Posted: 8/5/2026 7:38:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: swampfoxoutdoors][Edited]
|
Long story short, guy who owns NorthGaGMRS has been under fire for the last few years in his monopolization and networking of linked GMRS repeaters in all of GA. He has faced backlash from the GMRS community for his domination of all GMRS repeater frequency pairs in the area with pirates constantly jamming or playing recorded transmission on his wide area linked network.The guy runs a YT channel and plays a weird radio show/ Net on the air with his linked GMRS repeaters. Many that get into GMRS just pay him for club membership and use of the machines without knowing all the bad stuff going on in the background. But is appears someone has finally got the FCC coming down on them. Link to PDF https://nggmrs.org/ |
|
That pretty nukes all linked GMRS repeaters. It doesn't actually say that you can't link repeaters but the link connection can only be for control use only. He controls most of SouthEast TN as well. This is not going to end well to those with GMRS repeaters being private and paid to use. Not to say that donations can't be accepted but to require a membership to use a public COMMUNITY frequency is probably going to end. With the FCC stating what the purpose of GMRS is for required memberships do not fit in to that purpose. |
Tennessee Squire
|
Originally Posted By SandHillsHillbilly: That pretty nukes all linked GMRS repeaters. It doesn't actually say that you can't link repeaters but the link connection can only be for control use only. He controls most of SouthEast TN as well. This is not going to end well to those with GMRS repeaters being private and paid to use. Not to say that donations can't be accepted but to require a membership to use a public COMMUNITY frequency is probably going to end. With the FCC stating what the purpose of GMRS is for required memberships do not fit in to that purpose. Collecting user fees to put towards system operation is specifically authorized by 47 CFR 95.1705(f)(3)(ii). Radioshooter is spot-on about site rent. Furthermore, 47 CFR 95.1705(d) establishes the authority of repeater owners to limit who may access their repeater. |
|
Originally Posted By sabocat: Collecting user fees to put towards system operation is specifically authorized by 47 CFR 95.1705(f)(3)(ii). Radioshooter is spot-on about site rent. Furthermore, 47 CFR 95.1705(d) establishes the authority of repeater owners to limit who may access their repeater. And it is 100% legal to collect a small fee for use of the repeaters as long as the money goes towards maintenance, site rent, and other necessary fees associated with running a repeater. The biggest thing agains NGGMRS is the fact that they have over 20 repeaters linked and on all 8 GMRS repeater channels. |
DAV lifetime member
NRA Patriot Life Benefactor
NRA Patriot Life Benefactor
NotARubicon released a video on the topic yesterday. Not much sympathy for NGGMRS in the comment section, especially from folks in the area who have been waiting for enforcement for some time, given NGGMRS monopolized and monetized all the repeater channels. North Georgia GMRS Repeater Network Hit With FCC Violation Notice |
|
Originally Posted By radioshooter: The reason for user fees is site rent costs which can be $1000 a month or more. Repeaters on continuous linking wastes scarce channels. I read the rr write up. People in the know say NGGMRS has lawyered up, but they will probably lose in court. I’m well aware of cost I have 4 machines up. But have never required anyone to pay me for use of the machines. But that’s ham vs GMRS. My biggest problem I have with NGGMRS is his dominating position is GMRS. I have spoken with an individual who wanted to put up a free public use GMRS machine and NGGMRS got all mad that they were going to have a machine up that would possibly interfere with them. This machine would have been a good 50-60miles from any of there sites and not have much of a footprint. I was also told that they were setting themselves up as a “frequency coordinating agency” for the south east since they didn’t get their way with sera. I haven’t looked into that claim or them being a coordinator but makes sense. But could be false. |
|
Originally Posted By SandHillsHillbilly: That pretty nukes all linked GMRS repeaters. It doesn't actually say that you can't link repeaters but the link connection can only be for control use only. He controls most of SouthEast TN as well. This is not going to end well to those with GMRS repeaters being private and paid to use. Not to say that donations can't be accepted but to require a membership to use a public COMMUNITY frequency is probably going to end. With the FCC stating what the purpose of GMRS is for required memberships do not fit in to that purpose. This has been a settled issue for a while now. There were some internet-linked repeaters up in IIRC NY that were hit with a takedown a few years ago. |
|
Originally Posted By Hayashi_Killian: This has been a settled issue for a while now. There were some internet-linked repeaters up in IIRC NY that were hit with a takedown a few years ago. |
"I've always felt that the real horror is next door to us, that the scariest monsters are our neighbors."
-George A. Romero
-George A. Romero
|
Originally Posted By Spydermonkey: That one went quite a ways, so there must've been links outside of NY. I just got into GMRS a couple months before it was taken down. It went from OH to ME and one guy in ON Canada. Theres a guy here now in CNY that turns his repeater on 2-3x a week on ch 15 and all the node connections are announced when it starts up. He connects his buddies in AZ and FL for about 2hrs and then shuts it all down. Distance doesn't matter. It was already quite clear: you can't link repeaters together, and you can only use internet for a control link, not a data/content link. People are thinking this is some new issue, no, it's been settled for a while now. |
|
Originally Posted By phlat: Linked repeaters are a fun technological thing, except 2 people can tie up every repeater. That’s what ends up happening here. You have 2 old guys 4mi apart tying up all the available GMRS repeater pairs in the whole metro and northern part of a state. |
| If he's got that kind of money and doing it as a business just LMR license everything. Rent out repeater access. DMR would allow lots of options in linking. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
|
Originally Posted By Hayashi_Killian: Distance doesn't matter. It was already quite clear: you can't link repeaters together, and you can only use internet for a control link, not a data/content link. People are thinking this is some new issue, no, it's been settled for a while now. Since this isn't GD, I'll leave it at that. |
"I've always felt that the real horror is next door to us, that the scariest monsters are our neighbors."
-George A. Romero
-George A. Romero
|
This is why we can't have nice things. Maybe the FCC will make it expensive and painful enough for North Ga and others to stop being stupid. |
“Every man has two deaths, when he is buried in the ground and the last time someone says his name. In some ways, men can be immortal. “ - Ernest Hemingway
|
Originally Posted By Gamma762: If he's got that kind of money and doing it as a business just LMR license everything. Rent out repeater access. DMR would allow lots of options in linking. Doesn't LMR radio services have to lease to qualified users such as businesses, public safety, etc. Individuals would "technically" not meet the requirements. |
| A ham youtuber did a vid in the last couple days with some quick math. Knowing what the guy was charging for the membership tiers, his estimate was maybe a bit on the high end. He guessimated that there was about $310k being made per year. |
"I've always felt that the real horror is next door to us, that the scariest monsters are our neighbors."
-George A. Romero
-George A. Romero
|
If your in the Ga area tune in to the North Ga GMRS network system. Pretty epic fussing cussing and threatening killing each other over the airwaves lol. Been going on for 30min or so. Real classy stuff all the way around . Edit: it’s stopped for now. Was able to record the below. I’d say 30-40% of the traffic I hear on the scanner when walking by is this. A lot of recordings played calling for the removal of the linked system. Even hear what sounded like a rock song that was AI making fun of the system and system manager/owner. Was actually impressive someone spent that much time on the garbage.  8-15-26 North Georgia GMRS networked traffic |
|
There was an update that went out to membership the other day (I am not a member but the contents were posted on another forum) but I'll provide the jist. Essentially NGGMRS acknowledges the NOV, has conferred with legal council, and decided that currently there is not a funding source to allow them to challenge the NAL even though their council believes they have a strong base to challenge. It goes on to say that they believe it is in the best intrest of GMRS to not monopolize spectrum and allow GMRS to be a local comms resource but they will continue to encourage the migration to their "sister" amateur system where linking is not an issue and continue to offer free amateur licensing exams to promote amateur radio. They also stated that the have made a plan to comply and have all of the linking off by October 1, 2026 (six weeks from now). Keep in mind, the FCC is not yet asking for forfeiture of equipment. Simply a response to the letter explaining the circumstances, the side of the licensee as to why they may or may not believe they are in violation and then a timeline as to when the licensee will have everything corrected. My opinion on "linking" GMRS is technically it's still a gray area. Part 95.1749 (GMRS Network Connection) does specifically allow for network connection for the purposes of remote control. Part 95.303 also defines remote control operation as operation of a transmitter from any point not within the immediate vicinity (same premises, vehicle, or craft). The implication is that it does include keying/unkeying of the transmitter and passing of audio. Further the Part 95.1733(a)(8) does consider a message conveyed over both a wireline and transmitted via GMRS to be a prohibited use. The issue with this statement (which the FCC relies heavily on as to why GMRS repeaters cannot be linked) is the complete lack of a definition of the term wireline. In fact, a wireline is not defined anywhere within Chapter 1 of the CFR so you can't even pull up like definitions from other Parts to reference. Chapter 4 (or is it 5) does make reference to wire communications which doesn't really apply if you are using fiber or wireless technologies to transport that data. There are also a few references to wireline as a service…but part of the requirements for that is the wireline has to leave the premises and the wireline has to be owned by a third party (such as a telco) so it's not considered a service if you own the wire from point a to point b (but a wire communication). So while I believe there are technical gaps in the FCC's argument, I will also be one of the first to say the way which NGGMRS was built was not in support of the service. It's one thing to build a voting or simulcast system to make up for coverage deficiencies of a repeater but a massive network that can occupy all available pairs in areas of overlapping coverage is not courteous nor is it benefiting the users. Linking two or three systems together from a single control point on a temporary basis (say an exercise or actual event) is one thing, voting on a single system is okay, adding simulcast transmitters may be pushing it but a full time link system on multiple channels, definitely outside of better operating practices. |
"Have you heard of the Gospel according to NIMS?" - Some EMC...Probably
|
Originally Posted By zapzap: It goes on to say that they believe it is in the best intrest of GMRS to not monopolize spectrum and allow GMRS to be a local comms resource but they will continue to encourage the migration to their "sister" amateur system where linking is not an issue and continue to offer free amateur licensing exams to promote amateur radio. Government of the fee country: 
|
|
We don't need (more of) that kind of nonsense from that video on the amateur service. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
|
Originally Posted By zapzap: Essentially NGGMRS acknowledges the NOV, has conferred with legal council, and decided that currently there is not a funding source to allow them to challenge the NAL even though their council believes they have a strong base to challenge. Originally Posted By zapzap: Essentially NGGMRS acknowledges the NOV, has conferred with legal council, and decided that currently there is not a funding source to allow them to challenge the NAL even though their council believes they have a strong base to challenge. I'm not sure how. The other common CFR that you didn't quote that the FCC used in its previous ruling back in 2024 is thus: § 95.1749 GMRS network connection. Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745. That seems extremely unambiguous. Connected to other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control would completely eliminate any idea of re-broadcasting, transmitting, or any other word you can think of for regular traffic. I would interpret the wireline message as a remnant back when tele-operation was the only option and there wasn't internet links commonly available. It reads like it prohibits the use of a tele-operation as a means to send messages; wireline refers to broadband and formerly POTS links. |
|
Originally Posted By Hayashi_Killian: I'm not sure how. The other common CFR that you didn't quote that the FCC used in its previous ruling back in 2024 is thus: That seems extremely unambiguous. Connected to other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control would completely eliminate any idea of re-broadcasting, transmitting, or any other word you can think of for regular traffic. I would interpret the wireline message as a remnant back when tele-operation was the only option and there wasn't internet links commonly available. It reads like it prohibits the use of a tele-operation as a means to send messages; wireline refers to broadband and formerly POTS links. Yes but the definition of remote control is ambiquous as it implies not just remote operation of the transmitter. It is also not restricted to only a repeater but is remote control of a GMRS station. How can you remote control a station (not just a repeater) without sending audio over that control interface? But again it comes back to, if the transmitter is located on the same premises as the operator, it's not considered remote control. If it's not remote control, it can be a wireline as that refers to a provided service. So from a technical aspect, patching two control stations together to link two repeaters, is still within the technical limitations provided by the rules. The other issue, as ambiguous as the rules actually are for a lot of these matters, you really are getting into opinions that change how the rules are read. If they wanted to say no linking when they rewrote the rules in 2017, why didn't they just come out and say it? Now we are getting into yet another agency that is trying to change the meaning of CFRs by how they interpret them without going through the administrative process to actually change the CFR. |
"Have you heard of the Gospel according to NIMS?" - Some EMC...Probably
|
Originally Posted By zapzap: Yes but the definition of remote control is ambiquous as it implies not just remote operation of the transmitter. It is also not restricted to only a repeater but is remote control of a GMRS station. How can you remote control a station (not just a repeater) without sending audio over that control interface? Originally Posted By zapzap: Yes but the definition of remote control is ambiquous as it implies not just remote operation of the transmitter. It is also not restricted to only a repeater but is remote control of a GMRS station. How can you remote control a station (not just a repeater) without sending audio over that control interface? You're trying to argue what the definition of "is", is. And it doesn't work in most cases. Here's this: § 95.1749 GMRS network connection. Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745. This clearly delineates the difference between "control" and "operation". Furthermore, this section seem to further nail the coffin lid down: § 95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses. (a) In addition to the prohibited uses outlined in § 95.333 of this chapter, GMRS stations must not communicate: (8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station; As wireline covers both POTS and broadband, that would mean a station that is conveying messages either over POTS or broadband and retransmitting them would fall afoul of the latter. |
|
There's a lot of words about "wirelines", but what if the linking is all RF? Especially if it's just using receivers for other stations output signals? The wireline regulations were really there to prevent phone patches, to prevent GMRS from being used as a mobile phone system, dating from before the modern wireless phone industry. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
|
Originally Posted By Hayashi_Killian: You're trying to argue what the definition of "is", is. And it doesn't work in most cases. Here's this: This clearly delineates the difference between "control" and "operation". Furthermore, this section seem to further nail the coffin lid down: As wireline covers both POTS and broadband, that would mean a station that is conveying messages either over POTS or broadband and retransmitting them would fall afoul of the latter. Except you can have a private network completely off of the POTS and broadband network which is where that definition goes out the window. Instead of using plain language, the commission has chosen a bunch of ambiguous terms without proper definitions. Further the FCC does define operate in the rules. 47 CFR 95.303 Operate. Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. By the FCC's own definition, operate and control are the same term. Thus, remote control is remote operation and remote operation is remote control. This also means that by using a repeater, you are remotely controlling the transmitter of the repeater (in this case using in-band signaling). Originally Posted By Gamma762: There's a lot of words about "wirelines", but what if the linking is all RF? Especially if it's just using receivers for other stations output signals? The wireline regulations were really there to prevent phone patches, to prevent GMRS from being used as a mobile phone system, dating from before the modern wireless phone industry. There is nothing that says you can't unless you consider the interface between the repeater and link radio a wireline (and if so that would also make the interface between a receiver and transmitter a wireline as well, especially in the case of two mobile radios interfaced to create a repeater). One of the things I brought up, using a dispatch console or similar device to take two control stations each tuned to a different repeater and patch them together. It's not remote control or remote operation, it's not a wireline, and depending on the actual (undefined) definition of other network it may not be one of those either. Again, the rules are very ambiguous and when the FCC rewrote them they should have simply been rewritten in plain text it would have been much more clear and concise to have written the rules in a manner such as: Interconnection Prohibited Interconnection of GMRS stations to the Public Switched Telephone Network or for the purposes interconnecting multiple stations to one another is prohibited. Interconnection to a network is otherwise prohibited except for the purposes of remote control as provided in 95.1745. The FCC hasn't done that though. |
"Have you heard of the Gospel according to NIMS?" - Some EMC...Probably
|
Yesterday someone was jamming the NGGMRS networked system with a pre recorded message pointing out the recent FCC ruling. So if you lived in the Chattanooga or Atlanta area almost every available GMRS repeater pair was tied up with garbage. I live probably 15mi from a site and was able to hear it on 2 different outputs. So the Athens or Lula machine must be up or they have another site not listed on the map. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: So from a very casual reading of this debate, you can hook a GMRS repeater to the internet wirelessly (Starlink, WiFi, Cellular Data) but not via POTS or cable internet? What about fiber internet? And that's where the letter of the rules versus the spirit greatly differ. In honesty it becomes a case of, we know it doesn't say you can't do this but we are going to say you can't and don't care to fix it. |
"Have you heard of the Gospel according to NIMS?" - Some EMC...Probably