{ "numMessagesInTopic": 19, "nextInTime": 1309, "senderId": "--fq28YctuOYX2gvAR6dyMnftoK8F62TvY6ugENDh3FgDVpi1GYm8AIKAuz64g77Oy5OaAh-Nd02hw5V4jG9jCKccdY", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [GE-Mpa] Aegis on ham bands?", "from": "Gary Peterson <NZ5V@...>", "authorName": "Gary Peterson", "msgSnippet": "Nate; From Riley Holligsworth on 5/2/2007: Hi. This is ARRL s take on it and we agree. ... From: Henderson, Dan N1ND [mailto:dhenderson@arrl.org] Sent:", "msgId": 1308, "profile": "gs79602", "topicId": 1302, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 157218573, "messageBody": "
\n\n\n \n\n\n\nGary Peterson wrote:
\n
\n> First, the opinion of the ARRL digital formats tech guy and a
\n> concurrence from Riley Hollingsworth was that APCO25 isn't legal\non the
\n> ham band. There is a lot of disagreement here, and personally, I\nthink
\n> that in the end, APCO25 will likely become an accepted digital\nformat on
\n> the ham bands.
\n
\nDo you have a reference for this that's published somewhere? I'd like
\nto see it, because I'd like to send them comments on it. P-25 is as
\nmuch a fully published protocol as say, D-Star. (Unlike some standards
\nthe FCC is allowing -- say, like PACTOR III...)
\n
\n> Second, AEGIS is a proprietary protocall and although there are\nsome who
\n> think otherwise, the only AEGIS machines I know of are on\ncommercial
\n> freq's. Unless we can get M/A Com to release the spec's on AEGIS\nnow
\n> that it's pretty much a dead product, it can't be used on the Ham\nband.
\n
\nOr someone fully reverse-engineers it and publishes their findings. :-)
\n
\nNate WY0X
\n