ARRL Tacitly Endorses D-STAR [Archive]

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ July 27 2007,19:47)]I've always thought that there are too many repeaters. Time to start a massive audit and de-coordination exercise. Get rid of unused or underused repeaters.

Too many people build a repeater to stroke their egos and little else.

This audit will have either of two desireable effects, either:

The frequencies of dead (i.e. little to no traffic) repeaters will be returned to the pool so they can be more effectively used,

OR

The repeater owners will wake up and actually do something to get more activity on their repeaters, versus keeping it closed as a private channel for honey do's.

Either situation is a win.
It would be nice -- but it will never happen -- heres why.

If you look up the meaning of "coordinate" it really mean "to place or class in the same order, rank, division, etc." In the world of FM and repeaters it means to "recommend where to operate."

A frequency coordinator has no authority to tell anyone whether or not they can operate a repeater any more than you or I as possible users can place any demand on any repeater owner - operator. We can't -- becuse the repeater owner can order us off his system and the FCC will back him 100%.

The coordinator only recommends where a repeater owner put his repeater so as to operate with minimal interference to other repeaters. If the repeater operator takes the advice and theres no mutual interference with other repeaters then all live happily ever after. I

f a person decides not to follow the repeater coordinators advice -- establishes a repeater on other than recommended frequencies and causes interference to one or more coordinated repeaters, the FCC rules state that the uncoordinated repeater has the major responsibility in mitigating the problem. And other than caes involving malicious users who abuse a system or fail to depart when ordered to do so by a repeater owner or his designated control station -- thats the extent that the FCC will get involved. Period

What the FCC does not care at all about is whether or not a repeater has 10000 users or no users at all. As long as no Part 97 rules are being broken the FCC is out of the picture. And, if you check Part 97, there is noting in it mandating that repeaters have people using them. So, there is no way that the FCC is going to hold the audit you suggest because it has no interest in user based issues.

Well, what about the ARRL? Simply doing so would be a political hot potato that the ARRL is not going to get itself involved in. What you might not be aware of is that its less than a decade that repeater coordinators and the ARRL have even had a true working relationship. It was a meeting with the nations coordinators and the FCC sponsored by the ARRL (though requested by the then FCC leaders) that resulted in the establishment of the NFCO office at the ARRL as an ombudsman to the FCC on repeater related issues. I cannot see the ARRL alienating the coordinators and those they coordinate by holding an audit of repeater activity. Its not going to happe.

So whom does this leave? The magazines that make money from selling their paper -- in support of repeaters - to the folk who run and operate on repeaters? Or the manufacturers who sell them their radio gear? Not likely.

So whom does this leave with any platform of true authority? Nobody. So your proposed audit has nobody in any position of respect or political power to sponsor it. Yes, you could try to do it yourself, but whats your political power base?

Whether or not a repeater gets used has always been deemed not to be a point of discussion for the average ham because nobody listens to us. In FM circles the "user" -- you and I -- are at the bottom of the ladder.

Even if a coordinator decided that 60 repeaters out of 200 in his area were under-utilized, there is nothing the coordinator can do about it without the risk of being sued. And that has happened far more times than many of you might think.

A coordinator has no authority to tell a repeater that goes out of operation -- or one that has yet to come to the air -- that it can't. Only the FCC or the federal courts can do that. In reality, the only thing a "coordinator" can do in these situations is to rescind its recommendation. If the repeater owner ignores the coordinators request, then the coordinator can do no more.

While you have a good idea, that idea has been discussed ad-nausium for the better part of three decades. And in all that time no group or individual with any true political clout has come forth with the ability to hold such an audit. And even if it did happen, there is no way to make the results have "teeth" to get the under-utilized repeaters off the air.
As to ego: Well I work in the entertainment industry and I know it well. Then again, if some folks did not have big egos, you would not be listening to music on the radio or your I-pod. There would be no great films or stage plays. There would be no great concert artists. No great painters. No grwat -- you name it. And in ham radio, if the vewry first repeater putter-upper had no ego - that first repeater -- K6MYK -- would never have come on the air.

Ego is not a bad thing. It help makes sure the world keeps going around....

de
WA6ITF

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 07:19 AM

Quote[/b] (w6vps @ July 27 2007,22:23)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 27 2007,16:49)]Hmm more proprietary stuff on the bands. Smells a bit like the Winlink scent?
I am open for correction...but I believe the D-star design and theory is NOT proprietary...as ICOM claims it to be "open source". The so called "system" certainly can be viewed as proprietary what with the ICOM conference server in Texas and all that..but then again perhaps something has changed since I last read up on it.
Paul/W6VPS

P.S. I agree about the WINLINK business...
The D-STAR platform was designed by the Japan Amateur Radio League which placed it 100% in the public domain. The only thing proprietary would be the circuitry developed by Icom to utilize the JARL developed free code. But anyone -- Kenwood -- Yaesu -- Alinco -- Ten-Tec -- you -- me -- anyone is free to design, build and even sell a D-STAR radio as long as that entity does so without infringing on trhe design Icom developed. Or, if it wants to use the chipset developed by Icom -- then the other manufacturer enter inyto a cross licensing agreement -- which happens in these things all the time. As to the end user -- you and me -- there is nothing proprietary that we as "users" need to worry about.

So why arent others yet on the D-STAr band-wagon? Simply to be different. Lets look at who is doing what:

Yaesu (Vertex-Standard) has its own proprietary WIRES-2 repeater and repeater user inter tie system that -- while analog in the user radio -- does use digital inter tie over the Internet.

Kenwood: Two of their new radios introduced at Dayton have dedicated Echolink memory channels. Like WIRES-II, Echolink is a hybrid of digital and analog using the Internet to connect folks. But the radios RF chain is still analog -- though its tied into a world-wide computer network.

Alinco: They have a EJ-47U digital modulation unit that is an option for certain model radios. It operates F1E but its exact protocol has never been stated in any literature I have seen. I believe these Alinco radios only can talk digitally to other similarly equipped Alinco radios.

So -- at least at this moment -- it looks as if the "Big 4" are all going in different directions -- digitally speaking." However, with the proliferation of D-STAR dedicated repeaters now over 60, it appears as if D-STAR could be the defacto winner in the market for your ham radio digital dollar.

de
WA6ITF

N5PVL

07-28-2007, 09:30 AM

So it's non-proprietary, as long as you buy one of the proprietary chips.

No home-brewing of this "non-proprietary" digital system, in other words.

Appliance operators, line up and get your cash ready!

Plenty of that cash.

k5okc

07-28-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 27 2007,18:49)]Hmm more proprietary stuff on the bands.
It's an open protocol, not proprietary. Independant Hams have duplicated the system.

What's the difference from buying an AMBE chip and buying a WiFi chip. Hams couldn't duplicate the power of these chips at even 10 times the price.

I say buy the cheap chip and use the damned thing.
Proprietary is only an issue if you can't afford it, or can't buy it.

When AMBE goes away, it will be a better vocoder that replaces it.

W3MIV

07-28-2007, 11:09 AM

I tend to think the toughest resistance point with D-Star is the overall cost of the system.

It seems we have a vast infrastructure of underutilitized repeaters for which access is available through very low cost radios. If these repeaters are not being used with $100 rigs (or even less), it only seems reasonable that repeater owners are going to be reluctant to devote the steep investment in a D-Star system to have it also underutilized.

It seems a Catch-22. Unless more amateurs buy D-Star capable HTs and mobiles, the D-Star repeater infrastructure will not grow, and repeater owners will not grow their D-Star plant without more amateurs using capable radios.

NN4RH

07-28-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote[/b] ]One question was the extent to which D-STAR systems fall within
the FCC definition of "repeater." Some repeater coordinators do not
consider D-STAR to be a repeater.

I don't understand. I don't know enough about DStar or repeaters to know what the issue is here. A repeater is a repeater, regardless of what mode is being repeated? And DStar is a mode? Or isn't it?

I guess in other words, if someone had an existing coordinated repeater pair for analog FM voice, couldn't they replace it with a DStar system? What difference would it make as far as the coordinating body is concerned, as long as they are using the same bandwidth and same frequency pair?

Quote[/b] ]Even if a coordinator decided that 60 repeaters out of 200 in his area were under-utilized, there is nothing the coordinator can do about it without the risk of being sued. And that has happened far more times than many of you might think

I would assume that repeater coordination committees would have a set of rules and regulations that go along with coordination, and that if they were smart, they've have included conditions under which a coordinated repeater could be decoordinated. Conditions allowing de-coordination being things like no activity for say 3 months. No response to letters sent to the repeater owner. Chronic technical or usage problems, etc..

In other words (and again I don't know how it works) doesn't coordination take the form of some kind of contract? Do you sign something?

N0NB

07-28-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,05:09)]I tend to think the toughest resistance point with D-Star is the overall cost of the system.
That is a very astute observation.

Beyond the initial cost, there is also the perceived return on investment. #When I gave D-Star a cursory look a year or so back, it looked interesting until I saw the price tag. #I would think that for its cash outlay to be justified, it has to offer a distinct advantage over F3E.

What is that advantage? #What I see it is the ability to intertie using VOIP techniques--basically a data transport system for voice and data for ham radio.

Out here in the sticks it is difficult enough to scare up activity on our present FM infrastructure. #I don't care to double my current ham radio investment at the present activity level. #So, D-Star probably won't be a realistic possibility until there is plenty of surplus D-Star equipment available cheaply. #

With the Part 90 narrowband mandate of 11K25F3E approaching quickly (1 Jan 2013), there will be a lot of surplus 16K0F3E equipment hitting the market in the next few years at give away prices. #The average ham or repeater club should be able to maintain a stock pile of spares that will last the next couple of decades.

F3E is dead. #Long live F3E! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

N0NB

07-28-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 28 2007,06:16)]I would assume that repeater coordination committees would have a set of rules and regulations that go along with coordination, and that if they were smart, they've have included conditions under which a coordinated repeater could be decoordinated. Conditions allowing de-coordination being things like no activity for say 3 months. No response to letters sent to the repeater owner. Chronic technical or usage problems, etc..

In other words (and again I don't know how it works) doesn't coordination take the form of some kind of contract? Do you sign something?
It has been a few years since I was involved in the process. #In Kansas frequency coordination is performed by the Kansas Amateur Repeater Council whose membership is made up of repeater trustees. #The council does have guidelines (bylaws?) regarding the retention of coordination.

And, yes, I recall submitting a document agreeing to be bound by the rules/bylaws/guidelines of the KARC in exchange for coordination.

WA9SVD

07-28-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 27 2007,16:43)]The American Radio Relay League has -- at least tacitly -- endorsed the JARL-developed D-STAR communications system for use on the VHF and UHF bands and has asked current FM repeater coordinators to both recognize and accomodate its use through the formal coordination process.
Isn't that a "kiss of death" to an emerging technology?

In many areas, there are no repeater pairs left, and the coordination groups seem to support even "paper" repeaters. If there's no space for more repeaters, analogue OR digital, this will go nowhere.

NN4RH:

Coordination committees and rules are made up of repeater owners (and possibly some users.) they aren't about to do anything to upset or change THEIR system of coordination, unless it's to their advantage. that's one reason many "paper repeaters" exist.(Those that exist only on paper and are coordinated with a frequency pair, but no equipment actually is ever installed.)
Underutilized frequency pairs ARE a problem in heavily populated areas, but since it's a group of repeater owners that basically make the rules, the rules aren't going to change. Unless (or until) the FCC sets guidelines and rules for coordination and coordination groups, the situation is unlikely to change. The current FCC rules allow coordination groups to make up their own rules and assign frequency pairs, but §Part 97 doesn't require that those pairs actually be used with any amount of activity, and there's no real provision in §Part 97 that forces a coordination group to rescind the coordination of a repeater pair that goes unused. An uncoordinated repeater can try to set up on an unused pair, but if the person holding the coordinated pair claims interference, it's the fellow with the uncoordinated repeater who gets in trouble or a Rileygram. Although it wil never happen (too much like micromanagement) if the FCC would require at least a minimum amount of DOCUMENTED use of a repeater pair or risk loss, there might be a more fair and equitable solution. But again, it will never happen; the FCC is not inclined to make MORE rules for the Amateur Service, unless it addresses problems relating to other services. They leave it to the Amateurs to either work it out, or keep the fighting amoungst ourselves. It's the concept of "self-policing." While it works in most cases, it only works with those that want to "play nice" with others.

kc2orw

07-28-2007, 02:00 PM

ab0wr

07-28-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 28 2007,05:16)]Quote[/b] ]One question was the extent to which D-STAR systems fall within
the FCC definition of "repeater." Some repeater coordinators do not
consider D-STAR to be a repeater.

I don't understand. I don't know enough about DStar or repeaters to know what the issue is here. A repeater is a repeater, regardless of what mode is being repeated? And DStar is a mode? Or isn't it?

I guess in other words, if someone had an existing coordinated repeater pair for analog FM voice, couldn't they replace it with a DStar system? What difference would it make as far as the coordinating body is concerned, as long as they are using the same bandwidth and same frequency pair?

Quote[/b] ]Even if a coordinator decided that 60 repeaters out of 200 in his area were under-utilized, there is nothing the coordinator can do about it without the risk of being sued. And that has happened far more times than many of you might think

I would assume that repeater coordination committees would have a set of rules and regulations that go along with coordination, and that if they were smart, they've have included conditions under which a coordinated repeater could be decoordinated. Conditions allowing de-coordination being things like no activity for say 3 months. No response to letters sent to the repeater owner. Chronic technical or usage problems, etc..

In other words (and again I don't know how it works) doesn't coordination take the form of some kind of contract? Do you sign something?
I've heard this discussed over and over -- decoordinate an unused repeater?

The answer always comes down to: "Will the replacement be used any more than the current one?".

Generally the conclusion is "NO.".

Most repeaters that are underused are NOT private repeaters with some kind of proprietary "device" to keep unwanted users out.

That means that *anyone* wanting to use a repeater in the area the repeater covers can use that repeater if they want.

Take the argument to a coordinator of the kind like: Well, no one wants to use John Doe's repeater but they will use one put up by Joe Blow on the same frequency with the same coverage." and see just how far the argument gets you.

If you had an alternate use to offer, e.g. we are going to use the frequency for a multicast frequency putting out Amber Alerts to the ham community" you might get somewhere. I don't remember ever hearing this kind of argument about decoordinating a repeater, however.

tim ab0wr

ab0wr

07-28-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,07:00)]Quote[/b] (w6vps @ July 27 2007,22:23)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 27 2007,16:49)]Hmm more proprietary stuff on the bands. Smells a bit like the Winlink scent?
I am open for correction...but I believe the D-star design and theory is NOT propietary...as ICOM claims it to be "open source". The so called "system" certainly can be viewed as proprietary what with the ICOM conference server in Texas and all that..but then again perhaps something has changed since I last read up on it.
Paul/W6VPS

P.S. I agree about the WINLINK business...
I can't say for certain if it is open or not but I have yet to see any projects that don't require proprietary hardware. It is not absolutely horrible that a company sells hardware that enables a mode with some interesting possibilities. But I might not be willing to invest in something that locks one into a one vendor technology.
So let me absolutely honest I have not done all my homework on this one. But in the same respects what are you going to do most 2M is appliance oriented and that is fairly non innovative. There was a time when 2M repeaters were bleeding edge that is no longer the case.
The last time I looked, the AMBE codec in single lot quantities cost more than a dual-band 2m/70cm rig. That's because of the license you have to buy to use it along with the actual cost of the chip.

Has this changed?

If it hasn't, homebrewing D-Star stuff isn't going to happen any time soon!

And I'm not sure replaced equipment with one of these chips in it can even be sold on the surplus market. It depends on what the license says. It may have to be destroyed or returned to the manufacturer. Has anyone read the license close enough to know whether this is true or not?

tim ab0wr

NN4RH

07-28-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote[/b] ]Take the argument to a coordinator of the kind like: Well, no one wants to use John Doe's repeater but they will use one put up by Joe Blow on the same frequency with the same coverage." and see just how far the argument gets you.

Good point.

N0NB

07-28-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 28 2007,07:33)]# #Underutilized frequency pairs ARE a problem in heavily populated areas, but since it's a group of repeater owners that basically make the rules, the rules aren't going to change. #Unless (or until) the FCC sets guidelines and rules for coordination and coordination groups, the situation is unlikely to change. #The current FCC rules allow coordination groups to make up their own rules and assign frequency pairs, but §Part 97 doesn't require that those pairs actually be used with any amount of activity, and there's no real provision in §Part 97 that forces a coordination group to rescind the coordination of a repeater pair that goes unused.
I've been reading various sections of Part 90 over the past week (maybe I'm just trying to avoid the BICSI material #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) and there is no concept of minimum use in there either. #In Part 90 if the licensed system is no longer used then the licensee is supposed to return the license to the Commission. #Of course, we know that seldom happens.

My point is that if the FCC has no concept of minimum use in the commercial services, then I am reasonably certain that they won't entertain any such concept in Part 97 either. #So, it is up to us hams to take care of the "problem".

It seems to me that those who talk about under used repeaters the most are those who can't get a frequency pair to stroke their own ego. #The batter course of action is to get involved in a club and become a part of the technical group that maintains the repeater(s). #If you are technically astute, you will quickly find yourself with plenty of opportunity to exercise those skills and learn more. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But, the burning question in my mind is why, with nearly every licensee in the database (except Novices of course) eligible to use 2m and 70cm repeaters, are they under used? With all the communications technology that surrounds us these days is yakking on the radio not the diversion it once was? I don't know. I always enjoy a good QSO whether it be via a repeater, simplex, or HF. I really don't prefer one over the other. Sad to say, I think a lot of it is apathy.

WA9SVD

07-28-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 28 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,07:00)]Quote[/b] (w6vps @ July 27 2007,22:23)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 27 2007,16:49)]Hmm more proprietary stuff on the bands. Smells a bit like the Winlink scent?
I am open for correction...but I believe the D-star design and theory is NOT propietary...as ICOM claims it to be "open source". The so called "system" certainly can be viewed as proprietary what with the ICOM conference server in Texas and all that..but then again perhaps something has changed since I last read up on it.
Paul/W6VPS

P.S. I agree about the WINLINK business...
I can't say for certain if it is open or not but I have yet to see any projects that don't require proprietary hardware. It is not absolutely horrible that a company sells hardware that enables a mode with some interesting possibilities. But I might not be willing to invest in something that locks one into a one vendor technology.
So let me absolutely honest I have not done all my homework on this one. But in the same respects what are you going to do most 2M is appliance oriented and that is fairly non innovative. There was a time when 2M repeaters were bleeding edge that is no longer the case.
The last time I looked, the AMBE codec in single lot quantities cost more than a dual-band 2m/70cm rig. That's because of the license you have to buy to use it along with the actual cost of the chip.

Has this changed?

If it hasn't, homebrewing D-Star stuff isn't going to happen any time soon!

And I'm not sure replaced equipment with one of these chips in it can even be sold on the surplus market. It depends on what the license says. It may have to be destroyed or returned to the manufacturer. Has anyone read the license close enough to know whether this is true or not?

tim ab0wr
In my understanding, it's the protocol that's important, and in D-STAR it is in the public domain, developed and offered by the JARL. The HARDWARE implementation on a chip is a different matter. If a company wants to incorporate the protocol into a hardware chip, then they DO have the intellectual rights to THAT implementation, but have no right to prevent anyone else from developing a different implementation. That's what I understand to be "open." And the first company CAN choose to make their chip available for royalties, restrict it's use, or even retain complete rights and control over their chip. they do NOT have to sell it or allow others to use it; they CAN keep their implementation (in hardware) proprietary. But anyone else can develop a different implementation. The same occurs in microprocessors: INTEL can't prevent IBM or AMD or CYRIX or any other processor manufacturer from producing a chip that will run Windoze; but they can require a licensing fee if Intel's intellectual property is used. Otherwise, a different processor architecture that runs Windoze would be perfectly legitimate, since it's a different implementation of the same protocols. Whether that will happen with D-STAR remains to be seen. Kenwood is (at least rumoured) producing a D-STAR radio themselves. Whether it's entirely developed in-house, or licenses and uses the same chip or chipset as ICOM remains to be seen if the rumours are true.

But in a nutshell, neither ICOM nor their chip manufacturer can prevent anyone else from independently producing a D-STAR radio. So it really isn't a proprietary system. And the cost will remain a factor until the companies begin to recoup their research and development expenses. New technology ALWAYS comes at a high price from the beginning; if it is truly useful, and an improvement over current technology, it will become commonplace and affordable; otherwise, it will be but a footnote in history.

ky5u

07-28-2007, 03:12 PM

I am glad the ARRL did something to push the P25 versus Dstar argument down. I half expected that the "M" shills would be here crying about P25. I know several folks (myself included) who had the $$$ to put up a Dstar system. I was not willing to spend the bucks on a technology and see the ARRL recommend something else.

W3MIV

07-28-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 28 2007,11:12)]I am glad the ARRL did something to push the P25 versus Dstar argument down. #I half expected that the "M" shills would be here crying about P25. #I know several folks (myself included) who had the $$$ to put up a Dstar system. #I was not willing to spend the bucks on a technology and see the ARRL recommend something else.
I don't think it is a good investment yet, Charlie, although it's true that it never will be without people willing to step up and bite the cost bullet and swell the plant.

AC0H

07-28-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote[/b] (ne3r @ July 27 2007,21:40)]Umm, a dstar repeater is a repeater, but I would much rather see a dstar repeater or two than an unused FM repeater wasting a pair.
So, replacing an "unused" FM repeater with an unused D-STAR repeater is OK?

In this state there won't be any 2m pairs available for coordination of D-Star for years, if ever. The current owners of those machines sure as hell aren't going to shell out the $$$ needed to "upgrade" to D-Star. Notice the quotes around upgrade. I'm not convinced it's better.

Lets do the math. $150 for a 2m FM rig which can be used on any one of a hundred or so repeaters, thousands across the country, or, $800 for a 2m D-Star rig for which NO repeater exists and will not exist, in this state, for the foreseeable future.

kn4ds

07-28-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,07:09)]It seems a Catch-22. Unless more amateurs buy D-Star capable HTs and mobiles, the D-Star repeater infrastructure will not grow, and repeater owners will not grow their D-Star plant without more amateurs using capable radios.
Which reminds me of the whole AM stereo debacle. And how digital television could've ended up the same way without FCC intervention to require digital tuners in television sets.

Eventually, we'll see more D-Star radios and more D-Star repeaters. It'll just take time. Patience doesn't seem to be a strong suit among hams http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

ka5piu

07-28-2007, 04:43 PM

Hello.

I do think that narrow band digital is the way to go.
It is with concern that I look at D-STAR.
What about P-25?
P-25 equipment will become surplus at one point.
D-STAR is not a standard used by anyone but Amateurs in the US or Canada.
Motorola Astro Sabre talkies set up for P-25 can be had for under $200 at times.
An Amateur talkie with P-25 as part of the package would be cheaper than a D-STAR unit with the same features.
Type I P-25 is IMBE.
Type II P-25 is AMBE.
The neat part is that Type II can easily default to Type I, or even Analog.
P-25 supports mixed mode Digital and Analog.
P-25 Type II supports TCP/IP in native mode at several speeds, 2 that are faster than D-STAR, bandwidth being the issue for both protocols.
D-STAR is digital, but only digital, no support for analog.

N0NB

07-28-2007, 07:00 PM

I'm not normally one to go quoting rule sections and such, but #ARRLWeb does not list P25 as a documented protocol on their §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/) page. #That's not to say that it is not documented, it doesn't appear on that page which seems to be a thorough list to me.

So, it would seem that P25 usage would fall under §97.309(b) which covers unspecified digital codes. #Of course, the question becomes whether P25 is documented per Part 97. #The ARRLWeb page hints that it may not be documented adequately for amateur radio purposes.

Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.

KS4VT

07-28-2007, 07:17 PM

I don't think that anyone has mentioned it, but just remember that D-Star the AMBE vocoder from DVSI, which is not Free. Outside the vocoder it may be open source, but the internal DVSI chip is not. Anyone wanting to manufacture D-Star must pay the license fees to DVSI like the requirement for the P25 vocoder.

With this being the case I believe it is not truly "open" to experimenters unless you want to pay the fees.

k5zc

07-28-2007, 08:10 PM

Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ July 28 2007,12:17)]I don't think that anyone has mentioned it, but just remember that D-Star the AMBE vocoder from DVSI, which is not Free. #Outside the vocoder it may be open source, but the internal DVSI chip is not. #Anyone wanting to manufacture D-Star must pay the license fees to DVSI like the requirement for the P25 vocoder.

With this being the case I believe it is not truly "open" to experimenters unless you want to pay the fees.
You can buy DVSI AMBE-2020 chips all day long for $20. That's not free, true, but it's the next best thing. No additional license is needed: it's included in the cost of the chip. Check out Moe Wheatley, AE4JY's D-Star poject web page at http://www.moetronix.com/dstar/ .

The coordination community is working on ways to accommodate narrowband digital modes (not just D-Star, but other modes that have similar emissions characteristics). We've been doing so for a while now, and several plans have been provisionally adopted.

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 08:11 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 28 2007,08:23)]Quote[/b] (ne3r @ July 27 2007,21:40)]Umm, a dstar repeater is a repeater, but I would much rather see a dstar repeater or two than an unused FM repeater wasting a pair.
So, replacing an "unused" FM repeater with an unused D-STAR repeater is OK?

In this state there won't be any 2m pairs available for coordination of D-Star for years, if ever. The current owners of those machines sure as hell aren't going to shell out the $$$ needed to "upgrade" to D-Star. Notice the quotes around upgrade. I'm not convinced it's better.

Lets do the math. $150 for a 2m FM rig which can be used on any one of a hundred or so repeaters, thousands across the country, or, $800 for a 2m D-Star rig for which NO repeater exists and will not exist, in this state, for the foreseeable future.
This was the same argument I heard in the early days of FM and repeaters. In 1970 my late friend Lou, K2VMR, took a job in Los Angeles. We were both in NYC at the time (I was WA2HVK back then) and he asked me to drive out with him to help him move. The incentive was he would buy me a plane ride back home.

We had two radios in the car. A 6 Meter Gonset Communicator III (AM) and a 2 meter 6 channel Regency HR-2 (FM). In NYC we were already heavy into 2 FM with 6 meter AM very quickly dying away. That held true across New Jersey and into Pennsylvania. Want to guess what radio got the most QSO's after that? Yep -- 6 meter AM -- direct -- no repeaters. Just 3 crystals, a tunable receiver, 7 watts out to an ugly 3 ring Saturn 6 halo on the rear bumper of Lou's VW bug. (Late June - no air conditioning)

And as we trundled across middle America -- then across the Rockey's, the great desert and finally to California, we would talk with folks on 50.4 and ask if they were equipped to operate on 146.94 MHz simplex. With few exceptions, the answer was "no" -- because "...FM was just a fad and nobody in their right mind would ever put up a repeater to cover so far out of town...It would never happen here! Never!" It was not until we approached the Nevada / California border that the 2 meter FM radio again came alive -- and remained so right to our destination. (This is when a 6 channel, crystal controlled 2 meter transceiver cost $300 pus another $150 to fill up the vacant channel slots with oscillating rocks.)

Fast forward less than 2 years. Its the turn of my new bride and myself to make the same move West. My radio was now an Inoue IC-2F (predecessor to Icom) and a 55 watt Varitronics amplifier to an Antenna Specialists ASAPS-177A "gain type" antenna on the trunk of the Torino. Remembering the earlier trip with Lou, I also brought along a Lafayette Radio HE-45B 6 meter AM transceiver -- but I need not had bothered. Thats because all the QSO's crossing the nation were on FM. Most on either 146.52 or 146.94 MHz simplex or on repeaters operating on the 146.34 MHz in and 146.94 MHz out frequency pair. And many were with those very same folks who less than two years earlier had sworn they would never but a 2 meter FM transceiver. But they did -- and because they did -- more companies opted into the market and radio prices steadily dropped as features increased. (And back then the ads for 2 meter FM gear were relegated to the back pages of most ham magazines. Anyone remember those spiffy 1/4 page ads for the amazing new Ross and White 12 channel 2 meter FM transceiver with two sets of crystals included?)

I suspect this will be the same scenario with D-STAR, APCO 25 or any other such replacement for FM. It will be the slow start that it is until it becomes "fashionable" to be on "digital voice." One that fad starts, there will be no way to stop it. And once it happens everyone will be making radios -- competing in the market for your dollars -- and -- unlike the price of gasoline -- the prices of digital radios will come way down.

While I personally think that D-STAR will wind up the digital voice mode of choice for ham radio, APCO 25 will also be a contender if ham manufacturers can reach an agreement with the CODEC patent holder for a reduced licensing fee for ham gear using it. Then too, we have no idea what Alinco, Kenwood, Vertex-Standard -- or maybe a company like Ten-Tec or Elecraft might have on the drawing boards -- unknown to any of us.

Yes, there were rumors that Kenwood was to introduce one or more dual-band transceivers at this years Dayton Hamvention® that were D-STAR. Well they introduced two new transceivers -- the TM-D710A and the TM-V71A -- but equipped for Echolink interconnect rather than D-STAR. And since Dayton the rumor mill has cooled down about a D-STAR radio from them. My guess is that they and the other will jump on board when they see the market already in place -- permitting Icom to spend its corporate dollars promoting the D-STAR system and building its interest base. Kind of like Collins did with SSB a half century ago.

Yep -- $120 two meter radios are nice. And the $120 two metere radio of today runs rings around my $300 Regency HR2 of 1970 ot my $250 Inoue IC-2F of 1971, Both plus crystals. A lot more bang for the dollar -- but only because there is enough of a market for todays radios to be mass produced on a fully automated assembly line. In todays dollarettes, that HR-2 would carry a discounted retail price tag of about $1700 and each crystal would be about $29. So we do have it pretty good these days and while we are all thankful for that -- we also have to recognize that technology does move forward.

While D-STAR may or may not be the mode of preference adopted for VHF and UHF utility communications, it at least has started a lot of folks thjinking about the future and the next generation of technology in ham radio. And that in itself is very good indeed.

de
WA6ITF

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ July 28 2007,12:17)]I don't think that anyone has mentioned it, but just remember that D-Star the AMBE vocoder from DVSI, which is not Free. Outside the vocoder it may be open source, but the internal DVSI chip is not. Anyone wanting to manufacture D-Star must pay the license fees to DVSI like the requirement for the P25 vocoder.

With this being the case I believe it is not truly "open" to experimenters unless you want to pay the fees.
DSVI is not the only manufacturer in the world. Anyone can build a codec as long as it does not infringe on DSVI patent. Kind of the same as having microprocessors from Intel and AMD competing for the same market.

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,12:00)]I'm not normally one to go quoting rule sections and such, but ARRLWeb does not list P25 as a documented protocol on their §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/) page. That's not to say that it is not documented, it doesn't appear on that page which seems to be a thorough list to me.

So, it would seem that P25 usage would fall under §97.309(b) which covers unspecified digital codes. Of course, the question becomes whether P25 is documented per Part 97. The ARRLWeb page hints that it may not be documented adequately for amateur radio purposes.

Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.
We really need to stop worrying about current "rules" or "what the ARRL might think" -- and get on with the technology aspect of the hobby.

Traditionally its been the collective "us" of ham radio to move technology along. Then the rules are updated to reflect the changing times and -- eventually -- the ARRL does take notice.

If we wait for the FCC to make rules and for the ARRL to say "...gee that looks great..." we will remain in the dark ages.

We set the pace. The world will follow.

de
WA6ITF

W3MIV

07-28-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,15:00)]Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.
I think the FCC made a fatal error when they sanctioned G-TOR, Clover and PacTOR for the amateur bands. Alas, the deed was done and you cannot go home again.

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ July 28 2007,13:10)][quote=KS4VT,July 28 2007,12:17]
The coordination community is working on ways to accommodate narrowband digital modes (not just D-Star, but other modes that have similar emissions characteristics). We've been doing so for a while now, and several plans have been provisionally adopted.
And my personal congratulations to those coordination councils and individual coordinators who are taking the point position on this tide of changing technology. And I hope that in this instance that all coordinators come to agree on a single national standard -- rather than again having to go through the patchwork of standards we saw in the late '60's through the middle 1980's.

A thought: Maybe its time for everyone -- coordinators -- the ARRL -- the FCC-- the magazine writers like this scribe -- to again travel to to Charles, MO. for another B-O-M* as we did over a decade ago. The topic should be preparing for narrowband relay of digital modes and, like a decade ago, all get to talk face to face -- with the video cameras going -- and the reporters taking notes. This, so that its all in the open as far as the ham public is concerned.

A lot was accomplished in St. Charles that weekend -- the two most important in my opinion being the beginning of a real dialog between the coordination community, the FCC and the ARRL. The other being the trust in the coordination process developed in the overall national ham community when they read the articles in Worldradio, 73 and CQ-VHF -- and saw the video shot by Henry Ruh.

Again -- in my opinion, that was the turning point where -- after years of mistrust -- the nations ham community (those that are the user base of the thousands of repeaters) came to realize that coordinators were real people. That they were like themselves but dedicating their time and money to insure domestic tranquility on the VHF / UHF repeater subbands.

Thanks to the magazines and Henry's video camera, the ham public got to see the process first hand. And they got to see that it was 100% democracy in action. That coordinators might not agree all the time with one another -- or with the FCC -- or with the ARRL -- but that they were coordinators because they wanted do do something positive for ham radio. And the end product of those two days in suburban St. Louis was a new awakening between the FCC, the ARRL, the coordinators and those that all of them serve -- the hams like you and me.

Based on the success of the first, maybe another B-O-M* to discuss the coming digital tide might not be a bad idea.

de
WA6ITF

Note: B-O-M = Big Old Meeting

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,15:00)]Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.
I think the FCC made a fatal error when they sanctioned G-TOR, Clover and PacTOR for the amateur bands. Alas, the deed was done and you cannot go home again.
No. You are wrong. The FCC did precisely what the ham community wanted. It gave hams the ability to experiment. It also knows far better than many hams that you cannot regulate technology out of existence because a few folks object.

W3MIV

07-28-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 28 2007,16:51)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,15:00)]Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.
I think the FCC made a fatal error when they sanctioned G-TOR, Clover and PacTOR for the amateur bands. Alas, the deed was done and you cannot go home again.
No. #You are wrong. #The FCC did precisely what the ham community wanted. #It gave hams the ability to experiment. #It also knows far better than many hams that you cannot regulate technology out of existence because a few folks object.
I guess we'll differ on this, Bill. Just because the ham community wants something, it is not always wise to simply give it to them. I see this one as an error. In my view, it would have been better to require that development on amateur frequencies be restricted to truly open protocols. The ability to experiment would not have been eliminated, only the ability to profit in commercial applications might have been restricted.

wa6itf

07-28-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,14:06)][quote=wa6itf,July 28 2007,16:51][quote=W3MIV,July 28 2007,13:23][quote=N0NB,July 28 2007,15:00]The ability to experiment would not have been eliminated, only the ability to profit in commercial applications might have been restricted.
I am a 100% capitalist! I see nothing wrong with companies making a profit -- even a very huge profit -- a la Microsoft -- just as long as they provide a useful product ot service. That is the American way of doing business -- and in the area of ham radio equipment supply -- it is a 100% for profit business.

If Bill Gates eventually becomes a multi-multi-trillionaire through Microsoft -- thats fine with me as long as he keeps providing his products and I find them of use.

Nobody forces anyone to buy a product. Be it a car, a table cloth or a piece of ham gear, you or I make the decision to buy or not. The marketplace does the rest. If the product is good it succeeds and those backing it become millionaires. If it fails they are on their way to bankruptcy court. So be it.

If you do not like radio gear with pro priority codecs -- simple solution -- don't buy one. But do not begrudge others that want them from making the purchase.

As I said before, neither you nor I -- nor even the FCC can control the onward march of technology. Its going to happen regardless of what you, I or some other ham might want.

de
WA6ITF

kn4ds

07-28-2007, 11:32 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,17:06)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 28 2007,16:51)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,15:00)]Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.
I think the FCC made a fatal error when they sanctioned G-TOR, Clover and PacTOR for the amateur bands. Alas, the deed was done and you cannot go home again.
No. You are wrong. The FCC did precisely what the ham community wanted. It gave hams the ability to experiment. It also knows far better than many hams that you cannot regulate technology out of existence because a few folks object.
I guess we'll differ on this, Bill. Just because the ham community wants something, it is not always wise to simply give it to them. I see this one as an error. In my view, it would have been better to require that development on amateur frequencies be restricted to truly open protocols. The ability to experiment would not have been eliminated, only the ability to profit in commercial applications might have been restricted.
You're saying it's not ok for YaeKenCom to profit commercially from amateur radio?

Or that it's ok for companies to build radios, and sell them at a profit, but not to create a digital protocol that they make any money on?

Personally, I'm not wild about the cost of Pactor III modems, but I don't believe that the protocol is a problem... just what a few folks are trying to do with it... and that problem would exist regardless of the protocol in use.

k5zc

07-29-2007, 12:03 AM

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 28 2007,13:48)]And my personal congratulations to those coordination councils and individual coordinators who are taking the point position on this tide of changing technology. #And I hope that in this instance that all coordinators come to agree on a single national standard -- rather than again having to go through the patchwork of standards we saw in the late '60's through the middle 1980's.
I'm not so sure. I'm getting a lot of argument from the folks in California over this very issue.

Fundamentally, the coordination community is not willing to adopt one common band plan nationally. The last time someone tried - in the mid-80s, when the ARRL tried to force everyone to go with upright 15 kHz splits on 2 meters - a large part of the community revolted and went a different direction, and thus was born the 15/20 kHz split.

Circumstances differ in different localities. One band plan, or one coordination policy, does not fit all.

Quote[/b] ]A thought: #Maybe its time for everyone -- coordinators -- the ARRL -- the FCC-- the magazine writers like this scribe -- to again travel to to #Charles, MO. for another B-O-M* as we did over a decade ago. #The topic should be preparing for narrowband relay of digital modes and, like a decade ago, all get to talk face to face -- with the video cameras going -- and the reporters taking notes. #This, so that its all in the open as far as the ham public is concerned.
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea. At the NFCC Forum at Dayton, nearly the entire hour went to discussion of this one topic.

Jay, K5ZC
President, National Frequency Coordinators' Council
Chairman, Minnesota Repeater Council

KS4VT

07-29-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ July 28 2007,16:10)]Quote[/b] (KS4VT @ July 28 2007,12:17)]I don't think that anyone has mentioned it, but just remember that D-Star the AMBE vocoder from DVSI, which is not Free. #Outside the vocoder it may be open source, but the internal DVSI chip is not. #Anyone wanting to manufacture D-Star must pay the license fees to DVSI like the requirement for the P25 vocoder.

With this being the case I believe it is not truly "open" to experimenters unless you want to pay the fees.
You can buy DVSI AMBE-2020 chips all day long for $20. That's not free, true, but it's the next best thing. No additional license is needed: it's included in the cost of the chip. Check out Moe Wheatley, AE4JY's D-Star poject web page at http://www.moetronix.com/dstar/ .

The coordination community is working on ways to accommodate narrowband digital modes (not just D-Star, but other modes that have similar emissions characteristics). We've been doing so for a while now, and several plans have been provisionally adopted.
Interesting link....thanks for sharing.

I'm well aware of the repeater coordinators trying to "fit in" the new digital protocols (P25 and D-Star) as I'm on the Board Of Directors for the Florida Repeater Council. We are currently reviewing but have not finalized the ability to place D-Star and non-mixed mode P25 requests in between the 145 MHz 20 KHz allocations. #Mixed Mode P25 coordinations, like the 7 deployed in South Florida, to be coordinated like every other regular coordinations.

Currently any D-Star coordinations in Florida are conditional until we officially update our policy as noted on our website.

FRC Website (http://www.florida-repeaters.org)

Mark KS4VT
District 2 Director
Florida Repeater Council

wa6itf

07-29-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote[/b] (k5zc @ July 28 2007,17:03)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 28 2007,13:48)]And my personal congratulations to those coordination councils and individual coordinators who are taking the point position on this tide of changing technology. And I hope that in this instance that all coordinators come to agree on a single national standard -- rather than again having to go through the patchwork of standards we saw in the late '60's through the middle 1980's.
I'm not so sure. I'm getting a lot of argument from the folks in California over this very issue.

Fundamentally, the coordination community is not willing to adopt one common band plan nationally. The last time someone tried - in the mid-80s, when the ARRL tried to force everyone to go with upright 15 kHz splits on 2 meters - a large part of the community revolted and went a different direction, and thus was born the 15/20 kHz split.

Circumstances differ in different localities. One band plan, or one coordination policy, does not fit all.

Quote[/b] ]A thought: Maybe its time for everyone -- coordinators -- the ARRL -- the FCC-- the magazine writers like this scribe -- to again travel to to Charles, MO. for another B-O-M* as we did over a decade ago. The topic should be preparing for narrowband relay of digital modes and, like a decade ago, all get to talk face to face -- with the video cameras going -- and the reporters taking notes. This, so that its all in the open as far as the ham public is concerned.
It probably wouldn't be a bad idea. At the NFCC Forum at Dayton, nearly the entire hour went to discussion of this one topic.

Jay, K5ZC
President, National Frequency Coordinators' Council
Chairman, Minnesota Repeater Council
1: Yes. The ARRL had a rude awakening in the mid-1980' s over the "Non Inverted vs. Inverted Tertiary Channels" and the overall 144.5 to 145.5 MHz bandplans. Forgetting the technological issues, it was a major political and public relations disaster for the ARRL. Public relations in the sense that the ARRL had made it seem to the non-educated that "it" was in charge of repeaters and FM only to have the coordination community -- en mass -- tell it to basically get lost. On a political level -- its leaders thought that they had the "political acumen" to control the coordinators but found that they were totally being ignored. Most coordinators were far better politicians than anyone ever elected to ARRL office.

Then again, from the earliest days of repeaters the relationship between the coordination community and the ARRL had been at arms length with neither trusting the other, so this outcome was inevitable. It was not until the B-O-M in St. Charles that things began to improve to where it is today.

2: There will always be problems with California -- especially Southern California -- going along with anything someone else suggests.

Ive lived here 36 years and have written about FM and repeaters out here for 35 of them. California balking at something is nothing new. The big difference this time is that California -- neither North or South -- has stepped forward to try to take the lead on this issue -- either technically nor politically. In years -- and decades past -- they were always the first.

3: Another B-O-M: My take is that theres nothing lost by having coordinators from all 50 states plus US controlled territories get together once every decade to discuss salient matters. And if digital relay system coordination is going to be the next big challenge, whats lost by spending 2 or 3 days brainstorming ideas? When folks talk face to face, its amazing what can get accomplished in a short time.

de
WA6ITF

KS4VT

07-29-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,15:00)]I'm not normally one to go quoting rule sections and such, but #ARRLWeb does not list P25 as a documented protocol on their §97.309(a)(4) Technical Descriptions (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/techchar/) page. #That's not to say that it is not documented, it doesn't appear on that page which seems to be a thorough list to me.

So, it would seem that P25 usage would fall under §97.309(b) which covers unspecified digital codes. #Of course, the question becomes whether P25 is documented per Part 97. #The ARRLWeb page hints that it may not be documented adequately for amateur radio purposes.

Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.

I happen to disagree. #Just because the ARRL doesn't have P25 listed on their website doesn't make it illegal. #The ARRL is not a regulatory body who enforces the FCC R&R's, at many times is at odds with the FCC, and who knows how many times the ARRL website is updated. #The P25 standard has been adopted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) which certifies that the standard is open, so whether ARRL lists it is moot.

Besides, if the P25 CAI was illegal in the amateur service they would of been all over of us by now. Because it is open and can be monitored by P25 capable equipment, including digital scanners, there is no required enforcement.

ka5piu

07-29-2007, 03:41 AM

Hello.

I asked the FCC about P-25 and Amateur Radio, along with GMRS.
The FCC said that there was no issue whatsoever.
In fact, there are quite a few P-25 2 meter repeaters up.
Unless you have P-25, you would never know, remember, dual mode.

N5PVL

07-29-2007, 05:35 AM

wa6itf says:
Quote[/b] ]
We really need to stop worrying about current "rules" or "what the ARRL might think" -- and get on with the technology aspect of the hobby. #

Utterly irresponsible. - Utterly idiotic.

Your scofflaw attitude about PART97 has no place in amateur radio.

KL7FZ

07-29-2007, 06:00 AM

Kenwood has two new D-STAR rigs. The TMW-706S and TMW-706. They are ID-800H clones. Exact replicas from the outside view.

Rigpix Kenwood TMW-706S (http://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/tmw706s.htm)

KL7FZ

W3MIV

07-29-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 28 2007,19:32)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,17:06)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 28 2007,16:51)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,15:00)]Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.
I think the FCC made a fatal error when they sanctioned G-TOR, Clover and PacTOR for the amateur bands. Alas, the deed was done and you cannot go home again.
No. #You are wrong. #The FCC did precisely what the ham community wanted. #It gave hams the ability to experiment. #It also knows far better than many hams that you cannot regulate technology out of existence because a few folks object.
I guess we'll differ on this, Bill. Just because the ham community wants something, it is not always wise to simply give it to them. I see this one as an error. In my view, it would have been better to require that development on amateur frequencies be restricted to truly open protocols. The ability to experiment would not have been eliminated, only the ability to profit in commercial applications might have been restricted.
You're saying it's not ok for YaeKenCom to profit commercially from amateur radio? #

Or that it's ok for companies to build radios, and sell them at a profit, but not to create a digital protocol that they make any money on?

Personally, I'm not wild about the cost of Pactor III modems, but I don't believe that the protocol is a problem... just what a few folks are trying to do with it... and that problem would exist regardless of the protocol in use.
I am saying that these three restricted, proprietary protocols were baptized for use on amateur frequencies so that they could be given extensive testing and exposure for refinement before being promoted for commercial application.

While I do not consider that such a development track is wrong or inappropriate, I do consider that it was, and is, a poor decision to use amateur frequencies for the development of closed, proprietary protocols. I believe that a bad precedent was set in the past, and that it is a substantial part of the reason that many knickers have become knotted over the past few years. I think this will become worse before it becomes better -- if it ever becomes better.

I am, and have always been, an avowed capitalist and value no argument against permitting anyone to make a profit on amateur radio hardware or software, and would not limit any enterprise in that regard. I wish, however, that the "publication" clause had precluded closed, proprietary encoding from use on the amateur frequencies and mandated an open-source protocol.

I think recent experience shows clearly that we all would be better off being able to receive and openly translate (but not necessarily encode for transmission) any protocol authorized for use on amateur frequencies. Perhaps the answer lies in mandating a modest license fee for software translation with a continued restriction on transmission capability.

I don't see any fair and practical way of undoing what has been done. You cannot go home again.

W3MIV

07-29-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote[/b] (KL7FZ @ July 29 2007,02:00)]Kenwood has two new D-STAR rigs. The TMW-706S and TMW-706. They are ID-800H clones. Exact replicas from the outside view.

Rigpix Kenwood TMW-706S (http://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/tmw706s.htm)

KL7FZ
I have a hard time believing this is not a hoax or a spoof. I cannot imagine why Kenwood would not follow an internal development track rather than hire ICOM to rebrand a radio for them.

k5zc

07-29-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 28 2007,20:01)]Forgetting the technological issues, it was a major political and public relations disaster for the ARRL. #Public relations in the sense that the ARRL had made it seem to the non-educated that "it" was in charge of repeaters and FM only to have the coordination community -- en mass -- tell it to basically get lost.
The problem was that the League had been ignoring VHF/UHF-FM since the early days. The VHF Repeater Advisory Committee was a sop to the community, but the Board ignored it, and it was a surprise to nobody when they eliminated it.

One friend claims that if it doesn't happen on 40 CW, the League doesn't care about it. I'm not that extreme, myself. I think the League does indeed care about the VHF/UHF-FM world, at least now. The problem is that they've historically shown they've got the Midas Muffler touch with it: everything they touch turns into a muffler. (In case anyone might be inclined to think otherwise, this is my own personal opinion, not that of the MRC or NFCC.)

Quote[/b] ]On a political level -- its leaders thought that they had the "political acumen" to control the coordinators but found that they were totally being ignored. #Most coordinators were far better politicians than anyone ever elected to ARRL office.
We have to be. Frequency coordination is far less a technical, and far more a political, job than those outside the field realize.

Quote[/b] ]2: #There will always be problems with California -- especially Southern California -- going along with anything someone else suggests.
You said it, I didn't. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] ]Ive lived here 36 years and have written about FM and repeaters out here for 35 of them. #California balking at something is nothing new. #The big difference this time is that California -- neither North or South -- has #stepped forward to try to take the lead on this issue -- either technically nor politically. #In years -- and decades past -- they were always the first.
In large part, California has led the way in the coordination community because they've had to. Problems that need solving happen there first, and the solutions have, by and large, worked elsewhere. I'm disappointed that that's not happening now.

Quote[/b] ]3: #Another B-O-M: #My take is that theres nothing lost by having coordinators from all 50 states plus US controlled territories get together once every decade to discuss salient matters. #And if digital relay system coordination is going to be the next big challenge, whats lost by spending 2 or 3 days brainstorming ideas? #When folks talk face to face, its amazing what can get accomplished in a short time.

You won't get any argument from me on this one. My only question is whether it can be made practically feasible. There's a fair amount of travel expense involved, after all; there was an incentive in 1995 (the FCC's interest in adoption of the siingle point of contact idea) that isn't so strong this time.

With that said, if there's interest in the community (and the question has already been raised), I'll do my best to make it happen.

k5zc

07-29-2007, 01:45 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 29 2007,04:20)]Quote[/b] (KL7FZ @ July 29 2007,02:00)]Kenwood has two new D-STAR rigs. The TMW-706S and TMW-706. They are ID-800H clones. Exact replicas from the outside view.

Rigpix Kenwood TMW-706S (http://www.rigpix.com/kenwood/tmw706s.htm)

KL7FZ
I have a hard time believing this is not a hoax or a spoof. I cannot imagine why Kenwood would not follow an internal development track rather than hire ICOM to rebrand a radio for them.
No hoax. Icom owns a chunk of Kenwood, and this kind of thing happens frequently in the Japanese market.

In the absence of a groundswell of demand, though, I strongly doubt Kenwood USA will import the rig. Their manager is a P-25 advocate. He got asked so many times about D-Star at Ham-Com in Dallas that, by the time I got to him Saturday afternoon, he nearly blew his stack at the mere mention of the subject, followed by a lot of FUD about having to pay Icom millions of dollars in royalties. I didn't argue with him; I merely told him that my roommate was a Kenwood person, but that he'd replaced his TM-V7A with an IC-2820, and wouldn't be buying another Kenwood until they did D-Star.

k7ve

07-29-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 26 2007,17:49)]Hmm more proprietary stuff on the bands. Smells a bit like the Winlink scent?

My comments on the "proprietary" nature of D-STAR

My Blog on the subject (http://k7ve.ampr.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=26)

AC0H

07-29-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 28 2007,18:32)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,17:06)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 28 2007,16:51)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,15:00)]Personally, I am opposed to the use of proprietary protocols in the Amateur Radio Service.
I think the FCC made a fatal error when they sanctioned G-TOR, Clover and PacTOR for the amateur bands. Alas, the deed was done and you cannot go home again.
No. You are wrong. The FCC did precisely what the ham community wanted. It gave hams the ability to experiment. It also knows far better than many hams that you cannot regulate technology out of existence because a few folks object.
I guess we'll differ on this, Bill. Just because the ham community wants something, it is not always wise to simply give it to them. I see this one as an error. In my view, it would have been better to require that development on amateur frequencies be restricted to truly open protocols. The ability to experiment would not have been eliminated, only the ability to profit in commercial applications might have been restricted.
You're saying it's not ok for YaeKenCom to profit commercially from amateur radio?

Or that it's ok for companies to build radios, and sell them at a profit, but not to create a digital protocol that they make any money on?

Personally, I'm not wild about the cost of Pactor III modems, but I don't believe that the protocol is a problem... just what a few folks are trying to do with it... and that problem would exist regardless of the protocol in use.
It's absolutely OK for the manufacturers to make money. They've made a lot of money manufacturing radios that use open modulation protocols. What would have happened to Ham Radio had the inventors of CW, AM, or SSB decided to patent those modulation protocols? What would 14.070 - 14.072 sound like today if Peter Martinez patented PSK31?

The manufacturers make money because Joe Ham decides that company X's implementation of SSB is better than company Y's, not because Company X created it's own "version" of SSB which is only usable on company X's radios. How is that a good thing?
How does allowing proprietary modes on the bands increase "technological innovation"?

Same applies to the proprietary digital modes. It was a mistake for the FCC to allow proprietary digital modes on the bands. I do disagree with Albert though. I don't think it's too late to undo it. Petition the FCC to disallow proprietary, encumbered by patent, protocols on the bands.

I think Amateur Radio should embrace open source. If Joe Ham comes up with the best narrow band digital protocol since sliced bread and releases the code under the GPL any Ham with the coding moxie can modify that code, possibly improving it or making it better in some way. Then the rest of us get to decide whether the original implementation , or the "improved", was the better one, by which one we choose to use. SCS knows if they release the PactorIII protocol that some bright young program will rather rapidly implement a totally compatible sound card version. SCS goes out of business. I find it interesting that we don't see a lot of use of the other proprietary digi modes on the air anymore. Sound Card RTTY has pretty much killed HAL, same thing with Packet. Why spend $$$ for a hardware implementation when you can do the same thing with a sound card and software.

If you think companies can't make money on open source you are mistaken. A company like Novell wouldn't spend Millions of dollars buying SuSE Linux, and Red Hat Linux wouldn't have had one of the biggest IPO's (initial public offering) in the last 10 years if their investors thought they weren't going to make money. BTW, both of those companies take the best ideas in their open source projects and adapt them for use in their for profit products.

That's one big fallacy about open source that needs to be nipped in the bud. It's OK to make money with open source.

ab0wr

07-29-2007, 03:59 PM

AC0H,

Man, you got this one pegged right down!

tim ab0wr

N0NB

07-29-2007, 06:19 PM

AC0H, excellent reply.

I had a lot of thoughts rattling around in my head since yesterday. You did such a fine job that I'll just add, ditto!

W3MIV

07-29-2007, 06:52 PM

Though I strongly endorse your sentiments, Kevin, I don't think such a petition would fly.

Your argument would have far more force were there an open-source replacement for PacTOR standing ready in the wings. Alas, no such supernumerary protocol awaits the collapse of this diva, and we are condemned to suffer her screech until such time as a new star is born.

k5okc

07-29-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 28 2007,09:11)]The last time I looked, the AMBE codec in single lot quantities cost more than a dual-band 2m/70cm rig. That's because of the license you have to buy to use it along with the actual cost of the chip.

Has this changed?
I asked them for two samples, and they sent me four. The only thing that came with the chips was an engineering pamphlet to show how to wire and program it.

Quote[/b] ]
And I'm not sure replaced equipment with one of these chips in it can even be sold on the surplus market. It depends on what the license says. It may have to be destroyed or returned to the manufacturer. Has anyone read the license close enough to know whether this is true or not?

There's a lot of legaleze, but nothing along those lines. They don't want you to reverse engineer AMBE is the main thing.

The major communications companies do not have to return the chips when the radio owner sells or dies.

k5okc

07-29-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 29 2007,10:45)]Why spend $$$ for a hardware implementation when you can do the same thing with a sound card and software.
Where can you buy a single board computer with a built-in sound card and a quality GMSK transmitter and receiver all in a small box that fits under the dash?

I'm just asking! For all I know they exist everywhere.

I know Speex and Hawk vocoders will work just fine, but DVSI also has Vocoder, FEC, and DTMF all in one DSP chip.

Just have to come-up with a chip that replaces AMBE and still provide FEC and DTMF in a chip.

Anyone have any good Windows XP sound card DLL source code?

AC0H

07-29-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 29 2007,13:52)]Though I strongly endorse your sentiments, Kevin, I don't think such a petition would fly.

Your argument would have far more force were there an open-source replacement for PacTOR standing ready in the wings. Alas, no such supernumerary protocol awaits the collapse of this diva, and we are condemned to suffer her screech until such time as a new star is born.
That's my point Albert.

I'd be willing to bet the MixW boys and others could whip out a sound card solution inside a month (probably less) if they were unencumbered by the threat of lawsuit.

The only question(s) then becomes where and under what conditions we allow it's use on HF. The third party rules as they apply to WinLink (Pactor III) need to be addressed. Turning HF into some kind of common carrier isn't "technologically innovative". It's already been done,........ better, cheaper, faster. The only thing it does do is allow the cheapening of the hobby by people who can afford to pay for sail-mail and others et-al, but choose to use our frequencies instead. The ARRL may get a few more memberships out of the deal but at what cost? As has been posted by a few people more than once, these people couldn't give a rats hairy ass in a bon-fire about Ham Radio or our technological advancement of the radio art. It's just a means to an end.

wa6itf

07-29-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ July 28 2007,22:35)]wa6itf says:
Quote[/b] ]
We really need to stop worrying about current "rules" or "what the ARRL might think" -- and get on with the technology aspect of the hobby.

Utterly irresponsible. - Utterly idiotic.

Your scofflaw attitude about PART97 has no place in amateur radio.
Nope. Its the reality of ham radio since the earliest days of spark. You may not like it -- but thats the way it is.

AC0H

07-29-2007, 11:05 PM

Quote[/b] (k5okc @ July 29 2007,14:27)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 29 2007,10:45)]Why spend $$$ for a hardware implementation when you can do the same thing with a sound card and software.
Where can you buy a single board computer with a built-in sound card and a quality GMSK transmitter and receiver all in a small box that fits under the dash?

I'm just asking! For all I know they exist everywhere.

I know Speex and Hawk vocoders will work just fine, but DVSI also has Vocoder, FEC, and DTMF all in one DSP chip.

Just have to come-up with a chip that replaces AMBE and still provide FEC and DTMF in a chip.

Anyone have any good Windows XP sound card DLL source code?
I'll bet Skip Teller, he wrote digipan, could turn you on to some.

W3MIV

07-29-2007, 11:35 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 29 2007,19:03)]The only question(s) then becomes where and under what conditions #we allow it's use on HF. The third party rules as they apply to WinLink (Pactor III) need to be addressed. Turning HF into some kind of common carrier isn't "technologically innovative". It's already been done,........ better, cheaper, faster. The only thing it does do is allow the cheapening of the hobby by people who can afford to pay for sail-mail and others et-al, but choose to use our frequencies instead. The ARRL may get a few more memberships out of the deal but at what cost? As has been posted by a few people more than once, these people couldn't give a rats hairy ass in a bon-fire about Ham Radio or our technological advancement of the radio art. It's just a means to an end.
I don't disagree with you at all, Kevin, though I am not so convinced that the ARRL is primarily at fault -- though I do agree that there are some staffers who have bought very far into this paradigm. Too far, even.

As I have posted before, I have a very hard time with what seems to be a prevalent view hereabout: That the FCC is only waiting from some ham to file a complaint and the whole house of third-party or commercial-imitative emails cards will come atumblin' down.

This email system has been growing larger year by year, and there have been a plethora of opportunities for the FCC to step in and make a declaration. That they have not done so speaks volumes, in my view. Clearly there is sufficient latitude in the reading of the regulations to accommodate a range of viewpoints in this regard.

How, then, does one proceed? What set of circumstances would be required to trigger a declaration with regard to these proprietary protocols or with regard to the uses to which they are being put in possible, if not probable, violation of §97.113?

Thread after thread after thread has been spun out on QRZ (and elsewhere) -- indeed enough threads to exhaust a thousand nesting caterpillars -- and yet not a single solid proposal to do anything but spin more threads has been forthcoming.

I confess I see no solution to the problem. That is why I rue the day the FCC sanitized that loathesome trio of protocols. It seems to me that about ten years have passed since they were approved.

73

wa6itf

07-30-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 29 2007,16:35)]That the FCC is only waiting from some ham to file a complaint and the whole house of third-party or commercial-imitative emails cards will come atumblin' down.
As the great Dr. Wayne anger Green, W2NSD, said so many times: "Never ask the FCC for anything. The chances neither you nor anyone else will like what you get."

He was always right albeit not always appreciated.

My take: If you ask the FCC to rule on radio e-mail and proprietary cyphers, coidecs, etc -- they either won't -- or if they do -- they will ban it all -- proprietary and non-proprietary -- and leave us all in the dark ages.

Todays FCC wants no part of ham radio. It makes no money for the agency and is a drain on its resources. Many times I get the feeling that the FCC wishes we would all just disappear. Evaporate into the great eatherial abyss so that the bands could be sold off to the highest bidder.

If we keep taking without financially contributing -- asking for stupid regulation after stupid regulation -- just to placate our oen whims of what we perceive might be wrong -- or what could eventually go wrong -- -- one of these days they will deregulate us the same way they did 11 meter CB and leave us to rot in the muck and mud we internally create.

To anyone who thinks that the FCC can fix the nonesense that you perceive as wrong -- wake up and smell the roses! The FCC is not the savior. If it makes restrictive rules to placate a rather vocal albeit insignificant number of you -- then all of us will suffer. And anyone who succeeds will not gain any accolades from his/her peers. Rather they will be remembered with utter disgust for a short period of time as the demon who caused ham radio to again stand still.

If you don't believe me, then answer this simple question: Who was the ham who sent a questoon to the FCC asking about the legality of repeatrers even existing that resulted in the highly restrictive repeater regulation of 1973?

A. Prose Walker W4BW got the blame for it -- but he only the FCC employee that was told to wrote the rules. Who was the ham that so believed repeaters were illegal that he brought the wrath of regulation down on all of us?

Don't worry if you cannot name him. Like so many others who thought themselves the "savior" of ham radio -- he has been forgotten in the antiquity of time.

Let the FCC go after the truly egregious rules violators as they have been. Regulation wise, the less FCC rules we have in our collective ham radio lives we have the better off the service is. Dr. Green said that years ago, and the sands of time has proven how accurate his reasoning was -- and still is.

de
WA6ITF

ab0wr

07-30-2007, 01:18 AM

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 29 2007,17:31)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 29 2007,16:35)]That the FCC is only waiting from some ham to file a complaint and the whole house of third-party or commercial-imitative emails cards will come atumblin' down.
As the great Dr. Wayne anger Green, W2NSD, said so many times: "Never ask the FCC for anything. The chances neither you nor anyone else will like what you get."

He was always right albeit not always appreciated.

My take: If you ask the FCC to rule on radio e-mail and proprietary cyphers, coidecs, etc -- they either won't -- or if they do -- they will ban it all -- proprietary and non-proprietary -- and leave us all in the dark ages.

Todays FCC wants no part of ham radio. It makes no money for the agency and is a drain on its resources. Many times I get the feeling that the FCC wishes we would all just disappear. Evaporate into the great eatherial abyss so that the bands could be sold off to the highest bidder.

If we keep taking without financially contributing -- asking for stupid regulation after stupid regulation -- just to placate our oen whims of what we perceive might be wrong -- or what could eventually go wrong -- -- one of these days they will deregulate us the same way they did 11 meter CB and leave us to rot in the muck and mud we internally create.

To anyone who thinks that the FCC can fix the nonesense that you perceive as wrong -- wake up and smell the roses! The FCC is not the savior. If it makes restrictive rules to placate a rather vocal albeit insignificant number of you -- then all of us will suffer. And anyone who succeeds will not gain any accolades from his/her peers. Rather they will be remembered with utter disgust for a short period of time as the demon who caused ham radio to again stand still.

If you don't believe me, then answer this simple question: Who was the ham who sent a questoon to the FCC asking about the legality of repeatrers even existing that resulted in the highly restrictive repeater regulation of 1973?

A. Prose Walker W4BW got the blame for it -- but he only the FCC employee that was told to wrote the rules. Who was the ham that so believed repeaters were illegal that he brought the wrath of regulation down on all of us?

Don't worry if you cannot name him. Like so many others who thought themselves the "savior" of ham radio -- he has been forgotten in the antiquity of time.

Let the FCC go after the truly egregious rules violators as they have been. Regulation wise, the less FCC rules we have in our collective ham radio lives we have the better off the service is. Dr. Green said that years ago, and the sands of time has proven how accurate his reasoning was -- and still is.

de
WA6ITF
Bill,

This is nothing more than "the ends justify the means" argument I've seen you present before.

If pulling the Amateur Radio Service back from becoming a common carrier causes it to "stand still" then the service is in trouble anyway.

If the only advancement that amateur radio has to offer today is becoming a common carrier providing communications infrastructure for 3rd party to 3rd party messaging then amateur radio is done for and the FCC *should* put it out of its misery.

Amateur radio has always been about amateur's communicating in order to advance their knowledge, advance their skills, and advance the radio art.

If that gets perverted to putting in automatic stations acting as gateways to the internet then you can count me out. That is *NOT* progress -- it is corruption.

tim ab0wr

wa6itf

07-30-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 29 2007,18:18)]

If that gets perverted to putting in automatic stations acting as gateways to the internet then you can count me out. That is *NOT* progress -- it is corruption.

tim ab0wr

So, why waste your time here on QRZ? If you truly believe that you are right, then go ahead -- right now -- tonight -- and file a Petition for Rule Making. Then, let the chips fall where they may.

But don't be to surprised if there are thousands of folks like myself who file comments against it. That is, if it ever gets as far as even being assigned a Rule Making number.

Either way -- we will all have an answer -- though I doubt that any of us will be very happy with whatever the outcome is.

de
WA6ITF

ka5piu

07-30-2007, 06:00 AM

Hello.

The FCC released the final report on Katrina.
First off, DHS is the agency who decides who is the certified for disaster operations within the US, not the FCC, thus the NTIA is now in charge of agencies and operations, like the CAP, that were under the FCC prior.
The other thing that was recommended was that the code be dropped.
That is correct, the government report cited the code as being part of the reason that Amateur Radio had trouble communicating.
Now, government employees are getting Amateur Radio licenses as a part of their job.
Nothing new there.
The internet has replaced analog land lines for 20% of all American business.
So, the new "phone patch" is internet conectivity.
Even in the middle of nowhere, TCP/IP is the protocol of choice.
And, as far as Amateur Radio being stale?
Somebody built a D-STAR talkie from just the chips and the datasheets.
I built P-25 adaptors from surplus chips in much the same manner but did not produce an entire radio.
There will always be somebody experimenting, trying new things.
SDR is another area of interest, a true merge of computers and radio.
Like it or not, analog has been dead even for the telephone companies for years, interoffice trunks are digital.
I like analog in some applications, VHF FM being one, simple and it works, but digital is coming.

VE7DCW

07-30-2007, 06:07 AM

I believe ka5piu was nominated for comic relief on another thread.I second the motion http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif geeeeez

73 http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

AC0H

07-30-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ July 30 2007,01:00)]Hello.

The FCC released the final report on Katrina.
First off, DHS is the agency who decides who is the certified for disaster operations within the US, not the FCC, thus the NTIA is now in charge of agencies and operations, like the CAP, that were under the FCC prior.
The other thing that was recommended was that the code be dropped.
That is correct, the government report cited the code as being part of the reason that Amateur Radio had trouble communicating.
Now, government employees are getting Amateur Radio licenses as a part of their job.
Nothing new there.
The internet has replaced analog land lines for 20% of all American business.
So, the new "phone patch" is internet conectivity.
Even in the middle of nowhere, TCP/IP is the protocol of choice.
And, as far as Amateur Radio being stale?
Somebody built a D-STAR talkie from just the chips and the datasheets.
I built P-25 adaptors from surplus chips in much the same manner but did not produce an entire radio.
There will always be somebody experimenting, trying new things.
SDR is another area of interest, a true merge of computers and radio.
Like it or not, analog has been dead even for the telephone companies for years, interoffice trunks are digital.
I like analog in some applications, VHF FM being one, simple and it works, but digital is coming.
The final report is in on Katrina.
I watched the congressional testimony and the one thing that stood out as underling after underling from FEMA testified as to the cause of their slow responsiveness was that they were buried in email.

So, what do Ham Radio ops through the ARRL and ARES plan as the great save all for emergency communication? MORE DAMN EMAIL!!! It's just stupid!

As for your comments on CW.
Exactly which page or pages of the report claim that Hams were ineffective because of CW? It's time to put up or shut up!

Frankly I think your so full of BS your eyes are brown.

In all of the threads on this subject over the last few months nobody has stepped forward with an explanation of WHY digital is better than analog. They and you just keeping saying it like some surreal mantra hoping if you bleat it often and loud enough people will believe it.

Where's the proof!

W3MIV

07-30-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 30 2007,09:08)]The final report is in on Katrina.
I watched the congressional testimony and the one thing that stood out as underling after underling from FEMA testified as to the cause of their slow responsiveness was that they were buried in email.

So, what do Ham Radio ops through the ARRL and ARES plan as the great save all for emergency communication? MORE DAMN EMAIL!!! It's just stupid!
Kevin:

The problems cited about "email" do not necessarily negate the value or the importance of email, but do indicate that changes in the routing and handling of email traffic is indicated.

The simple fact is that most of the "served agencies" (to use an often disparaged term that is, none the less, an accurate descriptive) insist on the email capability because it offers a verifiable record with a clear audit track. This is not to state that email, alone, is the only (or even the primary) mode these agencies desire to have available in time of emergency. It is, however, a clear requirement.

Quote[/b] ]In all of the threads on this subject over the last few months nobody has stepped forward with an explanation of WHY digital is better than analog. They and you just keeping saying it like some surreal mantra hoping if you bleat it often and loud enough people will believe it.

From my perspective, it is not (and never has been) a matter of one being "better" than another, but a matter of each offering distinct capabilities that are applicable to different needs and goals. Each has a particular set of strengths that better fit differing needs, and each has an important role to fill in time of emergency.

Quote[/b] ]Where's the proof!

I think the best place to find the answer to that question is in the many EOCs around the country who are adopting digital, as well as analog, capabilities to serve their communities.

73

W5HTW

07-30-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 29 2007,16:03)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ July 28 2007,22:35)]wa6itf says:
Quote[/b] ]
We really need to stop worrying about current "rules" or "what the ARRL might think" -- and get on with the technology aspect of the hobby.

Utterly irresponsible. - Utterly idiotic.

Your scofflaw attitude about PART97 has no place in amateur radio.
Nope. Its the reality of ham radio since the earliest days of spark. You may not like it -- but thats the way it is.
Yeah, I can see that. Don't need no stinkin' rules. Operate where you want, how you want, what you want, whatever power or mode you want, on top of whomever your want, anytime you want, as wide a signal as you want, send porno, junk mail, as much malicious inferference as you feel like doing at the moment, anywhere you can make you rig put out power.

Oh wait. We already have that. Freeband.

Dispense with licenses and let's do Freeband.

Ed

ab0wr

07-30-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,06:31)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 30 2007,09:08)]The final report is in on Katrina.
I watched the congressional testimony and the one thing that stood out as underling after underling from FEMA testified as to the cause of their slow responsiveness was that they were buried in email.

So, what do Ham Radio ops through the ARRL and ARES plan as the great save all for emergency communication? MORE DAMN EMAIL!!! It's just stupid!
Kevin:

The problems cited about "email" do not necessarily negate the value or the importance of email, but do indicate that changes in the routing and handling of email traffic is indicated.

The simple fact is that most of the "served agencies" (to use an often disparaged term that is, none the less, an accurate descriptive) insist on the email capability because it offers a verifiable record with a clear audit track. This is not to state that email, alone, is the only (or even the primary) mode these agencies desire to have available in time of emergency. It is, however, a clear requirement.

Quote[/b] ]In all of the threads on this subject over the last few months nobody has stepped forward with an explanation of WHY digital is better than analog. They and you just keeping saying it like some surreal mantra hoping if you bleat it often and loud enough people will believe it.

From my perspective, it is not (and never has been) a matter of one being "better" than another, but a matter of each offering distinct capabilities that are applicable to different needs and goals. Each has a particular set of strengths that better fit differing needs, and each has an important role to fill in time of emergency.

Quote[/b] ]Where's the proof!

I think the best place to find the answer to that question is in the many EOCs around the country who are adopting digital, as well as analog, capabilities to serve their communities.

73
Albert,

I had someone point out to me this weekend that email, even amateur email, is NOT an acceptable way to communicate if even a jot or tittle of security or accountability is expected from the system.

Those who are depending on amateur email to handle *anything* important are asking for trouble.

Emai's can be so easily faked that it is pathetic -- just look at the industry that has been built on spam and anti-spam.

Would *YOU*, if you were the Incident Commander of a State level emergency want to commit *any* significant portion of your available forces based on an email received via a Winlink email link?

Think about it. Think about it very hard.

Ask yourself just how responsible those EOC's and Incident Commanders are being in depending on amateur radio common carriers as a primary backup in the case of a disaster. Could *YOU* make such a system secure against any kind of attack?

Ask yourself why responsible agencies are going with databases that require secure login procedures for tracking information, dispatches, and results.

Ask yourself how you come up with a verifiable record with a clear audit track when using plain old SMTP email over a system like WL2K?

Ask yourself why responsible agencies are going with radio systems whose transmissions can be encrypted.

I think you are going to find that AC0H is *very* close to the mark. Routing and handling doesn't keep one from being buried in email. Evin infinite granularity in assigning priorities only serves to force originators into using the highest priority marker to insure *their* email gets read.

Once again technology has left the ARRL marketing shills behind and they don't even recognize the fact.

Those agencies requiring their employees to get ham licenses in order to conduct official business over the ham bands are perverting the goals of amateur radio. It *will* come back to bite someone, somewhere, someday. When a repeater owner has his repeater down for maintenance and no backup is available, or when the power goes out to the repeater and the repeater owner is unable or unwilling to get an alternate power source in service, or when a jammer makes the repeater unusuable during an emergency, or a joker gets on the frequency and starts filing phantom or intentionally wrong reports then who is going to be held responsible if *someone dies* because of it?

tim ab0wr

W3MIV

07-30-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 30 2007,10:36)]Albert,

I had someone point out to me this weekend that email, even amateur email, is NOT an acceptable way to communicate if even a jot or tittle of security or accountability is expected from the system.

Those who are depending on amateur email to handle *anything* important are asking for trouble.

Emai's can be so easily faked that it is pathetic -- just look at the industry that has been built on spam and anti-spam.

Would *YOU*, if you were the Incident Commander of a State level emergency want to commit *any* significant portion of your available forces based on an email received via a Winlink email link?

Think about it. Think about it very hard.

Ask yourself just how responsible those EOC's and Incident Commanders are being in depending on amateur radio common carriers as a primary backup in the case of a disaster. Could *YOU* make such a system secure against any kind of attack?

Ask yourself why responsible agencies are going with databases that require secure login procedures for tracking information, dispatches, and results.

Ask yourself how you come up with a verifiable record with a clear audit track when using plain old SMTP email over a system like WL2K?

Ask yourself why responsible agencies are going with radio systems whose transmissions can be encrypted.

I think you are going to find that AC0H is *very* close to the mark. Routing and handling doesn't keep one from being buried in email. Evin infinite granularity in assigning priorities only serves to force originators into using the highest priority marker to insure *their* email gets read.

Once again technology has left the ARRL marketing shills behind and they don't even recognize the fact.

Those agencies requiring their employees to get ham licenses in order to conduct official business over the ham bands are perverting the goals of amateur radio. It *will* come back to bite someone, somewhere, someday. When a repeater owner has his repeater down for maintenance and no backup is available, or when the power goes out to the repeater and the repeater owner is unable or unwilling to get an alternate power source in service, or when a jammer makes the repeater unusuable during an emergency, or a joker gets on the frequency and starts filing phantom or intentionally wrong reports then who is going to be held responsible if *someone dies* because of it?

tim ab0wr
Challenge the agencies with your reservations, Tim. I only report what I have found be asking questions of them. I could cite a bunch of people who have a different view than yours. Or the interlocutor who shared this revelation about the acceptability of email accountability. I have been told there are adequate ways of handling accountability and managing access. I have no reason to doubt what I have been told.

Ask your own questions and share the answers with the rest of us. Right now all you are sharing are unsupported opinions.

ab0wr

07-30-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,07:52)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 30 2007,10:36)]Albert,

I had someone point out to me this weekend that email, even amateur email, is NOT an acceptable way to communicate if even a jot or tittle of security or accountability is expected from the system.

Those who are depending on amateur email to handle *anything* important are asking for trouble.

Emai's can be so easily faked that it is pathetic -- just look at the industry that has been built on spam and anti-spam.

Would *YOU*, if you were the Incident Commander of a State level emergency want to commit *any* significant portion of your available forces based on an email received via a Winlink email link?

Think about it. Think about it very hard.

Ask yourself just how responsible those EOC's and Incident Commanders are being in depending on amateur radio common carriers as a primary backup in the case of a disaster. Could *YOU* make such a system secure against any kind of attack?

Ask yourself why responsible agencies are going with databases that require secure login procedures for tracking information, dispatches, and results.

Ask yourself how you come up with a verifiable record with a clear audit track when using plain old SMTP email over a system like WL2K?

Ask yourself why responsible agencies are going with radio systems whose transmissions can be encrypted.

I think you are going to find that AC0H is *very* close to the mark. Routing and handling doesn't keep one from being buried in email. Evin infinite granularity in assigning priorities only serves to force originators into using the highest priority marker to insure *their* email gets read.

Once again technology has left the ARRL marketing shills behind and they don't even recognize the fact.

Those agencies requiring their employees to get ham licenses in order to conduct official business over the ham bands are perverting the goals of amateur radio. It *will* come back to bite someone, somewhere, someday. When a repeater owner has his repeater down for maintenance and no backup is available, or when the power goes out to the repeater and the repeater owner is unable or unwilling to get an alternate power source in service, or when a jammer makes the repeater unusuable during an emergency, or a joker gets on the frequency and starts filing phantom or intentionally wrong reports then who is going to be held responsible if *someone dies* because of it?

tim ab0wr
Challenge the agencies with your reservations, Tim. I only report what I have found be asking questions of them. I could cite a bunch of people who have a different view than yours. Or the interlocutor who shared this revelation about the acceptability of email accountability. I have been told there are adequate ways of handling accountability and managing access. I have no reason to doubt what I have been told.

Ask your own questions and share the answers with the rest of us. Right now all you are sharing are unsupported opinions.
I just *did* share with you, Albert.

But you go ahead and believe what you want.

tim ab0wr

KD6NIG

07-30-2007, 03:34 PM

From what I've read about, the only advantages to D-Star that may have good amateur implication are:

The radios have to be setup to work on the system, ie, they are encoded with a code which is registered to the ham that buys it. With such a system, troublemakers could simply be locked out of repeaters and the system.

Supposedly if it takes off, the radio has handoff capability, so if someone in your home area is trying to reach you, it can find you if you're near another D-Star machine (mind you, thats integrated into the internet, from what I understand) and "link up" the repeaters so the home user can talk to you.

Other than this however, I don't see any advantages. Clarity? Perhaps, but wouldn't a digital signal drop out before an analog one?

I don't think its taking off simply because you have repeater owners, who outlaid x number of dollars, paying x number of dollars per month, who don't want to retrofit a repeater, spend all this extra money, and then for it to be used, have to have all the users ALSO outlay x number of dollars for the radio to use it.

I could see it happening if, say, the old machine went out, or a club decides to go for it with the commitment that a good portion of the membership is going to use it, or maybe with some kind of linked system to analog. But otherwise, its not going to happen.

I figure I have $1000 invested in 2m/440 analog rigs. If I had to convert.... yeah right! Not gonna happen easily, not over night either. I don't talk on them enough to justify the cost.

I think thats why this isn't selling as quick as expected.

W3MIV

07-30-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 30 2007,11:08)]I just *did* share with you, Albert.

But you go ahead and believe what you want.
I believe what people on the ground are telling me, Tim, not what I am reading on an internet forum thread.

What you always seem to "share," Tim, is a series of strong opinions held as religious dogma, each interspersed with a series of mildly insulting "think-about-this" jibes offered as though no one, having arrived a different conclusion than those foundations of your opinions, has ever given the matter any thought at all. Or is simply dense or obtuse.

Your view of what amateur radio should "always remain" is that of a perceptibly shrinking population. Other views and ideas of what is appropriate are growing alongside of your view, and the future is being shaped by far larger forces than internet forum posts. That you insist that yours is the "only" correct outlook, or that any other is either wrong or outright heresy, is a very strongly held opinion and nothing more than that.

While I greatly value much that you post, I do not share your outlook on all things, least of all the future of either digital modes or EmComm facilities. To a greater extent than you are willing to recognize or admit, much that is taking place in the changing arena of emergency communications is being driven by the agencies that seek assistance. That you don't like what they want to do is wholly beside the point.

n5rfx

07-30-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 29 2007,09:34)]Other than this however, I don't see any advantages. Clarity? Perhaps, but wouldn't a digital signal drop out before an analog one?
Narrower bandwidth for voice, but I am not sure that is a problem on our bands 2m and shorter.

History tells us that a digital signal will just disappear, where an analog signal slowly degrades. The advantage in a properly designed mobile protocol is that you can withstand fades. I have not tried this protocol or heard any reports about its robustness, but this would indeed be interesting to know. I am contemplating getting an ID-800H, but I want to talk with the guys who are using this system. They have a meeting the first week in August, so I am going to try to make that meeting, also I have joined a forum, to be able to ask questions.

73,
Mark N5RFX

ky5u

07-30-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 30 2007,08:58)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 29 2007,09:34)]Other than this however, I don't see any advantages. Clarity? Perhaps, but wouldn't a digital signal drop out before an analog one?
Narrower bandwidth for voice, but I am not sure that is a problem on our bands 2m and shorter.

History tells us that a digital signal will just disappear, where an analog signal slowly degrades. The advantage in a properly designed mobile protocol is that you can withstand fades. I have not tried this protocol or heard any reports about its robustness, but this would indeed be interesting to know. I am contemplating getting an ID-800H, but I want to talk with the guys who are using this system. They have meeting the first week in August, so I am going to try to make that meeting, also I have joined a forum, to be able to ask questions.

73,
Mark N5RFX

73,
Mark N5RFX
Digital was developed for cellular not to give great call quality, but to fit more subscribers on the alloted channels. To do that the cellular systems have alot of overhead behind the scenes.

Assuming that call quality will be better or that digital will allow more Amateur calls to be packed in the band is false without accounting for the overhead needed to do either of these things.