E1673: GMRS Repeater Linking Is It Ever Justified

wasn't saying, hey, how do you justify this? That's what the article says. So I'm going to try to be as even keeled and writing the fence as much as I can during this video. But right here, I found this article on Reddit, which is two months old at the time of this recording, and I actually found it a little time ago, and I kind of forgot about

it quite frankly. So I wanted to read it to you today because I think it's relevant to a couple of other videos that I have done recently on the channel about GMRS repeater linking, which has been a hot topic as of late so the author of the original post rights. I am relatively new to the GMRS community. However, I recently encountered a YouTube channel which shall remain anonymous, put a comment in the blow who you think that is?

Where the individual justified linking the repeaters by claiming they are still within the Part ninety five rules. I'm unable to comprehend how this is possible, and it appears that these individuals are also a licen inmateurs, which is quite perplexing. Okay, so if this I don't know who this channel he's talking about is. I said in a previous video, I mentioned that I supported linking of GMRS repeaters, and I don't think that they should disallow that. Okay, However, I'm

not trying to justify it. Just say do it anyway, or you know, forget what they say. I'm not trying to justify that. No, it's actually, according to the FCC regulations, it is not legal to link GMRS repeaters together over the Internet. And we're going to read a little bit of this here in a minute. I don't know the stipulation behind linking them together over RF in other words, radio linking them together and not linking them over the internet.

There might be a little difference there, a little different stipulation there. I'm not sure, but let's read on and see what these comments say, because these are the best part. The first comment here says, well, today, since the FCC is come down and said flat out that linking isn't allowed, I don't think anyone has been fined for the activity, and I think he's right on that. I may be wrong about that, though, it certainly ain't gonna happen during

the current shutdown. Okay, so yeah, this was written during the forty three day government shutdown in twenty twenty five. People might want linked repeaters for any number of reasons, some of them are quite valid. The problem with gmrs is that the number of frequency pairs is extremely limited. We spoke about this in my last video, and my idea was to say, okay, let's allow linking on two channels. Let's say channel twenty one and twenty two or what

I mean, pick two. I don't even care what they are. There's about eight repeater channels, and there's sixteen simplex channels and eight repeater channels in GMRS for a total of twenty two channels. So let's pick two of them that linking are allowed on, and the rest of them let's not link. I think that would be a good solution. Using all of them in one area for a single link system is extremely rude, particularly if you're going to

charge for access. This is actually happening in some areas still, So that's another thing we talked about. And a couple of you sent me an email about the North Georgia GMRS repeater system and I got some and now I don't have any I have no dog in this fight at all. I don't know these guys. I've never met them, never talked in this repeater system. But I'm told through a lot of emails and a lot of comments that I got on that last video that these guys are rude.

They link all the channels together into the same system, which is dumb. Why would you do that. That's a stupid thing to do. You've got eight different repeater frequencies you can use for GMRS repeaters. Why would you tie all of those into the same system. Why would you do that? Now you've got one channel, You've taken eight frequencies and tie them all, tying them all in together to the same linked repeater system over the Internet and

tying them across several states. So you've got one channel on GMRS that you can use on all these areas in all these channels effectively because they're all tied together. So you've taken away the possibility to use different channels for different groups and f the same time now they're all linked together. It's a stupid idea. I don't know why anyone would do that, why anyone would like using a system like that. And then the reply here says

many have received letters and stopped. I would like to see the evidence for many have received letters and stopped because I am not aware. I'm I know that the FCC has come down on a few people and said no, you can't do this anymore, and they stopped. But I know a few others kind of after all that, those are the people who didn't want to make waves. Kind of, after all that happened, then it wasn't you know. There's a lot of groups that are still doing it and

they don't care what the FCC says. So I wonder which group he's talking about there. The opinion held by some YouTube rando doesn't really matter. That's true. The only opinion right now that counts is in the US is the one held by the FCC until their legislation or

litigation compels them to change their position. This person can always take steps to attract the FCC's attention in order to set themselves up as a test case to be able to fight it out in court if they so choose, considering the courts have overturned that Chevron deference, it would depend on the Congress set forth in the Communications Act of nineteen thirty four and other legislation. Okay, good, this was an arrando. This was the owner of said link

systems who was also a Ham. I'm not sure who's he talking about that owns a link system on GMRS refuses to unlink him as also a Ham. I'm not sure who that is. Sounds like a randu who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. This person was a Ham and the owner of a link Gumborus Peter Sism I agree they are making stuff up. That doesn't make the person a Rando. Okay, they're talking about his identity there. Okay, so here we go. GMRS Emission Types Part ninety five.

Why doesn't everyone just forget about the silly repeater linking. Realize that AM is actually allowed on GMRS. Imagine that AM and single sideband on GMRS would be awesome. I don't think that this is true. Where are you seeing this in Part ninety five? Okay, let's look at this. Maybe I'm wrong ninety five dot one seven seven to one GMRS emission types. Each GMRS transmitter type must be designed to satisfy the emission capabilities rules in this section.

Operation of GMRS stations must also be in compliance with these rules. Each GMRS transmitter type must have the capability to transmit F three E or G three E transmissions only emissions types. All of these numbers here are authorized for GMRS. Equipment for which certification is sought under subpart may have capabilities to transmit other emission types intended for the use of other services, provided that these emission types

are deactivated when the equipment's used. GMRS A three E is AM voice and J three E a single sidebandvoys. And this guy replies and says, after doing some checking, the FCC has never certified, nor has any plans to sertify, any SSB equipment the GMRS band, So at this point in time. The use of SSB or any mode other than F three G three is illegally use type acceptance. That's kind of tricky. These emissions are allowed the reason that there aren't any type of accepted equipment because nobody

has ever made any. I don't think that this is correct. These emissions are allowed. And the reason that there aren't any type accepted equipments because nobody's ever made any. If this type was actually allowed, then the Chinese would be all over it, because the Chinese is the only ones making GMRS radios anyway, and they make a lot of CB radios in China, and a lot of CB radios

will do AM and single sideband. And the FCC has not certified any so they're going back and forth here talking about the FCC hasn't certified any that's why there aren't any. Says well, but it's still legal even though nothing's certified. It's illegal as a fallible statement. I don't know what that word is. The lack of GMRS type exerveted rigs capable of AM single sideband leaves no legal means there's no ambiguity there. We don't have to qualify

it by saying except perhaps sometime potential in the future. Okay, So I don't know if this is correct. In A three E and J three E is A three e's AM and J three E is sideband A three E transmissions? All right, here's Google's Actually this is braves Ai. The term A three E transmission appears to be a confusion between two distinct concepts, a radio emission designation and a

vehicle transmission. And the context of radio, a three E refers to a double sideband full carrier single, which is of course AM, the designation used here in amateur radio and other communication. Okay, so it looks like that is correct, and then A three is a type of transmission in an AUTI Okay, so let's just take that at face value. Then I have not heard of A three E or J three E. But uh, okay, J three E is single sideband voice, okay. A three is double sidemand which

is AM. Good. Okay. And then they go on to talk about other stuff here and inside of justification for linking inside of GMRS, Well, let me tell you something. If you really want to link repeaters and have a lot more space and a lot more channels, go get your hand radio license. Now he's saying that a lot of these guys are hands, and there are a lot

of Ham radio operators on GMRS. Pretty Much every time I get on in one of the GMRS repeaters here in the North Texas Dallas Fort Worth area, I talk to at least one or two other people who are Ham radio operators as well. So there are a lot of Hams on GMRS. But GMRS is still a great place to talk, a great other. It's just another frequency to talk on, another place to talk, another place to meet people, and it's a great stepping stone to get into amateur radio. And if you want to get into

amateur radio, I recommend Ham Radio Prep. Ham Radio Prep you can always get a twenty percent discount on all of their courses with the coupon code of Jason twenty. They have like a ninety nine point six pass rate, so and they guarantee that if you don't pass, you'll get your money back. So if you don't want to get your m radio license because you think you won't pass, or you think it's too complicated, get Ham Radio Prep.

Try it out. If it doesn't work out, they'll refund you, but you will most likely pass your test because they do such a great job getting people licensed and upgraded in Mateur radio. Check out the link in the description below and really appreciate them sponsoring this channel. So I like this comment right here, this guy a Meadman one twenty seven. See if I can make that a little bit bigger. Okay, the intent of gmrs is to facilitate

short range local area communication. He is correct. Is correct, and it says that in Part ninety five, linked repeater systems tend to cover half a state or the entire state, thus no longer facilitating local area communication. With the Internet, link repeaters can enable cross country communication. Most of the links repeaters I'm aware of for GMRS use the Internet for the link. Yeah, like an all Star type system. That's correct. They're only eight repeater pairs for GMRS, and

the outputs are shared with Simplex. With Simplex use some areas there are were link repeters on all eight pairs, make it impossible for someone to set up their own repeter that is not part of a link system, or to use the outputs of the Simplex Jones. I personally see no reason to link GMR recipeaters when ham Radio allows the use of link repeater systems, while they are a limited number of repeater pairs and Ham radio sort of,

especially if you follow the AARA bandplan. There's a lot more repeater pairs available on HAM radio than gmrs, so limited numbers. So what he's saying here, I think, while there are a limited number of Peter pairs and Ham radio, yes, because on the four forty band you can only link between four hundred and forty four hundred and fifty megahertz. On the two meter band you can only link from like one forty five mega hurts and up. I think,

but we have multiple bands. You've got six meters ten meters two meters two twenty mega hurts, one point two five meters seventy centimeters, nine hundred mega hurts, one point two one point two gig hurts. So there's more places to link repeaters together in HAM radio because we just have more frequencies. Don't forget that the HAM world repeaters are generally coordinated with the regional authority. Yes, Ham radio

repeaters typically are coordinated by the local repeater coordinator. It isn't required to go through the report coordinator, it's just good practice to use him. He's completely correct there. It's not required, but if you're in a dense repeater area, it's usually a good idea to go through the coordination. So that is so, and then they go on here and they talk about back and forth ideas like that, which some good points there. Case in point right here

in GGMRS, which is North Georgia. GMRS covers almost three states. I've found one repeater not linked to them, but no one talks on it due to limited range, good catch. There are three to four repeaters in that area that aren't linked. What's wild about n GGMRS is that many of them are hams. Yeah, so if they're hams and they're linking the repeaters together, then they're technically not doing

legal things. So a lot more comments here. Some of these comments are good, some of them are not so good. Some of them are kind of argumentative, and people get kind of heated in some of them. But you know, I will put a link to this article in the description below. But I'd like to know what you think. I've asked this question before on previous videos, and I'd like to know what you think. What justification do you have?

Let me put it this way, The point of This article is to the question the original poster is asking, is how can you justify this when the FCC has clearly said it's not allowed, okay, and people are like, well, screw that, I'm just gonna do it anyway. And a lot of these guys are hams according to this article, Okay, sorry, you're breaking the lot. It's not allowed. You shouldn't be doing that, and the FCC should come and find you if you're doing something you're not supposed to do. Okay.

I am talking about should it be disallowed or should it be allowed? Okay. The fact that it is not allowed right now is no bearing on the fact that should we discuss this and petition the s to make it allowed? Okay. I'm not saying that, Oh well, it's it's not allowed, but do it anyway. Nobody cares. Some

people do care. And apparently these idiots that are linking all eight repeater channels together across a wide area that effectively, like I said, turn eight channels into one channel so that you get on GMRS and everyone all the frequencies. Is the same conversation going on. Give me a break, Why would you do that? That completely defeats the purpose of having multiple channels on GMRS. So, but leaving that aside for the moment, should we petition the FCC to allow,

like I said, one or two channels. Say, okay, we can do channels twenty one and twenty two or eighteen and nineteen or whatever. Pick two. Okay, maybe just one, just channel twenty two, Just link channel twenty two together, leave everything else alone. Okay, But I would like to see at least one or two where linking is allowed, and then everything else used for local comms the way that GMRS was originally intended to do, and keep using

it so that it's actually beneficial. Because if you're linking several states together and linking all the channels together to just have a conversations your system that you've spent hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars on, that's not beneficial to anybody. Yeah, you can talk to your buddies a couple of states over, great, Okay, but that's not benefiting. It's general mobile radio service, Okay,

it's not your personal radio service. You want to get a personal radio service, go get your own frequency pair and do whatever the heck you want to do with it. You can encrypt it. You can do all kinds of stuff with a frequency pair that you purchase of your own, Okay, but for gmrs, that's not really what it's for. It's supposed to be for local comms. What do you guys think about linking gmrs? Should we petition the FCC? Should

we have one or two frequencies? Should we say nope, it should not be allowed and these guys should be fine. Or should we just open it up as a free for all for everybody. I would like to know what you think in the comment section. Blow Thanks for watching, and if you enjoyed this video, check out these over here. And one of them is going to be that previous video that I linked for GMRS comments that I've seen up until now. Seventy three guys, we'll catch you next time.