Why not do APCO-25?

can hams use APCO-25 now or is it illegal to use it on the hams bands?

 

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.

 

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.

 

Oops... my mistake. I meant to say ID-800H. Of course, the ID-800H is the IC-208H with DSTAR added to it.

Ah - but you just said it was legal...

I suppose that depends on who is deciding whether or not you should get in trouble.

 

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

 

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

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.

 

Really? I've never had a radio worth a damn through there. I even got intermod on my Kenwood 2550 years ago.

There is none, and no reason for it.

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?

Of course. I'd like to see both put in use.


Seth

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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....

 

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.

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.

 

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 ) DStar may be a standard in which how things work, but the DStar digital voice is using the DVSI AMBE codec.

 

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