2 meter trunking repeater

[KC0UWS]

I know I am posting way too many questions on legal modes of use on the amateur radio bands, BUT if I was to have a 2 meter repeater, could it be a trunking repeater as long as if the frequencies are not already occupied by other machines (repeaters)?

 

[N_Jay]

I know I am posting way too many questions on legal modes of use on the amateur radio bands, BUT if I was to have a 2 meter repeater, could it be a trunking repeater as long as if the frequencies are not already occupied by other machines (repeaters)?

Trunking on amateur would be interesting.

I think the concept might be legal, but I don't think a control channel would be.

LTR might work with channel monitoring.

 

[NeFire242]

The only issue with this is how would the ham ID every ten minutes if they kept switching freqs? Other than that I think it would be totally legal. LTR would probably be the cheapest way to start out. Albeit, even if you had a control channel for like a SmartZone, as long as it ID'ed every ten minutes you'd remain legal. I don't see how that would be any different than a packet station on the air all day long. It's just one more form of a digital mode.

 

[N_Jay]

The only issue with this is how would the ham ID every ten minutes if they kept switching freqs? Other than that I think it would be totally legal. LTR would probably be the cheapest way to start out. Albeit, even if you had a control channel for like a SmartZone, as long as it ID'ed every ten minutes you'd remain legal. I don't see how that would be any different than a packet station on the air all day long. It's just one more form of a digital mode.

Trunking is legal on Part 90 frequencies because you have exclusive use of the frequency in the area.

In amateur all channels are opperated on a shared basis, and the control channel would be "surperfluous transmission" (and illegal) when the system is not in use.

I would think it would be DIFFICULT if not impossible to build and operate a fully legal trunked system on the amateur band.

 

[MMIC]

It wouldn't really serve a purpose, I don't think, because:

A) The infrastructure equipment is expensive.

B) The subscriber units are expensive.

C) All of the signalling is proprietary, except for P-25.

D) Access to a number of repeater pairs could potentially be restricted by the use of enabling/disabling radio IDs, which causes perceived "ownership" of amateur frequencies, which is against FCC rules.

My biggest question to whoever wants to build an amateur radio trunked system would be: What purpose is it serving? Yeah, it's neat technology, the talk permit tone is cool, getting a radio ID would be cool (but require a bunch of coordination since everyone could program their own ID), and working on it would be cool for some people. But really, trunking exists to solve a problem - spectrum congestion. While it's true that in some places everyone who WANTS to put up a repeater can't because all of the pairs are in use in their area, but are all of the pairs in use in the area AT THE SAME TIME to where you can't get on a repeater, even if you wanted to? Doubtful. Even in large metropolitan areas across the country that I have been in, there are a few repeaters in use at times, but never ALL of them.

Trunking in amateur radio is, in my opinion, an excuse to try and have a cool toy. It doesn't serve to solve the problems that it exists for.

 

[BigLebowski]

Trunking in amateur radio is, in my opinion, an excuse to try and have a cool toy. It doesn't serve to solve the problems that it exists for.

Having a neat toy is the major appeal of ham radio to a lot of people.

 

[MMIC]

And that justifies all of my points outlined above? "Just because it's cool"?

That is not a good policy for using the valuable spectrum that amateur radio has been graciously given by the FCC.

 

[BigLebowski]

You made good and valid points...

But the fact still remains that having a neat toy is what draws a lot of people into ham radio. I can't speak for other areas, but around here there is not much ham traffic at all, and I think that if a mini-trunking system was set up, it would give the hams an excuse to work together on an interesting and modern project.

I would personally get involved in ham radio if someone around here put up a VHF or UHF Motorola trunking system, simply because that interests me and it is a cool toy to have.

 

[MMIC]

How long before the novelty wears off, just like FM or SSB?

 

[Rayjk110]

I've built motorola remotes that will ACK my MDC signalling just so I can do radio checks in the area, and various other projects on 2m/440/ or even linked just for my own use or just as an expirement.


If you don't like it, change the frequency. Poof! It's gone !

 

[MMIC]

If you don't like it, change the frequency. Poof! It's gone !

I see that a lot throughout the amateur radio online forums. One could argue that when it comes to malicious interference or other calamities on the ham bands that this should be the policy. Too bad the FCC doesn't see it that way.

There's no compelling argument or use for trunking on the amateur bands. Something that will more than likely be required before it is permitted.

 

[NeFire242]

Creating a trunked or even a simulcast trunked system on amateur radio is very feasible and no more expensive than purchasing some higher end repeaters and equipment.

This would solve some of the problems such as sharing resources and coordinations. This would allow for a very wide usable system which is not readily available in many areas. In many larger cities it would appear that a handful of people hold all the repeater pairs making it impossible to carry out even some simple experimenting or playing with ideas because all the pairs and already coordinated.

 

[kb9sxk]

After some deep thought...I still have to ask...Why?

 

[W0JJK]

To experiment and learn. I knew an ham in my area who built in his stuff when he got started in the hobby. So this is our building of stuff.

You could have DX, APRS, Repeaters, Computers help, and ect groups. This way you could only hear what you want to hear.

W0JJK

 

[N_Jay]

Creating a trunked or even a simulcast trunked system on amateur radio is very feasible and no more expensive than purchasing some higher end repeaters and equipment.

This would solve some of the problems such as sharing resources and coordinations. This would allow for a very wide usable system which is not readily available in many areas. In many larger cities it would appear that a handful of people hold all the repeater pairs making it impossible to carry out even some simple experimenting or playing with ideas because all the pairs and already coordinated.

What "simple experimenting or playing with ideas" are you talking about?

 

[N_Jay]

To experiment and learn. I knew an ham in my area who built in his stuff when he got started in the hobby. So this is our building of stuff.

You could have DX, APRS, Repeaters, Computers help, and ect groups. This way you could only hear what you want to hear.

W0JJK

Experiment with what?

 

[morfis]

In the UK there have been experiments using MPT1327 trunking on amateur frequencies.

To do this a Notice Of Variation was required (this isn't a big issue but does involve some extra paper-shuffling).

MPT1327 trunked systems can operate on a single channel (the experments didn't use this method but the more normal multi-channel type), the equipment is not particularly expensive, the protocol is not proprietary.

 

[W0JJK]

Ok, you guys win. Lets just give our radios up then.

We don't need to expand to new technologies like P25 or trunking. Lets go back from a Kenwood D700 to a Kenwood 7400 with no memories if we don't want new technology.

W0JJK

 

[NeFire242]

Isn't that one of the ideas behind ham radio to experiment? lol

I didn't think everything had already been done and so there is nothing more to learn. Gee hope Motorola and GE don't have the same attitude.

 

[N_Jay]

Ok, you guys win. Lets just give our radios up then.

We don't need to expand to new technologies like P25 or trunking. Lets go back from a Kenwood D700 to a Kenwood 7400 with no memories if we don't want new technology.

W0JJK

Who here was speaking of not using P25?