A message from David Adriaanse, WQVS960, AZ License Holder, Southwest Community Radio System
In Reference to: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-821A1.pdf
I want to be straight with our members about something happening in the GMRS world, and a decision I’ve made because of it in our Arizona territory.
Recently, the FCC issued a Notice of Violation to another GMRS operator over their internet-linked repeater network, alleging that the practice exceeds what the rules allow. I’ve followed this closely, and I believe there’s a real, defensible legal argument that the rule the FCC is relying on doesn’t actually say what they claim it says. But “defensible” isn’t the same as “certain,” and this is playing out against operators (some reckless, some not) in a way that makes the whole practice of linking a target nationally, regardless of how responsibly any individual group has run it.
We’ve always tried to be the kind of organization that gets ahead of what’s coming rather than reacting after the fact, and have remained very vigilant, proactive (as in our recurring surveys to all our regional GMRS users, not just our members), and attentive to coverage overlaps and potential channel congestion as the GMRS spectrum is limited to 8 repeater channels, often restructuring our sites and configurations as needed to provide the best overall use and value to the GMRS community at large. I’ve been monitoring the regulatory environment around linked GMRS networks for over a decade on this matter, and this recent enforcement action confirmed to me that it was time to make the shift proactively rather than reactively. So, effective Sunday night, August 9 (after that evening’s regional net) I am disabling remote modulation on the repeaters operating under my license here in Arizona. This wasn’t an easy call, a lot of you rely on and enjoy that connectivity, myself included, especially in the particular remote areas we are blessed with in this state but where cell service doesn’t reach. But, I’d rather make this change on my own terms, deliberately, than have it forced on me later.
Let me be unambiguous about why: this is risk control, not an admission of fault. I think the FCC’s current interpretation of its own rule is bogus – asserted as if it were the text of the rule when it plainly isn’t. Nothing about this change should be read as agreement that my prior configuration was unlawful. It’s a judgment call about where to spend my energy and my risk tolerance right now, not a concession that anything SWCRS or I have done is wrong.
What I’m Keeping
To be clear about my position: remote control of a GMRS station is remote control, plain and simple. Remote receive, remote carrier detection, remote transmit, remotely modulated audio: these are all facets of one thing, operating a station from somewhere other than where the transmitter sits. That’s what “linking” actually is. The FCC’s Notice of Violation submitted to NGGMRS cites § 95.1749 as the basis for the alleged violation. Here’s what that rule actually says:
GMRS repeater, base, and fixed stations may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control.
That’s the entire operative scope of the rule. It doesn’t limit “remote control” to any specific subset of control functions, doesn’t distinguish receive from transmit, and doesn’t say anything at all about audio content; it’s undefined and therefore unconstrained. The FCC’s Notice now asserts that “remote control” excludes carrying audio content between stations, but that limitation doesn’t appear anywhere in the rule’s actual text. It’s the Bureau’s opinion, asserted as if it were the rule. I think that’s a meaningful distinction, and I’m not conceding it by making this change.
It’s also worth addressing the other relevant rule in this same neighborhood that the notice to NGGMRS doesn’t cite, likely because it remains irrelevant: Within the Code of Federal Regulations there is a prohibition on connecting a GMRS station to the public switched network – meaning hardwired wireline connections. We don’t do that, and never have. Our methodology is not wireline; it is solely wireless by definition. We also don’t connect our stations to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), the traditional copper telephone system, in any form. That prohibition, plainly, is not how we are configured.
Why I’m Not Fighting This Right Now
I want to be honest with the membership about my reasoning here, because it isn’t that I think the FCC is right.
First, the practical reality: fighting this properly – through counsel, through a formal response, potentially through appeal – costs real money and real time and never truly absolves all risk, and that burden falls on the individual holding the license, myself, not the SWCRS organization as an abstraction. I’d rather put that energy into keeping this network reliable for our 1,700 members than into a prolonged fight over a rule I expect to change anyway regardless of if my interpretation would be deemed correct or not.
Second, and more importantly: I believe the FCC is very likely to open a formal rulemaking on this issue at some point in the near future, precisely because the current rule text remains ambiguous; the FCC has only formalized its stance with this Notice, not necessarily made it enforceable as a settled matter. When that happens, I expect the national GMRS community’s comments to push the Commission toward resolving the ambiguity, likely by writing a rule that says plainly what linking may or may not include, closing the exact gap I’m relying on today. I’d rather not spend resources defending a reading of the rule that I expect the rulemaking process itself to settle, one way or another, in the near future. It is better to put my effort into adapting our group ahead of that outcome than into a fight over language I don’t expect to survive unchanged in the long run regardless.
To be clear about the flip side: if that eventual rulemaking clarifies the rule in all our favor, confirming that remote control includes no control limitations, we will restore this configuration as it was, without hesitation. This change is a response to present uncertainty, not a permanent retreat from a position I believe remains correct.
That said, given where enforcement is heading nationally, I’m choosing to narrow my operations voluntarily rather than wait for the FCC to draw the line for me. Going forward, systems under my license will focus on local control functions and site health monitoring, with the ability to enable or disable a site remotely as needed, consistent with the FCC’s narrower interpretation published in the NOV. I’ll share more detail on the specifics as this transition is finalized.
I am not turning off emergency traffic monitoring and alerting functions. This capability has, on multiple occasions, allowed us to catch and respond to incidents that would otherwise have gone unheard — this isn’t theoretical, it has saved lives, and in a true emergency, that’s all that matters. That’s not something I’m willing to give up, and I intend to preserve it within whatever configuration keeps me on solid legal ground going forward, although unfortunately it will be significantly more limited in capability due to the FCC’s stance on the matter and will require users to know how to actually call up the functions rather than relying on simply being heard.
Why I’m Also Doing This
It’s worth saying plainly: a rule that eliminates linking outright would be a true disservice to folks out here. The vast distances and public land we contend with in the Southwest are a different world from what’s likely familiar to the people writing and enforcing these rules from DC and the other easternly field offices. A single, unlinked repeater’s footprint just doesn’t hold up against the terrain and mileage we’re covering; some repeaters serving remote areas of our state have 100-mile radius footprints with absolutely nobody monitoring the repeater except through remote-control links. This isn’t a convenience question, it’s a coverage-gap question, in places where that gap can be the difference between someone being heard and someone not being heard at all in a time of need.
Longer term, I believe the FCC is likely to issue new rules that address linking directly – probably a few years out, after a public comment period. I am genuinely worried that period will be dominated by the recklessness of a handful of larger, higher-visibility networks nationally, making it easy for the Commission to simply prohibit linking outright rather than write something that distinguishes responsible, community-based use from the bad actors. I’m not willing to bet the existence of this network on how that plays out. I’d rather build toward ground that isn’t shaky – which increasingly means our amateur radio infrastructure, where linking is unambiguously permitted under Part 97. Expect to hear more about growing that side of the network in the near future.
What You Can Do
Maintain our Community
Each of our repeaters have their own community, with the connections between them going quiet; I encourage you all to find those local to you and keep using the equipment. Let us know if it’s not working right, find who else keeps an ear on them, and put together your own local nets – if you want to be formally listed on our website for these nets, all you need to do is shoot me an email: wqvs960@swcrs.org
Raise your Voice
The FCC is a federal agency, and Arizona’s congressional delegation can raise concerns with the Commission on behalf of constituents. If this issue matters to you, particularly if you live somewhere GMRS is a real public-safety lifeline, not a convenience, I’d encourage you to reach out to your representative and senators.
Arizona’s U.S. Senators (statewide):
- Senator Mark Kelly
- Senator Ruben Gallego
Arizona’s U.S. House Delegation (by district):
- AZ-1 — David Schweikert
- AZ-2 — Elijah Crane
- AZ-3 — Yassamin Ansari
- AZ-4 — Greg Stanton
- AZ-5 — Andy Biggs
- AZ-6 — Juan Ciscomani
- AZ-7 — Adelita Grijalva
- AZ-8 — Abraham Hamadeh
- AZ-9 — Paul Gosar
Not sure which district you’re in? Use the official lookup tool at house.gov to find your representative, and contact both senators’ offices directly through senate.gov — I’m intentionally not listing phone numbers here since office contact info changes; the .gov directories will always have the current information.
Sample message you’re welcome to use or adapt:
Subject: FCC Enforcement Against GMRS Repeater Remote Control Linking — Rural Public Safety Impact
I’m a constituent and a member of a community GMRS network here in Arizona. I’m writing because the FCC has begun enforcement action (a recent Notice of Violation citing 47 CFR § 95.1749) against GMRS operators who link repeaters to extend coverage.
In rural parts of Arizona, cell coverage is often nonexistent, and linked GMRS repeater networks have functioned as a genuine public-safety resource — allowing community volunteers to detect and respond to emergency traffic across areas that would otherwise go unmonitored. I’d ask that as the FCC considers its approach to this issue, it distinguish between reckless commercial operators and responsible, community-run networks that have operated transparently and with real regard for spectrum use and public safety. A blanket rule that eliminates linking entirely, without that distinction, would be a real loss for rural communities like ours.
I’d appreciate your office looking into this and, if appropriate, raising it with the FCC.
Thank you for your time and representation.
I’ll keep members updated as this develops. Thank you for your patience and understanding as I navigate this – this network exists because of this community, and every decision we make is with that in mind.
— David