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

[WSFF627]

8 minutes ago, GrouserPad said:

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. 

I understand your frustration. GMRS is easier to get into than HAM, especially for families.

No, there is not enough bandwidth, that's why linking untimely isn't allowed. 

[CaptainSarcastic]

A community is best served by a reliable repeater that covers the community - hearing conversations from across the country on a linked system does not benefit the local community who are wanting/needing to communicate with folks in their local area.

 

Let Ham Radio be Ham Radio, and let GMRS be GMRS.

[amaff]

15 minutes ago, GrouserPad said:

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. 

nope.

[WSFF627]

7 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

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.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a win, but currently what your doing is not legal. Also, it sounds a lot like your talking about DMR talk groups on GMRS and taking a page out of the HAM / DMR / Brandmeister playbook and marketing it. All of which is available on the HAM bands for free, including linked and worldwide repeater network, hotspots, etc. as I'm sure you know.

Now I'm knocking you for trying this, cant really fault you for it. But at the end of the day, GMRS does not allow it and does not have the bandwidth other radio services do, like HAM, which is easily accessible to the public. 

[CogentRadios]

1 minute ago, WRUU653 said:

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.

 

I agree, but I am not linking repeaters or consuming more than 1 authorized frequency pair. So in a populated area where all of the allocated repeater frequencies are utilized I can see the point they are making very clearly. All though the question is how many repeaters are in an area? There are two that I know of here in the Virginia, 50 miles from DC with low to moderate traffic, so if another repeater links into the already allocated repeater pair how is that using space. The FCC authorized specific frequency pairs to be utilized for repeaters and now  the opinion is it uses up too much space? Another clear as mud opinion.

[WRUU653]

2 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

agree, but I am not…

Oh but you are, It’s in your own thread title what you’re selling, and that’s not local communication.
You were right about one thing and that was the horse is dead. This has been hashed out here before. It’s just the first time I know where the idea was coming from a sales pitch. 

 

[CogentRadios]

12 minutes ago, WSFF627 said:

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a win, but currently what your doing is not legal. Also, it sounds a lot like your talking about DMR talk groups on GMRS and taking a page out of the HAM / DMR / Brandmeister playbook and marketing it. All of which is available on the HAM bands for free, including linked and worldwide repeater network, hotspots, etc. as I'm sure you know.

Now I'm knocking you for trying this, cant really fault you for it. But at the end of the day, GMRS does not allow it and does not have the bandwidth other radio services do, like HAM, which is easily accessible to the public. 

Thank you, it is kind of like talk groups. You say its illegal, as this thread started out, who is the attorney that took this to court and determined it illegal instead of just being out of compliance with a ruling?

Honestly, this is more a hobby than a business and have donated complete repeater systems to communities in need. I also started an animal rescue and sanctuary and don't need to peddle Hytera or any brand of radio. This seems like a tremendous opportunity for the GMRS community and would benefit a lot of folks. POC systems are everywhere Whether its Hytera, Retevis or Singhua or what ever the device is having it on GMRS would be very cool.

[CogentRadios]

2 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

Oh but you are, It’s in your own thread title what you’re selling, and that’s not local communication.
You were right about one thing and that was the horse is dead. This has been hashed out here before. It’s just the first time I know where the idea was coming from a sales pitch. 

 

Ok explain the originating repeater and the end repeater string? Convince me that I am linking repeaters.

[CogentRadios]

22 minutes ago, CaptainSarcastic said:

A community is best served by a reliable repeater that covers the community - hearing conversations from across the country on a linked system does not benefit the local community who are wanting/needing to communicate with folks in their local area.

I could not agree more. I don't think anyone would want to listen to strangers talk. But if the local community members travel outside the area and still had access to the community through the repeater, in addition to not using additional GMRS spectrum to do it I think would be a game changer.

[CaptainSarcastic]

5 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

I could not agree more. I don't think anyone would want to listen to strangers talk. But if the local community members travel outside the area and still had access to the community through the repeater, in addition to not using additional GMRS spectrum to do it I think would be a game changer.

I understand what you're saying. Technically this bridge isn't linking repeaters (so I do stand corrected), however, the moment the GMRS voice communication goes out across the bridge which would be "any other network", to reach the POC radio, it is against the rules as they stand today. Or am I missing something?

[WRUU653]

2 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

Ok explain the originating repeater and the end repeater string? Convince me that I am linking repeaters.

Go back and read the entire post where I quoted the FCC that you said you agreed to. You are selectively choosing to only address what you want while missing the intent of GMRS. 
Respectfully, I for one disagree that having POC would be very cool on GMRS. I’m pretty sure the FCC clarified their position and intent. On this I happen to agree with them. I respect your position to disagree but I see no point in a lengthy back and forth. You are just trying to find a spot in the fence that you don’t see a no trespassing sign to get to the other side while knowing you don’t belong there.

 

 

[CogentRadios]

1 minute ago, CaptainSarcastic said:

I understand what you're saying, and technically this bridge isn't linking repeaters (so I do stand corrected), however, the moment the GMRS voice communication goes out across the bridge which would be "any other network", to reach the POC radio, it is against the rules as they stand today. Am I missing something?

Well, the point of originating communications is not defined. Is the point of originating communications the initial digital signal or the analog FM signal from the bridge. The digital signal could not be considered "Real Time Communications" if the receiver (person or device) cannot interpret the message. So the origin of the message is established at the bridge, at point of conversion to facilitate "Real Time Communications", so the linking repeaters, voip or networking are not really a correct description or applicable.

[CogentRadios]

3 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

Go back and read the entire post where I quoted the FCC that you said you agreed to. You are selectively choosing to only address what you want while missing the intent of GMRS. 
Respectfully, I for one disagree that having POC would be very cool on GMRS. I’m pretty sure the FCC clarified their position and intent. On this I happen to agree with them. I respect your position to disagree but I see no point in a lengthy back and forth. You are just trying to find a spot in the fence that you don’t see a no trespassing sign to get to the other side while knowing you don’t belong there.

 

 

Ok thanks, have a great week.

[Jaay]

Do you Sell Snake Oil as well as your POS Radios, because this continual Scam has been tried before, and Failed as it's doing Now.

 

Jay

[WSFF627]

20 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

Thank you, it is kind of like talk groups. You say its illegal, as this thread started out, who is the attorney that took this to court and determined it illegal instead of just being out of compliance with a ruling?

Honestly, this is more a hobby than a business and have donated complete repeater systems to communities in need. I also started an animal rescue and sanctuary and don't need to peddle Hytera or any brand of radio. This seems like a tremendous opportunity for the GMRS community and would benefit a lot of folks. POC systems are everywhere Whether its Hytera, Retevis or Singhua or what ever the device is having it on GMRS would be very cool.

Please go read the Law. Its clear you cant operate on digital modes on GMRS. Its clear you cant connect GMRS to another network for comms. I don't need an attorney to take it to court to show its illegal, its written in the law.

This horse is dead. If you don't want to read the law or are looking for bits and pieces to justify what you want to do, go hire an attorney for a few hundred to review it and give you a legal opinion. Or do it anyway and end up on the FCC enforcement radar and risk it. 

Telling people what your doing and selling them a product or service that is not legal opens you up to liability. Hire an attorney and get a legal opinion from them. 

[WRUU653]

Just now, CogentRadios said:

Ok thanks, have a great week.

Thanks. Seriously, you too. This was fun, looking at an old debate with a new twist.

I do have a question though. The means to which you are communicating to the repeater, is it type accepted? 
 

[CogentRadios]

3 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

Thanks. Seriously, you too. This was fun, looking at an old debate with a new twist.

I do have a question though. The means to which you are communicating to the repeater, is it type accepted?
 

Yes, they are type accepted radios. They are Chinese like everything else now a days. Did I do a verification on the type acceptance, no I did not. Maybe I am not clear on your question, are you talking about the radios accessing the repeater?

[73blazer]

11 minutes ago, WSFF627 said:

 Its clear you cant connect GMRS to another network for comms.

 

It is far far from clear. Mabey in your head. But the language as written is certainly, not clear. All it says is telephone network is prohibited. That's it. That phrase has been challenged in other services and has settled to mean telephone networks, public switched exchanges and the internet. Which leaves many other types of "networks" as not prohibited.  BTW, they are not laws. Just rules.

[WRUU653]

4 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

 

The bridge that is accessing the repeater is what I was referring to. You had said it was FM I believe. Did I misunderstand that? 

[WSFF627]

26 minutes ago, 73blazer said:

It is far far from clear. Mabey in your head. But the language as written is certainly, not clear. All it says is telephone network is prohibited. That's it. That phrase has been challenged in other services and has settled to mean telephone networks, public switched exchanges and the internet. Which leaves many other types of "networks" as not prohibited.  BTW, they are not laws. Just rules.

It is clear in my head. I understand how to read the law.

BTW, the FCC "Just rules" are Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Communications Act of 1934 gave the FCC the authority create and enforce rules and laws, ie Title 47, Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 95

[CogentRadios]

17 minutes ago, WRUU653 said:

The bridge that is accessing the repeater is what I was referring to. You had said it was FM I believe. Did I misunderstand that? 

Right, so the initial transmission is active on a digital fabric through an isolated server frame then relayed to a bridge where it is transmitted to the repeater in analog FM. Yes the transmitter is type accepted, a Hytera MN360. That's the point of establishing what the FCC defines as "Real Time Communications". So the bridge is under my direct control and not remote and does not go through a phone system. I will be writing up a request for clarification this week and forwarding it to the FCC . Its going to take me a week to just cover the definitions and applicability. Once I hear back I will share the request and findings with everyone. If I am wrong then I am wrong and will comply but under part 47 rules I really do not think I am. Even the definition of remote would not apply if I have physical control over the bridge.

 

[73blazer]

5 minutes ago, WSFF627 said:

It is clear in my head. I understand how to read the law.

BTW, the FCC "Just rules" are Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Communications Act of 1934 gave the FCC the authority create and enforce rules and laws, ie Title 47, Chapter I, Subchapter D, Part 95

If it were clear, there wouldn't be 1000's of pages of discussion on this topic. The Communications Act of 1934 gives no authority for the FCC to create or enforce laws. They make and enforce rules, among some other duties like study and report and advise on  laws that would affect access and usage of radio services. All they can do is propose a fine, if you don't pay it, they can use a court of law to get you to pay, but they themselves can't make you even pay, why do you think half the people just don't pay the fines.

If they don't pay the fine, it can be referred to the Dept of justice for actual legal enforcement.

Taken from their process page

Quote

Even after the Forfeiture Order, a company may continue to challenge an enforcement action before the Commission. Once it has exhausted its right to challenge an enforcement action before the Commission, however, a company is required to pay the fine imposed in the Forfeiture Order. If the company does not do so within the required time, the fine is considered a debt to the United States and is referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for a collection action.

 

[SteveShannon]

8 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

Right, so the initial transmission is active on a digital fabric through an isolated server frame then relayed to a bridge where it is transmitted to the repeater in analog FM. Yes the transmitter is type accepted, a Hytera MN360. That's the point of establishing what the FCC defines as "Real Time Communications". So the bridge is under my direct control and not remote and does not go through a phone system. I will be writing up a request for clarification this week and forwarding it to the FCC . It’s going to take me a week to just cover the definitions and applicability. Once I hear back I will share the request and findings with everyone. If I am wrong then I am wrong and will comply but under part 47 rules I really do not think I am. Even the definition of remote would not apply if I have physical control over the bridge.

 I look forward to hearing what you discover. Although the technology is interesting I think it will be turned down for the most basic reason: You’re connecting a GMRS repeater to a network, which means you are carrying GMRS communications on a network which is prohibited by the FCC interpretation of the rules.

Here’s their interpretation:

GMRS stations cannot be interconnected with the public switched telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations. 

[WRUU653]

20 minutes ago, CogentRadios said:

Hytera MN360

So if I understand this you are using the MN360 (not type accepted for GMRS, part 95) to transmit to the repeater. Well I think in the end you will find you are wrong but you have been cordial in making your case for what has been kind of a hot topic here in the past. I look forward to seeing what the FCC has to say in response. 

[73blazer]

6 minutes ago, SteveShannon said:

 I look forward to hearing what you discover. Although the technology is interesting I think it will be turned down for the most basic reason: You’re connecting a GMRS repeater to a network, which means you are carrying GMRS communications on a network which is prohibited by the FCC interpretation of the rules.

Here’s their interpretation:

GMRS stations cannot be interconnected with the public switched telephone network or any other network for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications, but these networks can be used for remote control of repeater stations. 

Correct wording, "their interpretation" ! . Someone got it right for once! They're likely response is not to give a direct yes or no answer, they're likely to respond, after many months, with quotes of the part 95 section rules, leaving him right back in the same boat he's in now, interpreting it himself.