Speaker 1: A couple months ago, I made a video about a
Speaker 1: GMRS user who had petitioned the FCC to add low
Speaker 1: band frequencies low band VHF somewhere between the thirty and
Speaker 1: fifty megahertz range low band frequencies to the GMRS spectrum
Speaker 1: for a new band and new set of frequencies for
Speaker 1: GMRS users. This same individual has written another petition to
Speaker 1: the FCC where he indicates that he is against repeater
Speaker 1: linking of GMRS repeaters. Check this out.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Admittedly, admittedly he sent me so, mister Michael Trejos, he
Speaker 1: saw my first video about his proposal. I made a
Speaker 1: video about his proposal to the FCC to add VHF
Speaker 1: low band frequencies, which I sent him. So he emailed
Speaker 1: me after he saw that video and gave me some
Speaker 1: details about his background, and he sent me a link
Speaker 1: to the article we're going to read today, and I
Speaker 1: replied to him and I said, has there been any
Speaker 1: new news, any movement on this proposal to the FCC
Speaker 1: And I'm waiting to hear back on that. Don't have
Speaker 1: any further updates on that. I certainly hope to get
Speaker 1: further updates on that soon. And we will make another
Speaker 1: video about that. But he sent me a link to
Speaker 1: this article right here, and I went in and had
Speaker 1: and this is like a several page article. It's like
Speaker 1: all of this in here, and he does links to
Speaker 1: stuff in there and this whole thing, okay, And I
Speaker 1: will link this in the description.
Speaker 2: Blow. You guys can go read the whole thing if
Speaker 2: you want to.
Speaker 1: But I put this into groc Ai, and I had
Speaker 1: groc Ai summarize this for me.
Speaker 2: We marveled at our own magnificence as we gave birth
Speaker 2: to AI.
Speaker 1: AI can be a useful tool, but it should not
Speaker 1: be an end all, be all answer to everything. So
Speaker 1: just use it accordingly. And that's what I've done here, Okay,
Speaker 1: So summarize of this entire article over here on the
Speaker 1: FCC's website this pdf file. On April twenty fifth of
Speaker 1: this year, Michael Trehost, a physician, certified telecommunications engineer, and
Speaker 1: veteran FCC participant with oly over fifty years in radio comms,
Speaker 1: including the oldest act of GMRS license. Oh okay, submitted
Speaker 1: a reply comments opposing the proposed deletion of Rules forty
Speaker 1: seven CFR Part ninety five here here and here These
Speaker 1: rules prohibit GMRS stations from interconnecting with public switched networks,
Speaker 1: in other words, connecting over the Internet or over telephone
Speaker 1: lines encompassing wireline RF Internet and sew your links except
Speaker 1: for transmitter control. Proposed items from NPRM promoting deregulation under
Speaker 1: the Executive Orders fourteen and fourteen two nineteen aiming to
Speaker 1: enable wide area linking of GMRS repeater systems. And if
Speaker 1: you go back to this original article here, and he's
Speaker 1: talking about in matter of delete delete lead, which we
Speaker 1: did a video about last few months ago as well.
Speaker 1: Now admittedly, okay, I fully admit when I first got
Speaker 1: this link from him, I thought he was talking about
Speaker 1: petitioning the FCC to allow GMRS repeater linking. He has
Speaker 1: petitioned the FCC to disallow, which they have done already.
Speaker 1: They've already disallowed repeater linking. Some people still do it.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they get away with it, but
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, FCC's got a lot on their
Speaker 1: plate whatever. But I was a little bit surprised with
Speaker 1: his arguments behind this, and I don't think I agree
Speaker 1: with him one hundred percent. So let's read on and
Speaker 1: see what he has to say, let's see what kind
Speaker 1: of justification he makes for telling the FCC that they
Speaker 1: should not allow repeater linking. Key arguments against deletion. So
Speaker 1: he's arguing against deletion.
Speaker 2: That's a little bit. This, this legal eese is a
Speaker 2: little bit ambiguous.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, you know, submitted reply comments posing the proposed deletion.
Speaker 2: Of rules of these rules.
Speaker 1: Okay, So someone has proposed to delete the rules that
Speaker 1: prevent GMRS repeaters linking, and he is opposing that proposal.
Speaker 2: Is what this is?
Speaker 1: Okay, Key arguments against deletion.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: Trey Hose cited FCC proceedings starting with Docket two oh
Speaker 1: eight four six, which banned GMRS PSTN interconnections beyond control
Speaker 1: links control links where you could connect your GMRS repeater
Speaker 1: to the Internet and then control it somehow over the Internet,
Speaker 1: maybe with an app on your phone, or maybe through
Speaker 1: a web browser or something like that, beyond control links
Speaker 1: due to limited spectrum only eight repeater channels and risk
Speaker 1: of monopolization. This was reaffirmed in PR document blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, which updated terminology to PSN too explicitly
Speaker 1: barred voice transmissions via control links so, in other words,
Speaker 1: if you want to control it over the Internet via
Speaker 1: data and just in frequency change, peel tone, you know,
Speaker 1: reboot the system whatever. Okay, fine, but not for voice transmissions,
Speaker 1: spectrum scarcity and fair access. Allowing links would enable users
Speaker 1: to dominate channels, hindering shared use by some three hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty seven thousand GMRS licensees, Echoing nineteen seventies concerns
Speaker 1: from events like the nineteen seventy seven REACT convention where
Speaker 1: autopatch repeaters blocked access.
Speaker 2: I'm not familiar with that. It was fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: I don't think it really, you know, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a historical significance, but as far as today, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure how well that applies legal and economic risk. Interconnection
Speaker 1: would create a pseudo common carrier service, violating this section,
Speaker 1: enabling theft of service under eighteens this section. This could
Speaker 1: allow one user to link systems for many others without
Speaker 1: individual subscriptions, defrauding carriers like defrauding carriers like Verizon, AT
Speaker 1: and T who have historically opposed such practices. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure what he's talking about. Where AT and T
Speaker 1: and Verizon we have problems with linked repeaters. But we
Speaker 1: do that in him radio all the time, all Star
Speaker 1: echo link linked repeaters, no problem. There's no problem there.
Speaker 1: And I understand what he's saying about limited spectrum because
Speaker 1: GMRS only has eight separate frequencies for repeater use. They
Speaker 1: have sixteen frequencies for simplex use which are shared with
Speaker 1: FRS users, and eight frequencies for repeater use, which actually
Speaker 1: those eight repeater frequencies are shared with the simplex frequencies
Speaker 1: as well, So I see where he's coming from here. However, However,
Speaker 1: if you are a repeater owner and you want to
Speaker 1: link your repeater to another repeater, I think you should
Speaker 1: be able to do it. And if you want to unlink,
Speaker 1: if it becomes too big of a system or someone
Speaker 1: gets on there and starts abusing it, you unlink your repeater.
Speaker 2: What's the problem.
Speaker 1: It's going to be on the repeater owner to keep
Speaker 1: control and maintain control of that. But that's true for
Speaker 1: every repeater owner everywhere. You'd already be doing that. If
Speaker 1: you're going to spend your money to put a repeater
Speaker 1: in the air, you should be able to do what
Speaker 1: you want to with it. I realize there's a lot
Speaker 1: more to it than just that, okay, But as a
Speaker 1: general rule, I pretty much support repeater linking in GMRS,
Speaker 1: and I don't really understand why they have.
Speaker 2: I understand his key points here.
Speaker 1: He's got one other key point that I'm going to
Speaker 1: get to here in a second, and then I'm going
Speaker 1: to read you the exact document.
Speaker 2: But I understand where he's coming from.
Speaker 1: But to me, that means his arguments seem to ride
Speaker 1: on the fact that repeater owners aren't managing their own
Speaker 1: repeaters correctly, which if you're going to become a repeater owner,
Speaker 1: you need to be able to do that. So you
Speaker 1: need to be willing to do that, I should say so,
Speaker 1: whether you're a repeater owner, you have a base station
Speaker 1: set up, or you have some sort of GMRS radio
Speaker 1: run in your car. Today's video sponsor is Messi and
Speaker 1: Plony co Acts. Messi and Plonikoacs is some of the
Speaker 1: best coacs made for radio communications in him radio, but
Speaker 1: it works wonderfully well on GMRS and UHF stations as well.
Speaker 1: You can always save a ten percent discount on everything
Speaker 1: by Messi Andploony, their tools, their connectors, their coacts, all
Speaker 1: of their gear with the coupon code of HR two
Speaker 1: cables at the link in the description below, so check
Speaker 1: that out. Check out Mezzi Andploiny coacs if you want
Speaker 1: to upgrade the co acs on your GMRS station. Thank
Speaker 1: you MESSI employee for sponsoring this channel. The last point
Speaker 1: he makes here is tree host notes that proponents GMRS
Speaker 1: clubs and individuals overtook this fifty year regulatory history, including
Speaker 1: the FCC's consistent stance on PSN's broad definition now including
Speaker 1: four G, five G and six G and Internet conclusion.
Speaker 1: Tree hos urges the FCC to retain the rules to
Speaker 1: protect gmris's limited resources and preventive use, emphasizing that deregulation
Speaker 1: here would undermine equitable, equitable access and invite enforcement challenges.
Speaker 1: Enforcement challenges. Yes, the repeater owner is going to have
Speaker 1: to enforce what's happening on his own repeater. If you're
Speaker 1: gonna spend money on the repeater, you should already kind
Speaker 1: of be in that mindset in my opinion, he says,
Speaker 1: from the cellular industry, I still don't understand what he
Speaker 1: means by I don't understand what a cell network has
Speaker 1: to do with repeaters being linked over cell networks First
Speaker 1: of all, there's a lot of GMRS repeater sites I
Speaker 1: would assume, just like HAM radio or repeater sites that
Speaker 1: don't use cell networks at all. They use like a
Speaker 1: basic ISP and some of them might use some of
Speaker 1: them that are more remote might use cell sites. But
Speaker 1: how are we able to use all star necolink with
Speaker 1: no problems at all?
Speaker 2: Nothing?
Speaker 1: Again, nothing from the cellular industry at all in HAM radio,
Speaker 1: but not in GMRS radio. He served copanies to twenty
Speaker 1: eight stakeholders, including GMRS advocates, Verizon attorneys, and industries like
Speaker 1: the CTIA. Okay, and that is everything that GROC had
Speaker 1: to say about this article. But I wanted to read
Speaker 1: you one section of this article here the conclusion right there.
Speaker 1: Since nineteen seventy six to date, the FCC has had
Speaker 1: consistent legislative record regarding the prohibition of GMRS transmissions over
Speaker 1: public switching telephone networks. Since nineteen seventy six in the
Speaker 1: docket two eight four six and to present date, the
Speaker 1: Commission has made it absolutely clear that the term PSTN
Speaker 1: now PSN was to include wireline and non wireline radio
Speaker 1: frequency RF connection, which today has evolved into the Internet
Speaker 1: and four g I would okay, maybe, okay, okay, maybe
Speaker 1: the common carrier cellular industry has been vehement throughout their
Speaker 1: history of preventing theft of service and their use of
Speaker 1: Title eighteen USC. Forty seven blah blah blah to prosecute
Speaker 1: theft of service were applicable.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So he's talking about theft of service as in your
Speaker 1: repeaters linked to another repeater or someone links to you
Speaker 1: through an all Star type system, and then they take
Speaker 1: over your repeater and basically take service away from you
Speaker 1: because they've linked it to their system and now there's
Speaker 1: activities going on that are outside of your area. That
Speaker 1: just simply means the repeater owner should disconnect from that service.
Speaker 1: There's a way to do that. You can do that
Speaker 1: via internet connection, you can do that via DTMF tones.
Speaker 1: There's multiple ways to disconnect or repeater from another linked
Speaker 1: repeater over the Internet, and this would require repeater owners
Speaker 1: to take responsibility for their own repeater. So this seems
Speaker 1: like a thin argument to me. I understand what he's saying,
Speaker 1: and I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm just saying it
Speaker 1: seems like a thin argument to me. Therefore, I'm quite
Speaker 1: confident that the common carrier segar industry will fight to
Speaker 1: prevent this fight to prevent this theft of service from
Speaker 1: happening in GMRS with the wide area both interstate and
Speaker 1: interstate and intrust date linking of GMS repeater system and
Speaker 1: possibly all amateur radio networks that use PSN interconnection versus
Speaker 1: amateur radio RF linking. So okay, so now he's going after.
Speaker 1: Now he's going after amateur radio sort of in a
Speaker 1: roundabout passive aggressive way right there, Possibly all amateur reasradio
Speaker 1: networks that use a PSN. Well, I could tell you
Speaker 1: right now. Amateur radio repeater owners definitely take control of
Speaker 1: their amateur radio repeaters. Sometimes they piss people off. Actually,
Speaker 1: and it's his repeater. He should be able to say what.
Speaker 2: But no, no.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think that this is a good argument
Speaker 1: at all. In closing, I firmly believe that the FCC
Speaker 1: must continue to prohibit the linking of GMRS repeaters and
Speaker 1: keep in full force the effect of this as stated
Speaker 1: by the Commission back in nineteen seventy six, which is
Speaker 1: still valid today. Spectrum availability and GMRS is limited, and
Speaker 1: as such, permitting interconnection with the PSN for anything other
Speaker 1: than transmitter control would be extremely detrimental to the ability
Speaker 1: of all users to have effective and efficient access and
Speaker 1: use all of the GMRS eight, the eight GMRS four
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty two megahrz repeater channels without them being
Speaker 1: monopolized by those wanting to link repeaters to create wide
Speaker 1: area interstate communications networks. Exclamation point again. I see where
Speaker 1: he's coming from. I understand what he's saying. I think
Speaker 1: he's off base. Maybe they should create one or two
Speaker 1: of those eight channels for specifically linking, and then channel
Speaker 1: twenty two or channel twenty one or whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: pick one this repeater channel is used for linking all
Speaker 1: the rest of them or not. Maybe that's an answer
Speaker 1: to that. Okay, but if you're gonna go after amateur radio,
Speaker 1: amateur radio has been RF linking or RF linking repeaters
Speaker 1: and Internet connecting linking repeaters for a couple of decades. Now, okay,
Speaker 1: this is not something new in amateur radio, and we
Speaker 1: don't have a limited repeater range the way that GMRS does.
Speaker 1: GMRS has one band on UHF around four hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty two megahertz, with eight different frequencies that are used
Speaker 1: for repeater use. M radio can use repeaters on multiple
Speaker 1: bands ten meters six meters, two meters two twenty one
Speaker 1: point twenty five meter for our for forty seventy centimeter band,
Speaker 1: which is just right below the gmrs BAN one hundred
Speaker 1: megahertz one point two giga hurts. Okay, we can use.
Speaker 1: There's multiple frequencies on multiple bands that we can use
Speaker 1: as repeater linking. So this whole takeover and monopolized thing,
Speaker 1: sure it can happen, Sure, but you've got one hundred
Speaker 1: other places you could go if you have one repeater
Speaker 1: that's been taken over and monopolized by a rogue system.
Speaker 2: Or something like that.
Speaker 1: Also, if you know the DTMF tones that are standard
Speaker 1: in all Star Link and Hamvoid, you can disconnect and
Speaker 1: connect repeaters at will, even if you don't own the repeater.
Speaker 1: I can drive up to any all Star repeater right
Speaker 1: now and hit Star three and the five digit code
Speaker 1: for another repeater somewhere else and connect it. And then
Speaker 1: I can hit Star one in that code again to
Speaker 1: disconnect it. So amateur radio control operators, you should id
Speaker 1: when you do that. By the way, amateur radio control
Speaker 1: operators can don't necessarily have to be the repeater owner,
Speaker 1: so we can We can already do that. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure exactly how it works. I never messed with actually
Speaker 1: linking and unlinking repeaters and gmrs. I don't own any
Speaker 1: GMRS repeaters, so I never really tried that myself, so
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly how that worked, but I assume
Speaker 1: it's probably a similar feature, some sort of DTMF tone
Speaker 1: that would disconnect and reconnect repeaters. So what do you
Speaker 1: guys think about this? Are you in favor of the
Speaker 1: FCC telling us that we cannot link GMRIS repeaters or
Speaker 1: do you think that's bogus? And do you think repeater
Speaker 1: linking should be allowed? I tend to lean on the
Speaker 1: side of repeater linking should be allowed, and if they
Speaker 1: want to regulate it to one or two channels, then great.
Speaker 1: But I don't particularly like someone telling me what I
Speaker 1: can and can't do with a repeater that I spent
Speaker 1: money on. That's my stance. Let me know if you
Speaker 1: have a different stance in the comments. Blow And if
Speaker 1: you enjoyed this video, check out these videos over here
Speaker 1: where YouTube thinks you want to go next.
Speaker 2: Seventy three