Legal action?

[AK9R]

I saw this in the Facebook group for one of the linked GMRS repeater systems:

Just to let everybody know, the xxxxx Repeater is completely shut down right now. I’ve contacted legal counsel and I have an attorney working on a situation to remove somebody that’s not supposed to be on there when I get things handled, the Repeater will be brought back up but for now I appreciate everybody’s cooperation. Thanks.

So, I'm curious about where this might go aside from local and state laws about unlawful use of property, electronic harassment, etc.

What rule in Part 95E gives a GMRS repeater operator the legal standing to prohibit someone from using their repeater? If someone is prohibited from using a repeater, what rule in Part 95E would the prohibited person be violating if they transmitted on the repeater's input frequency? Is there any precedent for the FCC telling a GMRS licensee "you can't use XXX repeater"?

 

[tweiss3]

47 CFR 95.1705(d)(2) May allow any person to use (i.e., benefit from the operation of) its GMRS repeater, or alternatively, may limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons;
47 CFR 95.1705(d)(3) May disallow the use of its GMRS repeater by specific persons as may be necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this section.

 

[nd5y]

95.327 Restricted operation.

It applies to all services under Part 95, not just GMRS.

 

[Hans13]

I saw this in the Facebook group for one of the linked GMRS repeater systems:

So, I'm curious about where this might go aside from local and state laws about unlawful use of property, electronic harassment, etc.

What rule in Part 95E gives a GMRS repeater operator the legal standing to prohibit someone from using their repeater? If someone is prohibited from using a repeater, what rule in Part 95E would the prohibited person be violating if they transmitted on the repeater's input frequency? Is there any precedent for the FCC telling a GMRS licensee "you can't use XXX repeater"?

Which group?

 

[MTS2000des]

This ought to be interesting. As GMRS allocations are shared and not coordinated as in part 90, 97, etc a licensee has an affirmative defense that they have just as much privilege to operate on xxx frequencies within GMRS and they could argue that said repeater is interfering with them as much as they are the repeater. See the problem with spectrum hogs and linked systems now?

 

[Project25_MASTR]

Just wait until someone stands up a repeater on the same pair but with different tones in the same coverage footprint.

 

[MTS2000des]

Just wait until someone stands up a repeater on the same pair but with different tones in the same coverage footprint.

This is why linking is not congruent with intended use of the service. My repeater has just as much right to exist under current rules as yours. I have to yield to you and you to me, except when a linked repeater border blaster keys up, the internet user on Zello or other distant linked repeater has no idea that frequency is in use and just blasts them. Time for the FCC to have the final word and I am sure it is coming at some point.

 

[AK9R]

Note that all I know at this point is that a repeater owner has said that he's contacting an attorney for assistance with a problem user. I don't know what that attorney will do. The attorney may do nothing. The attorney may send the problem user a sternly-worded letter...which the user could ignore. The attorney may assist the repeater owner with engaging the local county prosecutor. IANAL, so I don't know what law the prosecutor could charge the problem user with violating and I don't think that a county prosecutor has any standing to try to enforce a Federal rule.

The FCC won't get involved unless someone brings the issue to them.

 

[tomk62]

Just wait until someone stands up a repeater on the same pair but with different tones in the same coverage footprint.

Similar to this, but same tones.

Antenna recommendation.

Long story short, I'm in between two very good GMRS repeaters approximately 40 miles away on each side of my location. They are both on the same channel and in and out PL tones. I want to focus on the one to the east. Any good UHF Yagi recommendations for the gmrs repeater channel range? If this...

forums.radioreference.com

 

[paulears]

Annoying but not much you can do. If people behave badly, but are not breaking any rules in the jurisdiction, then in the case of the repeater owner, surely all you can do is switch it off and deny everyone service. Bad behaviour might not be illegal. The government offer the facility to buy your own repeater for a public set of frequencies. You could have two repeaters in one small town - it would be chaos, but not breaking the rules. All these public service radio systems are unpoliced world wide. They rely on the users behaving themselves. I can't see what legal remedy there could be if nobody is guilty of anything but intolerance,

 

[K5MPH]

Woud it not be Malicious Interference ........

 

[paulears]

I don't believe so - somebody who only speaks a rare dialect that nobody can understand could legally press the transmit button, if that frequency was legit. The fact that there is a private repeater on the same channel that gets swamped would appear to be a hazard of operating at your own cost on a public band. Surely it's like the shoe shop who uses the free radio unlicensed channels but the local kids have been given the same radios for christmas. Even worse - they could be on the same frequency but different tone and be totally unaware they're wrecked the local shoe shop's business. No crime. In our UK system, there's plenty of Government advice that says interference is possible and cannot be investigated or cured - if you want interference free radio, then a technically assigned licence is available that tries not to put conflicting systems in the same area on the same frequency - but even that is not a guarantee.

Maybe malicious interference would be a crime if it was a protected and monitored service - but I don't think it is - Maybe if what was said was breaking a law there could be hope? Just calling on a radio and being annoying might not be enough?

 

[AB5ID]

47 CFR 95.1705(d)(2) May allow any person to use (i.e., benefit from the operation of) its GMRS repeater, or alternatively, may limit the use of its GMRS repeater to specific persons;

I'm not will versed in the rules of GMRS but isn't this pretty cut and dry?

 

[paulears]

I note the use of repeaters states "with the permission of the licencee" - but if you say no, there is no mechanism to prevent them trying.
I'm also wrong on another thing - the FCC will (unlike our OFCOM) take action when GMRS repeaters are interfered with. That's pretty good, and not something us Brits get. I can find quite a few examples where they have investigated and the end result was good,

 

[MTS2000des]

I'm not will versed in the rules of GMRS but isn't this pretty cut and dry?

Sure, which means a repeater owner can turn off the repeater, limit access via methods like DTMF/MDC control, but none of this means another licensee has to refrain from using the frequency- as the same rules also say any licensee may use any frequency. Kind of a problem, don't you think?

 

[AB5ID]

Sure, which means a repeater owner can turn off the repeater, limit access via methods like DTMF/MDC control, but none of this means another licensee has to refrain from using the frequency- as the same rules also say any licensee may use any frequency. Kind of a problem, don't you think?

If it's not feasible for the repeater to change frequency, but it is feasible for GMRS users to do so, does this align with the rule's intent? In other words, what is the purpose of this rule? Not arguing just playing devil's advocate trying to see all sides.

 

[paulears]

That's exactly the snag. If he's doing something the law prohibits, then they've got him, but let's say the repeater is in one state, and he's across the border in another. However, he close enough to access the repeater. Let's say for some reason he cannot hear the repeater - maybe his radio is deaf - and he calls and calls and calls - totally wrecking the normal repeater user's experience - is he violating any law? Let's assume (as I don't know) that he not shouting abuse, not sprouting race hatred or inciting violence - just being a real annoyance. The FCC could say what? Did you know you were wrecking the repeater's operation? He'd say no - I didn't hear anything at all.

I'm assuming the problem here was that he was abusive or breaking the law, but ignorance is not abuse. Being stupid isn't either. As we don't have unlicensed repeaters in the UK, I don't know how ownership works in the US. If your repeater is members only (which seems to be allowed, then it's something owned, and presumably if he copied the DTMF tones or whatever, in the US would this be some kind of stealing/theft or proper crime. Using a repeater without consent - some law like that? Or maybe it's a civil thing. Maybe you could take him to court for unpaid usage charges - I don't know? The rule presumably was made for a purpose - is this an example of that purpose. I suspect that if we had the same system here, we'd deal with it by identifying the person, serving him with a warning telling him that repeater use has to be paid for and please stop, then an invoice for the continued repeater use, waiting for him not to pay, then going to court for the outstanding invoice, with the request then warnings as evidence. We here would not have OFCOM backing us up. We have had occasional ham repeater abuse over the years and in the 70s/80s OFCOM (or their fore-runner) went after them, but now, the Radio Society has to collect evidence and use the courts. Ham radio is a hobby and unprotected really. Licence exempt systems are not investigated at all as far as I'm aware.

 

[gberny]

To which I reply:

 

[N4KVE]

Simple. the repeater should have different PL tones for TX, & RX. So should someone try to scan the PL tone while listening to the repeater, that same tone won‘t bring up the repeater. Or use DPL to bring it up.

 

[sallen07]

Simple. the repeater should have different PL tones for TX, & RX. So should someone try to scan the PL tone while listening to the repeater, that same tone won‘t bring up the repeater. Or use DPL to bring it up.

It's a UHF repeater, so limited range. All one must do is listen to the INPUT and sooner or later you'll find the tone. Folks who think they are fooling everyone by using different input and output tones miss that point.