There seem to be two continuous and perennial arguments i. whether to use reflectors or fixed talk-groups on BrandMeister, and ii. allowing bridges to connect between networks and other modes.

I have yet to see a convincing argument that supports the use of reflectors, when they are merely path extensions preventing the user from evaluating and enhancing his own code plug to better access those parts of the network that he wishes to visit outside the local repeater.

By applying a policy of Reflectors-Only on slot 2, the local user can only access reflectors that have corresponding talk-groups. This is a restrictive practice, and forces all the local users to adopt TG9 TS2 as their only option. The only positive point is that everyone listening to this one function knows exactly what is going on. However as we all know if the slot is busy, it is busy! I have seen that certain repeaters have now designated that dynamic talk-groups on slot 2 can be used by expert users where reflectors are linked, provided that the users disconnect with TG 4000 after their link. This makes perfect sense to me.

On the other hand by making Reflectors redundant, a user can program his radio with the range of talk-groups on both slots according to the general protocol Local/Regional on TS2 and National/International on TS1 and use the repeater accordingly with dynamic or fixed talk-groups.

OK, there is the disadvantage that it requires more technical expertise to program a code plug this way, and to know what is going on on a time slot, by listening across a range of talk-groups or to watch the dash board should the sysop deign to publish it. But it does open a repeater to better use. There are talk-groups that are not served by Reflectors of course. Remember if the slot is busy, it’s busy, no matter how it is used, so in my view the argument for reflectors is negated either way.

With regard to bridges to other modes or network, I am unable to accept that there is a valid reason to connect one talk-group on one network to another talk-group on a second network. Let’s look at it this way. On each network there are certain groups to which users would normally listen as a centre of national activity in preference. Unless there is a scanning system in place, who would sit and listen to one bridged channel that may have others who may sit and listen to the same channel, and probably rarely a call made one way or another? Would the maintainers of a D-Star or YSF channel wish a link to a talk-group on DMR, for the same reasons?

I accept that I have an opinion and others have theirs. Having control of two un-adjacent repeaters, I have been able to see the interaction of the traffic between them and across the network, and have formed this opinion over many, many months of observation. The amount of traffic does not merit the over-reaction.

This was originally a professional mode adapted for amateur use, and I have never seen such a falling out between a group of people as there has been over DMR in general. This is a pastime, not a job!

So I finish this to say this, each to his own opinion. I’m not forcing anyone to do anything, but examine all the evidence before you, and not just that you wish to believe.

Maintenant en français assisté par Google Translate.

S’il vous plaît utiliser un traducteur en ligne.

http://f5zgm.f8kfz.org:19389

Leave a Reply