marcspaz

I studied constitutional law and the founding and framing of the US. That doesn't mean I know everything about everything.

The thing I hear the most is "you're not a real Ham if you don't know CW." And my favorite is the guy on the repeater saying "I only operate on CW.", but 10 minutes before that he was (on the repeater) bragging about making 3,000 contacts on FT8 last night. LoL

The real answer is no, but I'm sure he'll make some BS up, or tell you to do your own research. Sadly, I will never know his answer, as he is on my ignore list

That sucks to see. Depending on the state, he can be looking at jail time for that stunt.

The information above is technically accurate, but should we caveat that for the woods? Since the forest isn't consistent in density, levels of foliage change, the amount of water in the trees vary, etc. actual results may vary.

We were doing that for our friend Roland, too. We appended his REACT number to our call signs at the end of our conversations... like WRAB123 43. I agree it's a nice gesture.

Not only that, why would the site shutdown?

@WRUU653 wow! I did miss that one! Thanks for the link.

Wait... what? What did I miss?

Signed and posted comment... I believe that the ability to link repeaters over an internet connection is crucial to the success of public safety networks. There are a tremendous amount of GMRS repeater owners who allow volunteer response groups such as REACT, ARES and RACES that support the federal, state and local government in emergency response, as part of logistic divisions and moving critical information. Terrain often is the largest obstacle, reducing radio coverage. The ability to link multiple repeaters (network and RF) would greatly increase the coverage area for the emergency volunteer groups, helping preserve life and property during a mass-casualty crisis.

Rich, as I FYI, I have started an IPT here in the DC area to work on a Petition for Substantive Rulemaking, rather than simply trying to sway Policy Statements. Right now we have a team of 5 communications professionals, some also with experience in writing bills and several have direct POCs in the FCC. If you have any interest in hearing about our plans or potentially joining the IPT, please send me a PM. Anyone who has looked at previous FCC proposed changes relating to PRS/GMRS, has seen how much consideration is given to MyGMRS and its members. I believe you would be a great addition to the IPT.

Im not going to lie... sometimes I'm the "some people" identified in your closing statement. BUT... in my defense, as soon as everyone realizes I am always right, we will all get along much better.

There is definitely possibility to include additional frequency allocations, modulation types (p25/c4fm for example) and modifications to existing rules. There is a tremendous amount of effort, multiple agency and organization coordination required for identifying potential additional frequencies, expanding an existing service. So, the team will be looking at level of effort and likelihood to succeed. We are going to need public support in order for any changes to occur. I am 100% certain that any proposed changes will be socialized in places like like MyGMRS. We have just started discussing what the makeup of the IPT will look like. Once the team is selected, the meetings will start. I suspect this will take some time... and we can't make any promises beyond we will try... but key players are committed. I was wait for the "that escalated quickly" meme.

Dude... are you threatening me?

No different than you living up to your namesake. Name calling and juvenile behavior doesn't help anything. Like I said earlier, insults and personal attacks indicate you know you're losing the debate. You're trying to discredit your disputant in absence of valid points to support your position. Be an adult and let it go.

Edit: Never mind. Its not worth it.

So... talked to a couple friends of mine here in the DC area. We're going to get the ball rolling on this. I appreciate the inspiration.

If I was a Gambling Man, I would put money on a significant majority of that decline being related to politics and people's opinions about Elon Musk. The real question is, what is revenue like? If the user base fell by more than 20% but profitability went up, I would say that's a success. Of course I don't know the answer to those questions I'm just thinking out loud.

@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.

I was not aware of that. I appreciate the info.

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...

Not only is that kinda mean... I am starting to think you aren't as smart as you pretend to be.

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.

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.