mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Someone must have complained about a stuck transmitter. Nice of the FCC to respond.
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
A little bit of FCC GMRS action
- Thread starter mmckenna
- Start date
- Status
Someone must have complained about a stuck transmitter. Nice of the FCC to respond.
I am stunned they actually did a bit of enforcement on CB 2.0
Any bets until how long they just say screw it and remove the licensing requirement and it all becomes a free for all? I mean we already have 8 channels taken up with repeaters all linked to each other and nationwide nets. Sure makes skipland easier! No more moonrakers and leeneears.
At least he was using a Part 95 approved radio.
Any bets until how long they just say screw it and remove the licensing requirement and it all becomes a free for all? I mean we already have 8 channels taken up with repeaters all linked to each other and nationwide nets. Sure makes skipland easier! No more moonrakers and leeneears.
At least he was using a Part 95 approved radio.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
The irony. Not making excuses but the one guy with the legit radio, legit license gets popped. Granted, he was wrong- what is not clear on (not that it matters) was INTENT. Did he INTEND to tie up that pair? I mean- we have a whole bunch o repeaters simulcasting making all pairs unavailable for hours a day round these parts. Just sayin.
I see the entire service becoming license by rule. Rules are just suggestions without enforcement. Change my mind.
What pisses me off about this is its mostly the hams doing it. Do they not have enough unused spectrum already? I hear the same guys on the GMRS net that I do on the 2m/440 repeaters. Its just another band to them. Their 440 repeaters that are under their part 97 call are idling by, yet their linked GMRS callsigned repeaters are tying up all the channels. One of these days I am sure one of them will get the bright idea to link their 440 repeater in and away they go... best of both worlds. Legal? nahhh, but why bother.
Don’t get me started on that. What’s really annoying is all the local linked ones, so we get to hear the same hams tying up multiple local GMRS repeaters.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,501
Actually GMRS has existed as class "A/B" CB far longer than 11 meter "class C" CB has, so it would be CB 1.0. In 2017 the rules were decided that GMRS would NOT be license by rule. There was overwhelming opposition.
As far as linking, that is a whole 'nother subject. See my comment on the North Georgia system explaining how a linked repeater can be set up to be polite to other co channel repeater operations with some logic and timers.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
I'd bet it was someone that followed all the directions on how to file a complaint with the FCC (rather than just b!†ch!ng non-stop on the internet), and then provided all the pertinent details/recordings. I have seen the FCC react quickly when the complainer actually does their homework and makes it easy for the FCC.
A dead carrier would be easy to track down.
They offered that as one of the possible solutions a few years ago when they re-did the GMRS rules (2018?). Fortunately enough people raised hell about it.
By chance, or on purpose. Would have been interesting if it had not been to see if they'd get popped on the type acceptance thing, and we could finally put that argument to rest.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Dude has a ham license, also.
With a mailing address in Vancouver, WA, and the location on the NOV, makes me wonder if this is a larger linked system.
Nice thing is, it shows how the FCC will give you a chance to fix things first, and not just swoop in with the FCC SWAT team helicopter gun ship like some want people to think. They are reasonable and will give people the chance to make things right. Where the fines come in is when they ignore the FCC or do something so incredibly stupid that they need a major spanking.
With a mailing address in Vancouver, WA, and the location on the NOV, makes me wonder if this is a larger linked system.
Nice thing is, it shows how the FCC will give you a chance to fix things first, and not just swoop in with the FCC SWAT team helicopter gun ship like some want people to think. They are reasonable and will give people the chance to make things right. Where the fines come in is when they ignore the FCC or do something so incredibly stupid that they need a major spanking.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,501
I checked his GMRS stuff online and it seems he has plans to link two other locations, but they are shown off line. The county where the subject repeater is located has a population of about 52K, while the town, Deer Island has less than 323 people. I doubt the area is spectrum starved.
Yeah, I checked the radio certification right off the bat to see if it had Part 95. I was hoping to see FCC pass on a Part 90 cert.
I bet the person filing the complaint was a user at the same site, most likely somebody with a public safety system, and probably Federal. The complaint was filed, the FCC showed up and got access to the radio within the same day.
Those Radii aren't meant for 100% duty cycle, if it was stuck, it would burn out first at FCC's usual enforcement timescale.
Those Radii aren't meant for 100% duty cycle, if it was stuck, it would burn out first at FCC's usual enforcement timescale.
rescuecomm
Member
Ummmm? Have the local hams take their GMRS repeaters off the air? That would leave a couple of backyard repeaters with half mile coverage around here. You guys might get hate mail from the non-ham GMRS community which is more numerous and less technical than you might think.
All I can say is if you are going to play in deep water then you need to know how to swim.
Keep in mind, this is a NOV. His repeater was broken and he should have had measures to stop it, both with equipment and via monitoring and remote control. He needs to explain corrective action.
Intent would matter for a fine, which would be proposed in a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, or a license revocation, which would be in an Order to Show Cause.
This hasn't reached that stage, and may not reach that stage if there was no history, intent, and he properly handles the NOV. If that's the case, this would be the last we hear about it.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
They do it so they can make money, by charging fees to join their "GMRS repeater group" to give "members" access to premium features like Zello access, linking commands, etc.
Just elite hams playing SMR on part 95 hogging up all the pairs while their ham repeaters are quiet as a church mouse.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,501
They cannot be making a "profit" on a repeater. It is to be a COOP arrangement.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
The LDS church is a 501.c.3 and rakes it in. These clowns are making bank. Change my mind.
So the LDS church owns a GMRS repeater and is charging $$ for others to use it?
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,501
Yeah and the Pope wears Prada......
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 869
No !! ...........this is NOT mine--- or anyone near or dear to me; its just a stroll down thru history when enforcement was stronger--- and the FCC meant business.
(not bad 15 metre DX-- NYC to KH6, no ?
--- this is a QSL no one would have want'd tho)Lauri
.
Last edited:
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
No, the org is a 501C.3 and charges money to use their system. The same owner also inherited a long time ham club and has taken over their part 97 repeaters and is allegedly closing them to "members only".
I don't have a problem with this on part 97, there is room enough for everyone, and as someone who maintains several amateur repeaters, I get it that it costs real money, but part 95 is not the venue to hog up all pairs and simulcast to prevent others from using the pairs. Part 97 is wide open and repeater stations are coordinated. Part 95 rules say everyone has to share and there is no repeater coordination.
This one individual and their "organization" does what AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile does hogging up all the spectrum and buying up any competition forcing you to be their "customer" whether you want to or not. The American way!
My reference to the LDS Church is don't let a 501C.3 status fool you- the company may not show a profit but they are certainly making money hand over fist. They just get the luxury of not paying taxes on it the way an LLC or IPO traded company has to. "Pay your fair share" someone said.
- Status
