On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
Nate, Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD.
FUD means "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", none of which I am "spreading".
D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters.
That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when I turned up W0CDS. I can produce that e-mail if you like.
If you can point to the official documentation that says it's not required, please feel free. If things have changed, it'd sure be nice if this stuff wasn't passed on by word-of-mouth and folklore in a network this large. Documentation from those who make the decisions, would be great. I've never seen any. Show us the way...
People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don't like its implementation. I don't use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom's gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized.
It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY it to be utilized, otherwise they wouldn't have put their name on it and started shipping it, would they? You read too much into things, Ed. I never said one or the other was "bad" or "good"... I said they both hase plusses and minuses, and that Icom's ENGINEERING DESIGN of their Gateway, and thus, how they did their USER DESIGN of the rigs, never included D-PLUS. That's all well-known fact, after all. Note how they added MORE features to the latest rig that didn't play nicely with D-PLUS. Are they stupid? They know D-PLUS is everywhere on the U.S. Trust system. Or do you propose that they just ignored it? Why would they do that? Because... they don't care at all about it. That or they're hideously horrible engineers who aren't paying any attention at all... and I can't bring myself to say that.
You judge. But it's clear they're not paying any attention to making radios (if they had time to put changes in to make callsign routing easier, they sure as hell could have added "linking memories" and other interface changes to make D-PLUS easier... but then they'd have to explain why they don't have D-PLUS loaded on the repeaters in Japan. They'd LOSE FACE... which is not something Japanese businessmen do lightly, nor engineers. Been there, seen that in my professional job, got the t-shirt.
Like I said, I asked Icom to let me build them a complete computer for their demo system they were going to bring to Colorado and they refused to allow D-PLUS on it. I was told it could NOT be put on Icom-operated demo gear, per Japan. I can dig up those e-mails if you'd like them too.
Icom's own reps are NOT SUPPOSED TO DEMO D-PLUS. I'm only going off of that fact. If you'd like to call them and get them to post documentation otherwise, again... feel free.
I can with good conscous, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement.
Now in this, we probably agree. D-STAR would have been dead without the ability to link the very few users in each repeater's coverage area to other areas with more activity.
As the local area gets busier, though -- most groups have to set aside one module in the stack where they allow D-PLUS linking, and keep another for local traffic.
Normal patterns of behavior for linked and unlinked repeaters these days... D-STAR has no claim to fame on this one.
Linked repeater systems are popular, because they're more useful for "CQ" types of contacts. All completely normal.
On D-STAR, just get callsigns on the screen on the linked system... that's about the only difference. No one attempts low-speed data (other than GPS-A) on Reflectors unless they're set aside for the purpose because it's a channel-hog and people don't understand it. In fact, people just don't understand much about D-STAR, really. They want to mash-to-mumble, and have it go world-wide. That's fine, if that's your goal in Ham Radio... but that goal can be accomplished a LOT cheaper with a pile of MASTR II's and some old clunker PC's on analog.
So the benefit of D-STAR over a well-built linked analog system is fairly nil when linked. It offers nothing the other system doesn't do. (In fact, the analog system might even be VOTED - I'm not holding my breath for a voted D-STAR receier system)
By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today?
I hang around here and answer the new people's questions. I take care of my Gateway and actually watch the logs when the Icom DB implementation barfs all over itself. I answer questions locally and register people with this moronic registration system we're all stuck with. I teach local classes on the topic when asked. I offer to set up fully-working systems at ARRL Conventions and get told by Icom to go pound sand. Is there more I should be doing, Ed? For Icom? Am I not raising the "one-true-banner" high enough for you and singing praises to the almighty D-STAR loud enough?
You constantly tell me what you "think" about D-STAR. I don't see why you're so obsessed with refuting my opinions, which you do poorly I might add, unless you're threatened by them in some way. Do you run systems dependent on tax dollars for their existence, perhaps? That's my only guess... I have no idea.
I have been doing computers and digital comm for so many years, I really don't care what system gets used... as long as it meets the communicators requirements. If D-STAR meets your requirements, great. If not, that's fine too. I certainly won't "scare anyone off" who's committed to learning this new technology, or already well entrenched in it (as yourself). I've got rigs, I know how to use them.
But I have no aspirations to "push" the mode over any other... whatever works, is always the technology we need to use... we should know them all. Not be fan-boys of one particular one.
Most of the folks here are jacks-of-all-trades and operate multiple repeater linking methods...
This is a discussion forum about the mode. Here we discuss both the good AND the bad of it. If that bugs you, learn to tough it out, big boy. You keep attacking and spreading FUD about ME... and I'll continue to not care, 'cause you're WAY too engaged for a HOBBY.
Guess what... None of the public safety folks in the big cities care, or even know, what D-STAR is... "Oh, that's that Ham Radio thing."... if you're lucky. I hung out at the largest Fire/Medical dispatch center in the Denver Metro area last night. No one there had even heard of Ham Radio, let alone... D-STAR.
Someone managed to get a grant for a grand total of about 4-5 ID-1's in one city here. I recommended they try to do some real file transfers with ALL 5 units at the same time, and see how slow it is... so they can set appropriate procedures for the use of the rigs. Going through the Gateway isn't going to work for more than about 5 units simultaneously, and the data rates will fall so dramatically that they're going to wonder why they spent $1000 on each rig, I'm afraid. We'll see. Engineering analysis shows that's where it'll fall apart, It'll be nice to have more than two ID-1's in the entire Metro area -- of 3.5 million people -- to try it out.
6 different ARES groups technically "own"/"operate" our repeater here. I haven't heard a single ARES Net on it yet...
Nate WY0X
