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.

[WRZI217]

I have an opinion, but it is just that - an opinion. I consider GMRS as super-FCS, not HAM lite. I have no issue with local repeaters, but if you feel the need to "rag chew" with someone four states away, take the test and get your HAM license. But that is just my opinion.

[Hoppyjr]

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 read the story and watch Randy’s videos on the recent issue in New York State, but I don’t recall a fine being assessed. I’d think the FCC would start with an advisement or warning.

[amaff]

24 minutes ago, Hoppyjr said:

 

I read the story and watch Randy’s videos on the recent issue in New York State, but I don’t recall a fine being assessed. I’d think the FCC would start with an advisement or warning.

 

Supposedly this was a pre-warning warning, and, apparently, the owner collapsed like a house of cards. Under what seems to be, basically, zero pressure. So who knows what the story actually is there. The more stuff comes out about that, the more questions I have.

[SteveShannon]

9 minutes ago, amaff said:

Supposedly this was a pre-warning warning, and, apparently, the owner collapsed like a house of cards. Under what seems to be, basically, zero pressure. So who knows what the story actually is there. The more stuff comes out about that, the more questions I have.

Collapsed?

If one of my friends who worked for an enforcement group called me and gave me a heads up that might keep me out of an enforcement action, I would not argue. I would simply say “Thanks!” And take their advice. An early warning system is nice to have. Why argue with them?

[amaff]

I say "collapsed" because I'm honestly not convinced that's actually what happened.

The hard "BY TONIGHT" deadline, and asking for call signs, smells of something else. Maybe one day the owner speaks up, or the 'FCC agent'.  Maybe he was clever enough to spoof an e-mail from his 'FCC buddy' to get a bunch of people off of his gear for whatever reason.

Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong and a whole bunch of GMRS repeater networks get shuttered in the coming weeks. But the whole thing just smells off.

[CentralFloridaGMRS]

So I'm hearing they had the repeaters linked but not like how others are linking. In the video, he never addressed that but someone I talked to said they didn't link them like mygmrs and gmrslive links them.  But someone in my area said this is actually how they proceed with shutting down a system. He believes they linked systems will be told to shut it down. Stay tuned

[WRDJ205]

1 hour ago, WRZI217 said:

I have no issue with local repeaters, but if you feel the need to "rag chew" with someone four states away

It would be nice to hear and understand issues after a natural disaster like a hurricane with others in the region.  Certainly, this could be done with ham but it’s a lot less cumbersome if GMRS repeaters were linked at least locally (say 50-100ish miles).  

[marcspaz]

I don't think the people who write this stuff are very smart...

 

"You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications,"

 

The common definitions of a network are "a group or system of interconnected people or things." and "interact with others to exchange information"

 

Two people talking on the radio creates a network... two operators talking on a repeater (using 3 radios) is a network.  They really need someone with a firm grip on the English language to help them over at the FCC, because they are failing.

[MarkInTampa]

According to the president of the GMRS Alliance club that shut down, Carl, the club has around 226 members
The club does NOT have it's own repeater system, they were provided site access to a "simulcast multicast system" as club members that was hosted by a un-named "different person or entity's" network along with a few "member repeaters" also part of the network
The "custodian" of the simulcast system got the email asking to shut down the network - NOT the club or or any of it's members, although the club president was CC'd on reply to the FCC
The email was real - the repeater custodian and the FCC agent that sent the email have a working relationship

It sounds to me like the whole network was ran by somebody else - most likely leased from regional business band radio provider with multiple sites. The custodian gets a email from his FCC buddy that said shut it down and he did before they came knocking at the door. I'm sure that GMRS doesn't pay the bills in commercial radio arena and he doesn't need to make a enemy of FCC if they want to say on the good graces of his company's governing authority. At least he got a warning.

As far as the FCC wanting a list of call signs that use the repeater, I can kinda see that as well. They were provided site access to a "simulcast multicast system" as club members and the FCC might want to send a warning letter to the users about the situation but I'd think they would get the message once the repeater network is off the air.

[JoCoBrian]

44 minutes ago, WRDJ205 said:

It would be nice to hear and understand issues after a natural disaster like a hurricane with others in the region.  Certainly, this could be done with ham but it’s a lot less cumbersome if GMRS repeaters were linked at least locally (say 50-100ish miles).  

Certainly this could be done with a couple of phone calls,or perhaps listening to the evening media shows. 

[GreggInFL]

21 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

I don't think the people who write this stuff are very smart...

They really need someone with a firm grip on the English language to help them over at the FCC, because they are failing.

Agreed.  Reminds me of my first day in drafting class when the professor said, "Any drawing that can be interpreted in more than one way is wrong."  Change "drawing" to "regulation" and here we are.

[GreggInFL]

4 minutes ago, JoCoBrian said:

Certainly this could be done with a couple of phone calls,or perhaps listening to the evening media shows. 

Don't get many hurricanes in Indiana, eh?  Try that with a week without power and 1/4 the cell towers down.

[JoCoBrian]

1 minute ago, GreggInFL said:

Don't get many hurricanes in Indiana, eh?  Try that with a week without power and 1/4 the cell towers down.

Lived here since 1966 and I don't remember a single hurricane.  Been in some tornados, big boomer storms, hail the size of canned hams, but no hurricanes.  My friend lives in Port Charlotte...direct hit from the last hurricane through there.  No power for almost a month.  No ham repeaters working after a few days.  No cell service for days on end.  He called me from his land line. 

[GreggInFL]

1 minute ago, JoCoBrian said:

Lived here since 1966 and I don't remember a single hurricane.  Been in some tornados, big boomer storms, hail the size of canned hams, but no hurricanes.  My friend lives in Port Charlotte...direct hit from the last hurricane through there.  No power for almost a month.  No ham repeaters working after a few days.  No cell service for days on end.  He called me from his land line. 

  Love it.  Yeah, I'm originally from your neck of the woods so I know the story.  And I've always been a fan of twisted pair.

Srsly, something like a solar-powered repeater can do wonders for the neighborhood in a emergency.