marcspaz
-
Posts
2368 -
Joined
-
Days Won
187
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Classifieds
Posts posted by marcspaz
-
-
2 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:
A petition to open an NPRM/comment period for a service can be brought about at ANY time
I was not aware of that. I appreciate the info.
-
11 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:
Mobile, hand-held portable and control stations may transmit on these channels only when communicating through a repeater station or making brief test transmissions in accordance with § 95.319(c).
I bolded it for you in case your glasses aren't working!
You are correct. Those station types can only transmit on those frequencies when they are communicating through a repeater. Its not that they can't transmit on any other frequencies. It is to prevent those device types from having simplex communications on those frequencies... that is it.
When it comes to laws and rules, anything not expressly prohibited is allowed. There is no expressed prohibition on repeater inputs being on any other channel/frequency.
Also, its a good indication that you know you are loosing the debate when you stop discussing opinion based on fact and switch to insults and attacks. Just for future reference...
-
44 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:
You're famous because you ARE a moron. Plain and simple. Thanks for the cheap entertainment and enjoy your click/view revenue, now dance for your dollar.
Not only is that kinda mean... I am starting to think you aren't as smart as you pretend to be.
- OffRoaderX and WRQD922
-
1
-
1
-
35 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:
So... you were saying? The rules clearly dictate the 467 frequencies are to be ONLY used as uplink to a repeater or in "test cases".
No it doesn't. It doesn't say that at all. I can read. It says only mobile, hand-held portable, control and fixed stations may transmit on these 8 channels. Not that those are the only allowed repeater inputs.
-
11 minutes ago, NavyBOFH said:
Your argument was to be brought forward during a NPRM comment period.
A good portion of the people debating these points had no idea GMRS existed during the last NPRM comment period. Its evident with the conversation here that for those who had a license at the time, a small number of them understood the implications of the rules surrounding network connectivity (or why the restrictions were even put in place) and struggle to realize that there are contradictory statements and definitions requiring clarification... so, places like FB, reddit and MyGMRS are the only remaining place to vent frustration. At least until the next comment period, assuming they realize that is even happening when it does.
-
@OffRoaderX fair enough. Sound logic, for sure.
-
51 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:
I have never seen a video with anyone saying that. You must have an attention or comprehension issue.
But yah, we are all preparing for the sweeping reforms and crackdown that the FCC is preparing.. Because you said so.How is that dude not on your ignore list. I stopped reading his retarded posts awhile ago.
-
On 8/18/2024 at 11:39 AM, MarkInTampa said:
The may be a stupid question, but....
The FCC page show that linking repeaters is not allowed but what about linking two or more base (fixed) stations that in turn key up a repeater? The repeater wouldn't be linked but the fixed station would be.
This is what I was talking about earlier. If everyone is right and linking a repeater over the internet (or any other network) is a rule violation, then the only option to link repeaters with by with multiple radios, a.ka. RF linking.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is actually ZERO rules about RF linking in the Communication Act as amended by the Telecommunication Act, nor in any of the FCC Part 95 rules. There are also no restrictions or mandates on what repeater inputs have to be. Only that repeaters transmit on the 462 mains. So, using multiple radios to link repeaters over GMRS frequency is completely legal and within scope of the rules. The only limitation that I can think of (beyond the repeater transmit frequency) is that any linked repeaters would need to be in line of sight of each other to establish the link.
-
I don't know how my SETI team is going to feel about this. The FCC is reducing our processing capabilities by reducing the network size.
- Raybestos, SteveShannon and WRUU653
-
1
-
2
-
-
@WRKC935, well written and I agree with a vast majority of what you wrote. Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
@RayP I agree that the situations you describe are terrible for a service that has so few available frequencies. There should be some regulation. I am not against regulations. As a civilized society, we all agree to live by a certain set of rules. However, our nation is a Constitutional Republic designed to protect the Rights of the minority. There should be some allowances or concessions made, to some degree. For example, remote receivers for repeaters with a large footprint, to fill in receive gaps that impact mobile and portable stations. Or, restricting linked repeaters to only 2 machines per link and they must be on the same frequency (I'm just generalizing for example, of course).
As I mentioned, mandating things you like and banning the things you don't is tyrannical behavior. The People collectively agreeing on rules to live by are not the same thing as the Government arbitrarily changing their mind on what is right or wrong when there has been zero law or rule change reviewed and approved by the people.
- Raybestos and SteveShannon
-
1
-
1
-
35 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:
I don’t know Marc, I respect your opinion, you know I do but seems that they will just re clarify the rules.
I appreciate the kind words... I do. And honestly, I don't have any skin in the game since I don't have a linked repeater system. However, I am on the side of freedom. I am also on the side of demanding rules be clear and make sense so the average person has the ability to operate within the rules.
- Chilango, WRUU653 and SteveShannon
-
3
-
1 hour ago, RayP said:
Hopefully, the FCC will have the foresight and the sense to make linking repeaters prohibited, by whatever means. They got it right about it not serving the purpose of GMRS with linking. This is a cancer that never should have seen the light of day.
Why would you say that. The purpose is to facilitate the needs of the licensee. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it's not desired by others. The idea of mandating things you like and banning the things you don't is what tyrants do.
-
3 minutes ago, nokones said:
EMR Corp Duplexer
Those are advertised as a 1dB loss... pretty good. Mine are closer to 3dB... but they were a gift and I am thrilled to have them.
-
-
My unsolicited opinion, people who don't like linked repeaters now, are REALLY going to regret bitching about network linked repeaters in the near future, if the courts end up agreeing.
I can't find a single entry in the Communication Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that gives the FCC the authority or purpose to prohibit repeater linking. There are zero FCC rules that prohibit repeater linking. What there is, are some debates on if a repeater link that traverse a network AND provides some form of message relay both over the air and on the network, is allowed by the rules or not. This is because the rules are not clear due to contradicting entries, when reviewing the rules and the definitions as a whole. Updating a web page is not the same as updating rules or statutory code to be more clear.
Now, the bad news for people who hate linked repeaters. Again, there are zero laws or rules prohibiting linking. Lets say this network issues goes all the way to the SCOTUS and the court sides with the Link haters and the FCC... you haters are going to be even worse off, because then, 100% of all repeater linking will be limited to using RF links. This is gonna suck for GMRS users (except for the linked repeater owners) because if we follow the rules of the PRS, we can only use in-service frequencies for relaying information.
Let me explain... the rules say that repeaters can only transmit on the 462 main channels. There are exactly zero rules about what the repeater input frequency should be, outside of being one of the GMRS frequencies. That means while repeater outputs will stay the same, legal linking can and will start occurring with uplinks on every single GMRS frequency... not just the 467 mains... flooding the channels with linked audio.
So, right or wrong, if you hate linked repeaters and are bitching about it here or to the FCC in hopes that if the networked repeaters go away, somehow your quiet RF utopia will somehow be restored, my forecast is that you are going to be very, very wrong. It's probably going to get much worse due to spreading to all channels.
-
It's possible to build a radio with an internal duplexer. If it meets the certification requirements, you could have the full 50w at the output. However, I an not aware of any such radio existing at the moment (built-in duplexer and 50w). That means you are going to be restricted to the 50w out of the radio and the ~25w out of the duplexer.
-
It's funny, the ATF had the same attitude about bump stocks, arm braces and forced reset triggers, all the way up until the SCOTUS told them to sit down and stop talking.
Not to mention, the entire premise is flawed. First, the page says that linking repeaters violates 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 and possibly other rules. There is exactly ZERO rules saying you can't link repeaters for communications outside the coverage area of a handheld or mobile. That is a a flat-out lie. There are restrictions about how and when networks can be used, but no prohibition on linking, itself.
Also, the page says that "linking increases the potential for interference" and "uses up a limited spectrum". That's funny. So, let me get this straight... all of the repeaters are there and in use, but it only has a potential for interference and only takes up spectrum when they are linked? That is just dumb. If a repeater is in place, the potential for interference and the spectrum it uses is 100% unaffected by having it link to another repeater.
Im not sure who writes this stuff, but they need to be fired.
-
So, I have a similar issue at my house and it is 100% due to terrain and surrounding objects. I have my base antenna at 35+ feet and it's 10 feet tall, running a 60 foot piece of LMR400.
There are only a handful of places I can mount my antenna on the roof. If I move the antenna a few feet in any direction, the recieve gets significantly better or worse depending on the other stations I'm trying to reach. The thing is, I can move my car to a sweet spot and just park it. That really isn't an option for my base antenna.
Sometimes I just sit in the car and use the radio, depending on the station I want to talk to.
- SteveShannon and adicrosta
-
2
-
14 minutes ago, WRXP381 said:
Looks like a great event, hope it gets loads of attention and funds.
when you said full sized I thought you ment like chevys and fords and dodge trucks. Like full sized rigs. Then I saw the jeep in the picture.
I suspect you are teasing me about the Jeep, but just in case... Yep... full-sized vehicles. No ATVs/UTVs/etc. are allowed in my group. Buggies, Jeeps, Blazers, Broncos, short-bed F150s and 1500s, etc. should all be fine. 250/2500 class and larger will probably be too big for the trails we will be on.
There are other groups at the event that are geared toward ATVs/UTVs/etc..
-
I know many folks in this group like to go offroading with your full-size vehicles. GMRS is one of the tools we use to enhance our experience while enjoying outdoor hobbies. This ride is in 2 months and a bunch of openings are available.
My son and I are guiding a Blue/Black group for Krawling 4 K9’s at Anthracite Outdoor Adventure Area, in PA, on October 19th. This is a fundraiser for a good cause and a good excuse to go wheeling. If you would like to join us, go to the link below to sign-up. Select “Full Size Vehicle Registration”, choose your full-size vehicle group type of "Blue/Black", and then pick the group trail guide named OCD Offroad Shop – Group 9.
We only have 4 slots left for this group at the time I am sharing this info. If you are looking for a little more or a little less of a challenge, there are plenty of other groups available. Hope to see you there!
There are going to be some aggressive trails for our group. Please be sure your rig is built for the type of wheeling we will be doing. If you have questions, let me know. Protection4Paws FB Event Link - https://www.facebook.com/events/649665953824067
-
What radio is it? I'm not sure you can 'upload' tones, you just select them. Need more details to help.
-
Now that Randy has officially accepted blame (thank you, Sir), its safe for me to start some trouble....
6 hours ago, WRXB215 said:The way I understand the intent of this regulation is that when the licensee and his family are taking part in some sort of outing together, the licensee can hand out GMRS radios to his family members and allow them to use the radios and call sign during the event. Using the call sign of a licensee who lives in another state to rag chew locally seems to be a stretch to me.
2 hours ago, Hoppyjr said:
Good thing you’re not in charge.As Steve posted above, 95.1705(f)(2) says "The licensee must maintain access to and control over all stations authorized under its license." Being 4 hours away is definitely not maintaining "access to and control over" the licensee's station. While we don't know the actual intent of the rule, based on the way the paragraph is written, I am inclined to agree with @WRXB215 interpretation of the rule.
- WRUU653, SteveShannon and Davichko5650
-
1
-
2
-
@OffRoaderX... Im blaming you for this one. My hands are clean. :‐D
- Davichko5650 and GreggInFL
-
2
FCC GMRS Service Operations Page Updated 04 Aug, 2024
in FCC Rules Discussion
Posted
@NavyBOFH I understand you are trying to help. I do... but you aren't the only guy in the room. I studied Constitutional law for years and helped write bills that have gone to my state legislature for votes. I work for a massive firm, engineer solutions and write technical contracts for a living. I can read and comprehend the rules in the totality and there are definitions of words that contradict the means and methods those words are used in the rules.
The definition of Operate (in brief) is to start, continue and stop a station from transmitting, and the rules state you can execute remote operation over a network (again, paraphrasing). Then there are other rules that say you can't convey messages over the air and wireline.
So, which is it? We can remote operate over a network or we can't? You can't justify interpreting a definition of a word in a sentence when the definition is specifically and explicitly provided in the rules. The contradiction needs to be fixed and the rules updated. An SA telling a web admin to change a webpage isn't the way to clarify a conflict in the rules.