GMRS repeater linking and the FCC

[ProBlab]

With as much money as NGGMRS is likely bringing in, they can probably apply for their own frequencies/licenses and just move off of the GMRS frequencies

 

[MTS2000des]

I agree, those paying for "lifetime service" are probably going to be expecting some sort of refund, if anyone was dumb enough to pay for that.

I'm waiting for a NCPRN style lawsuit to be filed on behalf of someone. The Fair Business Practices Act, OCGA 10-1-390 may apply.
It's one thing to solicit donations as a non-profit, as there is no expectation of receiving anything, but to sell "memberships" implies that one receives something of value, either tangible or intangible in the form of a service, access to facilities, etc.

Statutes We Enforce

Statutes that are enforced by this agency

consumer.georgia.gov

 

[MTS2000des]

I see a different problem.

Many of these GMRS groups have required (extorted?) payment from "members" in order to get access to the repeaters that are part of the group. A selling point for these groups is "you pay for a 'membership' and you get access to this wide-area linked system". If the links are turned off, what recourse do the "members" have? Can they sue the groups for breach of contract? Granted, only the lawyers would get rich from this, but I think there'd definitely be some hard feelings. I hope these groups are incorporated and have liability insurance.

I see a class action lawsuit coming. Once an attorney like the one that sent LCB3 that crap gets wind of this, it will be like a teenager on prom night losing his virginity. These large organizations who built their networks knowing that, as the FCC has publicly clarified, were illegal in nature, are now 100 percent liable for refunding monies collected. They knew, or should have known, that what they were selling or charging fees for was to support something not legal according to Federal law, and that they duped consumers into forking over their cash. Oh well, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[celestis]

Actually a voted system would be illegal if you interpret the prohibition in the rule 95.1733(a)(8) to apply in that way.

Yeah I was afraid so

I certainly won't count on the FCC carving out an exemption or amending any rule, that's for sure, but damn if these gator-mouthed repeaters aren't frustrating to deal with

 

[MTS2000des]

With as much money as NGGMRS is likely bringing in, they can probably apply for their own frequencies/licenses and just move off of the GMRS frequencies

Or just move their operations to Georgia Fleet Talk, a part 90 NexEdge trunking system free from the constraints of limited spectrum GMRS.
Plus, it's all digital and even supports encryption including AES-256. Coverage also extends well beyond the state!

So the 8 channel army could just get 8 talk groups and pay Radio One and be 100 percent linked, with secure communications safe from stalkers and Boaturds. NGMRS could just resell their service. No headaches of licensing, coordination, etc. Just pay and talk away! No more dealing with sad hams. Just need to have compatible NXDN trunking radios but those are widely available.

Georgia Fleettalk Dealers

www.fleettalk.net

 

[mmckenna]

So the 8 channel army could just get 8 talk groups and pay Radio One and be 100 percent linked, with secure communications safe from stalkers and Boaturds. NGMRS could just resell their service. No headaches of licensing, coordination, etc. Just pay and talk away! No more dealing with sad hams. Just need to have compatible NXDN trunking radios but those are widely available.

Georgia Fleettalk Dealers

www.fleettalk.net

I can only imagine the howls of anguish when someone realizes the following:
-They can't use their $19 CCR to connect to a trunked system. I'm sure we'll get a lot of posts here asking for hacks/secret software to make it work. ("Some guy on the internets told them there was…")
-The hams with hacked 70cm rigs upset that they can't access a NXDN/trunked radio system with their 30 year old Yaesu.
-Scanner listeners torqued off because the "Big E" claimed another one and it's the "EnD oF ThE HoBbY!!!! OMG, SeLliNg AlL mY ScAnnErZ!!!!"

Maybe I should start grabbing Kenwood NX series UHF radios off e-Bay and reselling them at a markup.


On the other hand, hopefully the people running the Georgia system, as well as the other large systems, think about how easily they could (probably) license some Part 90 pairs and continue on their way. Or at least look into moving their operations to 70cm, where this stuff belongs.

Honestly, though. I don't care. I'm more interested in watching the fallout from all this. Warming up my popcorn maker right now...

 

[bill4long]

In case anyone missed the gist of the link provided…

Texas GMRS Network Board of Directors is aware that the FCC has quietly updated the wording on their website, providing additional clarification that linking GMRS repeaters is not allowed. As of midnight, Monday, August 19, 2024, we will be disconnecting the link between our repeaters, including nodes and IAX access. However, we strongly encourage our members to continue using the local repeaters, which will remain operational, to communicate with family and friends as usual.

As of right now, Midwest GMRS Network (a fairly large one) is still blowing and going.

https://mygmrs.network/map

 

[celestis]

More nonsense

Anyone know a direct contact in the EB? The web form doesn't exactly contemplate reporting these violations looks like I was wrong, just keyed it in

 

[AK9R]

I'm more interested in watching the fallout from all this. Warming up my popcorn maker right now...

Well, the hits just keep on happening.

Midwest GMRS has "affiliated" repeaters in 6 states: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI. These affiliated repeaters are networked. Midwest GMRS Limited is an Indiana corporation with Harry Franklin "Buddy" Moyer (GMRS callsign WRAX542) listed as the Chairman. Interestingly, the Articles of Incorporation filed with the Indiana Secretary of State indicate in the Statement of Purpose "To provide a HAM raido [sic] repeater network for using diring [sic] emergency situations." Note that the stated purpose of Midwest GMRS is to provide a HAM network, whatever that is, and not a GMRS network.

Mr. Moyer posted the above in the Midwest GMRS Facebook group this morning. Clearly, he doesn't think that the recent comments from the FCC on their website mean anything and that the FCC is "just trying to scare people away".

Someone reported in the Midwest GMRS Facebook group yesterday that some of the Illinois repeaters were no longer linked. The speculation was that this was done as a result of recent postings on the FCC website. Today, someone else posted the following:

Good morning / afternoon everyone,
I want to address some recent inquiries about the separation of Illinois from Indiana in our communication systems. Please note that this matter is unrelated to the recent FCC information circulating.
For clarity, I can only speak to the systems I manage. The systems with active nodes remain connected to Illinois and will continue to do so.
A few weeks back, we discussed the idea of creating separation for Illinois and Indiana to allow more users to access the system and participate in conversations, particularly within Illinois. I've noticed a surge in new users on the Illinois side recently. From my conversations with them, it’s clear that many have been listening for months or even a year but didn't feel confident enough to jump into conversations amidst the existing activity.
Our community is incredibly positive and respectful, with a strong network of friends and contacts across various states including Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation as we continue to support and grow our network.
I'd like to emphasize that there is absolutely no animosity or ill will towards any users regarding this network separation. My goal is to ensure smooth operation and effective communication within our network.
We will continue to move forward positively, and I will keep everyone updated on any changes that may occur on the Illinois side. Thank you for your continued support and understanding.

Note the comments about separating Illinois and Indiana "to allow more users to access the system and participate in conversations". What? You mean that having a multi-state network that ties up all 8 repeater pairs is not conducive to users accessing the system? I'm shocked!

Also, there's now a petition at Change.org demanding that Part 95 be revised to clearly allow linking GMRS repeaters. The petition has 259 signatures as I write.

 

[mmckenna]

Well, the hits just keep on happening.

Standby, running to the store to get a second popcorn maker so I can keep up with all this….

"To provide a HAM raido [sic] repeater network for using diring [sic] emergency situations." Note that the stated purpose of Midwest GMRS is to provide a HAM network, whatever that is, and not a GMRS network.

Ouch. Couldn't even be bothered to change "HAM" to GMRS, nor use spell checker.

Mr. Moyer posted the above in the Midwest GMRS Facebook group this morning. Clearly, he doesn't think that the recent comments from the FCC on their website mean anything and that the FCC is "just trying to scare people away".

I wonder why they think the FCC wants to "scare people away"? I mean, seriously, what is their logic behind the idea that the FCC wants to scare people away from a personal radio service?

But, he does have a point. Until this is clear in Part 95, not just an FCC webpage, this isn't really going to hold much weight. Gotta be in the CFR to be enforceable. But I'm positive the FCC knows that and I'd bet someone a shiny new $13 Baofeng that an update to the Part 95 wording is on its way soon.

Note the comments about separating Illinois and Indiana "to allow more users to access the system and participate in conversations". What? You mean that having a multi-state network that ties up all 8 repeater pairs is not conducive to users accessing the system? I'm shocked!

Irony so thick you could cut it with a cliche.

Also, there's now a petition at Change.org demanding that Part 95 be revised to clearly allow linking GMRS repeaters. The petition has 259 signatures as I write.

While I'm sure that someone will submit to the FCC for such a change, I wonder if the FCC is really willing to rewrite the purpose for GMRS, not just the rule about linking repeaters.

And I wonder how many people will comment against such an idea. I know the direction the linking fans are coming from, but I'm sure there are quite a few that are against it.

 

[celestis]

Standby, running to the store to get a second popcorn maker so I can keep up with all this….



Ouch. Couldn't even be bothered to change "HAM" to GMRS, nor use spell checker.



I wonder why they think the FCC wants to "scare people away"? I mean, seriously, what is their logic behind the idea that the FCC wants to scare people away from a personal radio service?

But, he does have a point. Until this is clear in Part 95, not just an FCC webpage, this isn't really going to hold much weight. Gotta be in the CFR to be enforceable. But I'm positive the FCC knows that and I'd bet someone a shiny new $13 Baofeng that an update to the Part 95 wording is on its way soon.



Irony so thick you could cut it with a cliche.



While I'm sure that someone will submit to the FCC for such a change, I wonder if the FCC is really willing to rewrite the purpose for GMRS, not just the rule about linking repeaters.

And I wonder how many people will comment against such an idea. I know the direction the linking fans are coming from, but I'm sure there are quite a few that are against it.

These are the exact same people who whine about the same content playing in the TV band across multiple markets, they won't learn

 

[WB5UOM]

I am curious how MTS2000des knows what I did on prom night?

 

[d119]

I am curious how MTS2000des knows what I did on prom night?

Not only what, but who. The man is a pimp. He's ubiquitous. Don't question him, or his authority. I speak from experience. True player for real. Love you @MTS2000des

 

[buddrousa]

You expose a low life for what they are. YES TAKE THEM TO COURT REPORT THEM TO THE FCC FIND A TALL TREE AND A SHORT ROPE.

 

[KevinC]

I am curious how MTS2000des knows what I did on prom night?

Everyone knows, it was all over MySpace.

 

[mmckenna]

Everyone knows, it was all over MySpace.

As long as it's not Only Fans. No one wants to see that.

 

[GlobalNorth]

FYI, fleetalk.net is an infected website. Don't click on it.

 

[rf_patriot200]

I see a different problem.

Many of these GMRS groups have required (extorted?) payment from "members" in order to get access to the repeaters that are part of the group. A selling point for these groups is "you pay for a 'membership' and you get access to this wide-area linked system". If the links are turned off, what recourse do the "members" have? Can they sue the groups for breach of contract? Granted, only the lawyers would get rich from this, but I think there'd definitely be some hard feelings. I hope these groups are incorporated and have liability insurance.

Very true ! This is pretty common on mygmrs.com if you ask for clearance to use a repeater, that's the first thing they ask for.

 

[KevinC]

Listening to some locals guys talk about the "unlinking". One commented "it's a victimless crime", which it isn't as it ties up all available repeater outputs in my area AND he also admits it's a crime. He also said "It won't do much to advance the hobby", I thought ham radio was the hobby service and GMRS was geared more towards family...or am I wrong?

 

[WB5UOM]

I agree, I didnt know gmrs was a hobby....
Goobers