FCC Shutdown of New York GMRS Linked Repeater System

[WRUE951]

anyone not get it??  Internet, telephone etc. is conveyed over a wireline..  PERIOD..   End of story.   

[LeoG]

2 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

an employee of 'who'   

An employee of the FCC in an unofficial capacity gave the guy a heads up.  The two talked to each other, don't know if it was on a regular basis or not but he gave him a heads up.

Same thing as a cop friend of yours telling you they see your car speeding down Main st and you might want to take care of that.  Just an unofficial notice by a friend.

 

But again, all hearsay.

[WRUE951]

19 minutes ago, LeoG said:

An employee of the FCC in an unofficial capacity

Same thing as a cop friend of yours telling you they see your car speeding down Main st and you might want to take care of that.  

 

But again, all hearsay.

Oh,,  So a cop in his official capacity telling you to slow down Is a warning...   Yea i thought so...    Follow the Rules Lad..  And listen to officials.   LMAO

[marcspaz]

1 hour ago, WRUE951 said:

anyone not get it??  Internet, telephone etc. is conveyed over a wireline..  PERIOD..   End of story.   

 

 

Okay... I am going to try this 1 more time.

Let me put it to you like this... In general, GMRS transmitters may be operated and controlled remotely. Also, in general, GMRS transmitters CAN BE connected to public networks or other networks for the purpose of operation by remote control.  Since its a rule violation for GMRS repeaters to transmit on the 467 channels, preventing legal RF linking with repeaters AND remote operation IS allowed... how exactly do you expect people to be able to remotely operate their radios???  Easy.  Over the network connection they are allowed to have.  Otherwise, the rules allowing remote operation and network connections are completely pointless.

 

OH, wait a minute!  Now that I think about it, there are no prohibitions preventing linking of control stations or fixed stations on the 467 channels.  I can't find a prohibition of linking GMRS repeaters via amateur radio repeaters or through encrypted tunnels on LMR business channels either.  If your goal is to get rid of linked repeaters... you can forget about it.  Even if you were somehow able to convince me you are right about the networking issues, it's not going to stop people from using other legal means of linking repeaters.  While network connections are the easiest legal means, its not the only means. 

[LeoG]

31 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

Oh,,  So a cop in his official capacity telling you to slow down Is a warning...   Yea i thought so...    Follow the Rules Lad..  And listen to officials.   LMAO

Nope, told you as a friend in the know.  Because if it was in an official capacity paper work would have been initiated.

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, marcspaz said:

 

 

Okay... I am going to try this 1 more time.

Let me put it to you like this... In general, GMRS transmitters may be operated and controlled remotely. Also, in general, GMRS transmitters CAN BE connected to public networks or other networks for the purpose of operation by remote control.  Since its a rule violation for GMRS repeaters to transmit on the 467 channels, preventing legal RF linking with repeaters AND remote operation IS allowed... how exactly do you expect people to be able to remotely operate their radios???  Easy.  Over the network connection they are allowed to have.  Otherwise, the rules allowing remote operation and network connections are completely pointless.

 

OH, wait a minute!  Now that I think about it, there are no prohibitions preventing linking of control stations or fixed stations on the 467 channels.  I can't find a prohibition of linking GMRS repeaters via amateur radio repeaters or through encrypted tunnels on LMR business channels either.  If your goal is to get rid of linked repeaters... you can forget about it.  Even if you were somehow able to convince me you are right about the networking issues, it's not going to stop people from using other legal means of linking repeaters.  While network connections are the easiest legal means, its not the only means. 

Common Marc,,   Do you really confuse yourself with Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station and remote operation of of a repeater, in other words ability to turn it off and on remotely.    Are you really in that in that crowd????    You can play dumb all you want but i won't be part of that crowd.   Have fun with that.  

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, LeoG said:

Nope, told you as a friend in the know.  Because if it was in an official capacity paper work would have been initiated.

Haaa.. Oh Lordy,,  thank god  my children grew up a lot easier than this....  

[WRQC527]

4 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

PERIOD..   End of story.

That's funny. You do realize that in six months this thread will still be going.

[marcspaz]

5 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

Common Marc,,   Do you really confuse yourself with Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station and remote operation of of a repeater, in other words ability to turn it off and on remotely.    Are you really in that in that crowd????    You can play dumb all you want but i won't be part of that crowd.   Have fun with that.  

 

It's literally in the Part 95 definition section.  I  have no idea how you can read this definition and not get it.

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

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. "

 

The combined rules literally say to remotely cause a Personal Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting.  You know, like the push the PPT button, hold the PPT button, release the PTT button. No where in those definitions does it say anything about turning the repeater on and off.  It's transmit or not... put it in a transmit state... or stop transmitting... remotely.

If these rules weren't meant to describe remote communications/messaging, why the hell would they waste the effort and ink to specify that if you are in the immediate vicinity of the radio (on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located) and operating it, it doesn't fall under the legal definition of Remote Control for the purposes of GMRS rules?

 

I'm not sure how else to spell it out.  Either you're messing with me or reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

[LeoG]

I bet they really meant to start and stop the operation of the repeater.  But they way you are looking at it sound like it's within interpretation.

Again, messy regulations with broad meanings can easily be taken advantage of.  They can't say "Well this is what we meant" because it doesn't say that exactly.

[marcspaz]

@LeoG I have participated in enough court cases to know that the intent of the law/rule means nothing to a judge.  Only what is written.  I have no choice but to interpret the rules as written with the provided definitions. 

Not to mention that linked repeaters with voice communications have been around long before the changes in 2017 and there have been exactly zero actions against anyone.... not one single person in a decade or more, with hundreds of linked repeaters and 10's of thousands of users nationwide in that same time frame.  Not one single letter, accusation, fine, nothing.  And it's not like its a secret.  Leads me to think I may be right.

Words have meaning.  I agree it can be messy, but if they meant something else, they need to amend the rules and issue a clarification, which they seem wholly uninterested in.  FCC enforcement agents are on this site... they are here and reading this stuff and say nothing.  Though, I'm sure they get a good laugh from time to time.

[DONE]

4 hours ago, marcspaz said:

@LeoG I have participated in enough court cases to know that the intent of the law/rule means nothing to a judge.  Only what is written.  I have no choice but to interpret the rules as written with the provided definitions. 

  FCC enforcement agents are on this site... they are here and reading this stuff and say nothing.  Though, I'm sure they get a good laugh from time to time.

I honestly wish they would speak up.  It would clear up the confusion a LOT.

 

[amaff]

4 hours ago, marcspaz said:

FCC enforcement agents are on this site... they are here and reading this stuff and say nothing.  Though, I'm sure they get a good laugh from time to time.

[SteveShannon]

5 hours ago, marcspaz said:

I have participated in enough court cases to know that the intent of the law/rule means nothing to a judge.  Only what is written.  I have no choice but to interpret the rules as written with the provided definitions. 

This!!!

Forums are always full of people who just can’t believe that rules and laws mean nothing more or less than what is actually written in the rule or law, not what is written elsewhere. They always attempt to explain the intent, but the fact is that intent is worthless. The only thing that ever matters in a courtroom is the letter of the law. 
But the reality is that the road to the courthouse can be very expensive and most of us know that we can’t afford to fight as long as it might take to get to the letter of the law. That’s where risk aversion comes from. 

[marcspaz]

9 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

This!!!

Forums are always full of people who just can’t believe that rules and laws mean nothing more or less than what is actually written in the rule or law, not what is written elsewhere. They always attempt to explain the intent, but the fact is that intent is worthless. The only thing that ever matters in a courtroom is the letter of the law. 
But the reality is that the road to the courthouse can be very expensive and most of us know that we can’t afford to fight as long as it might take to get to the letter of the law. That’s where risk aversion comes from. 

 

Could not agree more. Well said.

[DONE]

8 hours ago, SteveShannon said:

This!!!

Forums are always full of people who just can’t believe that rules and laws mean nothing more or less than what is actually written in the rule or law, not what is written elsewhere. They always attempt to explain the intent, but the fact is that intent is worthless. The only thing that ever matters in a courtroom is the letter of the law. 
But the reality is that the road to the courthouse can be very expensive and most of us know that we can’t afford to fight as long as it might take to get to the letter of the law. That’s where risk aversion comes from. 

And the risk aversion part is why I took my linked repeater down. 

If you get a notice from a federal agency about something you are doing, you are going to need a specialized federal lawyer that has experience with whatever you are being accused of.  The Dewey, Cheatum and How ambulance chasers on the local TV ad's that have "I SUE4U' on the license plates of their Mercedes of Cadillac are NOT even going to talk to you about your legal issues with a federal agency.  And their "I don't get paid unless YOU get paid" pricing doesn't apply to specialized federal attorneys either.  It's gonna take a couple grand just to find out how screwed you are, if that is the case.  Getting into court and fighting something coming from the federal government in a federal courtroom is gonna easily exceed 10 grand.  And the government knows this and uses it against you to just pay their fine and cease doing whatever it is they don't like. 

[MarkInTampa]

FYI - here's a actual violation letter from the FCC, not from this incident but they do somewhat enforce GMRS rules and regulations - or at least this time

 

[DONE]

2 minutes ago, MarkInTampa said:

FYI - here's a actual warning letter from the FCC

 

Wrong person, wrong repeater, wrong violation, and wrong date range. 

This has NOTHING to do with linking, simulcast, or being in New York.

This was violations related to playing of music, or other sound effects.  Continuous transmissions that didn't have life safety information in them.  Not giving his ID every 15 minutes and not having proper Type accepted equipment.

The fact he was transmitting on 467.625 and not 462.625 means he was a probably a repeater user... not the repeater owner that would have been responsible for the repeated content of the repeater.  But repeater owners aren't liable for the content of other users past disabling an owned repeater if there is a violation that doesn't cease by other means.  Like telling a user to go pound sand and get off the repeater. Or having a repeater stuck in transmit for an extended period and not turning it off and getting it fixed.

 

 

[WRQC527]

17 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

Common Marc

"Common Marc"? I mean, I don't know marcspaz personally, but I've read his posts and I think referring to him as "common" is a bit of an insult. In fact, as much as we do have in common, what with our shared interest in radio, each of us is unique.

[WRQC527]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Wrong person, wrong repeater, wrong violation, and wrong date range. 

This has NOTHING to do with linking, simulcast, or being in New York.

For the record, he didn't say it was  the incident being beaten to death on this thread. He used it as an example.

[LeoG]

8 minutes ago, WRQC527 said:

For the record, he didn't say it was  the incident being beaten to death on this thread. He used it as an example.

Yes, he plainly stated this is what a real FCC violation letter looks like.  And the reason you can't be shown the one for the repeater shutdown in NY is because there isn't one.

[DONE]

8 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Yes, he plainly stated this is what a real FCC violation letter looks like.  And the reason you can't be shown the one for the repeater shutdown in NY is because there isn't one.

Yep, you are right.  And i missed that like a rebellious teenager misses the school bus.

But that at least DOES put to rest the idea that the FCC pays ZERO attention to the GMRS service.  That was a letter from last year, so there is some enforcement going on. 

So we are seeing enforcement, and those regulations are pretty clear and worded in a way that crossing your eyes and standing on one foot while listening to Ozzy playing backwards on the record player could be construed to NOT mean exactly what they say.  The topic at had is still written in hieroglyphics only to be deciphered by lawyers and federal judges at a time of their choosing.  

I think I will just sell the linked repeater off and buy a 20KW CB amp.  At least I KNOW there isn't any enforcement going on with CB radio.  Knowing that there is enforcement on the GMRS service furthers my concern of being that guy that they decided to make an example of.

 

High Plains Drifter in the Buckeye just got down..

 

[WRQC527]

16 hours ago, marcspaz said:

you're messing with me

Every now and then a post captures the essence of the MyGMRS forums.

[LeoG]

12 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

Yep, you are right.  And i missed that like a rebellious teenager misses the school bus.

But that at least DOES put to rest the idea that the FCC pays ZERO attention to the GMRS service.  That was a letter from last year, so there is some enforcement going on. 

So we are seeing enforcement, and those regulations are pretty clear and worded in a way that crossing your eyes and standing on one foot while listening to Ozzy playing backwards on the record player could be construed to NOT mean exactly what they say.  The topic at had is still written in hieroglyphics only to be deciphered by lawyers and federal judges at a time of their choosing.  

I think I will just sell the linked repeater off and buy a 20KW CB amp.  At least I KNOW there isn't any enforcement going on with CB radio.  Knowing that there is enforcement on the GMRS service furthers my concern of being that guy that they decided to make an example of.

 

High Plains Drifter in the Buckeye just got down..

 

I would figure if you are a big enough violator and get enough attention from people reporting you they don't have much choice but to do something.  But the little guy on the 5 watt walkie not interacting with repeaters will likely never get their attention.  But you never know.

[WRQC527]

2 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Yep, you are right.  And i missed that like a rebellious teenager misses the school bus.

But that at least DOES put to rest the idea that the FCC pays ZERO attention to the GMRS service.  That was a letter from last year, so there is some enforcement going on. 

So we are seeing enforcement, and those regulations are pretty clear and worded in a way that crossing your eyes and standing on one foot while listening to Ozzy playing backwards on the record player could be construed to NOT mean exactly what they say.  The topic at had is still written in hieroglyphics only to be deciphered by lawyers and federal judges at a time of their choosing.  

I think I will just sell the linked repeater off and buy a 20KW CB amp.  At least I KNOW there isn't any enforcement going on with CB radio.  Knowing that there is enforcement on the GMRS service furthers my concern of being that guy that they decided to make an example of.

 

High Plains Drifter in the Buckeye just got down..

 

It's also worth noting that the FCC didn't shut down the repeater network, as the clickbait subject of this thread would have one believe. Those responsible for administering the repeater network disabled the linking out of an abundance of caution because of an email from an as-yet unidentified alleged FCC employee to an alleged business associate, not as a reaction to an FCC enforcement notice like the example MarkInTampa presented.