marcspaz

This is just an "I think"... but I am pretty sure property rights can't possibly apply in this situation. Someone is not taking physical possession or control of the radio. The owner of the radio is in possession of the radio and the radio is doing exactly what the owner of the radio programmed the radio to do. A person nor business does not have the right to not receive open-air radio transmissions on their receiver. Its just not possible. The airways are open to the public. Saying "you can't transmit transmit in 467.700 with a tone of 146.2 because I don't want to hear you on my receiver" is the equivalent of calling iHeartMedia and telling them the need to stop broadcasting because you don't want to hear them on your AM/FM radio. They will just laugh at you and hangup. And that is if they are nice about it. Now, if iHeartMedia has a transmitter that is malfunctioning and causing harmful interference to a device you own, now you have some grounds to at least start having a conversation.

I agree with all of your comments... Especial having it be the courteous thing to do. Some of my posts can get a bit spicy, so I feel it's important to point out that while I am having a conversation about not needing permission from a legal or regulatory standpoint, I do agree that it's someone's personal belonging, that we are using (or asking to use), and as a civilized society we should be mindful and respectful of that.

We are discussing GMRS, which has different rules, but for the sake of discussion... First, why would I be on those GMRS frequencies. Well, to use the repeater that the owner may otherwise want you to ask for permission, or any other repeater on the same frequency. There is a lot of overlap in the DC metro area. I can be heard on 3 different repeaters on .600 in my area when I am only using 20w. Also, fixed stations may transmit on those 8 channels without going through a repeater. I disagree about the interference and trespass concerns based on the FCC rules for Amateur Radio and trespass laws. If I am using a repeater without the owners consent, I am not causing interference nor trespassing. Use of the repeater itself is not causing interference. Intentionally talking over people and making it so others can't use it (or the frequency) falls under the harmful interference rules, which would be different than needing permission. Again, there are no laws that I have been able to find implying trespass on non-real property. I have two points to debate on this comment. Again, you are referencing Amateur Radio, not GMRS. There are different rules. Additionally, there are only 3 letters I could find that were issued to amateurs in the last 10 years for using a single repeater. All 3 letters were sent in 2017, went to 3 different people, and the complainants were the same person/trustee complaining about 3 people causing problems at or around the same time, preventing the trustee and club members from using their own repeater. So, there was a lot more to it than just not having prior authorization to use the repeater. With regard to GMRS, I cannot find a single direct warning letter for GMRS repeater use refusal. Not one. Meaning, there are no publicly available FCC warning letters or Notices of Apparent Liability that mirror the amateur radio pattern above, i.e., issued to a GMRS operator for continuing to use a repeater after being told not to. FCC rules clearly grant GMRS repeater owners control, but enforcement is murky at best. According to Part 95 rules noted in an earlier post, a GMRS licensee “may disallow the use of its GMRS repeater by specific persons as may be necessary” to carry out responsibilities under the rules. This implies the owner can refuse access. However, there’s no record of the FCC stepping in if a GMRS user ignored a private owner’s request to stop using a repeater, unlike the amateur (Part 97) precedent. Also, in 1999 the FCC issued a formal opinion in WT Docket 98-20, 96-188, RM-8677 and RM-9107 (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-99-139A1.pdf) about implementing a rule to require users to get permission to use a repeater 'prior' to repeater use. It has not been brought up since. Here is the text... "...repeater operators ask that we require users to have permission before using others' repeaters. We decline to adopt such a rule because it would interject the Commission into a GMRS licensee's private management of its GMRS system, including its repeaters. Such a rule also would be inconsistent with our efforts to eliminate unnecessary regulations and burdens for GMRS licensees and applicants. We emphasize that users are free to take steps to prevent unauthorized use of their facilities, including turning the repeater off as necessary, limiting or disabling receiver sites, and using tone-operated squelch or digital access codes. Moreover, the rule suggested by petitioners would do nothing to change access to repeater; even with the rule, an unauthorized user could cause a repeater to transmit, absent some engineering solution to limit access to the repeater input." Short of a new opinion from the FCC or a rule change, this very clearly states that GMRS repeater owners are on their own if they want an operator to stop using their repeater.

I personally filed a complaint a few years ago. They told me it wasn't a rule violation unless the person was transmitting in such a way that they were causing harmful interference. No such harmful interference was occurring, so the FCC opted not to take any action. They told me that it was up to me to resolve any access control issues. That's the very reason why the two repeaters located at my house are always off unless I plan on using them specifically. I got tired of a troublemaker causing problems for me.

This section confirms my opinion, putting the responsibility of stopping undesired access on the owner. It doesn't say other licensees need permission.

I Don't Need Permission to Use Your Repeater - Change My Mind This isn't an attack on anyone... just meant to stimulate conversation. I am 100% open to hearing dissenting opinions. Lets chat. So, this happened to a friend of mine recently. He used a repeater that the owner did not expressly say he was approved to use. The repeater owner/manager sought him out off the air, told him that he isn't authorized and to not use it again. Here are some facts, that are not open for debate... In some states, a person is not criminally trespassing on realty unless a person has been notified by the realty owner either verbally, with signs, etc., followed by a complaint filed with the courts, a judge agrees with the realty owner and issues a court order for that person to stay off the property, AND THEN that person returns to the property. There is no other private trespass beyond unauthorized access to private real property. Also, the FCC has already published an opinion that they will not modify the rules requiring operators to gain permission to use another licensee's repeater. Literally every license holder has equal right to use every frequency, every tone, every code, etc. If your repeater receives my signal and re-transmits my signal, that is not my problem. As the repeater owner and licensee, by FCC rule, YOU are responsible for what is transmitted by your radio. It is up to you to manage things accordingly, including intentional or unintentional transmitting of another radio's signal. Here is the opinion... if I need a judge to agree with me that someone shouldn't be on my property and issue a court order to keep them out of my house, and the FCC said they aren't requiring permission, why should I ask for permission to use a repeater? Maybe as a courtesy? Why else? I mean, as a repeater owner, part of me thinks it would be nice to be able to have some teeth behind efforts to stop a troublemaker from using my repeater. Another part of me thinks, I sure as heck don't want to try to track and manage potentially hundreds or even thousands of operators on my repeater. I am way too busy for that. Not to mention I am not spending thousands and thousands of dollars to have the systems sit there and not be used. That would be such as waste. If the FCC says I don't need permission and it's up to the owner to use technology to manage access, and state laws have set precedent on what trespass is through State Code and Tort Law (which is limited to real property), then I don't need permission to use your repeater... change my mind!

I wasn't talking about the spring on the antenna. You said you were considering a fold-over mount to lay the antenna down when no in use. I was discussing that, because most of them are spring loaded to control the hinge function. I should have been more clear about what part I was talking about. This whole comment tells me that you don't understand antenna design, what a the wavelength of the frequency is, proper antenna size base on the wavelength and antenna design..... and you shouldn't have to, to buy a radio and antenna to use the radio.... my fault for mentioning it. I should probably just wait for people to ask for an explanation instead of mudding the response.

Im curious... what made you draw that opinion? Nothing I wrote is factually incorrect and is related to you inquiry. Which is part of my confusion about your statement of me. I want to know why you wrote that, so i can correct my replies in the future, that way they can be more well understood. Not only have I seen them, I have also installed several of both models for friends. I also described some drawbacks of spring-loaded fold down mounts (both separate or if built into the antenna). Additionally, due to both antennas having a vertical radome significantly larger than 1 full wavelength on GMRS frequencies, I tried to explain how stacked element antennas are designed (leading to their extreme size for the frequency) and how they work, but in a way to understand the concept without a lot of fundamental knowledge of electronics and antenna propagation and design.

I feel the community at large is welcoming. There are a lot of people i have met that love to share knowledge and experiences. Especially to help new people. I will say that there are several things that happen that can make some individuals seem abrasive. One is a combination of two things, being some folks just don't do well expressing opinions in writing, and others read things that have been written and attribute malice when there was no intent. Both of these cases can lead to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Another issue is that some people (including myself on occasion) have decades of experience, correct someone who is simply mistaken, and then the thread turns into a shit-show because ego starts to kick in. That said, i feel like those instances are far and few between. I also know for a fact that several members here argue like they hate each other, but are literally friends and spend social time together in person. (This applies to me and a small group here, too) So, not everything here is as it seems. So, generally speaking, I think GMRS operators and the community at large are welcoming and friendly. I would hope money isn't the only reason. I have seen Rich be very forgiving to people on all sides, paid members and free members. That said, if there truly is a problem with someone, paid member or not, I think there should be some grace... but if it's not resolved, definitely let them go after a few attempts.

Again, just my personal opinion, what you used to do for a living has nothing to do with membership value. With the exception of the privilege of saying they are a member, what does the organization bring to the table, that we cannot otherwise get for free somewhere else?

Eh... I do all of this for free for 3 different groups... we have people who volunteer time and I pay for all of our digital footprint. Unlimited storage, unlimited throughput, unlimited email accounts and email storage for $150 per year. Few bucks per registered URL / Domain. I spend more for dinner for my family one night out at a restaurant than for our internet footprint for a year. Having donation options would be one thing, but there is zero chance you're convincing me that you need to collect a membership fee to cover costs, imho

I've mentioned it repeatedly, and in great detail, that the treaty has been amended / replaced with a new treaty that removes the restrictions for our frequencies. Regardless of what is on your previous copies of your license, it is no longer in affect.

I see it's pay-to-play... No thanks. I don't need a Home Owners Association for my radio use. LoL

Are you talking about the VHF stuff?

We should schedule a 0700 breakfast meet up at the County Hospital cafeteria! We need to wear hats with our call signs and or favorite PT t-shirt. LoL