Jump to content


Photo

Responsibility of Repeater User vs. Repeater Owner


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 WRCC719

WRCC719

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • LocationROSEVILLE CA
  • GMRS Callsign:WRCC719
  • Ham Callsign:n/a

Posted 16 September 2018 - 05:05 PM

Personally I wouldn’t worry about it. My station doesn’t id. And a famous west coast repeater is still on the air with no action against the owner of the repeater. K6MWT 147.4350 MHz Los Angeles Renegade Repeater.. https://www.broadcas.../feed/14747/web If you’ve never listened to it before. Enjoy an education esp during commute time...


I think you are talking about the renegade 2m group in LA?

#22 Hans

Hans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • LocationTrapped in Yankee territory
  • GMRS Callsign:WQXE920
  • Ham Callsign:N8VHF

Posted 16 September 2018 - 05:52 PM

Where I am at, I think amateur radio operators are likely to make a stink; not that I think Uncle Charlie will actually do anything about it. As of right now, we won't list it as open to the public but we also won't chase people off if they use it. The licensed GMRS community here is relatively close knit enough for word to get around.



#23 quarterwave

quarterwave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • LocationOh-io
  • GMRS Callsign:On-File

Posted 18 September 2018 - 12:07 PM

The repeater needs to identify if the callsign of any of the users isn't the same as the repeater owner's (i.e. the user is not operating under the repeater owner's license). It's explicitly stated under 95.1751(c​)(1), and per 95.1705(d)(3) it's the responsibility of the repeater owner to limit use of a non-identifying repeater to only those operating under the repeater owner's callsign.

 

That's fine, I don't want to argue. But newer people need to know that one persons post is not necessarily fact (neither yours nor mine to be fair) and to read the rules carefully and do what they interpret is right until such time as they find out it is or is not. 

 

I have been in commercial radio part 90 for about 28 years, part 95 repeater owner for 25, worked with DC law firms on licensing and problem resolution many times. I'm not new. And I can tell you it's not that way you are stating it. If it were, about 10,000 repeater operators would be shut down, but they are not because they are not violating the rules. 


  • Hans and berkinet like this

#24 n4gix

n4gix

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • GMRS Callsign:WQWU626
  • Ham Callsign:N4GIX

Posted 18 September 2018 - 01:56 PM

10,000? Hyperbole much? ;)

#25 quarterwave

quarterwave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • LocationOh-io
  • GMRS Callsign:On-File

Posted 18 September 2018 - 07:54 PM

10,000? Hyperbole much? ;)

 

An apple a day... :)



#26 WRAF213

WRAF213

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • LocationVentura, CA, USA
  • GMRS Callsign:WRAF213
  • Ham Callsign:KJ6PSG

Posted 19 September 2018 - 01:01 PM

We both know the non-identifying Part 95 repeaters haven't been shut down because the FCC doesn't care about GMRS enforcement. If enough repeaters pop up that do violate their new rules, they might just start issuing fines. It's free money for them.

 

The wording in Part 95 is remarkably unambiguous compared to Part 90, partly to ensure manufacturers produce radios with consistent feature sets. It describes exactly who is authorized to operate a station under a given callsign, exactly when to identify, who's responsible when rules are broken, and describes the special type of station use that occurs when someone authorized under one license operates a repeater authorized under a different license. The rules make identification requirements clear, and the definitions for the terms in the rule necessitating identification are all defined in Part 95 itself. I still haven't been told which part of my interpretation is wrong, I'm mostly just reiterating definitions in Part 95.



#27 Hans

Hans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • LocationTrapped in Yankee territory
  • GMRS Callsign:WQXE920
  • Ham Callsign:N8VHF

Posted 19 September 2018 - 04:02 PM

We both know the non-identifying Part 95 repeaters haven't been shut down because the FCC doesn't care about GMRS enforcement. If enough repeaters pop up that do violate their new rules, they might just start issuing fines. It's free money for them.


I really don't think that is likely. The number of new non-identifying shared GMRS repeaters that would have to crop up and the number of complaints that would have to make their way through the FCC machine makes the odds look slimmer than slim. Barring something very interesting happening in the radio service, I don't foresee even close to enough licenses, let alone those that put a repeater up, being held between now and the death** of GMRS.

(** I'm not stating that GMRS' demise is right around the corner; rather, meaning whenever it croaks, for whatever reason.)
 

The wording in Part 95 is remarkably unambiguous compared to Part 90, partly to ensure manufacturers produce radios with consistent feature sets. It describes exactly who is authorized to operate a station under a given callsign, exactly when to identify, who's responsible when rules are broken, and describes the special type of station use that occurs when someone authorized under one license operates a repeater authorized under a different license. The rules make identification requirements clear, and the definitions for the terms in the rule necessitating identification are all defined in Part 95 itself. I still haven't been told which part of my interpretation is wrong, I'm mostly just reiterating definitions in Part 95.


I agree. The rules, at least to me, indicate that a GMRS repeater can skip ID only when the repeater is held by cooperative ownership of multiple licensees under a written agreement where they all self-identify OR all users of the repeater are under the same license and all they all self-identify. Of course, I left out grandfathered licenses.

 

I'm not really concerned about the FCC because they pretty much ignore GMRS. The reason we probably won't open our non-id repeater, or will get an ID system in place before allowing it to be open, is because I don't want to hear whining from local radio nazis; most likely certain local amateur radio operators. They annoy me far more than the few lids.


  • Logan5, quarterwave, jimndfw and 2 others like this

#28 Hans

Hans

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • LocationTrapped in Yankee territory
  • GMRS Callsign:WQXE920
  • Ham Callsign:N8VHF

Posted 05 November 2018 - 04:29 AM

Well, the lack of an ID on our repeater setup started bugging me so we ended up buying a used repeater with ID. It's a much more robust setup than we had in storage and were preparing to put on the air so it is a win-win. Thank you to those who contributed to this discussion and corrected some misunderstandings I had about the rules.

We were getting ready to purchase our duplexer and a power supply and reasoned that for a $100 more or less, we could get a better repeater with a better (non-China) duplexer and power supply built in. The repeater ID discussion here opened my mind to looking at repeaters again and helped me realize the financial sense in going this route over the original plan. When I originally shopped for repeaters a few years ago, none were as affordable as the one we recently purchased. I wouldn't have even looked around again if it were not for this thread. :)
  • Logan5, berkinet and Elkhunter521 like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users