-
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.
FCC Notice of Violation for NGGMRS’s linked repeater system
- Thread starter celestis
- Start date
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
About time.
The FCC is slow, but they do eventually get around to it.
This should be interesting to watch. NGGMRS has been pretty blatant with their violation, and I'm sure this will drag on for quite a while with a lot of arguments. The discussions on this site alone should be entertaining.
The FCC is slow, but they do eventually get around to it.
This should be interesting to watch. NGGMRS has been pretty blatant with their violation, and I'm sure this will drag on for quite a while with a lot of arguments. The discussions on this site alone should be entertaining.
prcguy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 18,844
- Reaction score
- 15,216
Yea, about time! Should be no arguments. Comply or firing squad.
RFI-EMI-GUY
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 8,520
- Reaction score
- 5,940
NGGMRS has been bracing for this and lawyering up. I find it interesting the FCC has not stated 95.1733 (8) as a prohibition. Probably because they are well aware that it is a scriveners error.
The problem here is the definition of Remote Control. GMRS is apparently the only service where the term "Remote Control" does not include the transmission content (program material).
The letter confusingly states:
10 “Remote Control” is defined as “Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the
immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the
premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.” 47 CFR § 95.303.
“Operate” is defined as “Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal
Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting.” 47 CFR § 95.303.
How does one separate continued operation from remote control?
I see this being a contentious battle or a weak volley by the FCC to intimidate NGGMRS into giving up. I advised the FCC back during the NPRM in 2017 of the conflict with 95.1733 (8) which is really at the root of the anti-linking argument.
The problem here is the definition of Remote Control. GMRS is apparently the only service where the term "Remote Control" does not include the transmission content (program material).
The letter confusingly states:
10 “Remote Control” is defined as “Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the
immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the
premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.” 47 CFR § 95.303.
“Operate” is defined as “Control the functioning of a Personal Radio Service station; in particular, cause a Personal
Radio Service station to begin, continue or cease transmitting.” 47 CFR § 95.303.
How does one separate continued operation from remote control?
I see this being a contentious battle or a weak volley by the FCC to intimidate NGGMRS into giving up. I advised the FCC back during the NPRM in 2017 of the conflict with 95.1733 (8) which is really at the root of the anti-linking argument.
I'm glad the FCC is taking action. I think it's been a long time coming.
However, I'm trying to follow the FCC's argument.
The NOV mentions in paragraph 2 "Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, which excludes retransmission of messages." 47 CFR 95.1745 is referenced in the footnotes. But, that rule reads "Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control." I don't see a prohibition of retransmission of messages in 95.1745.
Granted, paragraph 3 goes on to cite 47 CFR 95.1749 which, in my opinion, clarifies the FCC's stance that the remote control provisions don't allow retransmission of messages: "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."
To me, 47 CFR 95.1749 is clear. Network connections for remote control, but not for retransmission of messages. While NGGMRS may have lawyers lined up, on the surface, I don't see what argument they could make against the rules as they are currently written.
IANAL
However, I'm trying to follow the FCC's argument.
The NOV mentions in paragraph 2 "Repeaters may be connected to the telephone network or other networks only for purposes of remote control of a GMRS station, which excludes retransmission of messages." 47 CFR 95.1745 is referenced in the footnotes. But, that rule reads "Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control." I don't see a prohibition of retransmission of messages in 95.1745.
Granted, paragraph 3 goes on to cite 47 CFR 95.1749 which, in my opinion, clarifies the FCC's stance that the remote control provisions don't allow retransmission of messages: "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."
To me, 47 CFR 95.1749 is clear. Network connections for remote control, but not for retransmission of messages. While NGGMRS may have lawyers lined up, on the surface, I don't see what argument they could make against the rules as they are currently written.
IANAL
Last edited:
celestis
Member
No shortage of UHF Part 22 pairs they could lease out and LEGALLY sell service on, by the way
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
^^^^^^^^
- THIS -
^^^^^^^^
As the FCC suggested, doing this with 8 channel pairs isn't sharing. It's monopolizing.
Being too lazy/cheap to do it right doesn't mean every other GMRS/FRS user has to suffer.
I believe and this is a guess they classify remote control as channel change, repeater disable or other repeater functions. Thats my understanding. Which makes 100% sense to me. It will be interesting to see what happens. The upstate NY system was dismantled and are now just a few standalone repeaters.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
It's was all good, until it wasn't.- MTS2000DES
Now let's see what happens.
Now let's see what happens.
Exactly. That and associations installing high profile repeaters on every pair in an area then requiring membership dues to use their repeaters has been a pet peeve of mine (although not against the rules to put a repeater on every pair, still not nice). Some even go in and set a high profile repeater up on every pair and then link those suckers so they are all transmitting the same traffic. Yikes!
From Part 97:
(39) Remote control. The use of a control operator who indirectly manipulates the operating adjustments in the station through a control link to achieve compliance with the FCC Rules.
Nowhere in that definition does it talk about content.
nd5y
Member
Part 97 covers amateur radio and has nothing to do with GMRS.
GMRS has its own definition of remote control. See 95.303, 95.345, 95.1745.
prcguy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 18,844
- Reaction score
- 15,216
I'm too lazy to look this up but I remember something about prohibiting leasing GRMS repeater air time. If that is true and the linked system in question is charging for use then that would be another problem.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 1,345
- Reaction score
- 1,597
From $90.00 - $300.00 per year or a lifetime charge of $1800.00
Insanity
Pay me $100 a year and I'll give you unlimited "Tactical Unit Numbers" and access to EVERY open GMRS repeater in the country.
From $90.00 - $300.00 per year or a lifetime charge of $1800.00
Insanity
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2021
- Messages
- 1,345
- Reaction score
- 1,597
Yes but would you also be affilated/owned by a Kenwood dealer that gives the members discounts??
No, but I wouldn't be breaking any FCC rules either.
Similar threads
