Page 1 of 1

Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:02 am
by 123
Hey guys, been reading lots of threads of people wanting trunking on ham so this encouraged me to post since I been wanting this for a long time. But of course, you need enough hams to want this and invest in this as well.

If you want Motorola trunking then IntelliRepeater is your answer.

for many reasons.

1. No controller is needed because the IR is in itself a controller without certain bells and whistles {that only Public safety really need so who cares about that}

2. The IR option can be set as "Voice on Control" meaning your control channel and voice channel are the same. And yes this works very well. I should know, I am currently using it! This option would be very helpful on VHF where finding 1 frequ. pair is difficult and in some areas impossible. So this would give current repeater owners a way to switch without the hardship of finding more pairs.

NOTE: If using {VOC} disable Failsoft. Otherwise your key up requests will be delayed and transmissions will be lost.

3. Station ID can be broadcasted on the same channel as control. So no problem there. Just make sure to keep the ID short because this will cut into your Key up times.

4. User call sign IDing {If you are using more then one trunking channel} is simple. Just enable "soft ID" on your radio and input your call sign. You will then be transmitting your call sign each time you transmit so that solves that problem...

5. Since IR trunking is part of a SmartZone system you get the cool signal strength antenna bars in your radios

6. Private call. You can individually call another ham without disturbing the rest of the group ! And still legal because there is nothing encrypted. Although I been told that you can do encryption on ham just call it "Authentication" But that is another subject all in itself that wont be discussed here :)

7. The station can be programmed for mixed mode trunking if you wish to do so.

I personally would not put up a 900MHz trunking system because of the poor coverage and voice quality. I rather do UHF or VHF


I personally would like to see a Nationwide Ham Trunking Network. Or at least have the same system ID on each repeater so your radio automatically logs into the closest trunking site eliminating the need to buy ARRL repeater books ! Just have a set of national control channels and talkgroups. Linking and simulcasting is obviously more difficult and costly but we can at least start setting up single site stand alone systems and worrying about linking them down the road when the ground is already laid out.

This could work if enough people got together. But I can not do it alone.

If anyone wants to set up anything like the above and need some help PM me.

I also currently have systems on commercial {trunking and non-trunking} that me and a group of guys play with. You can say we are tired of the same ole crap on ham. Which is why we migrated to commercial. So if anyone out there has a commercial system they want to link with ours PM me on that too. We are always looking for people with the same interest.

But I am all for giving ham a face lift if others will join in and help out.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:11 pm
by 123
I been getting several emails asking what a "IntelliRepeater" is.

So the answer in a nutshell is:

It is a station control card for the Quantar that allows you to do 3600 Baud SmartZone trunking {Analog and/or Digital}

If you have a Conv. Quantar all you do is switch your Conv. card out with the IR card. and program it.

Note: IR standalone seems to work best when the IR card is version 20.14.xx and the exciter being 20.09 or higher
You may also need to realign the station when switching control cards.


Keep the PMs and emails coming guys ! Thanks.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2010 9:04 pm
by caprice96
This sounds like a cool idea, would like to see this idea expand.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:43 am
by AEC
I am interested....
I have a 460 macine being reinstalled, new location...
No controller yet, stand-alone machine with ID only.
But it will hear a pin drop on carpet!
No IMD, PIM or junk of any sort.
Sign me up, let's get this started..adding radios to my setup will be easy.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:41 pm
by 123
From the feedback I been getting it seems everyone likes the idea, but everyone is also scared to do it. haha

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:36 am
by SlimBob
You mean like D-Star, except not brain-dead?

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:22 pm
by MOEtorola
Count me in, Just need to start looking for quantar parts, all I have laying around right know is GTR8000 parts,,,LOL

Anyways IR would be really cool,

This is a little of topic, but
Benifits to multi site trunking,,,,,digital or analog prefer hmmmmm digital for sure.

1 Able to set up talkgroups with users interests in mind. ex. techies, old timers, building repeaters, bass fishing, hunting, baking a cake talkgroup... ect...( I would be on the techie or bass fishing talkgroups most of the time).
2 private call , a friend, no matter there location
3 roaming site to site, dont have to change the channel, great for when on vacation and havent a clue what repeaters are active, the repeater books dont seem to be of any help in panama city beach,,LOL with all the paper repeaters.
4 efficiant use of preciuos spectrum
5 emcomm
6...
7......

There are some super sharp hams out there that I am sure could write some code to have the basic principles of a master site, Glad there are people out there like u 123. I know you already know all this stuff 123, but just in case others are viewing.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:38 am
by SlimBob
Let's throw this back a bit... since Motorola has largely just ignored ham radio use of their equipment, why not reverse engineer the linking protocol used by the site controller and adapt the system to an open-source controller with integral VoIP support, perhaps tied into asterisk intimately?

Synchronous modems between sites, etc. it should be easy to find a point to sniff the data on a RS-xxx line somewhere.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:50 am
by MOEtorola
Thats what im screaming,, LOL Surley there are some sharp code writers out there that can get the basics going. astriks is a start just need the code to keep track of subscribers and talkgroups....routing to sites.....Now this is a topic guys..

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:55 am
by alex
Why not use USRP's and P25 instead since the protocol is open? The codec you might have to pay for but the standard is open and well documented (one would assume).

Unless i'm missing the big picture here...

-Alex

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:04 pm
by 123
Alex,

Sure P25 is an option if we are going that route. I wasn't omitting it, just merely suggesting P16 since it was a cheaper route for those of you that already have Quantar repeaters on the air because all you have to do is swap out the SCM or SIMM, reprogram and maybe realign.

But I am open to either or.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:47 am
by SlimBob
USRPs are expensive:

http://www.ettus.com/order

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:30 pm
by MOEtorola
I'm not sure that USrps have any thing to do with what we are talking about.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:07 pm
by d119
er, I think you need more than modems to backhaul a true trunking system.

A single-channel IR with VOC is not trunking. It's fancy conventional.

This is a great idea, it really is, but being someone who maintains a few "real" IR's, there's the issue of the cost of backhaul, and doing it over IP ain't as simple as it looks. Think circuit-switched (T Carrier) circuits.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:49 am
by Spiffy50
How would it identify? If it dropped the control channel to send CWID, subscriber radios would go "out of range" for that time would they not?

Also, current ham regulations don't permit continuous transmissions except beacon stations, and one way communications aren't permitted except to establish communications (IE, CQ). I guess the arguement could be made that by the control channel transmitting, it is there to establish communications.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:44 am
by 123
Spiffy50 wrote:How would it identify? If it dropped the control channel to send CWID, subscriber radios would go "out of range" for that time would they not?

Also, current ham regulations don't permit continuous transmissions except beacon stations, and one way communications aren't permitted except to establish communications (IE, CQ). I guess the arguement could be made that by the control channel transmitting, it is there to establish communications.



first off, if the Station is IDing, subscriber radios shouldn't be transmitting so that the ID can be properly heard and identified. Unlike now on conventional where most people keep talking over the ID of the station which is by itself, is against the rules. So the way I see it, {VOC} has a nice feature to not allow hams from doing such interference :)

2nd, if you read my posts on the other thread. The control channel is NOT a one way transmission if you understood how a control channel works. Subscriber radios are constantly sharing data back and forth with it. AND, even if the control channel was a one-way tx, the channel itself is NOT one way since there are voice transmissions on the same channel.

AND, even if the control channel was indeed alone without voice, read 97.109 {e}
The control channel is "automatic", and is a "data emission"
Which goes in conjunction with 97.205 {d}

:)

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:53 am
by 123
d119 wrote:er, I think you need more than modems to backhaul a true trunking system.

A single-channel IR with VOC is not trunking. It's fancy conventional.

This is a great idea, it really is, but being someone who maintains a few "real" IR's, there's the issue of the cost of backhaul, and doing it over IP ain't as simple as it looks. Think circuit-switched (T Carrier) circuits.



Stop thinking the Motorola way...There are other ways to accomplish the same goal.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 3:49 pm
by SlimBob
d119 wrote:er, I think you need more than modems to backhaul a true trunking system.

A single-channel IR with VOC is not trunking. It's fancy conventional.

This is a great idea, it really is, but being someone who maintains a few "real" IR's, there's the issue of the cost of backhaul, and doing it over IP ain't as simple as it looks. Think circuit-switched (T Carrier) circuits.


Requiring a T-circuit for networking isn't a barrier -- it's a way in. Using a Digium T1 card and Asterisk, it's possible to take apart a T1 into a individual DS0 with signaling information. We have Atmel devices that are cheap and have free toolchains that can be used to do anything we need to at any rate up to almost clock rate to manipulate data.

It's doable, using the linking interface provided by Motorola. One can expect that the audio will be time-sliced and time synchronized across the system, along with data. It's doable, but it's a two-year project by a few dedicated people who hope Motorola doesn't wake up and sue them.

Blizzard sued the developers of an open-source Battle.Net client (internet connectivity assistant for thier games) because the developers of that open-source software didn't implement the anti-piracy mechanisms that Blizzard wrote into thier own software. They didn't implement anti-piracy because they didn't reverse engineer that part of it...

Like any free-source project, there are a number of ways to tackle this problem. From using parts of a real Motorola trunking system (Quantar, etc.), to implementing them in software, hardware, or software defined radio... this is a project that's possible on a number of different levels. The question is: How do _YOU_ want to implement it? There is no wrong answer. (Unless that answer is D-Star, in which case I request that you drink Drano.)

Also, the FCC isn't really an issue here; they have been LAX on enforcement for decades now. As long as you work with your local coordinators for the data/voice services, you should be good. There's no reason why the control channel can't go into the simplex area other than it has an input as well.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:44 pm
by SlimBob
Here's some more thoughts on implementation... A given carrier takes up a certain amount of bandwidth. Cavity filters also have a narrow bandwidth where loss is at minimum. So why not implement a one-repeater trunking site (two rx+tx) with the inputs almost side-by-side in the around the coordinated receive frequency, and add a single can to the transmit side to use for the control channel just like the drawings for adding an APRS radio to an existing FM/conventional repeater (site).

And here's the million dollar SDR idea that I've been told isn't new (why, because it's spread spectrum!): Why not, using SDR, produce exactly one cycle at a given radio frequency, and change frequencies and spit out another pulse. Using Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), you can transmit two different frequencies as long as neither is on the air at the same time. The reciever will automatically ignore impulse noise (the time the radio isn't on the air) and as long as you have a cycle of RF at least 8,000 times a second you'll have a received signal on the far side. When you have a pulse train that's normally 150,000,000 cycles per second, 24,000 cycles goes by in a hurry....

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:32 pm
by escomm
123 wrote:first off, if the Station is IDing, subscriber radios shouldn't be transmitting so that the ID can be properly heard and identified. Unlike now on conventional where most people keep talking over the ID of the station which is by itself, is against the rules. So the way I see it, {VOC} has a nice feature to not allow hams from doing such interference :)

How would one tell a subscriber to not affiliate only when the CC has dropped for the ID?

2nd, if you read my posts on the other thread. The control channel is NOT a one way transmission if you understood how a control channel works. Subscriber radios are constantly sharing data back and forth with it. AND, even if the control channel was a one-way tx, the channel itself is NOT one way since there are voice transmissions on the same channel.

Doesn't matter about the channel, it's all about the transmission. The rules are clear, no way one transmissions except where specifically permitted and there is no specific permission in Part 97 for a control channel. Also I'd love to know how someone who is not the control operator would be able to break in and silence the CC in the event of an emergency, so I'm not sure how the station would comply with 97.101c.
AND, even if the control channel was indeed alone without voice, read 97.109 {e}
The control channel is "automatic", and is a "data emission"
Which goes in conjunction with 97.205 {d}

You might have a point if 97.109e were still codified in Part 97, however the FCC has deleted it from the code. While 97.205 is relevant, it's not applicable, since 97.111b2 limits the one way CC to "brief tranmissions" .. A CC running a full duty cycle will not pass muster.

Further, 97.113b specifically prohibits one way transmissions, and whether you'd like to accept it or not a CC is a one way transmission. This is why trunking systems are required to be licensed with their own station class and emissions designator. And lastly, nobody has been able to locate an emissions designator for trunking service that would be permissible under 97.307f.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:22 pm
by Spiffy50
[quote="escomm"]
How would one tell a subscriber to not affiliate only when the CC has dropped for the ID?
[quote]

That part is simple, as a subscriber radio will never try to affiliate when it doesn't hear a control channel. IE, if the CC was dropped for CWID, and a subscriber hit the PTT, they'd get a bonk, as the radio doesn't know there's a system present. Same idea as when you're out of range - the radio wouldn't know the difference.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:53 am
by MOEtorola
Emcomm "and whether you'd like to accept it or not a CC is a one way transmission"
I stronly Disagree, A CC is not a one way transmission.

Paging, TV, FM/AM radio, examples of one way transmission.

I guess a guy could argue the point that a ham repeater is one way as well, if you consider that it has a seperate Rx feq.

Emcomm "And lastly, nobody has been able to locate an emissions designator for trunking service that would be permissible under 97.307f."
I don't consider 1 channel VOC trunking, 2 or more channels located within the coverage of the CC, Yes.

Altough its not what I consider,, it what FCC considers.MOEtorola

Posts: 23
Joined: 28 Feb 2002 00:00
Private message

Nothing personal EMCOMM just my humble opinion. I rarley disagree with you,,LOL

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:47 am
by escomm
The point of the CC is to tell the subscriber what to do, at least in the IR setup being discussed here. Astro25 systems will be much different, but in this case the radios don't necessarily have to affiliate onto the system to receive traffic so long as the system key and CC channel are properly programmed. A radio will not try to affiliate until you try to talk, or you can program it to auto affiliate, this topic has surely been discussed ad nauseum here on batlabs.

Your point regarding the repeater being one way is moot, since repeaters are specifically authorized in Part 97. Control channels are not.

Your point regarding the emissions designator is moot, trunking systems have very specific and unique emissions designators and none of those designators are referenced in the authorized emissions list from the FCC.

We still haven't gotten to how the CC will monitor a frequency before transmitting, nor have we gotten to limiting transmission length the minimum necessary to communicate since the CC is a full duty cycle proposition and will have a very difficult time complying with monitoring requirements.

There's a reason that most trunking systems have to use exclusive use frequencies, and it goes without saying that there is no exclusive use when it comes to amateur frequencies.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:34 am
by SlimBob
Well, what if the trunking system uses a stepped-power power amplifer?

If one is re-writing the system from scratch, there's no reason why the power output of the control channel can't match the strength of the distant user.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:33 pm
by escomm
OK, let's run with that for a moment. How are you going to have a trunking system without a continuous duty control channel? How is the control channel going to limit its transmissions to the minimum length necessary to establish a communication? How can you reconcile a requirement that a station must monitor before transmitting when the station's theory of operation requires it to run all the time?

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:47 pm
by SlimBob
The control channel would assume the role of a propagation beacon. When someone affiliates (or attempts to) the system raises the power to whatever point necessary for the subscriber radio to respond. That sets the minimum power level, and periodicly one raises the power so radios farther out may copy it.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:06 pm
by The Pager Geek
Wasn't this a movie?

"If you build it... they will come..."

In the end... all you'll get out of it is a "neato sounding key-up tone."

Name a feature or option that an IR station provides above a regular P25 station?

tpg

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:14 pm
by 123
The Pager Geek wrote:Wasn't this a movie?

"If you build it... they will come..."

In the end... all you'll get out of it is a "neato sounding key-up tone."

Name a feature or option that an IR station provides above a regular P25 station?

tpg




Several

1. RSSI reading. A Conv. P25 repeater does not support this.
2. Talk permit tone so you know you are in talking range of the system. with subscriber scan enabled. A Conv. P25 repeater does not support this either. You can trick your radio for DVRS on Conv. P25 to get the talk permit tone but then you get no scan :(
3. Signal strength meter. Again, P25 Conv. does NOT support this.
4. Enhanced Private call, again Conv. P25 repeater does not support this.
5. System watch type of software {There are several} Heck, you could even write your own program. P25 Conv. again, does not support this.
6. The best reason of all. Because someone wants to do it ! We dont have to justify any reasons other then the fact that someone wants to do it. Its ham radio for christ sakes ! Its all in fun, or did you forget that part? This isn't a Public Safety budget meeting...The reasons do NOT have to be justified by any means, shape, or form.

Far as your "neato sounding" comment, who are you kidding? Have you heard any of the crazy repeater tones on ham radio? The way I see it, these talk permit tones are a major downplay to the rest of the ham repeaters out there....

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:30 pm
by alex
123 wrote:Far as your "neato sounding" comment, who are you kidding? Have you heard any of the crazy repeater tones on ham radio? The way I see it, these talk permit tones are a major downplay to the rest of the ham repeaters out there....


K2QH in NYC gets on with a voice ID'er that goes "with over xx,xxx minutes of b.s. this is the KQ2H repeater..." (just to further this point)

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:02 pm
by The Pager Geek
123 wrote:1. RSSI reading. A Conv. P25 repeater does not support this.
2. Talk permit tone so you know you are in talking range of the system. with subscriber scan enabled. A Conv. P25 repeater does not support this either. You can trick your radio for DVRS on Conv. P25 to get the talk permit tone but then you get no scan :(
3. Signal strength meter. Again, P25 Conv. does NOT support this.
4. Enhanced Private call, again Conv. P25 repeater does not support this.
5. System watch type of software {There are several} Heck, you could even write your own program. P25 Conv. again, does not support this.
6. The best reason of all. Because someone wants to do it ! We dont have to justify any reasons other then the fact that someone wants to do it. Its ham radio for christ sakes ! Its all in fun, or did you forget that part? This isn't a Public Safety budget meeting...The reasons do NOT have to be justified by any means, shape, or form.


Ok,
1 and 3 are the same.
2 Is somewhat valid, but that's what kurchunking in conventional is for.. The talk permit is the same thing. You're going to argue that just by keying a conventional P25 doesn't mean you are in good coverage, but then again, it doesn't for trunked either.
4 Is moot since you can do private calls on P25 Conventional
5 Is moot since any radio will display the ID or P25 software that exists to track users on conventional.
6 Isn't a reason above P25

So you're trying to engineer this fairly complex system for Signal Strength and a talk permit tone...

OK... have at it. It seems like you are asking permission? If you're so focused and determined, screw the planet, just do it!

tpg

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:53 pm
by Astro Spectra
When amateurs became interested in VHF FM and repeaters the FCC took some time to come to the party with workable licence arrangements.

In 1980 the FCC granted authorization for amateurs to transmit ASCII codes, leading the way to packet radio.

In 1999 the FCC eliminated restrictions on spread spectrum techniques "to allow amateur stations greater flexibility and permit them to use the SS techniques used in other communications services".

In 2000 Dale N. Hatfield, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, at the FCC speaking at an AMRAD function said in respect of SDR:

"Indeed, if we can solve some of the difficult regulatory issues involved, it is even possible to envision Software Defined Radios as a means of facilitating a new era of amateur experimentation”.

Whilst it is critical to respect regulatory restraints there is a clear history of the FCC listening to well-reasoned arguments for removing constraints on the development or implementation of technology in amateur radio.

Trunking technology, the progression towards P25, and the combination of the two in particular offers the amateur service a wide range of advantages. We are seeing that with technology such as D-STAR but, given that this is the Batboard, I guess we’re pretty much all biased towards Motorola derived technology.

I think there is room to experiment, analog, digital, whatever!

vive la différence

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:56 pm
by 123
[/quote]
1 and 3 are the same.
2 Is somewhat valid, but that's what kurchunking in conventional is for.. The talk permit is the same thing. You're going to argue that just by keying a conventional P25 doesn't mean you are in good coverage, but then again, it doesn't for trunked either.
4 Is moot since you can do private calls on P25 Conventional
5 Is moot since any radio will display the ID or P25 software that exists to track users on conventional.
6 Isn't a reason above P25

So you're trying to engineer this fairly complex system for Signal Strength and a talk permit tone...

OK... have at it. It seems like you are asking permission? If you're so focused and determined, screw the planet, just do it!

tpg[/quote]

1 and 3 are similar, but not the same.

1. Refers to actually measuring RSSI for a more in depth analysis of your signal strength. And I, know the exact RSSI number I need to have good coverage in any given spot within the coverage area of my repeater. It is a great tool for many reasons.

2. "kurchunking" a repeater is not only annoying, but its illegal {assuming you are not going to ID} which is common when people "kurchunk" a repeater.

3. The signal strength meter is a quick analysis of how well you are receiving the system. This serves as a great tool when trying to find that "hot spot" for receiving or transmitting.

4. Conv. private call isn't really private call at all, but more less a temporary alerting feature. If you attempt to transmit voice with the "call" feature you will be heard by everyone in the primary group. Only trunking has true private call because unlike conv. Trunking private call moves two users to its own virtual group for a private one-on-one conversation without disturbing the primary group users.

5. Reference conv.: The radios wont display the ID of a radio that turned their radio off, or turned their radio on, or switched channels, or entered into private call, etc, etc.

6. I wont answer this because I have no clue what you are trying to say...

I think #1 & #3 are very important on a digital repeater. On Conv. P25 you have no clue how well you are receiving when you un-key, because you do not have that "carrier" like you do on analog. Yea sure, you can have a 2-3 second digital hang time. But all you get is a silent busy light. Which gives you no indication how well you are receiving the repeater. At least 1 & 3 give you some added tools to make up for this.


To reply to your last comment. I already have a stand alone IR system. And as prices go down on the quantars I will buy more and expand it. My friends do not have IR systems yet, they are still P25 conv so I can not test the linking sites aspects of it yet. And they wanted to see if I was going to actually like it or revert back to conv.

And speaking as a P25 conv. owner, I will say I am much happier with the IR set up then I was with the P25 conv. set up. The IR system seems to give me everything I was missing on the P25 conv. side.

The reason I started this thread was to see what ideas and interest I would get for a system like this on ham. Clearly, most people are for it. They are just afraid of being witch hunted for starting something that has never been done on ham radio before. Which is understandable.

What is taboo today, may be the standard of tomorrow...An open mind is in itself progress.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:55 am
by The Pager Geek
123 wrote:The reason I started this thread was to see what ideas and interest I would get for a system like this on ham. Clearly, most people are for it. They are just afraid of being witch hunted for starting something that has never been done on ham radio before. Which is understandable.

What is taboo today, may be the standard of tomorrow...An open mind is in itself progress.


I am one who believes in "It's often easier to apologize than to ask for permission." What I'm saying is "Go for it." Clearly everyone has their own expert opinions on the rules, but if you are doing something in good faith because the rules haven't caught up to the times... and you don't mind the risk or consequences if you are wrong... go for it.

Dealing with the FCC, they usually only swing by if you're pissing someone off. Then they tell you "stop that." It's when people don't listen and tell the FCC off or don't stop doing whatever that eventually lands them in hot water. The clear exception is if it's a malicious act with bad intentions. Then you fry on the first offense.

I'm all for screwy adventures in radios, especially on ham channels that aren't being used. If they're free, make them useful.

Ok... I'm done.

tpg

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:53 pm
by SlimBob
The Pager Geek wrote:I am one who believes in "It's often easier to apologize than to ask for permission." What I'm saying is "Go for it." Clearly everyone has their own expert opinions on the rules, but if you are doing something in good faith because the rules haven't caught up to the times... and you don't mind the risk or consequences if you are wrong... go for it.

Dealing with the FCC, they usually only swing by if you're pissing someone off. Then they tell you "stop that." It's when people don't listen and tell the FCC off or don't stop doing whatever that eventually lands them in hot water. The clear exception is if it's a malicious act with bad intentions. Then you fry on the first offense.


The nice part about this is that if you do get to talk to an inspector, turn it off, but get a complete legal description from them about what mode you were operating, then petition for an STA for it.

Again however, if you have three coordinations from your current local repeater coordinator and you're operating a trunking system on it... what was the problem?

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:06 pm
by MOEtorola
I'M READY!!!

Keeping eyes peeled for a good used quantar.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:15 pm
by AEC
Actually, a 'true' trunking system isn't necessary if the entire network is IP based, the individual sites can be an LTR based radio with IP linking to all IP registered sites in every LTR logic controller.
Every LTR system wcle-Mneed the linked radio's ID stored so it can be used as an access for the sites linked to that single site, and so on.
Too bad Circle-M has so few cchoices in the LTR market.
The format is far simpler to implement over anything related to SmartNet, Privacy Plus or OmniLink.
Too much overhead for site controllers, ancillary site equipment, plus the cost of licensing from Circle-M(ouch).
Don't forget those pesky firmware updates, iButton refresh costs, royalties to DVSI.
Normal site equipment will never be an issue, even for building combiners, isolators, site monitoring, Etc...
I'm hoping to get a few of those FunCube SDR dongles and playing with them for possible implementation within an IP envronment for use as a secondary recceiver for a linked LTR site.
Of course, there are RF issues to deal with with this USB device, but I am certain it can be done.
With the dongle cost running about $130.00 U.S from the U.K, it is a relatively low cost receiver with wideband capabilities, so you can effectively program a digital channel to monitor, or link with.
Howard also has information on modifying the receiver for other bandwidths.

So much to think about, and so mucch more that would be so much fun to pllay with...no time though.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:57 pm
by smokeybehr
One of the thoughts that I had was to take a block in the 420-430 range and use it to begin building a system. There is plenty of surplus equipment available from the Feds, both mobile and infrastructure equipment, that can be retuned and reused in the band without a lot of trouble. Systems Sabers and Spectras will be the "old school" equipment, and those that can get the latest XTS/XTL/APX gear can also use it.

Of course, the MotoTRBO guys have it all dialed in. With IP Site Connect, a massive number of repeaters can be connected together, and all you have to do is tune in the next repeater as you move along.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:45 pm
by SlimBob
And that's always been the secret. But ICOM didn't get it right, because that's not how the Japanese use radios.

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:45 am
by d119
smokeybehr wrote:One of the thoughts that I had was to take a block in the 420-430 range and use it to begin building a system. There is plenty of surplus equipment available from the Feds, both mobile and infrastructure equipment, that can be retuned and reused in the band without a lot of trouble. Systems Sabers and Spectras will be the "old school" equipment, and those that can get the latest XTS/XTL/APX gear can also use it.

Of course, the MotoTRBO guys have it all dialed in. With IP Site Connect, a massive number of repeaters can be connected together, and all you have to do is tune in the next repeater as you move along.


Except being in California, 420-430MHz is chock full of point-to-point links...

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:38 pm
by SlimBob
OK, so to make a multi-site linked system, we need to have IP connectivity, and some way to synchronize the audio together according to a known distance? And deal with the links changing lengths (variable packet loss)?

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:03 pm
by SlimBob
^ Asterisk handles this with the built-in jitter buffer.

https://allstarlink.org/voter.html

Re: Amateur Radio - National Experimental Trunking{AR-NET}

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:10 pm
by ke6iyc1
Has this died?

I have (in the past) built a single sit/single channel IR box (UHF commercial).

They work great (to clear a channel of illegal operators).

Brian
KE6IYC