..nevermind....

[WRUU653]

1 hour ago, GreggInFL said:

^ Understood, but the question remains: Does the FCC consider the internet a "wireline"?

I don’t think the term “wireline” is at issue. It’s the term “network” that they 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.”

 

§ 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.

[nokones]

95.303 defines a specific type of "Network Connection" to the Public Switch Network that Subpart E will prohibit.

[gortex2]

So whats odder is back in the old days when we had a repeater for home use we had a "remote" at our house for control of the repeater. It used a RTL (Radio Tie Line) from our house to the mountain top. I know in those days it wasn't cheap. Autopatch was a thing then on ham big time but you could not add that to GMRS. But wants needed as Dad would call and mo would tell him to get xyz on his way home. Later on control stations took over for remotes. Just funny how stuff progresses. Isay just enjoy GMRs for what its built for and fdont try to make it something it never was. Jeep riding, talking to kids in a park, hiking, caravans home use is what 90% of the folks who use GMRS use it for. Its only folks here that have to have linking and nets. 

[Radioguy7268]

For anyone advocating for the use of AllStar or similar Linked repeaters, I've got just one question that sidesteps all the issues regarding networking and "wireline" definitions:

How are you monitoring all those remote links for local non-linked traffic prior to keying up all repeaters in your network?  What are you doing to avoid stepping on active local conversations that are not happening on your linked network, but are already taking place on non-linked repeaters?

Monitoring for traffic prior to transmitting is one of those bedrock assumptions in the shared service frequencies - at least in any conversation I've had with FCC types.

If your linked network routinely tramples on someone else's active conversation, I don't think the FCC would care if you're using microwave, Internet, or the Public Switched Telephone Network for wireline links.

[WRUU653]

^^^ This exactly, thank you.

[WRUE951]

its not hard to figure out who the 'custodian' of this large New York network belongs too.  Using the KML tool reveals it very easily.. You even see the same person networked into New Jersey.   And it's not hard to figure out why the FCC has made some noises out of 'courtesy.  Visit the KML map, do a sort and  look at the repeater network  by area one person is hogging.  Just think for a minute,  'one' licensed person is using for this entire network which ends up for the sole use of a 'club'   Defiantly not what the FCC intended in the course of making the GMRS a family and friend radio service.    This persons network does not meet that definition of GMRS but closer to a HAM WIN or PAPA network which is managed very closely by a lot of people and licensed by many many HAM radio operators. .    In a nutshell, this person was running a rogue repeater network infringing on a lot  bandwidth other people deserve to use for their own little thing.   These private network clubs are popping up in a lot of places, they hog up bandwidth others want to use and have fun with and essentially end up controlling the whole GMRS bandwidth..  I think its overdue the FCC steps in..    This is happening in other states as well, and one person seems to get stepping a lot of ground..      I'll leave it at that.    So long.    

[gortex2]

7 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

its not hard to figure out who the 'custodian' of this large New York network belongs too.  Using the KML tool reveals it very easily.. You even see the same person networked into New Jersey.   And it's not hard to figure out why the FCC has made some noises out of 'courtesy.  Visit the KML map, do a sort and  look at the repeater network  by area one person is hogging.  

Explain this. What map are you talking about ? Better yet if you know who it is just share it if its that easy to find. 

[WRUE951]

3 hours ago, gortex2 said:

Explain this. What map are you talking about ? Better yet if you know who it is just share it if its that easy to find. 

You have to be a paid member to get to the KML version of the database..  Once you have the KML file you can open it s an XML (need excel) and  manipulate the  the data just as you do in a real database,  which enables you to sort data.. The newer version of Excel also has tools that allows one to 'swipe' data off web HTMS very easy..  In either case, once you have en XML file you have a database.   No I will no share the person but i will say he/she/it is not the only one doing these 'rogue' networks. Many of them in the East coast and some in the Mid West..   One person does have licensed repeaters across multiple states and its strange that his/her/it's license stretch across from the East to the West..   I'm thinking the FCC has gotten the KML version of the file and did a backwards conversion as i suggested above to get the database..     Thats my bet.        BTW,  The KML file is the one you open with Google Earth..   

[WRZG694]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:32 PM, RayP said:

Okay!  I will be anxiously awaiting the Paul Harvey on this.  Thanks for the reply!  Out of "likes" for today but I will come back tomorrow and leave one.

Oops rather than anxiously awaiting my guess is you are eagerly awaiting. Anxiously indicates fear, dread, foreboding, worrisome and the like. Anxiety and anxious are derived from the Latin word Angere, its meaning was to choke and strangle. Hope this helps you and others.

[WRZG694]

On 6/19/2024 at 4:32 PM, RayP said:

Okay!  I will be anxiously awaiting the Paul Harvey on this.  Thanks for the reply!  Out of "likes" for today but I will come back tomorrow and leave one.

Oops rather than anxiously awaiting my guess is you are eagerly awaiting. Anxiously indicates fear, dread, foreboding, worrisome and the like. Anxiety and anxious are derived from the Latin word Angere, its meaning was to choke and strangle. Hope this helps you and others.

[JeepCrawler98]

 

On 6/22/2024 at 6:52 AM, Radioguy7268 said:

For anyone advocating for the use of AllStar or similar Linked repeaters, I've got just one question that sidesteps all the issues regarding networking and "wireline" definitions:

How are you monitoring all those remote links for local non-linked traffic prior to keying up all repeaters in your network?  What are you doing to avoid stepping on active local conversations that are not happening on your linked network, but are already taking place on non-linked repeaters?

Monitoring for traffic prior to transmitting is one of those bedrock assumptions in the shared service frequencies - at least in any conversation I've had with FCC types.

If your linked network routinely tramples on someone else's active conversation, I don't think the FCC would care if you're using microwave, Internet, or the Public Switched Telephone Network for wireline links.

While it's a good courtesy, realistically monitoring for co-channel traffic works for backyard repeaters, but as soon as you put up even a standalone machine on a mountaintop with a 100+ mile footprint, no user can adequately monitor for co-channel traffic on any significant area of the total footprint.

Of course linking makes the monitoring footprint bigger and thus enhances the issue, I'm not saying there's no correlation there, but it exists on just about all repeaters to some degree and especially so for high-coverage machines. By nature repeaters exist to cover areas that you cannot monitor with your HT/mobile/base alone, and most repeaters (being duplex) cannot do BCL on their own transmit frequency without some external receiver that interlocks on the transmit frequency (which has other technical challenges, such as locking out on natural interference, or self-interlocking with its own carrier).

The monitoring rule is intended to have users avoid getting a repeater to step on another station elsewhere in the coverage footprint by monitoring first, but this cannot be realistically ensured for even a decent standalone repeater, so this issue is not exactly linking-specific.

Edited June 24 by JeepCrawler98

[WRQC527]

3 hours ago, WRZG694 said:

Oops rather than anxiously awaiting my guess is you are eagerly awaiting. Anxiously indicates fear, dread, foreboding, worrisome and the like. Anxiety and anxious are derived from the Latin word Angere, its meaning was to choke and strangle. Hope this helps you and others.

 

From one of the many available dictionaries, including the Cambridge and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, (both very well-respected), @RayP used the word correctly. Hope this helps you and others.

Anxiously

Adverb

1. In an uneasy or worried manner.

2. In an earnestly desirous or eager manner.

[gortex2]

20 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

 No I will no share the person but i will say he/she/it is not the only one doing these 'rogue' networks. Many of them in the East coast and some in the Mid West..   One person does have licensed repeaters across multiple states and its strange that his/her/it's license stretch across from the East to the West..   I'm thinking the FCC has gotten the KML version of the file and did a backwards conversion as i suggested above to get the database..     

Well I am pretty confident who you think it is is not the person. They did not have any repeaters out of NY. As said before at some point the rest of the info will be shared. 

 

As for the KML data 99% of us have no use for that so guess thats why I had not seen it. 

[WRUE951]

3 hours ago, gortex2 said:

 

 

As for the KML data 99% of us have no use for that so guess thats why I had not seen it. 

oh. you are missing out..   very good tool, much easier to navigate then use of the site navigation tools.  And it has a LOT of other uses too...  

[Radioguy7268]

16 hours ago, JeepCrawler98 said:

 

While it's a good courtesy, realistically monitoring for co-channel traffic works for backyard repeaters, but as soon as you put up even a standalone machine on a mountaintop with a 100+ mile footprint, no user can adequately monitor for co-channel traffic on any significant area of the total footprint.

<<Snipped>> but this cannot be realistically ensured for even a decent standalone repeater, so this issue is not exactly linking-specific.

You are correct  - and this specific problem is probably worse with GMRS than 'coordinated' Part 90 systems.  However, the Linking issue can make the problem much worse over a much larger area.

This exact issue would be part of the reason why people should read the "You just got your license, now you want to put up a repeater?" sticky - and then understand why overlapping coverage is usually less than ideal, and should be avoided.

Still, there's a difference between me putting up a machine that I know might be lacking in coverage and still making best attempts to monitor before transmitting (up to and including monitoring the output freq. at my repeater site, in order to disable my repeater when a co-channel user is on the air), and me putting up a linked machine that by default says I don't care about your conversation, mine is somehow more important.

If there are linked networks that are monitoring somehow, I'd still be interested to hear about it.

 

[WRYC373]

Repeater linking is such a big topic because of the limited channels and lack of FCC guidance. There needs to be a compromise between repeater linkages and the need for local comms.

I have some ideas to prevent stepping on each other but all of them would need buy in from repeater owners both of the linked and unlinked varieties. Anything I say below is my personal dumb opinion and should be regarded as such.

1.  Restricting a single repeater pair for linkage. Example: the pair 462.675 / 467.675 could be the only pair allowed to be on a linked system. All other pairs should be kept free of linked repeater systems. This would mean that no other repeater pair should be used for linking and would lessen the issue where every repeater pair in a geographic area is now "hogged" by one linked system. And if you tuned to this repeater pair you could assume/hope that its the link system you are reaching. But would require special planning in where to place linked repeaters.
2. 2 All linked repeater systems ID with the name of the repeater linkage system in addition to the call sign. Example: "*Repeater Call sign* LINK SYSTEM CENTRAL VA". This would allow someone to know that there is a linked repeater on that frequency and it is at least in receiving range.
3. Use the same set of privacy tones for linked systems obviously this doesn't actually solve a lot of the issue but may mitigate it somewhat.

I know none of this will happen but even one of these being implemented in my opinion would relieve at least some of the issues repeater linkages cause currently.

[DONE]

5 hours ago, WRYC373 said:

Repeater linking is such a big topic because of the limited channels and lack of FCC guidance. There needs to be a compromise between repeater linkages and the need for local comms.

I have some ideas to prevent stepping on each other but all of them would need buy in from repeater owners both of the linked and unlinked varieties. Anything I say below is my personal dumb opinion and should be regarded as such.

1.  Restricting a single repeater pair for linkage. Example: the pair 462.675 / 467.675 could be the only pair allowed to be on a linked system. All other pairs should be kept free of linked repeater systems. This would mean that no other repeater pair should be used for linking and would lessen the issue where every repeater pair in a geographic area is now "hogged" by one linked system. And if you tuned to this repeater pair you could assume/hope that its the link system you are reaching. But would require special planning in where to place linked repeaters.
2. 2 All linked repeater systems ID with the name of the repeater linkage system in addition to the call sign. Example: "*Repeater Call sign* LINK SYSTEM CENTRAL VA". This would allow someone to know that there is a linked repeater on that frequency and it is at least in receiving range.
3. Use the same set of privacy tones for linked systems obviously this doesn't actually solve a lot of the issue but may mitigate it somewhat.

I know none of this will happen but even one of these being implemented in my opinion would relieve at least some of the issues repeater linkages cause currently.

You would need a minimum of 2 pairs to pull it off.  Using two would allow for some overlap and not run the cost of equipment to the moon by requiring the system to be true simulcast where the frequency and audio launch times were GPS controlled. 

The other part of the problem with simulcast beyond cost is knowledge.  GMRS is a 'by rule' service.  You agree to follow the rules and that's the ONLY requirement.  Non demonstration of any knowledge required.  Designing and building a simulcast system requires specific knowledge that is not common even in commercial radio tech's. 

 

[gortex2]

The ham world has been linking for decades, first with RF and now internet just like GMRS. They can't get a decent handle on their stuff with "experts" that tell us what frequencies we can put our repeaters on and so forth. Its worse in the DMR side with hams. I dont see GMRS being any better if linking continues to happen. The simulcast systems that are out there and were out there where built by good techs and folks who know what thye are doing. Not everyone has access to Quantars, TRAK units and MLC 8000 simulcast stuff but some do and know how to setup a system. 99% of the GMRS community does not. We can't even get folks that do link repeaters to set levels right. As much as I think a true voted/simulcast system should be acceptable on GMRS (and was common before the ham lite crowd hit the service) I think all linking should be dropped from the service. For decades GMRS users used the service to do what they intended it for. Its only been the last 4-5 years its turned into this. 

[WRDJ205]

7 hours ago, WRYC373 said:

Restricting a single repeater pair for linkage. Example: the pair 462.675 / 467.675 could be the only pair allowed to be on a linked system.

I do tend to agree that this would be helpful.  In my AO, I can catch the Roadkill network on 3 different repeaters and their simplex frequencies.  It about the only traffic around here so I can just change the channel.  

[DONE]

14 hours ago, gortex2 said:

The ham world has been linking for decades, first with RF and now internet just like GMRS. They can't get a decent handle on their stuff with "experts" that tell us what frequencies we can put our repeaters on and so forth. Its worse in the DMR side with hams. I dont see GMRS being any better if linking continues to happen. The simulcast systems that are out there and were out there where built by good techs and folks who know what thye are doing. Not everyone has access to Quantars, TRAK units and MLC 8000 simulcast stuff but some do and know how to setup a system. 99% of the GMRS community does not. We can't even get folks that do link repeaters to set levels right. As much as I think a true voted/simulcast system should be acceptable on GMRS (and was common before the ham lite crowd hit the service) I think all linking should be dropped from the service. For decades GMRS users used the service to do what they intended it for. Its only been the last 4-5 years its turned into this. 

I prefer TenSR and Harris channel banks for simulcast personally.  Ant MTR2000 repeaters.  But that's what I know.

 

[DONE]

13 hours ago, WRDJ205 said:

I do tend to agree that this would be helpful.  In my AO, I can catch the Roadkill network on 3 different repeaters and their simplex frequencies.  It about the only traffic around here so I can just change the channel.  

Yeah, that's just wasteful... especially since we are limited on frequencies. 

Now I have said before that we (and hams for that matter) don't have huge budgets to select our tower sites of construct a site where we need it to minimize overlap.  But there is little sense in putting several wide area coverage repeaters on the air when the overlap completely.

When I was still in the game for linking, I was looking at fill sites.  Low power, low profile sites that would fill in specific area's where coverage wasn't as good as I liked.  But that was starting to get into heavy RF coverage calculations, high power (20 watt) attenuator's for both TX and RX so that I could limit the coverage.  The one site I was looking at had antenna's at 400 feet.  That created a problem because I needed them much lower but that wasn't an option.  Now that I have got off the linking boat, it doesn't matter so much.  But I was looking at actually building two additional sites that would have been true simulcast on 462.600 for a total of 3 sites. 

[WRYC373]

Like i said my ideas were not going to happen for a variety of reasons. The situation will not change until the FCC changes the rules.

[WQAI363]

On 6/19/2024 at 1:05 PM, OffRoaderX said:

..nevermind...

We're still talking about the NYC area GMRS Radio Club having shut down their network at the request of the FCC, right? Hey, I really can't say that I fully understand why the FCC requested the shutdown of their network, unless there were some questionable activities.  In my personal opinion, I like talking on the GMRS network, even though according to the part 95 E Rules & Regulations, GMRS repeater are prohibited to be connected to commercial Telephone line or Internet. I sure hope the FCC change the Rules and Regulations and permit connection on commercial means.

[WRUU653]

2 hours ago, Adamdaj said:

I really can't say that I fully understand why the FCC requested the shutdown of their network, unless there were some questionable activities

I don’t think anyone can at this point. It seems to me there is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the topic and we are lacking real information about this.  A few things we don’t know that might shed some light on the subject like what is the reason they were requesting the system be shut down? What is the relationship of the owner of the system and the FCC? I for one would be interested in the interview with the person who was actually requested to shut down the system. Anything else is second hand information at best. 

[LeoG]

Seems as though they don't really want this information to get out.  The "club president" that was interviewed really wasn't the guy to speak to.  They had permission to use the system but had no control over it.  The "custodian" is the guy that needs to be interviewed to find out what is really going on.

I have only myself to blame.  The system was fine until I went up to visit my grandchildren and used the repeater.  Unbeknownst to me it was linked.  But after I used it was when all this seemed to go down.

 

Ya, I'm kidding.