Imagine Nationwide or International Coverage of your GMRS Repeater, Legally!

[CogentRadios]

Check out this video for more info, this is pretty cool.

 

[Socalgmrs]

Meh not needed for anything I’ve ever done.  Meh. 
went to the web site. Zero information on this. No one on chat at all and no response to email.   Scam? Or just bad customer service?  

[CogentRadios]

LOLOLO, I responded to your chat, scam really that's what you come up with Meh, why are people sooo quick on the trigger to tear others down? There is an article on the website here is the link:https://cogentradios.com/blog-grid/ I guess your browser missed it.

 

[BoxCar]

OK Cogent, I'll call your bluff. What law firm are you using as an advisor for interpretation of the FCC's rules and Part 97 regulations? If you don't have an attorney of record providing regulatory guidance who has worked with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau on the feasibility of this proposal, then it is nothing but a pipe dream borne from a desire to increase division revenues.

[WSFF627]

X2 BoxCar. I'm also quite curious about this.... you website clearly states its connecting the GMRS repeater to an LTE network.

FCC Rules state "Linking multiple repeaters to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R.  Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals." 

[tweiss3]

29 minutes ago, BoxCar said:

OK Cogent, I'll call your bluff. What law firm are you using as an advisor for interpretation of the FCC's rules and Part 97 regulations? If you don't have an attorney of record providing regulatory guidance who has worked with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau on the feasibility of this proposal, then it is nothing but a pipe dream borne from a desire to increase division revenues.

He's not, he is a dealer trying to peddle Hytera radios and repeaters. 

[CogentRadios]

Who knows I may be out in left field with this, but there are several points of this that need to be considered. As we all know wording in law is crucial, a ruling is an interpretation of the law and not the actual law or does it carry the same weight, there is the problem, and yes I have discussed this with friends that practice law, not communications law but they believe there is an argument to be made here. I think the first consideration is "Linking multiple repeaters (not doing that) to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device (Which is what exactly) to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R. "

Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals." 

The repeater is not connected or inter-connected to a telephone system or connected to a voip system. The signal the repeater receives is analog FM,

[CaptainSarcastic]

Wouldn't it make more sense to make sure your argument is "iron clad" and can hold up in a court, BEFORE suggesting something like this? The "or other networks" portion of your highlighted statement is pretty clear I think. I'm not comfortable investing in these products and putting them into service based on your discussion with "friends who practice law". That sounds like a great way to get a nastygram from the FCC to me.

[dosw]

12 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

As we all know wording in law is crucial, a ruling is an interpretation of the law and not the actual law or does it carry the same weight, there is the problem, and yes I have discussed this with friends that practice law, not communications law but they believe there is an argument to be made here.

But you're experimenting with other peoples' liability, without an actual legal consultation on the issue, and other associated due diligence. That is irresponsible. And people are justified in being skeptical. People who adopt are trusting your discussion with a friend who practices law not pertaining to communications law, putting themselves at risk.

 

[dosw]

4 minutes ago, CaptainSarcastic said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to make sure your argument is "iron clad" and can hold up in a court, BEFORE suggesting something like this?

Exactly. The people with "skin in the game" are the ones who adopt this. And they're relying on someone's layman theory, not iron clad findings.

[CogentRadios]

4 minutes ago, CaptainSarcastic said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to make sure your argument is "iron clad" and can hold up in a court, BEFORE suggesting something like this?

LOLOL, iron Clad?

 

1 minute ago, dosw said:

But you're experimenting with other peoples' liability, without an actual legal consultation on the issue, and other associated due diligence. That is irresponsible. And people are justified in being skeptical. People who adopt are trusting your discussion with a friend who practices law, putting themselves at risk.

Explain to me what the risk is? The repeater owner, me assumes the liability and it would be me not the users taken to court. The FCC sends out a notice to stop and I have an appeal, due process in which the ruling gets examined. The question is what happens when rulings aren't challenged? How many hams and GMRS users are using non type accepted radios?

[CaptainSarcastic]

7 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

LOLOL, iron Clad?

 

Laugh if you want. I'll sit this one out and watch from the sidelines...should be interesting.

Best of luck

[73blazer]

 

At the end of the day, that "wording" was an FCC clarification on what they think the actual rules say, they wished to clarify the point they didn't want linked repeaters on GMRS. The rules themselves are a little more grey than their "clarification" wording,which I take as nothing more than an opinionated  blog post.  Their clarification means nothing. Only the actual rules matter. It's never been actually tested if someone pushed back on it to the point where it ended up in a courtroom which would be a years long process.

The worst that could happen is you get a mean letter from the FCC asking you to stop doing that. But if he set it up as a business for a customer, the customer would be the one getting the mean letter and would probably be upset at Cogent in turn.

[WSFF627]

14 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

Who knows I may be out in left field with this, but there are several points of this that need to be considered. As we all know wording in law is crucial, a ruling is an interpretation of the law and not the actual law or does it carry the same weight, there is the problem, and yes I have discussed this with friends that practice law, not communications law but they believe there is an argument to be made here. I think the first consideration is "Linking multiple repeaters (not doing that) to enable a repeater outside the communications range of the handheld or mobile device (Which is what exactly) to retransmit messages violates sections 95.1733(a)(8) and 95.1749 of the Commission’s rules, and potentially other rules in 47 C.F.R. "

Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, not for carrying communication signals." 

The repeater is not connected or inter-connected to a telephone system or connected to a voip system. The signal the repeater receives is analog FM,

From your website...

Quote

Here is how it works: our device will convert LTE digital signals to analog and access your repeater over the air, keying up your repeater and passing the information from LTE to be transmitted from your repeater.
This smart technology automates the connection process, making it user-friendly and efficient.
In turn, any signals coming into the repeater will be sent from analog to digital to the LTE device.That’s the gist of it.
By doing this, you can easily manage communication among a larger group of users without technical hassles.
For digital radios, we would create a group for you where your members would be added to enjoy and utilize your GMRS repeater from almost anywhere. These radios provide not only reliability but also ease of access for all your communication needs. The radios used for this are also Wi-Fi capable, expanding access to your GMRS repeater even further.

Digital modes are not permitted in GMRS. 

"Other networks" is the internet, and literally any other network... LTE networks included. 

The law:

§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.

Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745.

§ 95.1731 Permissible GMRS uses.

The operator of a GMRS station may use that station for two-way plain language voice communications with other GMRS stations and with FRS units concerning personal or business activities.

(d) Digital data.  GMRS hand-held portable units may transmit digital data containing location information, or requesting location information from one or more other GMRS or FRS units, or containing a brief text message to another specific GMRS or FRS unit

95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses.

(8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station;

 

[WRUU653]

 

9 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

The repeater is not connected or inter-connected to a telephone system or connected to a voip system. The signal the repeater receives is analog FM,

You're still connecting over the internet, and for the purpose of carrying voice. 

 

6 minutes ago, dosw said:

But you're experimenting with other peoples' liability, without an actual legal consultation on the issue, and other associated due diligence. That is irresponsible. And people are justified in being skeptical. People who adopt are trusting your discussion with a friend who practices law, putting themselves at risk.

Yes, this ^^^

2 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

Explain to me what the risk is?

Others have tried the tactic of ignoring the FCC for profit and paid the fine. The "illegal marketing" by Rugged Radios back in 2020 comes to mind.  They don't do that anymore. I expect there are others. The risk you may well find is yours. 

[CogentRadios]

My question is, this ruling, linking repeaters impacted thousands of people across this country severely limiting civil communications and to my knowledge no one is challenging this ruling and accepting it as law from a a faceless bureaucrat in D.C. Now I am the bad guy for pushing back and challenging this obviously antiquated approach to a publicly allocated frequency spread. The Part 95, 94, 92, 97 are not clear and neither was the interpretation provided focusing on LINKING REPEATERS, I do have a background in law, criminal and some civil and I am not intimidated or scared of it, if a legitimate court not an panel of arbitrators decides then absolutely I will comply 100% but until then I will always question authority.

Back to my previous comment how many Hams and GMRS folks are using non type accepted equipment? There is absolutely a violation of the law, or is it a ruling?

[73blazer]

3 minutes ago, WSFF627 said:

From your website...

Digital modes are not permitted in GMRS. 

"Other networks" is the internet, and literally any other network... LTE networks included. 

The law:

§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.

Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745.

§ 95.1731 Permissible GMRS uses.

The operator of a GMRS station may use that station for two-way plain language voice communications with other GMRS stations and with FRS units concerning personal or business activities.

(d) Digital data.  GMRS hand-held portable units may transmit digital data containing location information, or requesting location information from one or more other GMRS or FRS units, or containing a brief text message to another specific GMRS or FRS unit

95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses.

(8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station;

 

But the "other networks" is listed in the sentence about remote control and what is possible, because it's listed in the possible for remote control doesn't automatically include it in the prohibited of GMRS operation.. The sentence before it where is states what is prohibited for GMRS operation, just says telephone network.This has in other rulings around other service been generally interpreted as the internet as well.  LTE may qualify as a telephone network depending on how your LTE connection is setup.

[amaff]

[WSFF627]

7 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

My question is, this ruling, linking repeaters impacted thousands of people across this country severely limiting civil communications and to my knowledge no one is challenging this ruling and accepting it as law from a a faceless bureaucrat in D.C. Now I am the bad guy for pushing back and challenging this obviously antiquated approach to a publicly allocated frequency spread. The Part 95, 94, 92, 97 are not clear and neither was the interpretation provided focusing on LINKING REPEATERS, I do have a background in law, criminal and some civil and I am not intimidated or scared of it, if a legitimate court not an panel of arbitrators decides then absolutely I will comply 100% but until then I will always question authority.

Back to my previous comment how many Hams and GMRS folks are using non type accepted equipment? There is absolutely a violation of the law, or is it a ruling?

Please see my post above citing the law on linking / connecting repeaters.

I sure lots of GMRS users are using equipment that is not type accepted equipment.

There is no type acceptance requirement for HAM. That's why its HAM, you can build and use, legally, your own radio.

[CogentRadios]

1 minute ago, 73blazer said:

But the "other networks" is listed in the sentence about remote control and what is possible, because it's listed in the possible for remote control doesn't automatically include it in the prohibited of GMRS operation.. The sentence before it where is states what is prohibited for GMRS operation, just says telephone network.This has in other rulings around other service been generally interpreted as the internet as well.  LTE may qualify as a telephone network depending on how your LTE connection is setup.

Agreed that's my point none of this is clear and the LTE is not connected or inter-connected to the repeater, there are no digital connections enabling communications, the Digital is converted to analog prior to transmit. I am almost 100% sure that the term "repeater Links" would nullify this ruling in a court of law under closer examination.  Honestly one other point of examination would be the origination point of the transmitted signal into the repeater, would it be the initial digital data, or the point of conversion to analog FM?

[WSFF627]

6 minutes ago, 73blazer said:

But the "other networks" is listed in the sentence about remote control and what is possible, because it's listed in the possible for remote control doesn't automatically include it in the prohibited of GMRS operation.. The sentence before it where is states what is prohibited for GMRS operation, just says telephone network.This has in other rulings around other service been generally interpreted as the internet as well.  LTE may qualify as a telephone network depending on how your LTE connection is setup.

"remote control" and conveying "messages" are not the same thing as defined by the law and FCC.

Remote control would be activating / deactivating transmitting function of the station, changing the channel, tone, etc.

messages, wireline control link - every network everywhere travels along a wireline

All cell towers are on a fiber and copper wire network.

[CogentRadios]

5 minutes ago, WSFF627 said:

Please see my post above citing the law on linking / connecting repeaters.

I sure lots of GMRS users are using equipment that is not type accepted equipment.

There is no type acceptance requirement for HAM. That's why its HAM, you can build and use, legally, your own radio.

I see that but do not agree, then in the same this is considered a network "(d) Digital data.  GMRS hand-held portable units may transmit digital data containing location information, or requesting location information from one or more other GMRS or FRS units, or containing a brief text message to another specific GMRS or FRS unit" but is permissible?

You are correct on the ham radio part, I was looking at it from a manufacturers point.

[GrouserPad]

Am I the only GMRS user who is kinda frustrated with linked repeaters on gmrs frequencies. The more I’m using gmrs the more I’m realizing the frequency allocations for it just doesn’t leave enough space for linking on this service. 

[CogentRadios]

I think we have beat a dead horse and we will see. I do want to thank everyone for bringing up the points you have, certainly gave me pause to consider my approach. One final question I have is why do you think it would not be allowed to have a network, voip on a simple GMRS repeater system, I would think this is a win win for communities.

[WRUU653]

3 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

why do you think it would not be allowed to have a network, voip on a simple GMRS repeater system, I would think this is a win win for communities.

I think the FCC said it best…

In addition to violating Commission rules, linking repeaters is not in the public interest.  Because GMRS spectrum is limited and used on a shared “commons” basis, the service only works well on a localized basis when users can hear each other and cooperate in the sharing of channels.  Linking repeaters not only increases the potential for interference, but also uses up a limited spectrum resource over much larger areas than intended, limiting localized availability of the repeater channels.

GMRS and the Family Radio Service (FRS), which share many of the GMRS channels, are intended for individuals such as family members and friends, scouting troops, emergency response groups, and hobbyists to communicate with each other over short distances, directly or through a repeater station.  Linking repeaters, via the internet or other networks, undermines the purpose and usefulness of the GMRS and FRS.