GMRS repeater linking and the FCC

[AK9R]

I thought we were talking about GMRS and the possibility of FCC action regarding linking of GMRS repeaters.

 

[12dbsinad]

It is time the FCC puts out a public notice about linking to clarify. It's becoming the common place for GMRS now because it's cheap and easy to do. A little reminder about "short range family communications" and what that means, not Ham wannabees.

I see they sent a nice little letter to a GMRS system in NY. It was a voted simulcast system. Or I should say, WAS.

 

[MTS2000des]

It is time the FCC puts out a public notice about linking to clarify. It's becoming the common place for GMRS now because it's cheap and easy to do. A little reminder about "short range family communications" and what that means, not Ham wannabees.

Long past time for that public notice/reminder, but crybaby entitled whiners don't care about rules.

 

[12dbsinad]

Long past time for that public notice/reminder, but crybaby entitled whiners don't care about rules.

The problem is that apparently nobody can comprehend the rulings. They see the words like "remote control" and automatically think they can link repeaters across 3 States. I do think a good stern warning from the FCC would help clarify things since this is becoming a Country wide problem. Something that everyone can point too when someone decides to clog up 8 repeater pairs. Not just the repeater pairs, but makes simplex useless as well.

What is going to happen is the FCC is going to eliminate repeaters on the next ruling change. They don't have the resources and want it to go away if it isn't self-policed.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

The problem is that apparently nobody can comprehend the rulings. They see the words like "remote control" and automatically think they can link repeaters across 3 States. I do think a good stern warning from the FCC would help clarify things since this is becoming a Country wide problem. Something that everyone can point too when someone decides to clog up 8 repeater pairs. Not just the repeater pairs, but makes simplex useless as well.

What is going to happen is the FCC is going to eliminate repeaters on the next ruling change. They don't have the resources and want it to go away if it isn't self-policed.

Alrighty then... Odd then that in 2017 the FCC added permissive rules for network connectivity other than PSTN interconnect. Look them up. Why are they there if not to permit them?

If you look up that sole prohibition #8, and do the research, you will find it is a scriveners error that was not removed previously . The same prohibition has been there previously as #13 if I recall under the old chapter numbering. In the previous rules it was just hanging there as well as a few other related rules with broken references. Don't count on some Gen X FCC staff to understand any of this because the folks at FCC that know about the history are retired or worse.

I posed the question in the 2017 NPRM as to why it was there in light of the new provisions for networking and the FCC was indeed stymied by the question and kicked it down the road. Look at the NPRM and you will see exactly my question and footnotes. Then do your own research and find that way back in the early 1970's, Automatic Station Control (repeaters) did not exist.

There was then a requirement for a control operator on duty. Same thing in the Part 97 rules at the time. A repeater could exist, but a control operator had to shut it down, and dialing a number for that "sole purpose" was permitted. In Part 97, control could be done using 440 MHz. Ask your "Elmer" if he is still breathing. With Automatic Station Control permitted, a control operator is no longer a requirement. Has not been for a long time.

Do your research. The FCC is not going to do away with repeaters. What is more likely is that our little slice of prime real-estate 462/467 MHz , a mom and pop operation, will get swallowed up by industry wanting to now bring broadband services into 450-470 MHz. Don't think it could not happen.

These mom and pop repeaters and networks are the only thing demonstrating use of GMRS.

Maybe instead, all that fallow part 97 VHF, UHF and microwave will be swallowed up, because all the Elmers are dead and buried and the ARRL is a lame duck that can't afford to print a magazine and their largest advertiser is now retired. .

 

[12dbsinad]

Alrighty then... Odd then that in 2017 the FCC added permissive rules for network connectivity other than PSTN interconnect. Look them up. Why are they there if not to permit them?

If you look up that sole prohibition #8, and do the research, you will find it is a scriveners error that was not removed previously . The same prohibition has been there previously as #13 if I recall under the old chapter numbering. In the previous rules it was just hanging there as well as a few other related rules with broken references. Don't count on some Gen X FCC staff to understand any of this because the folks at FCC that know about the history are retired or worse.

I posed the question in the 2017 NPRM as to why it was there in light of the new provisions for networking and the FCC was indeed stymied by the question and kicked it down the road. Look at the NPRM and you will see exactly my question and footnotes. Then do your own research and find that way back in the early 1970's, Automatic Station Control (repeaters) did not exist.

There was then a requirement for a control operator on duty. Same thing in the Part 97 rules at the time. A repeater could exist, but a control operator had to shut it down, and dialing a number for that "sole purpose" was permitted. In Part 97, control could be done using 440 MHz. Ask your "Elmer" if he is still breathing. With Automatic Station Control permitted, a control operator is no longer a requirement. Has not been for a long time.

Do your research. The FCC is not going to do away with repeaters. What is more likely is that our little slice of prime real-estate 462/467 MHz , a mom and pop operation, will get swallowed up by industry wanting to now bring broadband services into 450-470 MHz. Don't think it could not happen.

These mom and pop repeaters and networks are the only thing demonstrating use of GMRS.

Maybe instead, all that fallow part 97 VHF, UHF and microwave will be swallowed up, because all the Elmers are dead and buried and the ARRL is a lame duck that can't afford to print a magazine and their largest advertiser is now retired. .

You're free to believe whatever you want. But the fact of the matter is the FCC already threatened the elimination of repeaters during the last ruling change. Not sure what rock you live under, and I say that with all due respect.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

You're free to believe whatever you want. But the fact of the matter is the FCC already threatened the elimination of repeaters during the last ruling change. Not sure what rock you live under, and I say that with all due respect.

The FCC threatened nothing. The proposal was license by rule, pushed by the manufacturers (MIDLAND), to sell more boxes, which had a ripple down effect on transmitter power levels, non removable antennas etc. If license by rule had occurred, GMRS would become FRS and it would be impracticable to have 50 watt power levels, repeaters etc. With all due respect, did YOU respond to the NPRM? Did YOU pay any attention in 2016-2017?

 

[12dbsinad]

The FCC threatened nothing. The proposal was license by rule, pushed by the manufacturers (MIDLAND), to sell more boxes, which had a ripple down effect on transmitter power levels, non removable antennas etc. If license by rule had occurred, GMRS would become FRS and it would be impracticable to have 50 watt power levels, repeaters etc. With all due respect, did YOU respond to the NPRM? Did YOU pay any attention in 2016-2017?

Yes I did. I've been following along 10 years prior to the rule changing. They wanted license by rule because GMRS is not a cash cow for them and also with the thanks of dual GMRS/FRS radios being marketed it is/was impossible to enforce licensing when you can buy the radios at Walmart.

Let's get real, they would rather have repeaters GONE. And, it seems to me you and I had a back and fourth about GMRS linking and the legality.... who was right on that one??

 

[prcguy]

Yes I did. I've been following along 10 years prior to the rule changing. They wanted license by rule because GMRS is not a cash cow for them and also with the thanks of dual GMRS/FRS radios being marketed it is/was impossible to enforce licensing when you can buy the radios at Walmart.

Let's get real, they would rather have repeaters GONE. And, it seems to me you and I had a back and fourth about GMRS linking and the legality.... who was right on that one??

Why would the FCC care about repeaters on GMRS unless it stands in the way of them auctioning off spectrum? My take on the FCC is they just want people to behave and obey the rules.

 

[12dbsinad]

Why would the FCC care about repeaters on GMRS unless it stands in the way of them auctioning off spectrum? My take on the FCC is they just want people to behave and obey the rules.

You sorta answered your own question. When people don't obey and follow the rules, what does that mean for the FCC?

Work.

Who is going to send endless complaints to the FCC if there are no repeaters and everything is license free? Just like they did to CB, they want it a free-for-all. Here, go take your spectrum and play. The FCC doesn't work for us, they work for the big boys $$

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

(snip)

Let's get real, they would rather have repeaters GONE. And, it seems to me you and I had a back and fourth about GMRS linking and the legality.... who was right on that one??

You tell me. I went back and forth with someone on a FB forum and then looked up his ham license and FRN and reminded him his GMRS license had expired and thus questioned why it even concerned him. Never heard from that guy ever again. Was that you?

 

[12dbsinad]

You tell me. I went back and forth with someone on a FB forum and then looked up his ham license and FRN and reminded him his GMRS license had expired and thus questioned why it even concerned him. Never heard from that guy ever again. Was that you?

Shucks, you caught me.

As long as he was right and not spreading false information I guess all is well what ends well.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

For those interested in the stuff the FCC is interested in the following tools allow you to look at the violations and warnings issued.

By the way, I found only one for GMRS, a stuck transmitter due to a malfunction. No other GMRS violations in my hour of search. The FCC has much more interest in pirate stations and other broadcast issues. Also now paying attention to robocall enforcement, which affects everyone.

Enforcement Actions

www.fcc.gov

 

[kneq396]

According to this popular YouTuber, the FCC is finally taking action to end the practice of linking GMRS repeaters. It should be noted that it is common practice for the FCC to not publicly release information when conducting enforcement actions. Even when a rogue BDA jammed my public safety trunking system, the FCC EB did not place anything in their public file nor put out any public notice. A warning letter was sent to the party involved and case closed as compliance gained.

So taking that into consideration, it appears as if the FCC is finally enforcing 95.333 and 95.1733.8 and the repeater owners complied with their cease and desist request.
Time for sad hams to return to part 97 where copious amounts of spectrum are available for coordinated repeaters and linking is allowed and encouraged!

Is a "sad ham" one who advocates for the FCC rules, or one who gleefully violates and mocks them?

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Is a "sad ham" one who advocates for the FCC rules, or one who gleefully violates and mocks them?

In my opinion "sad hams" are hams that have no GMRS license and yet want to interpret Part 95 for the rest of us.

 

[K3YGX]

As an amateur radio operator and a licensed GMRS band user, I really think 'hams' should leave GMRS alone and use it for what it is meant for.
Like amateur repeater owners, I think they all are on ego trips and want to be "the man"......GMRS clubs and the like are the sad ones who aren't
hams and want to act like they are.
Real "Hams" are NOT SAD!

 

[nokones]

Please provide the rule number in Title 47 that says this.

Are you too lazy to look it up yourself? Look it up. 10 codes are allowed by rule.

 

[AK9R]

10 codes are allowed by rule.

Yes, it's true that 47 CFR 95.1733(a)(3) allows, parenthetically, the use of "10 codes".

In post #61, an assertion was made that the rules say that "only 10 code accepted" and "why are all the hams going on GMRS and calling 73's and qsy and so on? Thats against the rules.". I asked the person who made that assertion to provide the FCC rule that says this.

He did not.

You didn't either.

 

[nokones]

Yes, it's true that 47 CFR 95.1733(a)(3) allows, parenthetically, the use of "10 codes".

In post #61, an assertion was made that the rules say that "only 10 code accepted" and "why are all the hams going on GMRS and calling 73's and qsy and so on? Thats against the rules.". I asked the person who made that assertion to provide the FCC rule that says this.

He did not.

You didn't either.

73's is a 10 code. It is short for 10-73 just like 88's for 10-88. I hope that I don't need to explain what those two 10-codes mean? If you don't know, look it up and interpret how you seem fit. "Some People" on this forum just don't how to interpret the various rules correctly.

It was what radio people did many decades ago when signing off from a conversation, 73s & 88s. As for the "QSY" that is HAM stuff and by rule, not allowed.

And yes, I didn't cite the aforementioned rule nor was I going to cite the rule to a post that appeared that somebody was too lazy to look it up for themselves which your post did appear that way, at least to me. I don't do lazy people's work. I knew exactly where that rule was written.

 

[KevinC]

73's is a 10 code. As for the "QSY" that is HAM stuff and I agree and by rule not allowed.

10-73?