[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Correction

[Gordon Dick]

Sorry, another change, it should have read 18:00 - 20:00 PST


  __
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! 

http://www.flickr.com/gift/

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: HOTSPOT and DPRS?

[Francis Miele]

I think I found his problem. He didn't port 20003

Thanks for every one's help.
Fran Signature

--

Fran. W1FJM







On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 2:54 PM, kb9khm  wrote:

>
>
> You can also open a console window and type:
> telnet localhost 20003
>
> and watch the slow speed data that is being sent from Hot Spot. You can do
> this to confirm TPC/IP connectivity and data flow.
>
> Mark (KB9KHM)
>
>
>

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[John Hays]

On Jan 22, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:


On 1/22/2010 4:03 PM, Neil wrote:




Wouldn't it be nice if say, a group of people around the country  
(or world even), could put a special call in the UR field and  
everyone in that group would have their traffic automatically  
routed to all the other members, bit like a multicast I suppose,  
but not much fun if the local repeater was already in use.
(That's where G3 'could' come in handy, sending a message instead  
to the members radio on that repeater, underneath the QSO without  
hindering the other users...then you could switch to another  
repeater/node and continue.)


I suppose you could subscribe to a 'multicast group', something  
like a reflector that handles instantaneous multiple connections.


Food for thought...

73 de Neil G7EBY


The commercial digital world calls this "talk groups" and has had it  
for at least a decade.


An Amateur talk group system would need to come up with a way to  
"self-register" with a particular talk group.


Could be done.  Interesting concept.

Nate WY0X





Once we have an open source gateway, its pretty easy.  My  
understanding is that the RP2C sends any transmission with something  
in RPT2 to the gateway (doesn't have to just be "call   G" --- there  
are a couple of syntax that could be used.


UR: TG0R  (Register)
MY: K7VE
RPT1: NW7DR (Module number isn't required by the protocol, but may be  
required for RP2C)

RPT2: GATEWAY

With UR:TG0U (UnRegister)

The gateway would have a list of active talkgroups and register itself  
to the talkgroup server (like a reflector) for two way transmission  
relay -- no need for a "link"


Another syntax:

UR:   (usually CQCQCQ  or ---U to Unregister)
MY: K7VE
RPT1: NW7DR
RPT2: TG0  (Gateway will register for talkgroup if not already  
registered, keep a list of local callsigns in the group and unregister  
when the last sends the unregister or times out)


Arbitration of multiple talk groups on a single repeater frequency is  
the main downside.





John D. Hays
Amateur Radio Station K7VE
PO Box 1223
Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org
 Email: j...@hays.org

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[Nate Duehr]

On 1/22/2010 4:03 PM, Neil wrote:


Wouldn't it be nice if say, a group of people around the country (or 
world even), could put a special call in the UR field and everyone in 
that group would have their traffic automatically routed to all the 
other members, bit like a multicast I suppose, but not much fun if the 
local repeater was already in use.
(That's where G3 'could' come in handy, sending a message instead to 
the members radio on that repeater, underneath the QSO without 
hindering the other users...then you could switch to another 
repeater/node and continue.)
I suppose you could subscribe to a 'multicast group', something like a 
reflector that handles instantaneous multiple connections.

Food for thought...
73 de Neil G7EBY


The commercial digital world calls this "talk groups" and has had it for 
at least a decade.


An Amateur talk group system would need to come up with a way to 
"self-register" with a particular talk group.


Could be done.  Interesting concept.

Nate WY0X

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[Nate Duehr]

On 1/21/2010 6:53 PM, JI1BQW wrote:


A limited number of repeaters? Compared to the US, maybe. There are
57 D-STAR repeaters in the area a bit smaller than the state of
California. It maybe true that we don't mobile much and move between
repeaters.


Wow! Nice coverage!

Nate WY0X

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[Neil]

Wouldn't it be nice if say, a group of people around the country (or world 
even), could put a special call in the UR field and everyone in that group 
would have their traffic automatically routed to all the other members, bit 
like a multicast I suppose, but not much fun if the local repeater was already 
in use.
(That's where G3 'could' come in handy, sending a message instead to the 
members radio on that repeater, underneath the QSO without hindering the other 
users...then you could switch to another repeater/node and continue.)

I suppose you could subscribe to a 'multicast group', something like a 
reflector that handles instantaneous multiple connections.

Food for thought...

73 de Neil G7EBY.


- Original Message - 
  From: john_ke5c 
  To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:42 PM
  Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy



  > And yes, Packet radio died because it worked. As packet became popular and 
people used it, the traffic went up and eventually people left because now the 
network was too congested to do anything.

  AX25 reminds me quite a bit of D-Star. AX25 has two modes: connected 
("linked") and unconnected (UI or broadcast). D-Star has two similar modes: 
directed (UR set to a registered callsign) and CQ (UR set to CQCQCQ). When AX25 
began there was some experimentation and evolution about when each mode should 
be used. Unconnected was useful for calling CQ but connected was useful for 
linking to bulletin boards and for QSO's although you could QSO in unconnected 
mode too. Similar experimentation and evolution seems ongoing within D-Star, 
especially with the dplus extension (not a part of the D-Star specification at 
all).

  I think people left packet before the network congestion began. Bulletin 
boards became internet rather than RF connected, and there were competing 
digital modes that worked more reliably, especially on HF. Although of 
experimental interest, attended data modes on VHF have just never been hugely 
popular. APRS caused the inherent inadequacies of the original AX25 
specification for congested channels to become a real problem, but that didn't 
kill packet, rather, packet evolved with UI flood/trace and NSR (no source) 
routing and with more intelligent digipeaters (read "gateways"). One can only 
wonder how D-Star will next adapt and evolve.

  73 -- John



  

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[john_ke5c]

> And yes, Packet radio died because it worked. As packet became popular and 
> people used it, the traffic went up and eventually people left because now 
> the network was too congested to do anything.

AX25 reminds me quite a bit of D-Star.  AX25 has two modes: connected 
("linked") and unconnected (UI or broadcast).  D-Star has two similar modes: 
directed (UR set to a registered callsign) and CQ (UR set to CQCQCQ).  When 
AX25 began there was some experimentation and evolution about when each mode 
should be used.  Unconnected was useful for calling CQ but connected was useful 
for linking to bulletin boards and for QSO's although you could QSO in 
unconnected mode too.  Similar experimentation and evolution seems ongoing 
within D-Star, especially with the dplus extension (not a part of the D-Star 
specification at all).

I think people left packet before the network congestion began.  Bulletin 
boards became internet rather than RF connected, and there were competing 
digital modes that worked more reliably, especially on HF.  Although of 
experimental interest, attended data modes on VHF have just never been hugely 
popular.  APRS caused the inherent inadequacies of the original AX25 
specification for congested channels to become a real problem, but that didn't 
kill packet, rather, packet evolved with UI flood/trace and NSR (no source) 
routing and with more intelligent digipeaters (read "gateways").  One can only 
wonder how D-Star will next adapt and evolve.


73 -- John

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Homemade D-STAR with Satoshi DV adapter

[Erik Finskas]

Just to show off, we are now officially QRV on D-STAR with the famous
Nokia portaphone;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q8fPggD8to

That is a Nokia RC58 PMR portaphone originally used in a MPT1327
trunking system, currently with a ham firmware.

As you can see the DV adapter board is just test wired to the radio but 
in final installation it will be completely inside the radio unit.

73 & R2D2
Erik OH2LAK

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: HOTSPOT and DPRS?

[kb9khm]

You can also open a console window and type: 
telnet localhost 20003 

and watch the slow speed data that is being sent from Hot Spot. You can do this 
to confirm TPC/IP connectivity and data flow.

Mark (KB9KHM)


--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "ae5pl"  wrote:
>
> D-PRS Interface lets you look at the serial stream directly (without 
> interpretation) by selecting Direct under View in the main menu.  If Direct 
> is not selected, it only shows you what passes CRC or FCS per the D-PRS 
> specification.  If it is not connecting properly to the hot spot serial TCP 
> port, that should show in the Error Log (under Tools in the main menu).
> 
> 73,
> 
> Pete AE5PL
> 
> --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Francis Miele  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Pete. The DPRS interface is setup correctly. I have asked him to
> > check his radio again.
> > 
> > Fran, W1FJM
>

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Correction to VG7W Olympic times

[Cowboy_gord]

Saturday January 23 16:00 - 18:00 PST corrected times for the 2010 OLympic call 
sign.  Sorry for any problems, but lifes little issues do come up.

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: HOTSPOT and DPRS?

[ae5pl]

D-PRS Interface lets you look at the serial stream directly (without 
interpretation) by selecting Direct under View in the main menu.  If Direct is 
not selected, it only shows you what passes CRC or FCS per the D-PRS 
specification.  If it is not connecting properly to the hot spot serial TCP 
port, that should show in the Error Log (under Tools in the main menu).

73,

Pete AE5PL

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Francis Miele  wrote:
>
> Thanks Pete. The DPRS interface is setup correctly. I have asked him to
> check his radio again.
> 
> Fran, W1FJM

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: HOTSPOT and DPRS?

[Francis Miele]

Thanks Pete. The DPRS interface is setup correctly. I have asked him to
check his radio again.

Fran, W1FJM


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:09 PM, ae5pl  wrote:

>
>
> --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Francis"  wrote:
> >
> > I have a friend running a hotspot, with DPRS interface in Aspen Co.,
> N1GAU-E, which is connected to REF010-c.
> >
> > It is sending out it's location just fine. However, the user there,
> KB1AEV is sending his location info from his 92AD with GPS mic and his
> location is not showing up. We tested this with the equipment here in CT and
> it all worked fine. He has not changed anything. The question is, what sends
> the DPRS info to the internet when a hotspot is involved.
> >
> > I see his GPS data on my DVtool screen and it looks correct.
>
> His D-PRS Interface will be the application to send the positions to
> APRS-IS. To do this, he must have the server passcode entered in D-PRS
> Interface and an APRS-IS server and port set into the configuration. He can
> contact me at pete at ae5pl dot net to receive his passcode if he has not
> done so already.
>
> The 92AD must be programmed per the instructions at
> http://www.aprs-is.net/dprs.aspx for the position reports to show up on
> APRS-IS and the GPS must have a position lock. Be advised that connecting a
> GPS mic to the 92AD causes it to default to a beacon every 5 seconds and
> should be reset to a much longer interval (or not at all for normal D-STAR
> usage). The radio will send position reports everytime he transmits voice.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> 73,
>
> Pete AE5PL
>
>  
>

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: HOTSPOT and DPRS?

[ae5pl]

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "Francis"  wrote:
>
> I have a friend running a hotspot, with DPRS interface in Aspen Co., N1GAU-E, 
> which is connected to REF010-c.
> 
> It is sending out it's location just fine. However, the user there, KB1AEV is 
> sending his location info from his 92AD with GPS mic and his location is not 
> showing up. We tested this with the equipment here in CT and it all worked 
> fine. He has not changed anything. The question is, what sends the DPRS info 
> to the internet when a hotspot is involved.
> 
> I see his GPS data on my DVtool screen and it looks correct.

His D-PRS Interface will be the application to send the positions to APRS-IS.  
To do this, he must have the server passcode entered in D-PRS Interface and an 
APRS-IS server and port set into the configuration.  He can contact me at pete 
at ae5pl dot net to receive his passcode if he has not done so already.

The 92AD must be programmed per the instructions at 
http://www.aprs-is.net/dprs.aspx for the position reports to show up on APRS-IS 
and the GPS must have a position lock.  Be advised that connecting a GPS mic to 
the 92AD causes it to default to a beacon every 5 seconds and should be reset 
to a much longer interval (or not at all for normal D-STAR usage).  The radio 
will send position reports everytime he transmits voice.

Hope this helps.

73,

Pete AE5PL

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] HOTSPOT and DPRS?

[Francis]

I have a friend running a hotspot, with DPRS interface in Aspen Co., N1GAU-E, 
which is connected to REF010-c.

It is sending out it's location just fine. However, the user there, KB1AEV is 
sending his location info from his 92AD with GPS mic and his location is not 
showing up. We tested this with the equipment here in CT and it all worked 
fine. He has not changed anything. The question is, what sends the DPRS info to 
the internet when a hotspot is involved.

I see his GPS data on my DVtool screen and it looks correct.

Fran, W1FJM

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[Woodrick, Ed]

Actually there was the capability to have it in the AX.25 network. There was a 
WP (White Page) and YP (Yellow Page) server that was a distributed architecture 
that users could query.

And yes, Packet radio died because it worked. As packet became popular and 
people used it, the traffic went up and eventually people left because now the 
network was too congested to do anything.

Yes, showing up with the satellite uplink is definitely an advantage. It will 
be nice when we finally get a geosynchronous bird in orbit. But I think that 
are two other areas that you somewhat left out that we can provide 
capabilities, the first is the removal of the requirement, that "we show up". 
The second is the ability to provide additional bandwidth for health and 
welfare traffic that no one else has a tasking to handle.

How can we do better than "we show up"? Well, that's because in many locations, 
we're already there. We don't have to wait for the satellite trucks to roll in, 
we don't have to wait for the atmosphere to clear enough to get a connection 
through the clouds. We're there an operating, before, during, and after.
And the H&W traffic is something that we have long provided and something that 
most of the government agencies don't want to worry with.(They have more 
important fish to fry).


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:41 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy



On 1/21/2010 10:34 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:

Actually the way that routi ng is done in D-STAR is much better than the 
routing done in the basic AX.25 protocol. In AX.25, you had to specify each 
node along a path. The additional protocol stacks like KA-Node and others act a 
little more like D-STAR routing in that once connected to the network, you then 
specify the destination and the network automatically figures out how to get 
there.

Not to go TOO far afield from D-STAR here, but AX.25 networks could have EASILY 
added what D-STAR has... a master DB that did a lookup on a destination and 
just "went there" with the datagrams.

The real killer of AX.25 for anything except APRS was bandwidth.  1200 bps just 
isn't even CLOSE to useful these days, and my fear is that after the "newness" 
wears off, it won't be enough for D-STAR either.


I've been saying this for years... we're the guys that show up and get Comm 
going for the first 72 hours.  After that, the larger and better funded 
organizations will be 95%+ back online or the areas affected will be evacuated. 
 We're far more useful to emergency folks if we show up with a $500 satellite 
uplink, knowledge of how to provision a NAT router and 802.11 -- than we are as 
Amateur operators.  We LEARN the RF basics and electronics basics to handle 
"let's slap something together that works", but showing up saying "this D-STAR 
radio will fix your problems", just ain't gonna cut it, these days.  It'll fix 
their problem in a poor way until the cellular company COW trucks roll in.  
That's about it.


Nate WY0X

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[Woodrick, Ed]

You definitely should consider the 80/880. At a minimum, they have the same 
type of memory programmability as all of the radios, it's just the new repeater 
mode is a little quirky. But you don't have to use it if you don't want to. The 
old stuff still works great.

Ed WA4YIH

-Original Message-
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Earl Needham
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 3:11 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy


I've been considering the ID-880 -- does this mean I shouldn't?

Tnx
Earl



WA4YIH wrote:
"But Icom does realize that the remainder of the world is very different and 
hence the new programming in the 80/880 series which was designed for everyone 
else. Too bad they pretty will missed the mark on the features. Now it's only 
marginally useful for anyone. (Yes it does work, but with a few changes, it 
could have been infinitely more useful)"

KD5XB -- Earl Needham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cw_bugs
Quoting from the Coast Guard: ZUT
Posted via Blackberry



Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the original  
message in reply unless needed for clarity.  ThanksYahoo! Groups Links

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[Woodrick, Ed]

Kay,

Thanks for the clarifications, indeed, the second hand information that I have 
isn't always correct and I always want to make sure that I making correct 
statements.

It's good to hear that 440 MHz has finally surpassed the 1.2, because as well 
as I can remember, the first 20 or so repeaters deployed were 1.2 only and it 
seems as if there are still a half-dozen 1.2 only repeaters operation, but 
there's definitely more 440 only repeaters now!

The limited number of repeaters concept really has more to do with the fact 
that you are on a separate trust server, and also the G1 gateway. It wasn't 
until
Dayton 2 years ago, that the linkage between our systems existed, and linking 
still doesn't exist.
I believe that people outside of Japan tend to expect that if they get on one 
of their repeaters that are linked and call CQ, then there are 500+ gateways 
around the world that is part of their "system" It is just as common for me to 
talk to someone in New York, as it as for me to talk to someone here in Atlanta.
That's really the concept behind what I was talking about.
And when we are talking number of repeaters, let's not leave out the UK with 
40+ and Germany with 60+.

We just need to figure out some way to get the JARL to let you come to G2 and 
install DPLUS and join the rest of the world.

Ed WA4YIH


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of JI1BQW
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:54 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy



Hi

>it fits the way that Japanese Amateurs operate. They operate
>different from us,

I am not sure if we operate different from you.

>things like nets just aren't done
>over there (from my understanding). Users don't own
>more than 1 radio, and the most common radio is probably the ID-1.

There are lots of nets on other networks (like WiRES, EchoLink and
IRLP), but not on D-STAR, you know why. In this sense, it does not
necessarily fit the way we operate.

Many of us own more than one D-STAR radio and the most common is 70cm.
ID-1 is taken as a geek's gear. There are no 2m D-STAR repeaters here
by the way.

>They have a limited number of repeaters and a nationwide
>standard channel configuration. They aren't really mobile,
>they don't move between repeaters.

A limited number of repeaters? Compared to the US, maybe. There are
57 D-STAR repeaters in the area a bit smaller than the state of
California. It maybe true that we don't mobile much and move between
repeaters.

>And they are still on the first version of the gateway and unable
>to link repeaters together.

Sadly true. It's shame that ICOM did not consider net/reflector capability
into their gateway (not even in the version 2).

>They also do make use of the zone feature in Japan and in some cases
>have the very expensive 10Gbps links in place.

There are 3 zones today. I don't see any reason why people want this.
Unlikely to see more.

73,
--
JI1BQW - Kay Ishikawa

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[john_ke5c]

> There are lots of nets on other networks (like WiRES, EchoLink and
> IRLP), but not on D-STAR, you know why.  In this sense, it does not
> necessarily fit the way we operate.
> -- 
> JI1BQW - Kay Ishikawa

Thanks for the information, Kay.  Many of us still remain baffled at why JARL 
would have left the D-Star specification without a way to hold nets over the 
gateway (non-local nets).  The multicast group added to G2 was a gateway patch 
rather than a protocol specification to try to make this happen, but wasn't 
very useful.  There must have been some decision making process, but what?

Why doesn't Japan use G2?  Does it violate some regulations over there?

73 -- John