I don't understand why anyone would think trunking would be desirable on amateur radio. Of course, I'm one'a them "Old Farts", stuck in the past, fuddidudies(sp). Spent enough time changing your diappers that quite frankly, I'm just tired of your crap.
Is it possible to do? Sure, with the proper modification of a few characteristics. Is it benificial? Considering the amateur of the hobby, no, it isnt. (Now, if I were selling such a system, that "no" would change to a definite "YES".)
I run a trunking system on the amateur spectrum, within Canada. Your comments, as well as those of a few others in this thread, are indicative of a lack of understanding of how trunking works and why it’s required. Hams need to stop c0ck-blocking progressive thinking and embrace efficiency.
First, why do hams need 14 repeaters within a city, and only two of those repeaters are ever used? Because everyone has their own clubs, purpose and listening interests. Sometimes the repeaters serve a particular area of the city better, but many repeaters are centrally located.
With DMR timeslot trunking, I can take two physical repeaters, which operate on two pairs (narrowband deviation by the way) and have four talk paths, via two-slot TDMA technology. Those four timeslots are dynamically assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis.
ARES (should be renamed to Amateur Radio Community Service, as ham radio is not an emergency service and it’s whacker to call it as such), the seniors’ club, the weekly net, the rag chew guys, etc, can each have their own talkgroup (virtual channel) and have the advantage of the same excellent RF-coverage and consistent quality of service, instead of using whatever welfare analog repeater is half-working on the other side of town, complete with a 1980s talking CAT750 controller which is annoying to listen to.
Of the 14 analogue repeaters that are up in town, are they ever all used at once? NO.
Does it makes sense to tie up 14 repeater pairs, just so a bunch of old fat losers can brag to their friends they have a repeater and squat a pair which could be used by someone else, or added to the trunking system to increase capacity for ALL hams to benefit from? NO.
What about the physical rack space, cost of insurance and electricity demands 14 analog repeaters consume each year? Does it not make more sense to pay insurance for one site, take up less space and make more efficient use of the spectrum? Of course.
Another thing which is easily achieved with technology such as Motorola Capacity Plus Multi-site (propriety Tier II Networked DMR timeslot trunking) is talkgroup-based site routing. I can program the master repeater (controller) so specific sites are activated/used on a given talkgroup. This makes way more sense. Especially if two users wish to private call each other, Radio to Radio.
On BrandMeister or DMR-MARC, talkgroups are strapped to a given timeslot. This prevents users from using another talkgroup on the same timeslot, until the first conversation is complete. That’s retarded. It would make more sense to dynamically assign a timeslot as it becomes available. Why should users of “TAC 4” or “Seniors’ breakfast club” not be able to key up because some yahoo just had to bring up the North ‘Murcia talkgroup where “by golly” some guy is talking about his pissbag and 67 other stations are kerchunking the talkgroup from other repeaters to keep the “on demand” status of their linking active?
The best thing our group ever did was go trunking. The system uses RAS (infrastructure protection key) to ensure access is limited to hams with proper programming (codeplugs) are using the system.
We also benefit from the built-in functionality of Enhanced Channel Access, which means two users are not able to key up over each other when replying. (Some hams are famous for “shot gunning” and walking all over each other).
Ham radio could be so much better. Education and common sense are the key to survival and progression of our hobby.
