{ "numMessagesInTopic": 19, "nextInTime": 1317, "senderId": "LnrUdU7s8yLO_eOZKAbnmwSDzbAnlyjEcLQm-VOMFzAa6_zUiElFcdbx0n7NEMwdMIEA3o4SSycdj8fPIBh7up-kyQQ", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [GE-Mpa] Re: Aegis on ham bands?", "from": "Doug Bade <kd8b@...>", "authorName": "Doug Bade", "msgSnippet": "I need to clarify as it seems you may have read more into what I sent...that is... TYCO P-25 radios, which are required to be Provoice capable to activate", "msgId": 1316, "profile": "kd8b2005", "topicId": 1302, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 281894931, "messageBody": "
>Thanks for all the excellent responses.
\n>
\n>I have a few thoughts and questions:
\n>
\n>If P-25 and Provoice radios are backwards compatible for Aegis can I
\n>program or use my modern P-25 radios to "talk" with my older Aegis radios?
\n>
\n>This link here looks like the standards for AMBE which is used in D-Star
\n>
\n><http://www.moetronix.com/files/vhfdvxpaper.pdf>http://www.moetronix.com/files/vhfdvxpaper.pdf
\n>
\n>Riley, has indicated that P-25 is not legal on the ham bands, but
\n>there are hundreds of p-25 repeaters in amateur use. Is there any
\n>enforcement action pending on these machines?
\n>
\n>I think Aegis (although proprietary) presents the same situation as
\n>AMBE, there are no commercially available receivers, so you have to
\n>buy the proprietary in able to use/receive the protocol.
\n>
\n>I also think the present FCC regulations were written long before
\n>this technology existed and need to be updated. I think it not
\n>feasible for a ham to build some kind of Aegis receiver even if the
\n>standard was public.
\n>
\n>73
\n>
\n>On Jan 11, 2008 10:18 AM, Doug Bade
\n><<mailto:kd8b@...>kd8b@...> wrote:
\n>
\n>Gary;
\n>I am going to write a paper over the weekend and forward it
\n>to this group as well as other interested parties.
\n>
\n>I have specifically located the regulations that ALLOW digital voice
\n>and under what circumstances, and I can fully justify those
\n>interpretations.....as of yet I have found no requirement which
\n>precludes D-star,P-25, AEGIS, ProVoice, DES or VGE , Motorola's
\n>equivalent versions, or any other digital voice system we could dream
\n>up... under the correct implementation. I will cite the specifics but
\n>it will span a couple pages, as well as half a dozen chapters in part
\n>97.... and I am not ready to type it right now... We can then ask for
\n>and maybe get the official read from the necessary parties which
\n>everyone seems to crave, but from what I can read even THAT is not
\n>required anywhere in Part 97 either ....
\n>
\n>At that point if someone can cite specific regulations being
\n>"broken" instead of "opinions".... we can make a determination...
\n>Riley's unpublished opinion, nor the ARRL's opinion carry any weight
\n>until a specific regulation of violation can be cited... I have yet
\n>to see THAT.... Because someone thinks it's is illegal does not make
\n>it so... I will cite chapter and verse why it is not.... We can
\n>hopefully get everyone on the same page and move on... Riley's
\n>opinion is absolutely far more important to me, than say the ARRL,
\n>but even he has to have a specific regulation being broken before a
\n>citation can be issued... That is all I am asking to see... the
\n>justification of what is being broken in the context of the FCC
\n>regulations and the intent thereof... The rules are based on
\n>significant historical context including the development and changes
\n>of rules like the spread spectrum rules, and the 802.11 rules that
\n>readily demonstrate the intent of these rules and changes... All of
\n>which is equally important to understanding the current verbiage..in
\n>the proper context..
\n>
\n>Quite honestly a NAL is required to cause one of us to cease
\n>operation and it requires a citation of a specific regulation.. and
\n>includes a rebuttal period to justify our actions... I have yet to
\n>see that happen due to a DV voice implementation on a reasonably
\n>authorized band segment... of a legally licensed ham..I am not
\n>talking about DV voice operation in the packet band or other issues
\n>which have popped up that have nothing to do with modulation, those
\n>have to do with bandplan....another matter entirely..
\n>
\n>Doug
\n>KD8B
\n>
\n>
\n>At 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
\n> 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> <<<mailto:GE>mailto:GE-Mpa%>mailto:GE-Mpa%40yahoogroups.com ><<mailt
\n> o:GE>mailto:GE-Mpa%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
\n> GE-Mpa%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:GE-Mpa%40yahoogroups.com>GE-Mpa@yahoogroups.com,
\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>