Why not do APCO-25? [Archive]

VE7TKO

09-19-2005, 11:53 AM

Why not do APCO-25? That way we can continue in the fine tradition of using used commercial gear.

Commercial gear is not field programmable from the radio itself. It requires extra computer software and hardware that the average ham does not have. You will never find ham radio equipment that comes with the APCO P-25 standard built in. Some day, every ham radio manufacturer will be offering a D-STAR compliant / dual mode radio, because it is an open standard owned by the JARL (Japan Amateur Radio League).

D-STAR was designed by Amateur Radio Operators for Amateur Radio Operators.

That so called fine tradition of using used commercial gear limits the skill that can be learned by the user, because he is prevented from changing anything. Commercial gear has no VFO. You can’t add or delete a channel in the field. If another ham asks you to QSY to a simplex frequency that you haven’t got programmed in, you’re out of luck. If you go on holidays, and want to search the band for repeaters in the area that you are visiting, again you are out of luck. Commercial equipment leaves the end user totally out of the loop as far as control is concerned.

A D-Star dual mode ham radio has been designed with the needs of hams in mind. The ham radio operator is in full control of the radio. He is free to set it up any way he wishes. The D-STAR 2-meter repeater is not yet a reality. It is just a mater of time before we will see them. They will link together like any other repeater or a D-STAR Internet Gateway can also link them.

Quote: (Can you spell "CELL PHONE"...........KB7UXE)

How to tell the difference? Simple – no monthly cell phone bill and no private line. Like any other ham radio, the world can listen in if they own a D-STAR dual mode ham radio. Only the hams that chose not to participate in this new ham radio technology will be unable to listen in. The person who owns a D-STAR dual mode ham radio will be able to talk to any ham that chooses not to participate in this new ham radio technology. He is the one who owns a real ham radio and chooses to be on the leading edge of technology.

W9JAB

09-19-2005, 08:05 PM

[B]commercial radios are not field programmable for a reason. the reason is they are work radios. like the bat lab stuff it's a rock. made for working not for the hobby guy.
get it.
w9jab
JOE

W5HTW

09-19-2005, 08:13 PM

"Real ham radio?"

Wow, I sure feel left out with my Drakes. Been fooling myself for years.

VE7TKO

09-19-2005, 08:48 PM

Just a short reminder. I am not knocking any other mode, VHF, UHF, SHF or HF. I also use a lot of older and commercial equipment. I am only trying to point out some of the differences between commercial equipment and equipment designed by hams, for hams.

D-STAR cannot be applied to HF radios, so let’s not discuss them in this thread. My sole interest is the use of D-STAR in the 2-meter and 70 cm bands. Currently the only Dual Band / Dual Mode radio available is the ICOM ID800H. More choices will become available as other manufactures play “catch up” with the open protocol from the JARL (Japan Amateur Radio League).

If you want to learn more about D-STAR look at : http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/DStarHistory.asp and learn about it’s history.

KC9ECI

09-19-2005, 08:49 PM

How much did Icom pay for this commercial?

N8NOE

09-19-2005, 08:51 PM

I think it sounds Good, But till it really takes off, Nobody is going to jump with both feet. The Concept is good, and I can see Right off the possable uses, But you have "Icom's (only at this point) D-Star, Yaesu's Wires (Again Yaesu Only)"... Till someone makes it a solid choise, and it gets accepted, I'll hold off.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

N8NOE

09-19-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ Sep. 19 2005,08:49)]How much did Icom pay for this commercial?
Your NOT disfunctional, Just Mis-interpreted...
"Just because your Paranoid, Doesn't mean there NOT out to get you!"

G8KHS

09-19-2005, 09:10 PM

Well Shucks, I guess that ol' boy really likes that there D-Star.

Thank you kindly there Jan, reckon we heard you the first time.
Have a nice day from the deep south of the UK.

John:cool:

KE3D

09-19-2005, 09:16 PM

But what about Motorola Syntor and the GE Delta radios?
For the appliance operators, there are assembled Control heads that provide the ricebox scan and offer full programmability. Some of the APCO standard radios are that flexible, but being newer no one offers a "kit" to modify them. But you can't get neighboring counties to buy radio systems that interoperate! So why you expect hams to be any different! Just my opinion but I love the low band syntor and the UHF delta that I run in my vehicle. You can't beat 100W for simplex range. Maybe they didn't sell those up the cold north land.

Have fun, it is only a hobby and not a profession. 73 Ed KE3D

N9VO

09-19-2005, 09:51 PM

Hey didn't this ad run a week ago. We know you love it but pleeeeez give us a break. Almost makes code/no code look good.

KB7UXE

09-19-2005, 09:54 PM

I have a few questions:
how reliable is this if the power goes out?
or maybe how reliant are they on telco/hard wire links?
will it be like a cell site ? a cell site that can;t talk to other cells is useless.
or will they operate just like a ham repeater does now ( if batt backup avail)
When we had an earthquake here in washington,
NO cell /land line phones worked, only ham repeaters ( god bless the hams)
Even the Seattle coast guard resorted to useing their ham radio ops to get help. (go figure.....)

Dan. kb7uxe.

p.s. just how will my key work on this thing??? ...-.-

VE7TKO

09-19-2005, 10:37 PM

Quote[/b] (kb7uxe @ Sep. 19 2005,14:54)]I have a few questions:
how reliable is this if the power goes out?
or maybe how reliant are they on telco/hard wire links?
will it be like a cell site ? a cell site that can;t talk to other cells is useless.
or will they operate just like a ham repeater does now ( if batt backup avail)
When we had an earthquake here in washington,
NO cell /land line phones worked, only ham repeaters ( god bless the hams)
Even the Seattle coast guard resorted to useing their ham radio ops to get help. (go figure.....)

Dan. kb7uxe.

p.s. just how will my key work on this thing??? ...-.-
It is just as reliable as any other ham radio or commercial radio product. The only question is how well prepared are you for an emergency. It works radio to radio, and does not need telco/hard wire links. It is 100% radio with the versatility of connecting a laptop for data. This data can be 100% sent via the air waves, but you are free to use the telco/hard wire links, should they be available.

When the 2-meter / 70 cm D-Star repeaters become a reality, you will be able to link them together just like any other repeater. You can chose the more expensive method of linking via the air waves or you can also chose to use the telco/hard wire links.

If your D-STAR ham radio repeater is not touched by the disaster, It too will be working. (God bless the ham who builds one.)

P.S. - Sorry, your key won’t work with this thing unless you decide to build a digital interface for it. It is possible, but why would you want to?

VE7TKO

09-19-2005, 10:49 PM

Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ Sep. 19 2005,13:49)]How much did Icom pay for this commercial?
O – zip – zilch!
I am living on a disability pension and enjoy sharing my enthusiasm with my fellow hams.

G8KHS

09-19-2005, 10:50 PM

Can you say Déjà Vu?

KB7RKY

09-19-2005, 11:09 PM

Guess he likes Icom A LOT ;)

Well, hey, so do I...my first rig was an Icom IC-2GAT.

This D-STAR stuff sounds interesting, but, like most other operators, I'm going to take this with a grain of salt and look at it from every possible angle before I sink my hard-earned bucks into just such a system. Heck, I'm having a tough time just getting my analog, rock-bound 220 repeater operational. Now, if D-STAR were available on 220...

Doug, KB7RKY

Visit my "Mythbusters" fanpage:

http://church.mythbustersfanclub.com

K5KTD

09-19-2005, 11:43 PM

I read everything I can get my hands on regarding ham radio and communications tech in general. I stay up on the most recent developments and emerging technologies. So, what's D-STAR?

KC9ECI

09-20-2005, 12:05 AM

I'm thinking a little less of Icom with each passing day.

W0WFH

09-20-2005, 01:33 AM

As a holder of a General Radio Telephone License, downgrade from 1st Class FCC Phone license, We don't allow commerical user to program their own radio PER THE FCC... otherwise we have people on fire frequencies and police frequencies talking like CBers.

I keep up with all the lastest digital modes and I too am living on Social Security Disabliity, and this hobby is the only thing I can do and have loved it for 42 years.

73, Bill WA0LBZ PS keep the flames down please.:) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

N4XTS

09-20-2005, 02:52 AM

D-star will not become a mainstream reality until:

1)-it is widely accepted by the ham community

2)-it offers something that is 10 times better than what it replaces

3)-it is AFFORDABLE enough for the average ham to get it.

P-25 is the default air interface for digital radio in the public service world. Since it has been around for a short while (and due to Motorola making disposable and much shorter life span products), there is now much P25 VHF/UHF gear showing up on the suplus market. So just like other commercial gear that makes it's way into the ham hands, it becomes prevalant.

I can't count how many hams I know that have HT1000's, Sabers, MT1000's etc. They are superior to any imported radio in the ham world as far as performance, reliability and durability. For a digital standard to make it in the ham world AFFORDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE is key.

There are a ton of surplus VHF and UHF Quantars out there, and I know of many on the ham bands now. Icom pushes D-Star on 1.2GHz, an impractical and infrastructure heavy band. D-Star backhaul and network component hardware are in the same price point as new P25 publci safety hardware. Let's see:

I can buy a D-Star repeater, spend a bunch of cash, and talk to myself on 1.2 with my 1200 dollar D-Star mobile.

Or I can buy a used VHF Quantar, program it up on 2 meters, and buy a 600 dollar VHF Astro, and talk to everyone (in both analog and P25).

What do you think will be the most viable option?

A local car dealer's moniker is "Price Sells Cars"

So true. Until D-Star is widely available and cheap, it's about what we as hams can afford. And P25 is still more available and affordable than D-Star is right now.

09-20-2005, 04:49 AM

Now I got to get D-Star to be a real ham? In the past couple of years I have heard that I had to get Anderson Power Poles to be a real ham, then I had to get on APRS to be a real ham, and now this. Guess I had better send my 20wpm Extra Class license back to the FCC, and get on freeband with the fake hams.

KB7UXE

09-20-2005, 05:27 AM

Quote[/b] (ne0p @ Sep. 20 2005,03:49)]Now I got to get D-Star to be a real ham? In the past couple of years I have heard that I had to get Anderson Power Poles to be a real ham, then I had to get on APRS to be a real ham, and now this. Guess I had better send my 20wpm Extra Class license back to the FCC, and get on freeband with the fake hams.
Yea, wut he said....
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
it's just a passing fad.
I'll stick with my key mfg around 1865. ( c.w. lewis )
Werks fb fer me om.
I use it almost every nite on 3.696 mhz
( i'm listening....)

VE7TKO

09-20-2005, 06:29 AM

I have requested that this thread be kept on topic, an honest discussion about a new technology. We are not discussing what makes a real ham. I admire the accomplishments that you have made as hams.

The subject of this thread is VHF / UHF ham radio and the new D-STAR digital voice mode. This is all that is to be discussed. I guess only time will tell what kind of hams you are. I have always believed a licensed ham to be a person of the highest calibre. It is my hope that you don’t prove me wrong.

KB7UXE

09-20-2005, 06:33 AM

Your right,
only the highest calibre of ham would work me at 20 wpm ..
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

G8KHS

09-20-2005, 07:12 AM

Jan, you plugged D-Star the other week, why again?
If this system is so good, then it'll sell itself!
I think as you are such a fan of D-Star, then why don't you have your own D-Star website to help folk get onboard this new system.
The Apco-25 guys could have their one too!

73 es gd dx John

KD7RTO

09-20-2005, 08:43 AM

Quote[/b] ]Or I can buy a used VHF Quantar, program it up on 2 meters, and buy a 600 dollar VHF Astro, and talk to everyone (in both analog and P25).

Good luck finding an available repeater pair to put it on.

K8ERV

09-20-2005, 09:52 AM

Neat looking key. What lock does it fit?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

VE7TKO

09-20-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote[/b] (g8khs @ Sep. 20 2005,00:12)]Jan, you plugged D-Star the other week, why again?
If this system is so good, then it'll sell itself!
I think as you are such a fan of D-Star, then why don't you have your own D-Star website to help folk get onboard this new system.
The Apco-25 guys could have their one too!

73 es gd dx John
John - Your question is a fair and legitimate one. People who had no interest in the subject hijacked the former post, and changed the subject.

I am interested in getting some real honest input from other interested hams about the possibilities of D-STAR. That is why I provided the link to the history of its development. This is such a new technology, that the future possibilities have not all been thought of yet.

Yesterday KB7UXE asked me if he could use his key on it. That is one possibility that I never considered. It is possible with a proper interface, but I don’t know how practical it would be. I already have an old ICOM IC-211 that can do SSB and CW. It only gets used at field day one a year for contesting. I have made some very good long-range calls with it on 2-meter SSB. I cannot do CW because I have Parkinson’s disease.

All ham radio has its place within the proper bands. I just happen to like the 2-meter and 70 cm bands. It is the only area that I can afford. It is my hope to some day set up a 2-meter D-STAR DV repeater. I could never afford to do this by myself, so I am hoping to create enough interest to accomplish this within my lifetime.

We have only begun to break the surface with this new technology, and I hope to stimulate some real creative thinking among the younger hams. They are the future to the continuance of this hobby. I am not in favour of throwing out any part of this hobby, in favour of new technology. I believe that all technology, old and new, has a place in this hobby.

It is the inventive minds of some of our more open thinking hams that have given things such as IRLP and APRS. These two examples are being used commercially by law enforcement and industry alike. Just remember that a licensed ham did it first.

I like to think that guys like many of those who partake in this forum will think of uses for D-STAR, that haven’t even been thought of yet. Because it is a truly open protocol, the chances of this happening are great.

It is my hope that you and I will see eye to eye and become Elmer’s to those who have not yet considered this new technology.

N4ZOU

09-20-2005, 11:14 AM

2-meters and up is pretty well dead in my area. Standard 2-meter FM repeaters take up all the available pairs and the only activity is a once a week net with 2 people (the owner and the club president). Now you want to add another level of complexity and cost? Sorry, it just wont happen here!

WA3KYY

09-20-2005, 12:37 PM

Quote[/b] (k5ktd @ Sep. 19 2005,16:43)]I read everything I can get my hands on regarding ham radio and communications tech in general. #I stay up on the most recent developments and emerging technologies. So, what's D-STAR?
Check the October QST. #There is an article on how ARES in, I believe, TN is using D-Star 1.2GHz repeaters and Winlink. #Also a 6 page ICOM insert explaining D-Star. #If our local ARES/RACES group moves in this direction I will likely get a dual mode radio otherwise I will wait and see. #No D-Star repeaters here at present and no one using it that I know of.

BTW, where are the 1.2GHz dual mode HTs/mobiles? #That and a suitable repeater would get me interested.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

PS Shouldn't this topic have been started in the Talk and Opinions section?

AA1MN

09-20-2005, 01:10 PM

Quote[/b] ]O – zip – zilch!
I am living on a disability pension and enjoy sharing my enthusiasm with my fellow hams.

Unless you decide to start sharing your new found wealth with the rest of us amateurs many, like myself, aren't going to waste the time, trouble and money getting the extra gear and programming it and setting it up.

Please keep in mind that most of us have to work for a living and I, for one, do not wish to part from my dearly deserved money.

Even a simple dual band handheld walkie talkie or mobile units are overpriced as it is and have too many useless features on 'em that that makes it a pain in the ass to figure out how to program as it is.

The adage "Expansion means complexity, and complexity decay" applies here.

Chuck, AA1MN

W9WHE

09-20-2005, 02:39 PM

"Commercial gear is not field programmable from the radio itself"

The Motorola JT1000 and HT1550 are BOTH keypad programmable commercial radios. Neither NEEDS a computer to program it.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the author. Why ham vendors choose to re-invent the wheel is beyond me. APCO 25 is well established and IS THE STANDARD. Every ham HT should be APCO 25 capable (my XTS5000 is). D-Star is an orphan that will fragment us and make hams less useful. As more and more municipal Police, Fire and EMS go APCO 25, we will become LESS AND LESS able to communicate with them. How does that sit with you emcom types?

I will not buy any radio with D-star. I encourage you to only buy radios that are APCO 25 compliant.

W9WHE

K0RGR

09-20-2005, 03:04 PM

The 6-page insert in QST is very informative. I hope it explains how a digital system could play in our analog repeater world. Instead of having two separate systems to do voice and packet radio, you only need one digital system that does both simultaneously, and you can concentrate on linking them via microwaves or the internet, whichever floats your boat. It's designed to integrate with the rest of our world.

Yes, it's a system designed for amateurs. We should be supporting this standard.

Let the repeater wars begin! How many unused analog machines and good-ole' boy paper repeaters can we replace?

N4ECW

09-20-2005, 03:16 PM

Everything always come back to a key and a spark gap transmitter doesn't it? I suppose only life in all its fullness will supply the answers . . . .

WA3KYY

09-20-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 20 2005,07:39)]"Commercial gear is not field programmable from the radio itself"

The Motorola JT1000 and HT1550 are BOTH keypad programmable commercial radios. Neither NEEDS a computer to program it.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the author. Why ham vendors choose to re-invent the wheel is beyond me. APCO 25 is well established and IS THE STANDARD. Every ham HT should be APCO 25 capable (my XTS5000 is). D-Star is an orphan that will fragment us and make hams less useful. As more and more municipal Police, Fire and EMS go APCO 25, we will become LESS AND LESS able to communicate with them. How does that sit with you emcom types?

I will not buy any radio with D-star. I encourage you to only buy radios that are APCO 25 compliant.

W9WHE
I am not at all sure what point you are making here. #We do not presently communicate via radio with Fire, Police or EMS unless we place an amateur radio operator with them and use our frequencies. #What difference does the protocol used on amateur frequencies make? #We cannot transmit on their frequencies and they cannot transmit on our frequencies. #Just how would we use APCO 25 compliant amatuer radios to communicate with public service agencies? #

Would it be some form of store and forward system where we would copy the traffic from the public service frequency then retransmit under manual control on an amateur frequency to another location which would then either deliver it as a printed message or inject it back into the public service system?

Mike WA3KYY

K0RU

09-20-2005, 04:30 PM

This is a round device capable of rotating a various speeds and rpm. #If 2 were used, and a shaft connecting them together some sort of axle or weight carrying device could be assembled on the round objects making it easier to move them around.

When someone was inventing the wheel, you had your nay-sayers, and even today you have people so stuck on the past, they can't see the forest for the tree's in front of them. #Look beyond, open your mind and think of all the possiblities. #Don't just set in your shack and perceive it the way (you) would use it, but how it could be used in many different applications.

Think outside of the box... (shack)

What it cost you is irrelavent, if your not going to use it anyhow, why would that bother you. #Its your contributions of its useage and ideas thats being asked of. # Just because you have a ham license doesn't mean you can go out and buy an ICOM 7800, or a YAESU FT9000 or whatever Kenwood is coming up with for TS2010 rig that is reality and understandable. #But those that can spend the money, and develop D-Star or What-Star, or oh yeah PACKET RADIO then they will and hopefully the rest of use can learn something from it.

You have to be willing to contribute ideas and help broaden the ideas to get enthusiaism of something that could become possible and benifitial to Amateur Radio... Oh yeah AMSAT, who in the world would spend money on tossing a ball into outer space? #Bet, thats been said before.

DREAM, THINK, and stop WHINNING, how can we HELP?

OH PS: for the newbies to QRZ out there, here on QRZ about 8 years ago, a couple of gentlemen were discussing the topic of antenna's that would have adjustable elements, or tubes filled with water and salt that could be used as elements. #Those two gentlemen later went on to become FLUIDMOTION, heard of them? #Oh here, let me spell it out a different way: # STEPPIR

During those post, many responded with the same stupid insight not realizing the benifits of having an antenna with fully adjustable elements. #Wow, what a concept, ... Today, its probably one of the most fasinating concepts that has taken on a whole new meaning to YAGI antenna. #Is it Good, Bad? doesn't matter its the fact a couple of gentlemen had an idea and was sharing it with us, only for us to submit stupid remarks and not add to the benifits of the idea. #Probably some of those people that made the stupid remarks could have LEARNED something.

Thanks
W8YRB - Rob - 73

09-20-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Sep. 20 2005,08:28)]
Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 20 2005,07:39)]"Commercial gear is not field programmable from the radio itself"

The Motorola JT1000 and HT1550 are BOTH keypad programmable commercial radios. Neither NEEDS a computer to program it.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the author. Why ham vendors choose to re-invent the wheel is beyond me. APCO 25 is well established and IS THE STANDARD. Every ham HT should be APCO 25 capable (my XTS5000 is). D-Star is an orphan that will fragment us and make hams less useful. As more and more municipal Police, Fire and EMS go APCO 25, we will become LESS AND LESS able to communicate with them. How does that sit with you emcom types?

I will not buy any radio with D-star. I encourage you to only buy radios that are APCO 25 compliant.

W9WHE
I am not at all sure what point you are making here. We do not presently communicate via radio with Fire, Police or EMS unless we place an amateur radio operator with them and use our frequencies. What difference does the protocol used on amateur frequencies make? We cannot transmit on their frequencies and they cannot transmit on our frequencies. Just how would we use APCO 25 compliant amatuer radios to communicate with public service agencies?

Mike WA3KYY
Consider the ability simply to monitor the agencies that us P25, and thier ability to monitor ham communications.

If hams use P25, we can easily listen to thier traffic, especially P25 UHf systems. If P25 ham HT's ever come out we may even see ones capable of scanning trunked systems.

In addition, the agencies can program thier radios and scanners to monitor ours.

I also stringly disagree with the authors assertion that a ham with D-star is a real Ham. A ham with D-star is an appliance operator. A ham who buys commercial gear and retunes it, hacks the software, and modifys it for his needs is a ham in the same tradition of those before us who bought and modified surplus WWII radios. Go over to batlabs and see what kind of work hams do retuning commercial radios.... much more in the real ham realm than plug and play, at least in my opinion.

An yes, some commercial radios are field programmable, including some P25 radios. I am issued an EF Johnson 5100 here that will do analog or P25 and is field programmable.... and works well on 2m. However, field programming is a moot point for the most part. Most commercial radios have more than enough memory to handle ALL the common 2m repeater splist and simplex frequencies. In years of using commercial radios I have programmed them right and never found myself wishing for a VFO.

P25 is the standard. To put it in historical terms, P25 is VHS, D-Star is Betamax. As P25 is the commercial standard, new high quality products are devloped for it every month. D-Star? It is such a limited market why would manufacturers spend the money? The best repeaters out there are almost always commercial units set up on the ham bands... don't expect and commercial D-Star units any time.

N3SDO

09-20-2005, 05:52 PM

Don't we have a lot of silent, barely used analog repeaters now? You can link them via echolink, or something else using an HT, and a PC with a sound card.

Im all for experimenting, and playing with new modes.
Have your own little clique with fm sstv, and aprs, I did!
Anybody wanna buy a slightly used Kenwood VCH1?

But bottom line, when you need special event or emergency comms, the simpler the better. I don't have the $$$ to buy any more toys for a while. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

W9WHE

09-20-2005, 06:13 PM

"What difference does the protocol used on amateur frequencies make?"
If hams go D-star INSTEAD of APCO 25, then:

1) We can't monitor PS stuff;

2) In a true emergency, under 47 CFR 97.403 & .405 you can communicate with PS on their frequencies, and vice versa;

3) You Totally defeat INTEROPERABILLITY and erect a NEW and unnecessary obsticle for communications;

4) With APCO 25, your radio can be programmed to monitor, decode and display emergency messages like wheather alerts, pages, etc, etc. from PS systems, especially important where Ham repeaters don't exist;

5) Why not piggyback on new technology leaders like Motorola, who is wayyyyyyy further along then ham vendors will ever be.

6) If the purpouse is to "communicate" why adopt different languages?

Just a few thoughts to consider.

W9WHE
"Fully APCO 25 compliant"

KG0R

09-20-2005, 06:16 PM

Jan,
I think using APCO-25 (or at least the same standard as law enforcement agencies) isn't so much about being able to use commercial equipment on an individual ham level as it is about using it on a repeater level. How many Micor, GE Master-II, etc ham repeaters are there out there? Everywhere!

It is also very useful for hams to be able to monitor EM frequencies, etc when necessary. Will both APCO-25 and D-star codecs be built into future radios? I think they will need to be if we utilize our own protocol.

KI4SP

09-20-2005, 07:17 PM

Just a check at my local ham radio dealer, yes it's a real life radio shop, the going price for the icom ID-1 is over $1599.00... # ya'll have fun with your new toys.

KD6NIG

09-20-2005, 07:28 PM

If you all want to run this standard, you go ahead. #But, the moment I have to go out and shell out mondo funding to talk on my local repeater, you'll probably find that I and many others won't be too happy with you.

A new mode is fine if the mode is reachable with the same amount of funding a radio costs now, but from what I'm seeing, this is quite pricey. #And I don't see this standard becoming the standard like they say. #I only buy Yaesu radios now, mostly, and they are pushing thier 'WIRES' standard. #Now ICOM (I can only monitor?) is pushing this standard.

Like I said, you all can have your nice digital systems, your internet linking capability, etc, etc.... Please leave the one repeater I use locally alone though-I like my plain FM repeater with tone squelch. #It works for me and all of my ham radio friends I talk to.

I just see ham radio becoming the internet more and more. #Practically, it has SOME uses, but I don't know about using my local repeater to send pictures to someone. #I have a camera phone for that. #

I dunno, maybe I'm just closed minded, but thats the way I see it. #I've used echolink twice, and it was okay, but if I could have made the contact with pure RF, I wouldn't have used echolink. #Once I learn code, that will be possible and the route I will take first in any contact I would be attempting.

WA9SVD

09-20-2005, 07:46 PM

N9VO

09-20-2005, 07:50 PM

Quote[/b] (KI4SP @ Sep. 20 2005,12:17)]Just a check at my local ham radio dealer, yes it's a real life radio shop, the going price for the icom ID-1 is over $1599.00... # ya'll have fun with your new toys.
Must have a pretty good disablity pension to afford that! And all for 1.2ghz no less.........

wc4rav

09-20-2005, 08:43 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 20 2005,07:39)]"Commercial gear is not field programmable from the radio itself"

The Motorola JT1000 and HT1550 are BOTH keypad programmable commercial radios. Neither NEEDS a computer to program it.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the author. Why ham vendors choose to re-invent the wheel is beyond me. APCO 25 is well established and IS THE STANDARD. Every ham HT should be APCO 25 capable (my XTS5000 is). D-Star is an orphan that will fragment us and make hams less useful. As more and more municipal Police, Fire and EMS go APCO 25, we will become LESS AND LESS able to communicate with them. How does that sit with you emcom types?

I will not buy any radio with D-star. I encourage you to only buy radios that are APCO 25 compliant.

W9WHE
because p25 phase 2 uses the same modulation scheme as D-star does now ( atleast a very similar)

imbe(p25 phase 1) is sold as software only leaving the vendor to devolved their applications and hardware so one must purchase a license to use the software at a high cost-

ambe is sold as an OEM chipset making it inexpensive to implement and more universal.

forr you moto fans - the complete p25 plan calls for a d-star like modualtion scheme- which might even be compatible -- has any one down any testing to detirming this.

AC0GT

09-20-2005, 10:06 PM

Let's see if I can get some facts straight.
APCO-25
- FM analog or 9600bps IMBE digital voice
- 12.5 or 6.25kHz channel spacing
- transmitted in the clear or with one of three standards for encryption
- not data capable
- trunking capable
- frequencies http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

D-STAR
- FM analog or 4800bps AMBE digital voice
- compatible with 20, 15, 12.5, 6.25KHz (or even 5kHz?) channel spacing
- no encryption, as required by Part 97
- trunking http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
- data capable at speeds varying by frequency (e.g. 4.8k/VHF, 128k/UHF, 10M/SHF)
- voice and data can share a channel and be sent simultaneously
- frequencies from 30MHz on up http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif (I'll comment on this later)

Does that sum it up? #I'm sure I missed a lot. #I think the main points are:
- APCO-25 has encryption, D-STAR does not
- D-STAR has data capability, APCO-25 does not
- both contain fall back to FM and/or simplex

One thing I noticed in the specification for D-STAR was that the digital voice standard occupies only 5.5kHZ of bandwidth. #DSB/AM occupies about 5.5kHz of bandwidth. #Does that mean D-STAR standard voice could be used on any frequency where AM voice is allowed? #That would include frequencies all the way down to 1.8MHz. #D-STAR on HF? #Why not?

I think APCO-25 has some nice features but it was not designed with Amateurs in mind. #I certainly would not be opposed to people modifying APCO-25 commercial radios for Amateur use but I don't think it is a one-for-one replacement for D-STAR. #Each have their place and much of the utility of each overlap, it seems used APCO-25 equipment cannot compete with new D-STAR on price and availability so for the moment APCO-25 seems to win on that basis alone.

I think D-STAR will get a slow but steady adoption. #In populated areas the room on 6M/2M/440MHz bands for repeaters are scarce. #Since Icom has their new D-STAR systems for the less popular 1.2GHz band it has a better chance of gaining ground. #People that want digital can still choose from Icom's family of FM/D-STAR dual mode radios on 2M, 440MHz and 1.2GHz but only the 1.2GHz D-STAR repeater is available now.

Who will buy these D-STAR repeaters? #Individuals and groups that want the latest and greatest. #(Ego boxes?) #I assume the price will come down after demand, production, and competition go up. #After the big dollar buyers are satiated then Icom will lower the price for a larger niche. #Perhaps the semi-pro communicators looking for something that FM cannot do, such as search and rescue (GPS data and voice at the same time) and storm spotters (telemetry and voice). #Maybe those looking for a new high bandwidth packet radio where things like 802.11b/Hinternet are proving to be too limited.

D-STAR is not for the home brewers and postcard collectors. #I've seen where APRS, fast-scan and slow-scan video, text transfer (AKA e-mail) have been shown to be very useful for emergency communications, search and rescue, disaster recovery, etc. #D-STAR takes many of these disparate technologies and allows them to work together better. I know I probably sounding like a D-STAR fan-boy like Jan/VE7TKO but I feel I have to offset all the negativity it is getting here.

I have some questions about APCO-25 and D-STAR. Can either digital voice mode be decoded or encoded with a standard FM Amateur radio connected to a common PC? In other words, is there software for these modes? Where can I find more information on APCO-25 and the radios that use the mode?

K2WH

09-20-2005, 11:01 PM

Stay tuned. #After APCO, D-Star, On Star, Packet, PSK31 die on the vine, some other new way of digitizing crap and its acronim will appear.

K-JANK, ELAP, DIMWIT, BOHUNK etc.

How about simple RF.

Linking of repeaters is stupid and has a debilitating effect on the users. Look at how hot EchoLink was. Look at it now. Many repeaters that had it dumped it.

NC5S

09-20-2005, 11:51 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Sep. 19 2005,04:53)]He is the one who owns a real ham radio and chooses to be on the leading edge of technology.
Well, I don't need no stinkin D-Star to be a real ham.

Are you on Icoms payroll?

Didn't you just run this same thread about two weeks ago?

Why in the world are the board editors allowing you to keep posting this same crap?

N3EG

09-20-2005, 11:52 PM

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 20 2005,16:01)]Linking of repeaters is stupid and has a debilitating effect on the users.
Horsehockey. #

Sure, your busiest stand-alone repeaters should NOT be linked. #But the 440 repeater in the suburbs, or the low-level garage repeater, or the 2 meter repeater 150 miles from the nearest interstate - they survive on linking, whether to a radio network or VOIP network. #

What we need is a kit - a TAPR kit, a FAR circuits kit, or something else where you breadboard or buy a board and toss a collection of 4000 series chips alongside a vocoder and build your own. #Homebrewing is the grassroots of ham radio, and when it reaches that level, it grows. #Not from the $1599 level down, but from the $99 static proof parts bag level up.

KB7UXE

09-21-2005, 12:36 AM

gee it all just new stuff. some may werk, some may knot.
Pesonally, I like binary, simple 1 & 0.
That dang ascii thing will never catch on.....

Hey, who are those guys at iEEE anyway?

( In memory of my friend, Al Gross. W8PAL I will never forget you.)

K5KTD

09-21-2005, 01:12 AM

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Sep. 20 2005,05:37)]
Quote[/b] (k5ktd @ Sep. 19 2005,16:43)]I read everything I can get my hands on regarding ham radio and communications tech in general. #I stay up on the most recent developments and emerging technologies. So, what's D-STAR?
Check the October QST. #There is an article on how ARES in, I believe, TN is using D-Star 1.2GHz repeaters and Winlink. #Also a 6 page ICOM insert explaining D-Star. #If our local ARES/RACES group moves in this direction I will likely get a dual mode radio otherwise I will wait and see. #No D-Star repeaters here at present and no one using it that I know of.

BTW, where are the 1.2GHz dual mode HTs/mobiles? #That and a suitable repeater would get me interested.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

PS Shouldn't this topic have been started in the Talk and Opinions section?
Ah, that explains it. #I don't do ARRL, Win32, or WinLink for that matter. Each of these is far too proprietary in nature to be of interest to me. (A qualifier, if you please: #I am a developer in my 34th year of experience with all manner of hardware and software.

I did, however, follow the link to the article that the VE OM mentioned. #This is very interesting technology and holds lots of potential, but it requires replacement of existing equipment for club/repeater owner groups as well as individual operators. #I say replacement because freq pairs and repeater locations are already difficult enough to come by. #I can't see two parallel systems in operation, one straight analog and one potential dual analog/digital. The economic imparative isn't there and there are so many choices of competing technology.

I predict that the d-star standard will BEGIN to catch on when we see choices in the market place. #This will begin to happen about 3-5 years after the introduction of the technology to the retail buyer...so, 2008-2010. #So, if everything is done just right, the market will reach 35% saturation about 10 years from now. That's when the big wholesale kicks in (see below). The choice that will really drive acceptance is a hardware device that can be added to existing equipment to enable d-star compatability. To make the market move on this, there must be several offerings of compatable products from several manufacturers. #This will push price point, drive retail, and open up wholesale markets (govt, institutional) where manufacturers are able to recoup the spin-up money they've spent to bring it to market.

As long as the technology remains essentially proprietary, as it is now with only one brand in the stream, there will be no retail acceptance in the free marketplace.

W3MZ

09-21-2005, 04:35 AM

Quote[/b] (k5ktd @ Sep. 20 2005,18:12)][quotmarket.

As long as the technology remains essentially proprietary, as it is now with only one brand in the stream, there will be no retail acceptance in the free marketplace.
I believe you are right on the money there. Open Source is the way things happen these days. Look at Linux. As long as you depend on proprietary software, with the chance that the next incarnation will make these $1599.99 radios obsolete, you will slow growth while an open source format that allows upgrades and customization (and user input) will take off. Put the code on Sourceforge and let the guys and gals that are interested and motivated set the standard. Having a digital capable box, you will be able to do more with it with every software upgrade. You will be able to essentially download a new radio. This Hams will go for, especially if there are schematics and kits as well as manufactured radios that we can customize for our own use. If D-Star or any of the others takes off, they will go through many more changes before that time comes, and $1599.99 radios will set on Ebay alongside my Betamax tape VCR ( $2000.00 new adjusted for inflation) that I can't get ten bucks for.

I am one of those who doesn't much care for digital radio merged with the internet. How long, with the ease a tech license can be secured these days, before porn idiots decide this is a free way to exchange their pictures? And on our Ham bands. That is publicity we don't need. I use DX Summit too, and have been into computers and what they can do to enhance Ham radio since I bought my first computer at Dayton in 1983. But using the internet to make QSOs, and calling them QSOs, a lot of people are missing out on a lot of Ham Radio. No propagation, no antenna adjustments in dead of winter, that weak signal that becomes your first SE Asia QSO, the thrill of getting that QSL, that is my version of "real ham radio". Still if this technology was open source, GPL, I would have to try it. But buy a box that lets you do this, but no way can you do that, nah, another pile of parts for the junk box. I wish you that are interested in this the best of luck, and VY 73 all. Mike w3mz

WA4RYW

09-21-2005, 05:54 AM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 20 2005,10:39)]"Commercial gear is not field programmable from the radio itself"

The Motorola JT1000 and HT1550 are BOTH keypad programmable commercial radios. Neither NEEDS a computer to program it.

HOWEVER, I do agree with the author. Why ham vendors choose to re-invent the wheel is beyond me. APCO 25 is well established and IS THE STANDARD. Every ham HT should be APCO 25 capable (my XTS5000 is). D-Star is an orphan that will fragment us and make hams less useful. As more and more municipal Police, Fire and EMS go APCO 25, we will become LESS AND LESS able to communicate with them. How does that sit with you emcom types?

I will not buy any radio with D-star. I encourage you to only buy radios that are APCO 25 compliant.

W9WHE
I'm not so sure it's doing that much "fragmenting". Does anyone know where anyone has dropped the bucks for ICOM's gigadollar system?

WA9SVD

09-21-2005, 05:59 AM

"The person who owns a D-STAR dual mode ham radio will be able to talk to any ham that chooses not to participate in this new ham radio technology. He is the one who owns a real ham radio and chooses to be on the leading edge of technology."

"D-STAR cannot be applied to HF radios..."
=============================

So does that mean HF isn't "Real Ham Radio?" either?

WA4RYW

09-21-2005, 06:07 AM

Well, I’ll tell you boys and girls. My biggest problem here is that I simply don’t trust ICOM any longer. Yes, they build a good product, but they’re going down a road that I refuse to invest my dollars in, especially when we’re talking about a $1000+ UHF radio. Ever since I bought my IC-756PRO, they lost me when the PROII came out and they abandoned the PROs without an upgrade path. Now the PRO3 is out, and that’s a forklift upgrade as well. The PRO3 is quite different, but there is no excuse for not upgrading the PROs to the PRO2. My radio devalued like a Chevy in its first year, and it could have benefited from one or two of the upgrades. Kenwood, Yaesu, and TenTec, by comparison, will upgrade (for a small charge) any production changes incorporated in a unit they sell. My TS-2000 has had three software updates since I bought it. ICOM used to live by that policy. I just don’t want to buy into obsolescence, and refuse to do business with ICOM while they practice this policy. Let ‘em sell that stuff to the appliance guys.

G8KHS

09-21-2005, 06:32 AM

Thank you Kurt, KC0LXK, for taking the time to illustrate a comparison of the two systems, and thanks to Jan and all the others that have made this discussion informative to all.

It seems to me that digital comms is not for everyone, but has at least has some value to be experimented with on the amateur service.
I hope that it's used wisely and kept simple to use.

73 es gd dx to all, John

VE7TKO

09-21-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote[/b] (KI4SP @ Sep. 20 2005,12:17)]Just a check at my local ham radio dealer, yes it's a real life radio shop, the going price for the icom ID-1 is over $1599.00... ya'll have fun with your new toys.
KI4SP - JACK A BELEW, JR

Did your local ham dealer show you the ID-800H? It works on all the normal 2-meter and 70 cm FM repeaters that are set up in North America. It has a very affordable price of around $630.00 US.

I rather doubt that you have any interest in the 1.2 GHz band. I can’t understand why you would be pricing this stuff out. The dealer who quoted you $1599.00 for an ID-1 is giving you the suggested list price. Most U.S. dealers, who stock this radio, charge $1349.95 or less.

If you would like to see a club that is doing something with the ID-1, take a look at: http://www.ve7vic.ca/dstar_wara.htm . They have a very interesting work in progress.

I will be purchasing the more affordable ID-800H for my base. This way, I will be able to continue using all the regular repeaters that I have used for years. On the plus side, I will be able to use it in digital mode when I am talking with my friends who also have an IC-V82 with a UT-118 digital board installed. If the time ever comes, that you are looking for a new dual band mobile or base, the ID-800H should be worthy of your consideration. If you are only into used equipment, you will have to wait a few years. It is just too new.

K2WH

09-21-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote[/b] (n3eg @ Sep. 20 2005,12:52)]
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Sep. 20 2005,16:01)]Linking of repeaters is stupid and has a debilitating effect on the users.
Horsehockey. #

Sure, your busiest stand-alone repeaters should NOT be linked. #But the 440 repeater in the suburbs, or the low-level garage repeater, or the 2 meter repeater 150 miles from the nearest interstate - they survive on linking, whether to a radio network or VOIP network. #

What we need is a kit - a TAPR kit, a FAR circuits kit, or something else where you breadboard or buy a board and toss a collection of 4000 series chips alongside a vocoder and build your own. #Homebrewing is the grassroots of ham radio, and when it reaches that level, it grows. #Not from the $1599 level down, but from the $99 static proof parts bag level up.
What do you mean they "Survive on linking"? Survive? What the hell does that mean. Before any of this stupid, idiotic linking became all the rage, repeaters were doing just fine.

Here in the NYC area, there are some repeaters that cover entire tri-state regions due to linking. One of the most idiotic things to come along to make repeaters unusable.

K2WH

KY5U

09-21-2005, 01:45 PM

While I agree that the ICOM system is both cool and pricey, I would worry supporting anything from APCO. All it takes is for someone to get a "Homeland Security" bug up their caboose...

KI4SP

09-21-2005, 01:57 PM

Jan van Vugt - VE7TKO

NICE ad you ran for ICOM, but you failing to win many converts, myself included, I can only think you must have sold used cars in the past.. or maybe insurance in New Orleans....

Sure is funny you ran it the same day I got a my QST with the same junk ad. What is the going rate for kick-backs from ICOM, in some trades this could be the ole PAY-OLA scam. How many to you have to "Sell" to get your freee one....

KX7ID

09-21-2005, 02:59 PM

JARL's D-Star is an interesting concept, however it is not interoperable with Project-25. I strongly support moving to digital but I don't have the $28K to change my repeater to a P-25 repeater as done by hams in Pasadena, California. Apparently the D-Star protocol will not even allow putting two D-Star mobiles back to back to make a 2m or 440 repeater according to a post I received after asking the quesion on ICOM's D-Star forum.

We need (must) move to digital to save bandwidth if nothing else but we also MUST have interoperability same as our analog radios have now. D-Star does not provide that interoperability. Shame . . . shame . . . shame . . . in my humble opinion.

Chuck
KX7ID

W5TXR

09-21-2005, 04:42 PM

Why are we discussing D Star and APCO-25 Again??
We has this discussion a couple of weeks ago.

N4XTS

09-21-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Sep. 20 2005,23:39)]
Quote[/b] (KI4SP @ Sep. 20 2005,12:17)]Just a check at my local ham radio dealer, yes it's a real life radio shop, the going price for the icom ID-1 is over $1599.00... # ya'll have fun with your new toys.
KI4SP - JACK A BELEW, JR

Did your local ham dealer show you the ID-800H? It works on all the normal 2-meter and 70 cm FM repeaters that are set up in North America. It has a very affordable price of around $630.00 US.

I rather doubt that you have any interest in the 1.2 GHz band. I can’t understand why you would be pricing this stuff out. The dealer who quoted you $1599.00 for an ID-1 is giving you the suggested list price. Most U.S. dealers, who stock this radio, charge $1349.95 or less.

If you would like to see a club that is doing something with the ID-1, take a look at: http://www.ve7vic.ca/dstar_wara.htm . They have a very interesting work in progress.

I will be purchasing the more affordable ID-800H for my base. This way, I will be able to continue using all the regular repeaters that I have used for years. On the plus side, I will be able to use it in digital mode when I am talking with my friends who also have an IC-V82 with a UT-118 digital board installed. If the time ever comes, that you are looking for a new dual band mobile or base, the ID-800H should be worthy of your consideration. If you are only into used equipment, you will have to wait a few years. It is just too new.
Yes, the D-800 is a nice radio but how much does a D-Star VHF or UHF repeater cost? Are they readily available? the key is having widely available and affordable infrastructure (ie, repeaters, link radios, and other backhaul).

This poster is beginning to remind me of a Motorola salesman peddling 800MHz trunking systems to a public safety or government entity. Everytime they are presented with facts about the impracticality of the system they are given a different sales pitch.

For the record, I like D-Star, it has potential. Until it is AFFORDABLE and WIDELY AVAILABLE from all the manufacturers it doesn't have a chance of being embraced by US amateurs. P-25 otoh, is available from many sources, is available from surplus sources (read CHEAP in some cases) and is an accepted standard.

WA9SVD

09-21-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote[/b] (KB4TPP @ Sep. 21 2005,10:25)]
Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Sep. 20 2005,23:39)]
Quote[/b] (KI4SP @ Sep. 20 2005,12:17)]Just a check at my local ham radio dealer, yes it's a real life radio shop, the going price for the icom ID-1 is over $1599.00... ya'll have fun with your new toys.
KI4SP - JACK A BELEW, JR

Did your local ham dealer show you the ID-800H? It works on all the normal 2-meter and 70 cm FM repeaters that are set up in North America. It has a very affordable price of around $630.00 US.

I rather doubt that you have any interest in the 1.2 GHz band. I can’t understand why you would be pricing this stuff out. The dealer who quoted you $1599.00 for an ID-1 is giving you the suggested list price. Most U.S. dealers, who stock this radio, charge $1349.95 or less.

If you would like to see a club that is doing something with the ID-1, take a look at: http://www.ve7vic.ca/dstar_wara.htm . They have a very interesting work in progress.

I will be purchasing the more affordable ID-800H for my base. This way, I will be able to continue using all the regular repeaters that I have used for years. On the plus side, I will be able to use it in digital mode when I am talking with my friends who also have an IC-V82 with a UT-118 digital board installed. If the time ever comes, that you are looking for a new dual band mobile or base, the ID-800H should be worthy of your consideration. If you are only into used equipment, you will have to wait a few years. It is just too new.
Yes, the D-800 is a nice radio but how much does a D-Star VHF or UHF repeater cost? Are they readily available? the key is having widely available and affordable infrastructure (ie, repeaters, link radios, and other backhaul).

This poster is beginning to remind me of a Motorola salesman peddling 800MHz trunking systems to a public safety or government entity. Everytime they are presented with facts about the impracticality of the system they are given a different sales pitch.

For the record, I like D-Star, it has potential. Until it is AFFORDABLE and WIDELY AVAILABLE from all the manufacturers it doesn't have a chance of being embraced by US amateurs. P-25 otoh, is available from many sources, is available from surplus sources (read CHEAP in some cases) and is an accepted standard.
A street price for additional equipment of $630.00 is "VERY AFFORDABLE?"
Perhaps to some; not so for others.

AC0GT

09-21-2005, 06:06 PM

Quote[/b] (KX7ID @ Sep. 21 2005,07:59)]JARL's D-Star is an interesting concept, however it is not interoperable with Project-25. #I strongly support moving to digital but I don't have the $28K to change my repeater to a P-25 repeater as done by hams in Pasadena, California. #Apparently the D-Star protocol will not even allow putting two D-Star mobiles back to back to make a 2m or 440 repeater according to a post I received after asking the quesion on ICOM's D-Star forum.

What prevents you from connecting two D-STAR radios back to back to construct a repeater? #From what I can tell the radios have standard mic and speaker connections like any other Icom mobile. #It should be no different than say using two Icom IC-2100s. #Can you be more specific about the problem/limitation? #I am especially confused since I have seen an Amateur radio club post pictures on the web of their new D-STAR repeater that contained two ID-1s. #(http://www.ve7vic.ca/dstar_wara.htm)

Quote[/b] (KX7ID @ Sep. 21 2005,07:59)]We need (must) move to digital to save bandwidth if nothing else but we also MUST have interoperability same as our analog radios have now. #D-Star does not provide that interoperability. #Shame . . . shame . . . shame . . . in my humble opinion.

Chuck
KX7ID
I'm not sure what you mean by "interoperability". #All current D-STAR compatible radios are also capable of FM operation. #Same site linking of an FM repeater with a D-STAR repeater should be no more difficult than linking a 2 meter FM repeater with a 440MHz FM repeater, something that is done quite often already.

D-STAR is just as interoperable with FM as much as AM is interoperable with FM. #If we keep trying to maintain interoperability with the old we will never move on to the new. #I'm sure the first few that experimented with FM realized that they could not talk to people that had AM only radios. #The solution was not to abandon FM but to move the AM users to FM. #Interoperability can be done with the same site repeater linking I mentioned. #In fact if you want the APCO-25, D-STAR, and FM users to all be able to talk to each other over the same repeater then it would be possible with enough hardware at the repeater site. #Another solution is for the D-STAR and APCO-25 users to switch to FM.

In short I guess I'm trying to say I'm not quite sure what you are complaining about.

K8TEK

09-21-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 20 2005,18:06)]Let's see if I can get some facts straight.
APCO-25
- FM analog or 9600bps IMBE digital voice
- 12.5 or 6.25kHz channel spacing
- transmitted in the clear or with one of three standards for encryption
- not data capable
- trunking capable
- frequencies http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

D-STAR
- FM analog or 4800bps AMBE digital voice
- compatible with 20, 15, 12.5, 6.25KHz (or even 5kHz?) channel spacing
- no encryption, as required by Part 97
- trunking http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
- data capable at speeds varying by frequency (e.g. 4.8k/VHF, 128k/UHF, 10M/SHF)
- voice and data can share a channel and be sent simultaneously
- frequencies from 30MHz on up http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif (I'll comment on this later)
I think you need to get your facts straght. P25 and D-STAR are both data capable.

WA2ZDY

09-21-2005, 07:18 PM

$630 is a great price for a dual bander. I think I'll run right out and buy a few.

D Star will appeal to those who want ham radio and the internet to be more merged. Some of us don't want that, but according to "experts," that's the only way we'll attract new hams. I of course use my ham radio and I get on the internet. But I don't do both at the same time.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the coverage areas of a 1.2 GHz repeater. I've never been on the band, but my understanding is that to be effective, a system will need lots of sites. This isn't 2m folks, things are different at high frequencies like that. That's one reason there aren't too many repeaters on the air up there.

There is already a serious lack of activity on VHF/UHF repeaters. Why would anyone spend that kind of money to talk to . . . ?

I suppose the data capability would be useful in the case of an emergency. I can see the utility for a situation like in New Orleans - shelter occupancy lists could be easily transferred and shared. But, would the 1.2 GHz infrastructure still be up? I assure you the simplex range between two mobiles is in the range of a mile or so.

But on any given day, my $39.95/mo cable internet connection is MUCH better for data than the ham radio would be. And at the prices for doing it over ham radio . . . I can pass.

Icom is becoming a shady company. Their new sponsorship of ARRL award plaques is VERY disturbing. ARRL is now beholden to Icom and as such I expect to see much more D Star pressure from Newington. Winlink, D Star, what will be next?

Jan, you're not a real good advertising guy, but I'll give you credit, you don't quit easily. And isn't Icom America up there in Washington? Not far from VE7 at all. I hope they're paying you well.

AC0GT

09-21-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote[/b] (K8TEK @ Sep. 21 2005,11:58)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 20 2005,18:06)]Let's see if I can get some facts straight.
APCO-25
- FM analog or 9600bps IMBE digital voice
- 12.5 or 6.25kHz channel spacing
- transmitted in the clear or with one of three standards for encryption
- not data capable
- trunking capable
- frequencies ???

D-STAR
- FM analog or 4800bps AMBE digital voice
- compatible with 20, 15, 12.5, 6.25KHz (or even 5kHz?) channel spacing
- no encryption, as required by Part 97
- trunking ???
- data capable at speeds varying by frequency (e.g. 4.8k/VHF, 128k/UHF, 10M/SHF)
- voice and data can share a channel and be sent simultaneously
- frequencies from 30MHz on up ??? (I'll comment on this later)
I think you need to get your facts straght. #P25 and D-STAR are both data capable.
I was not aware of that as no one has yet made a reference to the data capability of APCO-25. #I'm curious and would like to know more. Can you provide a link for more info or give a brief description of how data is sent?

W7DME

09-21-2005, 09:03 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Sep. 20 2005,03:53)]
Quote[/b] (g8khs @ Sep. 20 2005,00:12)]Jan, you plugged D-Star the other week, why again?
If this system is so good, then it'll sell itself!
I think as you are such a fan of D-Star, then why don't you have your own D-Star website to help folk get onboard this new system.
The Apco-25 guys could have their one too!

73 es gd dx John
John - Your question is a fair and legitimate one. People who had no interest in the subject hijacked the former post, and changed the subject.

I am interested in getting some real honest input from other interested hams about the possibilities of D-STAR. That is why I provided the link to the history of its development. This is such a new technology, that the future possibilities have not all been thought of yet.

Yesterday KB7UXE asked me if he could use his key on it. That is one possibility that I never considered. It is possible with a proper interface, but I don’t know how practical it would be. I already have an old ICOM IC-211 that can do SSB and CW. It only gets used at field day one a year for contesting. I have made some very good long-range calls with it on 2-meter SSB. I cannot do CW because I have Parkinson’s disease.

All ham radio has its place within the proper bands. I just happen to like the 2-meter and 70 cm bands. It is the only area that I can afford. It is my hope to some day set up a 2-meter D-STAR DV repeater. I could never afford to do this by myself, so I am hoping to create enough interest to accomplish this within my lifetime.

We have only begun to break the surface with this new technology, and I hope to stimulate some real creative thinking among the younger hams. They are the future to the continuance of this hobby. I am not in favour of throwing out any part of this hobby, in favour of new technology. I believe that all technology, old and new, has a place in this hobby.

It is the inventive minds of some of our more open thinking hams that have given things such as IRLP and APRS. These two examples are being used commercially by law enforcement and industry alike. Just remember that a licensed ham did it first.

I like to think that guys like many of those who partake in this forum will think of uses for D-STAR, that haven’t even been thought of yet. Because it is a truly open protocol, the chances of this happening are great.

It is my hope that you and I will see eye to eye and become Elmer’s to those who have not yet considered this new technology.
Hi,

What advantages does it have over the present technology? Does it offer better audio quality? How about range, does it offer longer range using the same or lower power levels. How much spectrum does it need? Can it be used in the same spectrum limits as the current FM modes now on those bands you are interested in? If not, who do we kick off to allow this mode to be used? I am a repeater owner myself, I would not leave voluntarily for another mode that would not accomodate most of my users. Would you?

Finally, you mention running data as well as phone over the same link, how is this an improvment over packet? Right now we have packet server/stations that do store and forward email even over satalite (pardon my spelling).

I saw Icoms presentation here in the Seattle area, and what they were pushing is the possibility of internet access over amateur radio. I personally did not see anything that convinced me that internet access over amateur radio is necessarily a good thing. In the scenario you present, it would just be another type of phone mode. I am still wondering how it is superior to FM?

73,

Mike - K7OV

VE7TKO

09-21-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Sep. 21 2005,12:18)]$630 is a great price for a dual bander. I think I'll run right out and buy a few.

There is already a serious lack of activity on VHF/UHF repeaters. Why would anyone spend that kind of money to talk to . . . ?

Jan, you're not a real good advertising guy, but I'll give you credit, you don't quit easily. And isn't Icom America up there in Washington? Not far from VE7 at all. I hope they're paying you well.
WA2ZDY - Christopher A. Johnson

I accept your post as a compliment. I agree there is already a serious lack of activity on VHF/UHF repeaters. In my area the VE7RVA repeater can go for hours without being used. Some of this can be attributed to the equipment problems that we have been having lately. We just changed the frequency from 146.600 MHz to 146.610 MHz. The problem was caused by a Washington repeater, on a totally different frequency, through no fault of their own. It took some thinking of a more experienced ham to figure out the problem.

No ICOM doesn’t pay me, although I wouldn’t mind if they did. A disability pension of around $630.00 a month does not go very far. If I didn’t have a good wife, (we’ve been married for over 30 years), I would be in big trouble.

WA2ZDY

09-21-2005, 11:34 PM

" In my area the VE7RVA repeater can go for hours without being used." I think we're on different pages here. I am exactly midway between Philadelphia and New York City. Not exactly barren land. Here, the vast majority of 2m and 440MHz repeaters for for WEEKS without being used.

W0LPQ

09-22-2005, 01:13 AM

TKO: Putting it bluntly, I could care less about what you propose! D-Star has zero interest with me and a lot of us in this area.

Me thinks that you think that D-Star will be the salvation to unused repeaters. Good luck, keep dreaming.

You will never see me on any D-Star (or whatever -25)link of any kind.

And, I agree with Chris ... no need to use your cut and paste, BUT I simply do not hear any VE7 repeater here either. Nor do I ever hear, except when we get severe weather, any overuse of ANY repeaters in this area.

FM ... any more, is a vast wasteland.

CW/SSB is active as it should be.

Bill, W0LPQ

ND5Y

09-22-2005, 01:14 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 21 2005,15:53)]I was not aware of that as no one has yet made a reference to the data capability of APCO-25. I'm curious and would like to know more. Can you provide a link for more info or give a brief description of how data is sent?
Low-Speed Data With Digitized Voice

An 88.9 bit/s low-speed data channel is provided in the digitized voice frame structure. No application is currently defined. One application under discussion is to use the low-speed data channel for the transmission of accurate geographic location information.

http://www.apco911.org/frequency/project25/index.html
http://www.apco911.org/frequency/project25/information.html
http://www.project25.org

73,
Tom

KX7ID

09-22-2005, 02:59 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 21 2005,11:06)]
Quote[/b] (KX7ID @ Sep. 21 2005,07:59)]JARL's D-Star is an interesting concept, however it is not interoperable with Project-25. #I strongly support moving to digital but I don't have the $28K to change my repeater to a P-25 repeater as done by hams in Pasadena, California. #Apparently the D-Star protocol will not even allow putting two D-Star mobiles back to back to make a 2m or 440 repeater according to a post I received after asking the quesion on ICOM's D-Star forum.

What prevents you from connecting two D-STAR radios back to back to construct a repeater? #From what I can tell the radios have standard mic and speaker connections like any other Icom mobile. #It should be no different than say using two Icom IC-2100s. #Can you be more specific about the problem/limitation? #I am especially confused since I have seen an Amateur radio club post pictures on the web of their new D-STAR repeater that contained two ID-1s. #(http://www.ve7vic.ca/dstar_wara.htm)

Quote[/b] (KX7ID @ Sep. 21 2005,07:59)]We need (must) move to digital to save bandwidth if nothing else but we also MUST have interoperability same as our analog radios have now. #D-Star does not provide that interoperability. #Shame . . . shame . . . shame . . . in my humble opinion.

Chuck
KX7ID
I'm not sure what you mean by "interoperability". #All current D-STAR compatible radios are also capable of FM operation. #Same site linking of an FM repeater with a D-STAR repeater should be no more difficult than linking a 2 meter FM repeater with a 440MHz FM repeater, something that is done quite often already.

D-STAR is just as interoperable with FM as much as AM is interoperable with FM. #If we keep trying to maintain interoperability with the old we will never move on to the new. #I'm sure the first few that experimented with FM realized that they could not talk to people that had AM only radios. #The solution was not to abandon FM but to move the AM users to FM. #Interoperability can be done with the same site repeater linking I mentioned. #In fact if you want the APCO-25, D-STAR, and FM users to all be able to talk to each other over the same repeater then it would be possible with enough hardware at the repeater site. #Another solution is for the D-STAR and APCO-25 users to switch to FM.

In short I guess I'm trying to say I'm not quite sure what you are complaining about.
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that I would prefer a digital standard compatible with the Project 25 First Responder standard. I know we can't talk on those frequencies but I would prefer radios that can listen on those channels same as we do now on our analog radios. And yes I know scanners are available that will monitor P-25 although not 700MHz allocations, yet.

I think the repeater you're referring to is an analog repeater, not utilizing D-Star digital. I've asked this question on the ICOM D-STAR forum to make sure I have this correct.

I accept your point on interoperability. However, my thought was radio to radio interoperabilty and not all the hardware necessary to interface it at a repeater site.

Chuck

NH7CY

09-22-2005, 06:26 AM

alright.. this may be a little off the current subject but going back to one of the points that came up in the original topic..

non field programmable commercial radios.. anybody who uses a bendix king or any motorola jt1000, ht1550, etc, can beg to differ. ok soo maybe there are no field programmable digital mode radios out there but before you start bashing the comercial equipment lets look at it this way.. before i go out camping in the snow or anywhere else that would harbor some extreme conditions such as out in a storm etc, i am faced with the choice.. do i take one of my regular radios such as my yaesu or my alinco or something or do i take one of motorola radios with me.. more often than not i will take the motorola.. simply because motorola makes some of the most durable radios that i have ever used. ive been out in pretty much any type of weather you can think of and i wouldnt think of letting my alinco get wet or risk dropping it on something.. with my commercial radios i dont have to worry about any of that. not to mention, in an emergency situation if you are dealing with many operators and have to loan out radios you dont have to spend hours trying to explain to them how to use their radios. with commercial equipment it is as simple as turning the switch to on and selecting the channel. this makes for a quick and easy deployment. sure some of the yaesu, icom, alinco, and kenwood gear may have the latest and greates features but in any case, when it comes to me needing something reliable i will always turn to my commmercial radios..

___jason. nh7cy.

AC0GT

09-22-2005, 07:05 AM

Quote[/b] (KX7ID @ Sep. 21 2005,19:59)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 21 2005,11:06)]{SNIP}
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that I would prefer a digital standard compatible with the Project 25 First Responder standard. I know we can't talk on those frequencies but I would prefer radios that can listen on those channels same as we do now on our analog radios. And yes I know scanners are available that will monitor P-25 although not 700MHz allocations, yet.

I think the repeater you're referring to is an analog repeater, not utilizing D-Star digital. #I've asked this question on the ICOM D-STAR forum to make sure I have this correct. #

I accept your point on interoperability. #However, my thought was radio to radio interoperabilty and not all the hardware necessary to interface it at a repeater site.

Chuck
Looking again at the WARA D-STAR website the radios in the pictures are set to "DD" (digital data) for mode of TX/RX. #So they are not just doing an analog repeating. #If they were set to "DV" (digital voice) the wired connection between the two radios may have been analog, with the RF link being digital, but that does not seem to be the case. #The set up shown is likely for repeating digital data. #It may also be capable of repeating digital voice by simply treating the digitized voice stream like any other data and sending it out through the attached radio, with the D/A conversion done on the receiving end only. #I am, just like you, speculating.

If you desire to listen in on public safety traffic then APCO-25 is for you. #Also, as I said earlier, APCO-25 is likely to serve many Amateurs nicely. #It is an open standard, provides digital voice and data, can fall back to FM/simplex for backward compatibility, etc. #All these features are also available in D-STAR. #However it must be that APCO-25 doesn't fit all Amateurs' desires since someone felt the need to create D-STAR.

D-STAR has three data modes in the specification, 4.8k, 128k, and 10M. #APCO-25 has only one, 9.6k. #The data rate alone may be enough of a reason for a new standard. #D-STAR allows for an IP based network, separate from or connected to the Internet, just like 802.11b. #However 802.11b must be coerced and shoehorned into complying with Part 97 rules because it was not originally intended for such use.

It also sounds like AX.25 is in need of an updating or replacement. #D-STAR is probably just what many are looking for in a packet protocol.

I see what you are saying, it's just not for you. #If you don't want to use it then don't, no one is going to make you buy a D-STAR radio. #Many, such as yourself, scoff at it as a waste of effort, time, and money. #I see it as almost inevitable.

While most Amateurs are using 300, 1200, and maybe even those screaming fast 9600 baud packet networks, the unlicensed masses have 802.11a/b/g going as fast as 54Mbps. #It's only by shoehorning 802.11b into Part 97 did Amateurs create a standard packet protocol that reaches 11Mbps. #I can buy a Garmin Rino that is capable of sending voice and my GPS position over the radio, only recently have Amateurs seen things that compare. #No wonder fewer people see the need to get an Amateur license, unlicensed radio products are proving to be just as capable for less money.

D-STAR is a standard by Amateurs, for Amateurs. #Instead of trying to squeeze, coerce, and shoehorn things like APCO-25 and 802.11 into Part 97 the JARL created something for our needs. #If you want to keep borrowing from commercial and consumer radio then you are free to do so. #If you are not going to lead the way to something better, then at least follow. #If you don't want to follow then do Amateur radio a favor and get out of the way.

N4XTS

09-22-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote[/b] (NH7CY @ Sep. 21 2005,23:26)]alright.. this may be a little off the current subject but going back to one of the points that came up in the original topic..

non field programmable commercial radios.. anybody who uses a bendix king or any motorola jt1000, ht1550, etc, can beg to differ. ok soo maybe there are no field programmable digital mode radios out there but before you start bashing the comercial equipment lets look at it this way.. before i go out camping in the snow or anywhere else that would harbor some extreme conditions such as out in a storm etc, i am faced with the choice.. do i take one of my regular radios such as my yaesu or my alinco or something or do i take one of motorola radios with me.. more often than not i will take the motorola.. simply because motorola makes some of the most durable radios that i have ever used. ive been out in pretty much any type of weather you can think of and i wouldnt think of letting my alinco get wet or risk dropping it on something.. with my commercial radios i dont have to worry about any of that. not to mention, in an emergency situation if you are dealing with many operators and have to loan out radios you dont have to spend hours trying to explain to them how to use their radios. with commercial equipment it is as simple as turning the switch to on and selecting the channel. this makes for a quick and easy deployment. sure some of the yaesu, icom, alinco, and kenwood gear may have the latest and greates features but in any case, when it comes to me needing something reliable i will always turn to my commmercial radios..

___jason. nh7cy.
motorola isn't the only one who builds "durable" radios anymore. in fact, their current conventional product lineup is comprised of cheap, flimsy, made in china CRAP compared to the offerings from Vertex (aka Yaesu), Kenwood and Icom.

Even Vertex (Yaesu) has mil-spec HAM portables like the FT-60, or the SUBMERSIBLE VX-6/VX-7's and the latest public safety rugged VX-170. With it's 700mw (3/4 watt AUDIO) out I dare you to tell me this radio could not hold it's own against even, dare I say, a Saber or MT1000? And unlike those, you could dunk it in water and it would keep on tickin'. The days of the past with cheap plastic junk from the big three may have been true, but just like the automotive industry is now dominated by the Japanese (sad when the best selling car in the US is a TOYOTA camry for the past 9 years in a row), they are working hard to surpass even Motorola in the conventional public service radio industry.

And just like typical American greed live for today screw tommorow mentality, Motorola gladly sells us out, firing 1/3 of it's workforce in 2001, you know, those hardworking Americans that built such profitable product lines like the Jedi, Genesis series and GP lines. Then they outsource their manufactuting to communist China, Malaysia (a hotbed for Islamic terrorists if there ever was one), Mexico and even Isreal. Yeah, good old American quality...

Which leads us back to D-Star. If there were more repeaters and equipment for the VHF and UHF bands available, it might be viable. But then it has taken the latter part of a decade for the old farts to quit moaning about using tone squelch (35 year old technology I might add). People still want to use their old Hamtronics and Cleggs in 2005. Do I see digital standard coming a reality? Not in this lifetime! Heck we can't even get hams together to agree that our service is withering away and to promote and embrace it's future! So D-Star will go the way of Kenwood's Digital Channel Link and Digital Selective Calling (wow...1984 and Kenwood HAM radios could do more than commercial radios of the day could...but just like then as now no interest), and other ideas that just weren't practical at the time or desired.

If there is an amateur service 20 years from now D-Star or P-25 phase I might have a chance of widespread acceptance in the ham community. Sad to say, listening to the deafening silence on all the repeaters of late indicates the status of our service. Some seem to work extra hard at discouraging folks from joining ham radio and doing anything that puts us in a good light (like real community service work, and not just standing around with an HT in one hand and your thumb in your orifice) yet these are the same who think they have some kind of God given right to radio spectrum. Amazing isn't it.

Why don't we work on uniting hams to promote our service first. It seems the house divided always gets into the hobby and all it does is drive everyone into seclusion.

W7DOA

09-22-2005, 02:17 PM

Stop feeding the trolls. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

W9WHE

09-22-2005, 06:40 PM

APCO 25 radios are compatable with BOTH conventional analog AND APCO 25. D-star appears to be compliant with itself(?) on frequencies NOT invcuding VHF and UHF.

If true, this is just plain foolish.

Buy an APCO 25 compliant radio. DO NOT buy a D-Star, UNLESS you want to be an island onto yourself. D-star is an orphan, and it is just a kid!

W9WHE

W9WHE

09-22-2005, 06:45 PM

One very niaeve poster writes:

"And just like typical American greed (why do you hate Americans?) live for today screw tommorow mentality, Motorola gladly sells us out, firing 1/3 of it's workforce in 2001...."

So they should continue to employ 1/3 of the people they cannot afford and go out of business, resulting in 3/3 of people being un-employed? Isn't 1/3 unemployed better then 3/3?

W9WHE

09-22-2005, 07:18 PM

KB2TPP writes:

"motorola's ....current conventional product lineup is comprised of cheap, flimsy, made in china CRAP compared to the offerings from Vertex (aka Yaesu), Kenwood and Icom.

SHEER NONSENCE, unless you think its fair to compair motorola's bottom line product against Yaesu's top of the line. if you compair Yaesu's best (VX-6 or7) to Motorola's best, an XTS5000R there is simply NO compairison. Motorola's offering will go deeper, longer, take a greater beating, and do FAR FAR more then any Yaesu product.

Does ANY Yaesu, Icom or Kenwood product do APCO 25? #My XTS does!

"Even Vertex (Yaesu) has mil-spec HAM portables like the FT-60, or the SUBMERSIBLE VX-6/VX-7's and the latest public safety rugged VX-170. With it's 700mw (3/4 watt AUDIO) out I dare you to tell me this radio could not hold it's own against even, dare I say, a Saber or MT1000"

NOW THERE YOU GO AGAIN. Sabers and MT1000 radios are a 10 + year old product. Come on, be fair. #I put my XTS5000R up against ANY jap radio....and tit will outperform on any listed spec, and wayyyyyyy out performs on important capibillities like selectivity and reggedness.
There is no compairison between the Xcvr selectivity between a Saber, HT/JT/MTS or XTS and ANY jap radio. Ever been to Dayton? #Its not the Motorola HTs that squawk, squeal and howl! #

Now, if you think that submersibillity is the cat's meow.....try a Saber submersible (a 15 year old design) or if you want to compair new product to new product, look at an an XTS5000R.

W9WHE
APCO 25 compliant

AC0GT

09-22-2005, 09:50 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 22 2005,11:40)]APCO 25 radios are compatable with BOTH conventional analog AND APCO 25. D-star appears to be compliant with itself(?) on frequencies NOT invcuding VHF and UHF.

If true, this is just plain foolish.

Buy an APCO 25 compliant radio. DO NOT buy a D-Star, UNLESS you want to be an island onto yourself. D-star is an orphan, and it is just a kid!

W9WHE
I don't know if it is part of the D-STAR spec or not but all Icom radios with D-STAR capability include analog FM voice capability. #D-STAR radios are available for 2 meter, 440MHz, and 1.2GHz. #I believe that all the Icom D-STAR capable radios are FM to start with and need an add on option to get the digital voice and data capability, excepting the ID-1 which has the D-STAR capability as standard equipment.

The D-STAR capable FM HTs and mobiles are price competitive with any other FM radio with similar features. #Adding the D-STAR module to the radio costs about as much as adding a TNC.

I wouldn't call investing in D-STAR foolish. #The ID-1 may be expensive by most standards but the other Icom D-STAR radios are not. #I imagine much of the expense in the ID-1 is because of its frequency, there just isn't the demand for 1.2GHz radios so economies of scale aren't there, and because of its capability, I would imagine the creation of a modem with 128k bandwidth isn't quite a science yet.

Like I said in another post D-STAR didn't appear out of a vacuum, it was created to fit a specific desire. #Amateurs are looking for a standard means of sending digital voice and packet data. #802.11b access points and network cards are being modified for Amateur use. #Likewise for APCO-25. #There is the new G4GUO digital voice/data/image standard, which was designed to fit a similar need but on HF.

D-STAR was created with Amateurs in mind, unlike APCO-25 and 802.11b. #G4GUO was created for Amateurs but it was made with the bandwidth constraints of HF in mind. #D-STAR was made with the higher data capacity of microwave bands in mind.

Is D-STAR an orphan? #Only if we let it become one.

N4XTS

09-22-2005, 11:30 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 22 2005,12:18)]KB2TPP writes:

"motorola's ....current conventional product lineup is comprised of cheap, flimsy, made in china CRAP compared to the offerings from Vertex (aka Yaesu), Kenwood and Icom.

SHEER NONSENCE, unless you think its fair to compair motorola's bottom line product against Yaesu's top of the line. if you compair Yaesu's best (VX-6 or7) to Motorola's best, an XTS5000R there is simply NO compairison. Motorola's offering will go deeper, longer, take a greater beating, and do FAR FAR more then any Yaesu product.

Does ANY Yaesu, Icom or Kenwood product do APCO 25? #My XTS does!

"Even Vertex (Yaesu) has mil-spec HAM portables like the FT-60, or the SUBMERSIBLE VX-6/VX-7's and the latest public safety rugged VX-170. With it's 700mw (3/4 watt AUDIO) out I dare you to tell me this radio could not hold it's own against even, dare I say, a Saber or MT1000"

NOW THERE YOU GO AGAIN. Sabers and MT1000 radios are a 10 + year old product. Come on, be fair. #I put my XTS5000R up against ANY jap radio....and tit will outperform on any listed spec, and wayyyyyyy out performs on important capibillities like selectivity and reggedness.
There is no compairison between the Xcvr selectivity between a Saber, HT/JT/MTS or XTS and ANY jap radio. Ever been to Dayton? #Its not the Motorola HTs that squawk, squeal and howl! #

Now, if you think that submersibillity is the cat's meow.....try a Saber submersible (a 15 year old design) or if you want to compair new product to new product, look at an an XTS5000R.

W9WHE
APCO 25 compliant
uhm, hey buddy, Kenwood has P25 portables...ever heard of the TK-5210? Full encryption capability too.
Icom has both P25 mobiles and portables as well.
Maybe you should spend a little time on their respective web pages downloading their spec sheets before making yourself look stupid to the world. the US Forest Service has been buying P25 TK-5210's for over a year, and they love them. Take a look at the TSA's latest bid, they bought both Icom and Kenwood P25 portables. Why? Because it's a better use of OUR tax money. They can get just as good (if not better) product for less, this means more radios for more responders. The list price of an XTS5000 is a *RIPOFF* 5 grand with P25 and trunking.
The same radio from Kenwood is only 2295. Do the math.

Brand loyalty among hams: anothe reason we further have less credibility with the rest of the world. At one time we led and others followed. Now we are way behind in the crowd.

By the way W9WHE, I am glad you have the 5 grand to afford the Motorola XTS series radios you claim to have, and you have the 600 dollar smart RIB, the 280 dollar factory cable as well as the 400 dollar CPS software (with license you signed of course) and don't forget your 1000 dollar laptop to PROGRAM that XTS5K!

With what you spent on your setup, one could buy a completely field programmable HF-UHF setup, complete with antenna tuner and multi-band antenna, and talk anywhere, anytime anyplace while your overpriced XTS would make a nice wheel chock or paperweight. You know, kinda like the Lousiana State APCO P25 TRS went out during Katrina. Yeah, what saved the day? HAM RADIO GOT RIGHT THROUGH. And Motorola had the audacity to bash us hams when WE BUSTED OUR BUTTS to make it happen. Remember, it was THEIR OVERPRICED UNRELIABLE POS TRUNKING SYSTEM THAT FAILED. They should be held accountable. No wait, they'll just sell them more radios!

Happy HAMMING!

and the call here is KB4TPP! 73!

N4XTS

09-22-2005, 11:40 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 22 2005,11:45)]One very niaeve poster writes:

"And just like typical American greed (why do you hate Americans?) live for today screw tommorow mentality, Motorola gladly sells us out, firing 1/3 of it's workforce in 2001...."

So they should continue to employ 1/3 of the people they cannot afford and go out of business, resulting in 3/3 of people being un-employed? #Isn't 1/3 unemployed better then 3/3?
here's an idea, quit giving underperforming CEO's and CFO's record profit, sell reliable products and not try to screw everyone then you dont have to layoff the hardworking Americans who actually do the real actual work of making your company profitable.

It is the workers who make the products who make a company profitable. The Japanese figured this out along time ago and that is why they are kicking our butts. But our fat, lazy greedy elitist pigs have yet to learn they are only screwing themselves out of business when they screw over their workforce.

KC8YCZ

09-23-2005, 12:38 AM

Well let me just say this. Some people complained about Echolink when it was new others complained about IRLP and some complained about the code/no code issues. In the end it will come whether we like it or not. Its like the movie Field of Dreams. "If you build it, they will come".

73
Reggie
KC8YCZ

K2JSV

09-23-2005, 01:17 AM

To add to the list of Field Programmable Motorola Portables.

XTS5000, field programmable, APCO25, data capable and now has an option and accesories to allow accurate location information.

So much for D-Star

N4XTS

09-23-2005, 04:57 AM

Quote[/b] (KC2KIT @ Sep. 22 2005,18:17)]To add to the list of Field Programmable Motorola Portables.

XTS5000, field programmable, APCO25, data capable and now has an option and accesories to allow accurate location information.

So much for D-Star
So what, the XTS5000 can do basic aGPS with a 381.00 speaker mike. Keep in mind, it is ONLY EFFECTIVE when the user has a clear view of the sky to pick up aGPS signals. It is about as useful (or useless) as aGPS in CDMA celphones. I wouldn't be my life on it.

Besides, Kenwood's FleetSync has offered AVL since it's introduction in 1998. It doesn't require a 5000 dollar radio or a proprietary trunking system to work and can function on both trunked and conventional modes.

Big deal, we can all play "I can whiz farther than yours" all day long like 15 year olds with their cheap car stereos. The bottom line is, no digital air interface will make it in the ham world until:

1)- it is offered in abundance by the major HAM manufacturers or can be had cheaply by commercial radio manufacturers as CHEAP SURPLUS.

2)-there is widespread demand for it. By listening to the deafening silence and stagnant colostomy bag convo on local repeaters lately, this is hardly the case.

3)-there is affordable infrastructure available, albeit either from the big three or the LMR guys, and available on practical VHF/UHF bands (sorry, 1.2Ghz can't cut it).

Whatever digital CAI (that's Common Air Interface) is favored, how about some support by our supposed leadership? Where is the ARRL on these issues? The public service crowd has APCO and they started on the digital path over 15 years ago. Meanwhile in Newington, nothing but silence like the local repeaters around town.

KB1DIW

09-23-2005, 06:32 AM

The IMBE codec is APCO approved form of digital modulation. APCO is not a government body, but tends to be heard by all the players. Similar to what NFPA is to the fire service and building codes.

If you look close at the requirements of DStar, the backhaul stuff requires quite a bit of bandwidth to work at its potentinal.

The problem with DStar, as much as it has a nice "cool" potentinal is that its not as an open standard as the IMBE codec is. You can buy any P25 radio and it will worth with another. Moto to Kenwood to Icom to whatever.

Busniesses, public safety to the town dump is using this standard.

Commerical radios generally are not field programmable as stated due to FCC requirements. Motorola, Kenwood and the big makers do make field programmable digital radios.

HOWEVER

That option is usually limited to the wildland's fire services where its legitimetly needed. Most manufactures restrict this option to quilified buyers.

Those of you who feel the need to modify your radios to talk to the cops in an "emergency" because the rules say so, need your head examine and then shot. Lets use some common sense here.

AVL has been around for a very long time. Moto has had it for quite some time, just as much as Kenwood has. There are many 3rd party soultions. My old PD looked into it in 1989.

The reason why you cannot crossband two radios is due to the resync of the data that is needed. This is why the commerial stuff is expensive. It takes the data stream, breaks it down, reconstructs it and out it goes. Simply hooking up two radio's together does not give you a clear voice.

Either way with DStar it comes down to this:

You need the infrasture to make full use of its features. I highly doubt that many people are going to shell out a boat load of money for the repeaters and a MW backhaul between the sites.

Most of the stuff is geared towards 1.2GHz and that's not a favorable long range band to play in.

N3JFW

09-23-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote[/b] (KB4TPP @ Sep. 22 2005,19:30)]By the way W9WHE, I am glad you have the 5 grand to afford the Motorola XTS series radios you claim to have, and you have the 600 dollar smart RIB, the 280 dollar factory cable as well as the 400 dollar CPS software (with license you signed of course) and don't forget your 1000 dollar laptop to PROGRAM that XTS5K!
A good used astro portable (astro sabers and xts3000s) is under 1000. With 255 modes, you don't need direct entry. Used xts5000's are showing up slowly, but they're still around 1500-2000

Also, you also don't use a srib unless doing flash upgrading.
The hln4008e rib is only $200.00

You can build a programming cable for less than 30 bucks.

CPS runs on a any modern machine, no need for a special machine.

W9WHE

09-23-2005, 03:06 PM

KB4TPP writes:

"I am glad you have the 5 grand to afford the Motorola XTS series radios.... you have the 600 dollar smart RIB, the 280 dollar cable as well as the 400 dollar CPS software ..... and don't forget your 1000 dollar laptop to PROGRAM that XTS5K!"

You "ASSume" way too much, my friend. You very mis-informed. First, real hams don't buy retail. They convert used commercial gear to ham use.

Thus, if you watched E bay, you would know:

Used XTS3000 radios can go for around $500 or so for a model I, more for an XTS5000);
New aftermarket programming cables go for $39;
You don't need a laptop to program an XTS, a desktop works just fine!

Perhaps you should be more careful when you accuse people of being un-informed. But then again, as an angry liberal, you know everything and anybody that disagrees with you is #just plain stupid.

W9WHE
APCO 25 compliant.

KA5S

09-23-2005, 09:29 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Sep. 19 2005,04:53)]Why not do APCO-25? That way we can continue in the fine tradition of using used commercial gear.
One might ask what good it would do, and what it would cost. Amateur VHF FM only became really popular in the USA some 35 years ago, and attempts in the 80's to replace it with ACSSB fell down because the cost was not worth the benefit. And how do we measure the benefit?

One problem for Amateur operation is that digital modulation potentially causes a more objectionable kind of co-channel interference, and Amateur - that is, affordable! - rigs unfortunately often have IF filters with marginal skirts. Coordinating more than a few APCO-25 repeaters would probably reduce our ability to communicate. Talk about putting the Nextels amongst the chickens!

Of course we COULD adopt Tetra (http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/2000/mayjune/jarvis.html) or GSM. (http://forums.cingular.com/cng/board/message?board.id=motorola&message.id=36501)

Heh!!

Cortland
KA5S

KB1DIW

09-23-2005, 10:06 PM

Quote[/b] ]Quote (KB4TPP @ Sep. 22 2005,19:30)
By the way W9WHE, I am glad you have the 5 grand to afford the Motorola XTS series radios you claim to have, and you have the 600 dollar smart RIB, the 280 dollar factory cable as well as the 400 dollar CPS software (with license you signed of course) and don't forget your 1000 dollar laptop to PROGRAM that XTS5K!

I own 6 Astro secure radios. You just need to know where to look and when to buy. 3 VHF, 1 UHF, 2 800's. I have been told they are the most clean sounding radio's on the repeater in analog. The nice thing about the commerical stuff, you can easily maintain them with a service montior yourself, unlike most of the HAM stuff used in the VHF/UHF bands.

AC0GT

09-24-2005, 12:44 AM

For people that are tearing down Icom and/or D-STAR on price here is a list of prices for Icom D-STAR handhelds and some accessories from a popular vendor.

IC-V82 (2 meter FM HT) $210
IC-U82 (440 FM HT) $210
UT-118 (D-STAR digital board) #$200
CS-V82 (programming software) $41
OPC-478 (RS-232C data cable) $46
OPC-478U (USB data cable) $61

Looks to me to be on the same price range as used APCO-25 equipment, but lacking the need for modification for Amateur bands. Also looks to be on the same level as any other digital mode that an Amateur might try.

If someone is complaining about the price I think it's because they are looking for something to complain about.

KB1DIW

09-24-2005, 03:35 AM

Motorola doesn't "own" or P25 belongs to them. Not sure if it was a bad choice of words or not.

DVSI wrote the codec and it was chosen by APCO. Motorola's own codec (VSLEP) lost to DVSI.

Motorola did quickly pick up the ball and run with it, as they were the only vendor that had digital gear in operation, but evey major vendor out there now has IMBE products, all paying licensing fees to DVSI.

Commerical Kenwood has a lot of neat stuff coming out, and we shall see what happens. Unfortunatly, MA/COM decided to do their own thing. Even though they have an IMBE option out there, it is not P25 compliant.

AB0WR

09-24-2005, 04:04 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 23 2005,17:44)]For people that are tearing down Icom and/or D-STAR on price here is a list of prices for Icom D-STAR handhelds and some accessories from a popular vendor.

IC-V82 (2 meter FM HT) $210
IC-U82 (440 FM HT) $210
UT-118 (D-STAR digital board) #$200
CS-V82 (programming software) $41
OPC-478 (RS-232C data cable) $46
OPC-478U (USB data cable) $61

Looks to me to be on the same price range as used APCO-25 equipment, but lacking the need for modification for Amateur bands. #Also looks to be on the same level as any other digital mode that an Amateur might try.

If someone is complaining about the price I think it's because they are looking for something to complain about.
There is nothing to complain about for price?

Did you actually add this up?

It's only $500 for an equipped HT!! For a HT fer pete's sake!

For that price I can go to the local dealer and get 5 - count-em...5..., T2h handhelds!

I can go to Goodyear and get four new tires - installed!!!

That's the house payment for a month!!

That's the car payment for 2 months!!

That's half the price for my high schooler to take the week-long end-of-year trip with the school orchestra!!!

It's round-trip plane fare for two to Disneyworld in Florida!!!

That's gasoline money for the household for six weeks!!

I wonder just how many hams Icom really thinks have $500 just burning a hole in their pocket that they will drop on something like this?

tim ab0wr

VE7TKO

09-24-2005, 04:40 AM

Quote[/b] (W2NJS @ Sep. 23 2005,15:28)].......But getting back to the digital stuff, what got under my skin about all the D-star hoopla was the fact that here comes Icom
with a NEW, DIGITAL handheld radio for $200+. Not bad,
huh, for a DIGITAL radio? Wrong! To make this whatever-
it-is radio into a REAL DIGITAL radio costs you another $200+, for the required card
which to me is a cheap shot marketing gimmick, and as much as I like Icom's stuff (and I own several units, including a 706), I won't go near this digital equipment unless and until they stop with the sneaky marketing tactics and price things realistically. It's the same crap that Uniden tried to pull with the first P25/LTR trunking scanners; buy the radio, then fork over an additional $200+ for the card to make the radio actually do what they say it will do in the advertising.

W2NJS
Thomas W. Donohoe - W2NJS

ICOM is 100% honest in their advertising of the IC-V82/U82 transceivers. On the front of the brochure, the first thing listed is the “OPTIONAL DIGITAL UNIT, UT-118”. On the back of the brochure, under the “OPTIONS” list is shown “UT-118 DIGITAL UNIT”. It says in clear English, “The board is a option”. I bought the ID-V82 without the board, and two weeks later ordered the board. I did not feel cheated. There are a few IC-V82 radios in our club, and the members are all happy with them. They are holding back on purchasing the boards because they said wait and see if it is widely accepted by others. They said that the radio at the prices they paid is a good deal.

What I do find dishonest is when people try to compare well-used equipment prices to brand new equipment prices. Maybe you know a new car dealer who is willing to sell me a new vehicle for the price of a 15-year-old car. I don’t expect it to happen, but apparently you do. I will be picking up my new ID-800H next week, but I expect to pay the price of a new radio.

Some of the people who are knocking D-STAR prices paid much more for their used P-25 radio than what I have paid for my new D-STAR ham radios. The D-STAR name says it all; "Digital Smart Technologies for Amateur Radio". Notice those last two words; “Amateur Radio”?

My Rescue Technology chest pack holds two radios. One D-STAR 2-meter, dual mode HT, and one HT from the organization that I am assisting. In my area there is not yet the need for the P-25 standard, but it is probably coming. At that time, I might invest in one. It will be either a new ICOM P-25 radio, or whatever good used deal I can find.

N3JFW

09-24-2005, 05:00 AM

chevettes and corvettes bro

N4XTS

09-24-2005, 08:27 AM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Sep. 23 2005,08:06)]KB4TPP writes:

"I am glad you have the 5 grand to afford the Motorola XTS series radios.... you have the 600 dollar smart RIB, the 280 dollar cable as well as the 400 dollar CPS software ..... and don't forget your 1000 dollar laptop to PROGRAM that XTS5K!"

You "ASSume" way too much, my friend. You very mis-informed. First, real hams don't buy retail. They convert used commercial gear to ham use.

Thus, if you watched E bay, you would know:

Used XTS3000 radios can go for around $500 or so for a model I, more for an XTS5000);
New aftermarket programming cables go for $39;
You don't need a laptop to program an XTS, a desktop works just fine!

Perhaps you should be more careful when you accuse people of being un-informed. But then again, as an angry liberal, you know everything and anybody that disagrees with you is #just plain stupid.

W9WHE
APCO 25 compliant.
let's see...I own:

System Saber III VHF, Saber II VHF, Saber I UHF
MTS2000 UHF and HT1K VHF. Have owned and serviced most of the radios you have. BFD. Who cares.

I have complete service manuals on all the above as well as other Genesis radios (HT600, MT1000, P200, etc).
Spent more time building and rebuilding these radios out of high school into my 20's.

So tell me, how much did you license for you CPS and RSS cost you? Last I checked, the license for Astro CPS was close to 400 bucks. Of course it supports portable and mobiles.

And to those who buy used Astros off Ebay, how many of them are legit radios? Did not Motorola raise a big stink with a certain man out west who was building such great deal "100 percent Motorola parts" Astro and XTS series radios? Radios with bogus flashcodes, stolen intellectual property, and questionable performance issues. Please, do a little research before having diareeah of the mouth.

No thanks. I would much rather spend my money on a NEW WITH WARRANTY LEGIT radio. Unlike Motorola, Kenwood, Icom and Vertex don't sell their software for exhorbitant prices, nor do they make you sign an EULA and get approval before selling it to you.

did I mention a HAM radio needs no RSS/CPS, RIB, cables, EULA, etc to be on freq anytime, anyplace, anywhere?

I have to ask W9WHE, are you the type who totes your XTS5000 programmed to police frequencies/trunking systems and shows up in coffee shops etc blaring loud? Newsflash: no one cares. You think at hamfests people look and go "ooh wow...he's got a MOTOROLA", again, even most hams could care less about your APCO 25, digital blah blah. The average CDMA celphone/PDA has more technology and capability than our overpriced Astro radios. A Treo650 is a fine example. So tell me, WHO REALLY CARES?

When it comes down to it, the "real hams" are the ones who can show up in places like New Orleans where those great digital P25 Astro Smartzone trunking systems go offline and can take their measly 1000 dollar 706 MK IIG's and FT-897's and get traffic flowing. The real hams are the ones who can adapt and overcome and don't rely on proprietary commercial radios or systems to pass traffic. Real hams serve their community by doing real work like public service events and training.

And they don't need some cop radio to do it either. At the end of the day it is the SKILL of the operator not the appliance that seperates the MEN from the BOYS.

N2MWE

09-24-2005, 05:20 PM

Are you for real? Everything will be D-Star compliant. What about Alinco? What about people who DO have Motorola radios AND have the software to program them?
Like ECI asked...how much did Icom pay you to do the commercial on QRZ?

KB1DIW

09-24-2005, 11:24 PM

Quote[/b] (KB4TPP @ Sep. 23 2005,20:27)][quote=KB4TPP] writes:
System Saber III VHF, Saber II VHF, Saber I UHF
MTS2000 UHF and HT1K VHF. Have owned and serviced most of the radios you have. BFD. Who cares.

I have complete service manuals on all the above as well as other Genesis radios (HT600, MT1000, P200, etc).
Spent more time building and rebuilding these radios out of high school into my 20's.

So tell me, how much did you license for you CPS and RSS cost you? Last I checked, the license for Astro CPS was close to 400 bucks. Of course it supports portable and mobiles.

And to those who buy used Astros off Ebay, how many of them are legit radios? Did not Motorola raise a big stink with a certain man out west who was building such great deal "100 percent Motorola parts" Astro and XTS series radios? #Radios with bogus flashcodes, stolen intellectual property, and questionable performance issues. Please, do a little research before having diareeah of the mouth.

No thanks. I would much rather spend my money on a NEW WITH WARRANTY LEGIT radio. Unlike Motorola, Kenwood, Icom and Vertex don't sell their software for exhorbitant prices, nor do they make you sign an EULA and get approval before selling it to you.

did I mention a HAM radio needs no RSS/CPS, RIB, cables, EULA, etc to be on freq anytime, anyplace, anywhere?

I have to ask W9WHE, are you the type who totes your XTS5000 programmed to police frequencies/trunking systems and shows up in coffee shops etc blaring loud? Newsflash: no one cares. You think at hamfests people look and go "ooh wow...he's got a MOTOROLA", again, even most hams could care less about your APCO 25, digital blah blah. The average CDMA celphone/PDA has more technology and capability than our overpriced Astro radios. A Treo650 is a fine example. So tell me, WHO REALLY CARES?

When it comes down to it, the "real hams" are the ones who can show up in places like New Orleans where those great digital P25 Astro Smartzone trunking systems go offline and can take their measly 1000 dollar 706 MK IIG's and FT-897's and get traffic flowing. The real hams are the ones who can adapt and overcome and don't rely on proprietary commercial radios or systems to pass traffic. Real hams serve their community by doing real work like public service events and training.

And they don't need some cop radio to do it either. At the end of the day it is the SKILL of the operator not the appliance that seperates the MEN from the BOYS.
Dude...you need to chill. Seriously.

There is a lot more to the story than the "Nick" radio's that you have eulded to. In fact, right now Motorola reversed their position and will make them "Legit" for a fee. Also, they are not doing so well in court in CA over a similar situation.

Then again, the other guy is using much newer Astro stuff than your 15 year old Sabers.

Getting back to the topic at home, this VE7 guy is a prime example of someone who needs a little loving, and to get off the ICOM trip.

Sheesh

He is the equivilent of ASTROMODAT on Batlabs cheering for Motorola.

http://students.washington.edu/colin2/webpage/Easy/Emage15.jpg

W6EM

09-25-2005, 01:06 AM

OK, enough even. #Why do APCO-25? #Why do D-Star? #Why do SecureNet? #Why do EDACS? #Why do Privacy-Plus?

Exclusivity, I suppose. #The cops want it so its difficult for the public, including law abiding citizens, not just the crooks, to monitor communications.

Ah, but when the fear of being watched or listened to goes away, you get examples like what occurred in Austin TX some time back. #Racist slurs on police commo gear exchanged while a fire raged in a largely African American nightclub.

Amateur radio should continue to be an exoteric form of communications. #Promotion of encryption or digital modes that are not open architecture and that are not feasible by means of an add-on, aftermarket "black box" to *any* radio should not even be on the table.

Most all who have posted on this thread are either employed in public safety or have access to programming equipment and software that an average ham does not. #And, at least two of the posters have a *habit* of trolling.......... #And, forgive me VE7 author-of-this-thread, sir, but me thinks you live too close to ICOM America in Seattle (and sound better than most lobbyists).

So, folks, lets stick with Packet, Pactor, Amtor, Winlink and such. #Otherwise, good ‘ole analog legacy modes....... and leave SecureNet, and such, to the cops.

Lee
W6EM

N4XTS

09-25-2005, 01:39 AM

Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Sep. 24 2005,16:24)]
Quote[/b] (KB4TPP @ Sep. 23 2005,20:27)][quote=KB4TPP] writes:
System Saber III VHF, Saber II VHF, Saber I UHF
MTS2000 UHF and HT1K VHF. Have owned and serviced most of the radios you have. BFD. Who cares.

I have complete service manuals on all the above as well as other Genesis radios (HT600, MT1000, P200, etc).
Spent more time building and rebuilding these radios out of high school into my 20's.

So tell me, how much did you license for you CPS and RSS cost you? Last I checked, the license for Astro CPS was close to 400 bucks. Of course it supports portable and mobiles.

And to those who buy used Astros off Ebay, how many of them are legit radios? Did not Motorola raise a big stink with a certain man out west who was building such great deal "100 percent Motorola parts" Astro and XTS series radios? #Radios with bogus flashcodes, stolen intellectual property, and questionable performance issues. Please, do a little research before having diareeah of the mouth.

No thanks. I would much rather spend my money on a NEW WITH WARRANTY LEGIT radio. Unlike Motorola, Kenwood, Icom and Vertex don't sell their software for exhorbitant prices, nor do they make you sign an EULA and get approval before selling it to you.

did I mention a HAM radio needs no RSS/CPS, RIB, cables, EULA, etc to be on freq anytime, anyplace, anywhere?

I have to ask W9WHE, are you the type who totes your XTS5000 programmed to police frequencies/trunking systems and shows up in coffee shops etc blaring loud? Newsflash: no one cares. You think at hamfests people look and go "ooh wow...he's got a MOTOROLA", again, even most hams could care less about your APCO 25, digital blah blah. The average CDMA celphone/PDA has more technology and capability than our overpriced Astro radios. A Treo650 is a fine example. So tell me, WHO REALLY CARES?

When it comes down to it, the "real hams" are the ones who can show up in places like New Orleans where those great digital P25 Astro Smartzone trunking systems go offline and can take their measly 1000 dollar 706 MK IIG's and FT-897's and get traffic flowing. The real hams are the ones who can adapt and overcome and don't rely on proprietary commercial radios or systems to pass traffic. Real hams serve their community by doing real work like public service events and training.

And they don't need some cop radio to do it either. At the end of the day it is the SKILL of the operator not the appliance that seperates the MEN from the BOYS.
Dude...you need to chill. Seriously.

There is a lot more to the story than the "Nick" radio's that you have eulded to. In fact, right now Motorola reversed their position and will make them "Legit" for a fee. Also, they are not doing so well in court in CA over a similar situation.

Then again, the other guy is using much newer Astro stuff than your 15 year old Sabers.

Getting back to the topic at home, this VE7 guy is a prime example of someone who needs a little loving, and to get off the ICOM trip.

Sheesh

He is the equivilent of ASTROMODAT on Batlabs cheering for Motorola.

http://students.washington.edu/colin2/webpage/Easy/Emage15.jpg
please do tell us where Motorola is offering to "fix" radios they didn't manufacture. this ought to be a good one. I know of several people who got certified letters from Pat Harrington, director of IP enforcement, for their Ebay gems. Don't know anyone who got letters from Icom, Vertex-Standard or Kenwood for "mars capping" their FT-50 or IC-W32A's...

Those same ebay gems that failed to meet factory specs, did unpredictable things (like going into scan program randomly, missing calls in scan, microphonics in transmit due to MISSING SHIELDS). Sure, go ahead and buy your parts radio POS for big money and I will laugh my fool head off when the depot says "sorry...not a legit radio. thanks for playing".

I also notice none of you who lay claim to having such cop radios and programming equipment and boast how affordable and practical it is dare touch the EULA and IP issue. So I wonder how many really have a legit copy of CPS or RSS that you program your radios with? At least you don't have to worry about violating Federal copyright and intellectual property laws when you program ham frequencies into your ham radio.

The D-Star versus P25 issue really comes down to this:

Supply and demand. Whatever demand there is will be met with supply. I personally don't forsee a great demand for digital voice in the USA yet. When there is such demand, it will be met with who can supply it. When the other manufacturers (Icom and Kenwood especially) promote D-Star and encourage it's deployment this may change.

P25 has a little more headway as there is much surplus infrastructure and subscriber radios out there today. The life cycle of commercial radios is much much less than it was 20 years ago. Even "throw away" has made it to the public safety/industrial world.

N4XTS

09-25-2005, 01:51 AM

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Sep. 24 2005,18:06)]OK, enough even. #Why do APCO-25? #Why do D-Star? #Why do SecureNet? #Why do EDACS? #Why do Privacy-Plus?

Exclusivity, I suppose. #The cops want it so its difficult for the public, including law abiding citizens, not just the crooks, to monitor communications.

Ah, but when the fear of being watched or listened to goes away, you get examples like what occurred in Austin TX some time back. #Racist slurs on police commo gear exchanged while a fire raged in a largely African American nightclub.

Amateur radio should continue to be an exoteric form of communications. #Promotion of encryption or digital modes that are not open architecture and that are not feasible by means of an add-on, aftermarket "black box" to *any* radio should not even be on the table.

Most all who have posted on this thread are either employed in public safety or have access to programming equipment and software that an average ham does not. #And, at least two of the posters have a *habit* of trolling.......... #And, forgive me VE7 author-of-this-thread, sir, but me thinks you live too close to ICOM America in Seattle (and sound better than most lobbyists).

So, folks, lets stick with Packet, Pactor, Amtor, Winlink and such. #Otherwise, good ‘ole analog legacy modes....... and leave SecureNet, and such, to the cops.

Lee
W6EM
speaking of trolling...

Lee, get a clue. The point of digital is NOT to encrypt (at least in the ham world). Digital voice is a more efficient use of radio spectrum, allowing for the use of narrower bandwidth. Phase II of P25 allows for multiple users to share the same narrowband channel (ala TDMA). This is the main reason PS systems go digital. To get better use of spectrum. Especially at 800MHz where whatever Sprint-Nextel doesn't own is few and far between.

The purpose of trunking is not to "hide from the public" as it is to make effective use of limited radio bandwidth resources.

Besides, the public can go buy plenty of trunking capable scanners that can effectively scan all the trunking systems you named above plus good old conventional radio. And there are plenty of P25 digital capable scanners around too. Sure, full time encryption is a bad idea for any PS agency. It limits interagency interoperability (key managment is the biggest issue) and adds another layer of complexity and thus, another point of failure in mission critical communications systems.

However there are times when some traffic needs to be protected to protect the innocent and officer safety. There is no reason why someone under investigation or surveillance should be exposed to the public. This compromises officer safety, the subjects safety and the investigation itself. IMO they shouldn't be on the air at all but in some cases it is neccesary. In such cases encryption should be utliized. But for everyday dispatching? of course not. We all have a basic right to know how our money is being spent and what our employees of our government are doing.

Agreed: ENCRYPTION of any form is a no brainer in ham radio. We are here to promote good will among all hams and we demonstrate the ulitimate interoperability with our versatile resources of modes and radio spectrum, which includes digital voice and data. And we should continue on the path of developing new modes of communication as we have done for the past century.
We are not here to play "secret Federal agent". This isn't the place for that. Take your XTS5000 and AES-OFB, get a real badge, a real gun, do the real work and talk (legit of course) on cop channels to other cops. This is the amateur radio service not the public safety pool.

AC0GT

09-25-2005, 02:08 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 23 2005,21:04)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 23 2005,17:44)]For people that are tearing down Icom and/or D-STAR on price here is a list of prices for Icom D-STAR handhelds and some accessories from a popular vendor.

IC-V82 (2 meter FM HT) $210
IC-U82 (440 FM HT) $210
UT-118 (D-STAR digital board) #$200
CS-V82 (programming software) $41
OPC-478 (RS-232C data cable) $46
OPC-478U (USB data cable) $61

Looks to me to be on the same price range as used APCO-25 equipment, but lacking the need for modification for Amateur bands. #Also looks to be on the same level as any other digital mode that an Amateur might try.

If someone is complaining about the price I think it's because they are looking for something to complain about.
There is nothing to complain about for price?

Did you actually add this up?

It's only $500 for an equipped HT!! #For a HT fer pete's sake!

For that price I can go to the local dealer and get 5 - count-em...5..., T2h handhelds!

I can go to Goodyear and get four new tires - installed!!!

That's the house payment for a month!!

That's the car payment for 2 months!!

That's half the price for my high schooler to take the week-long end-of-year trip with the school orchestra!!!

It's round-trip plane fare for two to Disneyworld in Florida!!!

That's gasoline money for the household for six weeks!!

I wonder just how many hams Icom really thinks have $500 just burning a hole in their pocket that they will drop on something like this?

tim ab0wr
I think you have just proven my point. #I assume you, like most licensed Amateurs, have a HF radio. #What did that cost you? #I would wager it cost more than $500. #Do you have a HT? #Bought it new? #Probably another $200. #You also likely have antennas, spare batteries, battery chargers, a Morse code key or two. #It would also appear you have a computer. #Why did you spend all that money? #Probably because you already made a trip to Disneyland, put new tires on the pickup and filled the tank, sent your kid on a high school trip and had a couple thousand dollars to spare on your hobby.

Instead of comparing apples to oranges how about you try comparing apples to apples.

What would a new APCO-25 digital voice radio cost?
An off the shelf 802.11b access point and 2.4GHz amplifier (operating under Part 97 of course)?
An APRS transceiver with about 10 watts output? #(Bring your own GPS)

Or I could take another angle on the apple to apple comparison. #For 500 dollars I could buy...

Ten CB radios.
Or somewhere around 20 FRS radios.
Or about two years of cell phone service, and that includes a new phone.
Or one year of satellite TV service, and a DVR.
Or a Mac Mini.
Or a TV, VCR, DVD player, roof antenna, and home stereo.

All of which provide communications and entertainment, which is what Amateur radio can do. Under your argument why spend money on Amateur radio at all?

K4JF

09-25-2005, 03:20 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 24 2005,19:08)]For 500 dollars I could buy...

......
Or about two years of cell phone service, and that includes a new phone.
Where do you get cell phone service for $20 a month? More like 2 1/2 times that, and that's just for basic and 10 minutes a day of time. Most people spend much, much more.

KB1DIW

09-25-2005, 04:23 AM

Quote[/b] ]OK, enough even. Why do APCO-25? Why do D-Star? Why do SecureNet? Why do EDACS? Why do Privacy-Plus?

Each are mutually exclusive.

Quote[/b] ]Sure, full time encryption is a bad idea for any PS agency. It limits interagency interoperability (key managment is the biggest issue) and adds another layer of complexity and thus, another point of failure in mission critical communications systems.

Interoperablity communications are typically done on prearranged in the clear channels. Encyption is normally not used. Key management is fairly simple if you are somewhat organized, or using a KMF. Only reason why you are seeing more encyption is due to the fact the voice quaility is no longer a factor when using it on digital systems vs analog systems.

Quote[/b] ]please do tell us where Motorola is offering to "fix" radios they didn't manufacture. this ought to be a good one. I know of several people who got certified letters from Pat Harrington, director of IP enforcement, for their Ebay gems. Don't know anyone who got letters from Icom, Vertex-Standard or Kenwood for "mars capping" their FT-50 or IC-W32A's...

Motorola has changed their position (mostly due to Pat's influence) about the parts built radio's. If you send it to the depot, depending on the issues it may have, they will quote you a price to bring it up to specs. The eBay XTS5000 radio's that have the ABC in the serial numbers where swiming in sprinkler water after a fire at the factory. Those are the most expensive to repair, as most parts internally are corroded.

The first few batchs of the Nick radio's were actually quite nice. After that, they became junk radios. I have yet to see a post about the Nick Astro Sabers being a problem.

And for the record, I do have legally licensed CPS software. And, with most ham radios on the market today, you WANT the software to program them. They are becoming more and more annoying to program via the radio keypad.

N3JFW

09-25-2005, 04:35 AM

nick radiso used to be the cat's ass

there is so much govt surplus now, they are obsolete

N8QWS

09-25-2005, 12:25 PM

All this boils down to is another operating mode for the ham operator. We have many modes that can be used, AM,FM,SSB,CW and the digital modes like Packet. So the radio mfg's. will be offering another mode selection for us to play with out of the box without having to build interfaces,cables and hook it to a PC. There is scant activity for the most part on VHF and UHF using FM vioce already.
It would be nice for some certin groops to get all of the hams stacked and layered on one narrow section of frequency using digital so these certin people could say that we dont need all that spectrum anymore. This technology would/could eliminate the problem of DX repeaters cochanneling during band openings but for the most part what 2 hams are bs'ing about is not critical communications like an EMT talking to a doctor about a patient. Hearing the proverbial pin drop on 2 meters ? Well dosen't that take the fun out of it all !! More audiophiles on ham radio discussing for hours how they spent $$$ to make fheir 10 kc wide SSB sound like FM. This is a whole new door, lets make analog FM sound like digital, or is it digital that sounds like analog FM.
If a comon standard is not agreed on in advance this technology should not be allowed in the country at all. We have all seen the result of 10 different HDTV standards comming from Japan, confusion and slowing down the roll out into the mainstream users hands.
So good and bad things all in one, pluck that apple Adam and see what kind of mess happens.

Ray M. N8QWS

W6EM

09-25-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote[/b] (KB4TPP @ Sep. 23 2005,21:51)]Lee, get a clue. The point of digital is NOT to encrypt (at least in the ham world). Digital voice is a more efficient use of radio spectrum, allowing for the use of narrower bandwidth. Phase II of P25 allows for multiple users to share the same narrowband channel (ala TDMA). This is the main reason PS systems go digital. To get better use of spectrum. Especially at 800MHz where whatever Sprint-Nextel doesn't own is few and far between.

The purpose of trunking is not to "hide from the public" as it is to make effective use of limited radio bandwidth resources.

Besides, the public can go buy plenty of trunking capable scanners that can effectively scan all the trunking systems you named above plus good old conventional radio. And there are plenty of P25 digital capable scanners around too. Sure, full time encryption is a bad idea for any PS agency. It limits interagency interoperability (key managment is the biggest issue) and adds another layer of complexity and thus, another point of failure in mission critical communications systems.
Clueless, IMO, were the many hundreds of PS officials sending units to aid in the Katrina aftermath, having to trailer their own trunked-junk to be able to talk to their few comrades. #Never mind the local or FEMA folks in charge. #Or, better yet, each send along a technician with a portable comm shop to rechannel all of their radios, personalities, and whatever. #What a mess......

Interoperability is a JOKE, mind you, thanks to the fact that different vendor trunked systems are incompatible, let alone on different channels. #Oh, sure, common simplex channels would be nice. #And, common CONVENTIONAL repeater pairs for each band employing trunked junk so that when all of these cell-phone-like public safety radios show up, they will be able to intercommunicate.

Interoperability is very, very important. #Is efficiency all that important on a band that doesn't propagate *any* further than line of sight? #Not really. #But, to the trunking salesman, "oh how important it is for the dog catcher to be able to select a different personality to talk to the police or fire dispatcher. #And, if he or she can't, due to the channels being busy, a loud "bonk" error tone. #Nice, in an emergency even.

Trunking is and was a bad idea. #It turns robust radio systems into telephone-like, overload-prone failures in a crisis. #Dispatchers, on conventional systems, are real people. #And, can tell all others to stand by while the emergency traffic is passed.

Digital modes are useful for commercial broadcasting, since hundreds of kW are involved and usually tremendous ERPs and obviously a lot of wasted spectrum. And, for passing data, of course.

I suppose encryption has its places. #But, like I said, not with amateur radio. #Our success in emergency assistance is due to our ability to intercommunicate, both tactically and strategically. #700, 800 and 900 systems, financed by our tax dollars, can *only* do that well if conventional, and well coordinated within states and nationally.

We'll see what the post-Katrina task force the FCC sets up, including APCO, can manage to do with the uncoordinated mess. #The FCC has already admitted that the post 9-11 vulnerabilities have not been addressed. #Now, heap on the lack of interoperability following Katrina. #The FCC has already started by announcing the creation of a new Homeland Security and Public Safety Bureau. #Lots of lessons to be learned....... #It used to be: Put the junk in the trunk. #It ought to be: Put the trunk in the junk.

Now, can I have that "clue" you were suggesting I get?

N2MMM

09-25-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote[/b] (kb7uxe @ Sep. 19 2005,22:27)]
Quote[/b] (ne0p @ Sep. 20 2005,03:49)]Now I got to get D-Star to be a real ham? #In the past couple of years I have heard that I had to get Anderson Power Poles to be a real ham, then I had to get on APRS to be a real ham, and now this. #Guess I had better send my 20wpm Extra Class license back to the FCC, and get on freeband with the fake hams.
Yea, wut he said....
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
it's just a passing fad.
I'll stick with my key mfg around 1865. ( c.w. lewis )
Werks fb fer me om.
I use it almost every nite on 3.696 mhz
( i'm listening....)
Dayum, THAT is ONE SWEET KEY!!!!!

KB1DIW

09-25-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote[/b] ]Trunking is and was a bad idea. It turns robust radio systems into telephone-like, overload-prone failures in a crisis. Dispatchers, on conventional systems, are real people. And, can tell all others to stand by while the emergency traffic is passed.

Yet again, you are showing the world your a tool that doesn't know what you are talking about. I think that dispatchers on trunked systems are real people to. If you handed a cop that only used trunked systems a radio that's conventional, and vice versa, neither of them would know the difference. In fact, if something needed to be broadcasted in an emergency basis, the dispatcher can preempt all transmissions with an emergency broadcast or reassign emergency traffic on its own talkgroup without user intervention. You cannot do that on a conventional system.

Quote[/b] ]Clueless, IMO, were the many hundreds of PS officials sending units to aid in the Katrina aftermath, having to trailer their own trunked-junk to be able to talk to their few comrades. Never mind the local or FEMA folks in charge. Or, better yet, each send along a technician with a portable comm shop to rechannel all of their radios, personalities, and whatever. What a mess......

Wrong again.

Quote[/b] ]Interoperability is very, very important. Is efficiency all that important on a band that doesn't propagate *any* further than line of sight? Not really. But, to the trunking salesman, "oh how important it is for the dog catcher to be able to select a different personality to talk to the police or fire dispatcher. And, if he or she can't, due to the channels being busy, a loud "bonk" error tone. Nice, in an emergency even.

In an emergency, you don't want propagation. Emergency access doesn't work that way. Yet again, you failed to learn from the previous posts you have made. If a channel is busy, ITS FREAKEN BUSY. I guess conventional systems, the repeaters are smart and just KNOW when your going to press the PTT button and will cut everyone else off so you can talk.

Quote[/b] ]700, 800 and 900 systems, financed by our tax dollars, can *only* do that well if conventional, and well coordinated within states and nationally.

Public safety does not operate on 900. Futhermore, there is an international setup for all the coordination. Its called ICALL/ITAC and guess what, many state and local agencies have REPEATERS on those channels so if they need to talk extreme distances, they can.

Quote[/b] ]Interoperability is a JOKE, mind you, thanks to the fact that different vendor trunked systems are incompatible, let alone on different channels. Oh, sure, common simplex channels would be nice. And, common CONVENTIONAL repeater pairs for each band employing trunked junk so that when all of these cell-phone-like public safety radios show up, they will be able to intercommunicate.

As I stated above, its already in place, and has been for 10 years. Now, if the agencies actually thought about it, its not the technologies fault.

The only cell phone looking radios I have seen are the ham HT's. Just because your HT won't decode trunking information, doesn't mean that the systems suck.

Yet again, another clueless ham spouting off. Just beacuse you don't understand something, doesn't mean you have to knock it. I guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks.
http://mahopa.de/bilder/lustige-forenbilder/picture-makes-more-sense.jpg

N4XTS

09-25-2005, 08:42 PM

Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Sep. 24 2005,21:23)]
Quote[/b] ]OK, enough even. #Why do APCO-25? #Why do D-Star? #Why do SecureNet? #Why do EDACS? #Why do Privacy-Plus?

Each are mutually exclusive.

Quote[/b] ]Sure, full time encryption is a bad idea for any PS agency. It limits interagency interoperability (key managment is the biggest issue) and adds another layer of complexity and thus, another point of failure in mission critical communications systems.

Interoperablity communications are typically done on prearranged in the clear channels. Encyption is normally not used. Key management is fairly simple if you are somewhat organized, or using a KMF. Only reason why you are seeing more encyption is due to the fact the voice quaility is no longer a factor when using it on digital systems vs analog systems.

Quote[/b] ]please do tell us where Motorola is offering to "fix" radios they didn't manufacture. this ought to be a good one. I know of several people who got certified letters from Pat Harrington, director of IP enforcement, for their Ebay gems. Don't know anyone who got letters from Icom, Vertex-Standard or Kenwood for "mars capping" their FT-50 or IC-W32A's...

Motorola has changed their position (mostly due to Pat's influence) about the parts built radio's. If you send it to the depot, depending on the issues it may have, they will quote you a price to bring it up to specs. The eBay XTS5000 radio's that have the ABC in the serial numbers where swiming in sprinkler water after a fire at the factory. Those are the most expensive to repair, as most parts internally are corroded.

The first few batchs of the Nick radio's were actually quite nice. After that, they became junk radios. I have yet to see a post about the Nick Astro Sabers being a problem.

And for the record, I do have legally licensed CPS software. And, with most ham radios on the market today, you WANT the software to program them. They are becoming more and more annoying to program via the radio keypad.
tell this guy that, his wonderful Ebay junker...
posted no less than 10 minutes ago on batlabs
Caveat Emptor...Ebay parts built Moto P25 gear...

Greetings all,

It would appear that I've purchased a Frankenstein radio on eBay. I know! I was just stunned....items on eBay that weren't 100% legitimate? What has this world come to?

OK, anyone that missed the sacrcasm, please read on.

Moneyrola sent a letter to the Motorola Radio Service Center that I took my XTS3000 model III VHF to be repaired. It told them that unless "the customer can prove that they are the legitimate owner" they will not work on the radio. How the heck do I do that?

I had purchased this quite some time ago, and had succesfully programmed and used the radio for about a year and a half. I then made the mistake of trying to add a digital personality to the radio. Our Law Enforcement Officers had been given new radios, and a new digital system with analog back up mixed in the radio banks. I was trying to add the ability to MONITOR some of those less sensative digital channels to keep my butt from hoping out of the Rescue and walking in to the wrong places (again)

I read the Officers radio with my CPS, then tried to manually create a personality similar to add the digital system to my XTS. I then read the radio, saved the codeplug, read the new codeplug with the hand added digital and wrote this to the radio. That was the last time it worked.

I tired to restore the radio with the uncorrupted codeplug from before reading the digital system. No luck. Hence the trip to the Radio Service Center.

They couldn't figure it out, and couldn't get it to write with thier CPS so they sent it to the Depot for a flat rate repair. Instead of fixing it, the RSC got the letter from Schamburg telling them how the ESN didn't match. and the parts weren't matching up with the labels, yada yada yada.

So the RSC hands me a brick and a bill..... Any suggestions?

OK, any constructive suggestions?

And no, finding the Rat ####### that sold this on eBay isn't one of the options.... I already tried that

KB1DIW

09-25-2005, 11:59 PM

You don't send those radios to the RSC. They go directly to the Depot in IL.

XTS3000's also do not have ESN's attacted to them. The Astro25 radio's do, but not the Astro Sabers, Astro Spectra, Astro Spectra Plus, XTS3000 or XTS3500.

Chances are, he tried to program his radio to a trunked system and the radio got inhibited, or he had a poor programming setup. If it was inhibited by a radio system Motorola won't touch it.

The later radio's did not play well on trunked systems, but for conventional digital, they worked fine. Some needed to be aligned, but the flashcode worked. I have seen it work at Dayton, and I have held and played with a few of the nick radios in IMBE.

Either way, there is more to that story that was posted on BL.

K2WH

09-26-2005, 12:56 AM

OK, its been about a week since I looked at QRZ.COM. #Lets see. Hmmm, uh huh, yup, still talking about APCO-25. #How boring. # Be back in about another week.

K2WH

AB0WR

09-26-2005, 01:31 AM

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]Yet again, another clueless ham spouting off. Just beacuse you don't understand something, doesn't mean you have to knock it. I guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Wait a minute! I have seen at least TWO officials in New Orleans doing interviews just this weekend talking about the inability of the various first responders to intercommunicate during the response to Katrina.

I think what w6em is saying about incompatible trunked systems AND programming IS valid.

Amateur operators, because of common, ubiquitious, simple standards could intercommunicate easily. Search and rescue teams coming in from various parts of the country could NOT. #

I said it before the emergency and I'll say it again. The best thing FEMA could have done is sent in a couple of tractor-trailer loads of preprogrammed 2-channel radios *before* the hurricane hit. One channel for dispatch communications and one for team communications. A third tractor-trailer would be loaded with spare, charged batteries and with portable repeater equipment. Hand them out like candy to whoever shows up. Collect the ones you can after the emergency and write the rest off as government expense.

Oh! This sounds a lot like an Amateur Radio communication setup! What a surprise!

When technology gets in the way it is time to reevaluate the usefulness of the technology.

BTW, all your name calling about "clueless hams" doesn't do anything to address the fact that the people on the ground in New Orleans are still commenting on the fact that interoperablity WAS a problem.

tim ab0wr

KB1DIW

09-26-2005, 02:39 AM

First of all, most of NO's radio infratruce was destroyed or was rendered inoperable due to generators running out of fuel, damage or whatnot.

Second, there are very easy plug and play soultions that both MA/COM, Motorola and JPS have out that provides seemless coverage between various trunked digital and analog, conventional digital and analog systems.

If these agencies looked ahead, or preplanned we may have not be discussing this. FWIW, the LA State System was rather unscathed and operational during the entire storm. They lost a site or two, but still had adaqute coverage.

FEMA actually has stuff ready to go. In fact, my dept head who is on a FEMA team was put on standby with a truck loaded with this stuff before the storm hit and spent two weeks down there.

w6whatever has an inherant dislike for trunked systems. I don't know if one of them abused him as a child or not, but the fact remains, this was an occurance that was not planned for. Trunked or conventional, it wouldn't matter. We would still be having this converstation when all the people with UHF, VHF and lowband radio's where coming to town. Commerical radios are not typically available in dual band configs.

This all comes back to poor planning, and going thru something that was never expected.

2 channels radios for a city and area of that size just doesn't work. Hell I have been to fire scene's where over 5 channels where used, and then some.

AC0GT

09-26-2005, 03:43 AM

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Sep. 24 2005,20:20)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 24 2005,19:08)]For 500 dollars I could buy...

......
Or about two years of cell phone service, and that includes a new phone.
Where do you get cell phone service for $20 a month? #More like 2 1/2 times that, and that's just for basic and 10 minutes a day of time. #Most people spend much, much more.
So I may have exaggerated a bit. #With my monthly fees I can get 18 months of service for $500. #If your monthly bill is closer to $60 than $27 then you probably make more calls than I do. #How much a person pays for cell phone service was not the point. #The point is that there are many ways to communicate and each has its merits, capability for the price is just one of the reasons to choose one way over another. #I think that the price/performance ratio on the D-STAR offerings seem to be on par with competing technologies.

K0YG

09-26-2005, 04:57 AM

Why dont you people stop having an internet pee flinging contest and talk on the radio more.

KB1DIW

09-26-2005, 06:27 AM

http://mahopa.de/bilder/funny-forum-pictures/no-hope-for-this-thread.jpg

AB0WR

09-26-2005, 03:51 PM

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]First of all, most of NO's radio infratruce was destroyed or was rendered inoperable due to generators running out of fuel, damage or whatnot.

This is just smoke being blown in our faces. If the intrastructure didn't meet the needs then who cares if it was up or not?

BTW, if you look closely at a lot of the video in the two days after the hurricane hit you will see a lot of policemen in New Orleans who weren't even wearing radios. I wonder why that was? If you run out of charged batteries for your handhelds then the infrastructure can be considered to be dead, right?

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]Second, there are very easy plug and play soultions that both MA/COM, Motorola and JPS have out that provides seemless coverage between various trunked digital and analog, conventional digital and analog systems.

Again, so what? If it isn't in place in a ubiquitious manner, whatever the reason, then it is kind of useless in a disaster, isn't it?

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]If these agencies looked ahead, or preplanned we may have not be discussing this. FWIW, the LA State System was rather unscathed and operational during the entire storm. They lost a site or two, but still had adaqute coverage.

You keep saying things worked but the officials on the ground keep saying they didn't.

Where's the disconnect?

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]FEMA actually has stuff ready to go. In fact, my dept head who is on a FEMA team was put on standby with a truck loaded with this stuff before the storm hit and spent two weeks down there.

The equipment apparently didn't help much until after the immediate-need period was already over.

So what good was it?

kb8diw:

Quote[/b] ]w6whatever has an inherant dislike for trunked systems. I don't know if one of them abused him as a child or not, but the fact remains, this was an occurance that was not planned for.

It sounds to me like he has good reason for his dislike. If technology gets in the way during the period of greatest need, then what good is the technology?

It sounds to me like your "planned for" scenario would have been to provide equipment compatible with all systems presently in use anywhere. That's pretty expensive to implement. No wonder it wasn't planned for.

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]Trunked or conventional, it wouldn't matter. We would still be having this converstation when all the people with UHF, VHF and lowband radio's where coming to town. Commerical radios are not typically available in dual band configs.

Thats why I said FEMA should have had two tractor-trailer rigs full of basic radios on the ground BEFORE the hurricane hit. And should have been handing them out like candy to whoever showed up.

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]This all comes back to poor planning, and going thru something that was never expected.

The poor planning I might buy but probably not for the same reason as you. "never expected"? I don't buy that. You had exactly the same problem in New York in 2001. Heck, we have the same problem between two adjacent counties trying to coordinate a cross-boundary situation on a routine basis. Exactly the same thing happened several years ago when the Mississippi basin flooded so bad in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. Responders had problems communicating in different jurisdictions because of incompatible systems. #

The Feds and States are either going to have to mandate a simple, basic mode that ALL systems can handle on a ubuiquitious basis or be prepared to provide truckloads of basic equipment on short notice anywhere. If this doesn't happen we will continue to see the same problem every time a widespread disaster happens. The technology will continue to get in the way rather than help.

kb1diw:

Quote[/b] ]2 channels radios for a city and area of that size just doesn't work. Hell I have been to fire scene's where over 5 channels where used, and then some.

Pick however many channels you want. The emergency infrastructure will have to support them, however. Which gets back to how *much* technology is really needed to coordinate a response like you saw in New Orleans or which went on in the Mississippi basin during the floods?

KISS is the right buzzword for this. If you need an army of techs to retrofit and reprogram equipment on the ground to provide interoperability or if you need a boatload of equipment AND an army of techs to make it work, you'll see New Orleans over and over and over and over and over again.

All the while, the simple 2m/70cm FM amateur repeaters that survive will be providing efficient, capable communications for any amateurs that show up.

Maybe the ARRL should start pushing the Feds and the States to require all first responders get Technician licenses along with their responder training? Then they can all carry Icom T2H handhelds to use when nothing else works.

tim ab0wr

KB1DIW

09-27-2005, 01:27 AM

Quote[/b] ]This is just smoke being blown in our faces. If the intrastructure didn't meet the needs then who cares if it was up or not?

BTW, if you look closely at a lot of the video in the two days after the hurricane hit you will see a lot of policemen in New Orleans who weren't even wearing radios. I wonder why that was? If you run out of charged batteries for your handhelds then the infrastructure can be considered to be dead, right?

Lets see, no electricity, no towers, lots of dead people and areas under quite a bit of water. Yeah, that's blowing smoke. Somehow I don't see a ham with his HT breaking into Walmart for some extra AA batteries. Kinda hard to blow smoke when your tower looks like this:

http://www.wirelessestimator.com/wifi/images/uploads/Hurricane_Katrina_8.jpg
http://www.wirelessestimator.com/wifi/images/uploads/Hurricane_Katrina_3.gif

Quote[/b] ]Again, so what? If it isn't in place in a ubiquitious manner, whatever the reason, then it is kind of useless in a disaster, isn't it?

These are devices that are normally already IN SERVICE at the sites and can also be field deployable.

Quote[/b] ]You keep saying things worked but the officials on the ground keep saying they didn't.

Where's the disconnect?

NO City Services got killed, mainly due to the generator getting taken out by flying debris. The rest of the stuff was still up and going. In addtion, MA/COM techs were not allowed in to fix the damage when they were called in due to roadblocks and red tape.

These have appeared in the trademags:

Quote[/b] ]In St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, which includes the hard-hit communities of Covington, Madisonville and Slidell, the first responders have used M/A- COM's five-site, eight-channel simulcast EDACS system to communicate before, during and after the hurricane. "We are thrilled that our first responders have been able to rely 100 percent on our radio communications system throughout this demanding time, despite the fact that the system has experienced more use during the last two weeks then we would usually see in two months," said Rick Williams, Manager Radio Maintenance Division, St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office. The system of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office has operated at nearly full-capacity throughout the crisis, providing uninterrupted radio communications to more than 1,600 users across the Parish.

And

Quote[/b] ]City of New Orleans EDACS System Also Operational

When M/A-COM designed the City of New Orleans radio system, system architects incorporated extensive sets of data to analyze the impact of Hurricane Betsey and Camille, which directly hit New Orleans in 1965 and 1969, respectively. As a result, the twenty-four channel, four-site M/A-COM EDACS (Enhanced Digital Access Communications System) trunked simulcast system was purposely situated at elevated levels around the city, including locating the system control room in the 34th floor in the building core of the Energy Centre, a 42-story skyscraper at 1100 Poydras Street in downtown New Orleans. Additionally, system architects incorporated an independent, dedicated microwave communications system to eliminate reliance on commercial or government communications infrastructure.

Throughout the duration of Hurricane Katrina, the EDACS system remained operational. It wasn't until several hours after the storm had passed that the system experienced reduced operation. The system did not experience diminished capabilities due to an equipment failure, but rather the system's generator (on the roof of the forty-two story Energy Centre) was struck by a piece of debris, which damaged the generator's radiator. The morning after the storm, Tuesday, August 30th, M/A-COM service technicians were pre- positioned to fix the Energy Centre site, but due to public safety precautions by Louisiana State authorities, they were prohibited from entering the city to access the building until the afternoon of Thursday, September 1st. After M/A-COM's team accessed the system on Thursday, it was returned to full operation by Friday morning and has since been providing communications for local police and fire personnel throughout New Orleans.

The New Orleans EDACS system has withstood a variety of challenges since its installation in 1995, including Hurricane Georges (Category 2) in 1998 and Hurricane Lili (Category 1) in 2002. The New Orleans system was designed with reserve communications capacity which has been utilized every year during Mardi Gras festivities, for special events such as Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002 and when necessary the system has been made available to other city, county, state and federal agencies operating in New Orleans.

The New Orleans system is expandable to the new P25 radio standard. "This EDACS system can be easily migrated to the P25 standard, along with a new Internet Protocol (IP) based architecture that is both very cost effective and expandable for the future," said John Facella, Director of Public Safety Markets for M/A-COM. "We have shipped hundreds of additional portable radios to the New Orleans Police and Fire departments, and those radios can operate both on the current system and the new P25 protocol if the situation requires."

Quote[/b] ]It sounds to me like he has good reason for his dislike. If technology gets in the way during the period of greatest need, then what good is the technology?

It sounds to me like your "planned for" scenario would have been to provide equipment compatible with all systems presently in use anywhere. That's pretty expensive to implement. No wonder it wasn't planned for.

No, its not expensive at all. He doens't like trunking because he can't modify his HT to operate on in when he feels the need to invoke that seldom upheld FCC clause that lets us operate on PS freq in "an emergency".

Quote[/b] ]Thats why I said FEMA should have had two tractor-trailer rigs full of basic radios on the ground BEFORE the hurricane hit. And should have been handing them out like candy to whoever showed up.

This is why FEMA doesn't listen to you. I wonder how good it would have been to watch the TT unit wash into the Gulf. This is why they have depots staged around the county and are flown into the area on C5A's and C130's at a moments notice, which they did. They also tapped into the USFS depots and brought in radios and related equipment. Motorola and MA/COM at their own expense did the same. I think they were pretty well covered.

Quote[/b] ]The poor planning I might buy but probably not for the same reason as you. "never expected"? I don't buy that. You had exactly the same problem in New York in 2001.

NYC was not knocked off the air. They didn't cooperate with each other, which is status quo in the city. FDNY brings their field comm units for fireground radio dispatch/communications and NYPD also have similar units. When cops and firefighters litterally fistfight each other to be first to extricate someone at a car crash, there is an inheriant problem.

Quote[/b] ]Heck, we have the same problem between two adjacent counties trying to coordinate a cross-boundary situation on a routine basis.

Its called politics. Every agency is their own castle. Until the two kings play nice, its never going to be easy. Statewide system with local access has been very successful. OH, CO, NC, MI, MA and the such are leading the way.

Quote[/b] ]Responders had problems communicating in different jurisdictions because of incompatible systems. #

This is called preplanning. Those who don't do it get caught with their pants down.

Quote[/b] ]The Feds and States are either going to have to mandate a simple, basic mode that ALL systems can handle on a ubuiquitious basis or be prepared to provide truckloads of basic equipment on short notice anywhere. If this doesn't happen we will continue to see the same problem every time a widespread disaster happens. The technology will continue to get in the way rather than help.

Its already been done, but not too many people paid attention. ICALL/ITAC has been around for at least 10 years (if not longer) but many people ignored it. There are also VTAC and UTAC channel assignments out there that work on VHF/UHF. The stuff is there, but ignored. As long as their are ego's, there will be problems.

Quote[/b] ]KISS is the right buzzword for this. If you need an army of techs to retrofit and reprogram equipment on the ground to provide interoperability or if you need a boatload of equipment AND an army of techs to make it work, you'll see New Orleans over and over and over and over and over again.

No, you don't. This is were the prearrianged stuff comes into. Apparently you have never been in emergency services and know how thing go south real quick.

Quote[/b] ]All the while, the simple 2m/70cm FM amateur repeaters that survive will be providing efficient, capable communications for any amateurs that show up.

And they are going to run off of what? Gatorade? I don't know what you have seen, but I have seen very few high-duty rated repeaters out there that are on appropriate backup facilities. If winds/earthquakes/fires/floods are taking out industrial strenght television towers, I don't see too many zip tied, duct taped antenna's attached sideways on an already overloaded tower is going to be ideal. I have seen some very nice installs, but most are very Mickey Mouse.

Bad:
http://www.kc2kit.com/gallery/albums/album05/DSCF0855.jpg

Better:
http://geocities.com/moneyradio/meadow01.jpg

Even better (K0FHC):
http://weddingmaps.com/k0fhc/Repeater-Composit--ComponLG.jpg

Back to scary:
http://members.ispwest.com/rwarmke/Bobrptr.JPG

I don't see this staying up in high winds. Many towers that are up right now will not survive due to the load on the tower in conjuction with its windload and debris smacking it. I have seen some great ham towers up and will survive just about anything, but 95% of the rank and file stuff, will not.
http://www.radiok2fx.com/images/New%20Tower3.jpg

VE7TKO

09-27-2005, 05:19 AM

KB1DIW – NARROW MIND – BIG EGO

This person is the most annoying poster, in this thread, on the QRZ forum.

His animated Avatar shows a man beating the tar out of somebody or something, while it flashes “Stop Making Stupid Posts”. Too bad he doesn’t follow his own advice. He has hijacked the thread and changed the subject to suit his own interests. His biography info says a lot to show us what kind of a man he is.

Callsign: KB1DIW Class: Technician
Name: PAXTON J HECKMAN
Addr1: 4 Volunteer Drive
Addr2: Windsor Locks, CT 06096

Coordinates: 41.925995 -72.643635
State: Connecticut
County: Hartford
Grid: FN31qw
Area Code: 860
GMT Offset: -5
Time Zone: Eastern
Has DST?: Y
Email: kb1diw@yahoo.com
Home Page: “http://www.batlabs_com”

Biography Info:
If you reached here, chances are you saw my callsign on APRS or you are ticked off about what I may have written on the QRZ fourms. Face it, by looking up my callsign, your not going to find out where I am, my phone number, or anything else. Most likely you talk big, act small and think that by clicking on my bio and trying to find out where I am, you are going to stop by and think about kicking my ass. Either way, take a shower and try drinking a beer. It may help your social life.

Really, unless you think someone is a hot chick and they are going to have an erotic picture of themselves here or your are going to think about acting tough, there isn't a reason to look up the callsign. Well, maybe 1 in 10,000 are legit, but I think thats kinda high.

Anyways, I work in public safety and communications in the real world. For those of you who *think* you can out perform my 100% Motorola Orginal, custom designed, killer radio system since you flipped on a 2meter repeater in your basement, take a hike.

Us professionals do not need your help unless asked for (rare).

Have a nice day!
____
You be the judge!

KB1DIW

09-27-2005, 05:57 AM

Quote[/b] ]KB1DIW – NARROW MIND – BIG EGO

This person is the most annoying poster, in this thread, on the QRZ forum.

His animated Avatar shows a man beating the tar out of somebody while it flashes “Stop Making Stupid Posts”. Too bad he doesn’t follow his own advice. He has hijacked the thread and changed the subject to suit his own interests. His biography info says a lot to show us what kind of a man he is.

This thread was made to be hijacked after you sold yourself out ot ICOM's marketing department.

And, you should know... that man is not beating the tar out of another human being, its a laser printer which fails to work properly...sorta like DStar. The clip is from the movie "Office Space" which I highly recommend. Its a staire about office work.

You see, I did not do anything in this thread to "suit my own interests" as you put it. I mearly pointed out "Facts" in which people here are rejecting. Each and everything that I have posted can be verified. Yet, as usual, a select few choose to say "it doesn't matter, that's not how it works."

I call on W6whatever and the K(forgot his call) to prove me wrong, and to back it up with verifiable facts. I sense that its not going to happen, but at least it will be entertaining.

BTW, anyone can look in the upper left corner and look up a bio. There is this really cool spot to enter a callsign and next to it an even cooler button that says "Get Callsign". I would say it was pretty unnessary to post the info, but since its public information anyway, I really don't care. I bet I can copy and paste too.

Callsign: VE7TKO # CANADA
Name: Jan Van Vugt
Addr1: 31549 OLD YALE ROAD
Addr2: ABBOTSFORD, BC V2T 2B4, #
Country: CANADA
Lookups: 184
# #
Born: 1946 (B&W TV era)
Email: Show email address
QRZ Updated: 2005-03-14 14:34:54
Changes needed? Click here to update this listing... #
Be sure and check out our Update Policy page if you have any questions.

Biography Info:

Jan van Vugt was trained as a Appliance Service Technician in 1968-69. He is now retired from this job because of health reasons. Ham radio is his hobby & public service is now his major goal. He is a member of AARESS (Abbotsford Ameture Radio Emerengcy Service Society) . In addition when I refer to myself in the third person it shows that he has no real self esteem. In fact, he refers to his medical condition quite frequently but does not know what purpose it serves him. For instance "I am living on a disability pension and enjoy sharing my enthusiasm with my fellow hams." - "No ICOM doesn’t pay me, although I wouldn’t mind if they did. A disability pension of around $630.00 a month does not go very far." He however does own some fairly expensive equipment that does costs over $400 new. In retirement he also works on the side as a marketing rep fo ICOM America and hope one day to meet K3000 at Dayton, but he doesn't have his hopes up.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/avatars/uploaded_Jan%20van%20Vugt%203.jpg

vs

http://www.qrz.com/hampix/o/o/k3ooo.1114640948.jpg

(BTW, the above was satire as well)

I mean really. You asked for this, now reap the whirlwind. As far as my BIO is concerned, when hams stop telling me that using the old brand x HT that doesn't even support PL tones will help save lives and is useful in emergency communications, and that my equipment is substandard and will fail at the first drop of rain, then I'll change it. Ask KC2KIT about the Skywarn training class and what ARES had to say about themselves. Not a pretty sight.

http://mahopa.de/bilder/funny-forum-pictures/fook-yue.jpg

N2NH

09-27-2005, 06:11 AM

Ouch. Saw that Motorola set up and looked up the bio. Seems that I came across a unit and was wondering if you had any information on it. STH is always saying Motorola equipment is a better bet than what is standard, so seeing that set-up, I figured I'd ask what's the deal on the Micom-2BF.

Oh well, better up that count. I'm sure 1 out of 10K is wrong.

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

AB0WR

09-27-2005, 03:10 PM

kb8diw:

You remind me of the fellow who used to work for me who, when filing an incident report about the telephone switch he was responsible for not being able to handle calls for an extended period, said --- "the switch was not down, the processor and all peripherals were up through the whole period".

He just didn't get it. If the technology wasn't doing what the users needed, it was just an expensive heat sink.

It took a significant emotional event to change his viewpoint.

It's the same with the communication infrastructure. If it is up but not meeting the needs of the folks on the ground - then it is nothing more than an expensive heat sink.

It's obvious it was not meeting the needs of the people on the ground. It was, therefore, nothing more than an expensive heatsink throughout the emergency.

You HAVE to work with what you KNOW is going to be on the ground. If you know you are going to be having teams from 600 miles away coming in you had better make arrangements for compatible communications by having it ON-SITE, not in a trailer sitting 100 miles away in a staging area.

If you'll notice I said you bring it in and start handing it out BEFORE the hurricane hits, not -after-. Then if the tractor-trailers wash away - who cares!

It's obvious you will have to someday receive a significant emotional event to bring you around to seeing what the important part of the equation is. Your focus seems to be on the technology itself. It *SHOULD* be on the service the technology provides.

If it doesn't meet the needs of the users, it is just a heat sink.

tim ab0wr

KB1DIW

09-27-2005, 03:25 PM

Once you figure out that there isn't an "8" in my callsign, then we can talk about the little details.

Unfortunatly, things do not work that way for equipment. No one knew just how much damage was going to occur. You do not hand out equipment in the manner. Things tend to walk away or be prematurely damaged when that happens. You give stuff to the troops on their way to battlefield. Its as simple as that.

The only people in NO at the time were the public safety workers who did work there. The army of relief personnel came afterwards.

K8TEK

09-27-2005, 05:08 PM

KB1DIW's avatar is not beating up anybody, he is punching a printer. #Do a search for "Michael Bolton" and "Office Space". #The movie came out in 99, I am surprised you have never seen it... #Must have been anxious over the arrival of Frequency.

I cannot believe some of you resort to name calling when people object to your point of view. #Very immature indeed.

-Bill Lumburgh

AB0WR

09-27-2005, 05:10 PM

Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Sep. 27 2005,08:25)]Once you figure out that there isn't an "8" in my callsign, then we can talk about the little details.

Unfortunatly, things do not work that way for equipment. No one knew just how much damage was going to occur. You do not hand out equipment in the manner. Things tend to walk away or be prematurely damaged when that happens. You give stuff to the troops on their way to battlefield. Its as simple as that.

The only people in NO at the time were the public safety workers who did work there. The army of relief personnel came afterwards.
Sorry about the call. I was going from memory - tricky sometimes.

If equipment is going to be broken it will get broken whenever you give it out. You better plan on that. It doesn't matter whether it is before or after the hurricane hits. That's just totally irrelevant to the discussion.

BTW, no military command I know of wants equipment handed out on the way to the battlefield. You get it BEFORE you go to the front and you check it out for operation BEFORE you need it. It really IS as simple as that.

Walking off? Sure. Some of it will. So what? The amount that will walk off is chump change compared to the time and lives it will save by being there. Again, you are making an irrelevant point.

Did you watch ANY of the coverage on Katrina? There were search and rescue people in there the next day! Many of whose commnication gear was incompatible. Huge benefits could have been derived if FEMA had advertised BEFORE the hurricane where to come to get compatible communications equipment once you were on site.

I'll say it again. It may be the latest state-of-the-art technology but if it doesn't meet the users needs at the time of greatest need, it is just an expensive heatsink.

tim ab0wr

AB0WR

09-27-2005, 08:01 PM

Quote[/b] (K8TEK @ Sep. 27 2005,10:08)]KB1DIW's avatar is not beating up anybody, he is punching a printer. #Do a search for "Michael Bolton" and "Office Space". #The movie came out in 99, I am surprised you have never seen it... #Must have been anxious over the arrival of Frequency.

I cannot believe some of you resort to name calling when people object to your point of view. #Very immature indeed.

-Bill Lumburgh
Give us all a break.

The avatar says "quit making stupid posts". And it shows somone punching SOMETHING.

*YOU* ---assume it is a printer but it certainly doesn't show a printer ---- WHEN IT COULD HAVE.

The imagery is obvious - to anyone who isn't interested in blindly defending a poster using such imagery.

tim ab0wr

AC0GT

09-27-2005, 08:14 PM

Icom has updated its D-STAR web pages. #I suggest everyone go there and take a look, especially at the "Myths" portion.
http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/dstar8.asp

I also want to touch on some topics that are under current discussion.

Interoperability
The goal of APCO-25 and the mandate by FEMA/DHS of its use is primarily about interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional communications. #I don't know all the ins and outs of the standardization but this seems to me that they are at least heading in the right general direction. #What bothers me most is that it took them this long to figure this out. #Reminds me of a saying, "We don't have the money/time to do it right, but we do have the money/time to do it twice." #APCO-25 allows for the fall back to FM for places that lack digital voice capability and for simplex operation if a repeater is destroyed or out of range.

Proprietary/Open
APCO-25 and D-STAR are both well defined and open protocols. #Icom does not "own" D-STAR. #In fact JARL does not "own" it either, but they are the recognized maintainers of the standard. #The only problem I see with the current Icom systems, as far as being open is concerned, is the reliance on Windows for the computer control of the radios. #Icom has released the specs for the ID-1 interface so it's just a matter of time before some one writes software.

Repeater linking products like WIRES, IRLP, and Echolink all rely on a third party to work. #The ID numbers for repeaters are managed by the respective software developers. #WIRES and Echolink also rely on the proprietary Windows OS. #D-STAR is an open protocol and relies on other open protocols like Ethernet and ASCII. #There is nothing hidden in D-STAR that would prevent a person from implementing it independently. #Since GMSK is just a form of frequency shift keying I imagine it won't be long before software is available to allow a desktop PC to send and receive D-STAR protocols through any Amateur radio with a packet interface. #There will also likely be firmware upgrades for current multi-mode digital controllers to support the standard, and new models with the protocol already programmed in.

Why digital voice?
Bandwidth savings. #Narrow FM takes 12.5kHz. #D-STAR digital voice takes 5.5kHz, so narrow that Icom claims it will fit between current repeater channels. #I can imagine that happening for repeaters spaced 20kHz apart, but not with a 15kHz channel spacing. #APCO-25 digital voice takes 6.25kHz with the narrow mode, 12.5kHz with the wider mode. #APCO-25 chose those bandwidths to fit into existing channels designated for NFM. #If the desire for backward compatibility wasn't there they might have chosen a narrower bandwidth.

Voice clarity. #With NFM noise can still creep into the signal, though less than other common modes. #As two communicating parties signals get weaker the signal fades into the background noise. #Digital voice is all or nothing, it doesn't fade out but drops off suddenly. #People that live on the fringe of digital cell phone coverage know what I'm talking about. #Perhaps not an optimal mode for weak signal work but very useful for repeaters where no signal is often preferred over a noisy one.

Why another packet/data mode?
Bandwidth. #With the digital voice modes the desire is to reduce the total bandwidth used, with data the desire is to efficiently use the large chunks of bandwidth available in the microwave bands. #There are no Amateur standards for high bandwidth data transfer. #The closest there is are modes borrowed from consumer 802.11 equipment. Most existing modes are based on the premise of low bandwidth HF and/or computers that only had 64 kilobytes of memory. This is a mode based on current technologies with high bandwidth microwave radios, and computers able to fill that bandwidth.

Interoperability revisited. #D-STAR takes advantage of the popular IP based protocols. #D-STAR makes it trivial to have common data transfer protocols like FTP and HTTP happen over an RF link. #The ability for TCP/IP to correct for lost and damaged packets and allow for multiple simultaneous data streams to occur can be used to our advantage. Such as sending a picture at the same time as a keyboard to keyboard chat. #Of course this can allow for the connection to a commercial internet link but that is not required, and may even be undesirable.

No, really, why?
Because we can. Because its there. Pick one, or make a reason up yourself. The connecting computers and radios is inevitable. Just look around. Digital satellite, WiFi networks, cell phones, etc., etc. etc. Some don't seem to like to combine computers and radios as if that is some kind of sacrilege. Amateur radio operators are primarily communicators. Using a computer to facilitate that ability seems like the right thing to do.

K8TEK

09-27-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,16:01)]*YOU* ---assume it is a printer but it certainly doesn't show a printer ---- # WHEN IT COULD HAVE.
I assume nothing, If you have seen the movie, it is blatently obvious that he is punching a laser printer.

Samir Nagheenanajar, Michael Bolton and Peter Gibbons are constantly complaining about the printer jamming up and displaying error messages such as "PC load letter"

http://images.tkramer.com/pc-load-letter.jpg

Further information can be obtained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Load_Letter)

AC0GT

09-27-2005, 09:08 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v310/MForster/Xenez10.gif

Lighten up people! #Laugh, it's funny.

Having seen the movie this image is from I know the guy is beating up a machine. #The movie is not clear about the function of the device but it is quite clear that it does not work as it is intended.

The implication of the image is quite clear. #There is a frustration over the prevalence of posts that are off topic, merely personal attacks, or otherwise just plain stupid. #So much that it could drive a man to mercilessly beat the poster senseless. It does not mean that anyone intends to do so... at least I would hope not.

"PC Load Letter"? WTF does that mean? --Michael Bolton

AB0WR

09-27-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote[/b] (K8TEK @ Sep. 27 2005,14:00)]
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,16:01)]*YOU* ---assume it is a printer but it certainly doesn't show a printer ---- # WHEN IT COULD HAVE.
I assume nothing, If you have seen the movie, it is blatently obvious that he is punching a laser printer.

Samir Nagheenanajar, Michael Bolton and Peter Gibbons are constantly complaining about the printer jamming up and displaying error messages such as "PC load letter"

http://images.tkramer.com/pc-load-letter.jpg

Further information can be obtained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Load_Letter)
The movie is NOT the avatar. The avatar is NOT the movie.

Just how stupid do you think other people are anyway?

tim ab0wr

AB0WR

09-27-2005, 10:05 PM

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]No, really, why?

That's my question. When I can take off the shelf equipment for 802.11g and get 400 times the bandwidth for 1/2 the cost and send voice and data over the channel, exactly what does ICOM think it has to offer that is going to draw people in?

802.11 equipment is being mass produced on a scale Icom can only imagine. There is no way they can compete on price with a commodity like this.

It would be nice to see something like this grow but I just suspect Icom is coming to the party a day late and a dollar short.

As far as the need to go to digital voice to save spectrum, just how many places in this country have a density of use on 2m or 70cm that require such a move? I've been in Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Miami, Orlando, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Newark over the past decade. I can't speak for 70cm but 2m was not that densely populated in ANY of these cities. If Icom is betting on this factor to drive demand I'm afraid they are going to be disappointed.

So the question "No, really, why?" is very appropos.

tim ab0wr

N5RLR

09-27-2005, 10:08 PM

As far as what worked [and what didn't] in NO is concerned, let it be a lesson for the next time. #Even so, the Government being what it is, I shan't hold my breath.

I won't go so far as to say the cliche', "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics..." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

But I will say this: #Arguing on the Internet is like pi**ing into a headwind. #Good or bad, it's usually thrown back into your face.

And d00ds, if I keep seeing my name mentioned, I'll have to start charging royalties. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

KC0UBJ

09-28-2005, 02:08 AM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Sep. 19 2005,05:53)]Commercial gear is not field programmable from the radio itself. It requires extra computer software and hardware that the average ham does not have.

That so called fine tradition of using used commercial gear limits the skill that can be learned by the user, because he is prevented from using changing anything. Commercial gear has no VFO. You can’t add or delete a channel in the field. If another ham asks you to QSY to a simplex frequency that you haven’t got programmed in, you’re out of luck. If you go on holidays, and want to search the band for repeaters in the area that you are visiting, again you are out of luck.
Commercial gear has a place in ham radio, it can be used as repeaters, base stations, packet radios, etc. I have an old UHF gm300 that works great on 70 cm, and there is so little 70cm activity in my area that I don't even have all 8 channels programmed! Why would I buy a new radio that has a VFO for using it on just a few frequencies? It depends on the use and location.

N4XTS

09-28-2005, 03:07 AM

someone explain this to me:

some of you are self-proclaimed self-important "public safety communications" experts (though none have put forth any verifiable information such as credentials, etc to back up such statements) and you "don't need the help of hams as you are professionals" blah blah hot air so I ask this simple question?

If your commercial radios and systems are so gung-ho why do you even have a ham license? Why bother with "low tech" ham radio at all? So you got some "Motorola radios"? Who cares. No one but yourself.
Newsflash, no one cares. Really. They don't. I have seen nothing but flaming insults and absurd criticism of ham radio from some of you and I don't get it. All of you have call signs so WTF is up with this ham radio hating? So you have commercial radios, BFD. So you claim to be some bigtime sys admin. BFD. No one here really cares.
Get over yourself, really. You are no more or less important than anyone else. Deal with it.

This is HAM RADIO, we are HAMS. If you don't like ham radio, do us a favor, cancel your license and get out.
And don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.

AC0GT

09-28-2005, 03:25 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,15:05)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]No, really, why?

That's my question. When I can take off the shelf equipment for 802.11g and get 400 times the bandwidth for 1/2 the cost and send voice and data over the channel, exactly what does ICOM think it has to offer that is going to draw people in?

802.11 equipment is being mass produced on a scale Icom can only imagine. There is no way they can compete on price with a commodity like this.

It would be nice to see something like this grow but I just suspect Icom is coming to the party a day late and a dollar short.

Why use D-STAR with 802.11 equipment available at any of a number of electronics vendors, and probably cheaper too? #Valid question. #What can D-STAR do that 802.11 can't? #Equally valid.

Frequency mobility. #802.11 is bound to 2.4GHz. #Power and range. #802.11 is limited to something like 100mW. #Of course you can add a transverter and amplifier to an off the shelf 802.11 base station or card but then you have probably spent just as much as you would have spent on a D-STAR radio. #Also, 802.11 was not intended for Amateur use so something as simple as identifying your station becomes a big problem.

Now, if all you need is a short range, high bandwidth connection, and 2.4GHz causes no trouble then there is no need to operate under Part 97.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,15:05)]As far as the need to go to digital voice to save spectrum, just how many places in this country have a density of use on 2m or 70cm that require such a move? I've been in Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Miami, Orlando, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Newark over the past decade. I can't speak for 70cm but 2m was not that densely populated in ANY of these cities. If Icom is betting on this factor to drive demand I'm afraid they are going to be disappointed.

So the question "No, really, why?" is very appropos.

tim ab0wr
Perhaps you are right about there being no need for another repeater. #But that is not the only reason to use D-STAR. #Simultaneous voice and data is one reason.

D-STAR is not for everyone. #That can be said of any mode. #If all you want to do with your license is chat on 80 meters then SSB is all you need. #In fact, why even use SSB? #AM is a voice mode. #80 meters seems to have room for everyone to take 6kHz for a channel. #Every mode has its merits and demerits and people must choose their mode based on them. #Many people came together to create D-STAR, there was a reason. #If you or I don't see it then perhaps we are not thinking hard enough.

KB1DIW

09-28-2005, 04:36 AM

KB4TPP wrote:

Quote[/b] ]let's see...I own:
System Saber III VHF, Saber II VHF, Saber I UHF
MTS2000 UHF and HT1K VHF. Have owned and serviced most of the radios you have. BFD. Who cares.
And

Quote[/b] ]If your commercial radios and systems are so gung-ho why do you even have a ham license? Why bother with "low tech" ham radio at all? So you got some "Motorola radios"? Who cares. No one but yourself.

For someone who took the expense to own some of this and being all "high and mighty to service them..." blah

Lets see, commerical and public safety licenses are for commerical and public safety stations. HAM licenses for HAM stuff.

I don't get what your trying to say. So, after reading what NO had to say about what happened to their systems, what do you have to say about it?

How this became so pointed, I don't know.

Oh, I remember now.

Some hams were writing on how xyz system sucks, fail, and is such an unproven technology and shouldn't be used. I respond in a nice why and point out the facts how things work. This wasn't good enough. Certain hams decided to keep pushing the issue on how ham is so much more reliable etc. When the differences are still pointed out, we become the a*shole and your (certain hams) are always right.

I have been involved in emergency services since 1990 in some form or another. In 1997 I got my license when I started part time in EMS and Fire. In 1998 I was hired full time at a police department doing the comm thing. I have met quite a few good hams who want to help out. Unfortunatly I have met far too many who were less than idea and had to press their own issues.

In fact, in the last place I was at, I help expand ham radio in with Civil Prepardness. Even got ourselves an HF radio and a room behind the dispatch center with the CP people.

Don't even come close to call me anti-ham or the like. I help out where I can, when I can, however I can. Put once you start to tell me how to do my job and that we cannot surivive without ham radio blah blah BS, that's where I draw the line.

I have denied hams just on the basis that their equipment couldn't do PL. Something that has been around for quite some time. They got all crabby and that "we don't need no PL". I did tell them that once they had something that did it, they were welcome back to do their thing. Not one did that.

KB1DIW

09-28-2005, 04:40 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,09:36)]The movie is NOT the avatar. The avatar is NOT the movie.

Just how stupid do you think other people are anyway?

tim ab0wr
Humor. Such as difficult concept.

I just wish that people here would stop trying to be Mother Teresa.

N7WSB

09-28-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,15:05)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]No, really, why?

That's my question. When I can take off the shelf equipment for 802.11g and get 400 times the bandwidth for 1/2 the cost and send voice and data over the channel, exactly what does ICOM think it has to offer that is going to draw people in?

802.11 equipment is being mass produced on a scale Icom can only imagine. There is no way they can compete on price with a commodity like this.

It would be nice to see something like this grow but I just suspect Icom is coming to the party a day late and a dollar short.

As far as the need to go to digital voice to save spectrum, just how many places in this country have a density of use on 2m or 70cm that require such a move? I've been in Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Miami, Orlando, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Newark over the past decade. I can't speak for 70cm but 2m was not that densely populated in ANY of these cities. If Icom is betting on this factor to drive demand I'm afraid they are going to be disappointed.

So the question "No, really, why?" is very appropos.

tim ab0wr
802.11 like 802.2 (link layer specification for lan's) is just standard managed by IEEE - the software to drive it is left up to the vendor. You may have software called tcp/ip that lets you message your friends, but there's nothing out there to manage a network of radios in the same manner - not yet at least.

DStar (or APCO for that matter) is a standard, plus a protocol for digital voice and data. Its an actual implimentation not unlike GSM or CDMA/TDMA for managing networks and users.

Plus there's simple logistics. Icom (and others) make equipment to manage these networks reliably on a city/county and state wide level. Nothing really exists to do this with 802.11 reliably.

I'm not siding with one standard over another here - I'm just pointing out the fundamental differences between the two technologies.

Also - there's nothing stopping people from merging technologies. I've seen D-Star demos (living where I do) and its all a lot like wiring up access points. You could for instance have a 802.11 hub in your car linked to a dstar access point which is linked to a another dstar access point up on a hill providing net access to regular users in range of your 802.11 hub. 128Kb/sec data is still pretty nice for a field operation. Especially if your like me and used to 5KB/sec data on gsm right now.

Oh and on this comment,

Quote[/b] ]802.11 equipment is being mass produced on a scale Icom can only imagine. There is no way they can compete on price with a commodity like this.

Icom has already been there - they make 802.11 devices and always have > http://wavemaster.icom.jp/html/products/index.html

Fun times.

AB0WR

09-28-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 27 2005,20:25)]
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,15:05)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]No, really, why?

That's my question. When I can take off the shelf equipment for 802.11g and get 400 times the bandwidth for 1/2 the cost and send voice and data over the channel, exactly what does ICOM think it has to offer that is going to draw people in?

802.11 equipment is being mass produced on a scale Icom can only imagine. There is no way they can compete on price with a commodity like this.

It would be nice to see something like this grow but I just suspect Icom is coming to the party a day late and a dollar short.

Why use D-STAR with 802.11 equipment available at any of a number of electronics vendors, and probably cheaper too? #Valid question. #What can D-STAR do that 802.11 can't? #Equally valid.

Frequency mobility. #802.11 is bound to 2.4GHz. #Power and range. #802.11 is limited to something like 100mW. #Of course you can add a transverter and amplifier to an off the shelf 802.11 base station or card but then you have probably spent just as much as you would have spent on a D-STAR radio. #Also, 802.11 was not intended for Amateur use so something as simple as identifying your station becomes a big problem.

Now, if all you need is a short range, high bandwidth connection, and 2.4GHz causes no trouble then there is no need to operate under Part 97.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,15:05)]As far as the need to go to digital voice to save spectrum, just how many places in this country have a density of use on 2m or 70cm that require such a move? I've been in Kansas City, St. Louis, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Miami, Orlando, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Newark over the past decade. I can't speak for 70cm but 2m was not that densely populated in ANY of these cities. If Icom is betting on this factor to drive demand I'm afraid they are going to be disappointed.

So the question "No, really, why?" is very appropos.

tim ab0wr
Perhaps you are right about there being no need for another repeater. #But that is not the only reason to use D-STAR. #Simultaneous voice and data is one reason.

D-STAR is not for everyone. #That can be said of any mode. #If all you want to do with your license is chat on 80 meters then SSB is all you need. #In fact, why even use SSB? #AM is a voice mode. #80 meters seems to have room for everyone to take 6kHz for a channel. #Every mode has its merits and demerits and people must choose their mode based on them. #Many people came together to create D-STAR, there was a reason. #If you or I don't see it then perhaps we are not thinking hard enough.
If you want the high speed D-star implementation then you will be on 1.2Ghz. There isn't really a big difference in range between 1.2Ghz and 2.4Ghz.

If you go with the 2m and 70cm implementations then you are confined to a low speed, FEC implementation.

The National Traffic System rejected FEC protocols as a primary mode for traffic handling a decade ago because it is not as capable of insuring accurate transmission as an ARQ protocol (e.g. pactor).

It is very easy to implement ARQ protocols over 802.11g. It just has to be built into the application.

When you have 400 times the bandwidth there isn't as much need for frequency mobility to get the same throughput.

You can get antennas and amplifiers off of ebay much cheaper than the cost of a ID1 and have exactly the same range with much more capability. Remember, for a hub you don't want a high gain directional antenna. You want just a simple omni-directional antenna - you just want it as high as possible (just like a repeater antenna).

If you put your ham call in the 802 equipment it is no different than putting your call into a packet tnc. You are identified as part of the packet transmissions over the channel. There is exactly no difference.

The simultaneous voice and data would be nice - but it would be much nicer if the terminal capability was built into the unit itself - much like text messaging over a cell phone. Since the handhelds cost as much as a cell phone why don't they have text messaging built in? Along with a bbs capability just like a cell phone can store messages?

I still think Icom has a long way to go to get the same functionality you can get for less money using other technologiies.

WAKE UP ICOM!!!

tim ab0wr

AC0GT

09-28-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,05:23)]If you want the high speed D-star implementation then you will be on 1.2Ghz. There isn't really a big difference in range between 1.2Ghz and 2.4Ghz.

I realize that the propagation characteristics are similar between 1.2 and 2.4GHz. #The big difference is that the 1.2GHz band is much less crowded. #You put a 10 watt 802.11 access point antenna on your roof and you are going to be very unpopular with just about anyone that lives in a 2 mile radius. #You will cause interference with cordless phones, WLANs, baby monitors, etc. that operate under Part 15/ISM rules.

You can move your 802.11 LAN to another frequency with a transverter but then you are adding another layer of complexity, and cost, for the base station and all the nodes accessing that station.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,05:23)]If you go with the 2m and 70cm implementations then you are confined to a low speed, FEC implementation.

The National Traffic System rejected FEC protocols as a primary mode for traffic handling a decade ago because it is not as capable of insuring accurate transmission as an ARQ protocol (e.g. pactor).

It is very easy to implement ARQ protocols over 802.11g. It just has to be built into the application.

When you have 400 times the bandwidth there isn't as much need for frequency mobility to get the same throughput.

The data rate limitation on 2 meter and 70 cm is primarily a legal one, not a technical one. #Part 97 restricts the data rates and bandwidths allowed to a single station. #You'll run into this regardless of the protocol used. #

I can't comment in the FEC vs. ARQ as I am unaware of the specific issues.

I don't think you'll get 400 times the bandwidth either. #Part 97 restricts protocols and modulations and, IIRC, the 54Mbps implementation of 802.11 was not allowed under Part 97. #I think Amateurs are only allowed to use the 1Mbps, or maybe 2Mbps, implementation. #If we are going to talk about available bandwidth between the two different protocols we need to get that point correct. #I'll need to investigate this further.

Whether 802.11 can grant 54Mbps or just 1Mbps it is quite moot unless you can find 22MHz of spectrum to park your network. #D-STAR provides 128kbps of bandwidth in a 125kHz channel. #In that spectrum taken up by one 802.11 base station I could put 100 D-STAR high speed base stations, 100 FM repeaters, and still have room left over.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,05:23)]You can get antennas and amplifiers off of ebay much cheaper than the cost of a ID1 and have exactly the same range with much more capability. Remember, for a hub you don't want a high gain directional antenna. You want just a simple omni-directional antenna - you just want it as high as possible (just like a repeater antenna).

Ebay makes antennas and amplifiers now? #I know what you mean but those used parts come from somewhere and are limited in supply. #Once that supply is gone where are people supposed to get the parts for a high power 802.11 station? #How much will new 2.4GHz equipment cost compared to new D-STAR equipment? #I suspect the cost difference will be minimal.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,05:23)]If you put your ham call in the 802 equipment it is no different than putting your call into a packet tnc. You are identified as part of the packet transmissions over the channel. There is exactly no difference.

I did not see the field to enter my call sign when setting up my base station for my home network. #I didn't see that setting on my computer network settings either. #I don't think the proper ID of a 802.11/Part 97 station is as trivial as you make it out to be. #This is something I'll have to investigate as well.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,05:23)]The simultaneous voice and data would be nice - but it would be much nicer if the terminal capability was built into the unit itself - much like text messaging over a cell phone. Since the handhelds cost as much as a cell phone why don't they have text messaging built in? Along with a bbs capability just like a cell phone can store messages?

I still think Icom has a long way to go to get the same functionality you can get for less money using other technologiies.

WAKE UP ICOM!!!

tim ab0wr
I believe the D-STAR capable HTs and mobiles are capable of text paging and sending of short text messages. #Did you look at the brochures and manuals for the Icom D-STAR products?

AB0WR

09-28-2005, 07:21 PM

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]You put a 10 watt 802.11 access point antenna on your roof and you are going to be very unpopular with just about anyone that lives in a 2 mile radius. #You will cause interference with cordless phones, WLANs, baby monitors, etc. that operate under Part 15/ISM rules.

Uuummmmm.... # Yes. # # So what? This has been fought out with the FCC many times before in other venues. All of these devices should be frequency agile and should be able to be moved away from the amateur frequencies.

Are you trying to say that ICOM should never bring out a 2.4Ghz piece of equipment because of interference possibilities?

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]I don't think you'll get 400 times the bandwidth either. #Part 97 restricts protocols and modulations and, IIRC, the 54Mbps implementation of 802.11 was not allowed under Part 97. #I think Amateurs are only allowed to use the 1Mbps, or maybe 2Mbps, implementation.

The HSSM group of the ARRL doesn't indicate this as being the case.

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]D-STAR provides 128kbps of bandwidth in a 125kHz channel. #In that spectrum taken up by one 802.11 base station I could put 100 D-STAR high speed base stations, 100 FM repeaters, and still have room left over.

Did you actually think about what you just said? To get 12Mbs of bandwidth you will have to spend 100 times (or more) the cost of a single 802.11g network.

Is this REALLY the argument you want to make?

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]I did not see the field to enter my call sign when setting up my base station for my home network. #I didn't see that setting on my computer network settings either. #I don't think the proper ID of a 802.11/Part 97 station is as trivial as you make it out to be. #This is something I'll have to investigate as well.

Really? You just left the default SSID in your unit?

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]I believe the D-STAR capable HTs and mobiles are capable of text paging and sending of short text messages. #Did you look at the brochures and manuals for the Icom D-STAR products?

*sarcasm on*
Oh, excuse me. The brochures say you can send short (20 char) text messges in Digital Voice mode.
*sarcasm off*

It says nothing about storing messages received when you are not there. It says nothing about typing in a long message and sending it.

For the money these things cost they should have a DIGITAL CAMERA installed so you can send pictures like you do with your cell phone.

The DATA mode requires connection to a laptop or PDA.

I repeat: #WAKE UP ICOM!!!

tim ab0wr

AB0WR

09-28-2005, 07:43 PM

n7wsb:

Quote[/b] ]802.11 like 802.2 (link layer specification for lan's) is just standard managed by IEEE - the software to drive it is left up to the vendor. You may have software called tcp/ip that lets you message your friends, but there's nothing out there to manage a network of radios in the same manner - not yet at least.

Huh? VOIP and Microsoft Netmeeting don't provide for managing a network of *end user clients*?

World of Warcraft gamers would be very surprisded to find out that their inter-group communcations don't work. So would SOCOM internet gamers.

n7wsb:

Quote[/b] ]Plus there's simple logistics. Icom (and others) make equipment to manage these networks reliably on a city/county and state wide level. Nothing really exists to do this with 802.11 reliably.

My son has done inter-group communication with users in Argentinia and HongKong on WoW while doing missions - on a reliable basis.

You mention 802.11 being separate from applications above but then turn around and talk about 802.11 as an application. Let's be consistent.

Besides, the amateur network of the 44.x.x.x ip segment has been in operation for what, 2 decades? With it's own DNS server that has been in operation for a long, long, time. What other management do you need? This would give you access to the 802.11 nodes on a secure basis, at least on the newer access points.

If you want to restrict your network to one or two types of access points (e.g. the linksys wrt54g), you can even load them with linux and use secure access links to manage them. I've managed sun and linux boxes on a multistate basis, this would be no different.

I think you'll find that the management tools for use with an 802.11 network are rather advanced compared to what D-star is going to offer - at least for the access points you can load linux on.

n7wsb:

Quote[/b] ]Icom has already been there - they make 802.11 devices and always have >

So why don't they use the benefits of mass production and offer something CHEAP, KNOWN, UNDERSTOOD, and INTEROPERABLE for the amateur community to use?

WAKE UP ICOM!!

tim ab0wr

ag5ak

09-28-2005, 07:59 PM

I believe strongly in APCO 25 and all my UHF and VHF stuff is Motorola, I get chastized here and there by hams because I use commercial gear in the ham band, I love my astro equipment and have the means of putting up a P25 ham repeater in the Seattle area, There is one in Portland (OR) 443.675. I have recieved notices by hams complaining to FCC that I am using encryption in the bands when all I am using is P25 in the digital carrier squelch mode.. Also P25 is a standard digital mode that is not manufacture specific..

AC0GT

09-28-2005, 11:01 PM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,12:21)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]You put a 10 watt 802.11 access point antenna on your roof and you are going to be very unpopular with just about anyone that lives in a 2 mile radius. #You will cause interference with cordless phones, WLANs, baby monitors, etc. that operate under Part 15/ISM rules.

Uuummmmm.... # Yes. # # So what? This has been fought out with the FCC many times before in other venues. All of these devices should be frequency agile and should be able to be moved away from the amateur frequencies.

Are you trying to say that ICOM should never bring out a 2.4Ghz piece of equipment because of interference possibilities?

I agree that Part 97 trumps Part 15. #However taking 1/4 of the ISM and 1/2 of the Amateur 2.4GHz band is likely to ruffle some feathers with licensed Amateurs and unlicensed device users alike. #I've read some of the ARRL HSMM documents and several times there are reminders to steer clear of Part 15 users and Amateurs that are following the current band plan and/or frequency coordination plans.

I'm not saying that no Amateur should use the 2.4GHz band. #It's just that one should think twice before putting up a station that uses such a large portion of the band. #A 12.5kHz FM station is not likely to interfere and is much easier to find a channel.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,12:21)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]I don't think you'll get 400 times the bandwidth either. #Part 97 restricts protocols and modulations and, IIRC, the 54Mbps implementation of 802.11 was not allowed under Part 97. #I think Amateurs are only allowed to use the 1Mbps, or maybe 2Mbps, implementation.

The HSSM group of the ARRL doesn't indicate this as being the case.

Looking again it seems data rates of 11Mbps is legal but 54Mbps is not. #The ARRL documents refer to the slower 802.11b and not the 54Mbps 802.11g.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,12:21)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]D-STAR provides 128kbps of bandwidth in a 125kHz channel. #In that spectrum taken up by one 802.11 base station I could put 100 D-STAR high speed base stations, 100 FM repeaters, and still have room left over.

Did you actually think about what you just said? To get 12Mbs of bandwidth you will have to spend 100 times (or more) the cost of a single 802.11g network.

Is this REALLY the argument you want to make?

No, of course not. #I'm saying that 22MHz is a lot of bandwidth. #If someone needs 10Mbps of bandwidth then 802.11 is certainly a feasible way of meeting that need. #Most situations do not require such high data rates. #Given the current band plan on 2.4GHz it would probably be wise to move a 10Mbps network to higher frequency bands where the band plan is more accommodating to such wide channels. #Something that D-STAR provides in its specification at 10GHz.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,12:21)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]I did not see the field to enter my call sign when setting up my base station for my home network. #I didn't see that setting on my computer network settings either. #I don't think the proper ID of a 802.11/Part 97 station is as trivial as you make it out to be. #This is something I'll have to investigate as well.

Really? You just left the default SSID in your unit?

Putting your call sign as the SSID is not sufficient for ID purposes under current Part 97 rules. #This may change, or already has without my knowledge.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,12:21)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]I believe the D-STAR capable HTs and mobiles are capable of text paging and sending of short text messages. #Did you look at the brochures and manuals for the Icom D-STAR products?

*sarcasm on*
Oh, excuse me. The brochures say you can send short (20 char) text messges in Digital Voice mode.
*sarcasm off*

It says nothing about storing messages received when you are not there. It says nothing about typing in a long message and sending it.

For the money these things cost they should have a DIGITAL CAMERA installed so you can send pictures like you do with your cell phone.

The DATA mode requires connection to a laptop or PDA.

I repeat: #WAKE UP ICOM!!!

tim ab0wr
The cost of a D-STAR radio cannot be easily compared to a cell phone. #Cell phone prices are subsidized by the service charges, how else do you think the cell phone providers can give away phones? #Economies of scale also comes into play when market prices are determined.

Things like storing messages, sending pictures, etc. are somewhat dependent on the infrastructure. #A cell phone provider can do that cheaply since the cell towers and such do much of the work for things like voice and text messaging. #A series of connected repeaters could provide the same service. #JARL ran into some legal trouble over their repeater network. #Having too many connected repeaters would place them under the legal position of telecom provider. #I do not know if there are similar laws in the US but it would not surprise me if such laws were created if Amateur radio networks (whether it was based on Echolink, 802.11, D-STAR, or whatever) became popular.

I consider 802.11 and D-STAR to be complementary technologies. #802.11 is cheap and readily available. #It is also bound to the crowded 2.4GHz band, and moving it to another frequency (via transverters) can be expensive. #For many situations the data bandwidth it provides would be overkill.

Current D-STAR products provide high speed data at the much less crowded 1.2GHz band. #While not as high of a data rate as 802.11 it does provide ample bandwidth for many situations.

AB0WR

09-28-2005, 11:44 PM

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]No, of course not. I'm saying that 22MHz is a lot of bandwidth. If someone needs 10Mbps of bandwidth then 802.11 is certainly a feasible way of meeting that need. Most situations do not require such high data rates. Given the current band plan on 2.4GHz it would probably be wise to move a 10Mbps network to higher frequency bands where the band plan is more accommodating to such wide channels. Something that D-STAR provides in its specification at 10GHz.

That bandwidth with the 802.11g network is usuable by MANY, MANY users. That's the way the protocol is set up. You are speaking as if one person is tying up 20Mhz just as one person would tie up a D-star channel.

The protocols aren't comparable in that manner. I've had ten people connected to my hub all running internet sessions. Since I only have a cable pipe there was plenty of overhead in the wireless channel.

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]Looking again it seems data rates of 11Mbps is legal but 54Mbps is not. The ARRL documents refer to the slower 802.11b and not the 54Mbps 802.11g.

Hint: look at the date on the web pages about the HSMM.

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]Putting your call sign as the SSID is not sufficient for ID purposes under current Part 97 rules. This may change, or already has without my knowledge.

Reference please! I find nothing in Part 97 that says SSID is not sufficient.

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]The cost of a D-STAR radio cannot be easily compared to a cell phone. Cell phone prices are subsidized by the service charges, how else do you think the cell phone providers can give away phones? Economies of scale also comes into play when market prices are determined.

Huh? I can go down to Cingular and buy a color cell phone with a built-in camera for around $200 every day of the week. No contract, no nothing. Where's the subsidy?

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]Things like storing messages, sending pictures, etc. are somewhat dependent on the infrastructure. A cell phone provider can do that cheaply since the cell towers and such do much of the work for things like voice and text messaging. A series of connected repeaters could provide the same service. JARL ran into some legal trouble over their repeater network. Having too many connected repeaters would place them under the legal position of telecom provider. I do not know if there are similar laws in the US but it would not surprise me if such laws were created if Amateur radio networks (whether it was based on Echolink, 802.11, D-STAR, or whatever) became popular.

Wake up! It's already being looked at in Congress. If people like Winlink 2000 keep using the ham bands for commercial purposes (as in providing end-links to the internet), it's only a matter of time. The FBI and FCC are already forcing the cable companies to provide wiretap capability for VOIP services provided over their internet links - because the CALEA act of 1994 specifically provides such for any company supplanting traditional telephone network access. If the ham bands continue to be used for supplanting traditional telephone infrastructure used as end-link internet access, we may ALL be forced to register any networks carrying third-party traffic - and provide the police means of conducting wiretaps for the communications carried over the links.

As far as the infrastructure being involved in carrying the content - DUH! But that is what ICOM is advertising - only they require you to have a laptop or PDA to attach to the HT in order to do it.

kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]While not as high of a data rate as 802.11 it does provide ample bandwidth for many situations.

At a MUCH, MUCH higher cost! This is like comparing a Honda Accord getting 5mpg with a Ford Explorer getting 30mpg! Why would you want to buy the Accord and get a smaller vehicle and higher cost? There might be a niche where the Accord would be the best choice, e.g. you only have a small parking spot - but for the vast majority of people - the Explorer would be the only logical choice.

WAKE UP ICOM!

tim ab0wr

AC0GT

09-29-2005, 02:44 AM

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,16:44)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]No, of course not. #I'm saying that 22MHz is a lot of bandwidth. #If someone needs 10Mbps of bandwidth then 802.11 is certainly a feasible way of meeting that need. #Most situations do not require such high data rates. #Given the current band plan on 2.4GHz it would probably be wise to move a 10Mbps network to higher frequency bands where the band plan is more accommodating to such wide channels. #Something that D-STAR provides in its specification at 10GHz.

That bandwidth with the 802.11g network is usuable by MANY, MANY users. That's the way the protocol is set up. You are speaking as if one person is tying up 20Mhz just as one person would tie up a D-star channel.

The protocols aren't comparable in that manner. I've had ten people connected to my hub all running internet sessions. Since I only have a cable pipe there was plenty of overhead in the wireless channel.

I understand that many people can use a single 802.11 channel. #It only takes one FSTV net in the area to keep you from operating. #Or a local Amateur satellite operator. #For those lucky enough to find room in the spectrum 802.11 works. #Every one else has to find an alternative, such as D-STAR.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,16:44)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]Looking again it seems data rates of 11Mbps is legal but 54Mbps is not. #The ARRL documents refer to the slower 802.11b and not the 54Mbps 802.11g.

Hint: look at the date on the web pages about the HSMM.

I admit I may be mistaken. #I have yet to see a 802.11g network operating under Part 97. #I do recall reading a document that mentioned legal limitations on spread spectrum communications. #If the rules have been changed, as you imply they have, then I have not been made aware of them.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,16:44)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]Putting your call sign as the SSID is not sufficient for ID purposes under current Part 97 rules. #This may change, or already has without my knowledge.

Reference please! I find nothing in Part 97 that says SSID is not sufficient.

This document mentions proper ID procedures.
http://www.arrl.org/hsmm/HSMM_802.11.html

Before you click on that link think about it for a minute, the SSID only IDs the base. #The client has no equivalent to the SSID.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,16:44)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]The cost of a D-STAR radio cannot be easily compared to a cell phone. #Cell phone prices are subsidized by the service charges, how else do you think the cell phone providers can give away phones? #Economies of scale also comes into play when market prices are determined.

Huh? I can go down to Cingular and buy a color cell phone with a built-in camera for around $200 every day of the week. No contract, no nothing. Where's the subsidy?

Call it a "loss leader" then. #Where are you going to use that phone except on the Cingular network? #No other cell phone service provider is going to support that phone.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,16:44)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]Things like storing messages, sending pictures, etc. are somewhat dependent on the infrastructure. #A cell phone provider can do that cheaply since the cell towers and such do much of the work for things like voice and text messaging. #A series of connected repeaters could provide the same service. #JARL ran into some legal trouble over their repeater network. #Having too many connected repeaters would place them under the legal position of telecom provider. #I do not know if there are similar laws in the US but it would not surprise me if such laws were created if Amateur radio networks (whether it was based on Echolink, 802.11, D-STAR, or whatever) became popular.

Wake up! It's already being looked at in Congress. If people like Winlink 2000 keep using the ham bands for commercial purposes (as in providing end-links to the internet), it's only a matter of time. The FBI and FCC are already forcing the cable companies to provide wiretap capability for VOIP services provided over their internet links - because the CALEA act of 1994 specifically provides such for any company supplanting traditional telephone network access. If the ham bands continue to be used for supplanting traditional telephone infrastructure used as end-link internet access, we may ALL be forced to register any networks carrying third-party traffic - and provide the police means of conducting wiretaps for the communications carried over the links.

As far as the infrastructure being involved in carrying the content - DUH! But that is what ICOM is advertising - only they require you to have a laptop or PDA to attach to the HT in order to do it.

I don't think you are talking about the same thing I was. #You are talking about commercial use and encryption on the Amateur frequencies. #Those are already covered by current law.

What I was talking about is that if there is a sufficiently large Amateur radio linked repeater network then we would be effectively in competition with telephone companies. #I am not aware of any limitation on the size of an Amateur network, or the services it can provide, excepting that it cannot be used for commerce.

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 28 2005,16:44)]kc0lxk:

Quote[/b] ]While not as high of a data rate as 802.11 it does provide ample bandwidth for many situations.

At a MUCH, MUCH higher cost! This is like comparing a Honda Accord getting 5mpg with a Ford Explorer getting 30mpg! Why would you want to buy the Accord and get a smaller vehicle and higher cost? There might be a niche where the Accord would be the best choice, e.g. you only have a small parking spot - but for the vast majority of people - the Explorer would be the only logical choice.

WAKE UP ICOM!

tim ab0wr

If you cannot find 22MHz on the 2.4GHz band to put your 802.11 station the price is irrelevant. #It just won't work. #Jerry-rigging the 802.11 station for another band is going to be difficult and expensive. #I suppose you could try 802.11a. #You lose some of your price advantage using a less popular product. #Amplifiers get very expensive at that frequency as well.

Like I said before, D-STAR and 802.11 are complementary technologies. # #D-STAR seems to fill a need that other protocols cannot. #That is why it was created.

09-29-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 28 2005,19:44)]
kc0lxk:
[QUOTE=Quote ]

Huh? I can go down to Cingular and buy a color cell phone with a built-in camera for around $200 every day of the week. No contract, no nothing. Where's the subsidy?

Call it a "loss leader" then. Where are you going to use that phone except on the Cingular network? No other cell phone service provider is going to support that phone.

[/quote}
Not true, go to ebay and take a look. I can buy new, unlocked GSM phones all day long for that price range, usable on any GSM network, not just one service provider.

AC0GT

09-30-2005, 02:27 AM

Quote[/b] (KF4PEP @ Sep. 29 2005,11:15)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 28 2005,19:44)]
kc0lxk:
[QUOTE=Quote ]

Huh? I can go down to Cingular and buy a color cell phone with a built-in camera for around $200 every day of the week. No contract, no nothing. Where's the subsidy?

Call it a "loss leader" then. #Where are you going to use that phone except on the Cingular network? #No other cell phone service provider is going to support that phone.

[/quote}
Not true, go to ebay and take a look. I can buy new, unlocked GSM phones all day long for that price range, usable on any GSM network, not just one service provider.
It's one thing to see them on Ebay, another to see them on Amazon. #Those cell phones on Ebay may be new, but they are likely to be EOL, inventory surplus, or known to be troublesome. #Otherwise they would not be on Ebay.

Also, you are comparing a commodity consumer device with an Amateur radio device. #Economies of scale are huge. #Millions of cell phones are in use, and no Amateur radio product can compete with that.

This talk of using consumer and commercial equipment is admirable. I'm an advocate of reduce, recycle, reuse. I applaud any resourceful ham that can put electronics that would otherwise be discarded to good use. But if all we do is leach off the technologies that other radio services brought to fruition then we are failing in our basis and purpose.

Trying new things is what we do. Or at least that is what we should do.

09-30-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 29 2005,19:27)]Trying new things is what we do. Or at least that is what we should do.
True, but in this case are we really trying something "new"? Digital radio exists, and has for some time in the case of P25. Why advocate a system that does the same thing, but on a less used protocol? That is like going into a country where everyone speaks Spanish and speaking German and claiming to be breaking new ground.

To claim D-star is "new" shows how far behind amatuer radio has fallen with regards to the industry. And with the current attitude most hams have, I doubt we will ever be on the forefront of new technologies that actually work thier way into use by the rest of the world. Hell back home people complain if you put DPL on a repeater, and that is 20 year old technology.

VE7TKO

10-01-2005, 01:46 AM

Quote[/b] (KF4PEP @ Sep. 30 2005,00:41)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Sep. 29 2005,19:27)]Trying new things is what we do. Or at least that is what we should do.
True, but in this case are we really trying something "new"? Digital radio exists, and has for some time in the case of P25. Why advocate a system that does the same thing, but on a less used protocol? That is like going into a country where everyone speaks Spanish and speaking German and claiming to be breaking new ground.

To claim D-star is "new" shows how far behind amatuer radio has fallen with regards to the industry. And with the current attitude most hams have, I doubt we will ever be on the forefront of new technologies that actually work thier way into use by the rest of the world. Hell back home people complain if you put DPL on a repeater, and that is 20 year old technology.
Hi Tim:

I believe that this post of yours is a sincere one and is worthy of a reply.

Digital Voice ham radio on VHF, UHF and SHF is a very new happening. The hams that first converted P-25 repeaters for ham radio use, realized early on that our hobby was falling behind in the area of new technology. Setting up a P-25 repeater for ham radio operators to use took a lot of commitment and money. These repeaters have a certain degree of success in the immediate area where they are located.

The problem is they are not open for use by the average ham. If you are not a member of that repeater group, a non-member, who is not is not equipped to program commercial radios, cannot be part of the conversation. In effect, this is a closed repeater even if the user group says it isn’t. You cannot buy off the shelf ham radio equipment and join in.

D-STAR, on the other hand, is an open protocol, designed for hams, by hams. Different agencies, of the Japanese government have kicked in millions of dollars to help get it to the point where it is today. It would be a real shame to let it die because of the sarcasm and apathy of many of the hams found on this forum. They are not the leaders in ham radio technology and to follow them would be foolishness.

Those who adopt this technology early on, will be the new leaders of the ham radio technology of the future. Their experimenting and dreaming up of new concepts and applications will result in newer ideas, which no one has even thought of yet. Sort of like APRS or the IRLP, they all started with a dream.

I have an ID-800H on my base. When I key up my IC-V82, my base displays “VE7TKO_P/ABBY” on the screen. When my friend calls me from his mobile, his call sign shows up on the screen. Although there are no D-STAR 2-meter repeaters available yet, the 70 cm D-STAR repeater is not far off. There are already several in use in Japan. There is a jack on the back of my radio, which allows me to connect the radio directly to a computer. My base radio can be used to monitor for my call, and track the location of my vehicle all on the same frequency. I can do all that without loosing the functionality of a regular dual band, 2-meter / 70cm ham radio. It is set to grow into the future, if only the hams of today would have the insight to see what kind of an opportunity has been placed before us.

10-01-2005, 03:57 PM

So your basic arguement comes down to the fact that most P25 gear is not field programmable.

But it is not impossible to program. In fact, programming is easy. I can buy everything I need on Ebay but the software for most, if it is a Motorola you can get a license for the software or go to your local dealer or buddy who has it. If it is not a Motorola you can most likely get the software for free or next to nothing. A one time programming can put every possible repeater pair and simplex in and you are set.

And many radios, like the EFJ 5100, can be configured to be field programmable. As people hack the firmware in these I expect them to figure out how to make more of them field programmable.

P25 repeaters are not closed repeaters. That logic would mean that a 6m repeater is closed to anyone who does not own a 6m radio.

The common sense solution is simple.... Icom should be making radios that are P25 instead of D-star... then they can make them field programmable. Why do they not? Because you can't buy a commercial or surplus D-star repeater or radio.... and this way they can ensure they have the market tied up.

Imagine, with the P25 gear and repeaters already available and even on the air on the ham bands, if Icom had come out with a P25 radio. Digital would be leaps and bounds ahead of where it is now in terms of use on the ham bands.

VE7TKO

10-01-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote[/b] (KF4PEP @ Oct. 01 2005,08:57)]So your basic arguement comes down to the fact that most P25 gear is not field programmable.

But it is not impossible to program. In fact, programming is easy. I can buy everything I need on Ebay but the software for most, if it is a Motorola you can get a license for the software or go to your local dealer or buddy who has it. If it is not a Motorola you can most likely get the software for free or next to nothing. A one time programming can put every possible repeater pair and simplex in and you are set.

And many radios, like the EFJ 5100, can be configured to be field programmable. As people hack the firmware in these I expect them to figure out how to make more of them field programmable.

P25 repeaters are not closed repeaters. That logic would mean that a 6m repeater is closed to anyone who does not own a 6m radio.

The common sense solution is simple.... Icom should be making radios that are P25 instead of D-star... then they can make them field programmable. Why do they not? Because you can't buy a commercial or surplus D-star repeater or radio.... and this way they can ensure they have the market tied up.

Imagine, with the P25 gear and repeaters already available and even on the air on the ham bands, if Icom had come out with a P25 radio. Digital would be leaps and bounds ahead of where it is now in terms of use on the ham bands.
No! I don’t have a basic argument, only a basic fact.

In Canada, hams who wish to tinker with used commercial equipment have to have an advanced ham radio license. Since there is no such thing as a P-25 ham radio that can be purchased new, off the shelf, the hams who only have a basic license, are locked out of participating. A ham who holds a basic license can go to a ham radio dealer and purchase a 6-meter ham radio. He is not prevented from participating on the 6-meter band, should he choose to do so.

No manufacturer will ever produce a P-25 compliant ham radio. That is a commercial standard. It will only be left to the realm of those who can tinker. It appears that you too have your limitations. You said “As people hack the firmware in these I expect them to figure out how to make more of them field programmable”. I see that you are dependant on others to do the hacking. You have been somewhat excluded from a part of your hobby, should you have purchased a radio that no one has hacked yet.

D-STAR on the other hand, can be purchased by any ham who holds a basic license. They can legally learn to operate it with out any restrictions. It is “Type Approved” already. The only things that might hold them back are the economic realities of life, or the lack of desire to participate.

I have studied the possibilities that are available to us with D-STAR, and chose to save up for the ID-800H. We have no P-25 ham radio repeaters in our area. Some day, there will be many D-STAR repeaters, on all the VHF, UHF and SHF ham bands, all around the world. These will be able to communicate with each other, because all the correct protocols are already built into the radio. Nobody has to hack a D-STAR radio to make it work. D-STAR is “Digital Smart Technologies for Amateur Radio” for today and for the future.

VE7TKO

10-02-2005, 05:46 AM

KENWOOD NOW HAS A D-STAR RADIO!

The Kenwood D-STAR that was displayed at the Japan Ham Fair – 2005 proves that other manufactures are willing to support the D-STAR standard. Who will be the next one to steep up to the plate?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

W6EM

10-02-2005, 02:58 PM

Hello, Jan. #I've been away for a week. #Perhaps that was good, as having read some of the exchanges, it gave me a little more perspective.

APCO-25 and D-Star are digital modes. #Perhaps, if those modes offer faster throughput of data along with significantly narrower bandwidth, they will undoubtedly find their ways into amateur VHF and UHF gear.
The mode has nothing to do with field programmability of amateur gear, so that shouldn't preclude APCO-25 as a choice.

I don't like trunking. #Irregardless of analog or digital radio modes. #Why? #M/A isn't the same as /\/\. #Interoperability can be had, but only via conventional repeater operation. #Second problem, as I expressed a long ways back, was single point sensitivity. #Our self-professed *expert* offered no explanation why that a generator failure on top of the tall NO building took out the entire NO trunked system. #And, neither did the M/A Comm communique that explained that as soon as the M/A Comm techs were allowed in to *fix* the generator, all was up and operating.

For those who have never experienced a trunked system, most have, however, witnessed a Nextel phone conversation. #Same approach. #Talk into it. #Wait, sometimes a long time, til you receive a response. #Or, in a trunked system, you press the PTT button and instead of a beep, you get a bonk. #Sorry. #You can't communicate.

Can you talk over someone if you have an emergency and need immediate recognition? #Nope. #You can on a conventional system. #Why does the National Fire Protection Association, that writes consensus life and property safety standards, strongly state that trunked systems not be used to communicate life safety information to and from fire fighters in burning structures?

I'll let you all figure that one out. #By the way, many jurisdictions adopt NFPA Standards as law.

Would there have been public safety personnel without a satisfactory means to communicate after Katrina, no matter what the mode and system type? #Probably. #But, how can we, as amateurs,.demonstrate the utility of conventional and field-deployable gear without it alll having to be from one vendor? #I believe the thousands who volunteered just did........ #Especially with the example given by the ARRL in its latest bulletin that described the need to have one of our fraternity ride with each visiting public safety officer (to be able to intercommunicate effectively).

D-Star may gain a following. #APCO-25 apparently has somewhat of one as well. #When radios are manufactured with both of those modes built in, perhaps they will become popular with us. #SSB took a long time to catch on. #Until amateurs experienced the superior efficiency and penetration when compared to AM.

73,

Lee
W6EM

AB8RU

10-02-2005, 11:48 PM

Mind if I sugguest something ? Try http://www.apcointl.org/frequency/project25/information.html#whatis
just some good reccomended reading also the home page
http://www.apcointl.org/frequency/project25/index.html

there is alot of stuff that is more for those people who operate that kind of equiptment, I believe their needs may be similar in a sense but really Professional on their end and a hobby on ours as a reminder read CFR 47 Part 97.1a-e 97.113 a 2,3,5 just in case someone has not have a curent copy of the Rule book.

W6US

10-02-2005, 11:52 PM

Actually, there are quite a few field programmable P25 radios. THe E.F.Johnson 5100 portable and it's mobile cousin, the 5300 are field programmable, though it is much easier to do the chore with a computer. The Thales/Racal P25 portable is very easily programmed from the keypad in the field, and it allows for mixed analog and digital channels. The Datron Guardian mobiles (with DTMF mic) and portable are also easily field programmable. The BK Radio (King/Relm) DPH portable is also easily programmable.

Most of these radios are currently used by wildland firefighters. Since they are new, not many have found their way outside the system. The earlier units are coming up on lifecycle replacement and will be surplused.

The Quantar repeaters are also starting to show up. A few Daniels 4R or 4D repeaters are also starting to show up and they are excellent for solar powered repeater sites. These repeaters will work in both analog and digital modes depending upon their input. They will take some retuning in order to use on the ham band.

These new toys will be a lot of fun and can add to your ham radio experience.

AB8RU

10-03-2005, 12:05 AM

Yep there is some out service radios floating around but trick is SOFTWARE !! and the RIB Box for Motorola and the stuff is not cheap . so mainly there is some can just afford a rice box BTW check out the Swap dept I have some thing going on.

73

N4XTS

10-03-2005, 03:44 AM

Problem is until the ham community agrees on a standard, neither will be successful in the long run. Alot of high tech, on the cutting edge ideas came from those "rice" companies even 20 years ago that put Motorola to shame but didn't cut it in the ham world. Such as Kenwood's Digital Channel Link, Digital Code Squelch to name a few. These were way ahead of their time, and surpassed commercial equipment of the day, but Joe Ham could care less because as another poster pointed out very well, people fear change and what they don't understand.

BTW, speaking of crass names "rice radios"...wonder how Motorola selling out their parts and aftermarket parts division (AAD) to an outside company (and moving the Radio Product Support Depot to Mexico) will affect parts availability and sales to end users?

I guess we can now add the moniker "Mexirola" to Motorola radios..how sad, another American company puts American workers out to pasture and sells us out south of the border.
Motorola today sucks. It isn't the same company it was 20 years ago, time to go buy more Kenwoods.

WA3KYY

10-03-2005, 02:19 PM

The main problem with P25 is that it is not currently being offered in amateur radios. If an add-on module were available similar to the modules available for the current D-Star radios it would likely catch on faster than D-Star due the the increasing availability of surplus P25 repeater equipment. However, I do not see that as very likely at this point. With Kenwwod adding D-Star it is only a matter of time before Yeasu follows suit. As more manufacturers add D-Star as either built-in or an option it will become the defacto standard for amateur use. If, however, manufacturers begin offering P25 as an option with radios designed for amateur service, it will possibly beat out D-Star as the standard digital mode.

Mike
WA3KYY

AB0WR

10-03-2005, 02:35 PM

kb4tbb:

Quote[/b] ]These were way ahead of their time, and surpassed commercial equipment of the day, but Joe Ham could care less because as another poster pointed out very well, people fear change and what they don't understand.

I don't agree that hams are afraid of change and what they don't understand.

It is my opinion that the reason so much of these features didn't take off is because they didn't provide enough marginal utility for people to abandon what they have and buy new units to make use of the newer features.

Too many of the features are just bling-bling.

Double the battery life or make a unit with ten times the reliability and you'll generate a lot of sales. Add bling-bling and you won't.

tim ab0wr

AC0GT

10-04-2005, 04:48 PM

One way to answer the "Why not do APCO-25?" question has been mentioned but not stated outright. #Amateur radio is international. VE7TKO mentioned Canadian hams would be unlikely to welcome APCO-25 since it requires modification of commercial equipment. Other countries may have similar limitations. Even if an Amateur in whatever country you choose is legally allowed to modify APCO-25 equipment for Amateur use the problem becomes that of obtaining APCO-25 radios.

I guess one solution to the majority of problems with APCO-25 is getting a manufacturer of Amateur radios to put APCO-25 capability into its products. That still doesn't address the other problems with APCO-25. The APCO-25 standard was written with public safety customers in mind. There are parts of the standard that is useless to Amateurs, such as encryption.

Since APCO-25 and D-STAR came to market at about the same time I think D-STAR is going to win more users. APCO-25 just doesn't have enough inertia to really compete. The wide band high data rate modes have yet to be written for APCO-25, D-STAR has that today with products available now.

Someone a few pages back (I'm too lazy to check, not that it matters who anyway) said that anyone that buys D-STAR will be left with an orphaned technology, APCO-25 is the way to go. I think the opposite is true. If Amateurs want to use APCO-25 right now they have to go out of their way to find a radio (since no Amateur radio vendor will have one), then they have to modify it for Amateur frequencies. If Amateurs want D-STAR they just have to buy the radio from any of a number of Amateur radio vendors that carry ICOM (or, in the near future, Kenwood) products.

One thing that has to be kept in mind is the goal of using APCO-25 or D-STAR. If the goal is being able to listen in on public safety radio then APCO-25 is the only solution. If the goal is data and voice over the same channel, narrower channel widths, or clearer voice on the fringes of a repeater then either will work. If the goal is to do any of those with the least amount of troubles then D-STAR wins out.

N3JFW

10-05-2005, 12:14 AM

I do enjoy my astro sabers and xts's.

However I understand exactly where you are comign from.

I'd be happy to spend an extar hundred bucks for dstar capability if I were buying a new radio. This is assuming it had the receiver quality of my motorolas.

I won't polute this thread with a rant about the garbage receivers in most ham gear. I'll just say once you go with commercial gear, it's real hard to go back.

SO would I spend a little extra for a dstar dual band rig? Hell yeah, as long as I could hear it work in high intermod areas.

W9WHE

10-05-2005, 03:03 PM

W6EM writes:

"D-Star may gain a following. #APCO-25 apparently has somewhat of one as well"

NEWSFLASH: APCO 25 IS ALREADY the digital standard. Lee, if you paid attention, you would know that:

1) The Treasury Department is seeking bids for a $1 BILLION contract that will call for Project 25 radios to be used in ALL its offices;

2) The State of New York awarded a $400 Million for a project that calls for APCO 25 interoperability;

3) LAPD has been using APCO 25 for years;

4) The state of Wyoming is presently installing a state-wide APCO 25 system. Ever heard of "WyoLink"?
Look here: #http://wyolink.state.wy.us/

5) The entire US Park Service has a MANDATE to go APCO 25 and have already installed APCO 25 systems in some National Parks. Mamouth Cave in Kentucky is APCO 25!

6) Most FBI, USSS protective, and many Millitary special ops are already APCO 25.

7) Motorola's Starcom system is APCO 25. #

Every scanner manufacturer makes and sells APCO 25 scanners. See any making a D-star scanner? You won't.

WAKE UP LEE!
APCO 25 is ALREADY THE STANDARD. #
ITS EVERYWHERE AND WILL SOON REPLACE CONVENTIONAL ANALOG IN THE PS WORLD. The question is whether YOU will be capable of Interoperabillity, or not? Choose D-star, and you will not. Choose APCO 25 and you will. Your choice.

The world is moving toward APCO 25 for interoperabillity. Don't believe it, ask "Google". Time hams recognized that we are being left behind.

W9WHE
Fully APCO 25 compliant.

W9WHE

10-05-2005, 04:25 PM

".....Canadian hams would be unlikely to welcome APCO-25 since it requires modification of commercial equipment"

NO MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

Just Pick a APCO 25 (like Motorola Astro Saber or XTS) compliant radio that covers the ham band you want to use, and use a computer to program it. Poof...you are APCO 25 compliant. NO MODIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED.

W9WHE

W6EM

10-06-2005, 12:34 AM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 04 2005,11:03)]W6EM writes:

"D-Star may gain a following. #APCO-25 apparently has somewhat of one as well"

NEWSFLASH: APCO 25 IS ALREADY the digital standard. Lee, if you paid attention, you would know that:

.................

w9whe
Jonathan. #You have offered us yet another of your classic overreations based on a #completely off-the-mark clip out of context.

This thread is, and my remark was meant to be, about amateur radio use of P25. #Not, of course, public safety agency use. #I think my reasoning was sufficiently clear. #That is, if you had read the post carefully.

Why should we be concerned with interoperability with public safety agencies that have and are migrating en-masse to 700 and 800MHz? #The closest ham band is 902-928MHz and the commercial gear that will cover that band won't operate in the 800, let alone 700 segments.

Hams need to be capable of interoperability amongst themselves. #Segregating ourselves by virtue of incompatible digital modes doesn't make for the kind of flexibility we need when responding to assist with communications in the aftermath of Katrina-sized catastrophies.

One of the reasons that amateur radio worked so well to bridge the gap in the aftermath of Katrina was our ability to communicate with other hams. #And, to be frequency agile. #While the military and aviation services have almost the same frequency agility, public safety agencies do not. #Adding esoteric digital modality would not improve our effectiveness, but instead, lessen it.

Let the APCO boys sell their mode to public safety agencies. #They'll have their 'pseudo-privacy' from John Q. Public for a while. #Until, of course, the scanner manufacturers widely market P25-compliant scanners.

If interoperability between amateur and public service were a desireable outcome of the Katrina experience, somebody had best come up with an amateur band or two very close to the 700MHz and 800MHz public safety allocations. #Then, perhaps, APCO-25 compliance would make sense.

Besides, most RACES-saavy municipal, county and state agencies have amateur gear and RACES members in their EOCs and mobile command centers. #They can interoperate and intercommunicate across the room verbally. #If the rest don't, well, they don't want it anyway.

73,

Lee
W6EM

BTW, I run surplus /\/\ VHF and UHF mobile gear exclusively........ #Having the ability to run high power when I need it is useful. #And, as has been said, the superior spurious and intermod immunity of the receivers is worth quite a bit. #Nice compact control heads as well.
In fact, one friend knows the *sound* of commercial gear. #According to what he claims, there's no popping sound when the carrier drops. #Just a smoooooth transition to squelched repeater input. #Also, the scan on hook, alert features, and if I needed them, horn, lights, and other bells and whistles. #And, DPL, invDPL, on-hook scan, zones, sirens, DTMF dialing, etc. etc. etc.

KI4IJQ

10-06-2005, 12:38 AM

Quote[/b] (KC9ECI @ Sep. 19 2005,13:49)]How much did Icom pay for this commercial?
haha thats what i want to know

this thread brought to you by icom, we make crappy radios

W9WHE

10-06-2005, 04:15 PM

W6EM writes:

"Why should we be concerned with interoperability with public safety agencies that have and are migrating en-masse to 700 and 800MHz?"

Lee, you need to understand the facts. #
Frequencies in the 150-160 range are so INCREDIBLY tight, FCC has mandated that all users convert all equipment to go narrowband in order to free up MORE SPACE. #Does that sound like VHF is being "abandoned"? I think not. #The "enmass" 800 migration you claim to be in process still leaves the overwhelming majority of PS entities in the 150-160 & 450-470 Mhz ranges, where there is PLENTY of gear available. Are there some on 800? Sure. But they are a very, very small minority. In fact, I know some 800 Mhz trunked users that are so unhappy, that they are going back to conventional UHF!

++++++++++++++

"Let the APCO boys sell their mode to public safety agencies. #They'll have their 'pseudo-privacy' from John Q. Public for a while. #Until, of course, the scanner manufacturers widely market P25-compliant scanners"

Newsflash: APCO 25 scanners are already here. But once a user is on APCO 25, they can go encryption. Which IS PRIVATE. Did you know that ALL US Park service law enforcement are going encryption capable? FBI, CIA, DOJ, and DOD are already encryption capable.

With APCO 25, they can remotely, over the air "steer" field radios to a new set of frequencies, remotely re-program them and even add new encryption keys, at will, with no user interaction whatsoever, all OVER THE AIR.

So, if you are not APCO 25, you might find yourself listening to a dead frequency, as a task specific group of users were "steered" to new frequencies from the dispatch.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Lee, PS is going APCO 25. Hams that go D-star are going the wrong way. But, that, of course, is your choice to make. Be an island unto yourself. Be totally NOT interoperable. Its your choice to make. As for me, I'm going with everybody else. APCO 25. But after some consideration, I think YOU should go D-Star. It would be good for us,.....er, ummmm....ahhhh.... I mean you.

W9WHE
Fully APCO 25 compliant.

W9WHE

10-06-2005, 04:21 PM

W6Em writes:

"In fact, one friend knows the *sound* of commercial gear. #According to what he claims, there's no popping sound when the carrier drops. #Just a smoooooth transition to squelched repeater input"

Lee, its called "reverse burst". Its been around for 20 years.

W9WHE

W6EM

10-07-2005, 01:28 AM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 05 2005,12:15)].......... Are there some on 800? Sure. But they are a very, very small minority. In fact, I know some 800 Mhz trunked users that are so unhappy, that they are going back to conventional UHF!

................
With APCO 25, they can remotely, over the air "steer" field radios to a new set of frequencies, remotely re-program them and even add new encryption keys, at will, with no user interaction whatsoever, all OVER THE AIR.

............ But after some consideration, I think YOU should go D-Star. It would be good for us,.....er, ummmm....ahhhh.... I mean you.

W9WHE
Fully APCO 25 compliant.
Interesting. #Trunked being junked. #Please elaborate ad nauseum. #Robustness really must matter after all.

Unfortunately, almost the entire state of FL, being flat as a pancake as it is, has gone trunked. #That really makes a great deal of sense......not.

Wow, am I impressed. #The vendors all have written code to enable remote programming of channels and features. #That sounds quite slick. #Although, what happens to the hapless crews that had their radios turned off when the dispatcher moved everyone else?
Silence is golden, I guess.

If public safety entities in my area ever want to discuss interoperability, I'll be all ears. #And, I might even be willing to shell out the bucks for an APCO25 radio. #Provided, of course, its useable on the adjacent amateur band and it can be easily programmed by me. #Ah, but it wouldn't be particularly fun to have some PS dispatcher suddenly wipe all of my amateur frequencies and features just because I happened to be listening to a P25 frequency. #I really wouldn't want to switch to another mode to find out the hard way I wasn't calling a friend on the 146.04/64 machine, but the local paramedic pair.

Help us get around that hypothetical, Jonathan.

Lee
W6EM

W6EM

10-07-2005, 01:47 AM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 05 2005,12:21)]W6Em writes:

"In fact, one friend knows the *sound* of commercial gear. #According to what he claims, there's no popping sound when the carrier drops. #Just a smoooooth transition to squelched repeater input"

Lee, its called "reverse burst". Its been around for 20 years.

W9WHE
Actually, Jonathan, more like about 40 years. /\/\ and GE used it in their tube radios as well.

I really don't notice the pop on the other non-commercial radios, but its probably due to the fact I'm about 40 miles from the repeater and he's always within a few miles. The squelch gate on the repeater is very fast and probably "anded" anyway.

AC0GT

10-07-2005, 05:24 AM

There is much talk of how APCO-25 radios will outshine D-STAR. One thing I wonder is how the average Amateur even gets an APCO-25 compliant radio. I know where to get a D-STAR radio, so if I wanted to get into digital voice that would probably be my first choice. Assuming I wanted to buy an APCO-25 radio where would I go to purchase one?

The simple availability and marketing is why I think that APCO-25 will not get a large following in Amateur radio. No manufacturer is trying to sell APCO-25 radios to Amateurs, but ICOM is certainly trying to sell D-STAR.

That's my question to the APCO-25 advocates, where are Amateurs supposed to get the radios and repeaters?

W9WHE

10-07-2005, 03:59 PM

KC0LXK asks:

"......where are Amateurs supposed to get [Apco 25] radios and repeaters?

1) #www.ebay.com;
2) Motorola;
3) GE;
4) RELM;
5) E.F. Johnson;
6) Hamfest.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lee (W6EM) I'm not going to take the time to educate you on the workings of APCO 25 and Motorola's Astro capibillities. You are just goint to have to do that for yourself. But if you can't figure it out, you can allways join Batlabs.

W9WHE

W6EM

10-07-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 06 2005,11:59)]KC0LXK asks:

"......where are Amateurs supposed to get [Apco 25] radios and repeaters?

1) #www.ebay.com;
2) Motorola;
3) GE;
4) RELM;
5) E.F. Johnson;
6) Hamfest.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lee (W6EM) I'm not going to take the time to educate you on the workings of APCO 25 and Motorola's Astro capibillities. You are just goint to have to do that for yourself. But if you can't figure it out, you can allways join Batlabs.

W9WHE
Gosh, Jonathan. #I didn't realize that General Electric (GE) was making anything but silicone sealants, jet engines and rotating-disk kWh meters these days.

Ericsson bought GE's land mobile radio Lunchburg, VA division about 15 years ago. #Then, more recently,
M/A (Merger and Acquisition??) Comm bought it from Ericsson.

Also, I hear Kenwood and Vertex (Yaesu) make APCO25 compliant radios as well. #I"m sure there's at least one or two more as well.

I really don't need your counsel with respect to APCO25, I guess. #But, to tout its superiority (your opinion) by claiming radios can be remotely reprogrammed is quite interesting. #We are all waiting to hear your explanation of how, with such capability, radios that were turned off (for lunch breaks, inside the station house, while the cop was sleeping, etc.) would find their way to those new modes, encryption keys and frequencies when the unknowing operator pushes the power on button.....

BTW, spelling is much improved, but the reading comprehension has taken a hit.....

73,

Lee
W6EM

AC0GT

10-07-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 07 2005,08:59)]KC0LXK asks:

"......where are Amateurs supposed to get [Apco 25] radios and repeaters?

1) #www.ebay.com;
2) Motorola;
3) GE;
4) RELM;
5) E.F. Johnson;
6) Hamfest.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lee (W6EM) I'm not going to take the time to educate you on the workings of APCO 25 and Motorola's Astro capibillities. You are just goint to have to do that for yourself. But if you can't figure it out, you can allways join Batlabs.

W9WHE
I'm not intending to be mean or nit-picky but you really didn't answer my question. #If I had asked where to get breakfast cereal most people would not respond with "Post or General Mills" but with "the local grocery store" or more specifically "EconoFoods or Super Target". #Giving the names of manufacturers doesn't really answer the question unless an Amateur intends to buy the radios by the crate.

Answering with hamfests or auction sites like Ebay is an equally non-answer. #I realize that many people will sell just about anything second hand but that is not helpful for someone looking for a reliable source that will provide at least a minimum of support for the product.

If I wish to purchase a D-STAR radio, or just about any Amateur radio product, I know several vendors such as Ham Radio Outlet, Amateur Electronic Supply, and Radio City Incorporated.

I'll ask my question again, rephrased, what vendors will sell an APCO-25 compliant radio to an Amateur Radio operator?

I ask because that is a serious consideration for the adoption of APCO-25 as a recognized Amateur radio mode. #If no vendor will make a first sale to Amateurs then supplies of APCO-25 radios will be so slim that it would be rare for any one to rely on it as a primary means of communicating.

I can imagine an Amateur radio club getting friendly with the local public service communication people. #Meaning, for example, the club has a few peace officers and paramedics as members and because of this relationship the Amateur radio club gets a few perks from the local government. #Such as a APCO-25 repeater for club use that doubles as a hot spare for the police and ambulance. #As well as some of the radios purchased by the public safety folks are sold to Amateurs as surplus. #In other words a tit for tat relationship is made, Amateurs help them out with technical issues and civil defense and the public service groups help them with getting radios and a repeater site. #Such a relationship with public safety would answer the radio supply problem for a city wide club but such a situation is likely to be rare.

If APCO-25 is going to be adopted by the Amateur radio community there needs to be a reliable source of equipment. #If an Amateur has to scour the pages of Ebay or the tables of a swap meet for a radio of questionable working order and reliability then APCO-25 is not going anywhere. #If vendors and manufacturers will only sell new radios to recognized government agencies then the average Amateur is going to get very frustrated and wonder what all the fuss is about over APCO-25 when a competing, nearly equivalent, and much more available alternative like D-STAR exists.

VE7TKO

10-07-2005, 09:43 PM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif You may see evidence of the Kenwood D-STAR at: http://www.pwsnet.jp/hamfair2005/images/0104.htm .
This is a text only picture, but there is enough English to prove the Kenwood connection. You can also see a picture of it at: http://www.pws-net.jp/hamfair2005/ or http://jh3ykv.rgr.jp/mt/archives/2005/08/21/index.html .

D-STAR is the digital standard for amateur radio. You will never find a commercially built ham radio with the APCO P-25 standard built in, because P-25 is a commercial standard. No ham radio will ever be type approved for commercial use. If you want to have interoperability with public safety radio, you will have to use commercial equipment. You will also have to have special authority, and pay for the extra commercial license that is needed, to be legal.

If the only thing that you want to do is listen in on an APCO P-25 conversation, get a scanner that is capable of doing that. That will be cheaper and easier than buying a commercial digital radio.

Inserted from http://www.icomamerica.com/support/forums/tm.asp?m=1098 .

There is now a D-Star compatible UHF repeater in the Portland Oregon/ Vancouver Washington area.

The repeater is on 443.675(+5 MHz) and is located on Larch Mountain. The repeater is also capable of P25 operation. Please contact me via E-mail before you use the repeater.

Thanks and 73
Jim W7RY
w7ry at centurytel dot net

Please contact Jim - W7RY for more information.

W6EM

10-07-2005, 10:06 PM

I don't want to sound like an advertisement for a local radio shop, but one of those would be a good place to start looking, to find a suitable P25 radio. #Why?

Not all commercial radios are compliant. #Plus, all commercial gear has to be programmed by a technician and not from the front panel. #To comply with type acceptance. #So, they would have to program it for you as well. #If they are like some of the older radios that aren't APCO25 compliant, each channel or mode as they are sometimes called, would have to be set up as either conventonal or P25. #So, you would probably need two separate channels for every frequency pair that you wanted to operate both ways on.

The best approach would be an add-on box of some sort for amateur gear. #But, in that case, the radio couldn't be used to transmit on public safety frequencies, since amateur gear can't be type accepted unless it were to give up front panel vfo operation.

So, if you have a public safety agency that wants interoperability, best for them to supply the radios. #All programmed and set up as they would like to have it. #Otherwise, its not too practical. #Not unless you have access to the necessary test gear.

If Kenwood wanted to get the drop on ICOM, they could offer both Dstar and APCO25 formats in one radio. #For amateur band use only, naturally.

Lee
W6EM

W6EM

10-07-2005, 11:53 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 06 2005,17:43)]If you want to have interoperability with public safety radio, you will have to use commercial equipment. You will also have to have special authority, and pay for the extra commercial license that is needed, to be legal.

If the only thing that you want to do is listen in on an APCO P-25 conversation, get a scanner that is capable of doing that. That will be cheaper and easier than buying a commercial digital radio.

..................
Jan: #Not to belabor the point, but, in the US, in an emergency, if its necessary, any means may be used. #So, theoretically, a type-accepted P25 radio could be used on the amateur bands normally, and if an emergency were to present itself, transmission on a frequency to communicate/interoperate may be permissible even without up front permission if lives and property are at stake. #An amateur radio operator may use any means necessary to communicate, per FCC regulations. #As another example, the FCC literally on-the-spot granted STAs (special temporary authoritys) to out of area users to allow them to operate during the Katrina catastrophy in areas remote from their normally licensed coverage areas.

Admittedly, one couldn't use the programmed channels on a routine basis to interoperate, unless authorized by the licensee public safety agency as part of its fleet. #An individual license wouldn't be required in the US.

Lee
W6EM

VE7TKO

10-08-2005, 03:02 AM

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 07 2005,16:53)]Jan: Not to belabor the point, but, in the US, in an emergency, if its necessary, any means may be used. So, theoretically, a type-accepted P25 radio could be used on the amateur bands normally, and if an emergency were to present itself, transmission on a frequency to communicate/interoperate may be permissible even without up front permission if lives and property are at stake. An amateur radio operator may use any means necessary to communicate, per FCC regulations. As another example, the FCC literally on-the-spot granted STAs (special temporary authoritys) to out of area users to allow them to operate during the Katrina catastrophy in areas remote from their normally licensed coverage areas.

Admittedly, one couldn't use the programmed channels on a routine basis to interoperate, unless authorized by the licensee public safety agency as part of its fleet. An individual license wouldn't be required in the US.

Lee
W6EM
In Canada the same rule applies in times of real emergency. That is not the case in normal times. I have heard to many hams say “VE7http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Is monitoring” when the wrong band was active. Our locale police do not take kindly to such mistakes. I have a spare radio that I keep for real emergencies. I keep my ham radio legal. Tampering with the radio to open up the bands does not give type approval to that radio for use on commercial bands. I have also seen people burn their ham radios out by transmitting out of the frequency range for their stock antenna.

The best advice that I can give to those who do public service communications is “keep those radios separate and properly tuned.” This way you can be prepared when the real need arises. One size does not fit all.

N3JFW

10-08-2005, 03:21 AM

Don't forget bk

what are the new dph's 512 channels?
and user programmable right form the front.
I have an analog eph bouncing aroudn the truck somewhere, decent radio, and with the metal case it's damn indestructable.

BTW-any ham that uses interop as a reason for owning a p25 radio has thier head in a dark place.

KC0ROM

10-08-2005, 09:32 AM

I do not wish to conform to apco 25 because it is being force fed to us in the public service sector by self serving politicians who wish to free up as much band space as possible so that it can be auctioned off to commercial venues,supposedly to balance the budget in the U.S. which is the biggest line of bull.I seriously think john mcCain is profiting from it and Bush and his cronies,thats why their pushing so hard to sell it.thats just like the gas prices that went up because of the hurricane that hadn't hit yet.digital technology is fine but the games that are being played because of it,or in the name of technical advancement is a lot of bull crap,so call a Spade a Spade.And to say that they need to recoup initial marketing costs ,or the cost of developing 10 year old technology is a load of balony also,make it affordable and we'll think about it.

KI4IJQ

10-10-2005, 04:59 AM

are you guys kidding me? you actually have radios setup to TX on public safety frequencies?

jeeze i have a commercial (GE M-RK) radio capable of going into public safety frequencies even setup to listen to trunking but im not going to be stupid enough to program it to be able to transmit...

there is no reason for a ham to tx on a public safety frequency, unless the world is truly ending... they can do without you thanks

also there is a ham P25 repeater here in miami... you can get plenty of nice radios that do P25 (commercial rigs, you know radios that dont suck?) like M/A-Com M7100 or P7100's, Astro Saber can do P25 along with Astro Mobiles if you like Motorola crap...

but ya anyway when did QRZ.com become a giant icom advertisement?

the icom dstar stuff is cool i will give you that, but just becuase icom has their digital format (which i understand is the new revision of P25, but since your all moaning about interoperability why didnt icom make it backwards compatable with current p25 stuff? THAT would be cool) but that dosent mean P25 sucks, i have heard a lot of P25 radios that sound better in digital operation than most radios i have heard in analog operation

K4JF

10-11-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 07 2005,20:02)]The best advice that I can give to those who do public service communications is “keep those radios separate and properly tuned.” This way you can be prepared when the real need arises. One size does not fit all.
Excellent point and absolutely correct. #Therefore the "interoperability" comment advocating APCO-25 does not apply.

D-Star vs. APCO-25 for Amateur Radio should be on the merits of the system within amateur radio ONLY. #PS radio is irrelevant to the discussion of the mode for ham radios.

This discussion should be moved back to ham radio. #Talk about how either would improve ham radio. #I have seen nothing in that vein yet.

N1WPN

10-11-2005, 03:04 PM

Hi, I enjoy using comercial equipment. I would like to see apco 25 being used. I currently use a Saber with apco 25. I think we will see more digital stuff soon enough. For me I would like to see both d-stars and apco 25 used. Just think of the possibilties that we will have once these modes are implemented. Its time to move ahead. I am all for it...
73
n1wpn

K4JF

10-11-2005, 09:45 PM

Quote[/b] (n1wpn @ Oct. 11 2005,08:04)]Hi, I enjoy using comercial equipment. I would like to see apco 25 being used. I currently use a Saber with apco 25. I think we will see more digital stuff soon enough. For me I would like to see both d-stars and apco 25 used. Just think of the possibilties that we will have once these modes are implemented. Its time to move ahead. I am all for it...
73
n1wpn
All well and good. There is a "cool factor" because it is new. But where is a reason to go to it?

AC0GT

10-12-2005, 04:09 AM

The "Why?" question has been asked again. #I think what people are forgetting is the variety of aspects the D-STAR standard covers. #I also think that people are forgetting that Amateur radio is a global hobby. #The readers of this website would seem to be from the USA, Canada and the UK. #However that is just a (perhaps large) portion of the Amateurs in the world. #Other countries have different laws concerning Amateur radio, ones that may prevent the use of certain modes available to us.

One aspect of D-STAR is digital voice. #APCO-25 is one alternative. #The pros and cons of that mode has been tossed about many times here so I won't repeat them.

Digital data is another aspect. #There too many Amateur digital modes to discuss here. #One thing about the many modes is that few are designed for the greater bandwidths available on the microwave bands. #There is 802.11 but that is not designed for Amateur use, but seems to suit people well. #The multi-megabit per second and multi-megahertz channel it requires is often overkill and is likely to interfere with someone in a populated area.

What I think will be the primary means that D-STAR will get adopted is not the digital voice but the Ethernet interface that is part of the standard. #D-STAR defines a radio as a terminal adapter, often given the misnomer of a "modem". #Just like a cable "modem" or DSL "modem" a high speed D-STAR data "modem" is actually an adapter between two network interfaces.

802.11 does this as well but you quickly run into the same problem as you do with APCO-25. #No manufacturer will make an 802.11 terminal adapter with Amateurs in mind. #Sure I can buy a new 802.11 adapter or APCO-25 radio and convert it for Amateur use but it will always be a hack. #It will work but it will always be sub-optimal since it is bound to a standard designed for commercial or consumer use. #Hack the hardware or software too much to make it more optimal leads to the possibility of losing compatibility. #Lose that compatibility and you lose the reason that you used it in the first place.

My best answer to the "Why?" question is that what currently exists just did not meet the needs of some very motivated and creative Amateurs. #If you feel the need to ask why then perhaps you didn't think hard enough, your needs are well met with existing modes, or any one of a million other reasons.

One question I asked before but didn't get a satisfying answer is where can one purchase APCO-25 radios? #Digital voice modes interest me. #If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.

N3JFW

10-12-2005, 04:24 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Oct. 12 2005,00:09)]One question I asked before but didn't get a satisfying answer is where can one purchase APCO-25 radios? #Digital voice modes interest me. #If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.
any bendix king radio dealer

dph portables (IMBE aka astro) are avaible in several configurations

KB1DIW

10-12-2005, 04:28 AM

Quote[/b] ]If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.

Huh?

Right now with DStar, you limited to ICOM, and ICOM only. With IMBE radios, you have Motorola, MA/COM, Racal, and a bunch of other manufactures.

AC0GT

10-12-2005, 05:51 AM

Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Oct. 11 2005,21:28)]
Quote[/b] ]If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.

Huh?

Right now with DStar, you limited to ICOM, and ICOM only. With IMBE radios, you have Motorola, MA/COM, Racal, and a bunch of other manufactures.
So, I'm limited to Icom, why should I care? At least I know I can walk into any of a number of Amateur radio stores and buy a D-STAR radio off the shelf. I can't do that with APCO-25 radios, at least to my knowledge.

Along with being able to buy it off the shelf I do not have to do any special modifications or programming before using it, which I would have to do to get an APCO-25 commercial radio to work on Amateur frequencies.

N3JFW

10-12-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Oct. 12 2005,01:51)]
Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Oct. 11 2005,21:28)]
Quote[/b] ]If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.

Huh?

Right now with DStar, you limited to ICOM, and ICOM only. With IMBE radios, you have Motorola, MA/COM, Racal, and a bunch of other manufactures.
So, I'm limited to Icom, why should I care? #At least I know I can walk into any of a number of Amateur radio stores and buy a D-STAR radio off the shelf. #I can't do that with APCO-25 radios, at least to my knowledge.

Along with being able to buy it off the shelf I do not have to do any special modifications or programming before using it, which I would have to do to get an APCO-25 commercial radio to work on Amateur frequencies.
Again, Bk dph radios they can transmit and recieve imbe (motorola Astro-what you are calling p25)

off the shelf 136-174 no software needed

AC0GT

10-12-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote[/b] (n3jfw @ Oct. 11 2005,21:24)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Oct. 12 2005,00:09)]One question I asked before but didn't get a satisfying answer is where can one purchase APCO-25 radios? #Digital voice modes interest me. #If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.
any bendix king radio dealer

dph portables (IMBE aka astro) are avaible in several configurations
Do these Bendix King dealers have a website? Or a store front in the Midwest? I'm trying to find where I can even get my hands on an APCO-25 radio and keep coming up blank.

I did some web searches on Bendix King and came across some vendors of their equipment. The prices were through the roof and I saw only one radio that even mentioned APCO-25 compatibility. That radio was listed with "call for price and availability" which was not very helpful in trying to compare bang/buck ratios as compared to D-STAR.

I appreciate the suggestions of how to obtain APCO-25 radios but I need more. Those of you that have APCO-25 radios already may think it is trivial to find one but not for me. I think I represent a large portion of the Amateur community in that respect. I can imagine an Amateur doing a little web surfing and coming across this discussion or one similar concerning digital voice modes for Amateur radio. They are going to read about APCO-25, D-STAR, and G4GUO. It won't take long to find out that Icom and AOR sell D-STAR and G4GUO digital voice systems respectively. It will take only slightly longer to find a vendor and selling price. A few mouse clicks and a MasterCard number later they can have one shipped to them by UPS ground in a matter of days.

APCO-25 is not being targeted toward Amateur radio users. Therefore vendors of APCO-25 systems don't advertise where Amateurs are likely to view them. As I type this I see several advertisements flashing, blinking, and moving on the left of my browser window telling me where I can get Icom radios, which would include the D-STAR models. How many of those vendors sell APCO-25 radios? I would wager that number is zero.

If APCO-25 is going to compete with D-STAR, or even gain more than a marginal use in Amateur radio, it is going to have to be available just as easily. From where I sit that availability is lacking.

KB1DIW

10-12-2005, 06:45 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Oct. 11 2005,17:51)]
Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Oct. 11 2005,21:28)]
Quote[/b] ]If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.

Huh?

Right now with DStar, you limited to ICOM, and ICOM only. With IMBE radios, you have Motorola, MA/COM, Racal, and a bunch of other manufactures.
So, I'm limited to Icom, why should I care? #At least I know I can walk into any of a number of Amateur radio stores and buy a D-STAR radio off the shelf. #I can't do that with APCO-25 radios, at least to my knowledge.

Along with being able to buy it off the shelf I do not have to do any special modifications or programming before using it, which I would have to do to get an APCO-25 commercial radio to work on Amateur frequencies.
Um, no.

Most, if not all of the current production IMBE radios are full band, or pretty close to it. No modifications are needed.

I think you need to go out and do some research and not listen to some of the nay sayers out there. You can buy a IMBE radio from the approrpiate dealers. Not all dealers are authorized to carry all the equipment.

Despite rumors, any Joe can pick up IMBE equipment, you just need to find the right shop, and have a good checkbook for the really good stuff (that most amatures don't need/use anyways).

WA3KYY

10-12-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Oct. 11 2005,23:45)]
Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Oct. 11 2005,17:51)]
Quote[/b] (KB1DIW @ Oct. 11 2005,21:28)]
Quote[/b] ]If I was to choose between APCO-25 or D-STAR I'd have to choose D-STAR only because I know I can easily get my hands on a compatible radio.

Huh?

Right now with DStar, you limited to ICOM, and ICOM only. With IMBE radios, you have Motorola, MA/COM, Racal, and a bunch of other manufactures.
So, I'm limited to Icom, why should I care? #At least I know I can walk into any of a number of Amateur radio stores and buy a D-STAR radio off the shelf. #I can't do that with APCO-25 radios, at least to my knowledge.

Along with being able to buy it off the shelf I do not have to do any special modifications or programming before using it, which I would have to do to get an APCO-25 commercial radio to work on Amateur frequencies.
Um, no.

Most, if not all of the current production IMBE radios are full band, or pretty close to it. No modifications are needed.

I think you need to go out and do some research and not listen to some of the nay sayers out there. You can buy a IMBE radio from the approrpiate dealers. Not all dealers are authorized to carry all the equipment.

Despite rumors, any Joe can pick up IMBE equipment, you just need to find the right shop, and have a good checkbook for the really good stuff (that most amatures don't need/use anyways).
And isn't that latter comment you made exactly the point when comparing D-Star and APCO-25? Why would an amateur spend kilobucks on a commercial radio which includes a lot of stuff not usable in the amateur service? Even used these radios are much more expensive than radios designed for the amatuer service cost new with D-Star. What advantages for amateur use does APCO-25 have over D-Star? If the only use is to monitor public service frequencies then an appropriate scanner will do that. So far when comparing the two, for amateur use D-Star wins over APCO-25.

Mike
WA3KYY

VE7NGR

10-12-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 08 2005,00:02)]
Quote[/b] (w6em @ Oct. 07 2005,16:53)]Jan: Not to belabor the point, but, in the US, in an emergency, if its necessary, any means may be used. So, theoretically, a type-accepted P25 radio could be used on the amateur bands normally, and if an emergency were to present itself, transmission on a frequency to communicate/interoperate may be permissible even without up front permission if lives and property are at stake. An amateur radio operator may use any means necessary to communicate, per FCC regulations. As another example, the FCC literally on-the-spot granted STAs (special temporary authoritys) to out of area users to allow them to operate during the Katrina catastrophy in areas remote from their normally licensed coverage areas.

Admittedly, one couldn't use the programmed channels on a routine basis to interoperate, unless authorized by the licensee public safety agency as part of its fleet. An individual license wouldn't be required in the US.

Lee
W6EM
In Canada the same rule applies in times of real emergency.
Are you sure about that? Can you point me in the direction of the applicable laws? The way I read the Radiocommunication Regulations, it specifically states that I may communicate only with another amateur station in an emergency:

Quote[/b] ]"48. In a real or simulated emergency, a person operating radio apparatus in the amateur radio service may only communicate with a radio station that is in the amateur radio service in order to transmit a message that relates to the real or simulated emergency on behalf of a person, government or relief organization." SOR/2000-78

Quote[/b] ]You may see evidence of the Kenwood D-STAR at:

This is quite obviously an Icom 208H with a different mic.

N3JFW

10-12-2005, 10:55 PM

this is directed at Mike-

Ever driven through downtown Rockville or Silver Spring and had you mobile rig go deaf from intermod? Even at rt28 and 355 my spectra doesn't get a drop of intermod. This is why I went with commecial gear years ago.

For me, astro gear was simply the next progression.

If icom can make a digital radio that has the quality receiver my Motorola's have-I'll be happy to try it out.

However, if they are the same quality as thier current line of ham gear-I won't be throwing my money away.

kc0vrs

10-12-2005, 11:58 PM

I would like to try out APCO-25. Colorado State Patrol uses that on their statewide 800 MHz system.

N3JFW

10-13-2005, 06:27 AM

ON another note (this is not an attack on any particular person) saying you have astro/imbe gear for the purpose of interop is utter bs. Especially since most of these systems are trunked.

If you have/want astro gear for the purpose of playing/experimenting-that's great! But don't mask it woth some crap about public safety.

kc0vrs

10-13-2005, 06:43 AM

can hams use APCO-25 now or is it illegal to use it on the hams bands?

KB1DIW

10-13-2005, 06:58 AM

Prices on Motorola radios depend on the feature set that you want. Most people want to have the most loaded feature set that they can have, even if they can't use it hence high price quotes.

A basic Motorola Astro Radio with the digital option (new) will cost about $1,300. Not too bad at all for a very high quaility radio.

Used market can vary from 500-2000.

However, again, you can buy new/used digital radio from quite a few different manufacutres with different price points, and will work with each others products. With ICOM, you have only one to chose from.

Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

Digital IMBE transmissions are not, and never have been, illegal. Encrypted transmissions using DES,DVP, AES etc are. However, current thought is, if you publish the "key", its not really illegal, as anyone who is properly equipped can decode the transmission. But that's another subject.

VE7TKO

10-13-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ Oct. 12 2005,15:26)]
Quote[/b] ]You may see evidence of the Kenwood D-STAR at: http://www.pws-net.jp/hamfair2005/

This is quite obviously an Icom 208H with a different mic.
Obviously you don’t know the difference between an IC-208H and an ID-800H. The IC-208H is not even a D-STAR compliant Radio. Yes, the ID-800H is also branded with the Kenwood name and will have a Kenwood made microphone. This is the same thing that you see car manufactures do. It helps them to get into a part of the market that is new to them, while they are setting up for their own production line. As I said, Kenwood now supports the D-STAR standard. No ands; ifs or buts about it.

As to your question about hams in Canada using non-ham frequencies in a “REAL” emergency. The answer is “NO,” it is not legal. Is it ever done – “YES”? Can you get in trouble – “YES”? Will you get into trouble? Not if it is a “REAL” emergency and you know whom you are talking to. I do not recommend the modifying of any ham radios to transmit on non-ham bands. Keep those radios separate and use the proper equipment for the proper job. Don’t volunteer to be an emergency communicator, unless you are a regular volunteer with the organization with whom you are communicating. They do not want to talk to you if they don’t really know who you are. If you are working with a professional organization as a volunteer, you will be given a call ID. They are not going to ask you who issued the radio that you are using.

I would like to recommend that you look at D-STAR for the Second Century of Amateur Radio. You may find it at: http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/ . If you are really interested in the progress of ham radio, you will find it interesting.

VE7NGR

10-13-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 13 2005,06:36)]
Quote[/b] (ve7ngr @ Oct. 12 2005,15:26)]
Quote[/b] ]You may see evidence of the Kenwood D-STAR at: http://www.pws-net.jp/hamfair2005/

This is quite obviously an Icom 208H with a different mic.
Obviously you don’t know the difference between an IC-208H and an ID-800H.
Oops... my mistake. I meant to say ID-800H. Of course, the ID-800H is the IC-208H with DSTAR added to it.

Quote[/b] ]As to your question about hams in Canada using non-ham frequencies in a “REAL” emergency. The answer is “NO,” it is not legal.

Ah - but you just said it was legal...

Quote[/b] ]Will you get into trouble? Not if it is a “REAL” emergency and you know whom you are talking to.

I suppose that depends on who is deciding whether or not you should get in trouble.

WA3KYY

10-14-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote[/b] (n3jfw @ Oct. 12 2005,15:55)]this is directed at Mike-

Ever driven through downtown Rockville or Silver Spring and had you mobile rig go deaf from intermod? #Even at rt28 and 355 my spectra doesn't get a drop of intermod. #This is why I went with commecial gear years ago.

For me, astro gear was simply the next progression. #

If icom can make a digital radio that has the quality receiver my Motorola's have-I'll be happy to try it out.

However, if they are the same quality as thier current line of ham gear-I won't be throwing my money away.
I drive those routes every day and have no problems at all with my R/S 2m xcvr and no notch filter. Nor with my Icom dual band HT. I don't use DC to Daylight radios though, no need for them.

But again, what is the amateur
requirement for interoperability with public service APCO-25 systems? What does APCO-25 buy us regardless of the type of radio using it? Does D-Star offer superior features for amateur use vs APCO-25? Is there a reason no amateur equipment manufacturer offers APCO-25 but there are now two are offering D-Star?

This is not about what radios to use but what digital procotol to use.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

VE7TKO

10-14-2005, 07:23 PM

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Oct. 14 2005,07:03)]But again, what is the amateur
requirement for interoperability with public service APCO-25 systems? What does APCO-25 buy us regardless of the type of radio using it? Does D-Star offer superior features for amateur use vs APCO-25? Is there a reason no amateur equipment manufacturer offers APCO-25 but there are now two are offering D-Star?

This is not about what radios to use but what digital procotol to use.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Mike

I want to thank you for your loyalty to the real meaning of amateur radio. I have been following your posts, and appreciate your comments very much. Because D-STAR ham radio is not an ICOM product, but a 100% amateur radio product, it will succeed. In 1922 a man by the name of John R. Carson described FM and concluded it was inferior to AM. How wrong he was. The rest is history.

This whole argument reminds of what I read about hams, who debated the benefits of SSB on HF ham radio. A patent for SSB was granted in 1923. Today you cannot buy a HF ham radio without it. The sheep had no choice, but to follow the leaders.

To all the others I say http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

D-STAR: Digital Smart Technologies for Amateur Radio. The name says it all. It can be used in home brewed equipment, should you have the intelligence and skills to do so. I myself am thankful that ICOM and Kenwood are both offering us D-STAR compliant equipment. Read the web pages at http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/ and learn what D-STAR is really about.

If you are really a public service volunteer, use a separate, dedicated radio for that service. Allow the amateur radio service to keep up its mandate. That is to run a similar, but separate backup service, parallel to the public service radio systems. This will allow it to be available, to assist when the need occurs.

To the people who modify their ham radio just to impress their friends, I have this warning. If you get caught interfering with the public service radio service, they will deal with you. Don’t do it unless you have an established relationship as a regular volunteer.

N3JFW

10-15-2005, 03:31 AM

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ Oct. 14 2005,10:03)]

Quote[/b] ]I drive those routes every day and have no problems at all with my R/S 2m xcvr and no notch filter. Nor with my Icom dual band HT. I don't use DC to Daylight radios though, no need for them.

Really? I've never had a radio worth a damn through there. I even got intermod on my Kenwood 2550 years ago.

Quote[/b] ]
But again, what is the amateur
requirement for interoperability with public service APCO-25 systems?

There is none, and no reason for it.

Quote[/b] ]What does APCO-25 buy us regardless of the type of radio using it? Does D-Star offer superior features for amateur use vs APCO-25? Is there a reason no amateur equipment manufacturer offers APCO-25 but there are now two are offering D-Star?

I don't know why amatuer manufacturers didn't pay the licensing fees for imbe. Frankly, I'm kinda bumbed out. I'm guessing d-star was cheaper?

Quote[/b] ]This is not about what radios to use but what digital procotol to use.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

Of course. I'd like to see both put in use.

Seth

AC0GT

10-15-2005, 04:03 AM

I think I just realized why APCO-25 is not widely recognized as an Amateur protocol. #License fees. #I don't have any insight into the whole deal but the mention of license fees could be the reason no Amateur radio comes with APCO-25 compatibility. #If the protocol is in any way encumbered by intellectual property laws that could make its use on Amateur radio frequencies illegal.

Would I be breaking some law in creating an APCO-25 compatible radio if I failed to pay Digital Voice Systems Inc. their vig? #If so, then that opens a whole can of questions about APCO-25 use on Amateur frequencies.

This legal gray area might not be enough to keep the occasional Amateur from soft-modding a commercial radio but it would certainly be enough to keep a manufacturer, such as Yaesu, Icom, Kenwood, etc., from marketing those products to Amateurs.

For all we know the legal aspects of APCO-25 was the very reason that D-STAR was created.

K8TTK

10-15-2005, 10:57 AM

I am just a new guy here, but these are my random thoughts:

LXK: As far as I can tell, you could not create an IMBE compatable radio without the actual chip...unless you reverse engineer it. I would suspect that 99% of us out here do not have the capability to reverse engineer the software and create a VOCODER and related hardware to do the job.

If you were a manufacture, you would just pay the license fee. It would just be another bill to pay on top of all the other licenced technologies that are in radios (and other items) every day.

Also, ICOM - Kenwood - Yaesu (Vertex Standard) already hold liceneses from DVSI from their commerical lines. If that extends to their amatuer lines, I don't know, but its quite possible.

You have to remember how long it took for the big companies to implement PL within their radios...something that has been available for decades.

Maybe I don't understand or missed something, but if your going digital, why not go with a radio that already supports an industry wide accepted standard? DStar looks interesting, but personally I would rather invest my money in a tried and true standard. With the price of the DStar equipment and infrastrure to support it, I'd have to pass for now and wait to see if it actually takes off. There have been sucessful mods to the Motorola Maxtrac ($50 each used) to make a repeater that will pass digital traffic. Much easier on the wallet than $1300 and you can do it on VHF/UHF/900 vs being stuck on 1.2.

AC0GT

10-15-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 15 2005,03:57)]I am just a new guy here, but these are my random thoughts:

LXK: As far as I can tell, you could not create an IMBE compatable radio without the actual chip...unless you reverse engineer it. I would suspect that 99% of us out here do not have the capability to reverse engineer the software and create a VOCODER and related hardware to do the job.

If you were a manufacture, you would just pay the license fee. It would just be another bill to pay on top of all the other licenced technologies that are in radios (and other items) every day.

Also, ICOM - Kenwood - Yaesu (Vertex Standard) already hold liceneses from DVSI from their commerical lines. If that extends to their amatuer lines, I don't know, but its quite possible.

You have to remember how long it took for the big companies to implement PL within their radios...something that has been available for decades.

If the manufacturers already paid the license fees for the IMBE chips then why don't we see them in Amateur radios?

It doesn't take a million Amateurs to reverse engineer IMBE, just one. #Then that person can release the specs in a way that 1% can understand. #Then that 1% can make components that 10% can put into kits, that 50% can connect to their radios.

But then if the specification is open then no one needs to reverse engineer it. #In which case I would assume some legal hurdle is preventing Amateurs from using the IMBE protocol. #It could be trade secrets, patents, copyrights, or whatever.

Whatever that hurdle is that prevents IMBE from being a built in mode in Amateur radios is now moot. #D-STAR does everything APCO-25 does without all those legal and technical questions.

Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 15 2005,03:57)]Maybe I don't understand or missed something, but if your going digital, why not go with a radio that already supports an industry wide accepted standard? DStar looks interesting, but personally I would rather invest my money in a tried and true standard. With the price of the DStar equipment and infrastrure to support it, I'd have to pass for now and wait to see if it actually takes off. There have been sucessful mods to the Motorola Maxtrac ($50 each used) to make a repeater that will pass digital traffic. Much easier on the wallet than $1300 and you can do it on VHF/UHF/900 vs being stuck on 1.2.
You are making two common misconceptions here. #One is that you are comparing used equipment to new. #APCO-25 has been around for a while so there are already used radios on the market. #How long will that used market last if Amateurs accept APCO-25 as a common mode? #The reason the radios are so cheap is because few people want them. #If the demand goes up then prices go up. #If demand outstrips the supply of used equipment then people will be forced to buy new. #If that happens people can't just go to Ebay and expect to get an APCO-25 radio for $50 any more.

If you are going to have a reliable APCO-25 repeater system then you should have in mind a supply for replacements better than "I'll just go to the next swap meet" to get parts. #I don't know what a new APCO-25 repeater costs but I would guess it's not far from what Icom is asking for in D-STAR gear.

The other misconception you're relating is that D-STAR is bound to 1.2GHz. #Right now Icom is selling D-STAR compatible radios for 2 meters, 440MHz, as well as 1.2GHz. #Since D-STAR is an open standard then anyone is free to create implementations on whatever frequency they choose.

You call APCO-25 an "industry wide standard" but what "industry" are we talking about? #The radio industry? #That may hold true there. #The Amateur radio industry? #That does not seem to be the case. #If APCO-25 was a recognized Amateur radio standard then some one would have been able to point out where I could buy a new APCO-25 radio by now.

I think we need to discuss how APCO-25 is going to gain any kind of mind share and market share in Amateur radio. #If no manufacturer is willing to sell new APCO-25 equipment to Amateurs then it is unlikely it will gain any widespread acceptance. #APCO-25 in Amateur radio can live off the public safety table scraps for only so long.

In the long run it doesn't matter why manufacturers aren't selling APCO-25 radios to Amateurs, it only matters that they do not.

K8TTK

10-15-2005, 09:31 PM

IMBE (the actual CODEC that is written into the APCO-25 standard there is a difference) is an open standard. Because its an open standard anyone can you it, but you must still pay a license to the developers.

I think that part of the reason why you do not see the big four marekting/producing IMBE equipment is the lack of interest or market. We are our own worse enimies. As my example with PL's, we still have many people/clubs who simply refuse to implement them in high RF enviroments (and are typically the same people who complain about garbage getting into the repeater).

As for prices, and demand, there is in fact quite a bit for the used equipment. Prices were thru the roof on ebay, but came down with with the flooding of the parts built radio's from Nick Deluccia. If you ever go to Dayton you would be amazed at the amount of hams who are walking around with IMBE radios and USING them in the digital mode.

Yes I forgot about the other than 1.2 band radio's, but you are limited to simplex work until they release their repeater.

NEW Motorola Quantar repeaters go for 10-15k depending on options, however used they have gone for as little as 1k.

But again, my comparasion for someone wishing to setup some infrastrure for a digital system still holds true. Would you rather spend some bookoo dollars for a dstar repeater or $100 for a couple of maxtracs?

Right now there are quite a few IMBE repeaters up and running thougout the country, and not all are in major metro areas (suprisingly).

I am neither for or against DStar (yet) but I can't justfy the cost in buying one to talk to myself when everything else, analog and digital works just fine.

The commerical sector is leading now, not the hams leading the commerical guys. Digital isn't cheap, and many hams want to buy cheap....

AC0GT

10-15-2005, 10:33 PM

Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 15 2005,14:31)]IMBE (the actual CODEC that is written into the APCO-25 standard there is a difference) is an open standard. Because its an open standard anyone can you it, but you must still pay a license to the developers.

This I do not understand. #If the standard is truly open then I should not have to pay anyone to create my own implementation of that standard. #If I have to pay someone for the use of their standard then it is not truly open.

From what I can gather I've seen a similar situation in IEEE 1394. #The standard is open and anyone can create an implementation. #However few manufacturers have the resources to create their own implementation of the standard so they buy chip sets from the likes of Sony and Apple (called i.Link and FireWire respectively). #Having a near monopoly on the chips, in the short run, they charge a premium for the chips to make up for development costs.

It may be that DVSI is the only supplier of the chips that implement IMBE. #So even if some one else can legally create their own implementation the cost involved makes that undesirable for the short term.

I'm speculating wildly here. #I could be completely wrong.

What ever the case may be it is all academic until manufacturers are willing to sell APCO-25 radios to Amateurs.

Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 15 2005,14:31)]But again, my comparasion for someone wishing to setup some infrastrure for a digital system still holds true. Would you rather spend some bookoo dollars for a dstar repeater or $100 for a couple of maxtracs?

This is a loaded question. #Sure I can set up a digital repeater for $100 with a couple of APCO-25 radios built from spare parts but is that a reliable repeater? #Where do I go for spare parts if one of the radios fail?

The D-STAR repeater on the other hand is much more expensive but if something goes wrong I can go back to Icom and get parts, repairs, etc. #If the failure is due to a fault on Icom's part then I can expect them to fix it under warrantee.

If the repeater is part of my emergency response network I would probably feel much better spending $5000 on a D-STAR repeater than $100 on something held together with duct tape and a prayer. #If the repeater is my own personal toy and I have little to spend then I might enjoy the $100 repeater as long as I have plenty of duct tape and prayers to spare.

Which brings me to the point I've been saying for some time now. #Until new APCO-25 radios can be easily obtained by Amateurs, it will be just a toy for Amateurs to play with and will not be considered for any communications where reliability is a concern.

K8TTK

10-15-2005, 10:48 PM

That Maxtrac mod isn't a duct tape special, nor are parts hard to find at all...and they are not digital radios. It was a modification that was thought up by a ham however.

Any amatuer can buy an IMBE radio...easily. Just walk into your local two-way radio dealer and order one. Its that simple. That's what I did when I bought new.

As for the licensing part, because its an open standard doesn't automatically mean that its free. Open up some of your home electronics equipment manuals and see just how much technology is licensed. CD's, DVD's, Dolby Sound systems etc are all licensed technologies to manufactures...just like the IMBE codec is.

In fact, the AMBE codec which DStar uses is a licensed from DVSI (there's your amatuer manufacture using something licenses http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif) DStar may be a standard in which how things work, but the DStar digital voice is using the DVSI AMBE codec.

AC0GT

10-16-2005, 05:21 PM

I did a little web searching on IMBE, AMBE, and their respective licensing terms. #I found the following documents.

http://www.dvsinc.com/products/a2000.htm
http://www2.arrl.org/announce/reports-03/digi-voice.html

The ARRL document states the IMBE protocol was encumbered by patents and license fees. #The DVSI document says that the AMBE 2000/2020 chips are not bound with any license fees or royalties. #I've also seen websites that mention a chip from TI is a drop in replacement for the AMBE 1000/2000/2020 chips from DVSI.

The AMBE 1000 is used in the G4GUO digital voice system. #The AMBE 2020 is used in the G4GUO compatible systems from AOR (ARD-9000 and ARD-9800). #I can only assume that D-STAR uses the same or similar chips as the AOR and G4GUO systems, but set at a higher data rate and voice quality.

I don't see where Icom is paying any license fees to DVSI for the use of the AMBE protocol. #From the wording in the ARRL document the IMBE protocol is not only available only under license but what appears to be an expensive license.

I don't see IMBE being used widely in Amateur radio because as long as IMBE is only available after paying licenses, it will always be more expensive than AMBE. #AMBE chips have already been second sourced so prices are going to be kept low by competition.

Right now IMBE/APCO-25 may be less expensive because of the high volume of used equipment, and the low volume of new D-STAR equipment. #When economies of scale improve I can see prices for D-STAR gear lowering. #Should APCO-25 become more popular for Amateur use the prices will only increase as the stock of used equipment becomes scarce. #Once the price difference between APCO-25 and D-STAR gear lessens people will start to look closer at what D-STAR can offer over APCO-25. When that happens I think more Amateurs will choose D-STAR.

AB0WR

10-17-2005, 12:20 AM

Quote[/b] (KC0LXK @ Oct. 16 2005,10:21)]I did a little web searching on IMBE, AMBE, and their respective licensing terms. #I found the following documents.

http://www.dvsinc.com/products/a2000.htm
http://www2.arrl.org/announce/reports-03/digi-voice.html

The ARRL document states the IMBE protocol was encumbered by patents and license fees. #The DVSI document says that the AMBE 2000/2020 chips are not bound with any license fees or royalties. #I've also seen websites that mention a chip from TI is a drop in replacement for the AMBE 1000/2000/2020 chips from DVSI.

The AMBE 1000 is used in the G4GUO digital voice system. #The AMBE 2020 is used in the G4GUO compatible systems from AOR (ARD-9000 and ARD-9800). #I can only assume that D-STAR uses the same or similar chips as the AOR and G4GUO systems, but set at a higher data rate and voice quality.

I don't see where Icom is paying any license fees to DVSI for the use of the AMBE protocol. #From the wording in the ARRL document the IMBE protocol is not only available only under license but what appears to be an expensive license.

I don't see IMBE being used widely in Amateur radio because as long as IMBE is only available after paying licenses, it will always be more expensive than AMBE. #AMBE chips have already been second sourced so prices are going to be kept low by competition.

Right now IMBE/APCO-25 may be less expensive because of the high volume of used equipment, and the low volume of new D-STAR equipment. #When economies of scale improve I can see prices for D-STAR gear lowering. #Should APCO-25 become more popular for Amateur use the prices will only increase as the stock of used equipment becomes scarce. #Once the price difference between APCO-25 and D-STAR gear lessens people will start to look closer at what D-STAR can offer over APCO-25. #When that happens I think more Amateurs will choose D-STAR.
Let's compare apples and oranges.

AMBE is provided by DVSI on a chip. The licensing fees for that implementation is part of the chip price. The *OWNERSHIP* of the AMBE software in the chip remains with DVSI when you buy a chip with the software on it. It's no different than buying Windows XP from Microsoft - you buy a license to use the software, that's all. You don't own the software. Same thing with AMBE. In fact, when you are done using it, the chip is supposed to be returned to AMBE (destroying it is probably a suitable alternative).

IMBE is software from DVSI. You must buy the software license and then use the software in something you build. Or you can buy the software from DVSI already loaded on a flash rom in one of their vocoders used for P25.

Bottom line: Neither is free. While the AMBE standard may be open, the implementation from DVSI is NOT free, nor can you copy it and share it with your friends - legally at least.

I don't see much difference between the two as far as licensing and such goes - only in the incremental cost to an amateur wanting to buy one or two units and use them. If the IMBE is higher priced, then so be it, it is up to DVSI to set the price level to maximize their profit.

tim ab0wr

VE7TKO

10-17-2005, 11:47 PM

Quote[/b] ]Quote by NL7W on October 17, 2005: http://www.eham.net/articles/12277

Now for amateur radio's future involvement: in the long run, hams will need to find viable ways to integrate with public safety at the IP level. This can be done in many ways (which are inherent to the digital world). They will also be specific to local and state public safety agencies and their needs and desires for adjunct communications with "civilian" organizations. Obviously, it would be wise for public safety and civilian organizations to integrate at a modest level.

Hams must adapt to, and overcome, future organizational and technical challenges. The organizational challenges will always remain the most difficult, although digital technology issues may also rear their ugly heads. Amateur radio's leadership may struggle with technical integration issues -- just as the manufacturers, noted above, are struggling with.

Gentlemen and ladies, the digital revolution is now affecting all radio communications services in a big way. Wireless digital is here now. How do we adapt and adopt it? How do we integrate with other agencies and services? Serious challenges lie ahead.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I came upon this interesting article on the eHam net. D-STAR can integrate with public safety at the IP level. Ham radio still remains ham radio and we don’t really open up the public safety bands to some of the poorly disciplined hams that I sometimes hear on the air.

When a total disaster like Katrina does happen, only a ham, on HF, with a home brewed antenna, made from what ever is available, will be on the air. The portable repeaters, which have been pre-planned, by service-minded clubs, can be hauled into the outskirts of the disaster area, to re-establish VHF communications on the ham frequencies. If the new portable repeaters were D-STAR compliant, a short cable, plugged into a working IP, would make any brand of D-STAR HT capable of connecting to the public service agencies outside of the disaster area.

It is going to be up to the ingenuity of hams to figure out how to make this a reality. It will happen, although discord and self-interests from some hams might slow it down.

K8TTK

10-18-2005, 10:12 AM

That sir, I am afraid isn't ideal.

Here is why.

Public safety in general isn't going to allow HAM operators to be on their systems. Further more, until it becomes widely used, they are definately not going to allow such radio's on the IP network. In addition, the application of IP based radio networks and IP interoperbility work in different ways.

In you own example, if the public safety system is not available due to damage (which has become less and less in recent years), "plugging in" wouldn't be an option if the PS network isn't up in the first place. Furthermore, operating in the DStar mode would cut off most other operators who may be coming into the area to assist. The best line that I have seen, and I believe is true is "Analog is already interoperable." Never mind you will have HF, VHF/UHF/900/1.2 etc, now you have analog and digital and it all has to come together. Can it work? Yup. Does it usually work in a real world event? Nope.

Either way in my years as a ham, I don't feel as though amatuer radio has as an important role in disaster communications as once was thought as nessesary (Cold War). With recent improvents in commerical radio technology and infractsture, HAM are/becoming a thing of the past. Perhaps in small underfunded/poor communities we may be able to help in a limited role, but not in the suburban/city enviroment in this day in age-which is where the majority of hams want to work in.

VE7TKO

10-19-2005, 11:15 PM

A D-STAR Last Heard Report may be viewed at http://www.d-starusers.org/dstar.php . Here you may view activity on the D-STAR Network, as it grows. As you can see, 2-meters, 70 cm and 1.2 GHz are seamlessly and automatically linked by simply programming into your radio, the callsign of the station to which you wish to connect.

Other frequencies will be added to the network, as skilled hams build their own D-STAR repeaters. As the repeaters start appearing within range of each other, these repeaters will be able to connect 100% by air link. Because D-STAR is an open protocol, all of the necessary information to play by those rules is publicly available.

K8TTK

10-20-2005, 02:32 AM

"As skilled hams build their own D-STAR repeaters"

This I would like to see. Unlike conventional analog repeaters, digital repeaters require much more work, software and hardware wise in order to work properly. The major hurdle is how to resync and reclock the digital signal so that it is not degraded or improperly sent back on the repeater output.

Its simply not plug and play. This is one of the many reasons why the commerical digital repeaters are not too cheap. Homebrewing a digital repeater is very difficult and requires excellent abilities on several dicipline levels.

VE7TKO

10-20-2005, 05:43 AM

Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 19 2005,19:32)]"As skilled hams build their own D-STAR repeaters"

This I would like to see. Unlike conventional analog repeaters, digital repeaters require much more work, software and hardware wise in order to work properly. The major hurdle is how to resync and reclock the digital signal so that it is not degraded or improperly sent back on the repeater output.

Its simply not plug and play. This is one of the many reasons why the commerical digital repeaters are not too cheap. Homebrewing a digital repeater is very difficult and requires excellent abilities on several dicipline levels.
I never said that this job was for every ham. I said it was for ”SKILLED” hams. There are some hams out there, who know what they are doing. Just give them time, and they will step up to the challenge. There is already a home brewed D-STAR repeater in Portland OR. As for myself, I am going to have to be content to use off the shelf equipment, because I don’t possess those skills.

I do have a son, with a degree in electrical engineering, who might some day find the time to give me a hand. The problem is time and distance.

N3JFW

10-23-2005, 05:02 AM

Do any of you D-star people know if the dual band dstar mobiles will crossband dstar?

VE7TKO

10-24-2005, 05:00 AM

Quote[/b] (n3jfw @ Oct. 22 2005,22:02)]Do any of you D-star people know if the dual band dstar mobiles will crossband dstar?
The only dual band D-STAR ham radio at present time is the ID-800H. It cannot be programmed to crossband. It would not surprise me if the next model out would have a dual display and have crossband capabilities.

Once the D-STAR digital repeaters are in place, and they are hooked into a gateway, the call sign of a received signal is captured and posted to the system registry for other D-STAR repeaters to use for the purpose of routing calls. You will be able to do call sign to call sign calling, regardless of which band your friend is on.

N3JFW

10-25-2005, 03:54 AM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 24 2005,01:00)]The only dual band D-STAR ham radio at present time is the ID-800H. It cannot be programmed to crossband. It would not surprise me if the next model out would have a dual display and have crossband capabilities.
Well that blows chunks

If they had a dual band rig that would do cross band, I might actually consider replacing the ft8800. That is assuming it was an equivelant or better receiver.

WA5BEN

10-25-2005, 10:34 PM

Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 18 2005,03:12)]That sir, I am afraid isn't ideal.

Here is why.

Public safety in general isn't going to allow HAM operators to be on their systems. Further more, until it becomes widely used, they are definately not going to allow such radio's on the IP network. In addition, the application of IP based radio networks and IP interoperbility work in different ways.

In you own example, if the public safety system is not available due to damage (which has become less and less in recent years), "plugging in" wouldn't be an option if the PS network isn't up in the first place. Furthermore, operating in the DStar mode would cut off most other operators who may be coming into the area to assist. The best line that I have seen, and I believe is true is "Analog is already interoperable." Never mind you will have HF, VHF/UHF/900/1.2 etc, now you have analog and digital and it all has to come together. Can it work? Yup. Does it usually work in a real world event? Nope.

Either way in my years as a ham, I don't feel as though amatuer radio has as an important role in disaster communications as once was thought as nessesary (Cold War). With recent improvents in commerical radio technology and infractsture, HAM are/becoming a thing of the past. Perhaps in small underfunded/poor communities we may be able to help in a limited role, but not in the suburban/city enviroment in this day in age-which is where the majority of hams want to work in.
It might be helpful to note:

The U.S. Army used a ham repeater for coordination in New Orleans

Most of the Katrina and Rita disaster relief traffic (offcial messages / logistics -- not Health and Welfare) was carried on ham frequencies

Primary links between the Louisiana state EOC, parish EOC, and parish law enforcement were carried on ham frequencies until at least 9 Sep 2005 following Katrina.

At least a dozen rescues in and around New Orleans were initiated and coordinated by ham radio.

Thousands of people would have gone unfed without ham radio. (I personally forced the hand of the Red Cross to get meals to Bogalusa after we ran out of food.)

And that, folks, is just a small portion.

VE7TKO

10-26-2005, 05:59 AM

Quote[/b] (n3jfw @ Oct. 24 2005,20:54)]
Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 24 2005,01:00)]The only dual band D-STAR ham radio at present time is the ID-800H. It cannot be programmed to crossband. It would not surprise me if the next model out would have a dual display and have crossband capabilities.
Well that blows chunks

If they had a dual band rig that would do cross band, I might actually consider replacing the ft8800. That is assuming it was an equivelant or better receiver.
Seth (N3JFW)

People, who live in Glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones. You’re just looking for something to complain about. How many cross band repeaters are there in your area? Can your radio cross band with a radio in another part of the world? I don’t think so. D-STAR can, and you won’t even need a dual band radio to do it. Even your ASTRO can’t do that.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Give this new technology a chance to prove itself, and you can play follow the leader once it is fully implemented. Or you can go to http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/ and learn all about it. Some day, even YAESU will produce a D-STAR ham radio.

N3JFW

10-27-2005, 07:21 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 26 2005,01:59)]

Quote[/b] ]You’re just looking for something to complain about.

Not at all Jan. It was a simple question I did not know the answer too. I kinda hoped they would.

Quote[/b] ]How many cross band repeaters are there in your area?

Aside from every ham with a dualbander? That depends on who puts thier dual band mobile in crossband.

Quote[/b] ] Even your ASTRO can’t do that.

VOIP technology has been around for a long time dude.

Plus, I can add echolink or irlp to ANY radio.

Quote[/b] ]Give this new technology a chance to prove itself, and you can play follow the leader once it is fully implemented.

I hope it does work out. If it does, and having it becomes more than a phallic symbol, I'll be happy to spend the money.

Quote[/b] ]Some day, even YAESU will produce a D-STAR ham radio.

Sure. If it becomes a proven technology. I hope it (or something) becomes a digital standard for ham gear for all manufacturers.

Quote[/b] ]
Seth (N3JFW)

People, who live in Glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones.

Dude, I am one of very few astro capable hams in my area. I'd like to see more people use it. However the bottom line is that unless the few of us that have astro get a repeater up on the air running mixed mode, it's not going to happen.

Jan, it's great that you are willing to expand into digital modes. How many people have you actually talked to in your province though?

VE7TKO

10-28-2005, 07:27 AM

Quote[/b] (n3jfw @ Oct. 27 2005,12:21)]
Quote[/b] ]
Seth (N3JFW)

People, who live in Glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones.

Dude, I am one of very few astro capable hams in my area. I'd like to see more people use it. However the bottom line is that unless the few of us that have astro get a repeater up on the air running mixed mode, it's not going to happen.

Jan, it's great that you are willing to expand into digital modes. How many people have you actually talked to in your province though?
Seth

I hope that you will find it in your heart to forgive me for my lack of wit. When I saw your name, temptation got the best of me. I can clearly see that your name is much easier to pronounce than mine.

I appreciate your honesty regarding your ASTRO experience. I can relate to that, because there are only 4 D-STAR radios in my immediate area, and 3 of them are mine. Currently I have only one other D-STAR user to talk to in this city. That will change sometime next year when the first 2-meter or 70 cm D-STAR repeater is installed. Than I will be able to cross band with any other D-STAR repeater that has a gateway hooked up to the controller. I noticed that some of the dual display units in Japan do have a “D” behind the model number. I suspect that these are digital units. I don’t think they are necessarily D-STAR units. I hope that the next new D-STAR unit will have dual displays and digital volume controls.

There is a new home brewed 70 cm repeater in Portland OR. It will do both APCO P-25 and D-STAR. You will see more of this happening in the years to come. They are not yet able to communicate between platforms. I suspect that is only a problem that will be resolved at the IP level. Somebody will write the software.

VE7TKO

10-31-2005, 01:16 AM

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif Go to: http://www.southgatearc.org/competitions/ic-v82.htm and enter to win an ICOM IC-V82. Your odds of winning are better than if you buy a lottery ticket and it won’t cost you one thin dime.

N3JFW

10-31-2005, 03:58 AM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 28 2005,03:27)]

Quote[/b] ]There is a new home brewed 70 cm repeater in Portland OR. It will do both APCO P-25 and D-STAR. You will see more of this happening in the years to come. They are not yet able to communicate between platforms. I suspect that is only a problem that will be resolved at the IP level. Somebody will write the software.

He're the deal JAn

There is a mod out there for maxtrac mobile to allow it to pass just about anything. Only thing is, it's carrier squelch.

So pl in pl out, imbe in imbe out, dstar in dstar out.

I am also told that ge master 3 repeaters set up for aegis will pass imbe if put in carrier squelch mode. I'd expect if it passes imbe, it will pass dstar as well.

btw-I entered the contest.

KJ7YL

11-15-2005, 04:56 AM

The problem is Dstar modules only work in ICOM radios. DStar technology works. Problem is has the Amatuer community agreed to DStar as the Ham Digital Standard? Is Dstar open source so the other Ham Radio companies can build Dstar radios to work with #the ICOM radios with Dstar modules installed.

ICOM has VHf and UHF radios that can do Dstar. Will they work on an old analog repeater system? Will the folks who listen with an analog radio what to listen to the digital noise?

It seems to me that the Ham Radio community should agree on a standard before a radio company sells a digital format.

Remember DAT recorders?

VE7TKO

11-15-2005, 11:31 PM

Quote[/b] (kj7yl @ Nov. 14 2005,21:56)]The problem is Dstar modules only work in ICOM radios. DStar technology works. Problem is has the Amatuer community agreed to DStar as the Ham Digital Standard? Is Dstar open source so the other Ham Radio companies can build Dstar radios to work with the ICOM radios with Dstar modules installed.

ICOM has VHf and UHF radios that can do Dstar. Will they work on an old analog repeater system? Will the folks who listen with an analog radio what to listen to the digital noise?

It seems to me that the Ham Radio community should agree on a standard before a radio company sells a digital format.

Remember DAT recorders?
D-STAR is not a module. D-STAR is an open protocol – although it is published by JARL, it is available to be implemented by anyone. You can learn all that you need to know by reading (Quote) “D-STAR for the Second Century of Amateur Radio” at: http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/. Both ICOM and Kenwood have agreed to support the protocol. I suspect that other major name brands will soon be supporting the protocol since it was designed by hams, for hams. Plans are already underway to have a D-STAR system on the International Space Station in the next few years.

ICOM’s UT-118 module will not work on radios that were not designed to use it. Many of the setup functions need a display that is capable of displaying these features. The ID-800H was designed with D-DTAR as part of the total circuit design. I suspect that this will be the approach used on all high-end radios in the future. By doing so, the total cost of implementation will be reduced by spreading the cost over a larger number of purchasers.

The D-STAR format requires a special repeater controller. (Quote) Repeaters linked with D-STAR can also share information using the same D-STAR link. This information includes repeater operating information and statistics. System designers can add entirely new functions, sharing weather and control information, for example. Another possibility is “smart systems” that track interference or user location.

There is a repeater in Portland, Oregon that is already repeating the basic D-STAR format. I have no personal knowledge of this system. An analogue radio listening to D-STAR signal will hear only what appears to be “white noise”. It does not sound like packet radio over a regular FM carrier.

The success of D-STAR will be reflected in the number of units sold. Not unlike all other new ham radio advancements, there will always be resistance to new innovation. Too many hams have found their niche and are content to stay there. That is not really a problem as long as they don’t try to hold others back.

It seems to me that the ham radio community has already spoken in support of D-STAR. This can be seen at the “D-STAR Last Heard Report” found at: http://www.d-starusers.org/dstar.php/. This list will increase in size, as new D-STAR repeaters are added over the next few years.

N3JFW

11-16-2005, 12:25 AM

Quote[/b] (kj7yl @ Nov. 15 2005,00:56)]

Quote[/b] ]Remember DAT recorders?

Sure do. I sold a used fostec for 1800 bucks a year ago.

The guy I sold it to, resold it last month for 1950

What's your point?

FWIW-As much as I wish ham manufacturers had gone with imbe, I am still happy to see icom do something. When they come out with a dual band dual receive unit, that does xband-I will get one.

KJ7YL

11-16-2005, 02:12 AM

wrong again the IC-2200 uses the UT108 digital module for this VHF 2 meter radio to be able to run a digital modes.

http://www.icomamerica.com/brochures/ic-2200h.pdf

"The success of D-STAR will be reflected in the number of units sold. Not unlike all other new ham radio advancements, there will always be resistance to new innovation. Too many hams have found their niche and are content to stay there. That is not really a problem as long as they don’t try to hold others back."

I agree the sales will be the key. As for as "they" holding anyone back. The prices and the expense will be the only things holding hams back buying new equiemnt. The majority of hams do not have alot of funds for exspensive equipment. More and more used equipment pops up as number of silent keys pop up. Along the same lines smaller numbers of people getting involved with the hobbie.

Ham Radio is dying and will not be the same as it was ten years ago.

The technology ICOM sells works. If the protocal is not open for all radio manufactures than it is not a good thing in my opinion. Most Hams are not going to support a Digital mode that can only be purchased from one or two companies.

The Japan and the US radio are completely diffrent markets. They also have diffrent approaches.

I have also heard alot of Hams complaining the other direction. The main grip is that the equipment is to expensive.

More and more hams are using cell phone a getting commercial WI-FI for net access.

So we will see how well things get off the ground.

Not every repeater group will want to afford the change with the numbers in hams in ham radio going down every year.

VE7TKO

11-16-2005, 06:35 AM

Quote[/b] (kj7yl @ Nov. 15 2005,19:12)]wrong again the IC-2200 uses the UT108 digital module for this VHF 2 meter radio to be able to run a digital modes.
........

I have also heard alot of Hams complaining the other direction. The main grip is that the equipment is to expensive.
I am not sure what you mean by “wrong again”. Be patient with me and I will try to clear this subject up. I have 3 D-STAR radios, and speak from personal experience.

The first Digital capable radio that ICOM built for 2-meters was the IC-2200H. It was released long before the D-STAR part of the circuit was ready. You quote the UT-108 as being a D-STAR module. It is not. The UT-108 is a DTMF decoder unit for code squelch and pager operation. The first digital board recommended for the IC-2200H was a UT-115. Although this board was digital, it was not D-STAR compatible and could not connect to a D-STAR radio like the IC-V82 with the IC-118 digital board. That UT-115 add-on circuit board did not follow the D-STAR protocol.

The UT-118 digital circuit board was originally designed for the IC-V/U82 radios to give them D-STAR digital capabilities. On an incoming call, the IC-V82 scrolls the callsign attached to the digital signal, across its screen. The same thing is true of the ID-800H D-STAR compliant radio. This is not the case for the IC-2200H. Although the IC-2200H will communicate well with other D-STAR radios, it will not display the callsign attached to the incoming signal. I suspect that the feature was not designed into the display of the radio, or the UT-118 board is not 100% compatible with that radio. Just remember, the IC-2200H came out long before the UT-118 was ever designed. Some difficulties are to be expected. This issue is a very minor one.

If by “wrong again” you are referring to my statement that “D-STAR is not a module. D-STAR is an open protocol – although it is published by JARL, it is available to be implemented by anyone”. It is a open protocol. I stand by this, because the bold black text is a direct quote from the literature to which I gave you directions. Think of the UT-118 boards as the completion of a circuit for which the radio was designed. An IC-V8000 has a socket identical to the one used by the IC-2200H radios. There is no way that plugging a UT-118 board into that socket, will make it a D-STAR radio although both can use the UT-108 pager board in that socket.

Hams that gripe about the cost of new equipment will always do so. Nobody is obligated to buy new equipment. At the present time, there is very little used D-STAR equipment available. They will have to wait a few years and become followers as used equipment becomes available. A member of our club has already approached me. He said that he would like to buy the UT-118 board from me when I get rid of the IC-2200H.

Buying new equipment is a mater of priority or personal desire. I drive an older car and prefer new technology for my ham radio equipment. Others drive state of the art cars and prefer to buy used ham gear. One thing I can guarantee. My preference is cheaper and will cost me less in depreciation.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif