The Future of Linked Repeaters??? Must Watch!

[marcspaz]

This is a great interview that our friend @OffRoaderX has done with someone whom has been directly involved with a linked repeater network being turned off after FCC interaction. This is a big deal.

The FCC is asking for call signs of people who used the network, not just to turn down the network.  Repeater owners and users, pay attention. I don't want to see my friends getting in trouble.

Thanks for the great work Randy!

 

 

 

[Hoppyjr]

While I don’t dispute this happened, the issue of asking for call signs is a bridge too far. The owner should not need to produce any such info, but even if they do I doubt anything would come of it.

The government always tends to overreach and it’s up to the citizens to push back and keep them in check.

[COBrien]

I watched Randy's video last night. What strikes me as odd is that the FCC "agent" gave the repeater "custodian" a heads-up, and then asked for the call signs. I mean, is this an official action, or isn't it?

If it's not, then I'm afraid I don't know who has used the repeater.

If it is, then we're having an entirely different conversation, and likely through attorneys.

[amaff]

What the world really needs right now is more threads about this

[OffRoaderX]

10 minutes ago, amaff said:

What the world really needs right now is more threads about this

Poppycock! I for one think that more threads with links to those videos are what society and the world needs! Think of the children!

[dosw]

It seems apparent that the custodian of that repeater had a friendly/professional relationship with someone who warned him, take it down because if you don't the FCC is going to crack down. If the FCC also asked for call signs, the custodian is unlikely to be in a position of pushing back against such a request, because of that friendly/professional relationship. So, by now the repeater has been taken down, and most likely, call signs have been shared.

 

I guess the moral of the story is stay away from hard-linked repeaters (it sounds like gmrs to gmrs links are still ok?). The problem for end users is it's hard to know what sort of linking may or may not be implemented beyond their view. But also, we haven't see any evidence of individual licencees having action taken against them for using a repeater in good faith. And I doubt we will. This isn't gmrsageddon.

 

Probably what it is, is the end of repeaters being linked to the Internet or to non-GMRS networks.

[Hoppyjr]

Poppycock! I for one think that more threads with links to those videos are what society and the world needs! Think of the children!

Because…..love wins.

[marcspaz]

I mean.... this is the first one I've seen.  And my opinion is the only one that matters.  Just ask me; I'll tell you!

 

[JLeikhim]

Here is FCC Response to me in 2017 rulemaking : WT Docket 10-119 (FCC 17-57) "Finally, a commenter requested that we delete the GMRS prohibition on messages that are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station. [125] We find there is insufficient record in the proceeding to make a determination on these issues at this time."

95.1733 (#8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station;" The FCC kicked it down the road because FCC has no idea why that prohibition is in the rules.

The issue is that 95.1733 prohibition #8 above, is not related to the current interpretation of network interconnection. I believe it and another paragraph are scrivenors errors, text that was left in place from deletion of old rules. It would take some research, however, there was a point in time when repeaters were a new thing in the eyes of the FCC and an actual control operator was needed to shut off the repeater if misused. Interestingly, you could use a dial up line to turn on and off the repeater, but you could not convey trafffic as that would be interconnection to the PSTN. Old technology, old rule, not removed.

Detractors will try to leverage that mistake, and the FCC no longer has the institutional knowledge to determine that the prohibition should no longer exist. Getting this resolved should be done by a paid attorney like "AT" (Mr 800 MHz Rebanding) to research all of the records and determine for the FCC that it does not belong in the rules. Asking the FCC for an opinion, is likely to get an uninformed, negative result. It appears this unofficial heads up is from an FCC official acting without doing the research behind this conflicting prohibition in the current rules.

[WRKC935]

The thing I don't understand is this is touted as a 'simulcast' voted system.   Now I don't know this system, or how it was built.  But SIMULCAST to me, especially if voted, is multiple transmitters on a single frequency, with the receivers all shipped back to a 'prime' site where the receive audio is voted and the voted audio is then shipped to ALL of the transmitters with the timing controlled.  The transmitters are all frequency referenced and the audio is launched based on a 1 pulse per second timing that's also GPS time based.  The PL if one exists on transmit is referenced and is timed for the leading edge so it's all going out at the correct time in concert with the other PL tones. 

Yes, that's a mouth full.  But I know enough about how it works that I have designed, built, and rebuilt several systems that were analog simulcast.  But here's the thing, it's a single frequency, not like the 'linked' systems where a multitude of different frequencies are in play and where the coverage is across States, not smaller geographic area's.  In fact toy can't do the simulcast I am talking about at great distances.  You can't get the delay right for all of it.  You build simulcast to cover a city, or possibly a county.  You CAN'T cover an entire state with it. 

So I don't know how to react to this.  On one hand, I want to say 'here we go again' referring to the November ARRL / FCC luncheon and discussion that took place. Which turned out at that point to be nothing. 

On the other hand, was it some FCC field agent warning his buddy that heads are about to roll and he needs to shut down before there is an active investigation into this stuff.  We already know that there are FCC agents on this board.  They are probably NOT going to reveal themselves, but they are here regardless. 

I will tell you this.  The FCC does go out prior to VIP visits when the Secret Service is involved and monitor to ensure the communications for those folks is clear and usable.  Those guys can't afford a communications failure at any point.  Will they be looking at GMRS during that time.  It's certainly possible.  They monitor a LOT of stuff. 

 IF the FCC is building cases on repeater owners, those cases are probably already being looked at and investigated.  And I am willing to bet that if enforcement happens, it will happen to everyone that is linked together at the same time, or at least in the same week (receiving a letter). 

What others have said about letters is correct.  You are NOT going to get a 'warning' that you are being looked at.  You will get a letter saying that you were observed doing X on some date or dates.  It will give the location of where the signal was coming from that they observed.  And it's going to give you some amount of time to reply.  It may or may not include a finding of forfeiture (what fine you are going to pay, that you are going to loose your license / licenses or whatever they decide to do to you).  And it might give you some federal court house that you can come in and argue your case before a federal judge.  

How all that gets handled pertaining to the fines, loosing your license and what not are going to be dealt with individually and will no doubt depend on a number of things. 

So is it time to pull the plug? 

I can't speak for anyone else. But I am tired of this popping up over and over again.  If there are fines and such, they aren't going to be cheap.  And for some, loosing licenses are going to be a issue far beyond just GMRS.  For those of us that are commercial radio tech's or involved with commercial radio as a profession, that could be devastating due to loosing one's ability to make a living.  And if you think that the federal government is going to care,,, you're wrong. 

So personally, I am gonna just shut it down.  This time for good.  It's not worth the headache at this point dealing with this crap popping up over and over again and trying to figure out how to approach it.  I frankly have better things to occupy my time with.

 

[AdmiralCochrane]

The club president was hesitant to reveal the repeater and simulcast system's owner's occupation and employer, but somehow this is related to the owner's relationship to the FCC employee.  I will also point out that in his responses, the pres never calls the FCC guy an "agent"

There is more to this that is not being told.

Thank you Randy

 

[gortex2]

10 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

The thing I don't understand is this is touted as a 'simulcast' voted system.   Now I don't know this system, or how it was built.  But SIMULCAST to me, especially if voted, is multiple transmitters on a single frequency, with the receivers all shipped back to a 'prime' site where the receive audio is voted and the voted audio is then shipped to ALL of the transmitters with the timing controlled.  The transmitters are all frequency referenced and the audio is launched based on a 1 pulse per second timing that's also GPS time based.  The PL if one exists on transmit is referenced and is timed for the leading edge so it's all going out at the correct time in concert with the other PL tones. 

Yes, that's a mouth full.  But I know enough about how it works that I have designed, built, and rebuilt several systems that were analog simulcast.  But here's the thing, it's a single frequency, not like the 'linked' systems where a multitude of different frequencies are in play and where the coverage is across States, not smaller geographic area's.  In fact toy can't do the simulcast I am talking about at great distances.  You can't get the delay right for all of it.  You build simulcast to cover a city, or possibly a county.  You CAN'T cover an entire state with it. 

 

Techinically you can cover an entire state but I know what you mean. Here is one scenario - County simulcast system with multiple sites and voters. Coverage needed in XYZ area. Add single base radio and use same "simulcast comparators technology as the simulcast. Technically from a "equipment" standpoint its still simulcast. From a user perspective if I talk on the "city b" radio everyone hears me in "city a" and i am voted even if its only one repeater. On the subscriber end you could do vote scan in the MSI world and the system would be concidered "multicast". Ive installed a few of these. While not desired sometimes thats the only way to do it. Our SAR system is almost exactly this as we couldn't license the same frequency in b county. So 4 site simulcast with a 5 site on another frequency. With proper equipment its pretty simple to do. 

Knowing the area the issue took place a well as some some of the players I'd probably done the same thing. For guys who work in the field you dont want to be at odds with customers and definately with the FCC. Think we are on the same page here @WRKC935.

[WRKC935]

16 hours ago, gortex2 said:

 

Techinically you can cover an entire state but I know what you mean. Here is one scenario - County simulcast system with multiple sites and voters. Coverage needed in XYZ area. Add single base radio and use same "simulcast comparators technology as the simulcast. Technically from a "equipment" standpoint its still simulcast. From a user perspective if I talk on the "city b" radio everyone hears me in "city a" and i am voted even if its only one repeater. On the subscriber end you could do vote scan in the MSI world and the system would be concidered "multicast". Ive installed a few of these. While not desired sometimes thats the only way to do it. Our SAR system is almost exactly this as we couldn't license the same frequency in b county. So 4 site simulcast with a 5 site on another frequency. With proper equipment its pretty simple to do. 

Knowing the area the issue took place a well as some some of the players I'd probably done the same thing. For guys who work in the field you dont want to be at odds with customers and definately with the FCC. Think we are on the same page here @WRKC935.

Don't know that I would agree with a single transmitter and voted receivers could or should be considered 'simulcast'.  And with GMRS being limited to 50 watts of TX power, unless you had a really crappy transmit site that has a bunch of noise, additional receive sites wouldn't do much for coverage.  Now I know of a couple ham repeaters that are running 300 or better watt's and are over 500 feet up.  Those do benefit greatly from voted receivers.  But when you are on ham running that power level, you aren't gonna be using a duplexer anyhow because your never going to get enough isolation and maintain that level of power through it. 

But if you were in say, New York City, or some other densely populated urban area, and had a high transmit antenna, I could see it helping a UHF 50 watt repeater some.  Still gonna hear better than it talks though. 

The linked repeaters we have through the mygmrs system is what I would refer to as 'multicast'.  And with GMRS of course, we are stuck to the 8 pairs we have, but I have seen multicast systems that covered multiple bands both commercially and with ham.  It's more prevalent, or at least it was, with ham.  Guys would link VHF / UHF and 6 meters, or 900 all together and offer access to all radios that way.  I don't know if that's still a thing or not.  I considered a V / U / 900 system at the tower on ham,,, even thought about it being P25.  But there is so little traffic on ham any more, I don't know that I will bother. 

Your SAR system sounds like two Simulcast systems that are linked... that's different. But whatever works.

 

[GreggInFL]

This will change given the SCOTUS ruling Friday re Chevron deference.  Agencies will no longer be able to fill in the blanks on ambiguous laws.  It's now back to the courts.

[marcspaz]

3 hours ago, GreggInFL said:

This will change given the SCOTUS ruling Friday re Chevron deference.  Agencies will no longer be able to fill in the blanks on ambiguous laws.  It's now back to the courts.

 

While I tend to agree, it will still take a lawsuit, deep pockets and the courage to both pursue it and apply those resources to the suit.

[GreggInFL]

^ And even then there is no guarantee the court would decide any differently than an agency.

[WRXR255]

38 minutes ago, GreggInFL said:

^ And even then there is no guarantee the court would decide any differently than an agency.

Maybe not, but its still a better and additional hurdle for them to have to get through, than to just make up a "law" on their own and toss it out to us pheasants.

[LeoG]

They've had free reign over us for 40 years because of that bad decision in '84.  I think even though the decision was unconstitutional it would have been best for the people who knew better to make the decisions instead of a court that really didn't have the knowledge/experience to make those decisions.  Unfortunately we are talking about bureaucrats who love power and would do anything to have more and more.  And herein lies the problem with giving agencies power like that which they aren't authorized to have.  They make decisions that give them more power and continue to do so and then make rules/regulations with the power of law behind them without any congressional oversight or even input.  The courts got lazy and either didn't want to do their jobs or outright refused to do the job and deferred all authority to power hungry bureaucrats that only had their own interests in hand.

This took way too long to get rid of.  But at least now we are on our way to slowing new things way down because of overloaded courts.  And we won't have bureaucrats making decisions that give them power over the people to expand the govt to give themselves more power.

 

Yes, I'm one of those.

[JarrGen]

So, while I have seen many threads on this, this is the first time I am posting. Since I have been reviewing the various threads and watched the videos (as I had time while  uploading an updated DMR contact list to one of my radios), it seems that everything is focused on the linking but very few people seem to be mentioning the prohibited communications portion as to what the message was that was being sent over this system. This seems like it should be a key point regardless of how one may feel about linking systems. Right or wrong, that type of prohibited communciation as listed in 95.333/ 95.1733 is what drew the unwanted attention of whoever got this network noticed. 

Also, in regards to linking, it seems many focus their review on a little too late in the clause. The first part is "Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in 95.349...  95.349 states this would be defined as connected to the public switch network, which is then defined in 47 CFR 20.3. 

If you are not using a telephone connection for the link, such as Comcast/Xfinity cable internet, this clause does not apply as it does not meet the definition of public switch. So, are people simply not digging into the definitions properly? I have to daily since I write Federal contracts for my day job. Or, do most of the links use the phone network for some reason that I am missing?  I just assumed most of these were connected by an internet link where Cable was being used. Obviously, part of that probably revolves around the availability of these services but it just seems in most places I have been, cable tends to be more prevalent than any decent cell connection that I would rely on for a linking service. 

If you are using a telephone connection, that is the only time the second part of the clause would come into play. Just my thoughts, I know I am still weak on the technicalities of the various connections but I do know how to read the CFR.

[UncleYoda]

The phone system has changed so much I don't know how the old terms apply anymore.  Both my phone and internet are through my cell phone.  So how can you say internet is a different system?  My provider tries to distinguish between data and wifi sometimes, like when talking to tech support; but for billing the wifi usage is data when it goes through my phone, but not when it connects to public wifi.  All this wireless computing and phone stuff is obscure to me.  I started using the internet in the BBS days when I had to dial up the university library to use gopher.  I understood modems well, but they have lost me with all the changes.   And one thing I don't do is phone calls and video over internet protocol.  I have however used Echolink and repeaters that use Allstar links.  And there is no clear distinction in all this to me.  So, since phones are at least partially wireless (i.e., radio frequency), I'm wondering if the old term PSTN is even meaningful anymore.  At the very least, I think FCC needs to explain this stuff better in view of all the technology changes.

[marcspaz]

It's not limited to a telephone network. Collectively, the rules state any public network. (I'll get the quotes shortly). This includes any internet connection, even over a VPN. In my opinion, based on the rules as a whole, the only way I am aware of to link GMRS repeaters without a rule violation is for a private person or business to own 100% of the physical infrastructure. 

 

There may be a way of RF linking on GMRS channels, but I haven't dug into the rules enough to make a legit determination.... yet.

[WRUU653]

“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.

This what they say...

[JarrGen]

1 hour ago, UncleYoda said:

The phone system has changed so much I don't know how the old terms apply anymore.  Both my phone and internet are through my cell phone.  So how can you say internet is a different system?  My provider tries to distinguish between data and wifi sometimes, like when talking to tech support; but for billing the wifi usage is data when it goes through my phone, but not when it connects to public wifi.  All this wireless computing and phone stuff is obscure to me.  I started using the internet in the BBS days when I had to dial up the university library to use gopher.  I understood modems well, but they have lost me with all the changes.   And one thing I don't do is phone calls and video over internet protocol.  I have however used Echolink and repeaters that use Allstar links.  And there is no clear distinction in all this to me.  So, since phones are at least partially wireless (i.e., radio frequency), I'm wondering if the old term PSTN is even meaningful anymore.  At the very least, I think FCC needs to explain this stuff better in view of all the technology changes.

 It is meaningful as long as it is defined in the regulations. With laws and regulations, words that have an impact on interpreting a law or regulation shall be defined and for the purposes of this set of regulations, it is defined here (as mentioned above) 47 CFR 9.3 and 20.3: 

Public Switched Network. Any common carrier switched network, whether by wire or radio, including local exchange carriers, interexchange carriers, and mobile service providers, that uses the North American Numbering Plan in connection with the provision of switched services.

This definition directly ties back to 95.1749, as 1749 states that 95.349 is the link that says how telephone connection is to be interpreted, and public switched network is additionally used later in the clause, which reiterates what it is referring to. When questioning what is meant by a clause, the first thing you have to do is ensure your understanding of the terminology is the same used by those that are in the regulation. Definitions are usually at the front of the particular set of laws or regulations you are referring to. 

You can tell from this definition, even though the word wire is there, it is 100% intending to refer to the phone networks. It only opens up to other networks when it allows you to connect for remote control and it just doesn't care basically how you connect for remote control. 

[JarrGen]

24 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

 

“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.

This what they say...

As mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread, ( I think- I read a lot of posts here and on Facebook while I was loading my radio), that first part you posted is from the FCC synopsis page which is not regulation. It is an FCC admin incorrectly summarizing the regulation. Their summary is not regulation and holds absolutely zero weight. (Sort of like an email from the FCC asking for a list of network users.) 

[JarrGen]

By the way all, I have no dog in the fight except that I like the linked system in my area but purely looking at this like I would any other legal research on a daily basis. I am a simple end user but go through federal regulations on a daily basis.