Updated FCC rule 95.1749 now includes “or other networks” Jan 2024

[cozy659]

  I attended an FCC luncheon held in Harrisburg,PA the subject was brought up on GMRS linking. And within 24 hours I found the CFR and other law websites have the updated CFR 95.1749.  Where they updated and includes the words “or other networks”

they made the update real quick, showing they are serious.advise.. don’t link on GMRS

This meeting was a warning. Internet is allowed solely for remote control only. Linking is not legal… think I am kidding look starting  at 1:12:40 in the video of the meeting here is the link

 

[WRXR360]

Nice Chinese calligraphy in the background. Reminds me of a Notarubicon video. Subtle...

[WRWE456]

Thanks for posting that. I learned quit a bit. So it seems that linked repeaters are not allowed.

Got my popcorn.

 

 

[tweiss3]

Not that I agree or dissagree with linking, but I'm not finding the changes you speak of. Based on the current eCFR copy:

§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.

Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745.

§ 95.349 Network connection.

Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749.

§ 95.1745 GMRS remote control.

Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.

§ 95.303 Definitions.

The following terms and definitions apply only to the rules in this part.

Remote control. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.

 

 

[WRQC527]

12 hours ago, cozy659 said:

12 hours ago, cozy659 said:

Where they updated and includes the words “or other networks”

 

Please. Share with us a link to an FCC document that contains this exact wording. I'm not saying there isn't one, but for the edification of all of us here, we'd enjoy seeing it. 

[SteveShannon]

The phrase “or other networks” has been present in 95.1749 for years.  Here’s a post from 2018 that quotes 1749:

 

[WRUU653]

It’s in the third paragraph under operations here.

[SteveShannon]

6 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

It’s in the third paragraph under operations here.

Absolutely 100% agreed.  Here’s the actual paragraph:

You can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain and repeater use.  You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations. 

It must be pointed out that that is the FCC’s interpretation (which counts! ) of 95.1749.

I don’t have a dog in this fight.  I don’t have a GMRS repeater and if I did I doubt that I would link it.

I think it boils down to this, based on the definition of remote control, I can connect to a repeater and remotely control it via the Internet.  But connecting one repeater to another repeater to carry traffic between them over the Internet goes too far for the FCC.

But my understanding should not be taken as any kind of authoritative source.  

[WRQC527]

Just now, Sshannon said:

Absolutely 100% agreed.  Here’s the actual paragraph:

You can expect a communications range of one to twenty-five miles depending on station class, terrain and repeater use.  You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations. 

It must be pointed out that that is the FCC’s interpretation (which counts! ) of 95.1749.

I don’t have a dog in this fight.  I don’t have a GMRS repeater and if I did I doubt that I would link it.

I think it boils down to this, based on the definition of remote control, I can connect to a repeater and remotely control it via the Internet.  But connecting one repeater to another repeater to carry traffic between them over the Internet goes too far for the FCC.

But my understanding should not be taken as any kind of authoritative source.  

This is the same link I showed you last week. The issue I have is that the wording under the Operations tab is different from the wording in 95.1749. OP said 95.1749 was updated to include "other networks". I'm not seeing that. 

[tweiss3]

In this interpretation (if correct), only linking via IP is prohibited. It is still possible to link repeaters via RF using GMRS frequencies, and remain completely legal. Thus, the "opinion" that linking is illegal is not a true statement.

If there is any enforcement action taken, it would have to be based on the eCFR, not the "summary" posted by the FCC. I'm still not certain the "linking is illegal" crowd has any leg to stand on. I'm not a lawyer though, and I have no intention on getting into that fight.

[SteveShannon]

31 minutes ago, tweiss3 said:

In this interpretation (if correct), only linking via IP is prohibited. It is still possible to link repeaters via RF using GMRS frequencies, and remain completely legal. Thus, the "opinion" that linking is illegal is not a true statement.

If there is any enforcement action taken, it would have to be based on the eCFR, not the "summary" posted by the FCC. I'm still not certain the "linking is illegal" crowd has any leg to stand on. I'm not a lawyer though, and I have no intention on getting into that fight.

It says nothing about IP.  It simply says other networks. There are many other kinds of networks. 
But I agree; any enforcement action must be based on the CFR. Many trials occur because of differences in interpretations. 

[wrci350]

28 minutes ago, tweiss3 said:

In this interpretation (if correct), only linking via IP is prohibited. It is still possible to link repeaters via RF using GMRS frequencies, and remain completely legal.

Yes, but how many of the numerous GMRS repeaters that are linked together use RF to do so?  I'm sure there are a few, but the vast majority are using VOIP over the Internet.

The wording in 95.1749 was not changed recently.  On one of the FCC sites you can go back through the last xx revisions and that phrase about "other networks" has been there for a long time.  But 95.1749 also says (to paraphrase), "You are allowed to do <this> ONLY", where <this> is remote control.  Sending voice traffic between repeaters is not "remote control".

The wording on the Operations tab says, "you are not allowed to link GMRS repeaters over the Internet to carry voice traffic".  The fact that the FCC hasn't taken any action against of the linked GMRS networks suggests that they don't care too much.  That could change at any time.  Or not.

[Lscott]

1 hour ago, tweiss3 said:

It is still possible to link repeaters via RF using GMRS frequencies, and remain completely legal.

Hum... I wonder if linking repeaters, more than two, over an RF link, could be considered a "network." It seems the real question is the very definition of what is a "network" in the context of the FCC's usage. With a firm mutually agreed upon definition the rest should just fall into place. 

[tweiss3]

Just now, Lscott said:

Hum... I wonder if linking repeaters, more than two, over an RF link, could be considered a "network." It seems the real question is the very definition of what is a "network" in the context of the FCC's usage. With a firm mutually agreed upon definition the rest should just fall into place. 

Funny, right in the definitions:

§ 95.303 Definitions.

The following terms and definitions apply only to the rules in this part.

Network connection. Connection of a Personal Radio Services station to the public switched network, so that operators of other stations in that service are able to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station.

[Lscott]

12 minutes ago, tweiss3 said:

Funny, right in the definitions:

§ 95.303 Definitions.

The following terms and definitions apply only to the rules in this part.

Network connection. Connection of a Personal Radio Services station to the public switched network, so that operators of other stations in that service are able to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station.

So, that means clearly the POTS, plain old telephone system, network. In that context then linking through other kinds of networks, Internet, would be OK. That implies linking GMRS repeaters through other kinds of networks should he just fine.

[tweiss3]

6 minutes ago, Lscott said:

So, that means clearly the POTS, plain old telephone system, network. In that context then linking through other kinds of networks, Internet, would be OK. That implies linking GMRS repeaters through other kinds of networks should he just fine.

Correct, meaning the addition of "other networks" was to include VOIP phones, and not limit the definition to copper pairs. 

[WRQC527]

I just spoke to a very nice lady at the FCC who sent me the same information that's on the Operations tab. Not real helpful, so I sent a request to the FCC to clarify and explain a few things about linking repeaters, and if in fact it is against the rules, why they don't do anything about it. If and when they respond, mayhaps I'll post their response here. 

[WRXB215]

Is a repeater considered a "station?"

[SteveShannon]

“Is a repeater considered a "station?"

Yes 

[WRKC935]

At 1 hour 19 minutes and 48 seconds THIS web site is specifically mentioned by the FCC agent that is speaking.  He seems to be a member here, and as such he knows and by extension the FCC KNOWS who is doing what. 

[jwilkers]

At 1 hour 19 minutes and 48 seconds THIS web site is specifically mentioned by the FCC agent that is speaking.  He seems to be a member here, and as such he knows and by extension the FCC KNOWS who is doing what. 

And that is a good thing. The FCC will be aware of what's going on and will adjust...slowly....to meet our needs....maybe, hopefully.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk

[ULTRA2]

On 2/16/2024 at 8:53 AM, Sshannon said:

 It simply says other networks

Is repeater connecting to Zello illegal too.  Just wanted to know

[BoxCar]

Its another network isn't it?

[73blazer]

But "other networks" are not prohibited. And to @ultra2 question, nothing is "illegal" , only, against the rules. The EPA can fine a company for spewing out gross amounts of whatever, but they cannot put people in jail, or admonish you in any legal way, unless you've broken an actual law. The most they can do is fine you, the most they would do is probably nothing, and if they did do something, it would probably be , a letter in the mails asking nicely that you cease doing that. And they can only enact enforment, if somebody complains against you breaking said rule, and they catch you breaking that exact rule.

I'm not advocating breaking the rules, i hate it when people don't ahere to the rules,  the rules here are clearly not clear. A stmt on a webpage by one person, or in a video from one FCC person in on area of the country, doth not make a rule. The rules are ambiguous at best. Until it's an actual rule, AND, enforced, nobody, will care. And new GMRS linked repeaters will continue to come online.

[73blazer]

In other words, it would be extremely easy, and cheap, for the FCC to put a stop to linked GMRS repeaters. Lets be generous and say there are 1000 linked GMRS repeaters in operation (i bet there's not a 1/4 of that.but...for the sake of argument). Every one I've come across is registered with a call sign.Lets be generous and say it takes a $100k/yr FCC enforcement agent 1 week to find all such linked stations. (I bet it wouldn't take more than a day or two, but for the sake of argument) That's $1923 in that persons time.

You can easily start with sending all of them a letter stating their common interpretation of the rules and for them to please cease operation of their linking. What's a stamp today, $0.68. That's $680. + the $1923 in the FCC agents time. For $2603 they could stop a massive percentage of the operating linked sites. If they wanted to.