Such an ass. Your intro to this video caused me to loose all respect for you. Guess the rest of this one will fall into all of your remaining videos I will never watch. Thanks for revealing your true self.
As a member of US’s largest gmrs repeater network, this was a topic of discussion along with lots of misinformation. I’m always surprised at the hate generated toward notarubicon as if “thou shalt not *sarcast*” was the 11th commandment. You live rent free in so many heads. 🤦🏽♂️ 🤣🤣 Submitted edit for sad Grammar Nazi: “As a member of the largest GMRS repeater network in the US, it was a topic of discussion along with a lot of misinformation. I am always surprised at the hate generated toward Notarubicon as if 'thou shalt not *sarcast*' was the 11th commandment. You live rent-free in so many heads."
Here are your grammar errors in the given text along with explanations and corrections: 1. **Possessive Form of "US"**: - **Error**: "US’s largest gmrs repeater network" - **Correction**: "the largest GMRS repeater network in the US" - **Explanation**: "US" should not have an apostrophe for possessive form. Instead, rephrase to indicate possession. 2. **Article Usage**: - **Error**: "this was a topic of discussion along with lots of misinformation." - **Correction**: "it was a topic of discussion along with a lot of misinformation." - **Explanation**: Since "this" refers to the entire preceding clause, "it" is more appropriate. Also, "a lot of" is more commonly used than "lots of" in formal writing. 3. **Capitalization**: - **Error**: "gmrs" - **Correction**: "GMRS" - **Explanation**: "GMRS" (General Mobile Radio Service) should be in uppercase as it is an acronym. 4. **Consistent Verb Tense**: - **Error**: "I’m always surprised at the hate generated toward notarubicon" - **Correction**: "I am always surprised at the hate generated toward Notarubicon" - **Explanation**: Use "I am" instead of the contraction "I’m" for consistency in tone. Also, proper nouns, such as "Notarubicon," should be capitalized. 5. **Quotation Marks**: - **Error**: "thou shalt not *sarcast*" - **Correction**: "thou shalt not *sarcast*" - **Explanation**: The use of asterisks for emphasis is informal. However, the context suggests this is an attempt at sarcasm or informal speech, so it's acceptable. Alternatively, use quotation marks if formal writing is desired: "thou shalt not 'sarcast'". 6. **Conjunction and Punctuation**: - **Error**: "You live rent free in so many heads." - **Correction**: "You live rent-free in so many heads." - **Explanation**: "Rent-free" should be hyphenated as it is a compound adjective. Revised version with corrections: "As a member of the largest GMRS repeater network in the US, it was a topic of discussion along with a lot of misinformation. I am always surprised at the hate generated toward Notarubicon as if 'thou shalt not *sarcast*' was the 11th commandment. You live rent-free in so many heads."
Ha! Impressive! As the son of an English teacher, I mean that sincerely! Note re: your revised version with corrections… consider placing a comma after “Rubicon”.
"Sad Grammar Nazi" got it all right. Trying to read (and understand), garbled comments wastes a lot of time. Getting it right the first time, shows respect to comment readers.
@@chesty1369 Yes they know. My home repeater is on 675 40 miles south of the NYC machine. It can be heard DFQ all the way out in King Of Prussia, PA… there is no way they are running 50 watts. And the constant cursing , music and rebroadcasting of a local commercial radio station. This one repeater is killing the use of the frequency for well over 80+ miles around… for so many others who share the frequency.. I’ve personally had a few discussions with the FCC on it..I’m on the freq since the mid 90’s.. that’s one machine that needs to disappear
As a member of this club, I would like to thank Carl for coming on your channel to help explain things. The reason I joined the group and not just to use the Alliance network for free was to help maintain the system with my dues. To was great being able to communicate across the state. I'm fairly new to GMRS. Was our system one of many out there that linked their repeaters the same way? Thanks Randy🤝🤝🇺🇸
The New York net appeared to be linked differently than others. GMRS repeaters are allowed to be “Remote controlled”. Soooo yes they can be connected to a network. See 95.1749 It may be that your club’s network host was sending an audio encoded gmrs rf spectrum over the internet to another repeater. I think that particular usage is what they don’t like. Tv stations and RU-vid and radio stations all do the same thing using different licenses (and authorized equipment), non rf technology (RU-vid original broadcast), and commercial licensing for rf broadcast (ie your large radio station license).
@WSCD.-.-.- I still haven't heard from the club how ours was linked, but this now makes me wonder how anyone from a three letter organization would know either.
@@tomwilliams8675 someone who knew could have described the design. Of course, depending on the lay of the land and knowing the locations of towers, they could have recognized something like “well the only way they are getting from point A to point B is digital network.” EXTREMELY unlikely that they do, but if they need to go to the towers and look at the antennas, they can make some assumptions and then contact the tower licensee and verify. A “mad bro” civilian could have done that also and reported an assumed configuration, motivation aside. Why people get so worked up over people minding their own business, I will never understand.
i wonder if the fcc will follow atf's example and start conducting midnight, no knock, armed raids on folks they feel are violating their secret regulations.
Although I don't like the network being shut down I do (sort of) understand why GMRS repeater networks might be something the FCC would want to avoid. With a limited number of channels (and repeaters "overlapping" with the standard simplex channels) a large coverage network sort of closes off those channels for larger areas compared to a single repeater. A large radio club that wants to run a network with significant coverage is better suited to amateur radio, where this sort of thing is not only allowed but also quite common. But that does limit it to people willing to take the tests and get new radios. Kind of a sucky situation all around. Honestly, I really wish the FCC would make a few small changes that would make things a whole lot nicer for all of us. 1. Allow linked GMRS repeaters with some caveats. Given the limitations of the channels there definitely would need to be some sort of management, and I really have no idea how this might be done, but it would at least give groups like this an option. 2. For GMRS, eliminate the need for a callsign or registration when using simplex on an HT. It's basically FRS with *slightly* more power. A callsign should only be needed to use repeaters and to use more than 5W in my opinion. 3. Allow HAM radios to transmit on GMRS frequencies "legally" using a GMRS callsign as long as all GMRS limitations and rules are obeyed. I should be able to have one radio that does both and not rely on MARS mods, which "technically" are only usable in an emergency. If I go out for a hike with my family and we all have GMRS radios, I should be able to carry my HAM radio and use it for our GMRS communication and not need to carry two separate radios. (Of course, I might anyway for backup, but my point is that I shouldn't *need* to. 😁)
Amateur radio license doesn't grant you auto access to cb or to lmr or any other service. So not sure why you should be able to access gmrs. I two hate carrying multiple radios. So currently running a harris xg100p so I can access, 2m, 70cm, 7/800 (as a scanner), as well as several lmr encrypted repeaters and gmrs if necessary. It is not type certified but just not completely frowned upon.
Drudge turned on the people that made him. That is why his site went from being one of the most visited, to nobody visiting. He was the first to come out and say Harris should b the nominee, and is clearly supporting her. As soon as thee debate was over, Drudge literally said the party belongs to Harris, and Biden should dropout and let her be the nominee. In 2020, he clearly supported Biden, and made fun of Trump when Biden won. Drudge is a goof.
Something about this still does not smell right... An unofficial heads-up between acquaintances, but also a rather official sounding "give me all the call signs involved"... It sounds at the very least as if someone at the FCC might be coloring outside the lines a bit. I'm prob wrong, but just sayin'.
Nothing fishy at all going on. The FCC made it clear back in January that linking GMRS repeaters via the internet to relay voice communication is illegal. You can legally link your repeater to the internet for remote control, but not for relaying GMRS comms via the internet to other repeaters. The repeater custodian must have been aware of this and didn't want to be responsible for others breaking the rules on his machine. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only sharing what I know about this.
@@richb.4374 We've all heard the same story. It still smells like the contact at the FCC is deviating from established procedure by handling this "buddy-buddy" and via email. As far back as I can remember, I've never heard of anything like it. It is distinctly "out of character" for the FCC.
Gotta say that I AM impressed, Randy Sir. You looked like a real grown up newsreader conducting the interview...and using only a partially working Commodore 128 computer with two serial 1571 floppy drives you put the whole thing together. NEAT!!!
I recently purchased 2 5W Baofeng GMRS handhelds. Planning to use them on a road trip to talk between cars to 5yo grandson. We'll be playing "Yellow Car" which is the new improved version of "Punchbug", since there are now so few beetles on the road. We'll be on channel 19 and maybe we'll catch some communication from a trucker or 2. I don't have a phd yet so will probably never figure out how to link to a gmrs repeater network. Not sure I want to anyhow. And yes I have a GMRS FCC issued license. This is a great RU-vid Channel, keep up the great work!
I would think twice about that. Under current part 95 subpart E regulations you must be at least 18 years of age or older to use GMRS equipment. Try a couple of cb radios and use FM. Should work out well for you.
Highly irregular to do this sort of unofficial enforcement action. The agency HAS a whole enforcement department for this, with protocols to follow. This casual email chatter smells worse than an unclean fish tank. Sounds like their custodian was in a highly leveraged position and either wanted out, and here was a convenient way to eject, or they have their other irons to protect. I'm sure some simple sleuthing can find who this mystery person is and what they do for a living that has them so worried. But it's really irrelevant. The club was in a weak position being guests on his system, and now they aren't guests any more. Wish them luck. I am sure the situation is not where anyone wanted to be.
Nobody knows what will happen next but it appears they might be the start of turning off the linked networks. We still don't know how this system that was told to shut down was actually operating. This was never addressed in this interview. I'm glad Randy is staying on top of this however.
I spent a decade in supervisory role in Federal government and you are spot on. There is a process with mgmt oversight so that some GS-5 clerk doesn’t go off playing Napoleon for a day because they just divorce papers.
I love the linked networks but repeaters are not the only victims of interference from a linked system where distant stations cannot monitor local outputs for traffic. Simplex operators on those eight 50W simplex/repeater channels can also impacted. It goes back to the very few amount of actual GMRS channels available.
The government doesn't like communications of citizens, that could undermine their iron fist of control on free speech and conveyance of information outside what they can control.
BINGO. That is why I will be canceling my callsign this week and asking the FCC to remove me from said list and get rid of information I gave fourth. I am getting a bad taste about all this. I will stick with CB /with Lower and upper SB. I do intend on keeping all my GMRS equipment though for use when sHtf.
The coup already happened. We just have too many people in this country who are too afraid to look beyond the boundary of their little comfort bubbles to see it and acknowledge it.
It appears "Uncle Charlie" is starting to take notice. GMRS licensees are exploding right now so I guess they figure they better nip this in the bud now. As a group that has a local repeater my opinion is the linked systems should be examined. I can hear the same conversation on three different repeaters within my receive range on 3 different frequencies. They should either expand the frequencies that GMRS can use for repeaters and reveal what is and is not allowed on GMRS in terms of repeaters. Randy as always your show is worth the watch. Keep up the good work.
I didn't work for the FCC, but I was a State government investigator for many years. Sending a "heads-up" to anyone suggesting that they do or not do anything probably would have resulted in disciplinary action or worse. My agency even frowned on me answering questions from the public beyond providing copies of the laws or agency pamphlets because doing so could be used against us where enforcement action was taken. Hypothetically if I did want to quietly caution someone, I sure as heck wouldn't have sent email from the State computer system. Maybe the FCC person is a loose cannon, but I doubt it and something seems off to me. When I did send a nasty gram, I cited the exact laws and rules in question. I didn't write something as vague as Chapter 452 (or Part 95 in this instance). A good start on this situation would be to examine what laws/rules in part 95 may have been violated. Could unlicensed operators access the repeaters via the Internet back hauls and transmit on GMRS frequencies or something along those lines? That would probably get the FCC excited. Does GMRS not allow Internet back hauls? I don't know. I'm not a GMRS licensee or an expert on GMRS/Part 95, but that would be my starting point. Thanks for doing the interview, but I concur with your closing statement that there are more questions than answers.
It really makes me wonder about the big national hubs that link up like this, like the Southwest Community Radio System (SWCRS) Could this be precursor to shutting them all down? Very interesting indeed.
I'm glad this was aired out, I hope the FCC's Public Information Team releases something about this explaining the FCC's official stance on the topic. If the PIO doesn't respond in a reasonable timeline with answers, I will file a FOIA request as I personally believe the request for call signs to still be out of line for a Government Official to do (not illegal just unethical). I work as a tech repair guy I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar so if I said something stupid you know what to do.
It's already in the rules. You cannot directly interconnect a GMRS station with the telephone network OR ANY OTHER NETWORK for the purpose of carrying GMRS communications".
Chevron deference is NO MORE. The rule making power of the FCC and other agencies is over. The NY GMRSers need to file a lawsuit and reference the Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the long-standing precedent that courts provide deference to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes.
Isn't it wonderful to live in a country where an unconstitutional agency writes laws rather than congress? Not to mention that the system denies you trial by jury as guaranteed by the constitution.
Maybe the recent smack down of the ATF on the bump stocks could be a basis for bringing a case against the FCC; The bump stock case was won specifically because the ATF changed the definition of a rule without Congressional approval.
I mean, the FCC was created by Congress and empowered with regulation and enforcement authority. That kind of negates the "unconstitutional" business. But more to the point - the rules aren't new, and there's plenty of legal options available for those wishing to do what was done here. This whole thing is so "I broke rules I knew about,but I'm still the victim".
An unconstitutional agency? Congress (you know, those guys in DC who make the laws?) passed the Communications Act of 1934 creating the Federal Communications Commission and charged them with overseeing and regulating telephone, telegraph and radio communications. Which part of that do you not understand?
There's a good chance he's in broadcast or commercial communications and his income depends on a good working relationship with Uncle Charlie(The FCC).
Friendly heads up and demand for user information don't mesh. Not saying Carl Bourke was wrong, but whoever at the FCC sent that email should probably stick to following their own processes.
This could be a violation of equal protection and due process. The issue is an agent potentially protecting a friend from enforcement actions that potentially other systems will be receiving is not Equal Protection. Requesting call signs may not be technically illegal or violate anyones rights but may be considered misfeasance by the agent. There is a lot to unpack here and the FCC needs to make an official statement.
interesting stuff, I only keep radios for emergency shituations...and well at work but we have encrypted channels there. here's a comment for interaction points
Thanks for doing this interview. Your interview questions were good. So many aspects remain suspect - the "working relationship" between the custodian and the FCC employee, unofficial notification that there was a potential rule violation, request for call signs. Why would someone with a substantial GMRS network just shut it down? Is there something illegal about connected repeaters?
Connecting repeaters the way these were connected, according to the FCC, violates FCC rules, as mentioned in this video and the previous referenced video.
@@TheNotaRubicon I'm not understanding what about the connection made the FCCs get mad at this repeater network, compared to other GMRS repeater networks. If you do a followup video on this and could find time to explain the illegality of the connection, I'd be grateful. Be sure to use short words and speak slowly for me ;-)
@@REXOB9 The FCC rules do not allow connecting GMRS repeaters to the internet. But the rule was written 50 years ago before the Internet even existed so the words are very confusing and normal people who speak normal english are not aware its illegal.
Everyone has almost woken up , but there’s still a 45 million that are still sleeping. Time will start to wake the rest up after something bad happens to our Great Country,and then and only then will we all come together as Americans!! “WE THE PEOPLE “👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸Trump 2024👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Would like to add to a comment that was mentioned earlier about linking G.M.R.S. at a Luncheon meeting on January 25, 2024 in Harrisburg Pa. This is the video, picks right up at the question! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-86FLGl_e5nw.html Al Furlow is a FCC Field Engineer, there is NO gray area here folks.
I used to live out there... the NY area is flooded with SAD HAMS so I am willing to bet that is the origin of the action. ( not HAMS, but SAD and ANGRY HAMS )
Very interesting... about a year ago I programmed a radio for a guy on Long Island. He paid to join a GMRS group and have access to their linked system. I'm glad the repeater owner and the FCC have a good working relationship. Hopefully they'll be able to find some resolution.
Was this an RF simulcast (all repeaters on the same channel) or an AUDIO simulcast where the RF signal appears on multiple channels (per repeater). Were the linkages between sites via public or private network?
Where I live, we have a large GMRS network, and as of 6-17-2024, the FCC updated the part 95.1749 GMRS network connection and included "Or other networks" to this rule. Is it possible that his friend with the FCC was aware of this change and gave them a heads up? Guess we will have to wait and see. :(
Wrong. Nothing has changed. I have in front of me the rulemaking from 2017 in the Federal Register. I suggest you read and pay special attention to the word "however", as however is important to note. It reads: § 95.1749 GMRS network connection. 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.
Wonder how legal it is to give a heads up email to an associate,and if so why would they make it in writing and not just inform over a lunch date. Is there not a rule against information given on active investigation or does that not apply to minor stuff
@@rhyoliteaquacade correct.under95.1749 For the sole purpose of remote control. Not for linking repeaters together… linking repeaters together is considered a network hence not legal. I was at the fcc meeting in harrisbur*,PA And audio linking is the violation Period. All he had to do was disconnect the link and leave it as a stand alone repeater
@@cozy659 I was not at the Harrisburg meeting but viewed the video and nowhere did I hear FCC rendering any opinion on that matter. Provide a link. What I did hear was an FCC spokeswoman saying that staff opinions were not binding to rules.
@@rhyoliteaquacade To answer your question it begins with my friend asking the question on linking GMRS repeaters. And Al answers the question reading directly from the fcc rules. Starts at 1:12:40. You can use networks for remote controlO NLY. You cannot link to communicate.nthsts considered networking. I’m the guy front row infront of Al . II start at 1:18:30. My wife and are are both disabled with 2 small GMRS repeaters linked less than 13 miles apart using nanostations not even o the internet. Again he calls it networking under the rules it’s not legal period.i also brought up the NYC system that slams mine. Hence the reason for the two linked repeaters.. the discussion was also about the letter that went out a few years ago saying that linking was allowed. That letter was just an opinion of an fcc staffer it was NOT the rule… hence 95.1749 states or any other network” therefore linking of GMRS repeaters Is not legal. Unless the fcc changed that wording. Hope that explains it. Cannot be any more clearer.. good luck and no letter had to be sent to me to tell me stop linking. That in person luncheon was my warning.i happen to be a broadcast engineer. So yes I have a friendly connection on a first name basis with each of those fcc representives that were there due to my job. Here is the video of that fcc luncheon ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-86FLGl_e5nw.htmlsi=dfb71aLQt8MAkXfH
Yes, Sir... Thank you for the clarification. The FCC needs to report to HR on this one. Don't they realize their salaries are paid by us? Can we give the FCC a heads-up email ? or should I just send one to the governor?
HUGE debate locally up here, located on the top of NY State in St. Lawrence County, as to what are the legalities of using ROIP on GMRS. Locally everyone seems to be confused about it. FCC rules are vage in this area so it has them confused. Any Chance on a video about the legal right of GMRS and ROIP? ANY help would be greatly appreciated. ~WRWQ488 Tony
§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection is 99% clear that GMRS isn't allowed to link. The term "telephone connection" has, case after case been translated to ANY network, (not just the phone network), but also to IP/TCP networks since the 90s. The remaining 1% gray area is that they allow for: "may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745". But it's obvious that they literally mean remote control as in start/stop/adjustment/reboot, not linked communications. GMRS linked sysops have to be aware that they are working within nearly black and white language and just be hoping to ask for forgiveness and not permission. I'm not saying it's right or wrong - Should it be changed? Sure - But it's there in 99% black and 1% white. There's no real gray area here.
You are conflating network connection and telephone interconnection. They are not the same. The 2017 rules specifically carved out a provision allowing for network connection while continuing to prohibit telephone interconnection.
@@dalleth Many are as confused as the staff level FCC employees as to the new rules which do permit network interconnection (as opposed to PSTN) and the paragraph § 95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses. (a) (8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station; Lets start with what is permitted, note the key word, "however": § 95.1749 GMRS network connection. 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. § 95.1745 GMRS remote control. Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control. Here is the general prohibition, note the keywords "unless otherwise allowed". § 95.345 Remote control. Operation of Personal Radio Services stations by remote control is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.945 and 95.1745. Then there is that pesky scriveners error at the aforementioned paragraph § 95.1733 "Prohibited GMRS uses. (a)(8) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station; " It is a scriveners error that dates back decades of revisions of the GMRS rules. I raised this question during the 2017 NPRN process and the FCC kicked it down the road. If you read the NPRM you will find my question and the FCC response, indicating they had no answer or time to resolve it. My take below: For history, there was a time when automated control (automated Repeater controller) was a new concept to FCC, (a similar concern in Part 97 also existed). The FCC required a "control operator" a human, to intervene and shut down the repeater if it malfunctioned or was misused. It was allowable in GMRS to use the PSTN for purposes of dialing the repeater and sending a signal to shut it down. But voice telephonic messages PSTN Interconnect, were not permitted. If you go back through the evolution of the rules you can piece this together. The 2017 rules magnify the problem by seemingly in conflict with this old rule, now permitting network interconnection. Detractors of GMRS interconnect. mostly "sad hams", try to leverage this erroneous prohibition to make a case against GMRS networking.
It is specific to public switched network. There is NO mention of Internet. That which isn't specifically denied, is allowed. And no, ADSL is also not public switched network. It uses the same copper but it is not going through a phone switch.
I'm wondering though, given the plethora of repeaters nationwide, did this repeater have some other violation that was facing investigation for enforcement on, such as oh, a connection available unlawfully to the PSTN?
There is probably some communications company there in NY that has a DMR network and they are worried people will start using this GMRS network instead of subscribing to their DMR services. It is very appealing to folks who need 2 way radios to have state wide UHF coverage for FREE. They probably complained to the FCC about this network. Issues like this are often about who is getting paid or not getting paid.
Not so! Internet linking would be among the first things to go in a SHTF scenario. All this does is free up those limited 8 pairs and 50W simplex channels for local area use, GMRS' intended purpose. Hearing ratchet jaws blathering about nothing on the other side of the state or the nation is not conducive to local area comms.
I'm curious how this (New York) network is different than the one that goes across the entire country from coast to coast? Is that one going away next?
@@grigorirasputin5020 I'm curious why you say that? I mean... why do you care? What is it you don't like about it? As for me, it's not for me, not something I'm interested in, which is why I don't use it. But at the same time, many do use it and enjoy it, and it doesn't effect me. I simply choose not to partake in it.
@slopsec2358 Hi! As I have said many times, on GMRS we only have eight channels on which two vital tasks may be performed; repeater operation and 50W simplex operation. You could conceivably have three or more repeaters and/or 50W simplex (base/mobile) systems operating in one town, on one channel, and not have them interfere with one another so long as the operators of each system demonstrated common courtesy and consideration for each other. If one of those repeater owners decides to add a link to a regional, state, or national, network, the whole landscape of that channel is suddenly changed. Now, you will likely have chatter from other parts of the state, region, or nation, coming across the linked repeater (or in the case of simplex and too poor or lazy to do a repeater, "node"), on a very regular basis throughout the day. Unlike the relatively infrequent use of the channel by local repeaters or 50W simplex operations, the linked operations coming in from elsewhere will be unable to listen for other traffic in your town before transmitting. People dozens, hundreds, or thousands, of miles distant will likely as not be communicating on one or more (if more, via the link) repeaters and inevitably, you will have the equivalent of CB "ratchet jaws" on there flapping their gums for lengthy periods, unnecessarily tying up the frequency in your town and rendering said frequency useless for any activity other than listening to the ratchet jaws talk. Most likely, listening to those ratchet jaws talk about nothing pertinent or important to anyone in your town is not what the repeater and/or simplex operators in your town invested money in radios for. This is a common situation in areas where you have repeater (or simplex "node") operators who somehow think they are doing this great service to GMRS in their area by sharing the "ABC Linked System" or the "XYZ Network" with the locals in their area. This is not what GMRS is for. It is for local (local can be 5, 50, 100 or more miles depending on terrain and station setup) comms between family, friends, and others. It was not created so people who are too lazy to get a ham license can pretend to be hams and talk across the nation on a system (VOIP) that is no different than what you do whenever making a call on your cell phone. The linking is annoying and poor stewardship of frequency spectrum on ham also, but at least on ham, there is enough spectrum to handle the traffic. On GMRS, with only eight 50W simplex/repeater channels, there is not.
@@grigorirasputin5020 Wow... That was a mouthful. I agree with you. If you want to talk across the country, or across the globe. Get your ham licenses. GMRS is not intended for this. I personally am not fan of this linked GMRS system. I have a ham license for that, which I rarely use in that manner. The last time I felt the desire to 'ratchet jaw' with strangers was a very short fad I went through back in the early 70s on CB radios.
Very strange fcc asking for names...why? Makes me wonder about Fast and Furious, under a certain person, who wanted to blame certain people, of gun running down in mexico.
And the irony is that the 3 letter agencies are made up of a bunch of hypocritical law breakers, but as we all know, it's never a good reason to ever have them asking for names of any kind from you.
What’s the next step? Hopefully it will be put the old 575 repeater back up on the tower in ATTICA,NY and use the yearly club dues to pay for tower space rental.
When you shroud something in secrecy refusing to say who owns and runs the repeater network who sent the email this is suspicious. Also fcc doesn’t make orders by email. Why was there not an actual enforcement mail
Is the system in question linked via a voting receiver?... With one single output (the same transmitter) , just multiple ears? (via different antennas, or directional antennas)
planned escape routes for when feds come knocking. You saw what they did to that guy in Georgia, can you imagine what they'd do in NY. Oh my, going to need more flash bangs, emp devices and wire snips. FCC agents on a tear, need some headlines for that new budget proposal. Lets Go.
Randy just an update on the 3 repeaters being affected by this issue. The covert 725 Repeater was shut down as I stated in a previous comment I posted. Sense then we are searching for a new sight to set up the covert 725 Repeater. The alliance Repeater is doing the same and have actually placed 2 one in Lockport and one on Syracuse. The covert 725 crew has created a zello channel (aftermath725) and we are staying in with each other and have ran a net on our normal day and time 7pm on Tues. Zello is not the answer for what we want but is getting the itch scratched till we find a suitable Repeater sight. Wish the alliance success and please pray to baby zanadu we locate a sight
Fcc part 95 generally refers to harmful transmissions such as fake distress calls, inappropriate language and such. Unfortunately many "family Radio Service" radios also cover GMRS frequencies at higher power, and as it often is the case, unlicensed entities who have little understanding of the license requirements often will choose the GMRS frequencies because of the higher power and range. I blame manufacturers for this for misleading the public on transmission powers in confusing ways. I am a HAM operator KB8YRI and remember a cell company at one time imported cell phones with "walkie talkie" capabilities on the 2 meter band. They were trying to sell them under a Nextel type radio cell system. Fortunately the imports were stopped and the few cells sold were recalled. I hope the owner/manager of the linked repeater system for GMRS is able to resolve any issues, as like HAM radio, GMRS is very useful during disaster and large events. Best wishes for your club!
Now look Gdit! I'm only a 1:08 in and I've already almost choked on my coffee and swallowed a lit cigarette! If this keeps up I won't make to the end of the show! Too funny. So glad I stumbled in! ..."Advanced Institute of Sardonic Studies" 🤣
Interesting that he brought up rebroadcasting police frequencies. If someone did that on the repeater network, that's probably enough to get it brought down. If the custodian had a deal with their club, they may have had deals with other clubs. Someone was fucking around on there. lol
Well, Someone on my Zello Channel made that claim the day after it shut down. The user was from New York. It was also posted on Facebook. I have no proof this is true and I regret posting about it with no evidence to back up that claim. . I just wanted everyone to know what I was being told. I did heard it from 3 different users that day but that still isn't proof that this was going on. I wish I never posted it online however.
Some goofball with no creds or evidence said that in a YT reply, but that doesn't mean it happened. People imagine sh all the time that never happened.
How could you possibly be responsible for your user's actions? You cannot control what is transmitted on frequencies that are allowed to be used by other licensed users. If this were the case, we would have no repeaters in Los Angeles because all I hear is jamming and music on the ones nobody uses.
I’m wondering if this is connected to the fact that this is a simulcast system and not a traditional RF inked repeater. If so it is likely lined with a service outside of part 95e which would be a problem. Many of us who interact with the FCC regularly will receive an email or phone call if there is a an issue as all they are interested in is resolving the issue. If the initial contact fixes it then everyone is saved the headache of getting the enforcement department involved. On a side note, many of us who pay our bills with this stuff have long thought that linking GMRS via the internet and allowing access to the system via ZELLO is a violation of 95.1749 prohibiting interconnect with a telephone. Personally I could care less, but this is the same rule that prohibited phone patches on GMRS. That said, other groups may be contacted soon if this issue has made it to the commission’s radar… All that said WTF is pres potato head doing in the picture behind you? I’m pretty sure public isn’t the place for that sort of stuff…
This is a good example of why the Chevron decision is important. Some roque agent deciding he knows best shuts someone down on a wild hair. Anyone who has ever worked in the field knows the difference between pstn and internet. Even if a phone company internet service is used it is not pstn. The rule was put in place to stop radio operators from making telephone calls from radios bypassing Ma Bells monopoly. This is a legacy rule dating back before most of you were born. They need to just drop it and butt out.
One thing that wasn't addressed that I would like to know is how was the linking done? I mean was it over a mofied version of Allstar over the Internet? Was it connected over the phone?
It was probably political discussions that the 'custodian' of the network didn't like and so had his friend at the FCC draft the email so he could hide behind that as a reason for taking down the network.
Five bucks says you're right. This has all the stink of a falling out and a ball being taken home. Honestly, the club should never have been in a position of relying upon someone like that for courtesy access. They should have had dues and paid for their own equipment and sites and yeah, it's probably not cheap. On the other hand, this other person was also paying for it somehow. There is always a bill to be paid.
I just watched this video and from what I have digested it seems like there may have been some discussions on that system that the FCC had monitored and were actually against FCC rules and regulations.
If anyone bothered to read the rules, it specifically forbids the interconnection of GMRS repeaters. It's that simple, there are no conspiracies' or government suppression of your rights!
