marcspaz

I hope you are right. Many people are uneasy about the circumstances and actions around the incident Randy highlighted... myself included.

Yes... All of the Personal Radio Services (including license by rule) allow license sharing. Then there are service such as Amateur Radio, which allow anyone to operate with the station call sign of the licensee. Business class radio typically covers all employees and family members. That is just the few that I know off the top of my head.

It's the General Mobile Radio Service... Not Family Radio Service, as determined by the frequencies and radio type. With the exception of some grandfathered businesses, anyone one with a license can conduct any personal or business related activities on the frequency as long as the person or business employees have their own license or the operator is covered under a family member's license. The idea that people are struggling with the intended purpose of the service is evident in posts like the ones I've quoted above. Just because the legal uses don't fall inside some box that you think it should, doesn't some how make it a rule violation or act of moral turpitude. I can't find a single action in the FCC database of a person being officially questioned, accused or charged with the act of solely having linked repeaters or solely using remote control over a network. I'm waiting for any proof of an official opinion from the FCC... any time in the last 10 years. Can you provide anything except for Randy's video and conjecture on the internet? Like, anything officially released from the FCC or US Congress?

Because of a single anecdotal and unofficial conversation between 2 people? Not sure how you get there. Part 95 definitions of Remote Control, Operate and Network Connection: Remote control: Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control. Operate: Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. Network connection: Connection of a Personal Radio Services station to the public switched network, so that operators of other stations in that service are able to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station. What is allowed: § 95.1745 "...GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.". § 95.1749 "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". What is not allowed: § 95.1749 "Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited".

Why? When we take the rules as a whole, its completely legal, as long as a GMRS user can't make or receive phone calls nor have data traverse the telephone network (which almost doesn't exist any longer).

I don't think it's happening anytime soon. The list for 2024 was already released, all the proposed changes from 2023 are still pending, and I think the next release won't be until April of 2025 (possibly later), unless there is an urgent or emergent request by the POTUS. There is nothing about GMRS or Part 95 in the current list of proposed rule makings and it may bee years, based on what the pattern has been.

I just don't understand why people keep saying this. It almost sounds like some people are jealous of successful clubs and networks, rather than interested the legality of the use and practical use cases. The rules about voice moving between systems over network-linked repeaters are vague in most cases, and flat-out contradict themselves in others. The FCC refuses to make an official statement or charge anyone. No operators "know" if its in scope of the rules or not.

I like knowing people's call signs if I talk to them frequently just because it's easier to call them on the radio. If I call someone's call sign I'm only going to get a response from the person I'm calling versus if I say hey Mark are you out there? I might get four people named Mark trying to reply to me. Something I do that helps me is I have a radio that records both sides of the conversation. That way I don't have to remember it. I just go back and listen to it again if I want to know.

You guys are making me jealous. I have a Jeep but I haven't had a sport car or muscle car in a long time.

I'm hoping someone can tell me what I am doing wrong with programing my HT with ODMaster. I have two issues I need some guidance on. Both devices are Android. When I load a profile image in CHIRP, I can setup an image to be in Channel Only mode, preventing changes to the radio. I can't find this setting in the image when I read/edit with ODMaster. Does anyone where where I can find that value toggle? I read a few post online that said something about being in an advanced menu, but mine doesn't have an option to display an advanced menu. The other issue is, when my phone or tablet are 100% offline, zero signal, etc., there are no TD-H3 profiles cached on the devices. If I connect via BT or not, there are no TD-H3 listings. The only way I can program my HTs with my phone or tablet is if the device has internet connectivity. The odd part is, when I first got the app, they were there, but now regardless of how many times I uninstall and reinstall the app, there are no TD-H3 offline connection profiles under "Select Model". The part that is really bugging me is, if I have an internet connection, but don't login to the app, the profiles then become available. So the app is still clearly linking back to the servers, even if I don't login. Anyone know how to cache the TD-H3 profiles for true offline use?

Memory is just fine. Do you remember if it was an FCC ruling or a court ruling? I would be curious to look it up myself. I actually do want to link and out of state repeater with an in-state repeater and the information would be helpful to me

There are some problems with your logic. First.. Amateur radio rules have exactly zero to do with GMRS rules. Don't waste time comparing them. Second, we (members of this forum and the GMRS community) have been debating on the rules and requested verification from the FCC if linking repeaters over public internet for the use of simulcast is within the scope of rules or a violation. There are several contradictions and vagueness in the rules about network connections that the user community just can't say for sure and the FCC is refusing to comment. (plenty of posts here about that) Last... this wasn't an FCC action. It was reportedly two people (FCC employee and a GMRS repeater owner) who are either friends, acquaintances or have some type of professional association, and the FCC employee started some unofficial communications with the GMRS repeater owner. It's unclear if it was a warning or a courtesy from an acquaintances/friend, or if an agent was subverting processes due to some pre-existing work relationship. In either case, there will not be any official documentation in the FCC database. Also, I personally am aware of several people in the professional comms world who are aware of this situation and asked their FCC POCs about this specific situation, as well as GMRS simulcast over public internet, in general terms. Those FCC POCs are refusing to comment on anything. Until formal action is taken and it ends up in court, everyone is just guessing at the regulation.

That is really weird to hear. The REACT team in the DCA doesn't own a single repeater. I don't think they charge to be a member either. That would be some shady stuff... for sure.

I agree.

There is nothing like that around here. At least not that I'm aware of.

Are people paying for repeater use, or are they members of a club that pay dues to be a club member, and only paying members can use club resources? I would think if the only resource is the repeater... that would seem to be a violation. Not that the FCC cares anyway. I am a member of a Jeep club. There are free memberships and paid memberships. Paid members can vote in club elections and have access to resources (such as training and trail guides) that non-paid members can't access.

Charging people to use a GMRS repeater is a rule violation. And as someone who lives in a densely populated area where 2 or 3 people own and operate wide coverage area repeaters on every pair, I definitely don't see frequency use even remotely close to considered overwhelmed. We have several wide coverage area repeaters here in the DC metro area. There are many smaller nested repeaters inside those coverage areas and they work well together since they have implemented different tone squelch settings. Even in heavily populated areas, like DCA with ~10M people, there are less than 8,000 active GMRS licensees in the area. It does not cause problems because of how little use there is. Some days, I may not hear any traffic at all. Also, I don't see a problem with a person having large coverage area repeaters on every pair due to the benefit to the community members, such as in a regional emergency or communications blackout. That far outweighs any perceived inconvenience from having a wide coverage area or a single person owning a repeater on every pair. Even day-to-day, families are using these machines to stay in touch in areas with no cell coverage. Friends are using them to stay in touch as a convenient alternative to cell phones, too. There are already antenna height and power limits. I'm not sure how we could tell people who live in a higher elevation that they can't have a repeater, though. I'm sure that would turn in to a Constitutional Rights court case. I don't think we should, either. EDIT: Quick note on power. I have a 50w repeater, but its only a 50% duty cycle at 50w. It's 100% duty cycle at 20w. After running through a duplexer and 150 feet of cable, only about 5w gets to the antenna. Even if I run the full 50w (since it never sees 100% duty cycle), I still only get about 12w to the antenna. It's not great. Sadly, the receive is impacted the same way. On the antenna height side, my antenna base is at 40 feet and I only get about 3 miles of coverage out of it due to the terrain, which also sucks. If me and my son hop in two vehicle and drive anywhere away from my house, we can talk 8+ miles. So, my repeater at my house with the specs you are talking about, performs worse than mobile simplex pretty much anywhere else but on my street.

What are you thinking of?

@SteveShannon i think in the case of PRS, operate and use are the same. The language has to be bland enough to cover the licensee's actions to include using the radio (personally) to transmit audio, GPS data, messaging data, CW or control commands. And it has to cover the licensee's family also performing those actions.

That is ironic. The part you have in bold is from the FCC website. Like... literally the actual regulation. I even put it in my opinion post and cited § 95.303 in that post. I'm going to have trouble agreeing with you on that one. Too bad, too. I was hoping to find some common ground. Go to this link for the Part 95 definitions and look at the definition of operate. Direct quote from the FCC website linked below... "Operate. Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting." https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95

A friend of mine who monitors this forum but doesn't post very often pointed out that you disagree with my synopsis view of remote control. However, it is not my synopsis, I literally copied and pasted from the FCC part 95 rule on their website defining remote control. I'm not sure I understand what you disagree with. So I can understand a little better, can you expand on what line or portion of my post you disagree with? I don't want to argue, I'm just trying to understand your point a little better.

I think I lost that debate.

Quick side note. You're opinion is always welcome. You may provide information I don't have or a point of view I haven't considered before, that make more sense. Even if the temporary end result is we are still in disagreement, that doesn't mean I don't like you or i don't respect your opinion and input. It just means that in that one specific instance, we simply hold a different point of view.

Okay, as I mentioned earlier... this is my breakdown of what the rules state. I am not a lawyer. However, I had studied Constitutional Law, the founding and framing of the US for 7 years, I worked with my state legislature to work on Bills, and I am a private sector Engineer who's primary focus is supporting all branches of US government in technology. What I have written below is 100% my opinion based on how I have interpreted the rules, based on my experiances. This is simply "use at your own risk" opinion sharing. I will caveat that, while I think I am correct, this will not stop an enforcement agent from misinterpreting the rules, sending no-no letters, enforcement action notifications or other enforcement actions that could be very, very costly for someone... even if found innocent in court. That is the main reason I think Randy's video, sharing the user's experience, is so important. It shines a light on government over-reach, inappropriate and unlawful actions, and intimidation tactics that are used by all branches of government. I feel like some people in every branch are banking on you/us having too much to lose to be willing to put up a fight. As individuals, regardless of if you agree with me or not, you have to make the determination as to if you are will to risk suffering the ramifications, win or lose. Let’s start with some general rules and definitions. § 95.345 states that remote control is prohibited in the PRS unless explicitly allowed in a specific service. Also, § 95.349 states that Connection to a public switched network is prohibited. Both Remote Control and Network Connection are defined in the rules for PRS, in § 95.303. Remote control: Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control. Operate: Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. Network connection: Connection of a Personal Radio Services station to the public switched network, so that operators of other stations in that service are able to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station. PRS Rules… § 95.345 Remote control. Operation of Personal Radio Services stations by remote control is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.945 and 95.1745. § 95.349 Network connection Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749. So, the default state is that Network Connections and Remote Control are prohibited. Now we must stack the GMRS rules on top of the PRS rules and definitions. § 95.1745 GMRS remote control. Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. § 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. In the case of § 95.1749, there are two clauses. One states that “operation” of a GMRS station with a “telephone connection” is prohibited. The other clause states that you can use a “public switched network” or “other networks” for “operation” by remote control. On the surface, these two clauses conflict with each other, but there are clear distinctions in this rule and the PRS definitions between “telephone network” and “public switched network” and “other networks”. We must also reference the classifiers (other rules). The words “as in” in § 95.1749 are very important in legal definition. They are preposition words used to express a relationship to a clause. In this case, it clarifies the meaning of “telephone network”. The reference to § 95.349 is an example of what they mean. Let’s break it down. § 95.1745 states that GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. Operate means to cause a station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. Remote control is defined in § 95.303 as operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. § 95.1749 states that a GMRS stations cannot be connected to a “telephone connection”, but GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations can be connected to the “public switched network” or “other networks” for the purpose of operation by remote control. So, if we string all of the rules together using the FCC PRS definitions to make a coherent statement, the rules will read as follows: GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations can be connected to the “public switched network” or “other networks” for the purpose of beginning, continuing or ceasing transmissions of a GMRS station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. However, this behavior is prohibited on any “telephone network”, defined as a public switched network that allows operators to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station. This is where the sticky part comes in. This rule was created during a time when The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) aka Plain Ole' Telephone Service (POTS) was strung on copper wire to dedicated phone switching stations. Today, PSTN/POTS is only in about 6% of the US and is expected to be completely gone in the next 3 years. PSTN/POTS has been replaced with Internet service and Voice over IP. The rule is grossly outdated and it looks like enforcement agents are substituting public switched network and Common Carrier switched networks in place of PSTN/POTS. Meaning, they now consider the entire internet and every connection to it as a "Telephone Network". The bottom line is, it looks like rather than the FCC amending § 95.1749 by removing the first clause, they are choosing to ignore the second clause and all related definitions. Their behavior is nullifying all of § 95.1745 for remote control and clause 2 of § 95.1749, allowing network connectivity. There is no administrative authority to allow that behavior and until we collectively and successfully petition the FCC to remove clause 1 of § 95.1749, everyone linking or using linked repeater over the internet is taking a risk of big fines and going to court for doing something that should be completely legal and in scope of the FCC rules.

I still have most of the gear and plenty of woods. I may repeat the test with "like-model" comparisons. I have to see how the calendar shakes out and if I can find a volunteer with a proper CB install.