FCC GMRS Service Operations Page Updated 04 Aug, 2024

[WRKC935]

59 minutes ago, RayP said:

 

Friday about a week ago, I decided to try the unofficial and informal Friday night 9PM Simplex net on Channel 19 (462.550).  Unfortunately, there is a linked repeater on that frequency tied in with several others, located about 20 miles from me.  It has a fairly strong signal at my home.  Wouldn't you know it, right at 9PM, two guys on a repeater about 100 miles away started jawjacking and rendered all of the repeaters on that paid network, as well as the Simplex channels those repeaters were on, useless.  "Hey Bob."  "Yeah."  "Whut are you doin."  "Nothin."  "Me too." ...and it just went on and on from there.  Was me being unable to contact a possible local on simplex, the end of the world?  Of course not, but this typifies how obnoxious linked repeaters are.

So here is the rub to that argument.  Where there any locals within the coverage area of that repeater on CH 19 actually active on that net?  Linking aside, if someone is using the repeater channel for it's intended purpose, then you have to give way to that.

Now if you are in one location and the users were in another location and tying up local communications then yes I agree with you.  That shouldn't be happening. An I have always had an issue with that sort of thing to the point when I had a linked repeater, I had another repeater that was local only that folks were told to use for local comm's.  That was one of my few rules with using my repeaters. 

[SteveShannon]

1 hour ago, WRKC935 said:

Marc, I am going to politely disagree and agree at the same point.

The agreement is they didn't make a change to the wording of the regulations.  Those stayed as they were.

The disagreement comes with the fact they took two specific parts of the regulation and said that linking violated those specific parts of the regulations.

Now, that goes against that statement that was made to the inquiry under Case Id: HD0000002831371 where someone ask the question about linking and they replied with

*****Solution Description: Dear Mr. Beck,
Currently, the FCC does not have a restriction/rule that would prohibit connecting GMRS repeaters via the internet so long as eligible use and control was maintained of the authorized facilities. *****
(That's what they sent me)
Should you have any further questions, or need additional information, please submit a request through https://esupport.fcc...linerequest.htm or call the FCC Licensing Support Center at 1-877-480-3201, selecting option 2 after the main menu.
Sincerely,
FCC Licensing Support Center "

Now this was from back in 2016, so what changed, because from then to now, the actual rules haven't been modified.  But they are claiming now that it's 'illegal' to link repeaters.  But, we can get into the semantics of legal vs illegal and allowed / disallowed via the regulations.  Traffic laws are laws.  Laws are written by some governing body, voted on and then codified as a law.  Regulations are not voted on but instead created by a governing body with or without input from elected officials.  So does the violation of a regulation make the act illegal criminally, or is it a civil act to violate a government regulation but NOT a criminal act?  You still end up in court, and you still get fined if found to be in violation. 

And, did the FCC create GMRS or did congress?  If it was a congressional act then all the regulations are laws.  At this point it really doesn't matter.

Point is that they have said that they will use 95.1733 and 95.1749 then possibly including other parts of 47 C.F.R. as the hammer to beat you with.  So they at least have looked at it to the point of figuring our what regulations it violates. 

Now I don't know if they even took into account that the original source of 95.1749 was AT&T and other telco's that lobbied the FCC due to concerns that they would miss out on long distance fee's. 

Now regarding 95.1733, which is wireline connection.  I am in violation of that for sure because I operate a radio that is not physically located at my residence.  I have an IP based radio console system that links to a tower site that I have all my radios at.  I operate those radios (control stations) across that IP link.  But if you look in 47 CFR, the definition of wireline is basically a remote control point running to a fixed base.  But that would also mean that Zello isn't legal to be connected to a repeater or a control station being used for GMRS.  Not sure how they would track all that down.  But if you want to go by the letter of the regulation, that is also against the rules. 

I will say that I don't like the way this turned out.  I was hoping that it would have gone the other way and that linking was going to be allowed and that they would toss 95.1749 out and remove 95.1733(a)(8) (wireline) from the regulations and possibly set something in place to require anyone providing a linked repeater would also be required to ensure an accessable unlinked repeater exist within the coverage of the linked repeater they had.  Not a requirement of having two repeaters, but a requirement that there was a PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE repeater with a similar coverage footprint.  Sure that takes up two pairs instead of just one, but it would keep conversations that were in that footprint, in that footprint. 

This is one of the best posts I’ve seen on this subject and should be pinned. 

[Raybestos]

7 minutes ago, WRKC935 said:

So here is the rub to that argument.  Where there any locals within the coverage area of that repeater on CH 19 actually active on that net?  Linking aside, if someone is using the repeater channel for it's intended purpose, then you have to give way to that.

Now if you are in one location and the users were in another location and tying up local communications then yes I agree with you.  That shouldn't be happening. An I have always had an issue with that sort of thing to the point when I had a linked repeater, I had another repeater that was local only that folks were told to use for local comm's.  That was one of my few rules with using my repeaters. 

Yes, from listening to the conversation, the two guys were on one repeater, about a hundred miles away.  Because it is a linked system, their conversation tied up the channel in my area, and a few others, all on different frequencies.  Had they been on the Ch 19 repeater, I would have just chalked it up as, "that's the breaks".  

[JoCoBrian]

I'm reminded of "It all depends on what the definition of IS, is." 

[JoCoBrian]

7 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

Yeah, they aren't going to rewrite in my opinion.  They actually lay out the two numbered regulations that linking violates and then go on to say that it may violate other parts of 47 CFR.  So it's been looked at and that's their stance on it

 

We'll have to wait and see. 

[OffRoaderX]

Game over man, game over! Any day now the FCC will begin enforcement and you are all getting $10,000 fines and going to jail!!!!1

[WRKC935]

36 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

Game over man, game over! Any day now the FCC will begin enforcement and you are all getting $10,000 fines and going to jail!!!!1

While I don't know that the FCC strike teams are suiting up in swat gear to, smash in their windows
And kick in their doors.

Waiting to cut out the deadwood.
Waiting to clean up the city.
Waiting to put on a black shirt.
Waiting to weed out the weaklings.
Waiting to smash in their windows
And kick in their doors.
Waiting for the final solution
To strengthen the strain.
Waiting to follow the worms.
Waiting to turn on the showers
And fire the ovens.

For the illegal linked GMRS repeater operators (really doesn't rhyme with For the Queens, and the Coons, and the Reds and the Jews) but I don't write songs much.

 

Wouldn't you like to see GMRS be great Again, My Friend.... all you have to do is follow the worms

 

[Raybestos]

4 hours ago, marcspaz said:

@WRKC935, well written and I agree with a vast majority of what you wrote.  Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

 

@RayP I agree that the situations you describe are terrible for a service that has so few available frequencies.  There should be some regulation.  I am not against regulations.  As a civilized society, we all agree to live by a certain set of rules.  However, our nation is a Constitutional Republic designed to protect the Rights of the minority.  There should be some allowances or concessions made, to some degree.  For example, remote receivers for repeaters with a large footprint, to fill in receive gaps that impact mobile and portable stations.  Or, restricting linked repeaters to only 2 machines per link and they must be on the same frequency (I'm just generalizing for example, of course).

 

As I mentioned, mandating things you like and banning the things you don't is tyrannical behavior.  The People collectively agreeing on rules to live by are not the same thing as the Government arbitrarily changing their mind on what is right or wrong when there has been zero law or rule change reviewed and approved by the people.

Hi Marc!  I agree with you about satellite/voting receivers to fill in reception gaps for mobiles and ht's on large footprint repeaters.  That really adds no additional interference issue and requires no additional use of scarce bandwidth.  I see no harm with that.

[WRXB215]

@WRKC935 WOW! That brings back memories.

[WRZU673]

I didn't start this thread to stir up trouble or infighting. I only posted it because I had run across some new information that I felt needed shared. To set the record straight, I'm not totally against linking GMRS repeaters, but when there is a slight band opening, from my house I can hear the same conversation on 5 of the 8 repeater channels. That pretty much forces all local traffic down to 3 higher power channels. If it is allowed to go on as is, soon it will be all eight of the repeater channels. I'm also a ham and totally understand courteous operating is a must no matter what radio service you are operating in. Filling up all the repeater channels with the same linked conversation does not strike me as being courteous operating.

[WRKC935]

10 minutes ago, WRZU673 said:

I didn't start this thread to stir up trouble or infighting. I only posted it because I had run across some new information that I felt needed shared. To set the record straight, I'm not totally against linking GMRS repeaters, but when there is a slight band opening, from my house I can hear the same conversation on 5 of the 8 repeater channels. That pretty much forces all local traffic down to 3 higher power channels. If it is allowed to go on as is, soon it will be all eight of the repeater channels. I'm also a ham and totally understand courteous operating is a must no matter what radio service you are operating in. Filling up all the repeater channels with the same linked conversation does not strike me as being courteous operating.

You didn't do anything wrong at all.

This topic has been openly and feverishly discussed for a few months now.  Even to the point that one of the Facebook groups decided that any mention of it would get you banned from the group.  I actually left the group over that.  I wasn't banned, I just wasn't going to be told that it was 'bullshit' and it wasn't to be discussed. 

I have tried to discuss the topic from both sides of it.  I owned and maintained a linked repeater for several years.  I took it down because I was waiting for the FCC to be definitive with the regulation.  This latest update to their website, and then a second update 10 days later with actual specific regulations being cited as the basis of any enforcement actions going forward was a final nail in the coffin.  As mentioned, I am not thrilled with the direction this went.  I do support the idea of linking but I support the idea of it NOT creating issues where a number of repeaters in a given area are all linked and carrying the same traffic.  For good coverage, there is of course going to be some amount of overlap.  But we don't need a lot of overlap.  I also support the idea of a requirement to have a local repeater anywhere there is a linked repeater with similar accessibility. 

But that was not to be. 

 

[marcspaz]

2 hours ago, OffRoaderX said:

Game over man, game over!

 

Bill Paxton has forever enshrined that line in movie history. Dana Carvey did a great job on a close second with the SNL parody. 

[WRUE951]

9 hours ago, marcspaz said:

My unsolicited opinion, people who don't like linked repeaters now, are REALLY going to regret bitching about network linked repeaters in the near future, if the courts end up agreeing.

 

I can't find a single entry in the Communication Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that gives the FCC the authority or purpose to prohibit repeater linking.  There are zero FCC rules that prohibit repeater linking.  What there is, are some debates on if a repeater link that traverse a network AND provides some form of message relay both over the air and on the network, is allowed by the rules or not.  This is because the rules are not clear due to contradicting entries, when reviewing the rules and the definitions as a whole.  Updating a web page is not the same as updating rules or statutory code to be more clear.

 

Now, the bad news for people who hate linked repeaters.  Again, there are zero laws or rules prohibiting linking.  Lets say this network issues goes all the way to the SCOTUS and the court sides with the Link haters and the FCC... you haters are going to be even worse off, because then, 100% of all repeater linking will be limited to using RF links.  This is gonna suck for GMRS users (except for the linked repeater owners) because if we follow the rules of the PRS, we can only use in-service frequencies for relaying information.

 

Let me explain...  the rules say that repeaters can only transmit on the 462 main channels.  There are exactly zero rules about what the repeater input frequency should be, outside of being one of the GMRS frequencies.  That means while repeater outputs will stay the same, legal linking can and will start occurring with uplinks on every single GMRS frequency... not just the 467 mains... flooding the channels with linked audio.

 

So, right or wrong, if you hate linked repeaters and are bitching about it here or to the FCC in hopes that if the networked repeaters go away, somehow your quiet RF utopia will somehow be restored, my forecast is that you are going to be very, very wrong.  It's probably going to get much worse due to spreading to all channels.

You are so far out in left field Mark.  Not even worth a shrug.       And what is even more comical with your comment, the SCOTUS will never ever hear a case invoving anyone challenging GMRS rules.  Just the thought has me ROTFLMAO    

[WRUE951]

23 hours ago, WRXP381 said:

Yup.  I’m pretty sick of this topic. It’s been beat to death the past few months.  The rules didn’t really change.  It is just a clarification that most will ignore like always.  Will the fcc fallow up? Maybe? Probably not? Who knows?  If history of enforcement tells us anything then…? 

Once they 'filter' out the non-complaints whom refuse to acknowledge the rules, You can BYSA the FCC will take some reinforcement actions against repeater linking..  It might be another year down the road, but yea, they will take action.  Don't be missed by 'some people' that make videos telling you the FCC will never hunt down rule violators.  The FCC already has a 'Hot' list of approx. 200 locations/operators of potential repeater sites whom potentially are linking repeaters. I know the HAM guys have activaley been assisting in identify these sites etc.  Believe it or not, there is a huge amount of activity behind the sciences dealing with the illegal operations of repeater linking in the GMRS Bands and some are even cross linking to VHF, which explains why many HAMs are furious.         

[CentralFloridaGMRS]

This would explain why someone gave the heads up to the man running the New York System of things to come. 

 

[OffRoaderX]

58 minutes ago, WRUE951 said:

 Don't be missed by 'some people' that make videos telling you the FCC will never hunt down rule violators.

I have never seen a video with anyone saying that. You must have an attention or comprehension issue.
But yah, we are all preparing for the sweeping reforms and crackdown that the FCC is preparing.. Because you said so.

[Davichko5650]

On 8/18/2024 at 10:39 AM, MarkInTampa said:

The may be a stupid question, but....

The FCC page show that linking repeaters is not allowed but what about linking two or more base (fixed) stations that in turn key up a repeater? The repeater wouldn't be linked but the fixed station would be.

How is the link accomplished?  If using the internet, that would be in violation of 95.1733 (a) (8) as the internet is made up of many. many wireline control links.  But maybe a simplex repeater to simplex repeater to repeater would work, in theory. But that's an awful lotta extra work for not much benefit from where I see it.

Moot point for me anyway as I rarely use repeaters, so don't need linking ones.

[WRUE951]

9 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

I have never seen a video with anyone saying that. You must have an attention or comprehension issue.
But yah, we are all preparing for the sweeping reforms and crackdown that the FCC is preparing.. Because you said so.

Are you 'some people'     LMAO  

[SteveShannon]

On 8/18/2024 at 9:39 AM, MarkInTampa said:

The may be a stupid question, but....

The FCC page show that linking repeaters is not allowed but what about linking two or more base (fixed) stations that in turn key up a repeater? The repeater wouldn't be linked but the fixed station would be.

A configuration that receives and retransmits is a repeater, even if you call it two base stations. But if you’re asking about using two duplex Fixed Stations to extend communication (rather than any kind of “network“) between two repeaters that might be acceptable to the FCC. At this point since the FCC’s interpretation has flipped in the past seven years (see the post by @WRKC935 where he included a communication from the FCC saying it was fine) I would make sure to get an interpretation before going down that path. 

[WRUE951]

19 minutes ago, CentralFloridaGMRS said:

This would explain why someone gave the heads up to the man running the New York System of things to come. 

 

which one??  there are a couple in New York.  Some operate under the disguise of Emergency Services and then require Paid Membership to participate in their illegal systems.   

[marcspaz]

On 8/18/2024 at 11:39 AM, MarkInTampa said:

The may be a stupid question, but....

The FCC page show that linking repeaters is not allowed but what about linking two or more base (fixed) stations that in turn key up a repeater? The repeater wouldn't be linked but the fixed station would be.

 

This is what I was talking about earlier.  If everyone is right and linking a repeater over the internet (or any other network) is a rule violation, then the only option to link repeaters with by with multiple radios, a.ka. RF linking.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is actually ZERO rules about RF linking in the Communication Act as amended by the Telecommunication Act, nor in any of the FCC Part 95 rules.  There are also no restrictions or mandates on what repeater inputs have to be.  Only that repeaters transmit on the 462 mains.  So, using multiple radios to link repeaters over GMRS frequency is completely legal and within scope of the rules. The only limitation that I can think of (beyond the repeater transmit frequency) is that any linked repeaters would need to be in line of sight of each other to establish the link.

[marcspaz]

51 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

I have never seen a video with anyone saying that. You must have an attention or comprehension issue.
But yah, we are all preparing for the sweeping reforms and crackdown that the FCC is preparing.. Because you said so.

 

How is that dude not on your ignore list.  I stopped reading his retarded posts awhile ago.

[OffRoaderX]

27 minutes ago, marcspaz said:

How is that dude not on your ignore list.  I stopped reading his retarded posts awhile ago.

If I blocked all of the socially-retarded "licensed" experts and people disconnected from reality in this forum I would have no more stories of "some people" saying retarded stuff!  It's these morons that make me famous!

[marcspaz]

@OffRoaderX  fair enough.  Sound logic, for sure.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, OffRoaderX said:

If I blocked all of the socially-retarded "licensed" experts and people disconnected from reality in this forum I would have no more stories of "some people" saying retarded stuff!  It's these morons that make me famous!

You're famous because you ARE a moron. Plain and simple.  Thanks for the cheap entertainment and enjoy your click/view revenue, now dance for your dollar.