Are linked repeater systems about to be shut down?

[SvenMarbles]

I came across this from the FCC this morning. (paragraph 3)

It seems to remove any ambiguity from the language in Part 95.
 

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs?fbclid=IwAR3boNx4H1NaI0AJDJgCvTIgCqrIs9Bru0DGkxxr66zRtQrUn-zXSWP0t9s#operations

[jwilkers]

I hope they all go away.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk

[WRQC527]

54 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

I came across this from the FCC this morning. (paragraph 3)

It seems to remove any ambiguity from the language in Part 95.
 

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs?fbclid=IwAR3boNx4H1NaI0AJDJgCvTIgCqrIs9Bru0DGkxxr66zRtQrUn-zXSWP0t9s#operations

This paragraph has been there for several years. It is part of the Operations description of GMRS, and appears to be an addendum, if you will, to the Part 95 rules, specifically 95.1749 that regulates connecting GMRS repeaters to networks. If it's true that the FCC prohibits network linking of GMRS repeaters for anything other than remotely controlling them, there appears to be zero enforcement of it by the FCC. I inquired specifically about this issue yesterday with the FCC and I'm anxiously awaiting a reply. 

[SvenMarbles]

11 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

This paragraph has been there for several years. It is part of the Operations description of GMRS, and appears to be an addendum, if you will, to the Part 95 rules, specifically 95.1749 that regulates connecting GMRS repeaters to networks. If it's true that the FCC prohibits linking of GMRS repeaters, there appears to be zero enforcement of it by the FCC. I inquired specifically about this issue yesterday with the FCC and I'm anxiously awaiting a reply. 

I've known about the section in part 95 that mentioned not "linking repeaters to telephone systems" and the sort of ambiguity around whether or not that would apply to linked repeater systems via internet. But this paragraph here seems to be pretty straightforward.

Just an observation,.. Radio people seem to have a funny relationship with "rules". It's all ham radio decorum, say your call, use of proper equipment, and you'll be chastised for any deviation, etc. And then on the other hand, "yeah it states that in part 95 but it's not being enforced so,.."

[SvenMarbles]

56 minutes ago, jwilkers said:

I hope they all go away.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk
 

I think they have a place. I just wish they werent SO prevalent. If I could tune to one of my 4 or 5 local repeaters and have it be the linked thing, that's fine. But when it's 3 of the 5 all simulcasting the same rag chew from 3 states over, not so much....

I'm not in favor of any more additional government, but I almost wish we could have a sort of informal yet respected body that would sort of keep some order to repeater channel allocations for areas so that people aren't setting up new repeaters on top of others, and maybe additionally they could space out those linked things as well..

[WRKC935]

1 hour ago, jwilkers said:

I hope they all go away.

Sent from my SM-A136U using Tapatalk
 

Well, the one in your area HAS gone away.  I shut it off last night. 

[WRQC527]

3 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

But this paragraph here seems to be pretty straightforward.

Indeed it is. My issue is that it isn't part of 95.1749. If the FCC is serious about prohibiting the linking of repeaters to telephone systems or any other networks to carry communication, they need to specifically say it in 95.1749, and not in a paragraph found in some other section of the FCC website(s). Some radio people look at the FCC regulations like Smokey Yunick looked at the NASCAR rulebook. Bend every rule because of what it doesn't say.

[SvenMarbles]

3 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

Indeed it is. My issue is that it isn't part of 95.1749. If the FCC is serious about prohibiting the linking of repeaters to telephone systems or any other networks to carry communication, they need to specifically say it in 95.1749, and not in a paragraph found in some other section of the FCC website(s). Some radio people look at the FCC regulations like Smokey Yunick looked at the NASCAR rulebook. Bend every rule because of what it doesn't say.

Yes that's true. It's not binding until it's in the actual rule outline, not just published on an article. They're very legally careful to word things the way they do in those rules. The person publishing on a web page, who might be an FCC employee, isn't necessarily the authority to decree anything or they might not have been careful with their own language, or they could even be incorrect altogether.  I'm a drone pilot as well and in that hobby the FAA is an equally inconsistent and often convoluted governing body. This kind of stuff is nothing new..

At the end of the day, i'm more in the camp of just go on ahead and enjoy the hobby of your choice and don't do anything obviously idiotic..  

[WRQC527]

11 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

but I almost wish we could have a sort of informal yet respected body that would sort of keep some order to repeater channel allocations

Like we have with amateur radio repeaters. Here in southern California, my 2-meter repeaters are coordinated through TASMA, my 1200 Mhz repeater is coordinated through SCRRBA.

[WRKC935]

8 minutes ago, WSAK691 said:

I think they have a place. I just wish they werent SO prevalent. If I could tune to one of my 4 or 5 local repeaters and have it be the linked thing, that's fine. But when it's 3 of the 5 all simulcasting the same rag chew from 3 states over, not so much....

I'm not in favor of any more additional government, but I almost wish we could have a sort of informal yet respected body that would sort of keep some order to repeater channel allocations for areas so that people aren't setting up new repeaters on top of others, and maybe additionally they could space out those linked things as well..

Well, I took mine off the air.  Which was the ONLY active linked repeater in Ohio.  So now there are none in the state.  I did enjoy having people to have actual discussions with.  But I am not gonna wait to have the FCC decide to tell me I can't be doing it and giving me a fine in the process. 

I actually had two repeaters on the air, one was linked and the other one was not.  This was done to combat the issue that you mentioned.  There needed to be a repeater that locals could use to have local discussions that weren't carried across 4 states when the users having that conversation were 10 miles apart and no other users were involved in the discussion.  And of course, my repeaters had the same coverage so there wasn't an issue with one having better or different coverage than the other.  But that no longer matters as I have shut the one down. 

But I am curious, how many repeaters do YOU have on the air?  You seem to take issue with three of the repeater pairs having the same conversations actively going on, and mentioned 2 more repeater pairs being used.  So that's 5 of the 8 pairs in use, leaving 3 others that could be used.  Are you seeing it as somehow limiting your ability to put up a repeater?  Are the repeaters in question private use only and you don't have access to them?  Do you have equipment and a tower site that you can't put a repeater on because the pairs are all taken up by others?  Or is this a case of I need something to complain about, and this topic seems to be adequate to fill that need at this moment in time?  

Repeater owners of OPEN repeaters tend to get tired of listening to people complain about what they are doing with their equipment by people that are guests of their equipment and efforts.  I certainly am. 

[SvenMarbles]

10 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

Well, I took mine off the air.  Which was the ONLY active linked repeater in Ohio.  So now there are none in the state.  I did enjoy having people to have actual discussions with.  But I am not gonna wait to have the FCC decide to tell me I can't be doing it and giving me a fine in the process. 

I actually had two repeaters on the air, one was linked and the other one was not.  This was done to combat the issue that you mentioned.  There needed to be a repeater that locals could use to have local discussions that weren't carried across 4 states when the users having that conversation were 10 miles apart and no other users were involved in the discussion.  And of course, my repeaters had the same coverage so there wasn't an issue with one having better or different coverage than the other.  But that no longer matters as I have shut the one down. 

But I am curious, how many repeaters do YOU have on the air?  You seem to take issue with three of the repeater pairs having the same conversations actively going on, and mentioned 2 more repeater pairs being used.  So that's 5 of the 8 pairs in use, leaving 3 others that could be used.  Are you seeing it as somehow limiting your ability to put up a repeater?  Are the repeaters in question private use only and you don't have access to them?  Do you have equipment and a tower site that you can't put a repeater on because the pairs are all taken up by others?  Or is this a case of I need something to complain about, and this topic seems to be adequate to fill that need at this moment in time?  

Repeater owners of OPEN repeaters tend to get tired of listening to people complain about what they are doing with their equipment by people that are guests of their equipment and efforts.  I certainly am. 

 

I'm on the outskirts of the Chicago area and there's a repeater of some measure on every possible repeater frequency pair. Every area of the country might not resemble your area of the country.  As I've mentioned in previous postings on this forum, I definitely do appreciate the efforts of repeater administrators. The time, money, and energy spent. I'm fortunate to have several high mounted repeaters in my area with great coverage. But I will say this,.. I don't believe the dynamic is entirely that the GMRS community at large just needs to kiss the ring of the repeater administrators. While it is your equipment, you did sort of help yourself to the frequency pair, which isn't yours.. And with the limited number of pairs, there should be some degree of good stewardship towards the GMRS users. I understand that you can't please everyone, but feedback should at least be listened to without smarmy reprisal. The vast majority of repeater administrators take it on well meaning and with good intention, but there are a few out there that do it with "I want to be the moderator of this forum syndrome". The band allocation and the users that wish to occupy it aren't your toy to do what you please with, as your equipment is.