OffRoaderX Posted June 21 Report Share Posted June 21 For those that may have missed it, and because someone was asking for more threads about it: How it started: How its going: How It's Going A Few Months Later: marcspaz and tjcloer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdmiralCochrane Posted June 22 Report Share Posted June 22 Listen both to what is said and what is NOT said. We are only getting a tiny fraction of this story. amaff and WRUU653 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ke8lcm Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 I do not believe this was an email from the FCC as nothing in the language of part 95 and so on prevents systems linked through the internet. I want to see the original email header. I think the FCC would have likely sent either a hard copy via mail to the repeater trustee or an agent would have showed up in person. We ham radio operators have to also comply with most of the same rules and regulations and there is nothing stopping us from linking repeater systems through the internet. I have several Allstar nodes which allow access to repeaters all around the world online. I think this was more than likely some jack wagon who was mad that this repeater system was so large and because there is no real frequency coordination when it comes to assigning repeater frequencies. Whoever gets the repeater up first wins. Some of these guys don't understand how to separate repeater systems on the same frequency using PL tones and so on...... I would set the links back up and carry on. If this were from the FCC there would be enforcement action in the database. There isn't... So carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcspaz Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, ke8lcm said: I do not believe this was an email from the FCC as nothing in the language of part 95 and so on prevents systems linked through the internet. I want to see the original email header. I think the FCC would have likely sent either a hard copy via mail to the repeater trustee or an agent would have showed up in person. We ham radio operators have to also comply with most of the same rules and regulations and there is nothing stopping us from linking repeater systems through the internet. I have several Allstar nodes which allow access to repeaters all around the world online. I think this was more than likely some jack wagon who was mad that this repeater system was so large and because there is no real frequency coordination when it comes to assigning repeater frequencies. Whoever gets the repeater up first wins. Some of these guys don't understand how to separate repeater systems on the same frequency using PL tones and so on...... I would set the links back up and carry on. If this were from the FCC there would be enforcement action in the database. There isn't... So carry on. There are some problems with your logic. First.. Amateur radio rules have exactly zero to do with GMRS rules. Don't waste time comparing them. Second, we (members of this forum and the GMRS community) have been debating on the rules and requested verification from the FCC if linking repeaters over public internet for the use of simulcast is within the scope of rules or a violation. There are several contradictions and vagueness in the rules about network connections that the user community just can't say for sure and the FCC is refusing to comment. (plenty of posts here about that) Last... this wasn't an FCC action. It was reportedly two people (FCC employee and a GMRS repeater owner) who are either friends, acquaintances or have some type of professional association, and the FCC employee started some unofficial communications with the GMRS repeater owner. It's unclear if it was a warning or a courtesy from an acquaintances/friend, or if an agent was subverting processes due to some pre-existing work relationship. In either case, there will not be any official documentation in the FCC database. Also, I personally am aware of several people in the professional comms world who are aware of this situation and asked their FCC POCs about this specific situation, as well as GMRS simulcast over public internet, in general terms. Those FCC POCs are refusing to comment on anything. Until formal action is taken and it ends up in court, everyone is just guessing at the regulation. wrci350, SteveShannon, kirk5056 and 3 others 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OffRoaderX Posted July 9 Author Report Share Posted July 9 58 minutes ago, marcspaz said: everyone is just guessing at the regulation. Just another Tuesday at the MyGMRS forums.. wrci350, marcspaz, hfd376 and 4 others 2 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleYoda Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 1 hour ago, marcspaz said: Amateur radio rules have exactly zero to do with GMRS rules. Some rules applicable to Amateur are not specific to it. And there is a lot of common meanings of terms. There was a ruling/statement some years back that the internet was not included in the restriction on PSTN. That should apply to all services. I know you'll want a citation/link/quote but all I have is what I remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcspaz Posted July 9 Report Share Posted July 9 2 hours ago, UncleYoda said: Some rules applicable to Amateur are not specific to it. And there is a lot of common meanings of terms. There was a ruling/statement some years back that the internet was not included in the restriction on PSTN. That should apply to all services. I know you'll want a citation/link/quote but all I have is what I remember. Memory is just fine. Do you remember if it was an FCC ruling or a court ruling? I would be curious to look it up myself. I actually do want to link and out of state repeater with an in-state repeater and the information would be helpful to me SteveShannon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleYoda Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 I don't remember any more. It's up to FCC to cite or make a new statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoppyjr Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 WRXR255, OffRoaderX, back4more70 and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 Linked across states, i.e. New York, Penn. I'm kind of thinking Carolinas too.... Or at least what i can see from the other side of the country. It' pretty easy to figure to what the fCC is after... 200 members can create quite an impressive cash flow.. illeagly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjcloer Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 I'm fairly new to the GMRS world, but I personally hope the FCC shuts down or severely limits linked GMRS repeaters. I get why folks want it and I see the appeal, and I also hate government over-reach just as much as the next guy, but I also am getting tired of hearing the exact same conversation on every single channel. I'm lucky/unfortunate enough to be smack in the middle of a fairly large club's repeater network that spans literally every single repeater pair. cfa, amaff, WRUE951 and 3 others 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortex2 Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 17 hours ago, WRUE951 said: 200 members can create quite an impressive cash flow.. illeagly The system in question did not charge members. Nor was the system linked to PA or NC. Only some Western NY stuff. Raybestos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raybestos Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 5 hours ago, tjcloer said: I'm fairly new to the GMRS world, but I personally hope the FCC shuts down or severely limits linked GMRS repeaters. I get why folks want it and I see the appeal, and I also hate government over-reach just as much as the next guy, but I also am getting tired of hearing the exact same conversation on every single channel. I'm lucky/unfortunate enough to be smack in the middle of a fairly large club's repeater network that spans literally every single repeater pair. I know it is a pain in the rear, but if you feel up to it, and you really do need to be in the mood to do such, try sending the FCC a request that they address this festering issue. I did last year. They acknowledged receipt but that was the last I heard of it. The more requests they get to fix this problem, hopefully prohibiting ALL forms of repeater and "node" linking on GMRS, the more likely they are to act. Wish I could help with a link or such but once I finished the task and cleaned up all the hair I had pulled out of my head and armpits while trying to navigate the FCC site and processes, I forgot much of it. You are a GMRS licensee so you have some understanding of what I mean about that. tjcloer and GreggInFL 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRQC527 Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 1 hour ago, RayP said: I know it is a pain in the rear, but if you feel up to it, and you really do need to be in the mood to do such, try sending the FCC a request that they address this festering issue. I did last year. They acknowledged receipt but that was the last I heard of it. I did the same thing last year. Someone there sent me the text of the current 95.1749 regulation. I found their response to be of zero value. Raybestos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted July 10 Report Share Posted July 10 3 hours ago, gortex2 said: The system in question did not charge members. Nor was the system linked to PA or NC. Only some Western NY stuff. did you listen to the first video. He admitted they were multi state.. and i can clearly see it on the kml database. And the database reflects paid membership on some of the repeaters.. not all but some.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortex2 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 You keep throwing out the kml data but you refuse to share it. I know the area well and know what repeaters were in use. Its a pretty tight community in that area when it comes to the radio field. At this point it doesn't matter as its off and will stay that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 2 hours ago, gortex2 said: You keep throwing out the kml data but you refuse to share it. I know the area well and know what repeaters were in use. Its a pretty tight community in that area when it comes to the radio field. At this point it doesn't matter as its off and will stay that way. become a paid member and get it yourself. LMAO.. You'll have to do a very small amount of work to get the KML data into a database format.. Excel will do it for you and should only take about 20 mins. I recommend using the Excel Table Formatting tools. Have fun. BTW,, it's about time these 'non compliant rogue' Linked repeaters disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcspaz Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 55 minutes ago, WRUE951 said: BTW,, it's about time these 'non compliant rogue' Linked repeaters disappear. I just don't understand why people keep saying this. It almost sounds like some people are jealous of successful clubs and networks, rather than interested the legality of the use and practical use cases. The rules about voice moving between systems over network-linked repeaters are vague in most cases, and flat-out contradict themselves in others. The FCC refuses to make an official statement or charge anyone. No operators "know" if its in scope of the rules or not. SteveShannon, Blaise, AdmiralCochrane and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 1 hour ago, marcspaz said: The rules about voice moving between systems over network-linked repeaters are vague as vague as you want it to be to promote your own actions.. It's pretty clear just by mere explanation the FCC established for GMRS uses. Many (mostly back east), took advantage of the rules by establishing their own rules by their own interpretation. Even after many months ago the FCC clarified the rules. ( a few videos are floating about showing this). The FCC is obviously reflecting the rules by recent actions and I'm pretty damn sure we will be seeing a revision in the rules in short order so 'some' people' actually get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRXR360 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 6 minutes ago, WRUE951 said: The FCC is obviously reflecting the rules by recent actions and I'm pretty damn sure we will be seeing a revision in the rules in short order so 'some' people' actually get it. "Well? We're waiting..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gortex2 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 I have to agree with @marcspaz on this one. Its all varue and until the FCC actually changes rules it will be. The system in question regardless of what you think was a simulcast voted system. To me that 100% different than a linked repeater all over the US or state. Its the same input and output on each repeater. In the past there were multiple voted GMRS repeaters that REACT teams and others used. Back then it was 4W circuits on microwave. It worked and worked well. It really wastn't until GMRS turned into HAM lite that this linking crae started. I'm for one looking forward to see what the FCC comes back with but to be honest other than the folks on this forum 99% of the GMRS user base could care less. They push a button and talk. AdmiralCochrane, Blaise, tweiss3 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 5 hours ago, gortex2 said: You keep throwing out the kml data but you refuse to share it. ......................... O.K. I'll Share this EastStats.xlsx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 8 minutes ago, WRXR360 said: "Well? We're waiting..." Ham Sandwich ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcspaz Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 I don't think it's happening anytime soon. The list for 2024 was already released, all the proposed changes from 2023 are still pending, and I think the next release won't be until April of 2025 (possibly later), unless there is an urgent or emergent request by the POTUS. There is nothing about GMRS or Part 95 in the current list of proposed rule makings and it may bee years, based on what the pattern has been. AdmiralCochrane 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRUE951 Posted July 11 Report Share Posted July 11 6 minutes ago, marcspaz said: I don't think it's happening anytime soon. The list for 2024 was already released, all the proposed changes from 2023 are still pending, and I think the next release won't be until April of 2025 (possibly later), unless there is an urgent or emergent request by the POTUS. There is nothing about GMRS or Part 95 in the current list of proposed rule makings and it may bee years, based on what the pattern has been. we will have to wait and see.. But we know one thing,,,, Linking tons of repeaters is not going to be tolerated and rightfully so. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.