DONE

Marc, I am going to politely disagree and agree at the same point. The agreement is they didn't make a change to the wording of the regulations. Those stayed as they were. The disagreement comes with the fact they took two specific parts of the regulation and said that linking violated those specific parts of the regulations. Now, that goes against that statement that was made to the inquiry under Case Id: HD0000002831371 where someone ask the question about linking and they replied with *****Solution Description: Dear Mr. Beck, Currently, the FCC does not have a restriction/rule that would prohibit connecting GMRS repeaters via the internet so long as eligible use and control was maintained of the authorized facilities. ***** (That's what they sent me) Should you have any further questions, or need additional information, please submit a request through https://esupport.fcc...linerequest.htm or call the FCC Licensing Support Center at 1-877-480-3201, selecting option 2 after the main menu. Sincerely, FCC Licensing Support Center " Now this was from back in 2016, so what changed, because from then to now, the actual rules haven't been modified. But they are claiming now that it's 'illegal' to link repeaters. But, we can get into the semantics of legal vs illegal and allowed / disallowed via the regulations. Traffic laws are laws. Laws are written by some governing body, voted on and then codified as a law. Regulations are not voted on but instead created by a governing body with or without input from elected officials. So does the violation of a regulation make the act illegal criminally, or is it a civil act to violate a government regulation but NOT a criminal act? You still end up in court, and you still get fined if found to be in violation. And, did the FCC create GMRS or did congress? If it was a congressional act then all the regulations are laws. At this point it really doesn't matter. Point is that they have said that they will use 95.1733 and 95.1749 then possibly including other parts of 47 C.F.R. as the hammer to beat you with. So they at least have looked at it to the point of figuring our what regulations it violates. Now I don't know if they even took into account that the original source of 95.1749 was AT&T and other telco's that lobbied the FCC due to concerns that they would miss out on long distance fee's. Now regarding 95.1733, which is wireline connection. I am in violation of that for sure because I operate a radio that is not physically located at my residence. I have an IP based radio console system that links to a tower site that I have all my radios at. I operate those radios (control stations) across that IP link. But if you look in 47 CFR, the definition of wireline is basically a remote control point running to a fixed base. But that would also mean that Zello isn't legal to be connected to a repeater or a control station being used for GMRS. Not sure how they would track all that down. But if you want to go by the letter of the regulation, that is also against the rules. I will say that I don't like the way this turned out. I was hoping that it would have gone the other way and that linking was going to be allowed and that they would toss 95.1749 out and remove 95.1733(a)(8) (wireline) from the regulations and possibly set something in place to require anyone providing a linked repeater would also be required to ensure an accessable unlinked repeater exist within the coverage of the linked repeater they had. Not a requirement of having two repeaters, but a requirement that there was a PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE repeater with a similar coverage footprint. Sure that takes up two pairs instead of just one, but it would keep conversations that were in that footprint, in that footprint.

Already been posted in another thread.

Different situation with ATF. They tired to put items in the list that was established under NFA that was a congressional rule making. They can't 'change' congressional regulations. Just like they can't remove suppressors from NFA by a mandate. That will also need to be done by congress since they created the law to begin with. This is a case of you can't do it now, and couldn't do it before under these defined regulations that have been on the books. They aren't really making a change per say, just defining the historical regulations that are being violated. Again, it SUCKS. Linking if done properly can be useful and offer something to the service. But it also redefines the service as a social media system, for general discussion. And that's not what the service was suppose to be. But neither is ham radio in truth.

Yeah, they aren't going to rewrite in my opinion. They actually lay out the two numbered regulations that linking violates and then go on to say that it may violate other parts of 47 CFR. So it's been looked at and that's their stance on it

Original post was the FCC website from Aug 4, 2024. That was then updated above. So no I wasn't crazy. They had changed the web site on the 4th and it was still vague. The 14 it was rewritten and they added what I posted below. So yes, they are actively looking at this. Well, they rewrote what it said on the 14 of August. It's now clear that linking isn't acceptable. Which sucks, but we don't make the rules. Follow the link above for the rewrite, but here's the line in the changed posting from the FCC that sum's it up. Linking multiple repeaters to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R. Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals. We have known that some sort of decision was coming about repeater linking on GMRS. The regulations were vague and written in the typical hieroglyphs that the FCC and other government regulatory agencies are known for. This definitively says that it violates 95.1733 and 95.1749 and possibly other parts of 47CFR. For those that don't understand the 47 C.F.R. part. That is the overall written regulations that cover most all of electronic communications. It's sort of the master set of rules, then the "parts" were added like part 90 that covers two way communications, then the sub parts like 97 for ham radio, part 95 for GMRS and so on. Meaning that other things in PART 90, like definitions of emission's and their designation's are established in 90 or other area's of 47 CFR and are used for regulations in ALL services in 47 including GMRS. I ain't real happy about this, but it is what they decided. Going forward, YOU will need to decide what you are going to do with this information. With the recent supreme court decision on Chevron, they can't just rewrite the actual regulation. But they have looked at this and said that the current regulations do ban linking. And they have spelled out what those regulations are specifically. This was one of those situations where 'be careful what you ask for' applies. We wanted this decided. And it had been decided at this point. Just not in a way that we wanted it to turn out.

If you look in the conversation on the listing. This is in the conversation "I all been getting a lot of messages in here about the use of the 600 repeater it's open to use. Please use PL tone 141.3 for transmit and receive "

OK, and please don't take offense to what I said either. As mentioned, you did your level best to NOT cause a problem. And the other guy should recognize that Good luck with getting your repeater on the air and let us know if you have any questions

Better than being em bare assed

To run on what system?

Go back and read what I said. Short version. You did your best to NOT interfere. Which is what's expected. So you are good. The other repeater owner may complain, because that's what people do. But there is no coordination on GMRS. We need to work it out between ourselves. You did that. And that is what I was trying to convey.

When you key up are you hearing anything like a repeater tail (repeater continuing to transmit, ID or anything else) or is it just silence? Are you certain about the input tone on the repeater? Are you sure the repeater is up and working? Do you hear others using the repeater in question?

WTF is this even about? Yoda posts some crap about another post getting voted down, that I can't seem to even find in the other forum. SO we are now discussing that post over here because WHY?

OK, from a legal / FCC regulation standpoint. You are NOT allowed to purposefully interfere with the communications of another. You did your due diligence and picked the pair with the lowest signal level at your repeater site. You monitored all the pairs and found that one to at least seem to create the least interference with the co-channel user. You are obviously NOT going to use the PL / DPL code of the other repeater. So that puts you in the clear from doing it wrong. I am not saying that you will not get a letter from the FCC. It could happen, but it's not likely. And as long as you tell them it was the pair with the lowest signal and was the least used of all of them and you used a PL / DPL that was away from theirs, they are gonna look at it and tell you you're fine with what you did.

Yeah, the idea of the voted answer being on top just below the question is it's HOPEFULLY the most correct answer. The idea behind that is again HOPEFULLY someone will search for the question they have and if someone else has already ask it, which is typically the case. It will talke them to the question where someone else ask it and then give them the answer. Last HOPEFULLY, that will fill their request with out asking the same stuff over and over. But that is almost as rare as people getting their posts voted up the list.

I seriously doubt the FCC is going to stop the influx of people getting into GMRS as 'hobbyists' for a few reasons. First is the application that it was meant for meant it was hardly used for that specific reason. About the only legal reason to have GMRS, with a repeater would have been family farming operations. And anyone outside of the family would have needed a license to operate the radios. I actually spoke to someone the other day that was of the belief that you could ONLY talk to people that were covered under your license (family) and while you could share a repeater, you couldn't communicate with other repeater users that were not under your license. The application for something like that is such a small part of the user base of GMRS that it would almost not exist if that were the case. GMRS operators are becoming a source of people being motivated to go further and get a ham license. Folks get into using GMRS, and then realize that there is more to do with ham and get their license for that. Of course that puts more money in the FCC bank account. So screwing with GMRS slows down the income stream from both GMRS and ham licenses. Lastly, if they know their history, they know to not screw with a working service by making changes to it for no good reason. They might remember making CB 40 channels and killing the service. When they did that, all the 23 channel radios were obsolete over night. Because consumers want the newest, latest thing, think iPhone crowds when a new one hits the market. Making a massive change to the service like adding digital, more channels, something else to the service and requiring a new radio. Then think about what those additions might do to a service that is wide band analog, like adding digital and therefore digital interference to the channels, it quickly becomes a problem with complaints. Complaints require man power to investigate. And if it's a service that isn't controlled by frequency coordination then it will turn into a mess and lots of calls. I have said before, people are typically unwilling to assist with things like repeater maintenance but if their free repeater service goes away, they will call and complain in short order that 'their' radio / repeater isn't working and that's just not acceptable. Interference is not going to be acceptable to the masses and they will call the FCC to complain, so if it's not there, there is nothing to complain about.

Will the image run on a Pi 4... NO. There is a long discussion thread on here about getting a Pi 4 running on the system. But it's from long ago when the 4 first came out. If you have experience with the Pi, Debian and scripts, I would advise you to go load the available image on a Pi 3 and go dig through the 'repeaterfinder.sh script in the /home/repeater directory and see what it does to the Pi as it runs. That script loads Asterisk and several other applications that support the connectivity to the system here. Once you get a feel for what's going on, and look into what those applications are doing you might be able to figure out what more current versions of those applications need to be loaded that are supported by the Pi 4 platform. I can't remember the actual version that's included in the Pi 3 image, but it's not real current. Some of the stuff called in the script has depreciated as well. So it may or may NOT work correctly either. Even on a R-Pi 3

Will it work? Depends on your definition and application. First issue is phasing and overlap. If the splitter cables are not equal length then the overlap will have issues with not only the nulls from the beam width, but rf cancellation due to phase differences. I would advise you to back up and look at the pattern of a single folded dipole and a yagi like you are talking about. If you put four of them together at 90 degree angles from each other, you are going to see there are gaps. Higher gain (more elements on the yagis will result in narrower beam width and bigger gaps. I am not gonna say it will not work. It can work and in some situations like being on a coast of next to an area with no population, it might even be a good solution. But in those situations you are NOT wanting 360 degree coverage.

Well, what method? You can click on the node on the map, click manage and it will come up and allow you to type in a node number to connect to. This does require that your firewall is correctly configured for the port mapping (typically port 4569) to be passed directly through to the Pi IP address. If you want to do it via the Pi on a keyboard. You will need to log into the Pi. Type 'sudo asterisk -r' the prompt will change. Type rpt fun 24001 *3xxxxx with the xxxxx being the node number you want to connect to. Via RF it's a DTMF command. *3XXXXX. Again XXXXX is the node number. You should get a verbal announcement that the connection was made with both node numbers or you will get a 'connection failed'. This is if you haven't been messing about in the configuration files turning things on and off. But that's the three methods I use on a regular basis.

Yeah, it really depends on how the whole thing is structured and how the funds are distributed. If it's a club, with some type of benefit outside of just repeater access. And the funds are used for things outside of the upkeep of the repeater, then it's legal. Part of the benefit can be using the repeater, but it can't typically be the only benefit. And it has to be a 'club'. Meaning that there needs to be some level of organization with members, a board or some sort of body, and the repeater 'owner' shouldn't be the President in Perpetuity. If it's a club, there can be 'profit' but it can't just build, or simply all go to the repeater owner and not be used for other club functions. It gets a bit into a gray area, and I doubt that the FCC is gonna audit books. I am not a big fan of pay to play if it can be avoided. But, owning and maintaining repeaters personally, I can tell you that unless your name is McCloud and you are running around chopping of head's and saying "There can be Only One" at 50 or 100 bucks a year, you will NEVER get close to the cost of owning a repeater in your lifetime at that rate.

And the other issue is personalities and 'friends and not so much / enemies' on a forum. Keeping personal feelings out of it can be difficult. You and I have had a couple 'issues' of course. Not a big secret. If either of us had been a moderator with ban hammer abilities, the other one of us would have been gone. At least for a minute until the board owner got involved and unbanned whoever, and probably removed the other from being a moderator. And that would have been a detriment to the board if it would have happened to either of us. We both have made significant contributions to the 'shared knowledge' on here.

you mean the command to connect to another node? Via keyboard, web or RF? And does the node show up on the map?

And I see that as being completely reasonable. And I honestly expect it to happen here at some point with the mygmrs.com network, and in truth it seems that it already has to a degree. Now my understanding is that mygmrs.com is repeaters only. And possibly a leaning to high profile repeaters being strongly preferred. And I would hope that there is some level of over site that keeps three guys on the same cul te sac from all putting up linked repeaters. Allowing every swinging dick in the sound of your voice to connect whatever to the system ruins the system. Simplex nodes, and I believe they had allowed not only Zello but soft phone connections to the system and that REALLY turns into a mess. I know that there are a couple groups that put Zello on their wide area networks as a tool for repeater owners to use on an as needed basis. But those should never be for everyone to abandon their radio and just use Zello. I also believe they were allowing digital ham radio 'hot spots' on the network which again has little to no coverage footprint outside someones house. He was doing all that by himself. Which is a huge undertaking. And obviously was overwhelming for him as time went on. Someone also mentioned it was pretty thankless, and yes, I tend to agree that you don't get much outside help with this sort of stuff. But if it's broke, everyone is quick to bitch about their FREE access to the service isn't working and they what it fixed immediately. Couple things I think we need for this system. Of course this is strictly my opinion but I am gonna throw it out there. First is documents on how to add a blacklist to a node. Now that everything is immediately available for download and getting a node number is simple as clicking a link, I think we are going to need that ability as the system grows. Knowing that the underlying system is All Star Link, there should be a document somewhere explaining how to do it but I haven't looked. People should have the ability to block other nodes from connecting to them if they desire to do so. It does exist right now, but there isn't specific instructions for that available. Guess, that was only one thing.... I guess the other would be adopt a fixed set of rules on what can be connected. I don't know that there is documentation saying high profile repeaters only. I don't know that there is a requirement that you can't link to a system that already has coverage in your area. I do know that one puts people into a spin, and rightly so. There is ZERO sense in having coverage overlap of any great degree on the same system. It's going to exist to some degree, but we shouldn't have the SAD HAM attitude of I want my call sign on a repeater too, and I want it linked to the same system that's 2 miles down the road simply because I can do it. Right now, there isn't anything in writing to indicate that. But I believe there needs to be.

I am not sure where he is, but it might be some state law mandating that. Hell, you can't pump your own gas in New Jersey. Has to be a station employee and they are all Union. But that would be my guess.

Yeah, I suppose a factual explanation is in order. SO a NODE is actually a small computer (typically a Raspberry Pi) that is using an IP (Internet Protocol) based PBX (Private Branch Exchange) or telephone system (think similar to a business phone system connected on a network). The software uses the Internet to create 'conference bridges' more or less to link the computers together so they can carry transmit and receive audio and PTT telemetry to the other nodes that are connected. A vast part of the nodes are a single PBX (stand alone phone system) with a single extension (the repeater connected to it) to join the conference bridges. Now you can technically support multiple extensions on a PBX. These can be other repeaters, or they can be SIP soft phones like Zoiper (what I use) or an actual IP telephone and those can be bridges as well. If you are using a SIP interface, of course there is no PTT button on either the soft phone or an IP desk set so you have to use dial buttons for the keying. Anyone with Google can find out this will work. I am not going to go into how it works, nor will I go into how to do it (the soft phone / IP phone thing. I will say that it's not supported on the mygmrs.com system and messing with someone's nodes is also a big no no so don't be trying to experiment on this system. Although simplex nodes are possible, I don't know that is supported on here either. But I am NOT the person to ask about that. There are others here that can comment if they choose to. The previous answer was in response to the fact that there are a number of folks that don't like linking. And there is much debate on if it's really even legal according to the FCC regulations. To the point I had a connected repeater on the system and took it down because of the continued questions about the legality of it. So, if you want to play in that arena, do so with your eyes wide open and understanding that questions exist about doing it. I didn't want to get too deep in the weeds on how this all works. I think this should be a reasonable explanation to give you an understanding of the underlying technology in play.

Yep, nodes are a point of contention around here. Some feel that nodes are BAD... The bane of GMRS and the thing that will destroy the very fabric of the service. They are not to be allowed, nor trusted. They bring only hate and dismay to the masses. No one in their right mind would use a linked repeater because they use NODES to do the linking. You really need to avoid them at all costs. Beware the Node. They are run by communist sympathizers that are out to overthrow the government, and tax the very air you breathe. Or, you can realize that linked repeater systems are a good way to expand your circle of acquaintances. If a system is large, the chances of not finding someone to chat with on a ride home, even in the middle of the night are pretty slim. And since when do you need to keep the people you converse with within a 20 mile radius of your home?