TRBO Amateur Installations

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:59 am

Do you have a MOTOTRBO repeater? If so, where? We're always looking for people interested in joining our amateur IP site connect network at http://dmr-marc.net We're especially (though not exclusively) looking for UK and Canadian stations right now since we don't have any on the network. We do have USA, Australia, Germany, and South Africa.

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:45 am

Hmmm... over 60 reads and no replies... Are you all THINKING of installing a TRBO repeater? Intrigued? Have any questions? We do have room for US applicants to the network, too. Where are you Houston, Minneapolis, San Antonio, Indianapolis, Columbus, Detroit, Philly?

Great technical conversation, awesome voice quality. Don't be afraid of digital when it's DMR. Some of the users of other digital systems have been quite impressed. I'll just leave it at that.

Jim1348 · Post by **Jim1348** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:54 pm

Well, I know I am certainly NOT thinking of installing a MOTO TRBO repeater for amateur radio use, nor am I even intrigued by the idea. If anything, I am more concerned that we have so many different digital standards. I have used both P25 and MOTO TRBO, but I wish that there was a common digital standard that the US would have adopted. I guess I really like the idea of interoperability and with some areas going P25, others on MOTO TRBO, and still others on Icom D-Star, it really makes it difficult for your average ham to have a radio that will work on multiple disparate systems. Now I come from a public safety background, so sometimes I do have a tendency to apply things there to the amateur community. My previous agency joined a statewide P25 trunked system, so that is where my P25 experience comes from. More recently I have used MOTO TRBO systems. Two different animals, but both digital, nevertheless. I do realize that it is a little too late now, but I really think the amateur community would be better off if we could have agreed on ONE digital modulation standard. I hope this doesn't sound inflammatory, because that is not my intent, but that is my opinion. Now that issue aside, I do think digital modulation is pretty slick, whether it is P25, MOTO TRBO, or something else! The location is south of Saint Paul MN.

NØJS

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:17 pm

No it doesn't sound inflammatory at all. It's very understandable that you use radios you have access to. That's how I got started with TRBO. The IP site connect and the lower cost of the TRBO/DMR radios seem to be driving the growth. I too wish there was one digital standard, but it's not going to happen. Hams by nature like to experiment with new technologies. Each has it's advantages and disadvantages. Each has a group of cheerleaders and detractors, to the core.

Oddly enough, I hear the P25-Phase 2 is going to be 2 slot TDMA, very similar to DMR. It looks like DMR and P25-Phase 2 will be close cousins. That's a positive development for technology convergence.

Jim1348 · Post by **Jim1348** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:03 pm

Exactly. Hey, I even had a wild idea once that us hams would experiment with iDen. Can you imagine an amateur Nextel like network. We could all have Nextel sized handsets and be able to use selective calling to the extreme. It is kind of ironic, in a way, those of us that got into amateur radio like the aspect of being able to have an almost "party line" HF net or FM repeater. But, we are also drawn to the possibility of selective calling. A good example of that, at least in my area, some folks set up repeaters on 222 mHz, 900 mHz, and 1.2 gHz. When you ask the trustees about them they often suggest that they like the exclusivity of the the less common FM bands. Invariably, before long, you will hear about those same trustees linking to 2 meters and/or 70 cm. When you ask them why they are linking, they often reply that their repeater wasn't getting any use!

What often interest me is testing with the various bands and modulations. For example, have you done any straight up simplex testing on MOTOR TRBO? I haven't, at least not yet. I have done simplex testing on BOTH P25 and iDen. Interestingly enough, on similar bands/frequencies, I have found that with 600 milliwatts on 900 mHz vs. 3 watts on P25, there was not very much difference in range!

Astro Spectra · Post by **Astro Spectra** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:26 pm

It might be a pipe dream but I'd be interested in a P25 - ETSE DMR (aka MotoTRBO) gateway. Since P25 is IMBE and DMR is AMBE+2 a voice transcoder would be needed and looks like Harris have made something:

http://www.pspc.harris.com/media/ECR-75 ... -10535.pdf

Rayfield have their c-Bridge product but it seems to only go half way.

And not to mention the various open source (but unlicensed) vocoder software packages...

It's promising that the unit ID is 24 bits in both standards so the DMR-MARC call sign register could be used for both.

MotoTRBO seems to have all the WAN IP networking stuff covered so an Site COnnect emulation adapter to hang a Quantar off the far end of the link using the V.24 synchronous interface would be very cool.

Post by **escomm** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:18 pm

Well this might be a good time to point out that running a TRBO repeater on ham bands is technically non compliant with Part 97 as Part 97 doesn't provide for an emissions designator with 2 talk paths on a single frequency. There is a NPRM before the FCC filed by the ARRL but I don't think Part 97 has been amended yet. So technically anyone running a TRBO repeater is ... well I'm just sayin'

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:52 am

escomm wrote:Well this might be a good time to point out that running a TRBO repeater on ham bands is technically non compliant with Part 97 as Part 97 doesn't provide for an emissions designator with 2 talk paths on a single frequency. There is a NPRM before the FCC filed by the ARRL but I don't think Part 97 has been amended yet. So technically anyone running a TRBO repeater is ... well I'm just sayin'

That's your interpretation and the League's counsel of the rules. If you read the rules closely, no where does it say you cannot run 2 slot TDMA. The rules are written to say this is what you can do, not what you cannot do so it purposely leaves open many options for the amateur experimenter. Also, the ARRL misinterpreted the emission designator and how hams use it. That was another sticking point. There is a lengthy explanation of our FCC filed position at http://ecfsdocs.fcc.gov/filings/2011/04 ... 77664.html

To date, no TRBO installation has been required to terminate by the FCC. Over 50 TRBO ham repeaters have been operating in the USA for almost 3 years now. The FCC has not issued any cease and desist despite becoming keenly aware of the situation in the NPRM over 4 months ago. There's probably a good reason for that. We are operating legally. I think the ARRL had the best of intentions to forward a technology, but they were a little less versed on how it was being used as evidenced by thinking it is just MOTOTRBO not DMR, which is made by multiple manufacturers. That's like calling FM Kenwood, or Yaesu.

Best Regards.

Post by **escomm** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:43 am

Interesting perspective. Not one based on reality, see Part 74 users running TRBO, but interesting nonetheless.

rc50won · Post by **rc50won** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:02 am

Jeff you're such a troublemaker! I guess you want me to send back the 6550 I got from you? No way!
BTW I will be out there on Aug 8 - 10th and again at USC Aug 25-28th.

Seeing as I know both of you, let me throw a 3rd cracker into the soup. I think this is nothing more than a typical regulatory SNAFU that the ARRL decided to play "Knight on White Horse" with. I also suspect this is more of a PITA for the FCC than it's worth. The rubber stamp will come out and badabing "APPROVED".

Either way I am thoroughly enjoying the TRBO network. My Quantar is getting lonely.

Marshall
N4BIF

Post by **escomm** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:29 am

Well that's the rub of it and another reason it's all stupid and doesn't make sense. The subscribers are apparently kosher because they only use one timeslot, it's the repeater that causes the issue. And while this all may be much ado about nothing, at least one NOV has already gone out to a broadcaster running digital without the emissions designator on their license: http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotic ... 321A1.html and I have heard from a couple of different places that there will be a few more forthcoming. There is more to the story in the instant case I linked (i.e. failure to identify) but the fact remains that this is affecting more than just Part 97 and will have some real consequences for some licensees, although IMHO nobody running under Part 97 will catch any flak

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:42 am

Jeff, I think you have it backwards. According to the ARRL's NPRM filing "the rules clearly do permit multiple time slot TDMA." But, it is not impossible, as a subscriber, to have pure 1-slot TDMA right now if you use a repeater. Some header and other information sent with each packet is not sent on a specific slot. The NPRM is mainly directed at direct mode, aka simplex communications.

I agree with Marshall on this one and he's a pretty bright guy. This is a regulatory loophole language issue and the big thing brought up in the comment that our group submitted is that the emission designator way of determining legality of a piece of hardware is not entirely the best way with all the new digital modes out there now. You can legitimately classify the same emission multiple ways. Today, different manufacturers of DMR are doing that which adds to the confusion. Either this isn't important enough for the FCC to worry about or they just realized they need to come out with better guidance for filings on emission modes.

Post by **escomm** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:16 pm

You're right, it's right there in the filing, single time slot does not appear to jive and multiple timeslots does.

I had heard from the beginning that the Part 97 NPRM was a formality and that the Commission would approve it posthaste, and like I said I don't think the FCC is going to give anyone running DMR or TRBO under Part 97 any flak. What I am saying is that Motorola's election to pursue the X in the designator is what's to blame here. It's the same reason that TRBO was (is?) at an all stop for a number of Part 74 licensees, to the point some had to deprogram all digital modes and revert back to wideband analog.

Had Motorola gone with the F1D or F1E designator this all may very well have been moot, although there is some question as to whether or not they are truly applicable to TRBO/DMR, but the product group says it should fly so I'll defer to their expertise.

d119 · Post by **d119** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:00 pm

escomm wrote:You're right, it's right there in the filing, single time slot does not appear to jive and multiple timeslots does.

I had heard from the beginning that the Part 97 NPRM was a formality and that the Commission would approve it posthaste, and like I said I don't think the FCC is going to give anyone running DMR or TRBO under Part 97 any flak. What I am saying is that Motorola's election to pursue the X in the designator is what's to blame here. It's the same reason that TRBO was (is?) at an all stop for a number of Part 74 licensees, to the point some had to deprogram all digital modes and revert back to wideband analog.

Had Motorola gone with the F1D or F1E designator this all may very well have been moot, although there is some question as to whether or not they are truly applicable to TRBO/DMR, but the product group says it should fly so I'll defer to their expertise.

OK. Let me throw a couple of pennies in here.

Jeff, you and I both know damn well the FCC doesn't enforce any rules when it comes to Part 97.

You know this, I know this.

hehehehehehehehehehehe

That's all I'll say. That's all that needs to be said.

Post by **escomm** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:53 pm

Touche....

d119 · Post by **d119** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:57 pm

escomm wrote:Touche....

Hahahaha, I thought you of all people could appreciate and understand that comment.

Back to the topic at hand!

motorola_otaku · Post by **motorola_otaku** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:49 pm

aa9vi wrote:Where are you Houston

I would not look for one to appear in H-town any time soon, as the interest level in commercial-based digital voice (i.e. not D-STAR) among hams with primo site access just isn't there. IDK, maybe one of the lurking Houstonians knows something I don't but there's a reason the 4th largest city in the US has gone this long without so much as a single P25 repeater.

WV8VFD · Post by **WV8VFD** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:23 am

I hopefully will be putting a trbo UHF repeater up in Parkersburg, WV here before too much longer. I dont know how many users from the locale I will attract, but thats where IPSC comes in handy.

mancow · Post by **mancow** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:28 pm

I'm in a town of 15,000 and even we have a vhf P25 machine.

motorola_otaku wrote:
aa9vi wrote:Where are you Houston
I would not look for one to appear in H-town any time soon, as the interest level in commercial-based digital voice (i.e. not D-STAR) among hams with primo site access just isn't there. IDK, maybe one of the lurking Houstonians knows something I don't but there's a reason the 4th largest city in the US has gone this long without so much as a single P25 repeater.

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:03 am

motorola_otaku wrote:
aa9vi wrote:Where are you Houston
I would not look for one to appear in H-town any time soon, as the interest level in commercial-based digital voice (i.e. not D-STAR) among hams with primo site access just isn't there. IDK, maybe one of the lurking Houstonians knows something I don't but there's a reason the 4th largest city in the US has gone this long without so much as a single P25 repeater.

Well, then it's ripe territory for this new technology. Is there a lower ham population around there?

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:08 am

escomm wrote:You're right, it's right there in the filing, single time slot does not appear to jive and multiple timeslots does.

I had heard from the beginning that the Part 97 NPRM was a formality and that the Commission would approve it posthaste, and like I said I don't think the FCC is going to give anyone running DMR or TRBO under Part 97 any flak. What I am saying is that Motorola's election to pursue the X in the designator is what's to blame here. It's the same reason that TRBO was (is?) at an all stop for a number of Part 74 licensees, to the point some had to deprogram all digital modes and revert back to wideband analog.

Had Motorola gone with the F1D or F1E designator this all may very well have been moot, although there is some question as to whether or not they are truly applicable to TRBO/DMR, but the product group says it should fly so I'll defer to their expertise.

Yeah, that X emissions designator created the problem and since the FCC approved it that way they now have to deal with the repercussions. They should have threw it back at MOT and told them to file under each applicable emissions mode, like what Tait did. Several MOT engineers were never happy about the filing. I guess the whole point is that hams adapt commercial technology so really the commercial filing is not as important as how the hams use it on their bands. Hams are ultimately responsible for which modes the equipment operates.

bezking · Post by **bezking** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:14 am

motorola_otaku wrote:
aa9vi wrote:Where are you Houston
I would not look for one to appear in H-town any time soon, as the interest level in commercial-based digital voice (i.e. not D-STAR) among hams with primo site access just isn't there. IDK, maybe one of the lurking Houstonians knows something I don't but there's a reason the 4th largest city in the US has gone this long without so much as a single P25 repeater.

Hell New York City doesn't even have anything...

Tom in D.C. · Post by **Tom in D.C.** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:22 am

Ben,

That is incorrect. There are two TRBO repeaters in Queens, which if I recall correctly from my many
years living there is part of NYC. I'm not up on the P25 situation there but I'd be willing to bet that
there is at least one P25 as well in the NYC/NNJ area.

Regards,

bezking · Post by **bezking** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:06 am

Sorry about that Tom, I misread Otaku's post, so I was unclear. Yes, we do have an active Trbo system here in the NYC metro area, I was referring specifically to P25 repeaters. There are supposedly a few P25 machines in NNJ on 440 but I've never heard any activity on any of them...

KitN1MCC · Post by **KitN1MCC** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:18 pm

would be nice if there was some 2 meter trbo rpts for us VHF guys

Just sayin

WV8VFD · Post by **WV8VFD** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:02 pm

KitN1MCC wrote:would be nice if there was some 2 meter trbo rpts for us VHF guys

Just sayin

I agree. Theres only a handfull of VHF machines on TRBO up. I have a VHF 6550 but I am gonna have to go with UHF on my trbo machine, mostly because of duplexer pricing, along with the fact that I would get more local use out of it on UHF with people traveling through.

boteman · Post by **boteman** » Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:05 am

How practical is it to put up a split-site TRBO VHF repeater, to get around the need for a full duplexer? Would it amount to an IPSC connection where one site is receive-only and the other transmit-only?

Are there alternative connection options?

mike m · Post by **mike m** » Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:29 pm

S$%T you guys are way ahead of the Pacific northwest scene, we have/had a couple of mixed mode repeaters in the Portland/Salem area but when I went in on them using P25, 3 months ago, I was about lynched.

The repeaters up here sit idle on digital only passing 25K FM and if you dare key up and ID and then go over to P25 your going to get royally chewed out, it gives one a sour taste for any type of repeater operation.

This is probably why I dumped all of my digital radios and even my 900 repeater and stopped using anything above 54 MHz and reverted to operating 6 meters and below in CW, none of the crap VHF, UHF 900 MHz politics to worry about when you are playing CW.

Just like when I started in radio 36 years ago, I began with CW and I'll probably end with CW.

Mike

Post by **k4vks** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:20 pm

I for one, am very intrigued. We have a UHF repeater here in Port St Lucie (zip 34953) with a very nice footprint, but doesn't get much use. I am contemplating approaching the club that owns it about converting it to trbo. I just need to do more homework to determine exactly what and how much is involved in this endeavor.

73s de Singh AJ4VS

com501 · Post by **com501** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:05 pm

Consider you can get a MotoTrbo portable with display for $299 without a battery or charger BRAND NEW I see no reason why more hams haven't invested in these radios.

Add a GOB and FPP and you have a really nice portable.

giguchan · Post by **giguchan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:34 pm

mike m wrote:S$%T you guys are way ahead of the Pacific northwest scene, we have/had a couple of mixed mode repeaters in the Portland/Salem area but when I went in on them using P25, 3 months ago, I was about lynched.

The repeaters up here sit idle on digital only passing 25K FM and if you dare key up and ID and then go over to P25 your going to get royally chewed out, it gives one a sour taste for any type of repeater operation.

This is probably why I dumped all of my digital radios and even my 900 repeater and stopped using anything above 54 MHz and reverted to operating 6 meters and below in CW, none of the crap VHF, UHF 900 MHz politics to worry about when you are playing CW.

Just like when I started in radio 36 years ago, I began with CW and I'll probably end with CW.

Mike

Mike,
Fine post!! very funny too.. reminds me when i forgot to turn off my MDC when i went into a machine that did not require it! you felt lynched? they had the rope around my neck and were just about to slap the horse on the Bum! I have CDM'S .I think i might want to learn about TRBO and P25 and such things.. I just have to find a system to bne Invited on..

Tom in D.C. · Post by **Tom in D.C.** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:52 am

Mike,

With many of the "old timers" you're lucky if they understand PL and DPL. At 75, I'm the exception to that, of course, in that
I run DMR and P25 in my area. I've never been able to understand the "Don't show me that Motorola stuff" attitude that
I still encounter every so often. I wonder how many years it took many of them to accept SSB over AM.

At least today I almost never hear the plaintive cry when a repeater channel is given, "Is that plus or minus?" which usually
comes from the younger set who don't understand that bandplans exist.

If I sound like a curmudgeon I guess it comes from years of listening and moderating. Sorry about that.

Regards,

com501 · Post by **com501** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:40 am

The only reason we haven't gone full time P25 on our repeater is trying to figure out how to make the mobiles ID without having to switch to analog to do it.

I think that is an anachronism which may go away eventually if enough sites go full time digital. After all, you are talking TO each other in digital, ID'ing, why go to analog to be redundant?

motorola_otaku · Post by **motorola_otaku** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:54 pm

com501 wrote:The only reason we haven't gone full time P25 on our repeater is trying to figure out how to make the mobiles ID without having to switch to analog to do it.

I think that is an anachronism which may go away eventually if enough sites go full time digital. After all, you are talking TO each other in digital, ID'ing, why go to analog to be redundant?

Where is the rule that states that P25 users have to ID in analog? D-STAR users don't, so why should P25 (or TRBO, for that matter) users do it?

kv5e · Post by **kv5e** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:07 pm

Ah Grasshopper.....

Your callsign and the repeater's call sign is embedded in the digital stream during transmission in D*Star.

It displays on the radio's and the applications connected to the data from the gateways out to the internet.

I guess in DMR you could send a Text message to ALL with your call sign and ID that way.

D*Star was designed for amateur radio usage so it provides for *legal* ID although the rules need changing to catch up with the technologies we're playing with now.

Craig

Post by **escomm** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:28 pm

OK, great, it's embedded. What's wrong with voicing your callsign every 10 minutes on a P25 conversation? Is there a rule in Part 97 that says IDs must be given via specific emissions designator or something?

Jim1348 · Post by **Jim1348** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:33 pm

com501 wrote:Consider you can get a MotoTrbo portable with display for $299 without a battery or charger BRAND NEW I see no reason why more hams haven't invested in these radios.

Add a GOB and FPP and you have a really nice portable.

I might be interested in one of those. Where can I buy one of those?

tvsjr · Post by **tvsjr** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:09 pm

escomm wrote:OK, great, it's embedded. What's wrong with voicing your callsign every 10 minutes on a P25 conversation? Is there a rule in Part 97 that says IDs must be given via specific emissions designator or something?

Yep, 97.119. Of course, it's not clear how DStar complies with this either.

The section specifies:
By CW, not to exceed 20WPM if using an automatic keyer
By phone, in the English language, with the use of phonetics encouraged but not required
By RTTY, using a specified digital code, when the entire transmission is RTTY or data (97.3c7 defines RTTY as narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy of emissions A1B, C1B, D1B, F1B, G1B, H1B, J1B, R1B, J2B.
By image, meeting the standards of 73.682a, assuming the entire transmission is an image.

DSTAR's emission mask is F1D (GMSK) or F7W (used with a controller for Internet gating). P25 Phase 1 is F1D/F1E.

Unless there's been a variance granted somewhere that I can't find, I don't see how any digital protocol (packet, PSK31, P25, DSTAR, etc.) is in compliance with the letter of the law. Of course, I also can't find any definition of a "phone" transmission... does that require 5KHz deviation analog voice on 2m and above?

Personally, I say go operate and be happy.

com501 · Post by **com501** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:46 pm

Jim1348 wrote:
com501 wrote:Consider you can get a MotoTrbo portable with display for $299 without a battery or charger BRAND NEW I see no reason why more hams haven't invested in these radios.

Add a GOB and FPP and you have a really nice portable.
I might be interested in one of those. Where can I buy one of those?

www.capeltd.com

Post by **escomm** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:28 am

tvsjr wrote:
escomm wrote:OK, great, it's embedded. What's wrong with voicing your callsign every 10 minutes on a P25 conversation? Is there a rule in Part 97 that says IDs must be given via specific emissions designator or something?
Yep, 97.119. Of course, it's not clear how DStar complies with this either.

The section specifies:
By CW, not to exceed 20WPM if using an automatic keyer
By phone, in the English language, with the use of phonetics encouraged but not required
By RTTY, using a specified digital code, when the entire transmission is RTTY or data (97.3c7 defines RTTY as narrow-band direct-printing telegraphy of emissions A1B, C1B, D1B, F1B, G1B, H1B, J1B, R1B, J2B.
By image, meeting the standards of 73.682a, assuming the entire transmission is an image.

DSTAR's emission mask is F1D (GMSK) or F7W (used with a controller for Internet gating). P25 Phase 1 is F1D/F1E.

Unless there's been a variance granted somewhere that I can't find, I don't see how any digital protocol (packet, PSK31, P25, DSTAR, etc.) is in compliance with the letter of the law. Of course, I also can't find any definition of a "phone" transmission... does that require 5KHz deviation analog voice on 2m and above?

Personally, I say go operate and be happy.

Those designators for P25 are for voice. I think it's safe to say they'll meet the requirements of "phone" identification. And if one modulates CW on a P25 transmission then they've also met the requirements for identification.

Absolutely amazing how serious the ham community takes FCC rules. Anyone want to come out to LA and police 435?

tvsjr · Post by **tvsjr** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:31 am

escomm wrote:Those designators for P25 are for voice. I think it's safe to say they'll meet the requirements of "phone" identification. And if one modulates CW on a P25 transmission then they've also met the requirements for identification.

Absolutely amazing how serious the ham community takes FCC rules. Anyone want to come out to LA and police 435?

Yep, I agree. Using that definition, you would also be required to voice-identify on DSTAR (which most everyone does out of habit anyway), as the embedded data wouldn't meet the definition of "phone".

Like I said - go operate and be happy. Considering how thin the FCC is stretched anyway, you're going to have to attract a *lot* of attention before they do anything.

kv5e · Post by **kv5e** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:26 pm

Terry, et al,

I think we all agree that the technology has out run the rules, particularly in Part 97. Intent is important here.

D*Star stream has call signs digitally embedded....OK
Decoded DMR and P25 and calls sign given over the air withought Ø....OK
PSK31 JT65 and other modes have embedded call sign data so there has been no NAL on that stuff.

BTW, DStar with .5 GMSK is F7W even on simplex as there are two channels or more of digital information present:

Control Plane / Header / every 21st Data frame is sync pattern
Voice Frames
Slow speed user data frames

all interleaved.

It's all fun!

Craig

tvsjr · Post by **tvsjr** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:57 pm

I agree on the F7W... but the manual for the repeaters doesn't. It lists straight GMSK as F1D and F7W with the repeater controller:
http://proficia.com/tampadstar/ID-RP2_Manual.pdf
Page 50 of 52. F1D for the RP2V, or F7W for "system operation" with the controller.

boteman · Post by **boteman** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:09 pm

escomm wrote:Absolutely amazing how serious the ham community takes FCC rules. Anyone want to come out to LA and police 435?

I thought the only thing that makes it illegal is that the grumpy old retiree who acts as Official Observer can't decode it?

Oh well, it wouldn't be ham radio if they weren't arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

kv5e · Post by **kv5e** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:19 pm

tvsjr wrote:I agree on the F7W... but the manual for the repeaters doesn't. It lists straight GMSK as F1D and F7W with the repeater controller:
http://proficia.com/tampadstar/ID-RP2_Manual.pdf
Page 50 of 52. F1D for the RP2V, or F7W for "system operation" with the controller.

F1D is for the high speed 128K 1.2 data....but the effin manual does not say that!

Craig

aa9vi · Post by **aa9vi** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:21 am

Hey Guys, an update: we're up to 65 repeaters now in 10 countries just on the DMR-MARC network. We have over 1000 users. All of the details are here: http://dmr-marc.net There's also another USA network called TRBO6: http://trbo.info

DMR is more widespread that you may think. Join the fun! 73.