|
SALE: Reg.
$169
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
#34370 - 06/29/01 06:32 AM
Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
|
intermod
Top Reader
Registered: 03/26/99
Posts: 336
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
|
Offline
|
|
Corwin:
The following was cut from another forum (http://www.dougweb.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000524.html). I felt it would be more appropriate here. Discussion was about controlling a control station via a non-PSTN circuit, or through internet. The internet method could be similar to the IRLP system.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Corwin Moore:
Yes, but it still requires the presence of a station OPERATOR at the control station. (See 95.171.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corwin:
Not really. 95.171 states "When a GMRS station is transmitting, it must have a station operator. The station operator must be at the control point for that station....."
You may be reading more into the CURRENT rule than actually exists. Part 95 does not restrict where the control point of a station can be (nor does it define the term Control Point for that matter). So, a control station could be remotely-controlled (such as through a dediated wireline or the Internet; just not the PSTN).
And of course, the remotely-controlled control station would also comply with pre-transmission monitoring requirements.
The only other possible restriction is 95.183 ("Prohibited communications") that states: "A station operator must not communicate: ..(12) Messages which are both conveyed by a wireline control link and transmitted by a GMRS station;"
But this Section was not intended to restrict remote control, only the retransmission of control information, or PSTN messages.
_________________________
intermod
"GMRS: If you didn't love it, you wouldn't have it, so you gotta love it...."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#34371 - 06/29/01 09:25 AM
Re: Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
|
Corwin Moore
One Heavy Reader
Registered: 04/06/99
Posts: 1985
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
|
Online
|
|
The rules require that someone be at the control POINT, which is not necessarily the same as a control STATION.
Several times, we have asked the FCC to clarify the constraints on the use of dial-up PSTN circuits for control. We believe that a reasonable constraint would be:
1) to prohibit the GMRS transmission of any signal received through the wireline (either real-time or delayed); and,
2) to prohibit the receipt of any signal over the air to cause the activation of some circuitry (for instance, to dial a number on the PSTN).
This would allow the control operator to perform the "snoop" function on a dial-up PSTN line (a worthwhile function), while prohibiting the inbound caller (from the GMRS side) to cause the patch to generate an out-going call.
The FCC has (so far) declined to consider these requests.
- Corwin Moore (PRSG)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#34372 - 06/30/01 09:45 AM
Re: Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
|
intermod
Top Reader
Registered: 03/26/99
Posts: 336
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Corwin:
Your proposed language appears to be targeted at restricting autopatch and cordless telephone use. This restriction has wide support of the GMRS community.
But when you consider the other reasons for interconnecting remote GMRS "devices" together, such as a repeater to a remote base station, or a control station (to link into another remote repeater), or to link two geographically separated repeaters together, using the term "wireline" and "activation" may be too broad.
Such language would also restrict "wireline" or PSTN connection of two GMRS stations. Is this also the PRSG's intent?
_________________________
intermod
"GMRS: If you didn't love it, you wouldn't have it, so you gotta love it...."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#34373 - 06/30/01 10:51 AM
Re: Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
|
Corwin Moore
One Heavy Reader
Registered: 04/06/99
Posts: 1985
Loc: Ann Arbor, MI
|
|
Online
|
|
Originally posted by intermod:
Such language would also restrict "wireline" or PSTN connection of two GMRS stations. Is this also the PRSG's intent?
Yes, at least at this time. The implementation of a network design beyond merely the conventional single-point-of-relay (or "single-hop") design would raise significant issues regarding pre- and during-transmission monitoring, operational control, system accountability, etc.
The actual mechanics of such expanded-network configurations are not difficult, and indeed have been used for years in certain other radio services for extended network coverage. However, GMRS is still intended for "short-distance communications" (95.1(a)).
GMRS is also somewhat different from those other services, for instance in terms of the non-exclusivity of channels, the need for resource sharing, the absence of any automated protocols for traffic prioritization, etc.
The current regulatory structure of GMRS lacks the kind of provisions that would be necessary to assure non-disruption to other users, and provision of the necessary protections (for instance, for non-network [short-range] communications, and especially for emergency communications).
Since the mechanics themselves of linkage are not that complicated, and given an increasing interest in some kind of extended-network design, our focus should be on the kind of protocols that should be required for these protections. So far, I've not heard extended-network proponents begin this discussion. Implementation of any "multi-hop" network designs would be premature until these more basic considerations are resolved.
We have a separate (so far, languishing) forum here for discussion of rules changes. This is where we should open this (and other similar) considerations.
- Corwin Moore (PRSG)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#34374 - 07/03/01 09:43 AM
Re: Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
|
intermod
Top Reader
Registered: 03/26/99
Posts: 336
Loc: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Let's take each issue separately.
Per 95.1 (a) The GMRS is…..available to persons for short distance.. ….communications.."
Although a single repeater on flat terrain could possibly provide coverage over a 20-mile radius (40 mi. end-to-end), we are lucky if we get a 5-10 mile radius here in the San Francisco Bay Area; our terrain severely limits the coverage of any one repeater. As a result, our group must maintain three repeater systems to provide even marginal coverage. Although these operate on the same channel, they are not linked.
Also, coverage expectations (not necessarily coverage "needs", no?) are growing each year as cellular and PCS phones proliferate. The expectation has reached the point where portable coverage inside moving vehicles is now the norm.
In addition, interference due to adjacent channel FRS signals is becoming severe, at least in this area (both on field equipment and repeater inputs). Both inbound and outbound signal strengths to/from GMRS base or repeaters must be higher to overcome this.
For the GMRS to maintain its relevance in this "environment", it must continue to evolve. Coverage is key - but not at the expense of availability. Given eight channel pairs in a shared-channel environment, activating more than one repeater unnecessarily would impact our repeater systems, as well as others on the same channel. This is especially true if high-elevation repeaters are used.
Therefore, it would be overly restrictive and possibly damaging to the Service, to interpret "short-distance "as" coverage provided by a single repeater". So how do we permit linking, without impacting simplex users, or other repeater systems? Possible regulatory solutions include:
- Limit linked repeater operation to specific channels, and/or provide channels that are "protected" for simplex (i.e., direct, or same-channel base-to-mobile) operations);
- Define direct base-to-mobile (or linked repeater) operation as secondary on specific channels
- Permit a repeater to be linked if its height above average terrain (HAAT) is below a certain threshold, or base it on a combination of ERP & HAAT;
- Require user-based or central switching technology to limit repeater activation to the minimum number of areas or "zones" necessary for communications;
- Require repeaters to monitor their output frequency for activity (maybe set for a certain signal threshold level in dBm)
- Limit the geographical coverage of linked systems
- Establish a GMRS frequency coordination organization (national, regional?), with Commission support, to help coordinate wide-area systems.
We must also keep in mind that in some areas of the Country there is little to no channel congestion problems, so we should not provide "blanket " limitations.
The PRSG seems to argue that same-channel direct stations require protection. We agree that direct base-to-mobile [may] deserve some protection, but once repeaters and base stations were permitted in the GMRS (considering the near-far C/I issue), mobile-to-mobile operation effectively became "secondary". We believe this should be strictly stated in Part 95.
Technology could be helpful in meeting some of these challenges. TDMA (split channel or same-channel), pre-transmission monitoring using voice-storage technology in FDMA systems, etc. could all help. DTMF signaling and calling protocols (without requiring voice paging) could also help and would be easy to build. But this can become expensive, especially when considering the falling prices on cellular and PCS. Any technology must not worsen GMRS service quality and usability with regard to latency, voice quality, or complicated operation.
Given the likely limited GMRS market, are we likely to see user equipment capable of such technology? We may be forced to the "lowest common denominator" such as DTMF and/or CTCSS/DCS signaling.
Greg
[This message has been edited by intermod (edited July 03, 2001).]
_________________________
intermod
"GMRS: If you didn't love it, you wouldn't have it, so you gotta love it...."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#94732 - 01/13/09 09:03 AM
Re: Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
[Re: intermod]
|
pnannery
New Reader
Registered: 03/24/05
Posts: 3
Loc: North brunswick,nj,middlesex
|
|
Offline
|
|
- Limit linked repeater operation to specific channels, and/or provide channels that are "protected" for simplex (i.e., direct, or same-channel base-to-mobile) operations);
- Define direct base-to-mobile (or linked repeater) operation as secondary on specific channels
- Permit a repeater to be linked if its height above average terrain (HAAT) is below a certain threshold, or base it on a combination of ERP & HAAT;
- Require user-based or central switching technology to limit repeater activation to the minimum number of areas or "zones" necessary for communications;
- Require repeaters to monitor their output frequency for activity (maybe set for a certain signal threshold level in dBm)
- Limit the geographical coverage of linked systems
- Establish a GMRS frequency coordination organization (national, regional?), with Commission support, to help coordinate wide-area systems.
We must also keep in mind that in some areas of the Country there is little to no channel congestion problems, so we should not provide "blanket " limitations.
to answer some of Issues you have stated i agree with you that two pairs and maybe even a cretin pl/dpl be used for liking also it should be a system only for gmrs not ham or other services with some sort of control such as dtmf the need for coordination i think is a real need with or with out linking in my area their many many repeaters not in use all over the place making it difficult as far as montering goes mabe some sort of tx inhibt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#94737 - 01/13/09 10:08 PM
Re: Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
[Re: pnannery]
|
SkipSanders
Serious Reader
Registered: 02/05/07
Posts: 62
Loc: San Diego, CA USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Allowing linked repeaters would require the FCC to (re)establish a requirement for repeater stations to file data with the FCC detailing location, power, HAAT, antenna, etc.
Do you REALLY think the FCC is going to want to add work for themselves?
When the rules had a section on 'hardwired' control links, they specified 'same building' or within a couple hundred feet as the maximum allowed wire control range.
The FCC isn't apparently interested in creating a long-range GMRS service. Don't hold your breath. They'll tell you that if you want full communications service, buy a cellphone.
_________________________
Ham N6IMN - GMRS WQGJ903
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#94862 - 01/28/09 09:19 PM
Re: Remote control via wireline (non-PSTN)
[Re: SkipSanders]
|
rdunajewski
The Copy-n-Paste King
Forum Big Guy
Registered: 03/05/06
Posts: 1229
Loc: Edison, NJ
|
|
Offline
|
|
Skip,
Why exactly would the FCC need location information for repeaters? I understand that if you have several repeaters simulcasting, it becomes a little harder to locate the source of the problem with several transmitters. However using DF techniques, it becomes no harder than finding a single transmitter. I just don't see an absolute requirement for the FCC to collect this information again if linking were ever officially allowed, other than to give them a starting point for enforcement (but that doesn't happen anymore, right?)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Corwin Moore, rdunajewski
|
0 registered
and 1 anonymous users online.
|
|
3458 Members
46 Forums
12765 Topics
95395 Posts
Max Online: 68 @ 11/07/07 08:56 PM
|
|
|
