Just a note to wish you all a Happy New year and extra special wishes for good health and much contentment.
?Burt, K6OQK
|
It's sad how often discussions on a technical list degenerate into bickering about FCC rules.
So many people concerned about following the rules - except when it comes to themselves respecting the group rules:
"This group is not for discussing FCC rules"
|
I think we¡¯re actually just disagreeing on what constitutes ¡°the most important point.¡±
Indeed, most (if not all) currently used trunking modes with more than one frequency would not entirely conform to some aspects of Part 97 as written.
That feels like part of the challenge to figure out. Do you create a new ham-complaint protocol that tackles these things? Do you just set up a 2-frequency LTR system that also supports conventional operation and, every ten minutes, ID on both? Do you petition to tweak the rules slightly to accommodate trunked systems? Do you just trust that making a good-faith effort to ID regularly on a system that has a public website documenting how it works will satisfy the spirit of the law?
I don¡¯t know the answers, but I don¡¯t think it¡¯s a reason the idea can¡¯t get off the ground.
You guys are missing the most important point about trunking and modes
like DMR roaming.
Does the control operator know when the radio is transmitting or what
frequency is used every time it transmits?
Does your radio ID by itself in a way that complies with 97.119(b) every
time it sends a control channel message?
Do you ID by voice at the end of every single PTT transmission?
The control operator (end user) of a trunked radio cannot comply with
the station identification requirements in 97.119(a) because there is no
way to ensure that you ID every 10 minutes or at the end of every
transmission on each frequency that is used.
Tom ND5Y
|
I don't believe the MTR2000 SCM (System Control Module) will allow for that - it would probably error out.? Once you set the band in the SCM, it expects to see both TX and RX frequencies within the bandwidths allowed in the software, so hacking that would probably also fail. On 12/31/2020 11:13 AM, K8TB wrote: Has anyone tried, or know, if you can take a VHF MTR-2000 and replace
the VHF receiver with a UHF receiver and if it works? Maybe you have
to edit the config file? If this works, it will solve a problem for a
local amateur radio club.
Tom K8TB
-- - - - - - - - - - - Adam T. Cately CETsr KB8MDF - - - - - - - - - -
|
Toms assertion that the user is the control operator of a repeater is incorrect. A lot of folks simply have never read the rules and fcc opinions concerned repeater operation.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 1, 2021, at 9:55 AM, Joe M. <mch@...> wrote:
Isn't the same true of EVERY repeater?
That said, the control op is not responsible for "ensuring"
the ID of the user radios - only the repeater(s).
If you are using a repeater, YOU are responsible for your IDing.
You made a lot of good points, but ended it with a bad argument.
Case in point: If you drive through a valley out of the repeater range, and you ID your transmitter at 9 minutes, that satisfies the legal requirements EVEN THOUGH that ID never came through the repeater.
Case #2: IF you are using a repeater that has CTCSS access, and you ID yourself without CTCSS, you satisfied your legal obligations to ID even though the control op of the repeater never heard it.
Joe M.
On 1/1/2021 9:38 AM, nd5y via groups.io wrote:
The control operator (end user) of a trunked radio cannot comply with
the station identification requirements in 97.119(a) because there is no
way to ensure that you ID every 10 minutes or at the end of every
transmission on each frequency that is used.
Tom ND5Y
|
I think the simplest test would be to take your computer/300 modem to a place where there is a wired landline and see if it still fails.
73, Joe, K1ike
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1/1/2021 9:13 AM, David Frechette wrote: The time lag of the OOMA may be the cause of your problem; I have also seen this issue with the various VOIP services. If you don't actually have a real landline for comparison, you may never get to the root of the problem. Tweaking the modem settings may help, but at which end would you start?
|
Isn't the same true of EVERY repeater?
That said, the control op is not responsible for "ensuring"
the ID of the user radios - only the repeater(s).
If you are using a repeater, YOU are responsible for your IDing.
You made a lot of good points, but ended it with a bad argument.
Case in point: If you drive through a valley out of the repeater range, and you ID your transmitter at 9 minutes, that satisfies the legal requirements EVEN THOUGH that ID never came through the repeater.
Case #2: IF you are using a repeater that has CTCSS access, and you ID yourself without CTCSS, you satisfied your legal obligations to ID even though the control op of the repeater never heard it.
Joe M.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1/1/2021 9:38 AM, nd5y via groups.io wrote:
The control operator (end user) of a trunked radio cannot comply with
the station identification requirements in 97.119(a) because there is no
way to ensure that you ID every 10 minutes or at the end of every
transmission on each frequency that is used.
Tom ND5Y
|
You guys are missing the most important point about trunking and modes like DMR roaming.
Does the control operator know when the radio is transmitting or what frequency is used every time it transmits?
Does your radio ID by itself in a way that complies with 97.119(b) every time it sends a control channel message?
Do you ID by voice at the end of every single PTT transmission?
The control operator (end user) of a trunked radio cannot comply with the station identification requirements in 97.119(a) because there is no way to ensure that you ID every 10 minutes or at the end of every transmission on each frequency that is used.
Tom ND5Y
|
The time lag of the OOMA may be the cause of your problem; I have also seen this issue with the various VOIP services. If you don't actually have a real landline for comparison, you may never get to the root of the problem. Tweaking the modem settings may help, but at which end would you start?
|
It's been a while since I've used dial up networks.? The CAT1000 has a Motorola 300 baud modem for remote access to the controller.? When I dial into the controller with my circa 1995 Best Data 336flx modem some of the text is corrupted and it is not consistently the same characters.? ?I have the mode set for 300 baud, 8 bit, 1 stop bit and no parity.
Using Procomm Plus version 4.8 on several different generations on Windows.? My 2-wire line at my QTH is via Ooma so it's not a true analog POTS line and I'm thinking that's my issue.? Any suggestions?
73,
KC1SA?
|
FB6 is a business radio class:
FB6 - Private Carrier (profit)
A repeater operated by a radio communications provider for multiple subscribers who are covered under the carrier's license.
Not applicable to amateur radio as we are individually licensed as is the repeater,? whose trustee is the responsible party for it.
Ken
|
With a trucked system the system, not the operator sets the transmit frequency thus the operator with the mic is no longer is in complete and direct control of the emission emanating from their radio. This brings to the forefront of any legal argument who exactly is then responsible for the emissions of all the mobiles using the trucked system. Let¡¯s say I go key down on the trucked system to talk to my buddy on talk group 3. My radio then goes ¡°yo repeater I¡¯d like to communicate on talk group 3¡± and the repeater then responds, ¡°ok tune to frequency 3 and transmit¡±. Radio tunes to frequency 3 and clobbers the communications of a life safety operation in progress either because you screwed up the code plug or the repeater sent you somewhere it should not have or whatever.
What if someone screwed up the programming of a conventional ham repeater with the incorrect input frequency and clobbers a life safety operation? What if the repeater is part of a linked network and someone goofs up one of the linked repeaters to transmit over a life safety operation? (Heck, in the case of a relative of mine, what if your cable TV box malfunctions and starts to clobber air band frequencies and you live near a military airport?)
Part of what you¡¯re referring to is the distinction between centralized (station class FB8) trunking systems commonly used in public safety versus decentralized (FB6) stations like LTR. Centralized systems have the controller in charge and the FCC requires that the frequencies be exclusively licensed for quite some distance. With decentralized systems, the controller indicates the next free repeater, but the radio is still supposed to make sure the frequency is free.
(Not sure if it¡¯s entirely part of the centralized/decentralized distinction, but systems also differ in whether the controller directly gives out frequency assignments, or just points to channel numbers.)
Stick with a decentralized system and the repeater control op can¡¯t reasonably be held at fault if a user causes interference.
|
The repeater licensee is responsible for the repeaters Rd emissions. The user is only responsible for his own transmitter.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 31, 2020, at 8:34 PM, Eric Fort <Eric.fort.listmail@...> wrote:
Not quite the same legal result between one 4 channel trundled system with multiple talk groups and 4 separate repeaters. The key difference is in the case of 4 separate repeaters the licensee holding the mike always transmits on the single input frequency of that one single channel repeater and has positive control over which frequency his transmitter is tuned to. With a trucked system the system, not the operator sets the transmit frequency thus the operator with the mic is no longer is in complete and direct control of the emission emanating from their radio. This brings to the forefront of any legal argument who exactly is then responsible for the emissions of all the mobiles using the trucked system. Let¡¯s say I go key down on the trucked system to talk to my buddy on talk group 3. My radio then goes ¡°yo repeater I¡¯d like to communicate on talk group 3¡± and the repeater then responds, ¡°ok tune to frequency 3 and transmit¡±. Radio tunes to frequency 3 and clobbers the communications of a life safety operation in progress either because you screwed up the code plug or the repeater sent you somewhere it should not have or whatever. The fcc comes calling. I could argue that the repeater system set my transmit frequency and thus the licensee of the repeater is responsible and not I as the operator of the mobile unit. The repeater licensee would then argue that it was the operators responsibility to controll their individual emissions. So who is controlling the radio and who is responsible? As a repeater operator do you want to put your license on the line for some lids operation of their radio on your system. From a legal point of view single channel systems seem much easier to operate cleanly. There is a reason that in commercial trucked systems all the mobiles are under the same license as the base or repeater they use and the operators are not required to be licensed.
Eric
Af6ep
Sent using SMTP.
On Dec 31, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Jim Barbour <wd8chl@...> wrote:
?Worst case-put a rx on the output frequencies, sharing your transmit antenna, and use it to prevent each transmitter from interfering with others possibly in another area.
And tell your coordinator what frequencies you're using, so they can be coordinated.
You are picking the frequencies in use ahead of time, and it is no different than a normal conventional repeater. If you setup, say, 4 conventional repeaters, you would have the same legal result.
On 12/31/2020 4:21 PM, tony dinkel wrote:
Then do it on an STA, if that would even be required. DMR and P25 were not permissible emissions on any ham frequency less than 20 years ago. Now, DMR, P25 and other digital modes are prevalent. We had this same discussion back then, people claimed that the digital modes were "encrypted". Even though you can't hear them on an analog receiver, they are not encrypted when using the proper receiving equipment. The rules are not written to restrict experimentation by any means. We would never get anywhere if we do not bend the rules. Just do it and ask forgiveness later. That has always been my attitude.
td
wb6mie
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of David <david@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 5:16 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Trunking
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:57 AM tony dinkel <td47@...<mailto:td47@...>> wrote:
Minor technicality. Have the rules amended to accommodate. Part 97 is due for a rewrite anyway.
td
Unfortunately be careful what you wish for. It may go horribly wrong. You're not wrong. With the attitudes in DC over the last 20 years or so, who knows what could happen.
|
Not quite the same legal result between one 4 channel trundled system with multiple talk groups and 4 separate repeaters. The key difference is in the case of 4 separate repeaters the licensee holding the mike always transmits on the single input frequency of that one single channel repeater and has positive control over which frequency his transmitter is tuned to. With a trucked system the system, not the operator sets the transmit frequency thus the operator with the mic is no longer is in complete and direct control of the emission emanating from their radio. This brings to the forefront of any legal argument who exactly is then responsible for the emissions of all the mobiles using the trucked system. Let¡¯s say I go key down on the trucked system to talk to my buddy on talk group 3. My radio then goes ¡°yo repeater I¡¯d like to communicate on talk group 3¡± and the repeater then responds, ¡°ok tune to frequency 3 and transmit¡±. Radio tunes to frequency 3 and clobbers the communications of a life safety operation in progress either because you screwed up the code plug or the repeater sent you somewhere it should not have or whatever. The fcc comes calling. I could argue that the repeater system set my transmit frequency and thus the licensee of the repeater is responsible and not I as the operator of the mobile unit. The repeater licensee would then argue that it was the operators responsibility to controll their individual emissions. So who is controlling the radio and who is responsible? As a repeater operator do you want to put your license on the line for some lids operation of their radio on your system. From a legal point of view single channel systems seem much easier to operate cleanly. There is a reason that in commercial trucked systems all the mobiles are under the same license as the base or repeater they use and the operators are not required to be licensed.
Eric
Af6ep
Sent using SMTP.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 31, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Jim Barbour <wd8chl@...> wrote:
?Worst case-put a rx on the output frequencies, sharing your transmit antenna, and use it to prevent each transmitter from interfering with others possibly in another area.
And tell your coordinator what frequencies you're using, so they can be coordinated.
You are picking the frequencies in use ahead of time, and it is no different than a normal conventional repeater. If you setup, say, 4 conventional repeaters, you would have the same legal result.
On 12/31/2020 4:21 PM, tony dinkel wrote:
Then do it on an STA, if that would even be required. DMR and P25 were not permissible emissions on any ham frequency less than 20 years ago. Now, DMR, P25 and other digital modes are prevalent. We had this same discussion back then, people claimed that the digital modes were "encrypted". Even though you can't hear them on an analog receiver, they are not encrypted when using the proper receiving equipment. The rules are not written to restrict experimentation by any means. We would never get anywhere if we do not bend the rules. Just do it and ask forgiveness later. That has always been my attitude.
td
wb6mie
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of David <david@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 5:16 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Trunking
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:57 AM tony dinkel <td47@...<mailto:td47@...>> wrote:
Minor technicality. Have the rules amended to accommodate. Part 97 is due for a rewrite anyway.
td
Unfortunately be careful what you wish for. It may go horribly wrong. You're not wrong. With the attitudes in DC over the last 20 years or so, who knows what could happen.
|
I doubt you can do that with an MTR 2000 but you can with a Quantar - in fact a Quantar can have 2 receivers of 2 different bands at the same time.
Thanks,
Dan Woodie, CETsr KC8ZUM
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 11:13 AM K8TB < k8tb@...> wrote: Has anyone tried, or know, if you can take a VHF MTR-2000 and replace
the VHF receiver with a UHF receiver and if it works? Maybe you have to
edit the config file? If this works, it will solve a problem for a local
amateur radio club.
Tom K8TB
|
Worst case-put a rx on the output frequencies, sharing your transmit antenna, and use it to prevent each transmitter from interfering with others possibly in another area. And tell your coordinator what frequencies you're using, so they can be coordinated. You are picking the frequencies in use ahead of time, and it is no different than a normal conventional repeater. If you setup, say, 4 conventional repeaters, you would have the same legal result. On 12/31/2020 4:21 PM, tony dinkel wrote: Then do it on an STA, if that would even be required. DMR and P25 were not permissible emissions on any ham frequency less than 20 years ago. Now, DMR, P25 and other digital modes are prevalent. We had this same discussion back then, people claimed that the digital modes were "encrypted". Even though you can't hear them on an analog receiver, they are not encrypted when using the proper receiving equipment. The rules are not written to restrict experimentation by any means. We would never get anywhere if we do not bend the rules. Just do it and ask forgiveness later. That has always been my attitude.
td
wb6mie
________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of David <david@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2020 5:16 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Trunking
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:57 AM tony dinkel <td47@...<mailto:td47@...>> wrote:
Minor technicality. Have the rules amended to accommodate. Part 97 is due for a rewrite anyway.
td
Unfortunately be careful what you wish for. It may go horribly wrong. You're not wrong. With the attitudes in DC over the last 20 years or so, who knows what could happen.
|
Then do it on an STA, if that would even be required. DMR and P25 were not permissible emissions on any ham frequency less than 20 years ago. Now, DMR, P25 and other digital modes are prevalent. We had this same discussion back then, people claimed that the
digital modes were "encrypted". Even though you can't hear them on an analog receiver, they are not encrypted when using the proper receiving equipment. The rules are not written to restrict experimentation by any means. We would never get anywhere if we do
not bend the rules. Just do it and ask forgiveness later. That has always been my attitude.
td
wb6mie
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 12:57 AM tony dinkel < td47@...> wrote:
Minor technicality. Have the rules amended to accommodate. Part 97 is due for a rewrite anyway.
td
Unfortunately be careful what you wish for.?? It may go horribly wrong.
|
Re: STM32-DVM Firmware Update Failure
I want to thank
everyone who replied.? The information sent me in the right
direction.? The Pi-2 would not update to the latest version of
Pi-Star.? I switched to a 3+ and all is well.
Best Regards,
Paul Littleton
KA5BIW
typed on a Windoze 10 confuser
On 12/31/2020 04:19, Steve N4IRS wrote:
Paul,
What ou are seeing is a mismatch between the version of the
firmware and the version of MMDVMHost that Pi-Star is running. I
can tell you that Pi-Star lags behind G4LKX with changes to
MMDVMHost. Sometimes those changes result in what you are seeing.
This is a initial communications between the modem and MMDVMHost.
I suggest you make sure you have applied all Pi-Star updates and
retest. If you still have a issue, you can revert the firmware.
73, Steve N4IRS?
|
A repeater is under control of the licensee who¡¯s call sign the repeater uses. I only control my transmitter. There have been ham trunking systems pop up for years, mainly as a curiosity or experiment I suspect.?
I think this is the right approach.
The whole concept of a repeater was once a novel concept that, as I understand it, hams had to struggle with the FCC over. Retransmitting someone else¡¯s signal? From an unattended, remote transmitter?! On a mountain?!
I¡¯m not convinced that transmissions being spread across one of a small, discrete set of frequencies is a significant barrier. It¡¯s certainly more straightforward and easier to monitor than FHSS. I think such a system would be well in keeping with the history and spirit of amateur radio experimentation.
73, Matt, N1ZYY
|
Has anyone tried, or know, if you can take a VHF MTR-2000 and replace the VHF receiver with a UHF receiver and if it works? Maybe you have to edit the config file? If this works, it will solve a problem for a local amateur radio club.
Tom K8TB
|
Burt K6OQK
Matt Wagner
Ken W0KAH