Was there a recent FCC opinion prohibiting GMRS repeater linking via IP (Zello, etc.) ?

[Citywide173]

History must be looked at to consider this...

Former restrictive wording (2015):
"§ 95.141 Interconnection prohibited.
No station in a GMRS system may be
interconnected to the public switched
telephone network except as and in accordance
with the requirements and restrictions
applied to a wireline control
link (see § 95.127). [53 FR 47717, Nov. 25, 1988]"

From a post I made in 2015:
Part 95, Section 141 refers to Part 95 Section 127. Section 127 has been removed. Without Section 127 for reference, I could see where a person not completely familiar with Part 95 might think that linking is prohibited. Section 127 stated that any equipment used must be compliant with Part 68, which is a standard for equipment used on the PTSN. The standard is designed to protect anyone working on the PSTN. Part 95, with full investigation, COMPLETELY allows for linking, just that if you do it over pone lines, you have to use Part 68 compliant equipment. It does not even come close to addressing linking via another GMRS frequency or utilizing IP linking (which is NOT the PTSN.)

The rules have been updated since then, but I have to agree with @RFI-EMI-GUY that the word "but" does indicate a tendency to a less restrictive stance oon the matter. I think this wording has been put in place simply because of questions submitted to the FCC and the plethora of threads debating this very subject. File under "our own worst enemy."

 

[MTS2000des]

There is nothing wrong with asking the FCC for official clarification on their rules.
That is the great thing about modern living. Send an email to appropriate AHJ and seek clarification.
The bottom line is many GMRS users are their own worst enemies. Especially those who can't delineate between part 95 and part 97.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

There is nothing wrong with asking the FCC for official clarification on their rules.
That is the great thing about modern living. Send an email to appropriate AHJ and seek clarification.
The bottom line is many GMRS users are their own worst enemies. Especially those who can't delineate between part 95 and part 97.

It has been done already. The files are a bit out of order Read 1, 4, then 3 and 2 below.

Oh here it is from the OP: Response from the FCC on linking repeater audio over the internet and it's legality

 

[mmckenna]

Thank you for posting that.

But I'd raise the BS flag based off this:
"It is my understanding that if your internet provider is the cable company, it’s fine; but if you have DSL or dial-up internet from the phone company, it isn’t."

It shouldn't matter if the internet provider is the phone company or the cable company, or Bob's plumbing and ISP (after all, it's all just tubes…).
They seem to suggest that using the phone company isn't OK because they are the PSTN. Yet I get my PSTN service from the cable company, which is apparently OK based on this FCC guys opinion.

The line between the PSTN and an internet service provider is a very broad, fuzzy line that's made up of a million shades of grey.

I think the FCC has forgotten why this rule exists and some random FCC dude answering e-mail has also.

So, autopatch to the PSTN is bad. OK, we get that. They don't want someone sucking up the limited GMRS pairs using it as their private long range cordless phone.
But linking of hundreds of repeaters tying up limited GMRS pairs is.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Thank you for posting that.

But I'd raise the BS flag based off this:
"It is my understanding that if your internet provider is the cable company, it’s fine; but if you have DSL or dial-up internet from the phone company, it isn’t."

It shouldn't matter if the internet provider is the phone company or the cable company, or Bob's plumbing and ISP (after all, it's all just tubes…).
They seem to suggest that using the phone company isn't OK because they are the PSTN. Yet I get my PSTN service from the cable company, which is apparently OK based on this FCC guys opinion.

The line between the PSTN and an internet service provider is a very broad, fuzzy line that's made up of a million shades of grey.

I think the FCC has forgotten why this rule exists and some random FCC dude answering e-mail has also.

So, autopatch to the PSTN is bad. OK, we get that. They don't want someone sucking up the limited GMRS pairs using it as their private long range cordless phone.
But linking of hundreds of repeaters tying up limited GMRS pairs is.

The distinction used to be pretty clear. Everything was connected by one of the Bell operating companies via copper. Then along came modems and the internet was dial up to an ISP. Then the ISP cut a deal for DSL and we accessed a DSL via the ISP over Ma Bell's copper. Then Cable Internet, etc. Even in the 7 years since that letter was generated the technology has changed again.

But that is far from the point.

What they really don't want is GMRS operators accessing the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) via DTMF. None of this really had anything to do with usurping GMRS pairs for autopatch. It was a protective rule to keep farmers in Texas from making free long distance calls via radio across the LATA'a.

 

[mmckenna]

What they really don't want is GMRS operators accessing the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) via DTMF. None of this really had anything to do with usurping GMRS pairs for autopatch. It was a protective rule to keep farmers in Texas from making free long distance calls via radio across the LATA'a.

Good point. I've had to have that discussion in the past at work. Crossing LATA's with our own networks was an option, and I had to explain to our network guys why I couldn't run my phone traffic that way. Seems like no one cares anymore, though, especially considering the cost of bulk long distance service.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Good point. I've had to have that discussion in the past at work. Crossing LATA's with our own networks was an option, and I had to explain to our network guys why I couldn't run my phone traffic that way. Seems like no one cares anymore, though, especially considering the cost of bulk long distance service.

I recall way back in the late 70's reading an article in a trade magazine; "Communications"?? about GMRS operations in Texas and the phone patch. I would have to try and find an archive for that. There are Metro areas in Texas that have LATA boundaries splitting them.

 

[tomk62]

"Back in the day" there was an explicit/substantive difference between radio and telephone communications. The FCC did not want radio interconnections to the telephone network as they are both regulated very differently. As @RFI-EMI-GUY said 'they really don't want is GMRS operators accessing the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) via DTMF. "

The rules really haven't kept up to the times and changing technology. It's no surprise that some of the dinosaurs still distinguish between who is the ISP and the method provided. Cable? ok. Legacy bell operating co? bad. Makes no sense in today's world.

It's really that simple.