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

[Stone]

This is the first time I attempted to post a link to something. My apologies if I did it wrong. The site automatically embedded the link so I figured it was OK.

 

Stone

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, Stone said:

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

 

 

I think several of us are waiting to see exactly what really happened.  I haven’t heard of the FCC emailing someone telling them to shut down a repeater before.  This sounds more like someone running a scam.  

1 hour ago, Stone said:

This is the first time I attempted to post a link to something. My apologies if I did it wrong. The site automatically embedded the link so I figured it was OK.

 

Stone

You did nothing wrong. 

[Davichko5650]

35 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

I think several of us are waiting to see exactly what really happened.  I haven’t heard of the FCC emailing someone telling them to shut down a repeater before.  This sounds more like someone running a scam.  

 

I rather wonder about this as well. I don't know of any Government agency that would send an e-mail notice of this nature. In a similar way that the IRS must notify a taxpayer in writing, via US Mail (registered/Cerified if it get to that stage) for it to be considered an "Official Notice". They do not call or e-mail people, people call them.

Unless the repeater owner was listening 24/7 and logging, there's not much chance they would know every callsign using the repeater, unless it was a closed system with limited, i.e. family & friends, usage.

  I think my first step would be to call the FCC and make a determination to the validity of the sender. If someone is spoofing the FCC, or using this as a scam bait, I would think they'd like to know about it.

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, Davichko5650 said:

I rather wonder about this as well. I don't know of any Government agency that would send an e-mail notice of this nature. In a similar way that the IRS must notify a taxpayer in writing, via US Mail (registered/Cerified if it get to that stage) for it to be considered an "Official Notice". They do not call or e-mail people, people call them.

Unless the repeater owner was listening 24/7 and logging, there's not much chance they would know every callsign using the repeater, unless it was a closed system with limited, i.e. family & friends, usage.

  I think my first step would be to call the FCC and make a determination to the validity of the sender. If someone is spoofing the FCC, or using this as a scam bait, I would think they'd like to know about it.

Exactly.

[LeoG]

5 minutes ago, Davichko5650 said:

I rather wonder about this as well. I don't know of any Government agency that would send an e-mail notice of this nature. In a similar way that the IRS must notify a taxpayer in writing, via US Mail (registered/Cerified if it get to that stage) for it to be considered an "Official Notice". They do not call or e-mail people, people call them.

Unless the repeater owner was listening 24/7 and logging, there's not much chance they would know every callsign using the repeater, unless it was a closed system with limited, i.e. family & friends, usage.

  I think my first step would be to call the FCC and make a determination to the validity of the sender. If someone is spoofing the FCC, or using this as a scam bait, I would think they'd like to know about it.

The only issue of calling them is it puts them right in the face of the FCC for them to scour over the situation which is something they may not even know exists if this is a prank/scam.

[SteveShannon]

10 minutes ago, LeoG said:

The only issue of calling them is it puts them right in the face of the FCC for them to scour over the situation which is something they may not even know exists if this is a prank/scam.

Scammers count on that level of fear to avoid getting caught.

[WRQC527]

1 hour ago, Stone said:

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

 

I'm not going to straight-up say the letter to that club is fake because I have not seen the letter, and whoever supplied the letter failed to identify either who sent it or the email address from where it was sent. All we have seen are portions the "offending" radio club's communication describing the letter. But there more red flags than a Cuban May Day parade. A "verbal warning" is when one person speaks using a human voice to another human. An email is not a verbal warning. The FCC would probably not suggest that anything be done "by the end of the day". I cannot imagine the FCC expecting a repeater operator to rat out all the users by supplying call signs. As a repeater trustee myself, if there was anything amiss with our repeaters, such as spurious emissions, or any of a litany of problems emitting from our equipment, they would contact me, not the members of my club or users of our repeaters. By snail mail, not email. That's why the FCC requires your physical address (or PO box). If a licensed operator is violating  rules, the FCC would go directly to them without the need for a radio narc. Apparently, according to the letter, the FCC has the roster of all the offending club's members, including email addresses. Another red flag. To me, the letter sounds like an angry GMRS user who is trying to bully a club by generating a letter that sounds just legitimate enough to scare them out of linking repeaters.

[SteveShannon]

12 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

I'm not going to straight-up say the letter to that club is fake because I have not seen the letter, and whoever supplied the letter failed to identify either who sent it or the email address from where it was sent. All we have seen are portions the "offending" radio club's communication describing the letter. But there more red flags than a Cuban May Day parade. A "verbal warning" is when one person speaks using a human voice to another human. An email is not a verbal warning. The FCC would probably not suggest that anything be done "by the end of the day". I cannot imagine the FCC expecting a repeater operator to rat out all the users by supplying call signs. As a repeater trustee myself, if there was anything amiss with our repeaters, such as spurious emissions, or any of a litany of problems emitting from our equipment, they would contact me, not the members of my club or users of our repeaters. By snail mail, not email. That's why the FCC requires your physical address (or PO box). If a licensed operator is violating  rules, the FCC would go directly to them without the need for a radio narc. Apparently, according to the letter, the FCC has the roster of all the offending club's members, including email addresses. Another red flag. To me, the letter sounds like an angry GMRS user who is trying to bully a club by generating a letter that sounds just legitimate enough to scare them out of linking repeaters.

Except for the last sentence I fully agree.  And I admit that the last sentence is a possibility; I just don’t know enough about the situation to suggest it as the motivation.  

[MarkInTampa]

FYI - Found this posted in another forum:
 

Today, the Repeater Custodian of the Alliance 575 Simulcast System, [deleted] W[deleted], received an email from the FCC Enforcement Bureau. The email contained a verbal warning stating that the Simulcast System is in violation of §95.1733 and §95.333. According to the FCC agent, the use of a voting comparator and simulcast controller is considered "interconnecting of a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications."

Here is the provided definition of "Voting" along with some guidance from the agent:

"A voting configuration has receivers all have a backhaul (i.e. microwave, wire, or radio) connection to a central device known as a voting controller. When a transmission from the user occurs, the voting controller ‘listens’ to the demodulated audio from each of the receivers in the system and determines which one has the strongest signal. It does this by measuring the amount of noise in the audio using statistical methods to calculate a signal’s Received Signal Strength Index (RSSI) or Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) for analog communications, or Bit Error Rate (BER) for digital communications. Once the voting controller picks (i.e., votes for) the strongest received signal, it passes this signal onto the intended location via a backhaul connection or radio re-transmission."

"Like the Zello or HT apps, you cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications."

"As per §95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses: (a) In addition to the prohibited uses outlined in §95.333 of this chapter, GMRS stations must not communicate: (8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station; A voting system does meet this as a linked system."

The agent has requested that the system be turned off by the end of the day today to avoid further enforcement actions. Consequently, the system was turned off at 5:04 PM on 6/14/2024.

Additionally, the FCC agent requested a list of callsigns for the operators using the system. Due to the system being set up with an "open" PL (141.3), fulfilling this request is nearly impossible. However, [name] has offered to provide the complete list of Alliance member callsigns to the FCC agent. I am uncertain what actions the FCC agent may take with this list.

[name] copied me on his correspondence to the FCC agent, and I am hopeful that the agent will reach out to me regarding the club member list. The list has not been sent to the FCC as of this notice. I have no intentions of releasing a list until I have a discussion with the FCC agent as to what role the NYS GMRS Alliance Club may play in this situation. As President of the Alliance, I believe the member callsign list should not be released to the FCC. My top priority is protecting our members and maintaining open communication as we address the situation with the simulcast system.

The Leadership Team held an emergency meeting tonight to discuss our response. Every aspect of the situation will be reviewed in the coming days, and we will work diligently to find a suitable path forward.

I have also instructed VP [name] to halt the processing of new memberships and renewals at this time. This situation is rapidly developing, and I will provide updates as they become available.

I understand this news is very disheartening, and you may have many questions or concerns. Please direct all questions to the [deleted] email address and I will answer them the best I can, as soon as I can.

Thank you for your continued support.

[WRYZ926]

I have been keeping up with this thread and also just watched the video. I don't know what to make of that email. I personally would want to see the entire email to include the address that it came from.

As stated, the federal govt. will give a "verbal" warning in person and not through an email. And All of the written warning that I have ever seen have been via regular mail using an official letter head.

I willl wait for more information before passing judgement one way or another.

[LeoG]

So if and when this is found to be fraudulent they'll need an investigation to find the guy who put this fake letter out and took the system down.

[Gnarlykaw]

The WHOLE thing just smells fishy! 
1). NO legal letterhead…..

2) requesting ( nicely) for ALL the users…

3) NO return address?? 
 

to me, it looks more like some sort of a local dispute….  Just my .02

[Davichko5650]

1 hour ago, LeoG said:

The only issue of calling them is it puts them right in the face of the FCC for them to scour over the situation which is something they may not even know exists if this is a prank/scam.

True.  I'm thinking I'd wait for an actual Letter in the mail with an NAL. 

[SteveShannon]

3 minutes ago, Davichko5650 said:

True.  I'm thinking I'd wait for an actual Letter in the mail with an NAL. 

How long do you wait for something that might never come.

[LeoG]

I also don't understand why they shut them down.  Just shut the linking system down and keep the repeaters working in the local area.  You fix the violation, not burn down the house.

[Davichko5650]

3 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

How long do you wait for something that might never come.

Well, I keep waiting on that big Powerball win!  But I'm thinking for the moment, in the absence of any official notice here, I would keeps things running status quo, or at a minimum drop the links and not reply to the e-mail.

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, Davichko5650 said:

Well, I keep waiting on that big Powerball win!  But I'm thinking for the moment, in the absence of any offcial notice here, I would keeps things running status quo, and not reply to the e-mail.

I would do as @LeoG said, turn off the linking and keep the repeaters up unlinked. Then, with no possible violations present, have a lawyer contact the fcc enforcement department to find out if they sent an email.

[Davichko5650]

2 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

I would do as @LeoG said, turn off the linking and keep the repeaters up unlinked. Then, with no possible violations present, have a lawyer contact the fcc enforcement department to find out if they sent an email.

Edited my comment after your reply it seems. I did add drop the links.  Hope the Notarubicon Center keeps us updated out there on YootOob

[WRQC527]

12 hours ago, MarkInTampa said:

received an email from the FCC Enforcement Bureau

It would make much more sense if folks would say "allegedly" from the FCC Enforcement Bureau, because simply saying it was from the FCC gives it credibility that it neither has nor deserves. 

[WRQC527]

30 minutes ago, LeoG said:

I also don't understand why they shut them down.  Just shut the linking system down and keep the repeaters working in the local area.  You fix the violation, not burn down the house.

Some folks are gullible enough to fall for crap like this. Scammers love them. 

[gortex2]

3 hours ago, LeoG said:

I also don't understand why they shut them down.  Just shut the linking system down and keep the repeaters working in the local area.  You fix the violation, not burn down the house.

 

2 hours ago, SteveShannon said:

I would do as @LeoG said, turn off the linking and keep the repeaters up unlinked. Then, with no possible violations present, have a lawyer contact the fcc enforcement department to find out if they sent an email.

It is my understanding this is a simulcast system. If he shut off the links then the system wont work. To work properly each transmitter site waits for the signal from the comparator to key up. There are some configurations that are used called "in cabinet repeat" however that is not alwasy done. I rarely see this done as a link issue (IP issue) can casue a site to TX while another site is on the air and casue distortion if on same frequency. 

Also while I'm not going to dispute an email vs mail, I can say if you work in the industry and know certain folks I could explain an email or text from someone saying "hey putz xyz". JMHO

[amaff]

5 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

It is my understanding this is a simulcast system. If he shut off the links then the system wont work. To work properly each transmitter site waits for the signal from the comparator to key up. There are some configurations that are used called "in cabinet repeat" however that is not alwasy done. I rarely see this done as a link issue (IP issue) can casue a site to TX while another site is on the air and casue distortion if on same frequency. 

Right, but breaking the links and running them as distinct repeaters seems like it's an option, ass-u-me-ing it's legit.

5 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

 if you work in the industry and know certain folks I could explain an email or text from someone saying "hey putz xyz".

...................what?

[LeoG]

2 hours ago, WRQC527 said:

Some folks are gullible enough to fall for crap like this. Scammers love them. 

Even if they are gullible enough to fall for it, you don't shut the whole thing down when they are only complaining about a small part of the system.  You disconnect the offending part and continue on until notified otherwise.  Just to be on the safe side that this is an actual email from the Ef Sea Seas.

[SteveShannon]

10 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

 

It is my understanding this is a simulcast system. If he shut off the links then the system wont work. To work properly each transmitter site waits for the signal from the comparator to key up. There are some configurations that are used called "in cabinet repeat" however that is not alwasy done. I rarely see this done as a link issue (IP issue) can casue a site to TX while another site is on the air and casue distortion if on same frequency. 

Also while I'm not going to dispute an email vs mail, I can say if you work in the industry and know certain folks I could explain an email or text from someone saying "hey putz xyz". JMHO

It certainly would not work as a simulcast system or have voting, but is there any reason it couldn’t be reconfigured as separate repeaters?

[gortex2]

@SteveShannon No i dont think that is the issue. Depending on configuration they could be reprogrammed for local use. Its up to the club and tech working on the stuff.

For reference on a similar system deployed - 4 Quantars, 4 MLC8000 IP Gateways, 1 MLC8000 Comparator. IP linked via IPSEC tunnels on private microwave service. All 4 are setup for BASE only configuration. If I drop one link the other 3 still TX and RX. The 4th sits quiet. If the link is pulled from the comparator all sites RX but have no comparator to tell them to TX. As said previously I could set one site for local "fallback" but if that is the site severed now when a user keys up both that site and the simulcast sites will key up and casue distortion for end users. Unless you can 100% control the link from the comparator to the site it can casue alot of trouble. With different frequency use it can be mitigated but thats how it works in the MSI world. 

Our SAR folks had a similar setup in the past with 2 TX sites and 3 RX sites. That was on T1 and used 4W circuits to the comparator. Same thing could happen but the comparator and one RF site was in the same site so the other site could drop and the main site would stay on the air. 

I think the "link" word can be missrepresented a bit as the majority of the users think of the repeater having a link to another site via allstar/mygmrs/etc which normally runs on a Raspberry Pi or similar non critical device and not the traditional industry networked solutions. 

I'm sure this will get worked out and something will come back on the air. If the FCC determines and provides written information that this can't be done I would think it would be step one to end the linking systems in GMRS.