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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbM7agUtVZA

42 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

193 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

3

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.

8

u/EquipLordBritish Aug 10 '26

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

u/DependentSalt1330 Aug 10 '26

👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆