The Future of Linked Repeaters??? Must Watch!

[LeoG]

It's almost like they have a rule for everything and anything so they can go after you any time they want.  It's nearly impossible to comply with all the rules/regulations/fake laws they come up with.  Some of them contradict another so they can pick and choose the side they want to use against you.

I try to follow the rules, but sometimes it's literately impossible to follow one while not breaking another.  And it's likely designed that way or made up by people who's left hand doesn't know what their right is doing.

 

 

[SteveShannon]

From Part 95, the language describing how certain services require individual licenses to "operate or use".  I'm not certain whether the regulations are establishing that "operate" and "use" are the same thing or acknowledging that they are separate activities allowed by the license. I think that the phrase as used here is equating the two words:

§ 95.3 05 Authorization to operate Personal Radio Services stations

Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 307(e)(1), this rule section authorizes eligible persons to operate part 95 Personal Radio Service stations and part 96 Citizens Broadband Radio Service stations without individual licenses, except as provided in paragraph (a). Such operation must comply with all applicable rules in this part.

(a) Individual licenses. A valid individual license may be required under this part to operate or use stations in a particular service, certain types of stations, stations transmitting on certain channels or frequency bands, or stations transmitting with power above a certain level. Any such requirements applicable to stations in any of the Personal Radio Services are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., § 95.1705. Otherwise, the FCC does not require or accept applications for an individual license to operate any type of Personal Radio Service station.

[marcspaz]

@SteveShannon i think in the case of PRS, operate and use are the same. The language has to be bland enough to cover the licensee's actions to include using the radio (personally) to transmit audio, GPS data, messaging data, CW or control commands. And it has to cover the licensee's family also performing those actions. 

[Davichko5650]

3 hours ago, LeoG said:

It's almost like they have a rule for everything and anything so they can go after you any time they want.  It's nearly impossible to comply with all the rules/regulations/fake laws they come up with.  Some of them contradict another so they can pick and choose the side they want to use against you.

 

 

 

Pretty much also describes how my friends at the Infernal Revenue Service write their regs.  They go a step further in having the Internal Revenue Code and a separate, much larger book of Internal Revenue. Regulations...

[LeoG]

The problem with bland language is it is broad in scope.  Which means it can be interpreted many ways.  That is exactly what rules and regulations (and laws) can't be.

 

I realize they have to cover a lot of different situations and that makes it extremely difficult to devise rules that are fair.  But the govt will always take advantage of those "loopholes" and use it the way they want and not how it seemed to be intended.

 

It really is a tough position.  No matter how you write them someone isn't going to agree.

[LeoG]

1 minute ago, Davichko5650 said:

Pretty much also describes how my friends at the Infernal Revenue Service write their regs.  They go a step further in having the Internal Revenue Code and a separate, much larger book of Internal Revenue. Regulations...

That is why the Chevron decision was struck down.  I think a lot of changes will be happening because of that change.  It should slow things down considerably because congress needs to get involved with anything they call a regulation/rule that is treated as law.

[Hoppyjr]

That is why the Chevron decision was struck down.  I think a lot of changes will be happening because of that change.  It should slow things down considerably because congress needs to get involved with anything they call a regulation/rule that is treated as law.

We can only hope….

[UncleYoda]

12 hours ago, marcspaz said:

Direct quote from the FCC website linked below.-D/part-95

Yes, but operate/use is not "control".  We control our radios but not someone else's repeater.

[SteveShannon]

8 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

Yes, but operate/use is not "control".  We control our radios but not someone else's repeater.

I agree that a difference seems like it might exist, but Remote Control is specifically defined as operating and Control Points and Control Stations are also defined in terms of operating:

95.303 Remote control. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.

Control point. Any location where the operator of a Personal Radio Services station may reliably operate that station.

Control station. A station at a fixed location that communicates with mobile stations and other control stations through repeater stations, and may also be used to control the operation of repeater stations.

[UncleYoda]

That is for you controlling your own radio.

 

Anyway, remote control is a false path to pursue regarding repeater linking.  What we need is an official statement on whether internet linking is covered by the prohibited network clause.

[Stone]

4 hours ago, LeoG said:

That is why the Chevron decision was struck down.  I think a lot of changes will be happening because of that change.  It should slow things down considerably because congress needs to get involved with anything they call a regulation/rule that is treated as law.

Correct. As far as I am concerned, as of the ruling by the Supreme Court, Bureaucrats are now powerless. All the agencies are as of now defunct. Only laws by Congress apply and not "rules" by an Agency.  Lawmakers are allowed to make "Rules" in the form of Laws.  That said, I do live in the real world and what I am saying is that this will be one to watch. Talk about creating a legality mess with striking down Chevron. However the Constitution is what it is. If they don't like it then they can change it. Be fun to watch this one play out.

[LeoG]

Nothing is going to change until it's hit by a lawsuit.  At that point it should be a push to get through.

 

I'm listening to a repeater in my area and they are talking about OSHA being defunct and now it's just a small town in Massachusetts.   But I'm not finding it.

[AdmiralCochrane]

2 hours ago, LeoG said:

Nothing is going to change until it's hit by a lawsuit.  At that point it should be a push to get through. I'm listening to a repeater in my area and they are talking about OSHA being defunct and now it's just a small town in Massachusetts.   But I'm not finding it.

Exactly.  The change was to instruction to judges/courts that legal challenges to regulations are now allowed, where before, courts were not allowed to consider challenges to regulations.  Each and every change depends on an individual court case challenge to that particular regulation.

Some are calling this a power grab by the judicial branch.  In a small way it is, but Congress still has the power to limit what courts can do; this is written into the Constitution.

[LeoG]

Congress tried to delegate it's authority to write bills to be made into law to bureaucrats in Alphabet agencies.  The agencies took advantage of that for 40 years and now it going to be reigned in.  It's going to be a painfully slow process to get things back to the way they were suppose to be.

[DONE]

5 hours ago, LeoG said:

Nothing is going to change until it's hit by a lawsuit.  At that point it should be a push to get through.

 

I'm listening to a repeater in my area and they are talking about OSHA being defunct and now it's just a small town in Massachusetts.   But I'm not finding it.

Well, it's going to need to be an enforcement action first.  The FCC is going to need to act on the regulations as written and drag someone into court.  Now that's no how the FCC typically works.  They send a NOV or Notice of Violation letter to you asking you to explain the violation and typically but not always to explain what corrective measures you have taken to resolve the violation.  Here's where it can go a number of directions.  If your letter explaining your violation reasoning and corrective action satisfied them, and they don't get any more complaints, then it ceases at that point.  But they can send a NOV and an NAL which is a Notice of Apparent Liability, which is FCC speak for a fine / ticket.  Within that letter there is typically more strongly worded indicators that while it's your right to have your day in court, that you will be responsible for your travel, the full court costs and a bunch of other stuff that can result in this costing lots of money.  This is where most people break.  When they start in with telling you that you were observed doing X  on the listed days, and you can be fined Y dollars per day per offense.  People freak out and don't go fight them in court. 

So that's the FIRST hurdle to get over.  Then you need to LOOSE the court case and bring suite in a higher court that the actions weren't against regulations or something.  After you WIN that case, as part of the win you can demand the rules be cleared up. 

Because outside of that, the rules are not going to change. 

 

And OSHA is alive and well, thank God.

 

[LeoG]

The FCC isn't going to be dragging people into court, the people are going to be dragging the FCC into court to challenge their rules/regulations that they make up by themselves and treat as law.

[WRUE951]

2 hours ago, LeoG said:

The FCC isn't going to be dragging people into court, the people are going to be dragging the FCC into court to challenge their rules/regulations that they make up by themselves and treat as law.

 Ever gonna happen 

[BoxCar]

9 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Well, it's going to need to be an enforcement action first.  The FCC is going to need to act on the regulations as written and drag someone into court.  Now that's no how the FCC typically works.  They send a NOV or Notice of Violation letter to you asking you to explain the violation and typically but not always to explain what corrective measures you have taken to resolve the violation.  Here's where it can go a number of directions.  If your letter explaining your violation reasoning and corrective action satisfied them, and they don't get any more complaints, then it ceases at that point.  

 

 I . The key point is "explaining what corrective measures you have taken to resolve the violation." Consider a letter from an agency as a hurdle you need to get over. Each successive letter is a higher hurdle so detailing what you have done lets the agency tell you extra steps needed or, they accept what you have done as a completed action. Typically, they won't tell you you've done enough, just you need to do more.

[DONE]

9 hours ago, LeoG said:

The FCC isn't going to be dragging people into court, the people are going to be dragging the FCC into court to challenge their rules/regulations that they make up by themselves and treat as law.

You are correct.  They don't drag anyone into court and that was my point.  For a lawsuit to happen someone needs to get a finding against them and decide to fight the FCC in court, and loose.  Then drag it back to a higher court and WIN.  ONLY at that point can they demand the rules be amended.  And the costs for doing that are going to be ridiculous.

So 951 is also correct, it's doubtful that it will ever happen.

 

[DONE]

2 minutes ago, BoxCar said:

 I . The key point is "explaining what corrective measures you have taken to resolve the violation." Consider a letter from an agency as a hurdle you need to get over. Each successive letter is a higher hurdle so detailing what you have done lets the agency tell you extra steps needed or, they accept what you have done as a completed action. Typically, they won't tell you you've done enough, just you need to do more.

Yes, what you are saying is true to a point.  But it's really going to depend on the infraction.  If it's linked repeater ownership... I disconnected the link and have no intention of reconnecting it.  Or I took the repeater off the air permanently.   With those corrective actions, there aren't any additional remedies.

Excessive power output... checked the programming of repeater in question and it was set for 100 watts. This was an oversite.. reprogrammed repeater to correct power level and verified power output with brand X watt meter that was calibrated on 6/2023, serial number 23252... or what ever with a E100 slug that was calibrated at the same time.  Again, nothing else to correct.  With GMRS specifically, we aren't limited to any Maximum EPR, antenna gain or height.  We just can't interfere with other licensed users attempting to use the frequency, and that's only within reason.  If you move into a house next to an active repeater site, you aren't going to be able to complain about not being able to use CH 16 if the repeater is on that channel.   Now if the site has all 8 pairs tied up, then there is the possibility of someone at the FCC considering it to be a complaint.   

Now if you are into an ERP power level issue with a commercial license, and you botched it by putting the antenna too high, with too much gain, and running over the licensed output power level to boot.  That's the one where they might keep banging away until you are completely compliant if you tell them you just turned down the power. 

 

[LeoG]

There are lots of non profit groups that are willing to help or front those bills.  Might be hard to find them for FCC related lawsuits though.  Never know though.  You might piss off a lawyer that is an HAM enthusiast with a bunch of lawyer friends.

[WRUE951]

2 hours ago, LeoG said:

There are lots of non profit groups that are willing to help or front those bills.  Might be hard to find them for FCC related lawsuits though.  Never know though.  You might piss off a lawyer that is an HAM enthusiast with a bunch of lawyer friends.

Pretty sure we will be seeing a clarification/revision to GMRS rules soon... And i bet those revisions address a lot more and could even address REACT usage.  I see it coming.   

[WQAI363]

On 7/2/2024 at 12:03 AM, WRQC527 said:

Great line from a Great Movie. Of course, with that line, that just applies anything, whether it has something to do with the FCC Rules and Regulations or not.

[AdmiralCochrane]

On 7/3/2024 at 11:27 AM, WRUE951 said:

Pretty sure we will be seeing a clarification/revision to GMRS rules soon... And i bet those revisions address a lot more and could even address REACT usage.  I see it coming.   

Want to wager a ham sandwich on that?  Need to define "soon" before the wagering

[WRHS218]

On 7/1/2024 at 12:26 PM, marcspaz said:

 

I think I lost that debate.

I so wanted to post a meme that talks about debating. However, not wanting to walk the line between humor and politics I will just supply the punchline...

"Debating is a lot like riding a bike..."

I now return you to your regularly scheduled dead horse thread.