How does DCS comply with Part 95 "No Digital Data" on 467Mhz?

[Suburbazine]

So I noticed a flare up up people wanting to use digital data (the actually interfering kind) on GMRS locally, and the resulting backlash that it's illegal, etc. So I kind of dug into the Part 95 rules that specify that only certain handhelds on 462mhz are permitted to pass any form of digital data via simplex. So this leads to the big question, the elephant in the room per se...

How does Digitally Coded Squelch pass muster under these rules, especially on 467mhz? I cannot find an exemption for it. Any DCS privacy code is literally a continuous 130+ bits per second data stream the radio broadcasts on the lower 300hz, which is continuous for the transmission duration. If there isn't an exemption, why is it permitted? And if there IS an exemption hiding somewhere (probably in another part?), what's to stop someone from further signaling digital data via alternating DCS tones? Seems like a blind spot in Part 95.

[Hoppyjr]

So I noticed a flare up up people wanting to use digital data (the actually interfering kind) on GMRS locally, and the resulting backlash that it's illegal, etc. So I kind of dug into the Part 95 rules that specify that only certain handhelds on 462mhz are permitted to pass any form of digital data via simplex. So this leads to the big question, the elephant in the room per se...
How does Digitally Coded Squelch pass muster under these rules, especially on 467mhz? I cannot find an exemption for it. Any DCS privacy code is literally a continuous 130+ bits per second data stream the radio broadcasts on the lower 300hz, which is continuous for the transmission duration. If there isn't an exemption, why is it permitted? And if there IS an exemption hiding somewhere (probably in another part?), what's to stop someone from further signaling digital data via alternating DCS tones? Seems like a blind spot in Part 95.

It’s not “data” it’s an access tone. By data they mean like a modem would transmit back in the day. Two different things.

[nokones]

4 hours ago, Suburbazine said:

So I noticed a flare up up people wanting to use digital data (the actually interfering kind) on GMRS locally, and the resulting backlash that it's illegal, etc. So I kind of dug into the Part 95 rules that specify that only certain handhelds on 462mhz are permitted to pass any form of digital data via simplex. So this leads to the big question, the elephant in the room per se...

How does Digitally Coded Squelch pass muster under these rules, especially on 467mhz? I cannot find an exemption for it. If there isn't an exemption, why is it permitted?

DPL/DCS is not passing digital data (messages). DPL is a digital subaudio function/activation tone that the FCC says it is permitted/allowed, pursuant to Part 95.1777,  otherwise any radio that has that capability would never be Part 95, subpart E Type-Accepted/ Compliant.

[SteveShannon]

Also 95.377 specifically says tones or other signals:

§ 95.377 Tones and signals.

Personal Radio Service stations that transmit voice emissions may also transmit audible or subaudible tones or other signals for the purpose of selective calling and/or receiver squelch activation. These tones and signals are ancillary to voice communications and are considered to be included within the voice emission types, e.g., A3E, F3E, and G3E.

(a) Tones that are audible (having a frequency higher than 300 Hertz), must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time.

(b) Tones that are subaudible (having a frequency of 300 Hertz or less), may be transmitted continuously during a communication session.

 

[WRUE951]

Not only digital data but a growing trend of people using DMR on GMRS.. I've noticed the 4 Wheelers like to use digital down here in the desert..   GMRS has turned into a hotbed of 'lets do whatever we want'   

[Hoppyjr]

Also 95.377 specifically says tones or other signals:

§ 95.377 Tones and signals.

Personal Radio Service stations that transmit voice emissions may also transmit audible or subaudible tones or other signals for the purpose of selective calling and/or receiver squelch activation. These tones and signals are ancillary to voice communications and are considered to be included within the voice emission types, e.g., A3E, F3E, and G3E.
(a) Tones that are audible (having a frequency higher than 300 Hertz), must last no longer than 15 seconds at one time.
( Tones that are subaudible (having a frequency of 300 Hertz or less), may be transmitted continuously during a communication session.
 

This is the by product of government regulators who make rules for the sake of making rules. I’m sure they don’t have an issue with what we’re talking about.

Just another reason to cut government in pretty much every area.

[nokones]

On 11/28/2024 at 12:46 PM, Hoppyjr said:

This is the by product of government regulators who make rules for the sake of making rules. I’m sure they don’t have an issue with what we’re talking about.

Just another reason to cut government in pretty much every area.

Why is that? You don't like that rule and/or our government?

[Hoppyjr]

Why is that? You don't like that rule and/or our government?

I’m sure you’re asking in jest, but sure…..

It’s not a specific rule, rather the overarching volume of regulations. There are also far too many regulations, many of which are ineffective, and often created by bureaucrats who don’t understand their implementation.

Government is bloated in virtually every area. It needs to operate lean & efficiently - and in the best interests of the citizenry.

Government employees should be held to high standards and removed if they don’t perform. It’s a privilege to work in government, serving the public.

Government agencies, to include the FCC need to understand the recent Loper Bright SCOTUS decision and be guided accordingly. Unnecessary and/or ineffective regulations should be eliminated. Nee rules, if they carry the effect of law, should be created via the legislative process.

I love this country, although we seem to have strayed from the founding principles.

I won’t go into further detail as that would take us down a political rabbit hole.

[UncleYoda]

@Hoppyjr that's what I was hoping for and hinting at in my Brendan Carr topic.  If he doesn't improve the agency and regs it'll be disappointing.   They made a big mistake letting digital take frequencies in the 2m ham band.

[LeoG]

I think Carr may resolve things going forward.  But the shear mass of regulations already in place would be difficult to escape or change in any short period of time.  Especially if there are resistant people in the chain.  Many would feel that changes like that would be going backwards and feel a loss of power.

But govt entities making regulation that have the effect of law shouldn't be able to happen.  Law is made by congress and the president.  Not sure how this can go forward because of the shear amount of time that would be sucked up by congress and they will claim they don't have the time for.

There was never suppose to be a full time congress/senate in the first place.

[WRXB215]

8 hours ago, LeoG said:

There was never suppose to be a full time congress/senate in the first place.

THAT!!! ^^^^

[UncleYoda]

8 hours ago, LeoG said:

Not sure how this can go forward ...

I don't know if the team being assembled is up to the task, but the how is actually simple - stick to the Constitutionally delegated authority.  If they did, FCC could only regulate Federal employees and Federal property.

[glebovitz]

11 hours ago, UncleYoda said:

I don't know if the team being assembled is up to the task, but the how is actually simple - stick to the Constitutionally delegated authority.  If they did, FCC could only regulate Federal employees and Federal property.

Oh. You seem like a constitutional expert. Where does the constitution say this? It's been a long time since I studied it.

[LeoG]

Look up the doctrine known as Chevron deference.  SCOTUS had some things to say about it on On June 28, 2024.

[glebovitz]

1 hour ago, LeoG said:

Look up the doctrine known as Chevron deference.  SCOTUS had some things to say about it on On June 28, 2024.

I read that. It pretty much said that administrative law courts do not have the final say in adjudication or the defendant is deprived of due process. It doesn't really say much about administrative law being unconstitutional. That was the core of the decision. Anything else does not have bearing on the case.

[LeoG]

It pretty much says the only way to have any regulations have the power of law behind them is for the legislature to pass the bill and send it to be signed by the president.  That the administrative state cannot make regulations, enforce them, be judge, jury and prosecutor like they currently do.

[jwilkers]

It pretty much says the only way to have any regulations have the power of law behind them is for the legislature to pass the bill and send it to be signed by the president.  That the administrative state cannot make regulations, enforce them, be judge, jury and prosecutor like they currently do.

Fcc regulations have the power of law behind them. It's called the Communications Act.

Sent from my SM-S911U1 using Tapatalk

[LeoG]

Not anymore.  Only congress can make bills that can be signed into law.  It's going to be a whole new world out there when they are forced to abide by our constitution.

 

The original one.

[SteveShannon]

43 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Not anymore.  Only congress can make bills that can be signed into law.  It's going to be a whole new world out there when they are forced to abide by our constitution.

 

The original one.

Removing Chevron deference limits the ability for regulatory agencies to reinterpret laws, but does not remove the ability for regulatory agencies to write regulations.  Regulations have never been "Law", they have always been simply rules.  Where "Chevron deference" caused problems when regulatory agencies chose to change the scope of laws by claiming broad powers to re-interpret what Congress meant when they wrote laws. 

[LeoG]

4 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

Removing Chevron deference limits the ability for regulatory agencies to reinterpret laws, but does not remove the ability for regulatory agencies to write regulations.  Regulations have never been "Law", they have always been simply rules.  Where "Chevron deference" caused problems when regulatory agencies chose to change the scope of laws by claiming broad powers to re-interpret what Congress meant when they wrote laws. 

Rules, law.  When they are treated the same they are the same.  Regulations with the force of law behind them is law.  You have bureaucrats coming up with these regulations/rules and then enforcing them as if they had the power of law behind them.  That's not the way things are suppose to happen.

Not even sure if there is a determination of regulations in the constitution.  Since when it was written the word regulate meant to keep in good order.  Not what the modern definition is.

[UncleYoda]

@LeoG I'm with you on how things should be, but I think Steve is closer to how it will be treated.

[LeoG]

Oh absolutely he is.  But it's wrong and they have usurped power they aren't authorized to wield.  Just because it's been this way for as long as we can remember doesn't mean it's the way it's suppose to be.  It's just like the 2nd amendment.  Shall not be infringed.  That's all they do to it.

[SteveShannon]

1 minute ago, LeoG said:

Oh absolutely he is.  But it's wrong and they have usurped power they aren't authorized to wield.  Just because it's been this way for as long as we can remember doesn't mean it's the way it's suppose to be.  It's just like the 2nd amendment.  Shall not be infringed.  That's all they do to it.

Congress reassigned their responsibility to write regulations by passing laws that established regulatory agencies. Nobody has been successful in challenging that. You can rant until your eyeballs explode but you won’t change it. The most you can hope for is to gain a little here or there. 
 

[LeoG]

Congress doesn't have the authority to reassign it's duties.  But like you said it'll be a tough fight because the establishment does what it wants to.  Congress was only suppose to be part time too.  You did your work and went back to your real job.  Now they've turned it into a full time position with pay and perks way beyond what servants of the people should have.

[SteveShannon]

9 minutes ago, LeoG said:

Congress doesn't have the authority to reassign it's duties.  But like you said it'll be a tough fight because the establishment does what it wants to.  Congress was only suppose to be part time too.  You did your work and went back to your real job.  Now they've turned it into a full time position with pay and perks way beyond what servants of the people should have.

Good luck!