Users may not create topics, posts, or private messages containing or relating to the following material (especially pertaining to Motorola copyrighted software, unless you want Motorola to come along and shut this site down):

  • Listing for sale or trade of, or links to sites offering for sale or trade of, or giving away, Radio
    Service Software (RSS) or Customer Programming Software (CPS)
  • Profanity, pornography, defamation, or slanderous remarks directed towards any individual or entity
  • Commercial advertising (except in the Batboard Vendors forum, as approved by the Admin/Mod Staff)
  • Any other items which may be deemed as offensive

If any topics, posts, or private messages containing or relating to the aforementioned material are brought to the attention of the Admin/Mod Staff, they will be deleted.

Additional FAQ items appear here in Forum Rules. Please review them for posting guidelines and further clarification.

Looming Part 97 problems

This forum is dedicated to discussions pertaining specifically to the Motorola ASTRO line of radios (those that use VSELP/IMBE/AMBE), including using digital modulation, digital programming, FlashPort upgrades, etc. If you have general questions please use the General or Programming forums.

Moderator: Queue Moderator

ASTROMODAT
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby ASTROMODAT » Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:00 am

Cool photo, Wowbagger! Do you have any more tower pics you'd possibly be so kind to post?

User avatar
Wowbagger
Aeroflex
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:46 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby Wowbagger » Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:19 am

ASTROMODAT wrote:Cool photo, Wowbagger! Do you have any more tower pics you'd possibly be so kind to post?


Not my photo.

But, here are some of my site:

http://picasaweb.google.com/WARC.RadioC ... TowerClimb

http://picasaweb.google.com/WARC.RadioC ... TowerClimb
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.

I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.

I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.

ASTROMODAT
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby ASTROMODAT » Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:56 am

Thanks for posting the pics, Wowbagger. Those are some really amazing shots! I bet the 146.82 machine has excellent coverage.

User avatar
Wowbagger
Aeroflex
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 10:46 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby Wowbagger » Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:45 pm

ASTROMODAT wrote:Thanks for posting the pics, Wowbagger. Those are some really amazing shots! I bet the 146.82 machine has excellent coverage.


HAD some excellent coverage. Right now, it has nothing: both runs of hardline died.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.

I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.

I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.

User avatar
kf4sqb
Posts: 1491
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 9:11 pm
What radios do you own?: I can't enter that much....

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby kf4sqb » Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:22 pm

I'm aware the Astro Saber is an upgraded replacement for the Systems Saber. I have no problem replacing a Systems Saber III (which both of mine, one VHF and one UHF, are) with a pair of Astro Saber III. Find those for $100 each. My issue was with trying to replace my X9000 with one. I happen to run speaker/mics on my HT's, which makes them pretty much unuseable in a convertacom, not to mention the output power problem. Oh, by the way, those 110 watt mobiles are already on 5.5 db or higher gain antennas. Now what kind of antenna would you like me to put on a vehicle to make a 50 watt radio "comparable"? What radio would you suggest (again, a comparable one) to replace my Rangr/S990 combo, considering that it has FPP capability, 128 channels, and is 110 watts out? Its not a matter of thinking negative, its a matter of knowing the realities of my situation, which you don't. Unless you're going to replace my radios for me (at least a couple of K), this is going nowhere, and I'm dropping it.


123 wrote:
kf4sqb wrote:Please re-read my post, especially the part where I said "comparable". I'd like to see (without an amplifier, which =$), a convertacom that will do 110 watts, like my X9000's. By comparable, I mean equipment that have the same (or better) capabilities, like output power, number of channels, scan capabilities, etc.



The astro saber was a DIRECT comparison to your System sabers and is a big upgrade from what you currently have.

In response to your mobiles:

You can find dozens of 50 watt commercial mobiles that are narrow band capable for $100 or less.

a 5.5 dBi gain antenna will give you over 100 Watts of ERP

The radios are out there, all you have to do is some simple research and you will achieve bigger and better things.

Again, think Negative and you will get negative results.
kf4sqb "at" wetsnet "dot" com



Look for the new "Jedi" series portables!

Bat-Phone= BAT-CAVE (2283)

-.- .. ....- -.-. -.-- . .. ... -- -.-- -... .-. --- - .... . .-. .-.-.-

123
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:30 pm
What radios do you own?: MT-500 with scan

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby 123 » Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:30 pm

Dear kf4sqb


I am not going to keep arguing with you. It is obvious that you want me to hold your hand every step of the way which I am not here to do. I am telling you it can be done. With FPP, scan list, 128 + channels, narrow band, 110 watts etc ! FPP is almost becoming a standard in the commercial industry, unlike in the past where FPP was a royal option. So I do not see that as a stopping stone. Its up to you to find the radios within your budget and requirements, not me. But they are out there.

By the way, just because you have a 5.5 Dbi antenna with 110 watts into the antenna does not mean you actually need it. Many people have a misconception about "more power is better". There are other things you can do to make your radio hit that distant repeater or whatever. Power isn't always the answer.

Anyway I already proved my point long ago so end of story. Moving on...
Jealousy is the best form of flattery, and flames keep me warm and fuzzy inside :)

Roberto

User avatar
MSS-Dave
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:02 pm
What radios do you own?: XTL5K, NX300, PD782, Spark Gap

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby MSS-Dave » Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:47 am

(snickt) (spurt spurt spurt).



Awww damn..... Not a visual I wanted.

vorndamr
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:41 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby vorndamr » Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:32 pm

"Compatible Radio" ... a little thinking in advance would have saved you a lot of money. Narrow-Banding by the FCC has been around for a long time. I too work for a Fire Department as a volunteer. I do so to give back to my community (and I get to go around the country side with red light and a siren screaming!). Really though it is about what you want to do. Complain that your department doesn't have any equipment. My 2nd year with my department I wrote an Asst. to F F Grant for over $123,000. It gave us all new SCBA gear, Extra tanks, compressor to fill them, a computer, and a portable repeater. This was back in 2003. I built the portable repeater to be narrow band or wide band at that time since I knew it was coming. I found other grant money to convert the entire departments handheld to Kenwood TK-272's. The will now narrow band too. Personally, I purchased a Jeep Cherokee, LEDs, lift kit, winch, new tires and wheels, and a dual band radio setup. The radios were Kenwood TK-730HG and TK-630HG. Both can be narrow banded, and both are high power. I needed the high power because we cove 250 sq miles of territory in the mountains of Colorado. I spent my money because I wanted the ability to serve my community. By-the-way, my vehicle was licensed as an emergency vehicle with the state so that I could run around with lights and siren. But you wouldn't know it since everything was stealth mode. Now the entire county has gone to the State's 800 Digital Trunking System in the name of interoperability and a ton of cash in the form of grants from the FEDs. So I now have a handheld radio that has been issues to me and I use it since I cannot afford a $3500 radio for myself. There are a couple of brands other than Motorola that are allowed on the Colorado System, but they are pricy as well. BUT, I am still able to do my same work, I just had to adjust. Did I get rid of my dual band Kenwood setup....nope! I work the National Fire Teams as a COML and a COMT. The FED Fire agencies will stick to VHF forever. They have already narrow banded, and a few National Parks went VHF digital, but all the stuff coming out of Idaho is plain old VHF. Again it all depends on how much you want to give. Most of our guys just drive to the station and pickup an emergency vehicle.

As for Hams, as I said before, I think narrow banding down the road would be a good idea. And for the ones that want their radios replaced because it would cost you too much money. Again it’s how much do you want to put into your hobby. I have a very good Kenwood TKR-750 I picked up for $900 that I use for my repeater. I alone footed the bill for the repeater, duplexer, antenna, and coax. How much is it worth it to you. If you can't afford that, then maybe you should move over and let someone else provide the equipment. You still get to use it! Let's not make a big deal out of nothing. We conform to the new standard or get out of the business. Like I said before, for hams narrow banding yes, but don't mandate me to use a mode like P25. Then give us 10 years to conform to the standard. I seriously doubt that anyone could not meet that time frame. And if they can’t, that's what good hams are all about. I've given away 5 radios that I really didn't use so that some else could. Am I more fortunate than others, in some ways yes. I do what I can to help and that is all I ask you to do. By-the-way there will be NO narrow banding of any low band channels. Rod K9ROD

com501
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 4:00 pm
What radios do you own?: Over 50 - All Motorola

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby com501 » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:27 pm

100w MCS 2000s, which program in windows and have more than 128 modes and do narrow band are a dime a dozen on eBay. So much for X9000s unless you are running lowband.

User avatar
4n6inv
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby 4n6inv » Thu Sep 09, 2010 6:02 pm

Someone; PLEASE enroll this person in the Jimmy Carter School of Whine Removal...

The idea of technology is to move forward, not sit complacent. There are good changes, and some not so good changes; but, they're changes none the less, and if you want to keep in the game, you pay the price...

I don't enjoy spending 4-5 grand every couple of years for my toys, but I do it because things change! And I'll keep doing it with a frown on my face, until 1) I can't afford to any more, or, 2) I get tired of my 45 year old addiction. But; no one owes me free upgrades... I go for it and pay the piper or I sit that dance out.

Sorry. Obama isn't sympathetic enough to start a cash for STX's program.

jhooten
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby jhooten » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:51 am

I'm retired, I can't afford to replace all my HF equipment to make it narrow band. All the V/U equipment I have can do 12.5K narrow FM already, as will most of the ham stuff make in the last few years. If we''re talking about 6.25k narrow FM I may have a problem on some of the really old stuff.

User avatar
MTS2000des
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:59 pm
What radios do you own?: XTS2500, XTS5000, and MTS2000

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby MTS2000des » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:02 am

most of the Kenwood VHF/UHF ham radios made since the late 1990's support 6.25KHz spacing, but not 2.5KHz deviation. Only one Kenwood ham rig of late actually supports true narrowband and all channel steps (including 2.5KHz), radio seems to resemble the TK-7150/8150 LMR radios.
The views here are my own and do not represent those of anyone else or the company, the boss, his wife, his dog or distant relatives.

User avatar
escomm
Queue Moderator
Posts: 5165
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:24 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby escomm » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:31 am

jhooten wrote:I'm retired, I can't afford to replace all my HF equipment to make it narrow band. All the V/U equipment I have can do 12.5K narrow FM already, as will most of the ham stuff make in the last few years. If we''re talking about 6.25k narrow FM I may have a problem on some of the really old stuff.

Huh?? Narrowbanding applies to Part 90 frequencies from 150-512MHz. There's no requirement for low band, HF, or 800MHz to narrowband whatsoever.

jhooten
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby jhooten » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:22 pm

You mean I can keep using my HF and I don't have to upgrade?


Damn doesn't anyone get sarcasm any more?

User avatar
escomm
Queue Moderator
Posts: 5165
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:24 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby escomm » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:14 pm

Your delivery requires a great deal of polishing. Sarcasm that needs to be pointed out isn't really sarcasm, it's just trolling.

jhooten
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby jhooten » Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:29 pm

I should have put you a smiley after it to help you figure it out.

User avatar
4n6inv
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:39 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby 4n6inv » Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:19 pm

I'm with escomm... If it has to be pointed out; it's not very funny - and - questionalble at best as sarcasm. We have board members that range from newbies to top notch; like escomm and Wowbagger that are up on the new rules and regs. This is a realitively senistive issue with a LOT of folks that really can't afford to upgrade. I'm sorry, folks... When a new mandate cames into place; we either ignore it and play "Pirate" or conform. This isn't a cheep hobby / profession. Imagine the folks like escomm that have to buy 30 -40 THOUSAND plus dollar service monitors to serve their customers? I can assure you - they don't like it any more than onyone, but; they are getting getting hit in the gonads. You have to do a LOT of service work to justify it.

By the mere nature of Hams - volunteers - A LOT of us have to have the ability to do both - amature and Public Safety. Soemtimes; if you're going to serve; you have to take it on the chin. I don'y like it one bit better than anyone else... Voluntering isn't always cheep! Trust me! I could own a lake cabin for what I've spent upgrading radios over 45 years!

It's NOT in your heart; it's in your Actions! Make a way or quit complaining!

jhooten
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby jhooten » Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:37 pm

All right then I will be more direct this time. Every amateur band radio I own that operates in the 2m and 70cm band, the newest of which is 4 years old, will do 2.5k narrow FM. The FCC could issue an edict to narrow band both bands effective tomorrow and it would not cost me a penny, just a little programming time.

MTS2000des, I beg to differ.
The TH-F6, for example,will do 2.5k. A link to the brochure is
http://www.kenwoodusa.com/UserFiles/Fil ... TH-F6A.pdf

Look on page 4 at the transmitter specs max frequency deviation FM +/- 5kHz N-FM +/- 2.5kHz

So what is the problem?

User avatar
MTS2000des
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:59 pm
What radios do you own?: XTS2500, XTS5000, and MTS2000

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby MTS2000des » Sun Sep 12, 2010 9:58 pm

jhooten wrote:All right then I will be more direct this time. Every amateur band radio I own that operates in the 2m and 70cm band, the newest of which is 4 years old, will do 2.5k narrow FM. The FCC could issue an edict to narrow band both bands effective tomorrow and it would not cost me a penny, just a little programming time.

MTS2000des, I beg to differ.
The TH-F6, for example,will do 2.5k. A link to the brochure is
http://www.kenwoodusa.com/UserFiles/Fil ... TH-F6A.pdf

Look on page 4 at the transmitter specs max frequency deviation FM +/- 5kHz N-FM +/- 2.5kHz

So what is the problem?


Wrong. The F6A does NOT tune to 2.5KHz STEPS, 2.5KHz deviation and channel steps are two different things. See the user manual, supported channel steps do NOT include 2.5KHz, so the frequency synthesizer will NOT properly tune to many new narrowband 2.5KHz frequencies, such as 151.9775, or 151.5275, or any similar channel step at 2.5KHz which are common on new narrowbanded licensees, especially VHF. So calling these radios narrowband compliant is not correct. To be fully compliant, the radio would have to tune all the channel steps, including 2.5KHz, not just be capable of 2.5KHz deviation. It's akin to the differences in the HT1000 series, even AN and BN revisions will do 2.5KHz deviation, but only DN models are capable of operating on the newer 2.5KHz channel steps. Big difference.

Check your Kenwood TH-F6A user manual and show me where it tunes 2.5KHz steps. It doesn't, and 99 percent of most ham radios don't, the exception being the TM-271A. I know, I own one. (and yes, the capability is reflected in the user manual as 2.5KHz channel steps are supported on the radio). We are talking channel tuning steps, not deviation. There is a difference.

TH-F6A manual, page 42 specifically lists the radios supported channel steps:

http://www.kenwoodusa.com/UserFiles/Fil ... /TH-F6.pdf

TM-271A manual, page 25 shows menu item 1 which lists all supported channel steps, including 2.5KHz:

http://manual.kenwood.com/files/TM-271-English.pdf
The views here are my own and do not represent those of anyone else or the company, the boss, his wife, his dog or distant relatives.

User avatar
Astro Spectra
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby Astro Spectra » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:17 am

Does this thread belong in the Motorola ASTRO (VSELP/IMBE/AMBE) Equipment discussion?

jhooten
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby jhooten » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:36 am

MTS2000des wrote:most of the Kenwood VHF/UHF ham radios made since the late 1990's support 6.25KHz spacing, but not 2.5KHz deviation. Only one Kenwood ham rig of late actually supports true narrowband and all channel steps (including 2.5KHz), radio seems to resemble the TK-7150/8150 LMR radios.


Read what you wrote again. You said it would not do 2.5k DEVIATION.

User avatar
MTS2000des
Posts: 3347
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 4:59 pm
What radios do you own?: XTS2500, XTS5000, and MTS2000

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby MTS2000des » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:19 am

jhooten wrote:
MTS2000des wrote:most of the Kenwood VHF/UHF ham radios made since the late 1990's support 6.25KHz spacing, but not 2.5KHz deviation. Only one Kenwood ham rig of late actually supports true narrowband and all channel steps (including 2.5KHz), radio seems to resemble the TK-7150/8150 LMR radios.


Read what you wrote again. You said it would not do 2.5k DEVIATION.


I stand corrected, but again, the radios are still not narrowband compliant per the upcoming FCC/TIA mandate. To be fully compliant, they have to do all channel steps down to 2.5KHz, of which 99 percent of commercially manufactured ham gear will NOT do. And cannot be made to do without extensive modification if at all, most low priced ham rigs don't even use flash memory for firmware- this is the case with Yaesu FT8800. I know, I tried to get Yaesu to fix a bug causing open squelch audio on crossband. Said it was a firmware issue and it's hard coded in ROM. Nothing like selling a product with software bugs that require hardware changes to fix.

Aside, do we really need narrowband or digital mandate in the ham bands? I don't know what part of the country you all are in who are clamoring for this, but the VHF and UHF bands are devoid of activity. We have dozens of repeaters that stay quiet for days at a time. If the need is to solve some spectrum management crisis, it clearly doesn't exist on part 97 in most of the USA and around the world. Which brings us to the next point, being that amateur radio is an INTERNATIONAL radio service (albeit international comms on VHF/UHF are not so common but do take place), how would such a move impact the service on the international front? We pride ourselves on being the most "interoperable" radio service, making such changes would essentially cut us off from being compatible with what everyone else in the world is doing.

I just don't see the need to force this down the throats of a radio service that exists for a totally different purpose that PMR/SMR. Nothing wrong with P25, D-Star, NXDN or analog- with ham radio, there is room enough for everyone. What is needed is a revamping of our VHF/UHF band plan to separate digital and analog to minimize interference, but this can be done without a major overhaul and obsolescing the thousands of radios in service in the ham bands.
The views here are my own and do not represent those of anyone else or the company, the boss, his wife, his dog or distant relatives.

jhooten
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby jhooten » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:57 pm

No we don't need a regulatory change. If there is a need for more repeater pairs in a given area it would best be settled by the local coordinating body, clubs, and repeater owners formulating a band plan that works for their area without government involvement. Unfortunately I seem to be in the minority on that. It seems like everyone involved wants to take the easy way out and have "them" tell "us" to do it to avoid being the bad guy.

BTW, it is the Dallas and Houston metro areas that are stirring the pot.

123
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:30 pm
What radios do you own?: MT-500 with scan

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby 123 » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:02 pm

The following is just my humble opinion on the matter:

I too do not want any "forced requirements" on ham, regardless if it is narrowbanding or some other issue. But I do feel that a small portion of each ham band should be allocated for narrowband comms for those hams that want to use narrowband instead of wideband.

Because after all, ham radio frequencies are suppose to be for experimentation with different technology and advancements in communications. So the band plans should be updated so we can experiment with whatever technology or advancements we want on the correct section of the band without causing harmful interference to the other hams "experimenting" with other technology. Because right now as the band plan stands, anyone trying to put up a narrowband repeater on lets say VHF, it would be causing interference with other wideband repeaters.


Just my 2 cents.
Jealousy is the best form of flattery, and flames keep me warm and fuzzy inside :)

Roberto

MOEtorola
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 4:00 pm
What radios do you own?: APX7000, All XTS and XTL

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby MOEtorola » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:12 pm

[quote="vorndamr"][quote]
by ASTROMODAT
But forcing the amateur radio community to a P25 digital standard is just ridicules. The crap doesn't work in the public safety environment and is totally propriety to the manufacturer. One of the reasons I'm not a D Star fan...cool options, but useless to anyone not buying a Icom radio. Motorola is the biggest abuser of this. They say they are following the P25 standards, but in reality you can't get another manufactures radio to work on their system.


Another scanner listiner, po'ed cause there gonna have to pay for a pricey digital scanner.

It just really really gets my blood boiling when people say stuff like that.

First off. "This crap" as you put it does in fact work and works very well. and is NOT propritery to a manufacturer. If it was proprietary that could not say it is P25.

Second off. And as you say, "can't get another manufactures radio to work on their system" Refer to the first off paragraph.

I run All types of manufactures of p25 trunking equipment on my Astro p25 7.1 system. They all work great.


For the people who complain about about motorola price versus other vendors.

We run about 900 motorola subscribers, and 200 other vendor. We have about 35 radios a year on an average that are motorola's that need some sort of repair. The other vendor, well its not working out to good, nearly a half of theres have been repaired in a years time. Had a 5000 port ran over by fire truck not once but twice, altough the radio will probably never go back into public saftey service,the radio still works looks like crap but still works.

The bitterness of poor quality, lingers long after the sweetness of a cheap price is forgotten.

Another thing, seems like people think that P25 and means Interoperabilty. Well it does if you talking the Digital interface. But P25 does not mean if you have a P25 vhf and P25 uhf that they will talk to each other. May sound stupid I know, but I have read forum posts where people really thought that.

Another thing misunderstood
Example P25 trunking system<<<<<A P25 trunking system has 4 sites connected to it, 1 site could be VHF, another UHF, another 700, and another site 800. A VHF user can talk to a 700 user as if he was an 700mhz radio. Or any combination therin. Seems in some forums people think that this is not possible.


A thought I had a long time ago, wouldnt it be cool if some rich amateur purchased a P25 master site (the brains of a trunking system) and let amateurs across the country connect sites to it. for sort of a nation wide trunking system. Just food for thought.

123
Posts: 708
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:30 pm
What radios do you own?: MT-500 with scan

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby 123 » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:34 pm

Dear MOEtorola,


Reference your last statement about
"A thought I had a long time ago, wouldn't it be cool if some rich amateur purchased a P25 master site (the brains of a trunking system) and let amateurs across the country connect sites to it. for sort of a nation wide trunking system"

I started a thread for trunking on ham. Although my idea isnt P25 , its actually P16 {3600 Baud} Its cheap and simple enough where the idea can be implemented. Linking sites will obviously be more complicated. But most of us are hams. I dont see why we cant all pitch in and start this.

I wish we all could get together and make this happen. Form a non-profit ham corp just for this {I mean why not? Other ham clubs do it and buy or get nice equipment and command vehicles donated to them}

Dont want to hi jack this thread for that, just see my thread and reply with your thoughts.

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=93524
Jealousy is the best form of flattery, and flames keep me warm and fuzzy inside :)

Roberto

CTAMontrose
was grem467
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby CTAMontrose » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:00 pm

Looks like they might be starting this early:

from the APX 5.0 Readme (as posted in another thread)

Please note that:
------------------
- Beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission will no longer accept applications for new wideband 25 KHz operations, and modification of existing wideband 25 KHz stations that expands the authorized interference contour (19 dBu VHF, 21 dBu UHF)

Per the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), this software will not allow the programming of the radio to operate on 25 KHz channel spacing for the impacted frequencies. This Customer Programming Software is intended for programming radios to be used in the United States of America (USA) to ensure compliance with the VHF and UHF narrowband mandate issued by the Federal CC.

radioinstl
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:07 pm
What radios do you own?: Liberty MBITR APX7000 75000

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby radioinstl » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:52 pm

All radio codeplugs that are subject to this requirement are identifiable by a "Q507/G507 - 12.5 kHz FCC Mandate" option in the codeplug's Purchased Feature Name list.

Cloning a target radio which has the "Q507/G507 - 12.5 kHz FCC Mandate" option from a source radio or codeplug that does not have this option holds certain restrictions.

The impacted FCC Part 90 Frequency ranges are:
VHF: 150-174 MHz (excluding the Part 80 Marine frequencies)
UHF1 / UHF2: 421-512 MHz

On Trunked Type II systems, the CPS allows only 12.5 kHz operation on OBT channels for radio codeplugs that are subject to the FCC Narrowbanding Requirement

Spiffy50
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 7:37 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby Spiffy50 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:47 am

I don't see the issue with narrow band and Amateur bands. I tried programming a local VHF hammie repeater into my 5k as narrow band deviation. Reports are that I sounded a little bit quiet, and the receive audio was a little bit louder than usual. Generally no distortion however. The TX audio I took care of by pumping up the AGC setting and you know, the volume knob? Again, I seriously don't see the narrow band stuff being a problem for ham radio.

Jason
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby Jason » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:31 am

CTAMontrose wrote:Looks like they might be starting this early: .


Yep, it's here. CPS 5.0 and DSP/HOST 5.0 for APX limits users to 12.5khz.

Bet it will be right around the bend for XTS/XTL, etc

ASTROMODAT
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby ASTROMODAT » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:03 am

radioinstl wrote:All radio codeplugs that are subject to this requirement are identifiable by a "Q507/G507 - 12.5 kHz FCC Mandate" option in the codeplug's Purchased Feature Name list.


I thought (but I could definitely be wrong!) that this 12.5 kHz FCC Narrowband restriction as of CPS 5.0 would ONLY impact APX radios that are equipped/flashed with option Q507/G507. I don't think this has even been an ordering option on the APX, at least not up until now. I assume that any existing APX radio would not be equipped with this option, thus avoiding the narrowband restriction (at least for the time being). I also assume that at some point (like for radios ordered after a date certain) the option Q507/G507 will be mandatory for all radios, except for Federal Government radios, and off-shore radios?

Jason
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby Jason » Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:26 pm

Interesting.. I wonder if it will restrict based on simply programming the radio in question with CPS 5, installing HOST/DSP 5, or it the Q507 option has to be in the featureset.

radioinstl
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:07 pm
What radios do you own?: Liberty MBITR APX7000 75000

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby radioinstl » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:01 pm

Jason wrote:Interesting.. I wonder if it will restrict based on simply programming the radio in question with CPS 5, installing HOST/DSP 5, or it the Q507 option has to be in the featureset.


1. You must have CPS 5.0 or newer to program a radio with 5.0 firmware
2. You must have firmware 5.0 or newer to have Q507/G507

There for you must have Q507/G507, FW 5.0 or newer and use CPS 5.0 or newer for the restrictions to apply

ASTROMODAT
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby ASTROMODAT » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:34 pm

Thanks, radioinstl! My brain finally clicked!!

This seems like a good item to post in the "Stickies" section. As time goes by, many folks will fall into this trap, or hopefully, maybe they can order the option you cited in your post to avoid the wrath of the Narrowband saga!

radioinstl
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:07 pm
What radios do you own?: Liberty MBITR APX7000 75000

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby radioinstl » Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:05 pm

ASTROMODAT wrote:Thanks, radioinstl! My brain finally clicked!!

This seems like a good item to post in the "Stickies" section. As time goes by, many folks will fall into this trap, or hopefully, maybe they can order the option you cited in your post to avoid the wrath of the Narrowband saga!


I don't know if you can order Q507/G507 now, but once the date hits (1/1/13 I think) all radios will ship with Q507/G507.

Remember if you have Q507/G507, your radio will be narrow band only

ASTROMODAT
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby ASTROMODAT » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:15 am

I wonder if sometime after the APX series implements the narrowband forcing function, the various other Motorola radios, like XTL/XTS, etc. may potentially follow suit? Who knows...The interesting thing here is will the Motorola Repair Depot be able to implement the narrowband flash option (Q507/G507) without the owner's consent, whilst they have their radio in Motorola's hands for repair? I surely hope not! Although it is more innocuous, the depot currently addresses radios in for repair via the latest CPS, forcing the customer to have to buy/upgrade to the latest CPS once they get their radio back (assuming they need to run CPS for any reason). I guess only time will tell...

User avatar
wavetar
Administrator
Posts: 7337
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby wavetar » Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:49 pm

Yes, all current production radios will be affected. Motorola has seminars at it's roadshows dedicated to the narrowbanding subject, in an effort to educate the dealer network on how it will affect things. It is a subject they've been wrestling with & had many variables...such as Canada does not have the same NB timeline...there could very well be 'Canadian' firmware/CPS to deal with it.
No trees were harmed in the posting of this message...however an extraordinarily large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

Welcome to the /\/\achine.

User avatar
alex
Administrator
Posts: 5726
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby alex » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:00 pm

A friend of mine called today and said he got an email saying that the Amateur Radio, Marine channels, and Weather would not be effected (at least for VHF range radios) with regard to the narrow band requirement. Those would be able to be programmed as they are today. This is for only the APX / Astro 25 series equipment.

Since I doubt they will do any future updates to the original Astro series (Seeing that everything is discontinued and is no longer sold) these models will not be effected.

-alex
The Radio Information Board: http://www.radioinfoboard.com
Your source for information on: Harris/Ma-Comm/EFJ/RELM/Kenwood/ICOM/Thales, equipment.

ASTROMODAT
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby ASTROMODAT » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:15 pm

Alex, I'm not so sure that motorola is "protecting" hams so much as it is a function of the FCC NB order. It was posted here earlier that the affected NB ranges are: VHF: 150-174 MHz, and UHF: 421-470 MHz. I think perhaps hams got lucky, so to speak, as 144-148 MHz is in the section of the VHF band that happens to be excluded, for whatever (FCC) reason. On the other hand, amateurs using the 440-450 MHz portion of the UHF ham band apparenlty didn't fare so well, given that the 421-470 MHz band IS covered by the NB restriction.

BTW, I noticed today that the APX 6000 VHF portable radio does not appear to yet have a Q507/G507 option (unless I may have missed it, which is entirely possible!). I wonder if these options will be silently defaulted to on the order, unless the customer is a FED or of an off-shore variety, and they can then somehow overtly negate this defaulted option? It may also be that these options will not show up until Jan 2013?

User avatar
escomm
Queue Moderator
Posts: 5165
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:24 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby escomm » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:33 pm

ASTROMODAT wrote: On the other hand, amateurs using the 440-450 MHz portion of the UHF ham band apparenlty didn't fare so well, given that the 421-470 MHz band IS covered by the NB restriction.

Hams fared just fine, as they are covered by Part 97 and not Part 90. There is no requirement that Part 97 stations must narrowband.

ASTROMODAT
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby ASTROMODAT » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:54 pm

10-4 on Part 97, but I fear that motorola may choose to blanket cover 421 - 470 with the NB restrictions, and not take two seconds of their time to "save" 440-450 for ham use. I feel like M probably would just asune hams went away, as they have always viewed ham use of their commercial gear as a big pain in their rear (even though a lot of smart EE's at M are avid hams!). I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, and I sure hope you are right!

akardam
Posts: 2251
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:53 am

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby akardam » Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:16 pm

ASTROMODAT wrote:I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out

I think waiting until the facts in this case are ascertained is a good idea...

User avatar
escomm
Queue Moderator
Posts: 5165
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:24 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby escomm » Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:41 pm

ASTROMODAT wrote:10-4 on Part 97, but I fear that motorola may choose to blanket cover 421 - 470 with the NB restrictions, and not take two seconds of their time to "save" 440-450 for ham use. I feel like M probably would just asune hams went away, as they have always viewed ham use of their commercial gear as a big pain in their rear (even though a lot of smart EE's at M are avid hams!). I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, and I sure hope you are right!

I'm not too current on Industry Canada spectrum allocations but I'm pretty sure they use 420-440MHz up in the great white north for commercial purposes, and I believe IC has a narrowband mandate that's similar to the FCC's, and since Canadian radios use the same codeplug as American ones I wouldn't hold my breath ...

User avatar
wavetar
Administrator
Posts: 7337
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 4:00 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby wavetar » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:33 am

escomm wrote:
ASTROMODAT wrote:10-4 on Part 97, but I fear that motorola may choose to blanket cover 421 - 470 with the NB restrictions, and not take two seconds of their time to "save" 440-450 for ham use. I feel like M probably would just asune hams went away, as they have always viewed ham use of their commercial gear as a big pain in their rear (even though a lot of smart EE's at M are avid hams!). I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out, and I sure hope you are right!

I'm not too current on Industry Canada spectrum allocations but I'm pretty sure they use 420-440MHz up in the great white north for commercial purposes, and I believe IC has a narrowband mandate that's similar to the FCC's, and since Canadian radios use the same codeplug as American ones I wouldn't hold my breath ...


Here's a link to the Industry Canada Spectrum Table:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.ns ... ion-08.pdf

We allocate 430-450 for amateur, although it's designated as 'secondary'...whatever that means. I've never seen a commercial system in use above 430. We used to allocate 403-430 as 'public safety' and 'public service', and in some places is still in use for such, but is mainly used for UHF trunking systems these days.
No trees were harmed in the posting of this message...however an extraordinarily large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

Welcome to the /\/\achine.

User avatar
LAC-OPS
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2002 9:51 am
What radios do you own?: XTS5000 M3, APX7000 R2+V, XTL5

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby LAC-OPS » Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:35 am

Can I divert this back to the original topic for a moment :-)

My concern is that some future release of APX firmware (now that it's free and dongle-less) will insert the 12.5khz option into the flash similar to how channel announce was inserted into all XTS5000's with a firmware revision way back when.

Hopefully we'll get a "heads up".

CTAMontrose
was grem467
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby CTAMontrose » Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:58 pm

From my discussions with motorola, that is EXACTLY how they are going to implement it

com501
Posts: 1061
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 4:00 pm
What radios do you own?: Over 50 - All Motorola

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby com501 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:15 pm

When it becomes an issue, I will simply reprogram my ham boxes for narrowband.

CTAMontrose
was grem467
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby CTAMontrose » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:25 pm

Any radio made after a certain date, going to customers that are required to narrowband, will have this bit set. The moto people here are trying to figure out with the guys in schaumburg when this date is. Also i would say its very strong that radios that go to the depot after that date will have the bit set too via a courtesy firmware uplift.

radioinstl
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:07 pm
What radios do you own?: Liberty MBITR APX7000 75000

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby radioinstl » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:38 pm

CTAMontrose wrote:Any radio made after a certain date, going to customers that are required to narrowband, will have this bit set. The moto people here are trying to figure out with the guys in schaumburg when this date is. Also i would say its very strong that radios that go to the depot after that date will have the bit set too via a courtesy firmware uplift.

Motorola can not force a radio that was made and sold before the narrowbanding deadline, that goes in for service to be narrowbanded. If you have a wideband radio that goes in for service after the deadline, make sure you note on the service request, wideband radio, do not narrowband. If it comes back narrowbanded, stand your ground and force then to either restore your flashcode, firmware or both.

CTAMontrose
was grem467
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 12:46 pm

Re: Looming Part 97 problems

Postby CTAMontrose » Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:48 pm

No i get that, but remember alot of customers get a free firmware refresh as part of a flat rate or other depot service, and if you are a part 90 customer post sunset date, what leg will you have to stand on to not have your radio narrowbanded? Your infrastructure should already be narrowbanded, so i doubt many part 90 customers will care. What will remain to be seen is if they will make an exception for amateurs.

I would imagine unless you have an STA from the FCC and they can validate it, they are going to say they have to make your radio compliant as part of the narrowbanding mandate.


Return to “Legacy Batboard Motorola ASTRO (VSELP/IMBE/AMBE) Equipment Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest