Author Topic: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes (Read 59109 times)

FlyinBrian · « **on:** August 18, 2010, 02:53:13 AM »

Most of us are aware that in 2011 (May?) various efforts will be made to get DSM and DSM2 type of 2.4Gig RC equipment outlawed at least in Europe inc UK.

It seems strange that non of the affected RC manufacturers / Distributors have made any comments on this nor have they given us customers that use the kit some direction as to what they will do to support the huge current user base if DSM / DSM2 becomes a no no.

My transmitters normally last me for eight to ten years . MPX can offer upgrades for equipment 20+ years old so I believe a proposed upgrade path to a frequency hopping system should be made available by manufacturers before we get to 2nd quarter 2011.

If current equipment can not be upgraded then it should be replaced for a nil or nominal cost per MPXs EVO tx upgrades to allow 2.4G use.

Perhaps we should all be lobbying JR/McG, Spektrum/Horizon on this, we seem to be acting in a very blase fashion considering all our expensive kit may have little value in a year or so.

Also should European modellers, their organisations and governing bodies eg BMFA (along with RC manufacturers and distributers) not be;

a/ clarifying exactly what the issue is and why Cisco, an American company, are so concerned about DSM 2 at European signal strengths but don't seem to care about the US who operate at twice the signal power.

b/ Organising a defence to what CISCO are proposing

Maybe something is going on within these various bodies but if so its being done very quietly and in a way that leaves us all "up in the air"

Should RCMF take up the fight

HarryC · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2010, 10:03:36 AM »

Perhaps it's because the model trade, in its contacts in the relevant EU organisations, feels it is extremely unlikely to be banned. After all, why would EU staff decide to write a form of regulation that none of the rest of the world uses, because of lobbying by a Yank firm who haven't got it outlawed in their own homeland?

CHEL · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2010, 10:27:10 AM »

This story is like the one about Chicken Licken going to tell the king that the sky is going to fall down and soon all of the annimals are going to tell the king that the sky is falling down.
What do Cisco care about 2.4GHz? They produce network switches and routers not liitle boxes that we use in the corner of our houses.
I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

Phil.

FlyinBrian · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2010, 11:05:47 AM »

I found this statement on the "Modelflying" web site which is quite reassuring. BUT why are the manufacturers / importers not simply saying "there is no issue"

BY Peter Christy

1) Frequency Hopping is NOT the same as Spread Spectrum. It is simply ONE method by which Spread Spectrum can be achieved. DSM is another. Both are equally valid systems.

2) The current European regulations are a mess. However, there was a big meeting in Brussels, just over a year ago, when Cisco Systems (the computer networking people), amongst others, tried to get to get model control evicted from 2.4 GHz.

The BMFA, along with most other European Modelling National Bodies, as well as all the major European manufacturers and importers attended.

The result was that Cisco were told by the head Telecoms Honcho in Brussels to go forth and multiply! He also stated that the 2.4 GHz regulations were the most badly drafted he had ever seen, and told ETSI (?) (The European body responsible for drafting the regs) to go away and rewrite them.

Those countries that had forbidden model control on 2.4 GHz (from memory Holland and one other - France has additional restrictions) were told to lift the bans forthwith, as they had been based on a misunderstanding of the regulations.

The rewrite will say that ANY equipment that operates "politely" - ie in a non-interfering way - will be allowed to operate at 100mW erp. This will mean that both DSM2 and FHSS will be permitted at 100mW. Anything that doesn't check for free channels, or use any other method of not interfering will be restricted to 10 mW.

ALL THIS GUFF ABOUT SPEKTRUM/JR BEING BANNED IS PURE FUD.

The situation in Japan is completely different, which is why JR use DSMJ there. The Spektrum system started out as a full FHSS system, but they discovered they could get a 3dB (at least) improvement in S/N by going to DSM. From what I can make out, the DSMJ system is basically a degraded DSM2 system (reverts to frequency hopping) to get round the Japanese regulations.

I gather that all that is required to make Spektrum/JR stuff hop is a software upgrade. However, since the performance isn't so good under these conditions, why would anyone want to change?

Actually, the Spektrum/JR system DOES hop, but only between two channels. It doesn't transmit on both simultaneously - at least, not according to my Spectrum Analyzer!

Hope that clears up some of the doubt!

If anyone wants to confirm this, ring BMFA Head Office!

--
Pete Christy

FlyinBrian · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2010, 11:12:07 AM »

Quote from: CHEL on August 18, 2010, 10:27:10 AM

This story is like the one about Chicken Licken going to tell the king that the sky is going to fall down and soon all of the annimals are going to tell the king that the sky is falling down.
What do Cisco care about 2.4GHz? They produce network switches and routers not liitle boxes that we use in the corner of our houses.
I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

Phil.

Phil CISCOs range of networking equipment is huge from small home hubs / routers through huge intercontinetal networks with several telephone PABX type sytems attached.

I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

ABSOLOOODLE

steamysheep · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2010, 11:13:17 AM »

subscribed and watching with interest...

leccyflyer · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2010, 11:17:47 AM »

Thanks Brian - I've been looking for some form of statement from the manufacturer for yonks. Hope that this can get something sorted out

Theaton56 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2010, 13:37:38 PM »

Until next year when ETSI releases the latest version of EN300-328 which will set in stone the FUTURE equipments, it is pure speculation.

I will look at the relevant ETSI page to see what the current status is when I get home tonight. BUT, OFCOM stated that if the regs change so as to outlaw DSM/DSM2 FROM September 2011 ( i think that is when the new release is due) then it does NOR effect any current systems as they were legal at the time of purchase. It will ony effect new systems brought in.

I agree, the current regs are a bag of worms to decipher.

dd1961 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 18, 2010, 14:14:43 PM »

Work on EN300-328 is currently in Standstill, Imposed on 2008-01-04.

satinet · « **Reply #9 on:** August 18, 2010, 15:10:01 PM »

Quote from: CHEL on August 18, 2010, 10:27:10 AM

This story is like the one about Chicken Licken going to tell the king that the sky is going to fall down and soon all of the annimals are going to tell the king that the sky is falling down.
What do Cisco care about 2.4GHz? They produce network switches and routers not liitle boxes that we use in the corner of our houses.
I do agree though that JR/Spektrum should issue a statement to clarify the situation and put an end to all this hearsay.

Phil.

cisco = Linksys

IIRC

Theaton56 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 18, 2010, 22:01:14 PM »

http://webapp.etsi.org/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=27760

Working Group approval due 15 October, Public Enquiry runs 24th December to 23rd April 2011, lots of other stuff..... goes to vote August 2011, votes counted 12th October 2011, Standard published 26th October 2011.

Until then, it's speculation.

Lplus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 18, 2010, 22:19:16 PM »

Nearly 4 years from start of work to planned publication...

FlyinBrian · « **Reply #12 on:** August 18, 2010, 22:28:15 PM »

Quote from: mac_man on August 18, 2010, 22:01:14 PM

http://webapp.etsi.org/workProgram/Report_Schedule.asp?WKI_ID=27760

Working Group approval due 15 October, Public Enquiry runs 24th December to 23rd April 2011, lots of other stuff..... goes to vote August 2011, votes counted 12th October 2011, Standard published 26th October 2011.

Until then, it's speculation.

Macman - and that is exactly the problem.
The distributors / manufacturers could prevent wild speculation by an assurance they won't leave DSM/DSM2 users without a future come Oct 2011. A few "what if" scenearios could be run through.

Hypothetical worst case!
DSM/DSM2 outlawed & I have a bunch of JR and Spektrum rxs and a DSX9 Tx.
JR/Speki could just stop production of all DSM2 equipment and I am oarless up poo poo creek as far as kitting out new models goes.

Best case scenario would be for JR/Speki to state as soon as possible that they do or do not have an upgrade path if DSM2 is outlawed failure to do so causes the speculation you refer to.

Theaton56 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 19, 2010, 00:13:34 AM »

I see what you mean and I sympathise.

I will try and find out what contingency plans are being made should the ETSI people (with the new regs) reclassify DSM/DSM2 as a lower power system.

In all honesty, it was allowed to be used at 100mW by liberal interpretation of the rules.

I'll get back as soon as I find out anything.

JR and Spektrum will not stop production as the ETSI regs has no effect on the US/Rest Of The World market, it's just us Europeans that suffer....

nasa_steve · « **Reply #14 on:** August 19, 2010, 23:55:24 PM »

Quote from: mac_man on August 19, 2010, 00:13:34 AM

JR and Spektrum will not stop production as the ETSI regs has no effect on the US/Rest Of The World market, it's just us Europeans that suffer....

Which I think is exactly the case In point here I could do
With a new transmitter but i' not prepared to shell out in new equipment until we know where we stand. Watching with interest
Nasa

FlyinBrian · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2010, 01:53:02 AM »

Quote from: nasa_steve on August 19, 2010, 23:55:24 PM

Which I think is exactly the case In point here I could do
With a new transmitter but i' not prepared to shell out in new equipment until we know where we stand. Watching with interest
Nasa

I totally agree and JR/Speki are doing themselves a marketing dis-service by keeping stum, I am allready looking at other options (FrSky modules etc)

leccyflyer · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2010, 07:49:08 AM »

Quote from: FlyinBrian on August 20, 2010, 01:53:02 AM

I totally agree and JR/Speki are doing themselves a marketing dis-service by keeping stum, I am allready looking at other options (FrSky modules etc)

They really don't seem to be getting the message though. It must be affecting people's buying decisions and the manufacturer/distributor could do a great deal to reduce that uncertainty by recognising the problem and stating what their plans are for dealing with it.

markg · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2010, 08:00:10 AM »

Quote from: leccyflyer on August 20, 2010, 07:49:08 AM

They really don't seem to be getting the message though. It must be affecting people's buying decisions and the manufacturer/distributor could do a great deal to reduce that uncertainty by recognising the problem and stating what their plans are for dealing with it.

Not really much because most people don't know about it. If they were to go out of their way to tell everyone then they'd probably have a bigger problem. What if their plans for dealing with it (if they even have one) are to just abandon DSM2 or to keep selling the RXs for just another couple of years or anything else which business circumstances might dictate and which people might not like? They would just shoot themselves in the foot possibly over nothing at all.

I'm not in the least bit surprised that they aren't making statements like that on the basis of some highly speculative possible future change in legislation.

leccyflyer · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2010, 08:32:03 AM »

Quote from: markg on August 20, 2010, 08:00:10 AM

Not really much because most people don't know about it. If they were to go out of their way to tell everyone then they'd probably have a bigger problem. What if their plans for dealing with it (if they even have one) are to just abandon DSM2 or to keep selling the RXs for just another couple of years or anything else which business circumstances might dictate and which people might not like? They would just shoot themselves in the foot possibly over nothing at all.

So, essentially it looks as if you're saying that if there is information that might prevent folks making buying decisions that might lock them into a dead end, and the manufacturer, being aware of that, chooses not to reveal that information, and does not comment on the steps that they would take to mitigate against that, then you're okay with that?

I can't believe that to be the case Mark, so perhaps you are just stating that you are not surprised that they would not make an announcement, rather than actually supporting the not making an announcement.

Quote

I'm not in the least bit surprised that they aren't making statements like that on the basis of some highly speculative possible future change in legislation.

You're not supporting that though, right? You don't feel that the manufacturers actually owe some sort of clarification to their customers?

Mole Hunter · « **Reply #19 on:** August 20, 2010, 08:44:48 AM »

I'm actually considering selling my DX7 and rx's and getting an Auroura 9 instead, as the rx prices aren't so far out, you get two extra channels, 4ch rx's are romoured to be released soon and there's no doubt about their future.

markg · « **Reply #20 on:** August 20, 2010, 08:46:53 AM »

Quote from: leccyflyer on August 20, 2010, 08:32:03 AM

So, essentially it looks as if you're saying that if there is information that might prevent folks making buying decisions that might lock them into a dead end, and the manufacturer, being aware of that, chooses not to reveal that information, and does not comment on the steps that they would take to mitigate against that, then you're okay with that?

I can't believe that to be the case Mark, so perhaps you are just stating that you are not surprised that they would not make an announcement, rather than actually supporting the not making an announcement.

You're not supporting that though, right? You don't feel that the manufacturers actually owe some sort of clarification to their customers?

I mean that they are a business and I expect all businesses to act almost exclusively in the interests of profit. It's up to them to decide how real they think this risk is and act accordingly. It doesn't seem either realistic or reasonable to demand that they possibly commit commercial suicide by making some statement about something which they themselves might not even judge to be at all likely to be a problem and which the vastly overwhelming majority of their customers aren't even aware. A statement which, nevertheless, many people would take to mean that it is a foregone conclusion. I'm not sure that many businesses would be doing anything any differently.

Theaton56 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 20, 2010, 13:08:54 PM »

Another possible glitch is whether Horizon will allow MacGregors to upgrade from DSM2 to DSMJ [SHOULD (a) DSM2 be outlawed and (b) DSMJ gets Type Approval and CE marked.]

Horizon control the distribution of the relevant information and firmware for DSM2 and probably DSMJ !

Lplus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 20, 2010, 14:23:00 PM »

Mac - man,

by that do you mean that Horizon might upgrade Spektrum to DSMJ in Europe but not allow JR to use DSMJ in Europe?

Theaton56 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 20, 2010, 16:55:17 PM »

What I mean is that should DSMJ be acceptable and DSM2 be banned, then Horizon UK (being a subsid of Horizon Hobbies) will have access to the necessary tools to upgrade from DSM2 to DSMJ in house in the UK.

As MacGregors isn't owned by HH or JR, then it is very unlikely that Horizon will give us the necessary and JR won't be allowed to give us the necessary. The NDA that was on the table was extremely limiting in what it would allow MacGregors to do in the 2.4 GHz market.

Horizon cannot control what is used in Europe (although I am sure they would love to have that under their control).

How this would pan out is unknown, perhaps an exchange ? I just don't know...

nasa_steve · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2010, 22:23:44 PM »

From what I've read in the past it seems the hardware on both the DSM2 and DSMJ are the same meaning it would in theory be just a software update how much if that is right I'm not sure. But I recall reading something on a US based forum that the actual receiver hardware is exactly the same in both cases

Steve

Theaton56 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2010, 23:07:02 PM »

Correct.

I had a DSMJ module that came with the pre-production 11X which naturally I had to open up

It is the same hardware from what I could see.

bugsb · « **Reply #26 on:** August 20, 2010, 23:13:27 PM »

i bought a dx6i thinking give it a go a while back then just over a year ago i heard about this problem so sold the tx and 6 rx's and went back to 35mhz i am just waiting to see what happens over the next 2 years or so once the dust has settled before i think about 2.4g again
to many problems have come up with 2.4g over the last 2 years
Ron

nasa_steve · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2010, 07:45:34 AM »

Quote from: mac_man on August 20, 2010, 23:07:02 PM

Correct.

I had a DSMJ module that came with the pre-production 11X which naturally I had to open up

It is the same hardware from what I could see.

So in theory at least it's a software upgrade in the best
case senario fingers crossed we font have to gp that route
Steve

Mole Hunter · « **Reply #28 on:** August 21, 2010, 09:12:11 AM »

Isn't DSMJ an inferior system, though?

Theaton56 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 21, 2010, 10:43:12 AM »

Why do you say that ?

Dizz · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2010, 14:49:18 PM »

Quote from: mac_man on August 21, 2010, 10:43:12 AM

Why do you say that ?

-3db S:N on DSM2??

flappy · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2010, 23:23:54 PM »

Actually, hasn't it been reported and the tests shown that the DSM2 system has a flaw, in that it can on boot up, choose its two frequencies so that they are right next to each other? This meaning that, if interference is in a small 'blanket' that covers the tiny bit of the spectrum that these 2 frequencies occupy, that the DSM2 system is then completley stuffed. It would appear that this can happen at any time, due to the DSM2 system randomly choosing its 2 frequencies out of any that are clear at the time of bootup and doesn't actually try to seperate them by a good margin. I would assume that the law of averages says that this wont happen very often, unless you are very unlucky of course.
Now, I have only read this, I haven't tested it, but I have had ummm, issues in the past that were totally unexplainable. Its possible that you could use DSM2 for the rest of your life and never get this situation arise, but if its true, its also possible that this could happen any time you switch on. Anyone else know anything about it?

spadulike · « **Reply #32 on:** August 22, 2010, 07:33:51 AM »

Quote

So, essentially it looks as if you're saying that if there is information that might prevent folks making buying decisions that might lock them into a dead end, and the manufacturer, being aware of that, chooses not to reveal that information, and does not comment on the steps that they would take to mitigate against that, then you're okay with that?

We have been doing that with ,,,, set top boxes, although the system ws to be upgraded old style dogi boxes were still being sold.

Radios, even though the change to DB is coming we can still go and buy analogue radios, TV's etc.
Essentially, the manufacturers dont really care.... wel they do, as they see an opportunity.

A Tx is an expensive one off purchase, if i becomes obsolete due to circumstances beyond there control what will you do? buy a different make or purchase a new , revised compliant version that you can easily transfer your model memory to?

FlyinBrian · « **Reply #33 on:** August 22, 2010, 11:09:25 AM »

Quote from: flappy on August 21, 2010, 23:23:54 PM

Actually, hasn't it been reported and the tests shown that the DSM2 system has a flaw, in that it can on boot up, choose its two frequencies so that they are right next to each other? This meaning that, if interference is in a small 'blanket' that covers the tiny bit of the spectrum that these 2 frequencies occupy, that the DSM2 system is then completley stuffed. It would appear that this can happen at any time, due to the DSM2 system randomly choosing its 2 frequencies out of any that are clear at the time of bootup and doesn't actually try to seperate them by a good margin. I would assume that the law of averages says that this wont happen very often, unless you are very unlucky of course.
Now, I have only read this, I haven't tested it, but I have had ummm, issues in the past that were totally unexplainable. Its possible that you could use DSM2 for the rest of your life and never get this situation arise, but if its true, its also possible that this could happen any time you switch on. Anyone else know anything about it?

This thread is for discussion of the issue mentioned not a x is better than y slanging match

In theory such a thing may be possible but the interference on both channels would have to be sufficient to stop the receiver recognising the bound Tx GUID for quite a while, so the interfering device (which should be operating to the required standards anyway) would need to be close to the flying model. Assuming said interfering does not listen before transmission or is of a very high [power output it is operating totally outside of the standards for 2.4g which are not there just for models!

Steve J · « **Reply #34 on:** August 22, 2010, 11:15:31 AM »

Quote from: flappy on August 21, 2010, 23:23:54 PM

Actually, hasn't it been reported and the tests shown that the DSM2 system has a flaw, in that it can on boot up, choose its two frequencies so that they are right next to each other?

An output from a spectrum analyser was posted by Mpx which showed the two selected frequency bands 40Mhz apart.

Steve

Dizz · « **Reply #35 on:** August 22, 2010, 18:09:56 PM »

Quote from: Steve J on August 22, 2010, 11:15:31 AM

An output from a spectrum analyser was posted by Mpx which showed the two selected frequency bands 40Mhz apart.

Steve

Just to put this scaremongering in to perspective, 40MHz is actually a bloody big number: 4000 times greater than the 35MHz band channel spacing. Analogue TV had a bandwidth of 5.5MHz and HD 3D TV will require a bandwidth of approx 6MHz.
Pete

flappy · « **Reply #36 on:** August 22, 2010, 20:20:35 PM »

Quote from: FlyinBrian on August 22, 2010, 11:09:25 AM

This thread is for discussion of the issue mentioned not a x is better than y slanging match

Sorry, but was that meant for me? Because if what I had posted came over as a slanging match, it most definately wasn't. I apologise if it read that way, but it certainly wasn't meant to be. I was looking for more information about something, which as I stated in my post, was something I had read about and not actually tested myself. In the past, people on this forum who are very obviously experts in the electronics field, have been able to shed light on this kind of stuff and have helped turn what can be rumours and misguided info into factual information.

Again sorry if i offended anyone

flappy · « **Reply #37 on:** August 22, 2010, 20:23:12 PM »

Quote from: Steve J on August 22, 2010, 11:15:31 AM

An output from a spectrum analyser was posted by Mpx which showed the two selected frequency bands 40Mhz apart.

Steve

Thanks steve, thats just the kind of response I expected, rather than the other one. And wow, I never knew that the signals were actually that far apart!! Big difference from 35mhz in that case.

Lplus · « **Reply #38 on:** August 22, 2010, 21:36:59 PM »

Quote from: mac_man on August 20, 2010, 16:55:17 PM

What I mean is that should DSMJ be acceptable and DSM2 be banned, then Horizon UK (being a subsid of Horizon Hobbies) will have access to the necessary tools to upgrade from DSM2 to DSMJ in house in the UK.

As MacGregors isn't owned by HH or JR, then it is very unlikely that Horizon will give us the necessary and JR won't be allowed to give us the necessary. The NDA that was on the table was extremely limiting in what it would allow MacGregors to do in the 2.4 GHz market.

Horizon cannot control what is used in Europe (although I am sure they would love to have that under their control).

How this would pan out is unknown, perhaps an exchange ? I just don't know...

Ah, so Horizon could update the Spektrum equipment to DSMJ but JR could only sell new DSMJ equipment?

BTW the info on the DSM2 picking 2 close frequencies is here http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/dsm2flaw.shtml

Theaton56 · « **Reply #39 on:** August 23, 2010, 20:48:39 PM »

Quote

Ah, so Horizon could update the Spektrum equipment to DSMJ but JR could only sell new DSMJ equipment?

Near as dammit, because MacG's wouldn't sign the NDA with Horizon due to the very restrictive conditions, and that Horizon own the DSM/DSM2 and by the fact that the DSMJ is an extension of the DSM, we wouldn't get the necessary hardware/firmware to carry out the upgrades.

However, JR may upgrade/exchange DSM2 for DSMJ but it's only my personal feeling.

Only time will tell.

RCMF Donations

Enjoy using RCMF? How about a wee donation to help us keep you in the style to which you've become accustomed?

Articles

Author Topic: JR / Macgregor and Spektrum - a statement please re possible legislation changes (Read 59109 times)