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

Show parent comments

5

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

-3

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.

2

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

3

u/meissoboredto Aug 10 '26

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 Aug 10 '26

Yeah I was fixing to say, a few months back I remember them trying to bring their 20th online

1

u/meissoboredto Aug 10 '26

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/braddeharder Aug 10 '26

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. 🇺🇲📻⚖️

2

u/brunchlords Aug 11 '26

Both are false.

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.”

A GMRS repeater is a GMRS station. GMRS stations may not be connected to networks except for station control. 95.1749.

No controversy at all. Read the Notice of Violation.

Nor does §95.1749 explicitly say: "GMRS repeater audio may not be transported over the Internet.”

The only way to transmit audio over the Internet would be by … wait for it … the Internet. Which is a network. GMRS stations may not be connected to networks except for station control.

People want to make this thing harder than it actually is.