There are P25 repeaters on the air. Granted, not as many as D-STAR (strictly talking about ham systems), but I know of nobody giving away P25 repeaters. Also, I bet there are more P25 receivers owned by hams than D-STAR since there are several scanners that decode P25, and only a few that decode D-STAR (not ironically, all made by Icom).
Anyway, the point is not which format to use, but to make the systems as flexible as possible so they can be available in emergencies. Simply put, D-STAR is not as flexible as P25 since a P25 repeater can be made to pass P25 or analog. Granted, D-STAR does have some format benefits, but those could easily be added to P25 (or, the P25 benefits could be added to D-STAR, as has been discussed). There are also MotoTRBO repeaters in the ham bands, now. The more various formats you add to the mix, the less we will be likely to use them when they are needed. On the other hand, all the radios can use analog - making it the clear choice for emergency communications. Joe M. John Szwarc wrote: > > > Okay. I've been reading with some interest the threads on D-STAR. > There have been some very good points and some pretty amusing ones. P25 > sounds interesting, but you will have to take note of the fact that it > has not been widely accepted by the ham community. And considering that > it (P25) is not compatible with D-STAR's AMBE codec, I doubt that it > will be accepted by hams anytime soon. Who cares if D-STAR takes up > repeater pairs that could be used for analog? Have you listened to the > analog repeaters? They're mostly silent anyway. One comment that I > read early on (and I don't recall who said this) was that in an > emergency the analog users would not be able to access a D-STAR > repeater. Yep, but so what? Do you really mean to tell me that each > local area is covered by just one analog repeater? It just sounds to me > like typical human behavior: resistance to change. > > There's a good friend of mine that was so ticked off at the institution > of no-code hams. He calls them "rif-raff". He operates almost > exclusively on the CW sections of the HF bands to avoid the no-code > folks. It's sad because there are a lot of no-code hams that are good > operators and some are very technically knowledgeable. He might learn a > thing or two from these folks. I wonder if the people in this group > that are resisting D-STAR are missing the boat as well. Maybe there is > something they could learn from D-STAR? Maybe they could find ways to > to improve it? Of course that won't happen if they are too busy trying > to talk people out of it in favor of P25 or old fashioned analog. > > Just my 2 cents. I'll go back to my corner now. > > John N3SPW > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Nate Duehr > *Sent:* Monday, April 05, 2010 4:01 AM > *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: D-Star (Protocol and Repeaters) > > > > > On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:30 PM, John wrote: > > > > > > > --- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com>, Nate Duehr <n...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I like D-STAR as a not-very-well-designed "first try" and use it... > but it's seriously technologically flawed. Some of that can be fixed... > other things like the header information not being interlaced... > > > > > > -- > > > Nate Duehr, WY0X > > > n...@... > > > > > > > Hmmm... I'm sitting here with my NQMHS Node Adapter (GMSK Modem) and > watching the binary stream, in both Hex and Char, off of my IC-91AD, > while transmitting for a few seconds. It seems the callsign information > is repeated on a pretty continuous basis looking at the trace. I think > it may just be a repeater/gateway control implementation issue. > > I believe if you'll look again, the callsign of the sending station is > interlaced, but not RPT1/RPT2, and the destination address, which are > the essential routing information. > > Plus, you're correct: Judging by the behavior, the repeater's don't look > at that data or utilize it anyway. > > -- > Nate Duehr, WY0X > n...@natetech.com <mailto:nate%40natetech.com> > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2791 - Release Date: 04/04/10 > 14:32:00 > > > >
