The Future of Linked Repeaters??? Must Watch!

[WRUU653]

7 minutes ago, JarrGen said:

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.) 

but not the second part which says "for the sole purpose" and at the end of the day it's all from the FCC and they make the rules. Also no dog in this fight. 

[JarrGen]

3 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

but not the second part which says "for the sole purpose" and at the end of the day it's all from the FCC and they make the rules. Also no dog in this fight. 

And that second part only relates to the words after , however, and not to anything before it. 

ETA- to this point, it is a brand new sentence altogether which further emphasizes a separation of the two sections. 

Edited Monday at 12:12 AM by JarrGen
Additional info

[BoxCar]

The term wire line can even be questioned now as many networks are transitioning to fiber made from glass or optically pure plastics..

[WRUE951]

I wouldn't give the FCC any of the that information unless they sent me a formal letter requesting it..  And i doubt seriously the FCC has any intentions of going any further with this matter.  I would take this as a learning experience.   move on and follow the rules.   Now others will enjoy the open bandwidth to do their thing..  

[OffRoaderX]

1 hour ago, WRUE951 said:

I wouldn't give the FCC any of the that information unless they sent me a formal letter requesting it

I wouldn't give the FCC any of that information unless they sent me a warrant demanding it.

[WRUE951]

actually probably a good idea. That would be their last step and wouldn't change the outcome  if you gave them the info on their 1st, 2nd request.   Not sure how that would impact fines etc if the offense warranted penalties.   Usually cooperating gets you a long ways, but not always.   Probably would hire an attorney and follow what they say. 

[WRYC373]

So basically from reading posts here and watching the interview again the individual from the FCC likely was not in a direct enforcement position.

They then sent an email to their buddy warning him of enforcement action "soon to come" then asked for personal identifying information of users of a system without a court order or even likely approval from their boss/supervisor. This is usually called misfeasance or malfeasance depending on their job duties.

 

This is not how enforcement officers/agents are trained to handle this type of situation at other agencies and likely violates internal policy for the FCC.

 

So all in all great job everyone.

[marcspaz]

 

 

Okay, as I mentioned earlier... this is my breakdown of what the rules state.  I am not a lawyer.  However, I had studied Constitutional Law, the founding and framing of the US for 7 years, I worked with my state legislature to work on Bills, and I am a private sector Engineer who's primary focus is supporting all branches of US government in technology.  What I have written below is 100% my opinion based on how I have interpreted the rules, based on my experiances.  This is simply "use at your own risk" opinion sharing.

I will caveat that, while I think I am correct, this will not stop an enforcement agent from misinterpreting the rules, sending no-no letters, enforcement action notifications or other enforcement actions that could be very, very costly for someone... even if found innocent in court.  That is the main reason I think Randy's video, sharing the user's experience, is so important.  It shines a light on government over-reach, inappropriate and unlawful actions, and intimidation tactics that are used by all branches of government.  I feel like some people in every branch are banking on you/us having too much to lose to be willing to put up a fight.  As individuals, regardless of if you agree with me or not, you have to make the determination as to if you are will to risk suffering the ramifications, win or lose.

 

Let’s start with some general rules and definitions.  § 95.345 states that remote control is prohibited in the PRS unless explicitly allowed in a specific service.  Also, § 95.349 states that Connection to a public switched network is prohibited. Both Remote Control and Network Connection are defined in the rules for PRS, in § 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.

Operate:   Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting.

Network connection: Connection of a Personal Radio Services station to the public switched network, so that operators of other stations in that service are able to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station.

 

PRS Rules…

§ 95.345 Remote control.

Operation of Personal Radio Services stations by remote control is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.945 and 95.1745.

 

§ 95.349 Network connection

Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749.

 

So, the default state is that Network Connections and Remote Control are prohibited.  Now we must stack the GMRS rules on top of the PRS rules and definitions.

 

§ 95.1745 GMRS remote control.

Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.

 

§ 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.

 

In the case of § 95.1749, there are two clauses.  One states that “operation” of a GMRS station with a “telephone connection” is prohibited.  The other clause states that you can use a “public switched network” or “other networks” for “operation” by remote control.

 

On the surface, these two clauses conflict with each other, but there are clear distinctions in this rule and the PRS definitions between “telephone network” and “public switched network” and “other networks”.  We must also reference the classifiers (other rules).

 

The words “as in” in § 95.1749 are very important in legal definition.  They are preposition words used to express a relationship to a clause.  In this case, it clarifies the meaning of “telephone network”. The reference to § 95.349 is an example of what they mean.  

 

Let’s break it down. 

§ 95.1745 states that GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.

Operate means to cause a station to begin, continue or cease transmitting. 

Remote control is defined in § 95.303 as operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter.

§ 95.1749 states that a GMRS stations cannot be connected to a “telephone connection”, but GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations can be connected to the “public switched network” or “other networks” for the purpose of operation by remote control.

 

So, if we string all of the rules together using the FCC PRS definitions to make a coherent statement, the rules will read as follows:

GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations can be connected to the “public switched network” or “other networks” for the purpose of beginning, continuing or ceasing transmissions of a GMRS station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter.  However, this behavior is prohibited on any “telephone network”, defined as a public switched network that allows operators to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station.

 

This is where the sticky part comes in.  This rule was created during a time when The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) aka Plain Ole' Telephone Service (POTS) was strung on copper wire to dedicated phone switching stations.  Today, PSTN/POTS is only in about 6% of the US and is expected to be completely gone in the next 3 years.  PSTN/POTS has been replaced with Internet service and Voice over IP.  The rule is grossly outdated and it looks like enforcement agents are substituting public switched network and Common Carrier switched networks in place of PSTN/POTS.  Meaning, they now consider the entire internet and every connection to it as a "Telephone Network".

 

The bottom line is, it looks like rather than the FCC amending § 95.1749 by removing the first clause, they are choosing to ignore the second clause and all related definitions.  Their behavior is nullifying all of § 95.1745 for remote control and clause 2 of § 95.1749, allowing network connectivity.  There is no administrative authority to allow that behavior and until we collectively and successfully petition the FCC to remove clause 1 of § 95.1749, everyone linking or using linked repeater over the internet is taking a risk of big fines and going to court for doing something that should be completely legal and in scope of the FCC rules.

[UncleYoda]

@marcspaz  We all have opinions and our own view of what the rules mean, and our views often contradict each other.  So I don't know if it's worth even posting such interpretations here.  But I will for what it's worth.

I disagree with your synopsis view of remote control.  To understand what remote control means we need to go to Part 97 Amateur Radio.  And yes it's a different service but the concept is identical.  It was even a test question on the HAM exams (Tech probably and maybe General).  Remote control is NOT! just using a repeater, it is controlling it, doing things like shutting a malfunctioning repeater off, changing the tones.  That meaning to me, because of my HAM experience, is not disputable.  The fact that it isn't clearly spelled out for GMRS is not surprising (the GMRS regs are lacking in many ways).

 

I mostly agree with your last part about PTSN and that's what I mean in my earlier post about whether it was still meaningful.  I can hardly recognize the old system in what we have today.  And the Internet is the largest network in the world so it seems like they would at least mention if or how it can be used.

[SteveShannon]

5 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

To understand what remote control means we need to go to Part 97 Amateur Radio.  And yes it's a different service but the concept is identical. 

My compliance experience has been that definitions and requirements for different parts often have absolutely no bearing on each other.  I think Marc is probably correct.

[UncleYoda]

@SteveShannon  Look at the wording; they clearly separate remote control from just use.  That's all you need to know there is a difference.

 

Going back to an earlier point, to me the comment from the FCC meeting is saying exactly the same thing as the reg.  Different wording, same meaning.

[marcspaz]

48 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

our views often contradict each other.  So I don't know if it's worth even posting such interpretations here.  But I will for what it's worth.

 

Quick side note. You're opinion is always welcome.  You may provide information I don't have or a point of view I haven't considered before, that make more sense. Even if the temporary end result is we are still in disagreement, that doesn't mean I don't like you or i don't respect your opinion and input. It just means that in that one specific instance, we simply hold a different point of view.

[SteveShannon]

19 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

@SteveShannon  Look at the wording; they clearly separate remote control from just use.  That's all you need to know there is a difference.

But that’s the point; it doesn’t matter what the requirements of another “part” say.  The different Parts are independent of each other. GMRS is governed by the rules of Part 95, subpart E and those of the superior hierarchy 47 CFR, Chapter 1, and Subchapter D.  
Part 97, unless referenced somewhere in that hierarchy, is unrelated, no matter how much a person believes in it. 

[UncleYoda]

11 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

But that’s the point; it doesn’t matter what the requirements of another “part” say.  The different Parts are independent of each other. GMRS is governed by the rules of Part 95, subpart E and those of the superior hierarchy 47 CFR, Chapter 1, and Subchapter D.  
Part 97, unless referenced somewhere in that hierarchy, is unrelated, no matter how much a person believes in it. 

No, wrong argument for this point.  I was referring to different sentences in the same subsection of Part 95, 95-1749 as quoted above by Marc.  Doesn't matter, this gets us nowhere.

[OffRoaderX]

2 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

Doesn't matter, this gets us nowhere.

What?! Of course it does! How else will we determine who thinks they are the smartest?!

[SteveShannon]

10 minutes ago, UncleYoda said:

No, wrong argument for this point.  I was referring to different sentences in the same subsection of Part 95, 95-1749 as quoted above by Marc.  Doesn't matter, this gets us nowhere.

Ah, I see. Earlier you were talking about Part 97. I thought you still were. 

[marcspaz]

17 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

What?! Of course it does! How else will we determine who thinks they are the smartest?!

 

I think I lost that debate.

[AdmiralCochrane]

I may be missing the point completely but to me it seems to be saying Autopatch may not be used on GMRS

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, AdmiralCochrane said:

I may be missing the point completely but to me it seems to be saying Autopatch may not be used on GMRS

No matter how differently we parse the regulations, I think we all agree with you on that point. 

[marcspaz]

7 hours ago, UncleYoda said:

I disagree with your synopsis view of remote control.

 

A friend of mine who monitors this forum but doesn't post very often pointed out that you disagree with my synopsis view of remote control. However, it is not my synopsis, I literally copied and pasted from the FCC part 95 rule on their website defining remote control. I'm not sure I understand what you disagree with. So I can understand a little better, can you expand on what line or portion of my post you disagree with? I don't want to argue, I'm just trying to understand your point a little better.

[UncleYoda]

1 hour ago, marcspaz said:

 

... can you expand on what line or portion of my post you disagree with?

This part:

Quote

So, if we string all of the rules together using the FCC PRS definitions to make a coherent statement, the rules will read as follows:

GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations can be connected to the “public switched network” or “other networks” for the purpose of beginning, continuing or ceasing transmissions of a GMRS station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter.  However, this behavior is prohibited on any “telephone network”, defined as a public switched network that allows operators to make (and optionally to receive) telephone calls through the connected station.

I don't want to break it down word by word since that isn't the actual wording of the regs.  But the part I bolded is the main objection. I don't see any point in further debate on this word salad however.

[WRUE951]

10 hours ago, marcspaz said:

There could be an argument that Internet connections is a telephone network.  Pretty sure all internet providers are now offering VOIP as a revenue service.  And working in the long haul industry for 30 years we had to adhere to all Telephone regulations when we transported VOIP with our internet service via fiber.  In fact, we had to pass on all the regulated fees just as you see on landline.   

 

[WRQC527]

[marcspaz]

2 hours ago, UncleYoda said:

This part:

I don't want to break it down word by word since that isn't the actual wording of the regs.  But the part I bolded is the main objection. I don't see any point in further debate on this word salad however.

 

That is ironic. The part you have in bold is from the FCC website. Like... literally the actual regulation. I even put it in my opinion post and cited § 95.303 in that post. I'm going to have trouble agreeing with you on that one. Too bad, too. I was hoping to find some common ground.

 

Go to this link for the Part 95 definitions and look at the definition of operate. 

 

Direct quote from the FCC website linked below...

"Operate. Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting."

 

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-95

[WRKC935]

Well, Marc brings up several good points. 

I am gonna throw some more gas on this fire and bring up another regulation that I have seen pop up.  That being the requirement to listen to the channel / frequency you are about to use before transmitting.  This was to verify that another repeater/ simplex user is NOT currently using the frequency before accessing it yourself. 

Commercial radios used 'HUB' or some other similar feature that when the mike hangar (knob on the back of the Microphone) was taken from the mike clip that is mounted to stow the mike when not in use disables the PL/DPL/CTCSS tone for the receiver and allows you to listen to the RX frequency in CSQ.  This isn't a part 95 specific requirement, it's written elsewhere in 47 as a requirement for all services other than maybe HAM but I am betting it's a requirement there to.  Commercial guys know this as 'monitor'. 

No one bothers with it any more but it's still on the books.  There are ways around it.  First being the class of licensed frequency you have.  Again, going to commercial part 90 stuff, there are classes of frequencies.  These are designated by the number behind the FB, or Fixed Base designation for the licensed frequency.  FB2 is a shared frequency that has the requirement to monitor the frequency as there are other users in your area that could be licensed for that frequency as well.    Then there is FB6 and FB8.  FB6 had no requirement to monitor but may be shared at a distance typically greater then your normal coverage area.  Then there is the FB8.  FB8 is considered a 'control channel' level license.  These are allowed to transmit in the blind at all times.  If you have an FB8 license, there is zero requirement to listen first and you are allowed to transmit on that frequency at all times.  In a trunking radio system, these are what are used for control channels.  The rest of the channels are typically FB6, having no requirement to monitor but a small possibility exists that you may encounter some interference occasionally. 

Back the the requirement to 'monitor'.  Obviously we don't have licensed 'assigned' frequencies any more.  So there is a requirement to monitor before transmitting in all cases.  And how many linked repeater systems have output frequency receivers that are monitoring the TX frequency and will deny the repeater the ability to transmit if there is another user on the frequency locally?  Of course the answer is none.  And you are NOT going to be able to monitor a repeater frequency in Iowa if you are in Florida. 

And that is how we get hung on linking regardless of with part 95.XXX says.  If you are in Florida and key up a repeater in Iowa that shares a frequency with another local repeater, or someone is using that channel simplex, you just caused interference with that user.  It's also how they CAN go after repeater users that are not repeater owners.