{ "numMessagesInTopic": 19, "nextInTime": 1316, "senderId": "Oq0kv3ASFbOD4V-ApKDqbftsrY0zedBRT9rcwSIT9B-9qs5mVAh3YVxWcVX5RNlkd220Pc3qzu5nUx9yDWGW0uaSglJi_WlLma5d2AY", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [GE-Mpa] Re: Aegis on ham bands?", "from": ""philip porteus" <silverbk@...>", "authorName": "philip porteus", "msgSnippet": "Thanks for all the excellent responses. I have a few thoughts and questions: If P-25 and Provoice radios are backwards compatible for Aegis can I program or", "msgId": 1315, "profile": "silverbk65105", "topicId": 1302, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 46432674, "messageBody": "
On Jan 11, 2008 10:18 AM, Doug Bade <kd8b@...> wrote:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\nGary;
\n I am going to write a paper over the weekend and forward it
\nto this group as well as other interested parties.
\n
\nI have specifically located the regulations that ALLOW digital voice
\nand under what circumstances, and I can fully justify those
\ninterpretations.....as of yet I have found no requirement which
\nprecludes D-star,P-25, AEGIS, ProVoice, DES or VGE , Motorola's
\nequivalent versions, or any other digital voice system we could dream
\nup... under the correct implementation. I will cite the specifics but
\nit will span a couple pages, as well as half a dozen chapters in part
\n97.... and I am not ready to type it right now... We can then ask for
\nand maybe get the official read from the necessary parties which
\neveryone seems to crave, but from what I can read even THAT is not
\nrequired anywhere in Part 97 either ....
\n
\nAt that point if someone can cite specific regulations being
\n"broken" instead of "opinions".... we can make a determination...
\nRiley's unpublished opinion, nor the ARRL's opinion carry any weight
\nuntil a specific regulation of violation can be cited... I have yet
\nto see THAT.... Because someone thinks it's is illegal does not make
\nit so... I will cite chapter and verse why it is not.... We can
\nhopefully get everyone on the same page and move on... Riley's
\nopinion is absolutely far more important to me, than say the ARRL,
\nbut even he has to have a specific regulation being broken before a
\ncitation can be issued... That is all I am asking to see... the
\njustification of what is being broken in the context of the FCC
\nregulations and the intent thereof... The rules are based on
\nsignificant historical context including the development and changes
\nof rules like the spread spectrum rules, and the 802.11 rules that
\nreadily demonstrate the intent of these rules and changes... All of
\nwhich is equally important to understanding the current verbiage..in
\nthe proper context..
\n
\nQuite honestly a NAL is required to cause one of us to cease
\noperation and it requires a citation of a specific regulation.. and
\nincludes a rebuttal period to justify our actions... I have yet to
\nsee that happen due to a DV voice implementation on a reasonably
\nauthorized band segment... of a legally licensed ham..I am not
\ntalking about DV voice operation in the packet band or other issues
\nwhich have popped up that have nothing to do with modulation, those
\nhave to do with bandplan....another matter entirely..
\n
\nDoug
\nKD8B\n>> <<<mailto:GE>mailto:GE-Mpa%>mailto:GE-Mpa%40yahoogroups.com\n><<mailto:GE>mailto:GE-Mpa%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:\n\nGE-Mpa%40yahoogroups.com>GE-Mpa@yahoogroups.com,
\n
\nAt 10:07 PM 1/10/2008, you wrote:
\n
\n>The frame and protocol for D-Star are not easy to find, but do
\n>exist, and are not really published on the web, due to the same
\n>paranoia that surrounds all the other similar vocoder implementations...
\n>
\n>But it's there, if you really look or ask hard enough, and so it
\n>meets the rule, IMHO. It wasn't on the ARRL website UNTIL I started
\n>asking about this stuff.
\n>
\n>D-star is just a little software tweak away from P25, and the same
\n>is true of ProVoice, as all use the same series of vocoders, it's
\n>just that all this paranoia has the vendor jumping thru hoops to
\n>keep all the government customers happy.
\n>
\n>Bottom line, we now live in a world where the rules now say that if
\n>a 10 year old says he's going to blow up the school with an atomic
\n>bomb, it's a terroristic threat, and he can be expelled
\n>indefinitely, without any other adjudication, other than the
\n>allegation that he said those words. Never mind it's so far from
\n>reality that it's unreasonable to take such a "threat" seriously...
\n>the word "joke" comes to mind!
\n>
\n>It is sad, Doug, and I'm not sure what I can do about it, but we
\n>decided here not to implement a digital data system using the GE
\n>modems that exist in all these cheap surplus radios because they can
\n>be labeled "proprietary" and therefore are illegal to use. Not that
\n>I agree, but the specter of the biased and ill-advised rule making
\n>and selective/unfair enforcement the FCC has engaged in over and
\n>over again in so many areas is not very comforting, if you prize
\n>your ham ticket. Add in an honest to goodness psycho in our local
\n>area with an Extra Class ticket, long history of less than glorious
\n>exploits and an arrest for felony computer hacking/plead down
\n>conviction and no one wants to stick their neck out, as this fellow
\n>would be sending letters to Riley - and I've lost count of how many
\n>he has sent already, trying to get various hams in trouble.
\n>
\n>Gary
\n>NZ5V
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>Doug Bade wrote:
\n>>
\n>>Gary;
\n>>By this standard D-Star is illegal... The Vocoder conversion
\n>>is proprietary in both these cases... D-Star and AEGIS... same
\n>>argument applies both ways... either they both are or they both are
\n>>not... Both are IMBE processes... The difference is uhf AEGIS radios
\n>>are a dime a dozen... albeit off Ebay... D-star is retail... I own a
\n>>lot more AEGIS capable gear than I own D-Star gear....
\n>>
\n>>As a licensed ham, I have seen nowhere in the regs that we
\n>>need to ask anyone permission to transmit in amateur spectrum. There
\n>>is no LEGAL requirement for coordination, Coordination is an
\n>>arbitration solution between parties in the event one is coordinated
\n>>and one not... Folks seem to spend too much time telling each other
\n>>what we can and cannot do.... It is an electronics experimenters
\n>>hobby that is being turned into and appliance operators hobby.. The
\n>>only way you can use it is you buy it at HRO... this is nuts..... I
\n>>can build my own home brew "proprietary" digital radio and use it
\n>>perfectly legally if I publish the specs.... but AEGIS and P-25 are out...
\n>>
\n>>Right...... :-)
\n>>
\n>>I am really saddened by what I have seen going on in the
\n>>entire digital voice implementation...It seems like folks are
\n>>forgetting what we are here for while debating technology
\n>>selections... All these digital voice debates are very destructive to
\n>>the effort to introduce digital to the education and operation of the
\n>>amateur community....
\n>>
\n>>I never ask anyone to be responsible for my decisions....I
\n>>will make my own and live by the consequences.. I know that seems to
\n>>be a radical thought these days...
\n>>I do not feel compelled to ask Riley or the ARRL if what I am doing
\n>>meets there approval... If someone complains.. I will cross that
\n>>bridge and defend my position.. for better or worse... as and
\n>>Engineer.... I think I can wage a concise logical debate on the
\n>>subject...and will probably prevail...The interpretations I have seen
\n>>lately defy logic... and quite honestly I think they are bunk....
\n>>
\n>>Doug
\n>>KD8B
\n>>
\n>>At 07:23 PM 1/10/2008, you wrote:
\n>>
\n>> >Doug;
\n>> >
\n>> >I agree with you, and feel the arguments you have made are on point,
\n>> >my personal take is that Riley Hollingsworth interpits the
\n>> >regulation to mean that since the frame format and details of the
\n>> >protocol are not published, and therefore it's not legal for amateur use.
\n>> >
\n>> >Keeping in mind that Riley is just one lawyer in a Federal Agency, I
\n>> >am just suggesting that IF you choose to operate using AEGIS on
\n>> >amateur frequencies, I agree, Doug, make it public, post it on a web
\n>> >site, submit all necessary data to the body that coordinates
\n>> >repeaters in your area, and be ready to take it off the air if you
\n>> >get a letter.
\n>> >
\n>> >I wouldn't rule out an appeal, but personally, I'd make that appeal
\n>> >after pulling the plug on it and not thumb my nose at Riley, if he
\n>> >sent me a letter on it.
\n>> >
\n>> >Gary
\n>> >NZ5V
\n>> >
\n>> >
\n>> >Doug Bade wrote:
\n>> >>
\n>> >>All Provoice equipment which also means all P25 capable Tyco
\n>> >>radios are backwards compatible to Aegis.... Repeating AEGIS is also
\n>> >>very easy with an EDACS station as it inherently passed AEGIS if it
\n>> >>operated in EDACS. The GETC shelf can use a different Eprom for AEGIS
\n>> >>conventional. AEGIS and VGE are compatible with GETC's pre-Provoice..
\n>> >>and all Provoice GETC's since. Current AMBE vocoders support IMBE...
\n>> >>the AMBE 2000 vocoder used for D-star is also IMBE as D-star is an
\n>> >>IMBE mode as is P-25...
\n>> >>
\n>> >>Gary and I have significantly different opinions on whether
\n>> >>AEGIS is an acceptable mode for amateur. Many who I associate with
\n>> >>are in agreement that little in the regulations applies to digital
\n>> >>voice above 2 meters besides bandwidth and Encryption. Some say it (
\n>> >>AEGIS) is encrypted... because it is proprietary digital... I disagree...
\n>> >>
\n>> >>The regulations have long held that as long as the codes
\n>> >>used to generate said emission are published, ie channel guard codes
\n>> >>or eq in AEGIS ....There seems to be no regulation which forces us to
\n>> >>use a mode that others can hear on an analog radio.. any non FM
\n>> >>emission needs some form "converter/receiver" to monitor it.. AEGIS
\n>> >>is no different.. Spread spectrum is a case in point.. Clearly a
\n>> >>digital method which is legal as long as it is not encrypted for the
\n>> >>purpose of obscuring the meaning and the technical details of the
\n>> >>emission are published... I think the published part is what people
\n>> >>get wound up with in the Digital voice argument... If one reads the
\n>> >>Spread Spectrum rules... which equally apply to technologies such as
\n>> >>802.11, experimentation is not prohibited.. You just cannot do it in
\n>> >>secret and you need to publish the details of the operation so
\n>> >>someone CAN monitor if they choose.. You may even make access through
\n>> >>mobile cross patch or eq to an analog channel to satisfy
\n>> >>nay-sayers....Then they can listen all they want....
\n>> >>
\n>> >>The HF digital voice issues are more complex as they become
\n>> >>international... I think folks loose sight of this important
\n>> >>difference when dealing with HF and 220 and above issues.....In this
\n>> >>case regulator matters are a matter if international agreement... on
\n>> >>VHF they are local matters..... subject to home rule regulations, not
\n>> >>international ITU agreements...
\n>> >>
\n>> >>The actual purpose of the amateur FCC rules needs to be
\n>> >>recognized in this continued argument... it is not to block
\n>> >>technology and experimentation, it is to prevent hams ( or other
\n>> >>interlopers) from abusing frequency privileges for the purposes of
\n>> >>any non amateur activity.. ie criminal... If reasonable access to
\n>> >>your operation is provided for anyone who needs to verify you are
\n>> >>operating legally... are made... I am having a tough time seeing how
\n>> >>anyone could protest...
\n>> >>
\n>> >>Even go one step further and record all recovered audio from
\n>> >>the repeater on some tank recorder windows box or eq... so anyone can
\n>> >>go back and listen to your traffic....The argument is moot.
\n>> >>
\n>> >>If someone wants to operate clover or pactor or eq... you
\n>> >>need to buy the gear to decode it.... I see no difference in a mode
\n>> >>like AEGIS... there are more than a few commercial hams who
\n>> >>agree...Proprietary has no functionality in the rules... intentional
\n>> >>encryption to obscure meaning does....D-star is another example.. A
\n>> >>proprietary vocoder but clearly is amateur legal....so the vocoder is
\n>> >>NOT really the issue.. availability of receiving equipment is... Same
\n>> >>argument supports legality of P-25... any digital scanner can decode
\n>> >>P-25 conventional these days... what is the argument ???? anyone can
\n>> >>listen who wants to.... Folks have been doing amateur digital voice
\n>> >>long before P-25 and D-star came along.... until recently the ARRL
\n>> >>had no dog in the fight... now all of a sudden they are in charge of
\n>> >>our technical choices???? I think not...
\n>> >>
\n>> >>I think the arguments about proprietary are taken way out of
\n>> >>context in the meaning of the rules... but as in all cases.. YOU are
\n>> >>responsible to comply with the rules... If you are prepared to argue
\n>> >>your case.. then do as you see fit.. The entire "documented" concept
\n>> >>of the ARRL tech department is to Designate PRE-approved modes that
\n>> >>have been agreed upon... It does not mean those are the only modes
\n>> >>which are legal... Many seem to think it is.. There is NO provision
\n>> >>in the regulations to make the ARRL the only party to approve
\n>> >>designated modes... it does give them authority to offer to do that
\n>> >>but it does not MAKE them THE SOLE source of such documents...
\n>> >>
\n>> >>My $.02....
\n>> >>
\n>> >>Doug
\n>> >>KD8B
\n>> >>
\n>> >>At 09:46 AM 1/10/2008, you wrote:
\n>> >>
\n>> >> >Well, besides AEGIS sounding like garbage...
\n>> >> >
\n>> >> >I would suspect AEGIS isn't as popular, because the amount of used
\n>> >> >equipment isn't as much. Most IMBE/P25 radios that Amateurs use are
\n>> >> >from the second hand/eBay market.
\n>> >> >
\n>> >> >In addition, AEGIS is "closed technology" that is, if you want AEGIS,
\n>> >> >your only choice is Ericsson. Whereas, with IMBE, you aren't vendor
\n>> >> >locked, you can choose from several manufacturers.
\n>> >> >
\n>> >> >The final reason I can think of is that AEGIS is an old technology.
\n>> >> >You cannot (to my knowledge anyway) purchase new AEGIS equipment,
\n>> >> >either base/repeater or portable/mobile. Whereas, you can go to the
\n>> >> >Motorola/Kenwood/Icom/Vertex store any day of the week and buy a brand
\n>> >> >new IMBE repeater and radios.
\n>> >> >
\n>> >> >That said, if someone threw up an AEGIS (or ProVoice) repeater near
\n>> >> >me, I'd buy a radio in a heart beat - Ericsson radios are light years
\n>> >> >better than anything Motorola sells...I'm just looking for a reason to
\n>> >> >buy one!
\n>> >> >
\n>> >> >-M
\n>> >> >
\n>> >> >--- In
\n>> >>\n
\n>>
\n>> >>
\n>> >> >"Phil Porteus" <silverbk@...> wrote:
\n>> >> > >
\n>> >> > > I was asked this question on another and I didn't know the correct
\n>> >> >answer.
\n>> >> > >
\n>> >> > > Is Aegis legal to use on ham bands?
\n>> >> > >
\n>> >> > > According to FCC 309(a) the digital format must be published and
\n>> >> > > available.
\n>> >> > >
\n>> >> > > Is Aegis old and open enough to be considered an open
\n>> format? Have the
\n>> >> > > technical standards ever been published?
\n>> >> > >
\n>> >> > > With all the ham APCO 25 repeaters and D-Star machines
\n>> popping up, why
\n>> >> > > not an Aegis one.
\n>> >> > >
\n>> >> >
\n>> >> >
\n>> >
\n>
\n
\n
\n