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

[WRQC527]

10 hours ago, WRUQ758 said:

They JUST added "any other networks" after this meeting on the FCC website

"Any other networks" is not part of 95.1749 as it is currently written. Or any other network is found in a separate paragraph under the Operations tab of a different section of the FCC website and as has been pointed out, has been there for years. Al, the reading-impaired gentleman in the video claiming to be from the FCC, could not even bring himself to read the complete text of 95.1749.  What 95.1749 and that separate paragraph say, and what they have said unchanged for several years, is this:

"§ 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."

The paragraph in the Operations tab, the "addendum", if you will, reads as follows:

"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."

This rule, and the "addendum", if you will, under the Operations tab, seem to prohibit linking of GMRS repeaters, but there is nothing new added to the rules. In the video, Reading-Impaired Al from the FCC appears to be trying to intimidate the audience, but not with any new rules.

[BoxCar]

All this arguing about interconnecting repeaters doesn't mean squat. What is important is how the FCC and its bureaus interpret the regulations. The FCC's interpretation of what constitutes an emergency responder is an example. The FCC interprets it to be law enforcement, fire services and medical response only which is in direct conflict with the public law establishing Homeland Security stating the groups it includes as emergency responders. The only way their interpretation will change is if a federal judge rules against their current understanding of what the regulation  covers.

[WRQC527]

8 minutes ago, BoxCar said:

What is important is how the FCC and its bureaus interpret the regulations.

Yep. And I would add and enforce the regulations.

[WRUQ758]

11 hours ago, Sshannon said:

No, there are posts in this thread from 2018 that include quotes of the rules which clearly show that the phrase “any other networks” existed years ago. 

So if that's the case why did GMRS groups like GMRS Live add Zello/linking via "any other networks" and SUDDENLY after this highly publicized video remove them in a flurry? Here I am with my MXT-400, no repeaters in my area and no one to talk to except "bubble pack" users on simplex. 

[WRQC527]

20 minutes ago, WRUQ758 said:

So if that's the case why did GMRS groups like GMRS Live add Zello/linking via "any other networks" and SUDDENLY after this highly publicized video remove them in a flurry?

Because last week they heard "Reading-Impaired Al from the FCC" say it in front of a few folks at an ARRL luncheon in a Chinese restaurant in Pennsylvania, and they're taking it as The Word Of God. Maybe what Al said means enforcement is imminent, maybe it's yet another empty threat by the FCC to enforce their rules. But the risk of getting fined by the FCC is there, no matter how tiny that risk is.

[WRKC935]

5 hours ago, WRQC527 said:

Because last week they heard "Reading-Impaired Al from the FCC" say it in front of a few folks at an ARRL luncheon in a Chinese restaurant in Pennsylvania, and they're taking it as The Word Of God. Maybe what Al said means enforcement is imminent, maybe it's yet another empty threat by the FCC to enforce their rules. But the risk of getting fined by the FCC is there, no matter how tiny that risk is.

Not sure if I said this here before or not.  If I am repeating it, then it needs repeated.

The FCC is reactionary in enforcement.  Meaning they need a complaint to investigate before they will begin looking into anything.  The problem with videos like this, factual or not is it drops a 'hint' to others that something that someone else may or may not be doing is illegal.  Now if you have a bone to pick with the individual or group that is doing the thing that the federal agent said is not legal then they call in a complaint.  I shut my crap down for this reason.  I am straight forward with people and have zero filter when it comes to telling someone they are being dumb.  Of course, they get all incensed about being told they are a dipshit and that opens ME up to get investigated.  So as long as what I am doing is 100% on the up and up, there is nothing to look into. 

But I did go back through the enforcement records of the FCC and there was ONE complaint filed about some guy that was transmitting a carrier for an extended period of time and causing interference.  That was in the last 5 years.  So one complaint in 5 years time that was investigated.  So while the odd's are that I would see an investigation on my actions personally, I have pretty good odds that wouldn't happen, but they are not a 0% chance.  So mine is gonna stay off for the time being. 

 

 

[gortex2]

I laugh at all the complaints on here about loosing linking. If that's the only reason you use GMRS you need another hobby. As has been said many times over and over GMRS was never intended to be a social gathering place. It was meant for local communications for families and friends. All linking has done is ruin this in many areas. Use GMRS for what it was intended and its fine. I operate 6+ repeaters. I've never needed nor wanted any linking. Each one is for a purpose. If I need to chat with someone 100 miles away I pick up the cell phone. Personally I hope this is the start by the FCC to do something. Maybe they will, maybe they wont. But if those that are linking decide they dont want to deal with it and dropped there links its up to them as the owners of the equipment. To many folks get on hear and complain about the way a repeater works, covers or operates. There is also the expectation that repeaters are up for you and your family. If you didn't purchase it, install and maintain it then you need to rethink. 

[PugetSounder]

Clipped from an ARES 2m Net instruction page:

The repeater is linked into the (Name Removed ) network of repeaters during the net, so remember to pause for a full second or two before talking when transmitting to allow for all of the repeaters in the network to sync up.

Given the nature of many GMRS users, I would expect a total mess so be careful of what you wish for.

Also, network of repeaters seems to be the appropriate term in this context.

Glad the FCC doesn't allow it.

(My bold)

 

[Raybestos]

On 2/20/2024 at 10:00 PM, WRKC935 said:

OK, but lets look at this from the other side of the coin for a minute. 

First is what's required for a linked repeater.  Yes, there is a linking device and some sort of audio interface.  Then there is the medium that is creating the link it self.  This is typically going to be the Internet, but P2P Microwave technology can be used for a closed system with some semblance of redundancy that will deal a failure of the connected Internet.  But you are NOT going to link a system the size of the MidWest group totally on Microwave hops.  The towers are too far away from one another and the Maximum link distances are much shorter than the coverage area of a 2.4 or 5.8 Ghz hop with even the best dishes available.  So to have minimum overlap to conserve frequencies as much as possible, there would need to be intermediary's in those links that didn't have a linked repeater on the tower, only a set of Microwave links to extend the distance enough so there wasn't miles and miles of overlap of repeater coverage. 

But the most important part of the linked repeater system is going to be the repeater it self.  And that is going to be as stable and operable as the power supplied to it, regardless of the ability to link out to the system.  My repeater would fall off the system do to my microwave link failing, but it never went off the air all together.  It just stopped being linked when the link medium would fail.  Now, I provided a second repeater with similar coverage for local access.  I told folks that were local to use that repeater for local conversations and how to tell when their conversations were local via the sound of the courtesy tone on the linked repeaer.  But my point is that my repeater wasn't going to fail because the Internet went down.  So for Emergency communications, it was built out to be better than the public safety system that we have in this county.  And that's still the case. Since I support that ssytem I can tell you how it's powered.  Yes it has generators that are propane with thousand gallon tanks, but the UPS / battery system is only good for about 30 minutes.  So when a tank goes empty, they have 30 minutes to get a PROPANE truck on site to fuel it.  And the links at the sites are powered off that same system.  My battery plant is gonna run my site for 24 hours as it stands right now.  The diesel generator has a 100 gallon tank that I can fill with diesel fuel from any source that has diesel.  The county has equipment there that they have committed to fuel the generator per the tower lease during a major outage (the system there is the backup to the other propane fueled system).  They have a fuel truck and a 20K gallon tank of fuel to feed that delivery truck by.  And they have 24 hours from the time it runs dry until the battery plant goes flat.  So if you are following all this, MY repeaters are backed up better than the statewide public safety communications system.  And if they can't feed it, I have 24 hours to go find fuel (diesel) get it to the site and in the tank before I go off the air.  And I can extend that by turning off other equipment and only running the public safety gear and the GMRS repeaters.  So reliance on my gear is gonna be assured.  Even a full failure of the repeater is only a minor issue as I have cold spares sitting there to be cabled in place and spun up.   And before you ask about the tower failing, anything that will bring the tower down will destroy the building first.  So again, My repeater isn't going to fail.  There are a number of the repeaters on the MidWest system that are solar.  They too will continue to operate without utility power or the Internet. 

Now linking repeaters during a major disaster can be sort of useless, especially if those links cross great distances that are not easily to travel.  If I am having a serious issue in Ohio, people in Wisconsin are not going to either care all that much or be able to provide much in the way of assistance in a timely manner.  Which is the argument I have had about the whole Ham Radio HF communications thing.  We just don't need it.  Local comm's inside and directly outside of the effected zone, sure.  Three states away, not hardly.  But that seems to persist in the minds of the hams for whatever reason.  

So why link at all?  First thing I would say is it provides a way to draw people to GMRS to begin with.  Getting people involved is the first step.  Repeaters with traffic on them will draw more people in than repeaters that are silent.  That goes for Ham and GMRS.  If you link a bunch of them together, a short conversation will turn into a large round table discussion from people in multiple locations.  This breeds extended discussion and radio friendships that frankly bring people together that wouldn't communicate otherwise.  I have met people on the radio that I have now also met in person that are literally hundreds of miles away from me.  Had it not been for linked radio, I would have never met these people.  So there is that as well.  The other thing it does, since it's generating traffic, is it gets locals to recognize each other and builds on the local community of GMRS operators.  That breeds cooperation and brings people together of varying technical back grounds that can assist each other with technical issues, creates study partners and groups for other radio endeavors and license study for them to get ham licenses.  And once those people that are local to each other realize this, and that the repeater they are on will work with out the link when the Internet is down.  They can create groups, look in on each other, and support each other in the event of a disaster.  So while linked repeater in a disaster aren't really a handy thing, unlinked repeaters are.

So, since you brought up the discussion of Long Distance calling.  I am gonna slap you with a history lesson so you know where the moratorium on linking came from to begin with.  If you look back to Class A Citizens radio Service from the 60's and the infancy of GMRS which started in the 70's, you might remember that the telephone company AT&T was the ONLY long distance carrier at that time.  And most any telephone call outside of your local exchange was considered long distance.  Pay phones were also a thing.  So AT&T, concerned with their long distance fee's being circumvented by people linking repeaters lobbied the FCC to disallow linking via the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network).  And the FCC obliged them by codifying that in the regulations.  It was done for that reason and that reason alone.  Public safety radio service was mostly done at that time across dry pairs of phone wires and it was a know to work solution.  But public safety wasn't going to be circumventing a long distance bill by doing so.  That's where it originally came from.  The ramblings of the guy in that video proved only one thing, he doesn't know his history.

So how do we move forward?  That's the real question.  The FCC. like any other governmental regulatory body moves very slow if at all on changing anything.  But enforcement efforts on current regulations will change with the federal funding of the body.  If their funds get cut, their enforcement will increase to increase their intake of money.  And the fed's are certainly not the only governmental entities that will increase their enforcement when faced with a financial shortfall.  Every little town and burg when faced with money problems will first and foremost increase enforcement of traffic violations to generate revenue. 

So past that, what COULD be done.  First thing is the FCC doing two things. First is allowing linking by any means.  Requiring that linked repeaters will maintain their operation without the linking medium being present.  Requiring that if you are putting up a linked repeater, that the area that repeater is covering is also covered by another non-linked repeater that has the same usage requirements that the linked repeater has.  Meaning if there is some club fee to access the linked repeater that at minimum that membership is also provided access to the other non-linked repeater.  Second thing is distance between linked repeaters or coverage overlaps.  You are going to want a bit of overlap, but there should NEVER be two repeaters that are linked to the same system that overlap coverage by more than 25%.  Back in the day when you had to use a slide rule and four pencils to calculate the coverage of a repeater, it was difficult to figure out the coverage of a repeater.  Now, it's on line.  You put in the height, power, antenna gain and line loss and it will spit out a map that is reasonably accurate.  No rocket science involved. 

Another possibility is setting aside certain repeaters as the only ones that can be used for linking.  This will address the coverage issue in a different way.  If you only have two or 3 pairs that can possibly be used, then overlapping coverage gets eliminated due to technical issues created by not having your pick of pairs.  If you want to link multiple repeaters, spend the money and simulcast on a SINGLE pair from multiple sites.  Yes, it's possible, yes it's silly expensive, but it's completely doable.  I am not gonna go into what's involved, but Internet links are not gonna be any part of it for the simulcast portion.  And those systems, because of the requirements, will be redundant and high availability.  But, here again the FCC needs to change things. 

Lastly is the FCC once it changes things is it gets back to enforcement of the changes.  Get letters out to people that are violating and get them to cease and desist their inability to follow the rules.  This stuff can be fixed.  We don't need more pairs, we don't need digital radio technology to address these things, we just need a bit of change and a bit of enforcement help to get things going.  And ultimately, GMRS people that find that radio is fun, by default will go get their ham licenses, which generates MORE income though licensing fee's for the FCC bank accounts. 

 

Okay.

[WRKC935]

On 2/25/2024 at 2:17 PM, PugetSounder said:

Clipped from an ARES 2m Net instruction page:

The repeater is linked into the (Name Removed ) network of repeaters during the net, so remember to pause for a full second or two before talking when transmitting to allow for all of the repeaters in the network to sync up.

Given the nature of many GMRS users, I would expect a total mess so be careful of what you wish for.

Also, network of repeaters seems to be the appropriate term in this context.

Glad the FCC doesn't allow it.

(My bold)

 

This is due to the manner that they are linking the repeaters.  My guess would be that they are using control stations that are tied into the repeater that is local to that site.  That radio listens to the output of the repeater closest to it and when it hears that repeater come up it puts the local repeater in transmit.  Then the next site does the same thing. 

With ASL or other IP based connectivity, that is not needed.  All the repeaters have a controller that talks to all the other controllers (nodes) and via the IP link all the repeaters are put into transmit at the same time or reasonably closely.  If there is latency in the network link the PTT will get to the sites first, before any of the audio traffic, because if the network is delayed, then all the traffic is delayed.  So the way it works, the issues of needing to key it and wait aren't going to apply to the method used be at least the GMRS repeater owners here. 

[PugetSounder]

11 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

This is due to the manner that they are linking the repeaters.  My guess would be that they are using control stations that are tied into the repeater that is local to that site.  That radio listens to the output of the repeater closest to it and when it hears that repeater come up it puts the local repeater in transmit.  Then the next site does the same thing. 

With ASL or other IP based connectivity, that is not needed.  All the repeaters have a controller that talks to all the other controllers (nodes) and via the IP link all the repeaters are put into transmit at the same time or reasonably closely.  If there is latency in the network link the PTT will get to the sites first, before any of the audio traffic, because if the network is delayed, then all the traffic is delayed.  So the way it works, the issues of needing to key it and wait aren't going to apply to the method used be at least the GMRS repeater owners here. 

Thanks for that excellent reply. I'm just a humble hobbyist and trying to get my head wrapped around all this.

 

[Darmie]

I'm sure to be one of the very few that joined the GMRS community because of the link. For about a month or so, I was hearing what sounded like a repeater on a GMRS frequency and later determined with excitement that it was in fact a repeater. Amazed of how clear it sounded on the HT at our home and hearing people from other parts of the city sparked my interest. I was on a quest to obtain the license. Once received, I joined and support a local repeater group and really have enjoyed chatting with folks all over the area. My wife has used our GMRS radio and has the same enjoyment. We have friends that recently visited, live well over 100 miles away that are intrigued and now getting their license to join in the growing GMRS fun and in hopes to chat on the linked repeaters. It will be a sad day if all the linking goes away. 

[WRQC527]

14 minutes ago, Darmie said:

It will be a sad day if all the linking goes away. 

Grab some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the debate. It's like that movie my kids like, "The NeverEnding Story". 

[WRQI663]

I could take one repeater being linked, but I have heard (unconfirmed story) from a friend where all 8 repeaters were linked to one machine -- the same conversation on all repeaters with some moron "channel king" hogging up the band.

I think that "wall to wall, tree top tall" mentality might be coming to GMRS. Maybe that 90 dollar 5 year license wasn't so bad  after all.

Cheaper license now, even cheaper radios, more people on the air.

[MSN]

Although I can’t speak for the downside of linked repeaters because I am not exposed to any in my direct area, I do like the idea of Zello linking. It could really add to the functionality of a repeater without adding to the interference factor. Zello can hear all activity on the local repeater same as having RF including the simplex only side depending on how you have it set up. 

[SOBX]

On 2/16/2024 at 7:35 AM, WRXR360 said:

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

I thought it was my Boofang user manual on the wall.  

[Davichko5650]

On 2/24/2024 at 7:15 AM, WRQC527 said:

"Any other networks" is not part of 95.1749 as it is currently written. Or any other network is found in a separate paragraph under the Operations tab of a different section of the FCC website and as has been pointed out, has been there for years. Al, the reading-impaired gentleman in the video claiming to be from the FCC, could not even bring himself to read the complete text of 95.1749.  What 95.1749 and that separate paragraph say, and what they have said unchanged for several years, is this:

"§ 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."

The paragraph in the Operations tab, the "addendum", if you will, reads as follows:

"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."

This rule, and the "addendum", if you will, under the Operations tab, seem to prohibit linking of GMRS repeaters, but there is nothing new added to the rules. In the video, Reading-Impaired Al from the FCC appears to be trying to intimidate the audience, but not with any new rules.

Balance this against the definition of "network connection found in 95.303:

"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."

Nowhere in Part 95 could I find a definition of "other network", so the grayline continues????  The prohibition in 95.349 seems to be slanted towards not allowing autopatch or other types of phone patches to PRS radios. The regs of course predating the explosion of the internet.  What is really needed here is a test court case, or a NAL being issued and the response thereto to maybe clear things up in the muddy waters we now have...

[LeoG]

On 2/16/2024 at 10:58 AM, SteveShannon 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.  

So what about a wireless connection to each other?  I know 3 repeaters in NY that are connected by wireless means to each other so they act as one.  Not sure I should mention which they are...

 

I can talk to Niagra Falls from Utica.

[LeoG]

On 2/19/2024 at 5:07 AM, DominoDog said:

From what I can gather as a layperson, the rule needs clarification. People want/need to link their repeaters. That is a normal, expected use of repeaters. "Hey lets get together and talk over a broader area." That is a clear cut normal use of radio and falls within the expected use of GMRS. The rule shown very strongly leans towards "We don't want you putting autopatch on GMRS" more than "no you can't link repeaters"

Well it's designated as family radio.  The whole world is my family isn't probably something the FCC is going to say.

[LeoG]

On 3/31/2024 at 10:17 AM, WRQI663 said:

I could take one repeater being linked, but I have heard (unconfirmed story) from a friend where all 8 repeaters were linked to one machine -- the same conversation on all repeaters with some moron "channel king" hogging up the band.

I think that "wall to wall, tree top tall" mentality might be coming to GMRS. Maybe that 90 dollar 5 year license wasn't so bad  after all.

Cheaper license now, even cheaper radios, more people on the air.

That is definitely a problem with almost any popular repeater, linked or not.  I listen to a repeater in Holyoke and there is one guy who definitely likes to hear himself talk.  And getting in otherwise for the other members of the repeater has been a challenge at times.  If he is conversing with someone else they have no space between keying so the repeater is jammed continuously with no one being able to get in or talk to someone else without keying over them.  I can't image a large widespread system being held up by two chatty kathy's because they think it's a telephone.

[Raybestos]

On 6/14/2024 at 2:38 PM, LeoG said:

That is definitely a problem with almost any popular repeater, linked or not.  I listen to a repeater in Holyoke and there is one guy who definitely likes to hear himself talk.  And getting in otherwise for the other members of the repeater has been a challenge at times.  If he is conversing with someone else they have no space between keying so the repeater is jammed continuously with no one being able to get in or talk to someone else without keying over them.  I can't image a large widespread system being held up by two chatty kathy's because they think it's a telephone.

Aye, but in many parts of the country, this goes on every day.  The annoyance these Chatty Cathy's generate on one repeater is multiplied by each additional repeater in whatever network or linking system they are connected to.  The thing that makes the whole linking system thing so annoying is that these marathon filibusters often take place on one, maybe two at the most, repeaters; yet they jam up multiple repeaters and pairs in a county, state, or larger geographical area.  In areas where these linked systems are prevalent, not only are repeaters in said "network" tied up, but so are other repeaters owned by different people, or people just trying to use those few (eight) 50W Simplex channels to keep in touch with family and friends. 

[LeoG]

Yep, we have one of those on a repeater making it "popular".  But it is fun to hear some of his stories.  He did get in my way one time while I was traveling trying to contact a buddy in my hometown to see if we could connect.  Between him and whoever he was talking to they left no space between each other for someone to say excuse me, I'd like to use the repeater.  By the time they shut up I was at the range of another repeater and used that one.

[WRYZ926]

The Chatty Cathy's and the quick keyer's can be an issue at times for others wanting to use a repeater. This happens a bit on our repeater which is not normally  linked to any other repeaters.

We have an Allstar node but it is more for people to connect using apps on their phones when out of range. 

I can always tell the quick keyer's on the Bridgecom GMRS repeater because you never hear the first part of their transmissions. I don't know if there is a setting on the repeater, but one has to key up for a second before starting to talk. Those quick keyer's are use to the 2m repeater which is not that way.

[WSDH510]

Ethernet microphone?

Is connecting a microphone to an ethernet cable to a radio ok?

Does this count as remote control operation of a radio or is it GMRS linking?

[Stone]

Just heard this morning about a New York linked repeater system being shut down by Uncle FCC on 6/14/2024.  Then they got scary and wanted the repeater owner to turn over all the call signs that was using that repeater system. My understanding the FCC sent an e-mail to the repeater owner. Notarubicon made a video about this. Maybe someone here can enlighten? I just want to have the option to talk with family if other means of coms go down. That all said, all my family are under one repeater, but sometimes we travel so the linked systems are a blessing.

God Bless...    Stone