For anyone interested in the FCC rules about linked GMRS repeaters, a response from the FCC.

[WRQC527]

A couple of weeks ago, I asked the FCC this question via their Help system.

"Description: 95.1749 says "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." But there are repeaters that are linked via the internet to increase their range. Under https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/general-mobile-radio-service-gmrs, which does not look like an actual regulation, the wording states "You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network OR ANY OTHER NETWORK for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications". Is this simply an explanation of 95.1749? Why is it worded differently than 95.1749, and why is there no enforcement of the prohibition of linking GMRS repeaters?"

Today, for what it's worth, I got this response. I'll let others pontificate on the meaning, ramifications, innuendos, inferences, confusion, intricacies, complexities, misunderstandings, or misunderestimations of this response, and what it means for the future of linked GMRS repeaters. 

Good afternoon,

The website is an attempt to clarify rules 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749. If you are aware of such operations causing interference then you may report the interference to the Enforcement Bureau.

FCC Rules and Regulations (Title 47)

---

The FCC rules and regulations are found in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. You can access these rules from the website: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title47/47tab_02.tpl.

To obtain information pertaining to rules violations and the fines associated with non-compliance of FCC rules, please review rule sections 1.80 (Forfeiture proceedings) and 1.89 (Notice of violoations).

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please submit a help request at https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/available-support-services or call the FCC Licensing Support Center at (877) 480-3201.

Sincerely,

FCC Licensing Support Center
8:00 AM – 6:00 PM EST, M - F

[nokones]

A telephone connection refers to being connected to a telephone "switched" system i.e. a dial up line. Telcom RTO and pieceout (dedicated) circuits, and internet connections are not part of the telephone switched system.

[WRQC527]

17 minutes ago, nokones said:

A telephone connection refers to being connected to a telephone "switched" system i.e. a dial up line. Telcom RTO and pieceout (dedicated) circuits, and internet connections are not part of the telephone switched system.

Your point?

[WRKC935]

So basically they are not answering the question and instead asking if you are aware of it causing any interference and then directing you, IF you know of it causing interference to report the INTERFERENCE.  Not that people are doing it, but if the repeaters that are doing it are causing interference by doing it. 

We know that they know that it's being done.  And they seem to be unfazed by that specifically being done and only seem to be interested if it's causing interference. 

I have no idea what the take away is on all thins, but is sounds like they really don't care or are willing to take a stance on it one way or another if there is no interference present due to it happening. 

 

 

[Guest]

I believe that this debate will continue until the FCC provides a specific clarification on what "Or any Other Network" means or until some type of enforcement action takes place to make it clear. Until then, it's vague language and open for interpretation.

[Socalgmrs]

20 minutes ago, WRYK453 said:

I believe that this debate will continue until the FCC provides a specific clarification on what "Or any Other Network" means or until some type of enforcement action takes place to make it clear. Until then, it's vague language and open for interpretation.

pretty sure its very clear.   It says what it says  there is no other interpretation.   I don't understand why people cant read and understand plain language.   Its clear as can be and does not need any other clarification.   The reason this is, and will still be debated is because people don't want to accept it and are always looking for a work around  

[WRKC935]

17 minutes ago, WRYK453 said:

I believe that this debate will continue until the FCC provides a specific clarification on what "Or any Other Network" means or until some type of enforcement action takes place to make it clear. Until then, it's vague language and open for interpretation.

And in this case, they don't seem to want to provide that clarification.

So let's try to decipher their version of interference, because that's the sticky part.  There is a requirement to monitor the airwaves before transmitting on a frequency or any frequency used in the output of a repeater.  So the situation would need to exist where two repeaters on the same frequency existed, one being linked and the other not linked.  To create interference, a user would need to know there was a second repeater on the air in a given location that was not linked and know that it was in use when you keyed up into another repeater that is linked to that other linked repeater then causing interference.

Here's the problem with that.  No GMRS type accepted radios that are truly Part 95 compliant have a HUB defeats PL/DPL in them.  At least none I am specifically aware of and others are welcome to comment if they do exist.  Going on the fact that functionality doesn't exist in all type accepted radios, there isn't a way to 'monitor' the frequency prior to transmitting on a local repeater that shares the frequency with another repeater.  So the fact that you are talking through a linked repeater in another state that you can't hear for obvious reasons, or that you grab the mike on your part 95 radio and go to use it, due to the fact you don't have a hub defeats PL OR an unprogrammable busy channel lockout that can't be defeated, you would be in violation of the 'interference' regulation in both instances but the FCC not requiring a busy channel lockout or hub defeats PL function in the radio that wasn't able to be disabled gives anyone that would do this a way out and arguable defense in court. 

Basically, it would use their regulations and type acceptance rules against them when they accused you of causing interference based on what they came up with for a reply to you. 

I am not a lawyer, and don't claim to be.  I just take their logic in this case and their written regulations and turn them around as a defense. 

 

[WRQC527]

33 minutes ago, WRXP381 said:

pretty sure its very clear.  

In that case, since it's so clear, why would the FCC say that the paragraph is an attempt to clarify Regulation 95.1749? 

[WRHS218]

Whether it is clear or not the FCC did not answer 527's questions. Typical bureaucratic non answer.

[WRZY946]

The pedantry behind the rules perpetuated by the community wanting a straight answer,

and the bureaucracy not giving a straight answer, instead opting to encourage reporting if it's needed,

tells me that the actual stance on the issue as of this moment is "if it isn't a problem, don't worry about it."

[WRKC935]

19 minutes ago, WRZY946 said:

The pedantry behind the rules perpetuated by the community wanting a straight answer,

and the bureaucracy not giving a straight answer, instead opting to encourage reporting if it's needed,

tells me that the actual stance on the issue as of this moment is "if it isn't a problem, don't worry about it."

Well, they are indicating that they welcome reporting.  But the reporting they want isn't of the specific violation, rather the act of the violation causing interference to another user.  So it basically reads they don't care unless you are specifically interfering with the operations of another on the frequency. 

Mind you I am not trying to say it's legal through a lack of enforcement, nor will this cause me to put my repeater back on line. 

I just banned from my equipment an entire group that owns and manages a repeater to the east of me due to the actions of another operator.  He decided to send me this long text about an operator that was using their repeater without permission, then causing issues on a ham repeater.  Problem was that I have been friends with the guy he was accusing for over 30 years.  He expected me to get enraged about the situation, so I did.  I banned him, and his group of repeater owner / managers from using my equipment.  And I am about to the point I will be putting up a repeater on a different frequency that will have double the coverage of theirs and try to make daily contacts with the individual that he was complaining to me about, hell I may put HIS call sign on it and turn it over to him once it's operational, just to drive the point home.  And I can do that as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of their repeater and there isn't ANYTHING they can do about it.  Of course I will not have he laundry list of demands to belong to their group and have access to their repeater either.    Because, yes, I am that guy. 

Problem with banning all those folks is they / he (no names given on purpose) are the type that will turn me in for interference even when none exists.  I have the GMRS repeater with arguably the greatest coverage in the Central Ohio area.  And I am not going to risk, at this time getting a report of causing interference placed on me because I wasn't fair when I banned them from my gear.  And the person that started all this, well it isn't the first time that he's caused issues.  I am pretty certain that he's the one that got all bent a couple years ago when the operator up in the Northwest got drunk and was on the radio.  I believe it was that same individual that contacted me then and ask what I was going to do about an operator that was 3 states away from me operating a radio while drunk.  When my reply wasn't to his liking, he then got mad at ME for not doing anything about the actions of another operator.  So I banned him then and forgot about it.  Since I forgot about it, he got back on and I just let it go.  Then he pulled the latest thing and I banned him and his group from my repeater.  So he got to explain why his entire group got banned from the repeater.  Because, again, I am that guy at times.

 

[Raybestos]

On 3/4/2024 at 7:45 PM, WRKC935 said:

And in this case, they don't seem to want to provide that clarification.

So let's try to decipher their version of interference, because that's the sticky part.  There is a requirement to monitor the airwaves before transmitting on a frequency or any frequency used in the output of a repeater.  So the situation would need to exist where two repeaters on the same frequency existed, one being linked and the other not linked.  To create interference, a user would need to know there was a second repeater on the air in a given location that was not linked and know that it was in use when you keyed up into another repeater that is linked to that other linked repeater then causing interference.

Here's the problem with that.  No GMRS type accepted radios that are truly Part 95 compliant have a HUB defeats PL/DPL in them.  At least none I am specifically aware of and others are welcome to comment if they do exist.  Going on the fact that functionality doesn't exist in all type accepted radios, there isn't a way to 'monitor' the frequency prior to transmitting on a local repeater that shares the frequency with another repeater.  So the fact that you are talking through a linked repeater in another state that you can't hear for obvious reasons, or that you grab the mike on your part 95 radio and go to use it, due to the fact you don't have a hub defeats PL OR an unprogrammable busy channel lockout that can't be defeated, you would be in violation of the 'interference' regulation in both instances but the FCC not requiring a busy channel lockout or hub defeats PL function in the radio that wasn't able to be disabled gives anyone that would do this a way out and arguable defense in court. 

Basically, it would use their regulations and type acceptance rules against them when they accused you of causing interference based on what they came up with for a reply to you. 

I am not a lawyer, and don't claim to be.  I just take their logic in this case and their written regulations and turn them around as a defense. 

 

Also, other repeaters are not the only possible victims of interference from a linked system where distant stations cannot monitor local outputs for traffic.  Simplex operators on those eight 50W simplex/repeater channels can also negatively be impacted.

[Lscott]

On 3/5/2024 at 12:25 AM, WRKC935 said:

Well, they are indicating that they welcome reporting.  But the reporting they want isn't of the specific violation, rather the act of the violation causing interference to another user.  So it basically reads they don't care unless you are specifically interfering with the operations of another on the frequency. 

Mind you I am not trying to say it's legal through a lack of enforcement, nor will this cause me to put my repeater back on line. 

I just banned from my equipment an entire group that owns and manages a repeater to the east of me due to the actions of another operator.  He decided to send me this long text about an operator that was using their repeater without permission, then causing issues on a ham repeater.  Problem was that I have been friends with the guy he was accusing for over 30 years.  He expected me to get enraged about the situation, so I did.  I banned him, and his group of repeater owner / managers from using my equipment.  And I am about to the point I will be putting up a repeater on a different frequency that will have double the coverage of theirs and try to make daily contacts with the individual that he was complaining to me about, hell I may put HIS call sign on it and turn it over to him once it's operational, just to drive the point home.  And I can do that as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of their repeater and there isn't ANYTHING they can do about it.  Of course I will not have he laundry list of demands to belong to their group and have access to their repeater either.    Because, yes, I am that guy. 

Problem with banning all those folks is they / he (no names given on purpose) are the type that will turn me in for interference even when none exists.  I have the GMRS repeater with arguably the greatest coverage in the Central Ohio area.  And I am not going to risk, at this time getting a report of causing interference placed on me because I wasn't fair when I banned them from my gear.  And the person that started all this, well it isn't the first time that he's caused issues.  I am pretty certain that he's the one that got all bent a couple years ago when the operator up in the Northwest got drunk and was on the radio.  I believe it was that same individual that contacted me then and ask what I was going to do about an operator that was 3 states away from me operating a radio while drunk.  When my reply wasn't to his liking, he then got mad at ME for not doing anything about the actions of another operator.  So I banned him then and forgot about it.  Since I forgot about it, he got back on and I just let it go.  Then he pulled the latest thing and I banned him and his group from my repeater.  So he got to explain why his entire group got banned from the repeater.  Because, again, I am that guy at times.

 

I’m glad I don’t own and operate a functioning repeater system. I don’t need this kind of headache.

[WRXB215]

11 hours ago, Lscott said:

I’m glad I don’t own and operate a functioning repeater system. I don’t need this kind of headache.

I agree. Another reason I'm very grateful to those who do. 

[gortex2]

So someone else asked a similar but more specific question to the FCC and the responce was much different....Itsn ot my post but can be seen here - 

http://forums.radioreference.com/threads/considerations-about-linking-gmrs-repeaters.462408/post-3973769

 

[WRQC527]

1 hour ago, gortex2 said:

 

http://forums.radioreference.com/threads/considerations-about-linking-gmrs-repeaters.462408/post-3973769

 

And here I thought MyGMRS forums were pits of snarkiness. Personally, the way I read the rules, it looks like linking GMRS repeaters is prohibited, but the way the rules are written generates debate. And the answers from the FCC only fuel the debate. I would never come right out and say it publicly, but I think linking GMRS repeaters is stupid and it ties up valuable bandwidth. But I'm not in charge.

[Radioguy7268]

I think that linking 2 repeaters across a distance, when those 2 repeaters are carrying a conversation between 2 (or more) people can be a useful option.  I think state-wide or regional systems with 5, 10, or more repeaters being keyed simultaneously is a waste of spectrum.

 

[Lscott]

2 hours ago, Radioguy7268 said:

I think state-wide or regional systems with 5, 10, or more repeaters being keyed simultaneously is a waste of spectrum.

 

That's a valid point. I think a fair number of GMRS users would agree given the limited number of repeater frequency pairs available.

IMHO one should look at what the original purpose of GMRS was targeted at. You get a feeling for that based on the licensing rules, basically a family with parents and siblings. The typical communication would be limited to a small area. I don't think the intended operational vision was communication over large geographical areas, such as state wide or multi-state systems. A city wide or county wide system might be more reasonable.

I'm neutral on the topic. I don't have a dog in the fight, not a repeater owner/operator.  I'll let others do the heavy lifting.

Advice given to new attorneys by the old experienced ones : "If the law is against you, pound on the law. If the facts are against you pound on the facts. If both are against you pound on the table."

[gortex2]

As I've said multiple times I've had GMRS since I was a kid. Dad had a license and we rented a "PL" on a repeater originally. Later on he found a good used repeater and we had it on a telephone pole in town. Years later we ended up at a small tower on a hill. It was always used for "dad" on the way home and "Mom" saying she needs bread or milk from the store. No one else was on the channel. Once in a great while we would travel caravan style and use radio to radio. In those days portable radios were expensive and didn't work well. I dont think we ever had a portable until I got into it in the mid 90's. Even then it was a midland 2 channel xstal radio.  During this time we never even thought about talking around the state let alone the country. It was used for utility purposes. We still use GMRS in that way for family use. I also use it now for off roading with JeepJamborree but that's all simplex. No need to talk 200 miles away. 

I still firmly believe the linking is pushed by unhappy hams. Same with nets and all that. While many think I hate hams I've been one for over 30 years. I use HAM radio for APRS, SAR and other uses. Again each service or technology is used for a need. No different than Cell Phone Apps. we use Zello to Patch SAR channels for situational awareness, Internet for console sites and plain old simplex to talk to teams in the woods. 

I hope the FCC clarifies further myself and will slow or put an end to linking for those that want repeaters for local use. Also I run 8 repeaters. None are linked, nor can be used in the same area. No need. 

 

[WRYC373]

Let us go through the sands of time as best as I can tell and Im sure i got some dates and or specifics wrong.

1930's LMR is created for business use.

1960's GMRS (Class A CB) is created and is very popular among small rural business use. Ie Family Farms etc. Basically as a subset of LMR and then some channels absorbed into LMR (MURS started similarly but thats another story) 

1970's GMRS business channel pair licensing rule established. 

1987 End of GMRS Business exclusive license's and the channel pair rule

1994 FRS is created near GMRS for people who don't need GMRS and didn't want to pay the fee.

2000's GMRS/FRS combo radio's start appearing and people are using 15-22 unlicensed (who could've possibly seen this coming? ).

Early 2010's GMRS begins to become popular among Outdoors enthusiasts

GMRS communities start forming

Late 2010's GMRS linking starts occurring over the internet.

2012 UV-5R appears.

2017 GMRS/FRS combo banned, free band UV-5R's kinda dealt with from the FCC.

GMRS really takes off and starts to become Ham-lite.

2020 FCC realizes the floodgates that they have caused ensuring HAM-lite is an eventuality.

2021 FCC tries to clarify some rules/definitions to prevent it, its too late.

 

Whether GMRS being Ham-lite is bad or good im not going to comment as I believe GMRS provides essential short range communications, but; also always had the power and design to talk at least county wide. GMRS is also being less enforced by the FCC and being self enforced by users playing nice is telling me the FCC really doesn't want to be forced deal with GMRS.

 

As long as it continues to play nice and not have interference/nuisance issues basically how they currently treat Ham.

Combining FRS and GMRS led to this eventuality and not re-seperating the channels made enforcement extremely difficult and hard for them to justify.

Again im not going to pass judgement besides on the FCC's inability to achieve what they want to whether or not I benefit/lose from their mistakes.

TL:DR:

Issues stemming from the FRS/GMRS combo era mean that the FCC cannot enforce GMRS as strongly as some people wish and the FCC is hoping that people can be civil on GMRS so they do not have to. 

 

 

Like all things in life:

Play nice, Work hard, Worry less.