Hoseline is a real time streaming application for the BrandMeister network.

The Hoseline streaming nodes are part of the BrandMeister full mesh and receive streams from the national masters directly.


Hoseline 2.2.1:

  • DMR ID to call/name lookups now read from dstar.su registry
  • Fixed locking issue
  • Update font-awesome to 4.7.0
  • Added version to bottom of page
  • Cosmetic changes & theme fixes
  • Fixed Hungarian flag

Hoseline 2.2.0 (not released):

  • Expermiment with semaphores

Hoseline 2.1.0:

  • Added Swedish locale
  • Added Hungarian locale

Frequently Asked Questions

How does this work?

Hoseline receives real time streams from the master nodes in the BrandMeister network and relays them to subscribers that are listening in via their browser. Internally Hoseline uses a publish/subscribe type bus that relays only streams that have active listeners to the user's browser. In turn, the browser translates the audio stream to an audible signal. Some filtering is applied to filter out unwanted noise and artefacts introduced by the AMBE codecs.

How do I change my name/call sign?

We use the information from the dstar.su Registry, which in turn aggregates the DMR-Marc database. You can update your details there, or use the dashboard.

How can I increase audio quality?

The best audio quality is available to users of the DMR network. The streams use a decimated signal for performance reasons, so if you want lossless audio quality, use the DMR RF network.

Where do I edit the displayed name for my DMR-ID?

We use the data provided by the DSTAR.SU Self-Care system.

What talk groups are being archived?

National Administrators can request Talk Groups to be archived. The administrator can only request archival of MCC prefixes that are managed by them.

Currently the following MCC prefixes have archiving enabled:

MCC prefix Description
1-9 Global Talk Groups
204, 205 The Netherlands
222 Italy
226 Romenia
244 Finland
250 Russia
310-316 United States

How can I request new MCC prefixes for the archive?

Please talk to your National Administrators, they can request archiving from the BrandMeister development team.

How can I make sure my conversations are not archived?

Use a Talk Group that doesn't have the archiving feature enabled, this will make sure that your conversations are not archived with Hoseline. However, do mind that everybody connected to the BrandMeister network may still make recordings, same goes for anyone within the RF reception range of a repeater.

Is the archiving legal?

In short: yes

Long answer:

From its earliest days radio has been used to transmit sensitive information — yet by their very nature, radio transmissions are subject to unauthorized interception. Any emission of radio frequency energy can be detected and its information content, if any, extracted. The International Radiotelegraph Convention signed in Washington in 1927 obligated the participating governments to take steps to prevent unauthorized reception and transmission of “correspondence of a private nature” as well as the “unauthorized divulging of the contents, or simply of the existence, of correspondence which may have been intercepted by means of radio installations” as well as the “unauthorized publication or use” of such correspondence. Today’s Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) contain a similar obligation with regard to “radiocommunications not intended for the general use of the public.”

The Communications Act of 1934 implemented this obligation but with a specific exception for radio communication “transmitted by amateurs or others for the use of the general public.” In 1982 this was amended to exempt all radio communication “transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.” As explained in the October 1982 issue of QST the reason for the amendment was “to facilitate the use of volunteers by the Commission to monitor for violations of the Commission’s rules.” Prior to that time it could have been argued that someone hearing a violation could not report it to the FCC or to anyone else unless the transmission was intended for the general public, which in itself would have been a violation of the rule against broadcasting. Thus, at least in the United States there can be no expectation of privacy in Amateur Radio communication.

But there’s more. The ITU Radio Regulations used to require that international communications by amateur stations “be made in plain language.” The FCC’s amateur rules of that era contained an entire section prohibiting “codes and ciphers in domestic and international communications.” Since then a substitute for the “plain language” reference has been adopted: In 2003 the ITU rule was changed to “Transmissions between amateur stations in different countries shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.” The FCC rules were amended in 2006 to conform to the new international text but the prohibition still applies to domestic communications as well as international.So, not only are Amateur Radio transmissions not protected by law against divulgence or use by others; amateurs are also prohibited from taking steps to cloak their meaning.

In general, the principles on which these rules are based are broadly supported by amateurs — or at least, not objected to. Amateurs are very protective of the non-commercial nature of our radio service and appreciate the fact that the FCC is equally so. The ability to decipher transmissions in the amateur bands is important to guard against abuse, either by amateur licensees or by interlopers. There are limited circumstances in which the FCC rules permit encryption, either explicitly (in the case of telecommands to amateur satellites, telemetry from satellites and signals to control model craft) or implicitly (to authenticate the identity of stations in a message forwarding system). Otherwise, amateur communications must be an “open book” to listeners.

Are there additional situations when the encryption of message contents might be sufficiently desirable to outweigh our strong preference for transparency? The FCC report to Congress in response to Public Law 112-96 noted that some commenters in the proceeding, GN Docket 12-91, argued that “transmission of sensitive data, such as medical information that is subject to privacy requirements, is often a necessary aspect of emergency response, and therefore the use of encryption should be permit- ted under appropriate circumstances, such as by credentialed operators.” The report went on to observe that this issue could be addressed through the Commission’s rulemaking process.

Text is written by David Sumner, K1ZZ, CEO of the ARRL.