Yaesu's "overlooked" Dayton introduction - the FT-1D

Yeah. As opposed to PAL vs. SECAM vs. NTSC......

Or CDMA vs GSM

It's an American thing too. Called Not Invented Here.

K2PH

 

I think Yaesu and Kenwood have both lost their minds. Kenwood already sells a D-Star radio in Japan (which is a relabeled Icom radio). We already have several digital formats for vhf and uhf, D-Star, P-25 and Mototurbo. Why in the world do we another.. I can understand Mototurbo, being owned by Motorola not being an option because Patient issues and Royalty fees which Motorola would charge, if, they would even agree to its release. But what I don't understand is why not P-25 or D-Star. P-25 is an open standard and D-Star (NOT OWNED BY ICOM) are already out there. Just what we need another format which has no interoperability capability.

 

A bit of mis-information here. while "MotoTrbo" is indeed a Motorola product, the DMR format is NOT. It is an open source system. Try doing a little reading on the DMR (digitial Mobile Radio) format. Check the DMR-MARC website. Motorola is not the only company producing DMR radio equipment.

 

My sentiments exactly. Digital voice is terrible and there is no weak signal digital. Just notice your cell phone behavior when out of range. Same thing - Click.

K2WH

 

Kudos to you. I have and still do predict D-Star and other digital repeater voice modes will go the way of Packet Radio. Small niches and little interest.

K2WH

 

You might be right, there.

Analog just works too well for hams who mostly prefer hearing a weak signal fade into the noise rather than disappear entirely.

Digital SSB has been available (and legal) for a long time, and just never caught on. AOR invested quite a lot in it, but for amateur use it's just too limiting. For the military, it's great. They deal with strong signal, channelized communications. For hams who tune around and don't mind copying a signal 1 dB above e.s.p. levels as most of us do, it's silly.

 

Yes you are correct

Zach K7LTF

 

I'm on the return leg of my double cross country safari. I didn't have the kind of time I usually do to program up my VHF/UHF rigs, so I've been doing it a little at a time. Still, I am surprised at the amount of DSTAR and P25 I am hearing. In some major places, it sounds like much of the activity is on DSTAR.

I don't see any benefit to the new Yaesu attempt to be VHS and spoil ICOM's Betamax offering. Ultimately, it may come down to price, but I think it will be many many years before Yaesu makes any inroads here, unless they are really going to compete, which I doubt they will.

 

In other words, another P25 vs. Open Sky (aka, "Closed Sky")

 

It was the FT-One (with the number 1 spelled out); I heard they stopped production because too many people called it the "F-Tone".... similar to the former Pontiac 6000LE being called a "GOOOLiE".

 

Good to see another digital txvr on the market. As usual, hams are again the last to to embrace this new technology. If what I read in the QRZ forums and hear on the air is representative, hams are the most backwards looking, contrary and technophobic bunch I've ever encountered. But; if the hobby survives, digital voice modes will become the new standard eventually. Maybe it isn't much, but at least Yaesu put something out there. I'm glad Icom no longer has a complete monopoly on digital voice txvr's.

 

This is a good thing, thanks Yaesu.

 

I saw this HT and simply asked what the heck are yall thinking not doing Dstar or P25? The Yeasu guy said I have no idea the guys in Japan made the call to go C4FM. The basic reaction from people at Dayton was "Great another mode that wont work with anyone else"

My $0.02 someone needs to come out with a Dstar, C4FM, P225, mototurbo radio.. .... alinco, kenwood, wouxn anyone?

 

Unintentional nugget in your post.

Most smart phones handle multiple protocols. (mine does four modes / data bands, two wi-fi bands, and bluetooth)

Multiple types of "AM Stereo" were decoded by one chip.

Mac vs. PC -- the internet doesn't care which platform.

Your post prompts me to guess that if "digital" ever gains enough popularity, there will be software or hardware to decode and encode a variety.

 

I almost agree.

But I think its a cost/reward issue at the true heart of this. The cost is immense with little reward, which is one mode of operation no one wants to operate in. I think its around $400-500 minimum to get a fairly feature-less (compared to something similarly priced like the VX-8D/GR) D-Star HT. If you don't have a D-star repeater around, its about another $100 + computer to be able to use D-Star like intended. Thats getting into HF rig territory (and quite ridiculous IMHO). I'd rather have the HF rig too, its not going to be nearly worthless if there is a industry wide standard that isn't D-Star compatible (or if D-Star gets a v2.0). I might be wrong as I never really got to studying D-Star too much.

Ham radio, as a hobby AND industry, is used to moving pretty slow with advances which doesn't mix well with the fast-paced digital world. There really isn't a standards body like in all the other widespread digital wireless arenas. There isn't even a hint that any of the big players are even thinking about talking to each other. I refuse to buy into any digital voice mode till that happens. Personally I think its a mistake that anyone bought into it before that happens.

While I'm glad to see more digital capable rigs coming around, I can't help but feel its pointless without an industry standard.

The biggest problem with all this is Hams are at the mercy of manufacturers (yes, you are). There is no group speaking for the Hams to the manufacturers. Hams are left to buy what is available no matter how bad it is, or how much it costs, if they want to 'move forward' into digital. They are using the "Apple" model to extract the most money possible from Hams and force them into staying loyal. (I'd be willing to bet D-star penetration is probably similar to what the Mac vs PC penetration was in the early 2000's).

If some group like the ARRL set a base standard, a target, for the manufacturers to hit, things might get moving (as hated by some as they may be, they are the only group that could pull this off). A large body that puts forth some standard that the manufacturers follow might get things moving in the right direction. Just simple standards stuff like interoperability, licensing, openness, bandwidth, digital rate, etc.

Anything moving toward a open and lower cost platform would get my attention, but as is, I have no interest even concerning myself with reading about any new manufacturer dependent digital HT/mobile rig.