Whats with repeater users needing permission on GMRS?

[BoxCar]

Yes Dan, that's exactly what I'm saying. A repeater owner has no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic. Access codes do not imply control as there is no operator at the station's controls. If repeater owners were held liable for illegal or improper traffic there wouldn't be any repeaters because of liability issues.

[MichaelLAX]

On 12/1/2021 at 11:15 AM, BoxCar said:

Yes Dan, that's exactly what I'm saying. A repeater owner has no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic.

Citation please.

[PACNWComms]

I saw this thread here on this site from 2018, has discussion of FCC regulation and discussion of this subject, just by searching a bit. "Responsibility of Repeater User vs. Repeater Owner."

 

[MichaelLAX]

On 12/2/2021 at 5:48 PM, PACNWComms said:

I saw this thread here on this site from 2018, has discussion of FCC regulation and discussion of this subject, just by searching a bit. "Responsibility of Repeater User vs. Repeater Owner."

 

Thank you: I went back and read that thread, but it is primarily a discussion of the technical issues of a Repeater Owner vs. User, such has who has the obligation to ID.

@BoxCarmakes the substantive statement:

Quote

A repeater owner has no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic.

That is a rather dramatic statement, if it is true, and I am curious to discover its citation so that we can see if the statement is correct or just a hope.

[OffRoaderX]

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

If the FCC writes a regulation that it never enforces, does it even matter?

If someone wins an argument on the internet, does anyone care?

[MichaelLAX]

37 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

If the FCC writes a regulation that it never enforces, does it even matter?

If someone wins an argument on the internet, does anyone care?

Sage advice for someone who is debating FCC regulations on the internet (or in the woods ).

But in the real world, what if someone, who is basically judgment proof (that is owns little or no assets) starts defaming your wife on the 725 Repeater.

Does the repeater owner have civil liability so that you can threaten to bring a private defamation against against the repeater owner, or as @BoxCarrepresents, does the "repeater owner ha[ve] no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic" and then you are SOOL!

Inquiring minds want to know!

Hence I would like to see a citation to @BoxCar's claim.

[TOM47]

25 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

If the FCC writes a regulation that it never enforces, does it even matter?

Unless their ambiguity is intended to limit prevent or limit actions due to confusion.

[PACNWComms]

As for the idea that FCC regulations do not matter if they are not enforced, some of us use GMRS for family use,but also have other FCC licenses that could be impacted. Annoy a federal agency that can and often does impact professional situations, and you then lose your source of livelihood. 

In another life, working radio networks for the oil industry and anti-pollution work, many of us were impacted when oil companies had spills, and the FCC monitored everything, checked licenses, and then imposed fines and directives based on the poor decisions other corporations. Like ripples on a pond, throw a stone and it may still have ripple effects on many others. I know a few P25 system administrators that lost their commercial licenses for what would have been minor infractions for someone that only had an amateur license. It does happen.

[DDinMCMI]

On 12/1/2021 at 2:15 PM, BoxCar said:

Yes Dan, that's exactly what I'm saying. A repeater owner has no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic. Access codes do not imply control as there is no operator at the station's controls. If repeater owners were held liable for illegal or improper traffic there wouldn't be any repeaters because of liability issues.

If that is indeed the case, I stand corrected.  It just seems to me like the FCC rules are a little vague on the issue, but I suppose that's nothing new.  My rule of thumb has traditionally been to err on the side of caution.

[kirk5056]

I dont pretend to understand FCC rules (not laws    ) but I do have an occasional grasp on common sense.

 

I cant see how anyone could be held accountable for content on their repeater unless they monitored it 24/7, with a 5 second delay AND a kill button.

 

It seems to me that just following the ID rules (at start, 15 minutes, at end) on either simplex or repeater is the way responsibility is assigned.

 

 

[MichaelLAX]

Well that is a good opinion, but I am still waiting for @BoxCar to give us a citation for his unequivocal claim that there is no liability.

[SUPERG900]

This ought to be fun...

How about a citation indicating that there *is* liability?

[Getting my bag of chips]

 

[MichaelLAX]

49 minutes ago, SUPERG900 said:

This ought to be fun...

How about a citation indicating that there *is* liability?

[Getting my bag of chips]

 

That’s the spirit: demand facts of those who make broad assertions!

Except I don’t recall anyone making that assertion here. 

Only @BoxCar’s broad assertion that there is “no responsibility!”

Pass the chips, please

[gortex2]

I'll jump on this topic against better judgement. 

 

If someone gets on my repeater without permission and is stupid its on them. If i gave them permission i take responsibility. There is no keeping idiots off a repeater if they want to no matter what we do. Just take it with a grain of salt. 

 

Back to reqular programming.

 

[MichaelLAX]

Another opinion of what you think the law should be, which, of course, you are entitled to have.

I am only aware of two areas of broad immunity in the laws of the United States:

1) Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act that basically gives Internet providers immunity from the content posted by others on Internet websites hosted by those providers; and

2) The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which shields gun manufacturers and dealers from most civil litigation.

But @Boxcar made the broad assertion that:

On 12/1/2021 at 11:15 AM, BoxCar said:

Yes Dan, that's exactly what I'm saying. A repeater owner has no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic. Access codes do not imply control as there is no operator at the station's controls. If repeater owners were held liable for illegal or improper traffic there wouldn't be any repeaters because of liability issues.

And I would like to see exactly where @BoxCar  gets his information to base his statement or perhaps an admission on his part that, like @kirk5056 and @kb2ztx, it is only his opinion or hope of what the law should be.

This website has a high regard by its readers of posting information that is factually correct or of a poster's opinion, and we should continue to stand behind that reputation.

A simple request on my part.

[gortex2]

So we are focusing on something that rarely happens and there is no real rule out there to tell us which way to go.

Sadly we spend more time talking about non compliant CCR radios and every other topic on this forum than true GMRS chat. There used to be a few good guys on here that were not only knowledgeable but involved heavily in GMRS as well as other services. 

On a similar topic our threads appear to drift off topic alot....

Done ranting. I'll go play on P25 LMR now...

[MichaelLAX]

4 hours ago, kb2ztx said:

So we are focusing on something that rarely happens and there is no real rule out there to tell us which way to go...

Again, your opinion, but that was the focus of my original question to @BoxCarsince he was so forceful in his comment, twice: is there a rule out there that tells us which way to go?

4 hours ago, kb2ztx said:

Sadly we spend more time talking about non compliant CCR radios and every other topic on this forum than true GMRS chat...

Oh, please educate us as to what is "true GMRS chat" so that we can be a member of your "club!"

4 hours ago, kb2ztx said:

There used to be a few good guys on here that were not only knowledgeable but involved heavily in GMRS as well as other services...

Tell us how you really feel! 

4 hours ago, kb2ztx said:

On a similar topic our threads appear to drift off topic alot....

But not off topic enough to keep you from posting your thoughts... twice!

But, "off topic" REALLY?!?

I have reviewed this thread twice now.  It went on and on about a relatively simple issue: whether or not a GMRS repeater owner has the right to require users to have the owner's permission.

After it beat that issue to death; about 14 months later, a fresh group of members beat it to death, again! 

Yet in all those 4 and 1/2 pages of posts, no one even suggested a solution to the problem!?!

It seems to me you can't have it both ways: if you have the right to give permission to those who use your repeater, you can't disclaim liability for how they use it! But that is just my opinion.

Then Dan posited: 

On 12/1/2021 at 6:59 AM, DDinMCMI said:

Think of it this way.  Would you allow someone to pick up your radio and use it without your permission?  GMRS repeaters are personally-owned radios.  When you access a repeater you a in effect using equipment that belongs to someone else.  They have the right to determine who can use their radio.  The airwaves are public.  The equipment is not.

Related to that is the issue of liability.  As repeater owners are themselves licensed GMRS operators, they are legally responsible for any transmissions utilizing their license.  That includes any traffic retransmitted through their repeater equipment.  Should an outside operator violate FCC rules or operate unlicensed through a repeater, the FCC can hold the repeater operator liable and subject to penalty.  Basically you are using someone else's license when you access their repeater.  They have the right and responsibility to protect their license and insure that everything that comes out of their radio is legal and above-board...

To which @BoxCarreplied:

On 12/1/2021 at 9:15 AM, BoxCar said:

This is untrue. A repeater owner is not responsible for any traffic carried through the repeater as the repeater has no control over the traffc. The responsibility lies solely with the traffic originator. The repeater owner would be responsible only if  they originated the improper transmission in the first place.

@DDinMCMI, Dan, came back with some FCC Part 95 quotes to which @BoxCarrepeated his position again:

On 12/1/2021 at 11:15 AM, BoxCar said:

Yes Dan, that's exactly what I'm saying. A repeater owner has no responsibility for traffic across the repeater unless they specifically generate the input traffic. Access codes do not imply control as there is no operator at the station's controls. If repeater owners were held liable for illegal or improper traffic there wouldn't be any repeaters because of liability issues.

And then Dan capitulated, apparently because @BoxCarsaid it twice:

On 12/7/2021 at 8:52 AM, DDinMCMI said:

If that is indeed the case, I stand corrected.  It just seems to me like the FCC rules are a little vague on the issue, but I suppose that's nothing new.  My rule of thumb has traditionally been to err on the side of caution.

But saying it twice, with verve even, did not satisfy my curiosity, so I asked @BoxCarto cite the basis of his statements, which he is apparently unable or unwilling to do.

Now just because something is rare does not mean we should not plan for it.  For example I have been purchasing earthquake insurance which some people would say is a waste of money since 1995.

I will bet dollars to donuts that @OffRoaderX, being the prudent businessman that he is, checked with his insurance agent and made sure that his homeowners liability policy covers the repeater that he installed at his home.

Your mileage, as a repeater owner, may differ!

4 hours ago, kb2ztx said:

Done ranting.

OK: I hope you feel better now! 

[axorlov]

I miss the good knowledgeable people from the past too. Too bad they do not visit anymore.

[MichaelLAX]

2 minutes ago, axorlov said:

I miss the good knowledgeable people from the past too. Too bad they do not visit anymore.

WoW: what an insult that is to @kb2ztxand a self-referencing statement, too!