MotoTRBO Ham Repeater List Wanted

Status
Not open for further replies.

mikeps

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
4
Location
Winthrop, WA
Does anyone know of a comprehensive (or any) list of Amateur Radio Repeaters running TRBO?

Our group is running 6 repeaters in 3 states and we are curious who else is running TRBO and IPSC networking of those repeaters.

We are MotoTRBOUSA and are be maintaining a list in our groups Database and it is available to any member.

-- Mike, WB6WUI, Winthrop, WA, mototrbousa : MotoTRBO USA -- MTUSA
 

burner50

The Third Variable
Moderator
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
2,096
Location
NW Iowa
I wasnt aware it was legal...


EDIT: Nevermind... I didnt realize TRBO was an open standard.
 

mikeps

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
4
Location
Winthrop, WA
to further muddy that water, the use of Privacy (enhanced or basic) is not legal and some have argued that the use of talk groups other than "ALL CALL" may in fact be illegal.

I wasnt aware it was legal...

EDIT: Nevermind... I didnt realize TRBO was an open standard.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
User differentiation on a shared frequency is not illegal in the amateur service. It might be impolite to some operators or discouraged among some clubs or groups, but it is not prohibited by the FCC.

Talkgroups function similarly to using different PL tones on the same frequency.
 

mikeps

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
4
Location
Winthrop, WA
TRBO Talk Groups in Ham Service

A typo in my original post, should have been: Privacy IS illegal in the Amateur service. Opps.

I can see the analogy between PL or DPL's hundreds few hundred choices but talk groups millions of choices suppress receiving the voice component through the repeater (or direct for that matter) rather than suppressing the transmitter. Is that still plain text? I don't know honestly but I operate on the assumption that talk groups are legal on Ham frequencies.
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
I would think there has to be an "open" way to monitor the channel.

If there is no way to "Listen" without knowing the code, then I would bet the FCC would consider it a "coded" transmission and it would be illegal.
However, I am not a lawyer, so all this is just an academic discussion.
 

zz0468

Listening from DC to Daylight
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,029
Location
St. Nowhere
A few pertinent excerpts from the rules. Emphasis mine:

97.305 f (13) A data emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed in 97.309(b) of this Part also may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 100 kHz.


97.309(b) Where authorized by 97.305 (c) and 97.307 (f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication...

I think a case could be made for MotoTRBO within the above limitations. If any required codes are made part of the station records, and ID is done in clear voice or CWID, I think the spirit of 97.309(b) could be met.
 
Last edited:
N

N_Jay

Guest
A few pertinent excerpts from the rules. Emphasis mine:

97.305 f (13) A data emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed in 97.309(b) of this Part also may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 100 kHz.


97.309(b) Where authorized by 97.305 (c) and 97.307 (f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication...

I think a case could be made for MotoTRBO within the above limitations. If any required codes are made part of the station records, and ID is done in clear voice or CWID, I think the spirit of 97.309(b) could be met.
I would have to read the rest of that section, but I don't think that digital voice is considered "a digital code". In the emission designator they separate communications by content (Voice, Data, or mixed).
 

zz0468

Listening from DC to Daylight
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,029
Location
St. Nowhere
I would have to read the rest of that section, but I don't think that digital voice is considered "a digital code". In the emission designator they separate communications by content (Voice, Data, or mixed).
Well, yes, that's normally true, but then I'm at a loss as to where P25 and D-Star becomes an authorized transmission mode. If not an "unspecified digital code", then what? Where is the emission designator for D-star or P25 listed as authorized?

Looking at the authorized emissions designators listed under 97.307 (f) (8), what is authorized is pretty broad. Maybe it's the early hour here as I write this, but I specifically can't see where P25 and D-Star is authorized, yet it appears to be, as many systems are in operation.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
So far, ham radio operators are not required to think like lawyers (who appear to be trained to think like high school kids). The FCC regulations are deliberately broad so as to facilitate experimentation. Everything not explicitly prohibited is permitted.
 

mikeps

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
4
Location
Winthrop, WA
TRBO Talk Groups in Ham Service

Great discussion! I'll consider my question answered and mush forward with TRBO talk groups on Ham. I like broad over narrow. I am trying to get my users to stop using ALL CALL and use a custom substitute so that RX Groups/Talk groups can segment much of the traffic as our network loading increases. I'll discuss that in a TRBO group rather than here. Thanks for the thoughts on the subject. Oh and please don't spoil it for my head in the the sand approach. :)


The FCC regulations are deliberately broad so as to facilitate experimentation. Everything not explicitly prohibited is permitted.
 

canav844

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
559
And as is becoming more frequent on RR anymore, the OP wanted some info, and the next nine posts were "Ask the Lawyer" responses, all which didn't address the OP's query in any way, form or fashion.
And all they would have had to do due is refer to the ARRL manual they studied and tested on to get their HAM ticket....

Good Amateur Practices...
....Setting exact rules for every type of operating would result in an impenetrable thicket of regulation and would work against one of the basic tenets of the Amateur Service -- technical experimentation and innovation. What has worked well for amateurs is the general requirement by the FCC that in the absence of a specific rule, amateur stations should be operated in conformance with good engineering and good amateur practice.....

Digital Transmissions...
There are also requirements that the protocol be public so that any amateur can monitor it to engage in communications.
I agree that the radio police to get tiring at times, and keep my long term membership to a low post count. Thankfully I have not met on the airwaves the same reluctance to enjoyment and development of the hobby; if people are finding new methods to enjoy HAM radio and it's that many more people taking an interest than more power to us, literally. It seems some people forget that they are still ambassadors of the Amateur service when they log on to the internet and if someone comes across debacles of threads like so then they may very well be dissuaded from joining the community, both HAMs and RadioRefrence.

And to make sure that I am not contributing to the problem, there is the quoted text above from the General manual (it's the book on top right now but the same basic text is in the Tech and Extra books as well) here's a link to RR with more info on it: http://forums.radioreference.com/trunking-control-channel-decoding/177609-digital-speech-decoder-1-2-mbelib-1-1-released.html

That leads one to believe that this is certainly a published technology, and thus another viable means for people to enjoy HAM radio.
 

zz0468

Listening from DC to Daylight
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,029
Location
St. Nowhere
I agree that the radio police to get tiring at times, and keep my long term membership to a low post count...
What baffles me is, how does a sane, rational discussion of the legalities of a possible new mode, become an invasion by the 'radio police'? A discussion like the previous posts here is an entirely acceptable subject, both on the airwaves, and off, especially when in the context of "this is neat, how can WE do it, too?". In virtually every new mode that comes along, this is a discussion that must take place. And if the consensus is that it's not legal, steps are taken to make it so. Amateurs have been quite successful at getting rules modified to accommodate new modes. But only because they talk about it.
 

canav844

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
559
What baffles me is, how does a sane, rational discussion of the legalities of a possible new mode, become an invasion by the 'radio police'? A discussion like the previous posts here is an entirely acceptable subject, both on the airwaves, and off, especially when in the context of "this is neat, how can WE do it, too?". In virtually every new mode that comes along, this is a discussion that must take place. And if the consensus is that it's not legal, steps are taken to make it so. Amateurs have been quite successful at getting rules modified to accommodate new modes. But only because they talk about it.
The original question
Does anyone know of a comprehensive (or any) list of Amateur Radio Repeaters running TRBO?
Followed by a few posts of that's illegal! (Hence "radio police") Then the valid disusscuion on that while leaving the OP with no answer to his origninal question. It's like asking the weather and being told firetrucks are red. And that has lead to massive thread drift and so anyone looking for an answer and if these systems are in their area, instead of finding a busy thread full of useful information on where these systems are, is going to find a thread about legalities of the use. And that is what discourages discussion, why ask questions when they won't be answered, and why search for answers when they won't be found.

And to make some hint of trying to stay on topic, while there aren't any listed here yet, those in/near IL might want to keep an eye on this page: Repeater Directory Listing As when there are confirmed and coordinated TDMA site's this is where I'd expect them to be listed.
 

zz0468

Listening from DC to Daylight
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,029
Location
St. Nowhere
The original question

Followed by a few posts of that's illegal! (Hence "radio police") Then the valid disusscuion on that while leaving the OP with no answer to his origninal question. It's like asking the weather and being told firetrucks are red. And that has lead to massive thread drift and so anyone looking for an answer and if these systems are in their area, instead of finding a busy thread full of useful information on where these systems are, is going to find a thread about legalities of the use. And that is what discourages discussion, why ask questions when they won't be answered, and why search for answers when they won't be found.

And to make some hint of trying to stay on topic, while there aren't any listed here yet, those in/near IL might want to keep an eye on this page: Repeater Directory Listing As when there are confirmed and coordinated TDMA site's this is where I'd expect them to be listed.
I suppose if anyone had an answer to the original question, they would have posted such. Otherwise, I would suggest that the post above (and perhaps this one) represents even more topic drift than the discussion about the legalities did. So, a complaint about the "radio police" turns into the "RR thread police". :roll:
 

n0rc

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
17
Location
Shawnee, KS
A few pertinent excerpts from the rules. Emphasis mine:

97.305 f (13) A data emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed in 97.309(b) of this Part also may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 100 kHz.


97.309(b) Where authorized by 97.305 (c) and 97.307 (f) of this part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication...

I think a case could be made for MotoTRBO within the above limitations. If any required codes are made part of the station records, and ID is done in clear voice or CWID, I think the spirit of 97.309(b) could be met.
Sorry to resurrect an old topic but a recent issue of World Radio says that Trbo is illegal because of

Part 97.3(C)The following terms are used in this Part to indicate emission types. Refer to §2.201 of the FCC Rules, Emission, modulation and transmission characteristics, for information on emission type designators.

...

(2) Data. Telemetry, telecommand and computer communications emissions having (i) designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol, 1 as the second symbol, and D as the third symbol; (ii) emission J2D; and (iii) emissions A1C, F1C, F2C, J2C, and J3C having an occupied bandwidth of 500 Hz or less when transmitted on an amateur service frequency below 30 MHz. Only a digital code of a type specifically authorized in this part may be transmitted.

...

(5) Phone. Speech and other sound emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; 1, 2 or 3 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. Also speech emissions having B as the first symbol; 7, 8 or 9 as the second symbol; E as the third symbol. MCW for the purpose of performing the station identification procedure, or for providing telegraphy practice interspersed with speech. Incidental tones for the purpose of selective calling or alerting or to control the level of a demodulated signal may also be considered phone.

(6) Pulse. Emissions having designators with K, L, M, P, Q, V or W as the first symbol; 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 or X as the second symbol; A, B, C, D, E, F, N, W or X as the third symbol.

...

(8) SS. Spread-spectrum emissions using bandwidth-expansion modulation emissions having designators with A, C, D, F, G, H, J or R as the first symbol; X as the second symbol; X as the third symbol.
Part 97.3(c) seems to contradict 97.305 (f) and 97.309 (b). Did the FCC forget to update 97.3 when they changed 97.305 and 97.309 or do the rules exclude Trbo, which is listed by Motorola as FXE and FXD?
 

elk2370bruce

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,052
Location
East Brunswick, NJ
"Sorry to resurrect an old topic but a recent issue of World Radio says that Trbo is illegal because of "

World Radio does not set policy for the FCC and their authors do not necessarily reflect reality but their own non-binding opinion. There is sufficient discussion here to lead you to a valid answer. If there are still questions, go to the front of the horse (FCC Field Office) and not the other end. If not specifically prohibited, consent is implied. Like other radio police threads, we can guess all we want because we are "amateurs".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top