FCC Shutdown of New York GMRS Linked Repeater System

[marcspaz]

8 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

rightfully so

 

Why?  When we take the rules as a whole, its completely legal, as long as a GMRS user can't make or receive phone calls nor have data traverse the telephone network (which almost doesn't exist any longer).

[WRUE951]

18 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

 

Why?  When we take the rules as a whole, its completely legal, as long as a GMRS user can't make or receive phone calls nor have data traverse the telephone network (which almost doesn't exist any longer).

Obviously it is not legal.  I knew it..  Many of us did..   I'm not out to take advantage of anyone or anything  Carry on,,   Follow the rules.    

[marcspaz]

19 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

Obviously it is not legal.

 

Because of a single anecdotal and unofficial conversation between 2 people?  Not sure how you get there.

 

Part 95 definitions of Remote Control, Operate and Network Connection:

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.

 

 

What is allowed:

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

§ 95.1749
"GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations," "...may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control".

 

 

What is not allowed:

§ 95.1749
"Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited".

[LeoG]

Well for one it's suppose to be a family radio service and it not always being treated as that.  If I had a choice of having large linked systems vs just single repeaters I'd probably chose just a single repeater.  Mainly because the frequencies are very limited in the repeater system and having a large linked system means it's going to be busy when you really need it.

Even one of the non linked repeaters I listen to have some really chatty people on it and they don't leave any space between keying each other so breaking in usually means you have to key over them which they'll say is rude but in reality it's not their airwaves to monopolize.

[WRUE951]

4 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Well for one it's suppose to be a family radio service and it not always being treated as that.  If I had a choice of having large linked systems vs just single repeaters I'd probably chose just a single repeater.  Mainly because the frequencies are very limited in the repeater system and having a large linked system means it's going to be busy when you really need it.

Even one of the non linked repeaters I listen to have some really chatty people on it and they don't leave any space between keying each other so breaking in usually means you have to key over them which they'll say is rude but in reality it's not their airwaves to monopolize.

a few people here struggle with the FCC's Definition of GMRS.  It's possible the FCC left some of the rules vague to permit some very small scale use of linking etc for learning purposes hoping to entice a graduation into HAM radio. But Linking defiantly has gotten out of hand and it is hogging up tons of bandwidth and area.  Its not fair to the intended user and even worse it's not right and even against the rules to use GMRS for any monetary purpose.  Even if you are simply paying club dues.  Sorry, but you linker guys need to explore the HAM radio world where repeater linking is organized and very well managed..     

[LeoG]

The only linked repeater I had contact with was the NY Alliance.  I hadn't heard of it before the couple days before I went up to visit my grandkids.  I looked it up because I was going to be in the area.  I noticed it said simulcast but really didn't know what that meant because I didn't even know repeaters could be linked.  It was only when I noticed people talking on the repeater that couldn't possibly reach it that I looked into it and then it became clear that 3 of them were connected.

[WRUE951]

32 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

 

Because of a single anecdotal and unofficial conversation between 2 people?  Not sure how you get there.

The FCC has spoken,,  that's how.   And they have done so many times just by mere fact that many on this forum have confirmed they spoke with someone at the FCC and received confirmation by them that Linking is prohibited. And the FCC has even addressed this at many public forums.    It's possible the FCC left some vagueness in the rules in regards to Linking to allow some very small scale of extermination hoping it would lead to advancement into HAM radio. But it's clear that repeater linking has gotten way out of hand and hurting the intended users for GMRS..  If you want to enjoy the world of repeater linking, one should get into the HAM world where it is managed by a large group of people with very good success.   Not a bunch of rookies that have no regard to the bandwidth and areas they hog.   I've been in situations where multiple linked repeaters have effected my use of GMRS and its irritating as hell.     

[marcspaz]

3 hours ago, LeoG said:

Well for one it's suppose to be a family radio service and it not always being treated as that.  If I had a choice of having large linked systems vs just single repeaters I'd probably chose just a single repeater.  Mainly because the frequencies are very limited in the repeater system and having a large linked system means it's going to be busy when you really need it.

Even one of the non linked repeaters I listen to have some really chatty people on it and they don't leave any space between keying each other so breaking in usually means you have to key over them which they'll say is rude but in reality it's not their airwaves to monopolize.

 

3 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

a few people here struggle with the FCC's Definition of GMRS.  It's possible the FCC left some of the rules vague to permit some very small scale use of linking etc for learning purposes hoping to entice a graduation into HAM radio. But Linking defiantly has gotten out of hand and it is hogging up tons of bandwidth and area.  Its not fair to the intended user and even worse it's not right and even against the rules to use GMRS for any monetary purpose.  Even if you are simply paying club dues.  Sorry, but you linker guys need to explore the HAM radio world where repeater linking is organized and very well managed..     

 

It's the General Mobile Radio Service... Not Family Radio Service, as determined by the frequencies and radio type.  With the exception of some grandfathered businesses, anyone one with a license can conduct any personal or business related activities on the frequency as long as the person or business employees have their own license or the operator is covered under a family member's license. 

 

The idea that people are struggling with the intended purpose of the service is evident in posts like the ones I've quoted above.  Just because the legal uses don't fall inside some box that you think it should, doesn't some how make it a rule violation or act of moral turpitude.

 

3 hours ago, WRUE951 said:

The FCC has spoken,,  that's how.   And they have done so many times just by mere fact that many on this forum have confirmed they spoke with someone at the FCC and received confirmation by them that Linking is prohibited. And the FCC has even addressed this at many public forums.    It's possible the FCC left some vagueness in the rules in regards to Linking to allow some very small scale of extermination hoping it would lead to advancement into HAM radio. But it's clear that repeater linking has gotten way out of hand and hurting the intended users for GMRS..  If you want to enjoy the world of repeater linking, one should get into the HAM world where it is managed by a large group of people with very good success.   Not a bunch of rookies that have no regard to the bandwidth and areas they hog.   I've been in situations where multiple linked repeaters have effected my use of GMRS and its irritating as hell.     

 

I can't find a single action in the FCC database of a person being officially questioned, accused or charged with the act of solely having linked repeaters or solely using remote control over a network.  I'm waiting for any proof of an official opinion from the FCC... any time in the last 10 years.  Can you provide anything except for Randy's video and conjecture on the internet?  Like, anything officially released from the FCC or US Congress?

[LeoG]

Are there any other radio licenses that allow you to port it to other family members?

[marcspaz]

13 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Are there any other radio licenses that allow you to port it to other family members?

 

Yes... All of the Personal Radio Services (including license by rule) allow license sharing.  Then there are service such as Amateur Radio, which allow anyone to operate with the station call sign of the licensee.  Business class radio typically covers all employees and family members.  That is just the few that I know off the top of my head. 

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, marcspaz said:

 

I can't find a single action in the FCC database of a person being officially questioned, accused or charged with the act of solely having linked repeaters or solely using remote control over a network.  I'm waiting for any proof of an official opinion from the FCC... any time in the last 10 years.  Can you provide anything except for Randy's video and conjecture on the internet?  Like, anything officially released from the FCC or US Congress?

 

Well Marc, then i challenge you to open a linked repeater system, better yet do it across multiple states and wait for a response from the FCC.   We all saw Notarubicons video(s) (thank-you notarubicon) and i'm sure we all conjured the same conclusion.  The FCC took acton against the illegal use of linking repeaters and it appears the message was acknowledged by those operators and many of us here in the audience. .   If you want to argue the legal aspect of what they did and how they did it,, take it up with them or even hire and attorney and take it through the course..  Pondering this forum is not going to change the FCC's actions.   I still believe the FCC will follow up with some updated clarification in the GMRS rules and i don't think they will waste much time doing so.  I may be wrong but common sense tells me they should because they need to settle the confusion.  Or just maybe, they'll leave it left alone and will turn an eye on small scale use, which would prove my theory of allowing some small scale experimentation. 

[LeoG]

There was no FCC action.  There was a friend in the FCC that gave a heads up to a friend as far as I can see.  There was no legal action taken that I know of.  The repeaters were taken down before anything could happen as a precaution from friendly advice from someone on the inside.

[marcspaz]

18 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

I still believe the FCC will follow up with some updated clarification in the GMRS rules and i don't think they will waste much time doing so.  

 

I hope you are right.  Many people are uneasy about the circumstances and actions around the incident Randy highlighted... myself included.

[SteveShannon]

What happened in New York appears to have been a cautious reaction to an unofficial warning. That did not establish any kind of legal precedent. 
The FCC has a website that clearly says “any other network” in a way that appears to conflict with the written rules. What people fail to understand is that only the written rules have legal status and even the written rules can be challenged. If the FCC attempted to cite someone based on their “any other network” website interpretation they would have to show that their interpretation is supported by the written rules. That would be expensive for all parties but stranger things have happened.
With the recent SCOTUS decision regarding Chevron Deference it may be even easier to defend against the FCC interpretation, but until someone is cited and fights the citation we won’t have anything other than our opinions to argue about. 

An organization I serve joined another similar organization to sue ATF in federal court over their classification of rocket propellant as an explosive (it isn’t). We fought for nine years. We prevailed and ATF had to reimburse us for our legal costs. Our two organizations had less than 15,000 members at the time. ATF was relying on their claimed expertise but we were able to demonstrate that they were technically incorrect.

[WRUE951]

1 hour ago, SteveShannon said:

What happened in New York appears to have been a cautious reaction to an unofficial warning. That did not establish any kind of legal precedent. 
The FCC has a website that clearly says “any other network” in a way that appears to conflict with the written rules. What people fail to understand is that only the written rules have legal status and even the written rules can be challenged. If the FCC attempted to cite someone based on their “any other network” website interpretation they would have to show that their interpretation is supported by the written rules. That would be expensive for all parties but stranger things have happened.
With the recent SCOTUS decision regarding Chevron Deference it may be even easier to defend against the FCC interpretation, but until someone is cited and fights the citation we won’t have anything other than our opinions to argue about. 

An organization I serve joined another similar organization to sue ATF in federal court over their classification of rocket propellant as an explosive (it isn’t). We fought for nine years. We prevailed and ATF had to reimburse us for our legal costs. Our two organizations had less than 15,000 members at the time. ATF was relying on their claimed expertise but we were able to demonstrate that they were technically incorrect.

you better get busy and sue the FCC...  sounds like you got it under your sleeve.  Don't roll em' up or you'll loose your tactics.. Stay tough, show em' 'you da man'     

[SteveShannon]

5 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

you better get busy and sue the FCC...  sounds like you got it under your sleeve.  Don't roll em' up or you'll loose your tactics.. Stay tough, show em' 'you da man'     

You’re really not good at reading comprehension are you?

[WRUE951]

41 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

You’re really not good at reading comprehension are you?

 

41 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

You’re really not good at reading comprehension are you?

Just trying to give a pep talk. 

[WRUU653]

What we think we know happened is only hearsay as we have never directly heard from the repeater owner himself or the FCC on the subject.
Exaggerating  what the facts are doesn’t make an opinion fact.  
As long as there is no comment by the actual parties involved and I mean the FCC or the actual repeater owner, then this argument will go no where. I really can’t get all worked up over some private citizen shutting down his own repeaters if they are not saying anything on the subject. Nothing to see here.
It’s like saying Alvin said Bob up the street won’t let his friends use his bathroom anymore because the city is going to fine him for using too much water. But you don’t know Alvin. You don’t know Bob. And Bob has never said anything to you. And the city hasn’t said anything to you. And who cares if Bob doesn’t want anyone in his bathroom. It sure isn’t conclusive that you or anyone else can’t share their bathroom. Even if it was on YouTube.

 

[WRUE951]

11 hours ago, WRUU653 said:

What we think we know happened is only hearsay as we have never directly heard from the repeater owner himself or the FCC on the subject.
Exaggerating  what the facts are doesn’t make an opinion fact.  
As long as there is no comment by the actual parties involved and I mean the FCC or the actual repeater owner, then this argument will go no where. I really can’t get all worked up over some private citizen shutting down his own repeaters if they are not saying anything on the subject. Nothing to see here.
It’s like saying Alvin said Bob up the street won’t let his friends use his bathroom anymore because the city is going to fine him for using too much water. But you don’t know Alvin. You don’t know Bob. And Bob has never said anything to you. And the city hasn’t said anything to you. And who cares if Bob doesn’t want anyone in his bathroom. It sure isn’t conclusive that you or anyone else can’t share their bathroom. Even if it was on YouTube.

 

A party to the owner/operator or maybe even a 'partner' spoke.  And we heard the 'inside dope'  that resulted in shutting down rogue linked repeater operation, i don't think there was any 'hearsay'...   He was pretty clear what transpired. A few facts we do know..   There was a rogue linked repeater system in operation and it linked across multiple states., the operation undoubtedly hindered normal operations of GMRS for other users, the FCC spoke to said owner/operator of rogue linked repeater operation advising they will not tolerate operation and gave specific orders to shut it down, owner/operator took action and ceased operating linked GMRS repeater operations.  Other then the 'inside dope' we  heard, your are somewhat right,  we don't know the complete detail of conversation owner/operator had with the FCC    For all we know, they could have discussed where they can buy tickets to the next Taylor Swift Concert.    

[WRHS218]

14 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

For all we know, they could have discussed where they can buy tickets to the next Taylor Swift Concert.  

From what I understand Taylor Swift tickets are more expensive than most FCC fines.

[marcspaz]

22 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

rogue

I don't think that means what you think it means...

 

22 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

the operation undoubtedly hindered normal operations of GMRS for other users,

Sure... and so does any single repeater that covers an area with 'other operators' in it.  There is a repeater in my area that covers a 90 mile diameter.  That's more square miles than the entire state of Rhode Island.  People need to learn how to use PL tones and work together to use resources.  Not tell a legal repeater owner to turn their repeater off.

 

22 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

the FCC spoke to said owner/operator of rogue linked repeater operation advising they will not tolerate operation and gave specific orders to shut it down,

This is a monstrous stretch, at best.  I do work for the DoD at the Pentagon... applying your logic, my son had the Defense Department give him specific orders straight from the Pentagon to take out the trash and brush his teeth or there would be consequences.

[WRUE951]

7 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

I don't think that means what you think it means...

 

Sure... and so does any single repeater that covers an area with 'other operators' in it.  There is a repeater in my area that covers a 90 mile diameter.  That's more square miles than the entire state of Rhode Island.  People need to learn how to use PL tones and work together to use resources.  Not tell a legal repeater owner to turn their repeater off.

 

This is a monstrous stretch, at best.  I do work for the DoD at the Pentagon... applying your logic, my son had the Defense Department give him specific orders straight from the Pentagon to take out the trash and brush his teeth or there would be consequences.

Yea marc,, but are their several of them????   There's one right next door to me that has reached 160 miles and i use it all the time.   His has a void where mine can hit 80 miles in that void.  Linking them together would create a very awsome coverage of area, but we never even talked about it because we know what the rules imply.  Take a look at the spread sheet i posted..  Some operators have massive amounts of repeaterss registered and you have no way of knowing if those multilble operators are forcing up..   Get the picture?  I'm sure that's the picture the FCC was seeing..   Did  you tell your son to listen to orders, i gave mine a 101 book on telling people of 'F' Off in a polite manor.     

 

[Blaise]

6 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

Get the picture?

I'm pretty sure we all get the picture, but it's a picture of someone who really needs to be an expert on stuff that other people have clearly demonstrated they have more expertise with.  Maybe take the attitude down three or four notches?  You don't persuade people by yelling at them, especially when all you have to contradict their well supported arguments is sarcasm and "you're wrong!"...

[marcspaz]

10 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

i gave mine a 101 book on telling people of 'F' Off in a polite manor.     

 

LoL! That's awesome! 

[WRUE951]

7 minutes ago, Blaise said:

I'm pretty sure we all get the picture, but it's a picture of someone who really needs to be an expert on stuff that other people have clearly demonstrated they have more expertise with.  Maybe take the attitude down three or four notches?  You don't persuade people by yelling at them, especially when all you have to contradict their well supported arguments is sarcasm and "you're wrong!"...

Not sure where you are coming form or tying to say..  Kind of reminds me of watching an individual in a  'debate' a little while back.