1.2 GHz high-speed D-STAR in Minnesota

Hi
I agree a area wide network would be great. They tried a similar network with packet I just do not see it working reliable.
73,s
KD5BLZ

 

Some of you people really should go read about DSTAR and what it is and how it functions before going off on a wild tangent and saying dumb things like they should turn their ticket it.

The data that is sent is RF over the air data. They will be able to send text messages and email to anyone on the DSTAR network. That means as long as the repeaters are operational, then they have reliable data communications with one another. the INTERNET is simply an additional LINK in the backbone. This isn't ECHOLINK!!!

DSTAR ***IS*** the backbone. If the internet link goes down, all they lose is access to websites and availability to send their emails out to internet addresses and vice-versa. But within the backbone they'll still be able to communicate throughout their region or state either with digital voice (which is far superior to analog as we have now on 2m, 1.25m, and 70cm) and ability to send text messages direct to a user's radio display, or an interfaced computer just like chat on the internet. AND actual email with attachments. If they lose the internet WHO CARES. No big deal!

DSTAR ***IS*** AMATEUR RADIO!

 

Yet again, we have a bunch of guys commenting on something that they do not fully understand. And because they don't understand it, they feel threatened by it.

The D-Star installation that was mentioned does *not* have an Internet backbone. It has an RF backbone on 1.2GHz. One of the *features* of the system is that it is connected to the Internet, but if there is no Internet connection available, the system still fully functions.

I encourage you guys to educate yourselves on D-Star instead of throwing out misinformation.

 

Isn't that what the internet's for?

 

What's wrong with doing something for fun? Just because it can be done. I've read of lots of impractical radio experiments that were performed not out of any necessity for EmComm or otherwise.

I'll posit that there are a lot more people interested in connecting the Internet to a Hinternet just because they think it's a neat idea than because they're trying to save a buck on ISP and phone charges. Of course, I have absolutely zero evidence to back this up, which pretty much makes my argument par for the course on this particular thread

 

Hi
If it was only for fun no problem. My problem is a system that is being pushed as a cure all for Emergency communications. I live in the New Orleans area. This is just to much like packet was when I first became a ham. Packet never took off strong in this area. It even being pushed in this area. If I want digital communications I will look at something open source such as pskmail psk31 etc. Winlink is to broadband PSKmail is narrow band and linux based. Icom has the market cover in D-star now. That something that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
73,s
KD5BLZ

 

I see the anti-digital army is already out in full force. They never fail to disappoint.

N5PVL is the most baffling out of the lot. I'd have expected that he'd be in favor of advanced (for AR anyway) digital networks.

I guess not!

 

Mark then they should not be using the term internet then. They should be using the term RF Network. Internet is the term used to describe many computers linked together using WANs and LANs, thus the term Inter.

 

You can still do digital on the radio only don't try and connect radio and the internet together. What is the point.

 

This is where I have a problem. Why do you need to access websites via ham radio? I can think of a bunch of part 97 rules you would be breaking by visiting a hotmail or yahoo site. With all the commercial advertising on those types of sites, even QRZ, that would be breaking some of the part 97 rules dealing with commercial use. That is the main problem with winlink right now and 3rd party traffic. I guess we just throw out part 97 rules whenever we feel like it now a days. Pretty soon Ham Radio is going to be nothing more than the CB band with tests to get in.

 

The way they describe their system, they have a server connected to each Ham node. This server has a web server on it (looks pretty simple, with no graphics).

The web server is a pretty good user interface. Sure, the command line can do everything you need, but efficiency is worth something, and filling in web page entries that get stored into a mysql database, seems like a pretty good design to me.

For emergency communications, I'd rather see Hams interfacing with a web page (speed) rather than not.

What's so hard about that to understand?

I looked on their web page describing their system. I saw no place where they wanted to connect to commercial web sites. Are you just making this up. What is your motive here?

 

A group of radio users on the same frequency, is called a LAN (Local Area Network).  Connecting two LAN's via a backbone frequency is called a WAN (Wide Area Network).

When you have the essentials of two LAN's and a WAN, then you have what is referred to as an Internet. If the two LAN's are in the same city, but on a different frequency, then you can also call them an Intranet.

You can say RF Internet if you like, or RF LAN, or RF WAN.  It's not innappropriate to leave off the RF term in discussing networks.

 

He isn't interested in anything except BBS on HF via packet AX.25.

He won't be happy until the whole world stops turning, and the people flock to buy a new KAM...

Since the beginning, there have always been two groups in packet radio: 1) People who want to use the BBS design of messaging, and 2) People who want to transport data at a higher protocol level.

Type 1 users are critical of type 2 users. They don't think higher level protocols are needed.

Thus we have the arguments we see today. Always the same argument, nothing has changed since 1987...

 

I honestly don't give a rats how it works. I have to throw the $$$$ BS flag on this one. Let me know when the prices come down to Earth and and I will look into it. I also think that areas that go to this D-Star system for EMCOMM are going to find a large drop in volunteers due to cost of equipment to get involved.

I wonder after buying this expensive equipment if you could ask your city to re-imburse you for the expense? After all, you are planning to do their job since you pay them to provide services and they don't have a back-up communications plan.

 

Looking at the photo at their web site I see something that really bothers me. There are three hams (yellow shirts) and two non-hams (white shirts) all using the same laptops and supposedly doing the same thing, accessing a database of information.

Is there a control op somewhere monitoring the transmissions of the non-hams? Or, are we just providing the facilities (i.e. common carrier) for any tom, dick, or harry to walk up and start using our spectrum?

It's a real short hop to move from using our spectrum for our purposes to letting any governmental or ngo use our spectrum for their own purpose.

Does anyone see a problem with this, especially in non-emergency operations?

Jim
WA0LYK