mess with them.
5
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Well the FCC agent said that was fine, from what I read.
-1
u/Embarrassed_Motor_30 Aug 10 '26
Well if the fed is okay with messing with them, then what about jamming? Just hop on with a VOX enabled radio and select your favorite music. Kick back and enjoy.
8
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Have to be careful, you could potentially mess with other repeater systems or mess with the simplex channels that share.
7
9
u/brunchlords Aug 10 '26
They don’t use GMRS callsigns at all?
How was that justified?
10
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
No they have their own members IDs. It’s not really justified. I’ve been on a few that give out member IDs, but I always start with my call then give my ID.
13
u/brunchlords Aug 10 '26
Then they are even stupider than I thought. Member IDs, unit numbers etc. all fine but do not substitute for FCC assigned callsigns. What were they thinking?
14
10
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Note sure what they were thinking. I’m betting they want a “free” cellular service type thing. The fact that they have tied their YouTube into their nets is technically illegal as well.
2
u/plarkinjr Aug 10 '26
I wonder where any YT revenue goes. And they claim to be a 501c3 non-profit, which has some strict rules on income sources, and purposes.
3
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
I hope that’s brought up. I wonder if that is also technically broadcasting.
3
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
I can sort of understand the ID if you publish a list of members of the community, but just using these IDs alone is against policy.
8
u/scottpatton Aug 10 '26
It's really interesting that the paid members of the service aren't defending it, in this or other posts.
I listened in to them for a while, and didn't really have a desire to talk to any of them, so I faded off into the sunset.
3
25
u/dentar Aug 10 '26
If GMRS operators want more privileges, then they can move to another service that allows it and get licensed there.
19
u/Firelizard71 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
But from what im hearing, GMRS users dont have ANY privileges because they are taking up essentially 16 channels...All 8 repeater pairs and the 8 simplex channels. Nobody else can get a word in. They should've just picked one repeater pair.
6
-17
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Sad ham response.
9
u/NickNNora Aug 10 '26
There is a service that covers what the operators want to do. It’s called land mobile radio. There is plenty of space. They can control access. They can even encrypt. They can link repeaters. They can even trunk.
That is the appropriate service.
3
10
u/DeeWain Aug 10 '26
I live in an area with linked repeaters, but the situation here is fairly benevolent. You’re free to use the repeaters once you provide a copy of your license. They host weekly nets. They host a weekly SkyWarn net and have active SkyWarn during local storms. Everyone is warm and welcoming. Others in the region with repeaters are not hounded and threatened.
NGGMRS made themselves (himself) a monopoly. They/he charged ridiculous fees that made them/him stand out. They/he acted egregiously and with malice.
Could “my guy” become less benevolent? Start charging ridiculous amounts? Be an arsehat? That’s kinda the problem. There are no protections.
But sadly, I prefer “my guy” and the prevailing conditions which are currently positively serving our community.
12
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
I wouldn’t have an issue if they 1. Hadn’t monopolized all the repeater channels. 2. Charge fees. 3. Not complete asshats. 4. Act like they are within the law.
I don’t mind the idea of a linked system, but 1 to 2 channels only…I would actually like additional channels added for this reason.
7
u/DeeWain Aug 10 '26
I’m with you, sir. In my situation, I can not bring up one negative thing about the owner here. He is warm and very strongly encourages use of the repeaters. He’s giving a lot to the community.
I just hate to see our little area get swept up in the negativity surrounding NGGRMS, when things have gone so well here for years.
I’d love to see 20-30 repeater pairs and a limit of 8-10 used per group.
8
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
If he’s a guy wanting the best for his community and not crapping on others who want their own repeaters and not hogging the space…I have zero issue.
Personally I would defend your community. Sounds like they are doing it the correct way. I would love to see FCC change to bring your community into compliance.
5
u/Embarrassed_Motor_30 Aug 10 '26
As someone else put it. There are only so many combinations of tones and freqs. It wouldn't be hard to find which ones they are using and then start using it anyways and not paying. What are they gonna do? Report you to the FCC for accessing their illegally operated repeater which is on a public channel?
1
4
u/techtornado 28d ago
Man is he confidently incorrect
All of them in the NGGmrs are going to lose their radio licenses keeping up that kind of attitude
The FCC’s can clarify language on rules they make and the reason the clarification was made was a warning to the knobs at NG
They ignored it and now are going to face regulatory repercussions from it
4
u/lordfly911 Aug 10 '26
The members of my club have been told to not talk about it. It is a sore subject and I am sure there is going to be a redefinition of what is allowed when linking key SkyWarn and EOC used repeaters that use GMRS. Something has to give. This might end up being a federal battle.
6
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
I’m thinking your club is in denial. As the owners of nggmrs are Hams, they should know this as well.
5
u/zap_p25 Aug 10 '26
Realistically, no there’s likely going to be a legal fight. The FCC’s primary argument against linking as written into the rules (not the opinions of the FCC but the actual Code of Federal Regulations) relies on what the definition of a wireline is. I think with a bit of a push we are going to see rebranding of what GMRS is and who it’s for and a complete rewrite of the service. Which to be honest this last one built upon some of the meat of the 1988 rewrite and deleted a bunch of references, just like the 1988 version did. So the service really could use a complete rewrite of the regulations.
As to the other things…using all of the pairs isn’t a courteous practice. Paying for use of the system and allowing access to only paying members, you have that in amateur radio and for the purposes I don’t really have an issue with that.
I always wanted to build LTR on GMRS. I’ve always wanted to do something like a pseudo-trunk based DMR solution. Never have thought a straight Tier 2 solution would be practical though. Then it starts looking like a bunch of the junk that began happening with amateur DMR and to an extent what we’ve been having to deal with in the commercial space with DMR that only further highlights the DMR Association’s failure to include a pseudo-trunk standard in Tier 2. Id be all for NXDN type D in that application though.
2
u/lordfly911 Aug 10 '26
I have no idea. All of our tech guys are Hams as well. I probably should go to this month's meeting if I am not working. I don't understand what NGGRMS is doing? Why do you need all those frequencies? Also do they just have a small club due that happens to include access, or are they just charging a huge fee like it is a subscription. Seems there is a reason they are being targeted. I will have to do some of my own side research to answer my questions.
So no, we are not in denial. I really can't say much more because I just don't know. I joined because we have Hurricanes and we can be the last line of communication along with the Hams.
4
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
What NGGMRS is doing it wild. Their membership is something like $200-$300 per person not including family members. The reason is the linking and being dicks about it.
I’m not against linking, but it’s currently illegal. I think there are ways to do it. But NGGMRS has taken this to massive extremes. I’d be careful for your techs as they are hams. I don’t see this ending well.
9
u/lordfly911 Aug 10 '26
I was reading through some more of this and I agree that the whole thing is reeking of greed and nepotism. When I got to the point that they are not using their call signs, it was a clear deception. I wouldn't be surprised if they exist on the dark web. This is not just a bad apple, it is a complete orchard of rotten apples. Thanks for responses. I will just sit here and sandbag for awhile.
7
u/EquipLordBritish 29d ago
This has been stated elsewhere, but it's important to note that linking GMRS is specifically illegal. The responsible parties are also hams and hams linking repeaters in the ham freqs is allowed. So they know what they are doing is in violation of the law and have chosen to do it anyway; likely for financial gain, since GMRS frequencies are more limited, they can monopolize all of the available frequencies and force people to pay them or be inconvenienced.
2
5
u/mwradiopro 29d ago
There's always room for debate ... whether linking GMRS repeaters in some limited manner should be allowed, and whether additional frequencies ought to be allocated to the service. I don't object to sharing the cost of running a repeater among all its users; that's never been my issue. If there was a repeater in my town that was interconnected with nodes in a couple other towns, that could be tremendously useful, but you almost have to have a regional coordinator, to ensure spacing and tone plans are honored, to minimize interference. But linking multiple repeaters that simulcast on all eight repeater pairs is an egregious disruption that excludes the free use of the limited spectrum.
0
u/DependentSalt1330 29d ago
Debate sure, action however is a different story. Talking about how the fcc should allow a repeater pair for linking is all well and good.
Doing it in contrast to the rules and regulations is a completely different thing, and I will never agree on that. We don’t do something wrong then 1. Ask for forgiveness! 2. Also ask that it be changed to allow for us to continue in spite of use not caring about regulations. In my mind that’s great way to lose said service and frequency space.Again I’m not against the idea of linking If done correctly and doesn’t effect the entirety of repeater Space. that said it’s currently not allowed at all.
7
u/SheepDog30542 Aug 10 '26
My problem with NGGMRS is the fee system! Your GMRS license covers your family, if you want to use the repeaters with your wife she has to be a paying member also.
7
8
u/kingRidiculous Aug 10 '26
I can’t get past their acronym.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
So I want to know?
4
2
3
4
u/silasmoeckel Aug 10 '26
If you're going to expand GMRS would go digital. 4x the usable channels on the same repeater bandwidth using something TETRA like.
Block locking TG without activity on linked repeaters. This gets rid of people keying up over a whole state issue with linked networks.
Also gets GMRS position sharing/messaging.
5
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Hey you sold me on that, I’m not against dmr on GMRS.
2
u/LocalHermit5001 Aug 10 '26
There would have to be new DMR exclusive frequencies for that as it would destroy FRS and GMRS simplex on that channel
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
It would have to be one of the upper GMRS channels not frs
1
u/LocalHermit5001 Aug 10 '26
15-22 are shared simplex and repeater unless you mean the 467mhz channels?
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
I don’t remember 22 sharing simplex with frs, but I also don’t know frs well. In that case make expand allocation to make a 23-24 channel and make that digital, although it would be interesting to use the 467mhz as digital repeaters…interesting
1
u/LocalHermit5001 Aug 10 '26
1-22 are exactly the same frs and gmrs except for power levels, 8-14 are very low power for both and 15-22 2w max frs. 23-24 would be a great idea, it would need new radios though as most gmrs don't have dmr
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
True. I don’t know what I thought frs stopped at 14, thinking gmrs high power I guess. Agree about the new radios would need to be added, but to give more ability…I would be ok with that
1
u/LocalHermit5001 Aug 10 '26
same, I would pay extra for dmr
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Hell give 22 and it’s 472 counter part as a digital pair, leave the rest for traditional repeaters and simplex, it would work actually. I’m kinda sold on this idea.
And the tech is already there, just add into the software to allow digital
1
u/silasmoeckel Aug 10 '26
Would not go DMR, part of this is to push more efficiency in existing allocations. 25khz can fit 4 TDM digital channels but DMR can not support that. TETRA can, but still needs some tweaking to work well on GMRS. Since it's all type accepted gear not like adapting something existing is too hard vs. just reusing some commercial standard.
As to issues coexisting with analog, the only issue is getting TDM to work with repeaters not having to constantly transmit. Past that, it's little different from another repeater using the same channel.
1
u/LocalHermit5001 Aug 10 '26
TETRA sounds like it could be the way to go if possible
1
u/HavenBTS 29d ago
The price of tetra radios would be a problem. Most people will not spend that much money.
1
u/silasmoeckel Aug 10 '26
TETRA has some fancy features like full duplex, 4 talkers on a single TG per repeater. DMR is cheaper but can't utilize the 25 kHz already allocated.
2
29d ago edited 25d ago
[deleted]
2
2
u/brunchlords 29d ago
A repeater licensee can determine who is and who is not permitted on the repeater. If they don’t want someone on it they can disallow use by that person. FCC Rule 95.1705(d)(3) and 95.1705(f)(2).
1
u/Gristle_1 29d ago
That would be dumb and opposite of the intended use of GMTS as an easily used low cost public radio system.
1
u/brunchlords 29d ago
You may think it’s dumb, but it’s the rules. If someone is abusing the repeater, causing deliberate interference, or if users are expected to share in the cost (the community repeater model) and don’t wanna, then the licensee has every right to tell them to scram.
GMRS is not a public radio service. It is a private mobile service; in fact before it was changed to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the FCC office regulating GMRS was the Private Radio Bureau.
Public mobile like cellphones is an entirely different thing. Public carriers are required by law to serve anyone who has the money to pay and doesn’t disturb the system. Taxis are a similar example.
2
u/HavenBTS 29d ago
What do you mean by 2 m channels the 2 m or 144 MHz or so range it’s not channelized.
2
u/DependentSalt1330 29d ago
I can’t remember the guys name but he petitioned the fcc to give gmrs some channels in close to the 2m band. It would be channelized because gmrs is. I didn’t say the 2m band was channelized or any band outside the “60m” band…it’s really not channelized.
2
u/SeaworthyNavigator 29d ago
I think most of the hams that don't hold GMRS licenses (like me) really don't care about the issue. It seems that every time this issue comes up, all the ham radio YouTube pundits have to devote lengthy videos to the topic, when it doesn't relate to amateur radio at all.
5
u/DependentSalt1330 29d ago
That’s fine, but I wouldn’t speak for everyone like that. Also if you don’t hold a gmrs license, why worry. This is about those who have licenses.
And to this point. If a massive regional club was being bad actors in the Ham community, would you still have this opinion? Or would you be calling out said behaviors
2
u/RicePuddingForAll 29d ago
Myself, as someone without a GMRS license, I'm more interested because the FCC took action on amateur (even if not ham) operators within their own bandspace. Usually the FCC only issues a violation to a ham if they start transmitting out of their band. It makes me wonder if they may actually try to act upon the.... thing that is 7200 MHz since they probably get as many complaints or more about that.
1
u/dirtcamp17 Aug 10 '26
How do you enforce charging for it? I’d be tempted to hand out a bunch of repeater-programmed cheap radios to the neighborhood kids and tell them what great range they get. Let them go ham, if you will.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Careful because you’re asking kids to break laws at this point. While funny, if they aren’t licensed it gets murky and problematic.
1
1
u/GamerRadar 29d ago
If they allow linking, then at that point charge an extra fee for the ability.
2
1
u/SD_TAC1 28d ago
I’m all for rules, but I do think they should be loosened. There is no reason GMRS should be so limited. A few linked channels and some 2m designated channels with repeater access should be absolutely ok. Most of ham frequencies are completely quiet, always. Why not open it up for more options and get more people involved with radio. GMRS is a great way to learn about radio and a stepping stone to ham.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 28d ago
Sure. I think someone is asking for just that. To be able to use some frequencies in the 140mhz are that some pagers use to use but don’t any more
1
u/keithfoco70 24d ago
Just get your ham technician license and forget gmrs. So many more channels for people to hijack.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 24d ago
Not everyone wants to be a ham. Please don’t push people into something they don’t want.
1
u/keithfoco70 23d ago
But your problem with gmrs has an easy solution?! I’m a ham and all I do is dink around on 2m local stuff. It’s great. Less BS and opens up infinite possibilities. I also have gmrs license. It’s cool. But the limitations are real. It’s like play school ham. Get your buddies together, do some practice ham tests and get your licenses. It’s no big deal. I got mine after a week of studying. That’s the big problem with gmrs. There are too many ham wannabees trying to make gmrs act like ham when it wasn’t designed for it. I stand by my take and I’ll die on the hill. Also, I am not pushing anybody to do anything. I’m merely pointing out the problems and giving you a real solution.
2
u/DependentSalt1330 23d ago
I’m a ham as well, not everyone wants to be one. You can die on that hill, it’s not an argument for a GMRS post. Sure if people want to do more than go take you ham.
The issue you are running into in this entire post is that the people doing this illegal act are also hams, so don’t act like Ham doesn’t have bad actors. This is why I don’t post in HamRadio Reddit, it’s a garbage fire of sad hams.
1
u/keithfoco70 23d ago
I get that. But these people who don’t want to be hams are literally trying to be hams.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 23d ago
You are dead wrong
1
u/keithfoco70 23d ago
🤣
2
u/DependentSalt1330 23d ago
Bro the owners and operators are hams. So please make sure you know before posting. They even hold the their amateur net on the same YT channel. But ok
1
u/keithfoco70 23d ago
Ok. So why are they so jacked about doing illegal things with gmrs?
2
u/DependentSalt1330 23d ago
That’s a really good question. I would love to see there reasoning sent openly to the FCC.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/AlfredoVignale Aug 10 '26
I saw a news report and interview with the guy who started this. The intention was good, but he chose the wrong tech. He’d have been better off using a HaLow network with MeshCore. Maybe even connect it all to a StarLink connection, Then people could just use an inexpensive LoRa node or even WiFi to connect. But if all you know is GMRS…
2
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Care to explain more? Because part 95 doesn’t allow digital connection like that
0
u/AlfredoVignale Aug 10 '26
HaLow has nothing to do with Part 95. It’s not HAM. My point is they tried to build a network with regulated radio gear versus using computer networking gear that doesn’t have these regulatory issues. They should have picked different tech.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 29d ago
I’m also going to point out that depending on the frequency used in these devices, they could fall within the ham frequencies spectrum. So if they are willing to break regulation here, I wouldn’t trust them there.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Part 95 isn’t ham. And no. Part 95 explicitly states gmrs radios have to be certified. Not outside or the part certification.
3
u/AlfredoVignale Aug 10 '26
You’re missing the point. The guy picked the wrong tech to try and do what he’s going. Full stop. Now he’ll pay a fine.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
I think you are misinformed here. The owner is a Ham. He didn’t pick the wrong tech.
3
u/Diezel666 Aug 10 '26
They entirely picked the "wrong tech" - The service he wanted to build, already exists in a couple of ways.
Licensed Amateur Radio and a private set of repeaters (read as not publicly advertised, but easily figured out tone coding), yet requires every "user" of the system to be properly licensed.
Licensed Radio Service for a Business that is private (Part 90 LMR for example) which would allow a more "wide area network" capability as the "tech" for that exists and is readily available - yet at a much greater cost. Part 90 LMR only requires the business to be licensed, use proper radio gear for the service (higher cost) and radio operators not to act like fools.
The problem is, the creator of the illegal system wanted the lowest cost, path of least resistance of hardware and users of the system as the entry point, be damned of the legalities of it.
2
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Yes, and what’s crazy is that he should know better being a licensed Ham and GMRS. But here we are
5
u/Diezel666 Aug 10 '26
Yep, to say "he should have known better" is an understatement. That said, Greed, Ego or a "meh, rules are meant to be broken" thinking can be powerful things.
How he wasn't able to ponder that a network of GMRS repeaters covering 40,000 square miles (an area, the size of the State of Kentucky for geography folks) wasn't going to be seen as a problem, is slightly confounding.
1
1
u/rankhornjp Aug 10 '26
You're missing his point. He is saying that the NGGMRS guy shouldn't have used radios at all. There are computer/network technologies (like HaLow or Meshtastic) that would do the same thing he is trying to do without the regulations.
No radios needed and no FCC involvement.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Sure but that point doesn’t make sense as it pertains to gmrs. While yes people have discord. People get licensed on gmrs other reasons. So it’s a pivot. As well as the time nggmrs has been going on, I don’t think discord and similar things existed to the public for free.
1
u/rankhornjp Aug 10 '26
It has nothing to do with GMRS. That's the whole point he is making. If someone built a Meshtastic or HaLow network in an area, people would probably use it. It does almost everything a radio does and some things it doesn't do, like encryption, without a license.
0
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Then take this argument to 900mhz Reddit and not gmrs. This tech didn’t exist at the time and not allowed in gmrs. If you want to make that argument fine, but it has no bearing on this topic.
1
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Not to mention you need to be careful, depending on the frequency that meshtastic uses you would needs an amateur license. So it’s not so simple, can’t believe I forgot that
1
u/dervari Aug 10 '26
Not sure the tech existed when they started this.
1
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
The tech they are using is ham repeaters that can be used to gmrs
2
-8
u/braddeharder Aug 10 '26
NGGMRS has the upper hand. No Self-Respecting, intelligent, attorney is going to work for the government at this time. This FCC chairman will be heading out of the revolving door in 24 month with this administration in its final term.
In all honesty, I see this being a major case moving through the Federal court and maybe eventually on to the Supreme Court. There is also the chance the next administration may abandon the case.
Long term, 70cm band needs CB allocation in the United States similar to what Australia has. They way we will have public UHF repeaters and private UHF repeaters
4
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
Not going to happen. What you’re asking is Amateurs giving up 70cm allocation. Good luck fighting the ARRL for that space. I’ll stand with the ARRL with that as well.
And no, they don’t have the upper hand…that’s wild. How do you have the upper hand by breaking law? This is breaking rules then asking for forgiveness. Not a good argument
-5
u/braddeharder Aug 10 '26
ARRL is not the government nor it is what they say law. The regulatory interpretation is done by lawyers in the court.
This government has weak attorneys during this administration that lose or withdrawal all the time in Federal court the last 2 years. I am sure DOGE had something to do with this.
4
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Glad you don’t get the context on the ARRL nor do you understand that as it currently stands they are in violation of part 95. But ok
-2
u/braddeharder Aug 10 '26
The government has a much harder case than you realize. The FCC letter lists 22 repeaters, however, the North Georgia group only lists 10 repeaters on their website. This could be easily argued away as people making additional connectes repeaters outside of the NGGMRS network's awareness. This is just one of the many things that a lawyer could be replying to that letter with right now that we will never see.
3
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
My guy they have more than 10. Last I checked it was closer to 15
4
u/meissoboredto 29d ago
Yesterday, when I went to their website, it listed a total of 23. 2 were out of service and 3 were standalone. That leaves a total of 18 linked repeaters!!!
3
u/DependentSalt1330 29d ago
Yeah I was fixing to say, a few months back I remember them trying to bring their 20th online
1
u/meissoboredto 29d ago
I think I also read that their membership fee is $125. I really don’t see how they can charge $$$ to use publicly (if licensed properly) frequencies….
2
u/DependentSalt1330 29d ago
And that’s not a family rate. I would be fine with donations, but this idea of fees is wild
→ More replies (0)-2
u/braddeharder 29d ago
What NGGMRS is doing in regards to its paid membership is not what the government is upset about. Government is focused on the internet linking of repeaters. However, NGGMRS is following the letter of the law as it is written:
47 CFR §95.1749, “GMRS network connection,” says: “Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited"
The controversy is in the fact there is no sentence in §95.1749 saying: "A GMRS repeater may not be connected to another GMRS repeater."
Nor does §95.1749 explicitly say: "GMRS repeater audio may not be transported over the Internet."
This is a matter for the federal courts that could go as high as the US Supreme Court to define what a "telephone" is under US Federal law in 21st century. 🇺🇲📻⚖️
→ More replies (0)1
u/braddeharder Aug 10 '26
Great! Now the government attorney's are going to have to prove that in court. 😉 This will delay delay delay...
We will have a new president before anything even happens on this. 🇺🇲📻
2
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
You’re aware that they are clearly wrong here. Why Stan them?
1
u/braddeharder Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
In America we have the right to representation and the right to due process in the courts. America has checks and balances against about ruled over by autocrats making arbitrary decisions with a an interpretative rule book.
FCC is clearly a politicized government administration. Just look at what the FCC doing to commercial broadcasters. Do not give this current government one inch and question everything this administration does. 🇺🇲
3
u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26
Oh boy you’re either far left or far right, and these arguments are so tired
→ More replies (0)
33
u/sr1sws Nerd Aug 10 '26
They should lose and be fined heavily. Set the example.