Roger Beep

[UncleYoda]

STE is a separate function on Baofengs (and also RP-STE).  This squawk I'm referring to is under Roger Beep.  Anyway, around here, for ham, the advice is always to not use any of the stuff like that (STE, RP-STE, ANI-ID, access tone eg 1750).  For GMRS, all I've seen is "don't use any DTMF codes on my repeater" (and of course, turn off the roger beep).  My ham mobile can transmit my call sign (in CW?) but I don't use it in normal use.

[WRUE951]

50 minutes ago, WRXL702 said:

Nope. Nothing Illegal About It For Private Use. Businesses Use It Per Part 90 & It Is Also Legal For GMRS Under Part 95.

No, using Mobile Digital Communicator (MDC) signaling for voice on GMRS is not legal. The FCC prohibits all digital voice modes, such as DMR, on GMRS channels. MDC, though a form of digital signaling, is part of a digital voice system that does not conform to GMRS regulations. 

[Northcutt114]

4 hours ago, WRXL702 said:

MDC = Motorola Data Communications.

It Is An ID Assigned, Programmed Into & Associated To A Specific Radio To Allow Transmissions On To A Repeater.

It May Be A Pre, Post Or Both On A Transmission For ID So A Controller Can Recognize & Validate The Incoming Signal.

Some Use It As A ID Only For Other Radios To Recognize The Individual Ttansmitting.

So let me ask a follow up question to this. If a radio can identify itself to a repeater and then the repeater can allow it access, can the opposite be true, as well? Can a radio be "banned" from a repeater by not allowing it's ID?

 

[UncleYoda]

34 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

Can a radio be "banned" from a repeater by not allowing it's ID?

While you're waiting for 702's reply, I'll say that if specific IDs are required, then would it not be obvious that revoked IDs would be blocked?

But for the official procedure to ban someone, the owner is supposed to send a letter to them (probably after telling them).

[Northcutt114]

Just now, UncleYoda said:

While you're waiting for 702's reply, I'll say that if specific IDs are required, then would it not be obvious that revoked IDs would be blocked?

But for the official procedure to ban someone, the owner is supposed to send a letter to them (probably after telling them).

I mean, "obvious" is a strong word, but yeah, it's certainly logical. I was just making sure. I assume that's not something that analog radios are able to do? You'd need a digital radio, yeah?

 

[UncleYoda]

28 minutes ago, Northcutt114 said:

I mean, "obvious" is a strong word, but yeah, it's certainly logical. I was just making sure. I assume that's not something that analog radios are able to do? You'd need a digital radio, yeah?

I'll have to let the repeater owners explain how it works on repeaters.  My ham mobile can block incoming signals based on the tone, but that's different from an ID code.  I don't think any radio I have can decode IDs even though they can transmit them.  [A newer radio I have has an encryption function but it isn't legal to use so I can't even test that.]  All my radios are analog.

[SteveShannon]

7 hours ago, Northcutt114 said:

So let me ask a follow up question to this. If a radio can identify itself to a repeater and then the repeater can allow it access, can the opposite be true, as well? Can a radio be "banned" from a repeater by not allowing it's ID?

 

Yes.