[App_rpt-users] GMRS linked Repeater network using HAMVoIP
rhyolite at leikhim.com
Mon Feb 18 18:15:54 EST 2019
95.1749 is clearly a green light on network connection.
95.1745 appears to be a green light as well. However some folks will
twist "may be operated" to be limited to turning the TX on and Off.
Funny, I have a ham radio "Operators" license and it allows me to use
voice mode. My DMV Operators license allows me to drive a car, I am not
limited to turning the engine on and off.
Some folks will point to this (below) and say that you can only use the
internet to turn on and off the repeater.
95.1733 Prohibited GMRS uses: (8) Messages which are both conveyed by a
wireline control link and transmitted
by a GMRS
station;.. This is a remnant of a very old rule dating back to an era
where a "Control Operator" was a requirement for a repeater. Just as in
Part 97, a positive method of turning off the "station" was required.
Automatic control rendered that requirement obsolete. This remnant is a
I questioned this during the comment period of the recent NPRM and the
FCC chose to shelve it because they had no time to research it.
Unfortunately the FCC has been losing a lot of institutional knowledge
as to why a rule existed in the first place which is why this remnant
exists in the first place. I can cite a similar example from the
archives. I am doing some research in my spare time to find where this
rule branched from and why.
Bottom line; there has NEVER been any NAL or warning issued to any GMRS
licensee for linking a GMRS repeater. Linking has been going on in some
form or fashion for decades. In the 80's the GMRS systems in Chicago had
satellite receivers. They were linked by some method. Search for
yourself. None, nada.
The rate of FCC Enforcement Bureau activities against GMRS licensees has
been minuscule compared to Part 97 and Part 90. Either GMRS licensees
are very obedient or the FCC does not have GMRS on a priority.
As far as a DSL _miscreant_ on an otherwise compliant GMRS network. If
you have 10 or 30 repeaters linked and one of those repeater operators
happens to be using DSL, the others are under no obligation to police
each other. Do you police every GMRS licensee who uses your repeater as
to the Type Certification of their equipment? You might remind them, but
you don't have to police that activity.
In my opinion 95.1745 and 95.1749 clearly indicate the FCC's intent to
permit internet linking. Why else would they have gone to the effort to
carve out those exceptions?
As far as the HamVoip thing I am very curious as to this whole thing. Is
there a possibly a disinterested 3rd party who can explain this all in a
separate thread? I am intrigued in how an individual choosing one over
the other has personally "pirated" anything. It would seem that that
legal argument rests between those distributing the free software not
the end user.
"Why can't we all get along". - Rodney King
On 2/18/2019 9:42 AM, John Heron wrote:
> Has anything been settled with HamVoIP as an attempt to run off with
> Jim’s work? As of this date I do not believe it has been.
> In a shared repeater/simplex channel environment, it is always good to
> be able to monitor the input before keying up a repeater. In a linked
> system that’s not possible unless you do the BCLO in each repeater.
> Never saw that work out too well mixed mode.
> So if you have an organized group or club engaged in linking GMRS
> repeaters together and one of them is in violation related to telco,
> does that mean the collective network is 9/10 legal?
> John WA4FAP
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:35 PM, Brad Trogdon <Brad at trogdon.org
> <mailto:Brad at trogdon.org>> wrote:
>> Reviewing this thread I need to ask for clarification as it appears
>> some comments are ill informed or are seeding to "stir a pot".
>> *John Heron*: "/Bad news of pirated software/"... cannot find a
>> prior post or comment. What pirated software are you referring? Who
>> is using pirated software and what are they doing that is in
>> violation of any rule? Lastly what rule are they in violation of?
>> *Kirk Just Kirk*: "/GMRS is a shared Channel. Users must monitor
>> before they transmit/". If repeaters are linked then any and all
>> traffic within range of one repeater is heard and transmitted to all
>> others which may be networked. In the event the stations are
>> simplex or low power their is no fault if a repeater user talks and
>> is not able to hear the distant station. Your argument seems you
>> believe GMRS Repeaters are illegal themselves and not simply because
>> they may be networked. Simplex communications is very short
>> distance. Repeater communication itsself could be over a hundred
>> miles even without networking. The FCC allocated eight (8) repeater
>> frequencies and if they are used correctly the unfortunate act of a
>> repeater transmitting over non repeater users is a fault of the user
>> not selecting one of the many other frequencies that are available to
>> *John Heron*: "/If its hooked to a telco its illegal/". Is it known
>> that anything GMRS is connected to Telco? If 10 Repeaters are
>> networked and 1 of 10 is connected to telco provided internet I.e.
>> DSL the infraction is on the one (1) offender not the other nine (9)
>> whom are not. Other than inspection of the physical connections how
>> can one review or confirm that telco connections exist? Please point
>> to the rule that defines one offender results in all participants
>> being in violation of a rule?
>> Thanks everyone for your thoughtful and courteous replies.
>> For transparency I own a wide coverage GMRS repeater that is 100%
>> compliant with the FCC rules. It has networking capabilities and
>> Coverage of ~100 miles as it located at 4,000' in the Blue Ridge
>> mountains of North Carolina.
>> -Brad Trogdon W4INT / WQTG303
>> App_rpt-users mailing list
>> App_rpt-users at lists.allstarlink.org
>> <mailto:App_rpt-users at lists.allstarlink.org>
>> To unsubscribe from this list please visit
>> and scroll down to the bottom of the page. Enter your email address
>> and press the "Unsubscribe or edit options button"
>> You do not need a password to unsubscribe, you can do it via email
>> confirmation. If you have trouble unsubscribing, please send a
>> message to the list detailing the problem.
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> App_rpt-users mailing list
> App_rpt-users at lists.allstarlink.org
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit http://lists.allstarlink.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users and scroll down to the bottom of the page. Enter your email address and press the "Unsubscribe or edit options button"
> You do not need a password to unsubscribe, you can do it via email confirmation. If you have trouble unsubscribing, please send a message to the list detailing the problem.
Leikhim and Associates
JLeikhim at Leikhim.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the App_rpt-users