|
Anybody on this list doing any trunking with ham repeaters?? If you are, what
kind of format are you using, controller, radios etc ?? the 900mhz band would
be the best band to do it, alot of commercial equipment out there for that
band..
Fred
|
Trunking is really about handling and leveling multiple audio sources, but not exactly how a DJ normally does it. I typically embody line input to handle it. Line input means 1 volt peak to peak at 600 ohms. When you handle audio very close to transmit gear, ditch the mixer board. I typically grab a cluster of RCA female plugs from an old audio appliance. Drill holes in the lid of a small paint mixing can and mount the cluster. One plug will be the output and others are audio sources. By selecting resistors for each source, levels can be established for a good mix. The can will shield out all hum. I pipe audio by putting Radio Shack 278-263 female RCA to F adapters on TV RGA 59 or 6 cable. Now you have cheap solid monstrous shielded audio lengths. RG 6 can be joined with others by gutting cable splitters and soldering wires inside. Avoid audio amplifiers and tone modification when possible. This will stamp out hum and faults. Your audio network will give the repeater class.
|
Would be nice for multiple uses and cut down the horseplay.? I do have doubts if hams would be patient enough to wait for the beep but let us know if it works out :)
--
Regards, Karl Shoemaker
To contact me, please visit SRG's web site at?
for the current email address.
-
|
There was a LTR system on 440MHz ham frequencies over a decade ago, maybe two.
Three sites with overlapping coverage, 1 or 2 systems per site.?
It lasted a few years, then faded away.
There's still a large UHF commercial LTR system running in this area.?
No linking between sites, just 7 somewhat overlapping islands of coverage, 4 to 7 channels per site.
LTR has the advantage that the controllers are CHEAP...?
At one point I could have had a half dozen Tridents for hauling them away.
The Trident, Zetron and CSI units are common and interface to the repeaters very similarly.
UHF mobiles are cheap as well... M1225s and the similar Kenwood and Icom models are very common.
Mike WA6ILQ
|
What would be an advantage to having a trunked Amateur repeater(s) system, other than the ability of holding more than one QSO at a time? Just curious...
Mark - N9WYS?
Please excuse all typos... Fat fingers and hyperactive spell check at work!
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:08, M M <wa6ilq@...> wrote: There was a LTR system on 440MHz ham frequencies over a decade ago, maybe two.
Three sites with overlapping coverage, 1 or 2 systems per site.?
It lasted a few years, then faded away.
There's still a large UHF commercial LTR system running in this area.?
No linking between sites, just 7 somewhat overlapping islands of coverage, 4 to 7 channels per site.
LTR has the advantage that the controllers are CHEAP...?
At one point I could have had a half dozen Tridents for hauling them away.
The Trident, Zetron and CSI units are common and interface to the repeaters very similarly.
UHF mobiles are cheap as well... M1225s and the similar Kenwood and Icom models are very common.
Mike WA6ILQ
|
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 4:09 PM n9wys < n9wys@...> wrote: What would be an advantage to having a trunked Amateur repeater(s) system, other than the ability of holding more than one QSO at a time?
Just curious...
Mark - N9WYS?
IMHO the perk of trunking isn't more than one QSO at a time per se (multiple conventional repeaters could do that), but the ability to oversubscribe logical talkgroups on top of a small number of physical repeaters, and the relative spectrum efficiency that gives. A bunch of clubs could share a small trunked setup in a great location. Some of the commercial LTR systems around here have dozens of talkgroups sharing 3 or 4 repeaters.
Here in New England, my understanding is that there are no more 2-meter repeater pairs available; every valid pair is already assigned, often in multiple locations in the region. But much of the time, you can leave a 2-meter rig on scan and find that zero of them are in use at any given time.
This is more or less what most DMR systems do with two timeslots and many talkgroups across them, albeit slightly more rigid with talkgroups usually pinned to one of the two timeslots.
Plus, tinkering with weird stuff is always fun. ;)
73, Matt, N1ZYY
|
It may very well end up being the most viable way to communicate over ham radio. If it goes the way I think it's going to go, the spectrum grab for advanced cellular system technology is going to get worse. Licensed or unlicensed iot systems are going to need
spectrum to communicate. I predict that we may very possibly end up losing most of our VHF and UHF bandwidth to these interests.?
For example, our 420 to 450 mhz band is prime territory just waiting for a spectrum auction. My industry just lost 75% of our C Band satellite downlink band to 5g. Last I checked, it had garnered 70 billion dollars at the auction. When you have a new administration
coming in that seems more interested in financing gender studies in foreign countries than helping its own citizens get through the pandemic, they are going to need the revenue to enable that.?
Trunked radio in whatever form, LTR, Linked Capacity Plus DMR, whatever, may be the only way we can all squeeze into whatever meager bandwidth slices we have left.
Just my opinion.
td
wb6mie
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
What would be an advantage to having a trunked Amateur repeater(s) system, other than the ability of holding more than one QSO at a time?
Just curious...
Mark - N9WYS?
Please excuse all typos... Fat fingers and hyperactive spell check at work!
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:08, M M
<wa6ilq@...> wrote:
There was a LTR system on 440MHz ham frequencies over a decade ago, maybe two.
Three sites with overlapping coverage, 1 or 2 systems per site.?
It lasted a few years, then faded away.
There's still a large UHF commercial LTR system running in this area.?
No linking between sites, just 7 somewhat overlapping islands of coverage, 4 to 7 channels per site.
LTR has the advantage that the controllers are CHEAP...?
At one point I could have had a half dozen Tridents for hauling them away.
The Trident, Zetron and CSI units are common and interface to the repeaters very similarly.
UHF mobiles are cheap as well... M1225s and the similar Kenwood and Icom models are very common.
Mike WA6ILQ
|
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 01:09 PM, n9wys wrote:
What would be an advantage to having a trunked Amateur repeater(s) system, other than the ability of holding more than one QSO at a time?
Just curious...
?
Mark - N9WYS?
A large group of hams working a public service event. Where the available resources (the repeaters) are upon request... dealt out to users in any reasonable configuration. An all-call user group, versus the security, versus the health and safety/rescue and the general staff users.? All can select and use any group and the groups don't hear, nor do they interfere with each other. User push to talk (transmit) is routed to an open channel/ repeater or prevented from jamming a completely filled system (not normally likely to happen). It's actually done all the time...? When we're at Hamvention, we're using a trunking system as described above.? I get to tell great jokes in person... get about the same response as over here.? It's a wonder they ask me back...? at least I think they ask me back. cheers, Aspartame?
|
Hi guys,
What about using our HF bands?
Via VHF/UHF repeaters most contacts are between fixed stations and a few mobiles.
Mobile vehicles mostly have multi-mode HF to 70cm transceivers these days.
Antenna on vehicles for 40m and up work pretty well.
BUT, the ionosphere puts their signal perhaps 1000Km away.
If there were "hot-spots" all over the country and the fixed stations monitored them,
HF could be made useful.
Thoughts anyone?
Alan VK2ZIW?
On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 21:40:26 +0000, tony dinkel wrote
>
It may very well end up being the most viable way to communicate over ham radio.
If it goes the way I think it's going to go, the spectrum grab for advanced
cellular system technology is going to get worse. Licensed or unlicensed iot
systems are going to
need
spectrum to communicate. I predict that we may very possibly end up losing most
of our VHF and UHF bandwidth to these interests.?
>
>
For example, our 420 to 450 mhz band is prime territory just waiting for a
spectrum auction. My industry just lost 75% of our C Band satellite downlink
band to 5g. Last I checked, it had garnered 70 billion dollars at the auction.
When you have a new
administration
coming in that seems more interested in financing gender studies in foreign
countries than helping its own citizens get through the pandemic, they are going
to need the revenue to enable that.?
>
>
Trunked radio in whatever form, LTR, Linked Capacity Plus DMR, whatever, may be
the only way we can all squeeze into whatever meager bandwidth slices we have
left.
>
>
Just my
opinion.
>
>
td
>
wb6mie
>
>
> From: [email protected]
<[email protected]> on behalf of n9wys
<n9wys@...>
>
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 1:09 PM
>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>
Subject: Re: [repeater-builder]
Trunking
> ?
> What would be an advantage to having a trunked Amateur repeater(s)
system, other than the ability of holding more than one QSO at a time?
>
>
Just
curious...
>
> Mark - N9WYS?
>
>
Please excuse all typos... Fat fingers and hyperactive spell check at
work!
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:08, M
M
> <wa6ilq@...>
wrote:
>
> There was a LTR system on 440MHz ham frequencies over a decade
ago, maybe two.
>
Three sites with overlapping coverage, 1 or 2 systems per site.?
>
It lasted a few years, then faded away.
>
>
There's still a large UHF commercial LTR system running in this area.?
>
No linking between sites, just 7 somewhat overlapping islands of coverage, 4 to
7 channels per
site.
> LTR has the advantage that the controllers are CHEAP...?
>
At one point I could have had a half dozen Tridents for hauling them
away.
>
The Trident, Zetron and CSI units are common and interface to the repeaters very
similarly.
>
UHF mobiles are cheap as well... M1225s and the similar Kenwood and Icom models
are very common.
>
>
Mike
WA6ILQ
---------------------------------------------------
Alan VK2ZIW
Before the Big Bang, God, Sela.
OpenWebMail 2.53, nothing in the cloud.
|
I totally agree about "tinkering with weird stuff"... that's why I have a 900 MHz repeater on the air.
The same problem (no 2m pairs available) exists here in IL.? The coordinator has a waiting list of about 6 years.? So I can see how several clubs could use a trunked system and spread the wealth.
Mark - N9WYS?
Please excuse all typos... Fat fingers and hyperactive spell check at work!
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 15:34, Matt Wagner <mwaggy@...> wrote: On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 4:09 PM n9wys < n9wys@...> wrote: What would be an advantage to having a trunked Amateur repeater(s) system, other than the ability of holding more than one QSO at a time?
Just curious...
Mark - N9WYS?
IMHO the perk of trunking isn't more than one QSO at a time per se (multiple conventional repeaters could do that), but the ability to oversubscribe logical talkgroups on top of a small number of physical repeaters, and the relative spectrum efficiency that gives. A bunch of clubs could share a small trunked setup in a great location. Some of the commercial LTR systems around here have dozens of talkgroups sharing 3 or 4 repeaters.
Here in New England, my understanding is that there are no more 2-meter repeater pairs available; every valid pair is already assigned, often in multiple locations in the region. But much of the time, you can leave a 2-meter rig on scan and find that zero of them are in use at any given time.
This is more or less what most DMR systems do with two timeslots and many talkgroups across them, albeit slightly more rigid with talkgroups usually pinned to one of the two timeslots.
Plus, tinkering with weird stuff is always fun. ;)
73, Matt, N1ZYY
|
Alan,
HF is an option/opportunity for many but not all.? Maybe because few are aware, or too many are unaware of leveraging 'X'-band/implementation beyond the local 144 and 440 repeaters, or that there is actual meaningful RF beyond a $100 hotspot with Interwebs dependance in mom's basement... :O
NVIS is a terrific option if folks understand how "it exists".? A 'typical' FT-something plus ATAS-120 user barely has a viable/effective HF platform (counterpoise, grounding, bonding, etc. 'challenges') much less awareness/effectiveness of folding over a mere 3-4 foot whip to maybe establish NVIS pattern.
Many don't realize, amid their challenge to work "great DX" that their dipoles, inverted-Vs, G5RVs, etc. are so low that most of what they get is near-NVIS radiation pattern = DX fail.
CalOES' limited CESN (California Emergency Services Net) HF participation is indeed mostly 40/80 NVIS and has only maybe a dozen random entities on the rolls.
Amid this, unlike CHP's 'devotion' to VHF-Lo 42-48 MHz... we seem rare/vacuum about 29 and 52 MHz VHF operations.? ?I can only wish I'd hear something, someone on 52.525.
|
All,
Unfortunately until the FCC changes the rules and eliminates the requirements that hams both positively control their transmit frequency and monitor before transmitting Trunking is not a legal option for ham radio in the US.? These days so many repeaters (including my own) sit idle much of the time so there is no real need.
One slight exception is you technically could run LTR talkgroups on a single-channel LTR trunk or P25 conventional talkgroups on a P25 repeater to get some benefits - but you cannot legally have the trunking controller assign your transmit frequency under the current rules.
Thanks,
Dan Woodie, CETsr KC8ZUM
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 12:46 AM Jim Aspinwall < Jim.No1pc@...> wrote: Alan,
HF is an option/opportunity for many but not all.? Maybe because few are aware, or too many are unaware of leveraging 'X'-band/implementation beyond the local 144 and 440 repeaters, or that there is actual meaningful RF beyond a $100 hotspot with Interwebs dependance in mom's basement... :O
NVIS is a terrific option if folks understand how "it exists".? A 'typical' FT-something plus ATAS-120 user barely has a viable/effective HF platform (counterpoise, grounding, bonding, etc. 'challenges') much less awareness/effectiveness of folding over a mere 3-4 foot whip to maybe establish NVIS pattern.
Many don't realize, amid their challenge to work "great DX" that their dipoles, inverted-Vs, G5RVs, etc. are so low that most of what they get is near-NVIS radiation pattern = DX fail.
CalOES' limited CESN (California Emergency Services Net) HF participation is indeed mostly 40/80 NVIS and has only maybe a dozen random entities on the rolls.
Amid this, unlike CHP's 'devotion' to VHF-Lo 42-48 MHz... we seem rare/vacuum about 29 and 52 MHz VHF operations.? ?I can only wish I'd hear something, someone on 52.525.
|
Minor technicality. Have the rules amended to accommodate. Part 97 is due for a rewrite anyway.
td
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
All,
Unfortunately until the FCC changes the rules and eliminates the requirements that hams both positively control their transmit frequency and monitor before transmitting Trunking is not a legal option for ham radio in the US.? These days so many
repeaters (including my own) sit idle much of the time so there is no real need.
One slight exception is you technically could run LTR talkgroups on a single-channel LTR trunk or P25 conventional talkgroups on a P25 repeater to get some benefits - but you cannot legally have the trunking controller assign your transmit frequency
under the current rules.
Thanks,
Dan Woodie, CETsr
KC8ZUM
On Wed, Dec 30, 2020, 12:46 AM Jim Aspinwall < Jim.No1pc@...> wrote:
Alan,
HF is an option/opportunity for many but not all.? Maybe because few are aware, or too many are unaware of leveraging 'X'-band/implementation beyond the local 144 and 440 repeaters, or that there is actual meaningful RF beyond a $100 hotspot with Interwebs
dependance in mom's basement... :O
NVIS is a terrific option if folks understand how "it exists".? A 'typical' FT-something plus ATAS-120 user barely has a viable/effective HF platform (counterpoise, grounding, bonding, etc. 'challenges') much less awareness/effectiveness of folding over
a mere 3-4 foot whip to maybe establish NVIS pattern.
Many don't realize, amid their challenge to work "great DX" that their dipoles, inverted-Vs, G5RVs, etc. are so low that most of what they get is near-NVIS radiation pattern = DX fail.
CalOES' limited CESN (California Emergency Services Net) HF participation is indeed mostly 40/80 NVIS and has only maybe a dozen random entities on the rolls.
Amid this, unlike CHP's 'devotion' to VHF-Lo 42-48 MHz... we seem rare/vacuum about 29 and 52 MHz VHF operations.? ?I can only wish I'd hear something, someone on 52.525.
|
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.
|
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.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Dec 31, 2020, at 8:16 AM, David < david@...> wrote: 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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Karl Shoemaker
n9wys
Matt Wagner