Which Digital Voice Modes Do You Have Equipment To Operate?

[MichaelLAX]

19 hours ago, Lscott said:

Just like people who buy an expensive luxury vehicle and when it comes time to replace the tires buy nearly the cheapest ones they can find. Life is full of examples of this sort of things. Hams are no different.

 

5 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

NO actually he's NOT.

I have seen more than one setup where the radio and antenna system was a combined total of over 10K and they used RG-8X coax to connect it.  That was ONE.

Second was a big ICOM, huge money.  Reused cable that the braid was showing connected to a Yagi that was missing elements.  Thought the expensive radio would compensate for the broke ass antenna.  It didn't. 

 

Sorry, but @Lscott's examples is apples and oranges: you just can't compare cheap bluetooth microphones and coaxial cable to the danger to third parties of driving on the road with vehicle with "nearly the cheapest [tires] they can find."

Here's how to understand the different: you inquisitive 11 year old daughter uses the cheap bluetooth microphone; and

Your inquisitive 11 year old daughter uses the expensive rig with RG-8 coaxial cable and/or broke Yagi; and now

Your inquisitive 11 year old daughter is in the rear passenger seat of a vehicle on the highway driving just behind the vehicle with the nearly cheapest tires they can find.

See the difference now?

[WRKC935]

2 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

 

Sorry, but @Lscott's examples is apples and oranges: you just can't compare cheap bluetooth microphones and coaxial cable to the danger to third parties of driving on the road with vehicle with "nearly the cheapest [tires] they can find."

Here's how to understand the different: you inquisitive 11 year old daughter uses the cheap bluetooth microphone; and

Your inquisitive 11 year old daughter uses the expensive rig with RG-8 coaxial cable and/or broke Yagi; and now

Your inquisitive 11 year old daughter is in the rear passenger seat of a vehicle on the highway driving just behind the vehicle with the nearly cheapest tires they can find.

See the difference now?

I see the difference in the context that you are trying to apply to it.  But that's not what he was getting at and you seemed to need to contradict him so you created that implied context so you could. 

And cheap tires are still regulated.  I figured that someone from California, land of CARB and other  'additional' vehicle regulations would recognize that.  For ANY tire to be installed on a motor vehicle that is used on any public road in the US it must be DOT approved.  Your implications are they are buying farm tires or some other non-approved and untested equipment.  That's not gonna ever be the case. 

Both of us were only indicating that some people are cheap.  They spend money on certain items but even with spending incredible amounts of money on PARTS of their projects, they cut corners on other parts. 

[Sshannon]

1 hour ago, WRKC935 said:

Both of us were only indicating that some people are cheap.  They spend money on certain items but even with spending incredible amounts of money on PARTS of their projects, they cut corners on other parts.

I think the disagreement is on the definition of being cheap.  A person that I think of as being cheap buys the cheapest of everything.  There’s a consistency to the cheapness. He (or she) would buy a cheap radio and pair it with cheap feedline, a cheap antenna, and a cheap microphone.

Based on that definition a person who buys an expensive radio isn’t cheap, even if they pair it with a cheap microphone or questionable feedline.  They may be working with a finite budget.  They might have really poor judgment. They might just be stupid.  But by the act of buying an expensive radio they have disqualified themselves from being called “cheap.”

And I agree, when it comes to hobbies, I see a lot of people who try to do as much as they can to save money in some ways that prove to be questionable. Ham radio is no different.  A lot of retirees with a budget try to build their ham shack by budgeting one expensive item each year, but they need something to get them by in the short term, so there are lots of $1300 radios paired with $60 antenna kits (using my own example).

[MichaelLAX]

6 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

... and you seemed to need to contradict him so you created that implied context so you could. 

 

The last refuge of a scoundrel!

[Lscott]

5 hours ago, Sshannon said:

They might have really poor judgment. They might just be stupid.  But by the act of buying an expensive radio they have disqualified themselves from being called “cheap.”

I think that qualifies them as being cheap, stupid and dumb.

[WRKC935]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

I think that qualifies them as being cheap, stupid and dumb.

 

Well, I was trying to keep stupid out of it.  But yes, stupidity is certainly a factor.

[WRKC935]

22 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

The last refuge of a scoundrel!

What? Creating a context so that you can create a platform to contradict someone?  OK, since you said that, I will accept that as being the case.   Not my specific intent here, but since you choose to point one that was your motivation, I can go with it.

 

Now of course, context, presentation, and lastly grammar is EVERYTHING.  You made that as a statement, rather than a question that would imply that I was the one taking refuge.  But your presentation is all wrong.  By taking what I said, out of context, and then making a specific statement about what I said, you in effect agreed with it.  And in doing so implied YOU were the one taking refuge.  Which of course is actually the case.   And with reviewing other posts you have created over time, taking those into account along with this, it creates an even better context that it's indeed true that you like creating platforms out of thin air to contradict other's for no other reason than the act of doing it. 

But that's ok.  We all are motivated by different things.  And have different personality traits that don't always mess real well with others, but we all seem to be able to more or less get along.

 

And how did a discussion about digital modes on ham radio devolve into this nonsense anyway?

I had to go back and look and here's what I am seeing.  LScott commented about hams complaining about expensive microphones and then dropping money HF gear.  This was a reply to a comment about HHCH configurations which are a thing with commercial P25 gear.  So still technically on topic.  You disagreed and said cheap wasn't 'appropriate'.  Couple comments of real world situations about hams, still within the overall subject matter.  And again, you needed to contradict things and point out analogies being stretched. 

Couple more comments,,, then I posted and you again needed to contradict me, and LScott.  And here we totally hijacked once again.  I rebut, you again take what I said totally out of context and attempt to further your straw man position.  And here we are. 

So I guess the question becomes, just what is it that motivates you to come in and hijack threads on here?  ANd what exactly in this ENTIRE thread that you posted has ANYTHING to do with P25 on ham radio to begin with.  I see you contradicting others.  I see you create a context out of thin air to further your contradictions, but I don't see ONE DAMN THING that has anything to do with digital VOICE on ham radio. 

 

[WRQC527]

4 hours ago, WRKC935 said:

just what is it that motivates you to come in and hijack threads on here? 

Because people respond to him instead of putting him on their "Ignore User" list like I did the first time he tried to sucker me in to an argument. Believe me, the forums are much more enjoyable that way. 

[MichaelLAX]

On 1/20/2023 at 6:37 AM, Sshannon said:

 But by the act of buying an expensive radio they have disqualified themselves from being called “cheap.”

@Sshannon cut to the quick with his clear and concise description of the point I was trying to make.  Thank you.

[MichaelLAX]

8 hours ago, WRQC527 said:

Because people respond to him instead of putting him on their "Ignore User" list like I did the first time he tried to sucker me in to an argument. Believe me, the forums are much more enjoyable that way. 

For the record Steven:

You made the claim that a friend of yours was detained by California authorities because they did not add an "H" to their Vanity plate search of his California Ham Radio license plate and hence he was detained for some additional period of time due to this confusion.

I disputed your conclusion about the "H", based upon my personal experience with the California Highway Patrol, when they looked up "W-7-M-L" in their system and came up with the proper information on my Ham Radio Vanity plate.

I did not try to sucker you into an argument.  I just disputed your claim pure and simple.

Your story was 3rd party hearsay (you were not there): explainable for one of many various reasons other than the incorrect conclusion you asserted.

As between my personal experience and your friends personal experience, that was then recounted to you; I was and am still confident in my position.

If you choose to not dispute this post, then I will assume that silence is assent and we can leave it there... 

Oh, and now one last damn thing: I'll now return to my Radioddity RD-5R for DMR communications on 2 meters and 440 MHz. Probably the "cheapest" non-DIY way to do DMR for Amateur Radio! 

[Sshannon]

5 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

@Sshannon cut to the quick with his clear and concise description of the point I was trying to make.  Thank you.

Don’t drag me into this very annoying sidebar.

[Lscott]

To get back on topic has anyone heard of or used dPMR here in the US? It's very similar to NXDN, but uses a different protocol, and is used in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_private_mobile_radio

The license free service they have over there, like our old FRS rules, allows them to use narrow band FM, DMR or dPMR, at at 0.5 watts.

https://kenwoodcommunications.co.uk/files/file/comms/uk/pmr446/PMR446-White-Paper-V6_18AUG2016_JT_KB.pdf

Makes one wonder why the FCC is dragging their feet here over allowing digital voice on GMRS.

Also dPMR is allowed for their equivalent of our LMR business service, Part 90, at higher power. 

https://dpmrassociation.org/dPMR-a-brief-overview.html

There is another issue I stumbled across with cheap Chinese digital radios. Apparently they have a habit of using Chinese codecs in many of them that are NOT compatible with the usual AMBE+2 ones that seems to be the standard in many of the higher tier radios from the big name manufactures.

  https://radiosification.blogspot.com/2019/01/dpmr-vocoders.html

[MarkInTampa]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

 

The license free service they have over there, like our old FRS rules, allows them to use narrow band FM, DMR or dPMR, at at 0.5 watts.

Makes one wonder why the FCC is dragging their feet here over allowing digital voice on GMRS.

 

I would think that the modulation levels of digital voice would destroy any analog communication on the same frequency. Setup a nice strong 50watt GMRS DMR repeater on 462.700 and I could almost guarantee that it would wipe out receive on two analog HT's talking a block apart 5 miles away from the repeater on the same frequency.

We have a nice strong GMRS repeater in my area on 575 that also does P25. 99% of use is analog but when P25 is used once or twice a week and you are monitoring on analog radio it's so loud it will make you jump out of your seat. 

I stumbled across this article "DMR Association Responds to TDMA Interference Allegations" (granted it's for VHF) (https://www.rrmediagroup.com/Features/FeaturesDetails/FID/325) and from an obviously bias organization that were complaining about:
 

PSCC coordinators said they will only certify TDMA coordinations at power levels that are 3 dB or more below the currently licensed analog effective radiated power (ERP), or at least 3 dB or more below the values indicated in 90.205, the safe harbor tables.

 

"We believe what is happening with the 3 dB reduction is an unfair treatment of DMR that penalizes system coverage,” Princen said. “If we would have a technical problem, we would understand it, but this is a design problem. If the system is designed properly, you can avoid this.

 

Digital voice would be nice on GMRS but due to the VERY limited number of repeater frequencies available on GMRS I just don't see how it could be done (at least on repeater frequencies) without causing interference to existing users and repeaters on the band, at least when running 50 watts. 

 

What would be cool is to open up a new band for something like "DGMRS" (Digital GMRS) for only digital use but if it only has a handful of channels like GMRS then I'd think the FCC would have to also have to determine a standard (DMR, dPMR, P25, whatever) for digital voice as well and only license radios with that standard. Or maybe allow for digital voice limited to .5 watt on the .5 watt GMRS frequencies for simplex communications that shouldn't interfere that much with existing radios.

 

[Lscott]

22 minutes ago, markskjerve said:

Digital voice would be nice on GMRS but due to the VERY limited number of repeater frequencies available on GMRS I just don't see how it could be done (at least on repeater frequencies) without causing interference to existing users and repeaters on the band, at least when running 50 watts.

Well there could be a way. People need to consider the possibility and how it could be done. I can think of one way where most of the objections are addressed. The use of digital voice might not be appropriate in some situations and advantageous in others.

GMRS Digital Voice - 20221011.pdf

[Sshannon]

1 hour ago, markskjerve said:

I would think that the modulation levels of digital voice would destroy any analog communication on the same frequency. Setup a nice strong 50watt GMRS DMR repeater on 462.700 and I could almost guarantee that it would wipe out receive on two analog HT's talking a block apart 5 miles away from the repeater on the same frequency.

We have a nice strong GMRS repeater in my area on 575 that also does P25. 99% of use is analog but when P25 is used once or twice a week and you are monitoring on analog radio it's so loud it will make you jump out of your seat. 

I stumbled across this article "DMR Association Responds to TDMA Interference Allegations" (granted it's for VHF) (https://www.rrmediagroup.com/Features/FeaturesDetails/FID/325) and from an obviously bias organization that were complaining about:
 

PSCC coordinators said they will only certify TDMA coordinations at power levels that are 3 dB or more below the currently licensed analog effective radiated power (ERP), or at least 3 dB or more below the values indicated in 90.205, the safe harbor tables.

 

"We believe what is happening with the 3 dB reduction is an unfair treatment of DMR that penalizes system coverage,” Princen said. “If we would have a technical problem, we would understand it, but this is a design problem. If the system is designed properly, you can avoid this.

 

Digital voice would be nice on GMRS but due to the VERY limited number of repeater frequencies available on GMRS I just don't see how it could be done (at least on repeater frequencies) without causing interference to existing users and repeaters on the band, at least when running 50 watts. 

 

What would be cool is to open up a new band for something like "DGMRS" (Digital GMRS) for only digital use but if it only has a handful of channels like GMRS then I'd think the FCC would have to also have to determine a standard (DMR, dPMR, P25, whatever) for digital voice as well and only license radios with that standard. Or maybe allow for digital voice limited to .5 watt on the .5 watt GMRS frequencies for simplex communications that shouldn't interfere that much with existing radios.

 

One way might be to split existing analog channels into two DGMRS channels, one at a time over a period of time.  That way everyone would be inconvenienced equally. For locations like mine, analog and digital could happily coexist, at least for a while.

You’re right that a new band would be best, but whom do you take it from? The FCC must have some studies showing any lesser used spectrum.

[gortex2]

1 minute ago, Sshannon said:

You’re right that a new band would be best, but whom do you take it from? The FCC must have some studies showing any lesser used spectrum.

Thats the issue. Spectrum is money for FCC. they are not going to take spectrum from another paying location to give it away for free. The only option would be some of the 70cm amatuer band. Over the years there was rumblings of them taking it in the past. But that also would move the operating band of radios too far apart in my opinion. In the end I don't ever see this happening. There are places to play DMR, P25, NXDN and C4FM if you really want or need to. I'm actually surprised the FCC hasn't pulled the spectrum to sell yet. 

[Sshannon]

1 hour ago, Lscott said:

Well there could be a way. People need to consider the possibility and how it could be done. I can think of one way where most of the objections are addressed. The use of digital voice might not be appropriate in some situations and advantageous in others.

GMRS Digital Voice - 20221011.pdf 67.88 kB · 3 downloads

Good document.  Makes me want to run out and buy a couple dPMR handhelds to play with.

The only thing I quibble with is the opening statement that GMRS isn’t for hobby use, but that’s been cussed and discussed elsewhere and this thread has had enough diversions.

[Sshannon]

33 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

Thats the issue. Spectrum is money for FCC. they are not going to take spectrum from another paying location to give it away for free. The only option would be some of the 70cm amatuer band. Over the years there was rumblings of them taking it in the past. But that also would move the operating band of radios too far apart in my opinion. In the end I don't ever see this happening. There are places to play DMR, P25, NXDN and C4FM if you really want or need to. I'm actually surprised the FCC hasn't pulled the spectrum to sell yet. 

But digital GMRS is not interoperable with analog GMRS, so they would be effectively creating another service (DGMRS or DMRS).  At that point, why not use a different section of spectrum?

Fortunately for me, I live where there’s a lot of underutilized spectrum, but that also means I don’t have a feel for what you metropolitans have to deal with.  

And I guess a part of me asks why people don’t just get their technician licenses and buy into 70cm digital voice.  Of course the family license is probably the reason.

[MarkInTampa]

37 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

But digital GMRS is not interoperable with analog GMRS, so they would be effectively creating another service (DGMRS or DMRS).  At that point, why not use a different section of spectrum?

Fortunately for me, I live where there’s a lot of underutilized spectrum, but that also means I don’t have a feel for what you metropolitans have to deal with.  

And I guess a part of me asks why people don’t just get their technician licenses and buy into 70cm digital voice.  Of course the family license is probably the reason.

What would be cool is to steal 1Mhz of band (.5Mhz with an additional .5Mhz +/- 5Mhz for repeater split) from 70cm and have it be cross licensed for both Ham and GMRS digital voice use. Ham folks could use their existing rigs to legally talk to GMRS users and vice versa. Would be great for emergency use as well. And it would open up 50% more available bandwidth as well over existing GMRS. This would allow for more repeaters. Also would allow for things like APRS type services or heck even digital hotspots on GMRS for the entire family to use. 

[Lscott]

43 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

Good document.  Makes me want to run out and buy a couple dPMR handhelds to play with.

The only thing I quibble with is the opening statement that GMRS isn’t for hobby use, but that’s been cussed and discussed elsewhere and this thread has had enough diversions.

Well that's what the FCC had envisioned the service's main use. However as any casual member of this forum sees it has evolved more towards a hobby use. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but the FCC would be quick to point out that wasn't the original intent. That was mentioned in the initial comments.

The purpose of the document is to get people thinking about it and to at least consider what the FCC might realistically consider. Start small and when you gain some ground push a little further. 

This plays into the topic of this thread. There are a lot of digital modes in use on the Hams bands. While that might be a good thing it is also a negative, too many modes.

For the general non-technical public picking once digital mode for GMRS I think is the way to go. With the experience of multiple modes on the Hams bands I think we, Hams, can offer some recommendations that make sense and fit the GMRS service. There is a lot of equipment out there and modes in use to choose from.

[Lscott]

20 minutes ago, markskjerve said:

What would be cool is to steal 1Mhz of band (.5Mhz with an additional .5Mhz +/- 5Mhz for repeater split) from 70cm and have it be cross licensed for both Ham and GMRS digital voice use. Ham folks could use their existing rigs to legally talk to GMRS users and vice versa. Would be great for emergency use as well. And it would open up 50% more available bandwidth as well over existing GMRS. This would allow for more repeaters. Also would allow for things like APRS type services or heck even digital hotspots on GMRS for the entire family to use. 

That's very unlikely to happen for several reasons.

1. The Hams will vigorously defend their spectrum from getting "pilfered" by another service. If they did take any spectrum the FCC would likely auction it off for money.

2. It would require some major revisions to the GMRS rules and spectrum management, not to mention mucking up the unified frequency allocations between GMRS and FRS.

3. The primary user of the 70cm is the government. Hams are only secondary users.

[MichaelLAX]

2 hours ago, Lscott said:

Well there could be a way. People need to consider the possibility and how it could be done. I can think of one way where most of the objections are addressed. The use of digital voice might not be appropriate in some situations and advantageous in others.

GMRS Digital Voice - 20221011.pdf 67.88 kB · 5 downloads

I have just downloaded this document to review, but in the meantime what is its status as far as the FCC is concerned.  Has it been submitted to them as part of a Proposed Rulemaking Order, if there even is one?

36 minutes ago, markskjerve said:

What would be cool is to steal 1Mhz of band (.5Mhz with an additional .5Mhz +/- 5Mhz for repeater split) from 70cm and have it be cross licensed for both Ham and GMRS digital voice use... 

With all due respect to GMRS users discussing Ham Radio on a GRMS Forum, the suggestion of "taking" any of the Ham 440 MHz band away from Hams even for "joint cross-over use to GMRS" is a non-starter.  

It just won't happen.

Now, for context, I once said that no Major League Baseball team would come back from 0-3 in a 7 game series in the playoffs/World Series to win in my lifetime.  Then the Boston Red Sox not only proved me wrong to defeat the Yankees, but went on to beat the Cardinals in 4 straight games in the 2004 World Series!

So: never say never! 

Even Sean Connery discovered the virtue of this saying after he said he would never again play the role of James Bond, and when he was lured back, they named the movie: "Never Say Never Again!" 

[Lscott]

53 minutes ago, Sshannon said:

But digital GMRS is not interoperable with analog GMRS, so they would be effectively creating another service (DGMRS or DMRS).  At that point, why not use a different section of spectrum?

That is a big consideration. The proposal to use the low power channels, 8-14, was an attempt to mitigate the issue. I suspect most GMRS radios don't even include the low power narrow channels, and if they do most users, I suspect, ignore them anyway. This way to side step any FCC objections to new spectrum allocations.

[Lscott]

3 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

I have just downloaded this document to review, but in the meantime what is its status as far as the FCC is concerned.  Has it been submitted to them as part of a Proposed Rulemaking Order, if there even is one?

Somebody with far more experience than me would need to VERY carefully write up a petition for submission. I think it's been tried before. I'm guessing any chance of success in rule modifications are those that requires the least work on the part of the FCC and not going overboard on the requested changes. The last part I think is key to the whole thing. Keep it modest and reasonable.

[BoxCar]

3 hours ago, gortex2 said:

Thats the issue. Spectrum is money for FCC. 

The money paid for spectrum, like fines and fees, goes to the treasury, not the FCC. They only get the headache of enforcing it.