Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] IC-91AD programming and software

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:40 PM 9/7/2010, you wrote:


>Hi Folks!
>I was just wondering if anyone has had any experience programming an 
>IC-91AD for D-Star either manually or with software?  I have an 
>IC-80AD and it is ok with the freebie ICOM software, but I don't 
>know my options for the IC-91AD and would like to use common 
>software, especially if I need to buy it.

Icom has software for the 91AD, but you have to pay for that 
separately.  I'm sure there's third party options as well, payware at 
least, not sure about freebies.  There is free software for 
manipulating icf files though.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] UVD1 price watch and DSTAR

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:33 AM 9/7/2010, you wrote:


>The KG-UVD1 has been upgraded to the KG-UVD1P
>CE FCC approved.(FCC ID:WVTWOUXUN04)
>
>Looks approved to me.  I have two of their analog HT's (2M/70cm and 
>2M/1 1/4M) and have stunned at how well they work.  Good receive, 
>good audio and respectable battery life.  I'm actually thinking 
>these guys are getting a bad rap just because they're new and 
>manufactured in China.

Some of the cheap Chinese radios have quite a good reputation over 
here (we're talking analog FM, of course), and are recommended as a 
good way for new hams to get started.  There is some real junk coming 
out of China, but there's also some quite reasonable low end gear as 
well.  One just has to learn the good brands and the not so good ones. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Bit Rate?

[Tony Langdon]

At 10:16 AM 9/2/2010, you wrote:

>And for the HF DV experimenter it looks like DVSI now has a chip to 
>do 1200 or 1800 bps (no FEC) AMBE.

Hmm, maybe room for a HF dongle for experimenters. :)  Of course, a 
pure software vocoder has its advantages, but there's room to try 
different approaches.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Bit Rate?

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:19 AM 9/2/2010, you wrote:
>It's NOT a microphone issue. It's the small bit processing. I have 
>been in Pro sound for most of my life. Their is NO WAY to get any 
>quality at 8bit. This is unexceptionable to me! I rather listen to 
>all the QRM and QRN in the world with analog.
>I am very surprise that their are not more people that feel this way.
>The bit rate has to be at lest 28bit to starting sounding acceptable.

As others have pointed out, there is no simple way of relating speech 
vocoders to the sample size.  This is quite a different ball game to 
pro audio.  Different goals and different techniques.

Also, you are mixing your terminology.  Bit rate is measured in bits 
per second.  Sample size (or sample depth) is measured in bits, which 
is what you appear to be referring to.  For communications quality 
audio, you can use 8 bit sampling at 8 kHz (64kbps), but there will 
be an audible noise floor.  You can go to 16 bit/8 kHz (128 kbps), 
which will result in flawless audio.  Another option (as used in 
telephony) is to use 8 bit non linear sampling, (such as uLaw in the 
US), which gives a dynamic rage equivalent to 13 bit linear sampling, 
and a bitrate of 64 kbps.

All these bitrates are considered too high for efficient voice 
communications, so then the vocoder's job is to use some strategy to 
throw as much away as possible, while keeping the audio 
intelligible.  As the bit rate falls, the audio fidelity is going to 
decrease.  From here, it's a compromise between bitrate (lower is 
better), fidelity and the amount of processing power and available algorithms.

Of course, nothing's stopping you (possibly apart from cost/patent 
issues) from playing with something like AAC+ over higher speed ham 
links to get a higher quality digital system, though this is not the 
goal of most hams, who are more interested in communications 
capability than audio fidelity.  There's always room in the hobby for 
niche interests, like hi fi radio (e.g. wideband AM or SSB on HF or 
WB FM on UHF).  These are fascinating parts of the hobby in themselves.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Bit Rate?

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:43 AM 9/2/2010, you wrote:
>I guess I just can not live with the "robotic" sound. This is 
>unacceptable in this world of technology.
>I am trying to find away around this before I dump the whole D-Star thing.

As stated, fidelity is not the point of D-STAR.  It's voice/data 
communications using the minimum feasible bandwidth.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Bit Rate?

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:05 AM 9/2/2010, you wrote:


>John,
>
>Try plugging a better quality speaker into the radio.
>I personally find this does wonders to increase fidelity.
>Icom should be ashamed of the speakers in the D-Star HT's.

A better quality speaker certainly works, as anyone who's listened to 
a DV Dongle on PC speakers can attest to.  Actually, I find the 
quality of the audio of my 91AD is very good (for a HT), only 
complaint is there's not enough of it for some environments.

As for the "robotic" sound, well, we're stuck with it.  The whole 
point of speech codecs is to literally throw away anything that's not 
directly contributing to intelligibility, to reduce the 
bitrate.  There is a tradeoff here between bitrate and 
fidelity.  AMBE is designed to achieve very low bitrates, so it's not 
going to sound very "natural".

My own view of D-STAR audio is that while it doesn't sound natural, I 
find it very intelligible, often more so than FM in the real world 
(where there's a lot of poorly adjusted radios and radios with wonky 
audio response).  I'm also able to recognise who is speaking, so 
enough of the voice is preserved to allow that.  The AMBE vocoder 
excels at what it sets out to do in my opinion - provide 
communications grade speech at very low bitrates.
>
>I'm not sure, but there also may be something else going on as well.
>If I set up my 80 or 880 and connect to a reflector and do the same 
>with the ID-1 using the same speaker, the fidelity improves big time 
>with the 80 and 880 but the ID-1 still sounds much better (and the 
>RF signal is much weaker).

Different radios will have different audio responses.  RF signal 
strength is largely irrelevant in D-STAR, until the bit error rate 
starts to increase significantly to the point that the FEC has 
trouble correcting those errors.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Looking for D-Star UHF Repeater/Controller

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:03 AM 8/27/2010, you wrote:


> From a practical point of view they are pretty equivalent.  Both 
> run fine with the DVAR software.  G4ULF's package is being tested 
> against both and a few bugs and documentation issues are still 
> being worked out before general release.  They do have different 
> licensing terms for their firmware which you may want to 
> consider,  I like PA4YBR's terms better.   Satoshi makes 
> disparaging remarks about other manufacturers of boards and 
> firmware on his site, but does offer a nice enclosure with his boards.

Yep.  I like Fred's terms better as well.  I'm running a hybrid - an 
early Satoshi board with PA4YBR firmware.  The firmware has been 
superb with DVAR Hotspot, and when I get things sorted out here, I'm 
keen to add D-STAR frequencies to my repeater licence and run NI 
Star.  This is especially significant where I am now, as there is 
very limited D-STAR availability here (base station only access to 
VK3RMM is about it).  A local repeater or two would be very welcome.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] questions about architecture and reflectors

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:13 AM 8/14/2010, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm busy scraping together money for a D-STAR radio.  Someone has 
>loaned me a dongle, and I've been playing around with that.  I'm 
>reading up on D-STAR as much as I can.  I have a couple questions:
>
>I've read about the various Trust Servers, and I'm curious how it 
>all works.  I read that there is such a thing as a "multi-trust" 
>gateway, which can't communicate with a gateway using the K5TIT 
>Trust Server.  I also read that there is some work-around so that 
>Japanese stations and US stations (and presumably stations on 
>gateways in other countries that use the K5TIT Trust Server) can talk.

I know of 3 trust networks, the Japanese network, K5TIT and Open 
D-STAR/Multitrust.

The Japanese and K5TIT networks can communicate with each other, the 
Multitrust is entirely separate.

>My next question concerns D-STAR reflectors.  I know that reflectors 
>are made possible by DPlus, thanks to Robin AA4RC.  I presume that 
>these reflectors are just computers in server rooms with good 
>internet connections, and that a reflector doesn't have to be 
>connected to an ID-RP2C repeater controller.  I'm curious, is there 
>a list of who sponsors and pays for these reflectors?  It must be 
>expensive to keep a colocated server going, and I would like to know 
>whom to thank.

I haven't seen a list of reflector sponsors.  However, the cost of 
running a reflector depends on a number of factors, most notably type 
of Internet connection, type of server and what other financial 
arrangements are in place.  I run REF023, and it's not particularly 
expensive to run.  I'm using a virtual private server, hosted in a 
data centre for the reflector.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: linked reflector + traditional callsign routing

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:47 AM 8/12/2010, you wrote:


>  hand the breaking station knows what repeater or ham call he is 
> trying to reach with call sign routing.  (and if by a pc on the 
> internet looking at dstarusers.org know who 
> is occupying what repeater).

Assuming they have Internet access.  We can't assume this.  They 
might be a mobile station, so we have to assume that many of the 
contacts are "blind" when using callsign routing.

>I have never played with IRLP or Echolink but in 30 years of PMR / 
>Land Mobile service I have seen some of the very best and also some 
>of the very worst amateur linked systems in terms of audio levels, 
>quality, noise and distortion.  Dstar seems to be consistent in that 
>stations are all

Well, you get that mix with IRLP and Echolink as well, from audio 
almost as good as a hardwired link, to lousy. :)

>pretty much equal in loudness and there is no white noise / crackle, 
>etc.  Instead we have loss of sync beyond forward error correction's 
>ability to fill in the blanks.  R2D2, so to speak.

However, this is beside the point.  The thread was about the relative 
"intrusiveness" of callsign routing vs linking.


>For me, a hybrid of linking and callsign routing works best.  One 
>size doesn't fit all.
>
>I am sure each system has it's pluses and minuses - as said 
>"different horses for different courses."

Yep, agree 100% on this one, and I'm happy to use both (when I can - 
out here, direct RF access is quite limited, so restricted to DPlus 
most of the time these days by the available technology).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: linked reflector + traditional callsign routing

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:35 AM 8/12/2010, you wrote:


>One of the shortcomings of the linking arrangement - the near 
>station has no idea whether the far end station is linked or not 
>unless the near station has internet access.  The near station 
>cannot interfere with a contact on the far end or transmit over the 
>far end station.  If the far end is

Callsign routing has similar limitations, even more so, because it's 
a stateless system.  Before DPlus came to Melbourne, it was not 
uncommon to have a routed conversation taking place, and someone else 
from an entirely different part of the world put out a call, because 
they just happened to slip in between transmissions.  The status 
reporting via the radio is all well and good, but my experience over 
the last 10 years (IRLP has a similar mechanism that attempts to 
avoid intruding on local QSOs before making a link) is that it's 
actually quite common for the timing to be such that the query about 
remote end status occurs in between transmissions.

On IRLP, the answer is to listen before transmitting, just in 
case.  With callsign routing, this is not possible (because it's one 
way stateless and doesn't setup a link), and you're operating totally 
blind.  On IRLP, it's also possible to set a time after the last 
transmission where the node will report itself as "busy" to incoming 
connections.  This prevents connections sneaking in between local 
transmissions.

Just pointing out that callsign routing is not immune to intruding in 
on remote conversations and in some cases can be even worse.  At 
least with DPlus, you can wait a few minutes after linking and 
eventually hear the remote conversation, or not.

We need to be aware of the limitations of whatever technology we're 
using.  DPlus and callsign routing both have their respective limitations.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Please help me support D-Star ...

[Tony Langdon]

At 10:15 PM 7/30/2010, you wrote:
>There is an exception with trust servers, that being the patch 
>between the JA trusted server and the K5TIT trusted server. I wonder 
>if 'other' such patches could happen ?

Would be nice if it could be done, to unite the global D-STAR networks.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Please help me support D-Star ...

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:41 PM 7/30/2010, you wrote:
>As well as the options already pointed out, there are also a lot of 
>open source systems out there.
>
>There is an open source experimentally minded D-Star network out 
>there called the multi-trust which has its own reflectors based on a 
>system called DExtra. It's similar to DPlus but with a completely 
>open protocol. It includes D-Star repeaters using sound cards 
>connected to radios.
>
>Experimentation is encouraged on that network, which is in the true 
>spirit of amateur radio.

Yes, I forgot to mention these systems.  They don't get a lot of 
mention down here these days. :(

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Please help me support D-Star ...

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:11 AM 7/30/2010, you wrote:


>Thank you, I appreciate the reply, all that I receive will be 
>incorporated into my presentation. Like I've said, I need to arm 
>myself for the naysayers who are quick to shoot and I need to have 
>the amo to squelch their "assumptions"!

One assumption that gets bandied around is that D-STAR is an Icom 
only system.  While it's true that Icom are the only manufacturer 
currently producing radios ready to go, it is far from an Icom only 
system.  Also, people will complain it is proprietary.  While the 
D-STAR specification does use a proprietary vocoder (AMBE), the 
actual specification (for on air) is open.

Firstly, the on air protocol is open (though you need to be able to 
read Japanese for the full specification ;) ).

Secondly, there is actually quite a lot of non Icom equipment 
available, including:

DV Dongle - This is the AMBE vocoder in a USB package.  The companion 
DVTool software by AA4RC allows the dongle to talk to DPlus over the 
Internet (DPlus itself is another non Icom component).  However, the 
dongle can also be teamed with the D-Star client program running on a 
PC and connected to a 9600 bps capable radio to turn the radio into a 
fully fledged D-STAR (DV mode) radio.

I've mentioned D-STAR client, see above.

GMSK node adapter.  This is a hardware GMSK modem, which can be used 
for various purposes.  There are versions of the GMSK Node Adapter 
manufactured or in kit form by a few suppliers, and two different 
firmware versions are available.

DVAR Hotspot - This uses the GMSK node adapter to create a local RF 
access point to the DPlus network for local D-STAR users to use.  The 
hotspot works on both simplex radios and duplex repeaters.

G4ULF's gateway software - this uses a node adapter and provides a 
full blown Icom compatible gateway using a Linux box and a suitable 
set of radios and other repeater hardware.  I believe it can also 
create a simplex gateway.

D-RATS - Multipurpose data terminal software for D-STAR.  Uses the 
low speed data channel for text, file transfer, email and many other functions.

And there's others I've missed.  D-STAR is quite open to ham 
experimentation and tinkering. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Registering a Node Adapter

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:16 AM 7/30/2010, you wrote:
>
>
>True about how much there appears to be to learn at the start.
>
>But for people living near or wanting to link to 
>DPlus-enabled repeaters (I realize in Japan they 
>generally don't use DPlus), DPlus linking is 
>what most of us use most of the time.

True, and here in VK, it's usually done for you 
anyway, if you want to chat on one of the national reflector channels. :)

>
>So I've found (based on my own initial 
>experience trying to read through the Callsign 
>Routing parts of ICOM manuals) it best to just 
>ignore all that while getting started.  Just 
>learn how to do DPlus Linking and Unlinking.  I 
>strongly recommend to newbies to skip that 
>portion of their DStar radio manual for 
>now.  Learn how to program your radio to do 
>Linking and Unlinking, and you can get going fast and have fun.
>
>If later on, you choose to learn callsign 
>routing, etc. it will make more sense then.

I learnt the reverse way for historical 
reasons.  Initially, simplex was all there was 
when I started on D-STAR.  When the first gateway 
became active, we only had callsign routing, so I 
had to learn that next.  I didn't find it 
particularly complex, remember a few rules and it was pretty straightforward.

DPlus came later, and that was pretty 
straightforward, because conceptually, it is just 
like IRLP, and only the command structure 
differed (being UR callsign entries, rather than DTMF commands).

However, these days, I do agree that learning 
DPlus first would probably suit most people.  I'd 
also recommend learning callsign routing, once you're confident with DPlus.

>
>It is what it is, but things would have been 
>simpler if either a) ICOM had itself design a 
>DPlus type capability into their DStar network, 
>or b)if ICOM were to embrace DPlus and 
>incorporate these capabilities into their documentation.

Well, who says we have to wait for Icom?  I 
believe we're rapidly approaching the point where 
ham ingenuity exceeds Icom's offerings, as far as 
the gateway infrastructure goes.

>
>But, that isn't going to happen.  I guess the 
>good part of all this is that the architecture 
>is open enough that people like Robin Cutshaw 
>can add a substantial new capability like DPlus without ICOM's permission.

Yep, that was a good thing.  DPlus has 
significantly enhanced the utility of D-STAR.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Registering a Node Adapter

[Tony Langdon]

At 04:41 AM 7/30/2010, you wrote:

>You said you are setting up a simplex hotspot, but what if we trade 
>emails and we agree to talk over D-Star.  Yes, we could meet on some 
>repeater or reflector, and tie that up while we talk, but it would 
>be simpler if I just link my hotspot to yours directly.  But, if 
>instead I had a DVAP, the software would not allow me to link to you 
>if your hotspot is called "WM4B   N".

One thing to keep in mind is that the registration callsign does NOT 
have to be the same as the hotspot's callsign.  For example, my 
hotspot (currently off air due to having just moved house) is VK3JED 
C (it normally sits on 2 metres), but its registration on the trust 
server is VK3JED N.  This is a valid configuration, and is quite 
common.  There is a lot of flexibility in how hotspots can be setup.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Please help me support D-Star ...

[Tony Langdon]

At 10:05 PM 7/29/2010, you wrote:


>Greetings to the group,
>
>My name is Donald ~ N2VU, and I'm in Warren County New York ... the 
>first to have D-Star in the area. I was on the fence about D-Star 
>for quite a while until 2 weeks ago and boy do I wish I got into it 
>sooner. I love it!

There's quite a lot going for D-STAR.  Just to name a few aspects:

Fully digital end to end - it "just works" or it doesn't, no noisy 
signals (you do get garbled signals, known as "R2D2" after the famous 
droid when signals hit the digital "cliff").

Simultaneous voice and data.  Your radio could be sending GPS 
position reports (for example), while you're talking.

ID is automatic and embedded in the protocol.

Higher speed (128kbps) mode available on 1.2 GHz.

Many third party applications are available for utilising the data 
channel (e.g. D-RATS).

Really, to me, the ability to be able to send voice and data using 
the same radio at the same time is one of D-STAR's biggest selling 
points.  The gateway system also has a number of unique features, one 
of the most useful being the ability to locate a specific user by 
simply routing to their callsign.  If they've been using a gateway 
(and haven't switched gateways in the last half hour or so), the call 
will find them if they have their radio on.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] AZ commited to D-star!

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:14 AM 7/23/2010, you wrote:


>Donald,
>
>Maybe you don't need a repeater right away. Try simplex with your 
>fellow Dstar hams. I've been working to promote simplex activity by 
>having a simplex 'event' the second sunday of each month. We plan to 
>kick this off on Aug 8,2010.

D-StAR got off to a roaring start here in Melbourne on simplex.  The 
simplex frequency was full of D-STAR traffic, until the first 
repeater came to town. :)  I bought into D-STAR a month or two before 
the repeater went up and had a ball on simplex.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: The Next New Guy with Questions

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:56 AM 7/15/2010, you wrote:

>There are some folks who are using the DVDONGLE in combination with 
>an FM radio to get on D-STAR and I guess you could build such a 
>beast (as long as you handled the ID requirements - every radio must 
>ID on its transmission frequency).   Play with native D-STAR for 
>awhile and you may find your opinion changing. :)

A lot of people seem to make a big deal of the ID issue, but to me, 
it's no different than setting up a standalone Echolink node.  The ID 
requirements are exactly the same, and the methods for dealing with 
it have been well known for decades, though more options have come in 
recent years.  I feel the ID issue, while necessary for legal 
operation, is a red herring in the context in which it gets raised as 
a barrier between D-STAR and analog.  It is not.  Just put in a Morse 
or voice ID module, and configure it to ID at least once every 10 
minutes, while the link is active.

There will be some _inconvenience_ in the FM -> D-STAR direction, 
because the originating user's callsign won't appear on the D-STAR 
users' radios, but each transmitter in the chain is still legally 
identifying ITSELF.


>Oh, and you can make your own D-STAR radio -- AE4JY built and 
>demonstrated a 2-meter radio over 3 years ago.  Yes you have to use 
>the AMBE chip ($20+) as a part in it, just like transistors, 
>integrated circuits, filters, etc. -- other hams are working similar 
>projects (see: 
>http://dutch-star.eu/products/ds-1/) 
>-- you probably won't convince anyone stuck in spark gap land, but 
>their argument(s) are invalid.

And as I have previously mentioned, there are computer based 
solutions as well, if you have a DV Dongle for the AMBE part.  The 
"lack of homebrew" is another red herring. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: The Next New Guy with Questions

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:08 AM 7/15/2010, you wrote:


>Will,
>
>Even though the DVAP and the HotSpot approaches are architecturally 
>similar, they target different situations.  The DVAP is really quick 
>to set up, doesn't take much space in the shack and it is perfect 
>for travel.  Imagine checking into a hotel with internet access, and 
>within a minute or so, you can have coverage there into the D-Star 
>network.  Heck, sit out by the pool and monitor your hometown 
>repeater.  Also, the DVAP is a cheaper solution unless you have a 
>spare analog radio and computer for a HotSpot.

Agree.  The DVAP is the ultimate in portability, and brings the best 
of both worlds - Local Internet connectivity and the portability of 
your D-STAR radio.  The hotspot, OTOH isn't as portable, but it 
allows for _much_ greater range, so you can offer services to local hams.

>  The HotSpot takes a bit more to set up, but it is surprisingly 
> easy, and there is a ton of support available, particularly on the 
> gmsk_dv_node Yahoo group.  On 
> http://www.k6jm.com/hs-setup.htm 
> I documented each step in some detail, but really there are only 5 
> basic steps: register (which you have to do for the DVAP also), 
> install software, load firmware (depending on which board, this may 
> not be needed), configure firmware, install DVAR application.  In 
> generally works the first time.

And don't forget to configure and align the radio!  Tx modulation 
level, in particular, is quite critical when setting up a 
hotspot.  The use of test equipment is highly recommended (that said, 
I did mine by ear and got it right).

I don't own a DVAP, but it is on my wish list, because the problem 
space it deals with is different enough to the hotspot to warrant the 
expense, even though both actually do more or less the same 
thing.  I'd use the DVAP for travelling and nets where there was no 
local interest, leaving the hotspot free for local users to enjoy.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: The Next New Guy with Questions

[Tony Langdon]

>
>Thanks for the detailed response.  I read it twice to make sure I 
>did not miss anything.  Too bad the DVAP does not have the AMBE 
>technology.  I would think a DVAP + DV-Dongle type product would be 
>real usefull.  Something that would allow a ham to use a VHF/UHF 
>radio they already have as a simple "FM wireless Link" to a 
>DV-Dongle.  That would allow the Hams on limited budgets to get into

It could be done.  The DV Dongle is not merely a device to access the 
D-STAR (DPlus) network over the Internet.  It is the vocoder that 
processes the audio.  The part that does the DPlus connectivity is 
actually the DVTool software that uses the Dongle.  The Dongle can be 
made to do other things.  For example, there is a "Dstar Client" 
program, which uses the Dongle, a soundcard and a 9600bps capable 
radio to implement a full blown D-STAR radio.  Good if you've already 
got a suitable radio kicking around (as many of us have).  Usine a 
"wireless microphone" approach is again a matter of the right 
software.  However, the caveats about prevailing attitudes to analog 
<--> D-STAR connectivity apply.

>digital and still use a radio.  I would think it would need to 
>decode CTCSS or PL Tones and tune to a number of Simpley 
>frequencies.  When I have mentioned that I was going to try D-STAR 
>many of the Hams I know were very negative about it  "It's not 
>ham radio if you can't make it yourself" and so on  but I then 
>asked them when was the last time they built a full featured dual 
>band radio that fits in their hand? Then they through the cost thing 
>at me, which I agree in this economy is a little pricy, but so is 
>any new piece of radio gear.

There are actually a number of D-STAR related projects you can 
build.  The GMSK node adapter, for one, which of course is the heart 
of a hotspot.  Homebrew repeaters are feasible.  I think the 
naysayers are simply looking for an excuse to prop up their negative 
opinion of D-STAR.  There's quite a bit you can put your hand to, 
both hardware and software, if you look around, so it's definitely 
fertile ground for those who like to keep their hands dirty and their 
soldering iron hot! :)

As for cost, many hams are cheap.  Yes, the radios cost a bit more, 
but it is a new system, and new systems always cost more (Did anyone 
price the first plasma TVs 10 or more years ago? - hmm, needed a 
second mortgage, or even the first digital set top box, which 
was  around $700, first DVD player, etc).  My point being that for a 
newly introduced technology into a relatively small market, the price 
of the Icom radios is quite reasonable.  And I bought in at a time 
when my own finances weren't particularly good.

>You mentioned the Reflectors, ie: REF014C, I still have some reading 
>and learning to do here.  I understand the principles of linking to 
>other repeters and networking (in my day job I work with high speed 
>serial optical/copper  networking and protocol conversion) but I 
>don't know how to do it and what is acceptable to do on the 
>repeaters.  Guess I need to spend more time listening to the 
>repeters to see what goes on.

Enjoy your D-STAR adventure!

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Are you exprerencing anti d-star in your area?

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:18 AM 7/13/2010, you wrote:


>My two Cents on the D-star Drama.  The problem here is not the 
>technology itself.  The problem with Dstar is that radios are so 
>expensive. On one hand you have ham clubs that can dishout the money to

That's a matter of opinion.  I considered the D-STAR radios to be 
reasonable value, considering you're buying into new 
technology.  There are also semi home brew options.  A DV Dongle and 
the "D-STAR client" software can be used with an existing 9600bps 
capable radio, which is about the cheapest option for setting up a 
home station.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Are you exprerencing anti d-star in your area?

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:36 AM 7/12/2010, you wrote:

>Bottom line -- in this area at least, coordinations will not be 
>pulled from existing analog repeaters any time soon, no matter how 
>little utilized they are.  It's just the nature of the Bylaws of the 
>frequency coordination organization about who gets to vote, and 
>human nature to not want to change.

To me, it sounds like the way frequencies are coordinated over there 
is part of the problem, since the US has a completely distributed 
system for not only coordination, but band planning, whereas our 
system here in VK is more centralised, with the WIA handling both 
band planning and frequency coordination.  Of course, our spectrum 
isn't as congested, with narrow channels being able to be found 
within the current band plans.

A lot of people generally don't like change, and will only follow 
when it's forced upon them.  Down here, CTCSS was once a rare feature 
on repeaters, and people had been heard to complain that CTCSS was 
making the repeaters "exclusive".  10 years ago, there were only 3 
repeaters in Melbourne that required CTCSS access.  Two of them for 
access control to cross band links (this is required by regulation 
under some circumstances) and the third because it was on an inner 
city high rise and subject to a severe RF environment.

Two things changed this in recent years.

1.  The introduction of low powered "Low Interference Potential 
Devices (LIPDs)" on 433-434 MHz at the end of the 1990s, which caused 
interference to repeaters, with protection from interference being 
withdrawn by the authorities.  This necessitated the use of CTCSS in 
many locations, including here.

2.  The proliferation of ex commercial radios with CTCSS capability 
in the early 2000s, providing a very low cost avenue for both new 
hams and those with limited funds and older gear to acquire CTCSS 
capabilities, as well as more established hams putting their earlier 
CTCSS capable gear on the secondhand market.

Today, a significant number of repeaters use CTCSS in the major 
cities, where a need is seen for tone access, and it is now a non 
issue.  2 metre repeaters and IRLP/Echolink systems which once 
suffered pager interference now run CTCSS, if other methods of 
interference mitigation (filtering, etc) aren't sufficient, and most 
2 metre repeaters carry CTCSS on their output, so users can stop 
pagers from opening the mute.

>
>Surprisingly, most of those people carry a digital radio around in 
>their pocket each day, having replaced their analog cell phone with 
>a digital one years ago.  But digital for ham radio?  -- No way.

Well, here, you had to go digital by 2000, or be content to talking 
with yourself! :)  Analog phones were switched off here in 
2000.  CDMA didn't last long either, it came and went quickly, and 
GSM is the mainstay, though supplemented by the WCDMA (UMTS, HSPA, 
etc) family of 3G technologies that have since proliferated.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Are you exprerencing anti d-star in your area?

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:59 AM 7/12/2010, you wrote:


>Personally I think on the hand of VOIP and Dstar I think the add 
>more capabilities to ham radio do I think analog will be replaced by 
>digital no now it might take away some of the experimental band set 
>by arrl which is where it should be at this early stage of dstar 
>because it is still experimental at this point in time and please 
>correct me if I am wrong because I am still kinda new to dstar. 
>Aaron SillerN5AMS

I don't quite see it like that.  Just as SSB, or even AM never 
replaced CW, digital will never replace analog.  In true ham radio 
tradition, the old and the new will continue to operate alongside 
each other.  The proportionate use of each will change over time, but 
we will still see FM for a _very_ long time, especially where it's 
perceived to have advantages over digital.  Even AM, which was well 
and truly beaten by SSB in performance has not disappeared totally 
from our bands.  There are still many people who like to turn their 
radios to the AM position, or fire up old surplus HF AM gear.

The beauty of ham radio is we never(1) have to throw out a mode, we 
can keep old modes alive.

(1) with the exception of spark gap Morse, which can't be made legal 
in the modern environment, due to its extreme interference potential.

I see FM sticking around indefinitely.  How much FM will remain into 
the future will simply depend on the relative benefits hams see 
between FM and D-STAR or whatever else comes along.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: CONNECTING TO RELECTORorREPEATERS

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:04 PM 7/10/2010, you wrote:
>Hello.
>
>Thank you for the reply.
>
>I will try to get hold of another operator to test this on our 
>repeater. It might be as you say an administrator configuration 
>option for this.

Make sure you use a valid and registered callsign in MY, as I'm 
pretty sure there is an administrator option to limit command access 
to registered callsigns, which is likely to be turned on.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: CONNECTING TO RELECTORorREPEATERS

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:35 PM 7/10/2010, you wrote:
>Hello.
>
>One question:
>
>If I (on my local repeater) link to a reflector using REF001CL and 
>then later forget to unlink, can someone else unlink from the 
>reflector using "U" (at the 8 digit) ?
>
>I heard someone say that only the one that set up a link can unlink it ..

There might be an administrator configuration option for this, I 
don't know.  However, on the gateways here, anyone can unlink, 
regardless of who initiated the link.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Proposal for a DStar experiment.

[Tony Langdon]

If we do the same thing down here, the message will probably be carried by 
rovers most of the wa

Sent from my iPhone

On 02/07/2010, at 8:18 AM, John Hays  wrote:

> 
> 
> If going from NE to SW (as proposed) you will need to take into account time 
> zones.
> 
> East 11 AM - 1 PM
> Central 10 AM - 12 PM
> Mountain 9 AM - 11 AM
> Pacific 8 AM - 10 AM
> 
> What would be cool is to add a website where you enter in your QSOs including 
> time and LAT/LON and have it plot all of the paths via Google Maps.
> 
> Due to the geography of the mountain time zone, you might want to encourage 
> some "rovers" going to mountain tops or high ridges.
> 
> 
> On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Francis Miele wrote:
> 
>> I like it!!
>> 
>> I think a Sunday morning works, say between 8am and noon in the local time 
>> zone.
>> 
>> 
>> Fran, W1FJM
>> 
>> 
> 
> John D. Hays
> Amateur Radio Station K7VE
> PO Box 1223
> Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org
> Phone: 206-801-0820
> 801-790-0950
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Proposal for a DStar experiment.

[Tony Langdon]

Take a leaf out of the CB guys book here.  State your objective, and call for 
interested people and their likely mountain tops.  That will help determine the 
message path.

Sent from my iPhone

On 02/07/2010, at 6:58 AM, Gary Miller  wrote:

> 
> 
> I think that is a great idea.
> The only problem will be the states where DStar is not that active yet. 
> Therefor the message would have to go some other direction. I doubt we could 
> get a message across in a straight line.
> I do believe that it can be done, if we get enough people involved. I talk 
> simplex locally and get a much better signal with less power using the dv 
> mode.
> Count me in here in Fl!
>  
> Gary J Miller
> K4GJM
> 
> 
> "Think Positive, BE Positive"
> 
> 
> From: htwrobel 
> To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, July 1, 2010 8:12:00 AM
> Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Proposal for a DStar experiment.
> 
> DStar is a really terrific new technology for the ham community. The 
> innovative use of gateways and reflectors has made possible an easy, 
> convenient wide area network where hams from around the country (and the 
> world) can talk. I love the mode, but I have been wondering why the simplex 
> side has been largely ignored.
> 
>  
> 
> Given the high audio quality and somewhat improved range over traditional FM 
> in the VFH / UHF bands I wonder what might be accomplished in a purely 
> simplex manner. Given the recent awareness of the possibility of cyber 
> attacks on the internet, or the possibility of solar events damaging the 
> network infrastructure I wondered what DStar might offer as a partial 
> solution.
> 
>  
> 
> As test of the capabilities of DStar I have wondered if it would be possible 
> to pass a message from corner-to-corner across the country, say from Boston 
> to San Deigo. Some folks say it can't be done, some think it might work. I 
> would like to try.
> 
>  
> 
> I envision something like the 'wave' at a stadium. (remember the RADIO RELAY 
> part of ARRL?) Everyone gets a chance to play.
> 
>  
> 
> Here is the outline of the proposed experiment.
> 
>  
> 
> On a selected date, with lots of advance notice, a message will be sent from 
> a Boston station operating on the local simplex frequency. That message would 
> then be passed to as many other stations as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> The rules are really pretty simple – pass the message via simplex to any 
> station south and/or west of your own position.  Basically we need to contact 
> stations with a grid square lower than our own, or a local station in the 
> same grid that is south and west.
> 
>  
> 
> I propose that the experiment be conducted on some convenient day – like 
> Sunday morning, with a two to three hour window in the local time zone. 
> 
>  
> 
> The message exchange will simple be the (short) message, callsign, and 
> gridsquare.  The submitted QSl data should include the time and frequency as 
> well.
> 
>  
> 
> If we can collect all the QSL info from each operator we could look for all 
> sorts of interesting data like longest single hop, most messages sent, most 
> messages received, highest miles-per-hour, fewest hops per mile,  activity by 
> state and probably a bunch more. I would love to crunch the data and make it 
> available to the Dstar community.
> 
>  
> 
> I have a lot of questions so I'm looking for any suggestions or help the 
> group can provide. Some questions are:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. When is the best time to try such an experiment?
> 
> 2. Would it make sense to try it more than once, maybe every two months, 
> maybe alternating direction?
> 
> 3. What to do when the chain is broken? This is a big one since it wouldn't 
> be much fun the have half the country waiting for a new station to fill in a 
> blank space.  I'm really stumped by this one. Is there some sensible way to 
> start a new message on the far side of a broken chain? I suspect someone in 
> our group has the answer.
> 
> 4. How to report contacts to some central site. I'm sure the contest folks 
> know exactly how to do this, but I really don't know the mechanics of 
> collecting QSL data.
> 
>  
> 
> Anyway, I hope this might start some discussion that can get the experiment 
> launched.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks & 73
> 
>  
> 
> Ted W1GRI
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Proposal for a DStar experiment.

[Tony Langdon]

Here in Australia, there are a number of people interested in doing some 
mountaintopping on D-STAR.  There's also a CB group that have been doing long 
distance (without the aid of skywave) message relaying between mountain tops on 
the HF and UHF CB bands.  Distances achieved from end to end are in the order 
of 1000km.  I, myself, have been at the extreme end of that network, accepting 
the incoming message 450km from Melbourne and 800km from it's origin in 
Tasmania, then initiating the reply chain.

Your proposal sounds like a marriage between the above and D-STAR.  I might 
float the idea here as well, and see what sort of coverage can be achieved with 
a chain of relay stations on simplex.

Sent from my iPhone

On 01/07/2010, at 10:12 PM, "htwrobel"  wrote:

> 
> 
> DStar is a really terrific new technology for the ham community. The 
> innovative use of gateways and reflectors has made possible an easy, 
> convenient wide area network where hams from around the country (and the 
> world) can talk. I love the mode, but I have been wondering why the simplex 
> side has been largely ignored.
>  
> 
> Given the high audio quality and somewhat improved range over traditional FM 
> in the VFH / UHF bands I wonder what might be accomplished in a purely 
> simplex manner. Given the recent awareness of the possibility of cyber 
> attacks on the internet, or the possibility of solar events damaging the 
> network infrastructure I wondered what DStar might offer as a partial 
> solution.
> 
>  
> 
> As test of the capabilities of DStar I have wondered if it would be possible 
> to pass a message from corner-to-corner across the country, say from Boston 
> to San Deigo. Some folks say it can't be done, some think it might work. I 
> would like to try.
> 
>  
> 
> I envision something like the 'wave' at a stadium. (remember the RADIO RELAY 
> part of ARRL?) Everyone gets a chance to play.
> 
>  
> 
> Here is the outline of the proposed experiment.
> 
>  
> 
> On a selected date, with lots of advance notice, a message will be sent from 
> a Boston station operating on the local simplex frequency. That message would 
> then be passed to as many other stations as possible.
> 
>  
> 
> The rules are really pretty simple – pass the message via simplex to any 
> station south and/or west of your own position.  Basically we need to contact 
> stations with a grid square lower than our own, or a local station in the 
> same grid that is south and west.
> 
>  
> 
> I propose that the experiment be conducted on some convenient day – like 
> Sunday morning, with a two to three hour window in the local time zone. 
> 
>  
> 
> The message exchange will simple be the (short) message, callsign, and 
> gridsquare.  The submitted QSl data should include the time and frequency as 
> well.
> 
>  
> 
> If we can collect all the QSL info from each operator we could look for all 
> sorts of interesting data like longest single hop, most messages sent, most 
> messages received, highest miles-per-hour, fewest hops per mile,  activity by 
> state and probably a bunch more. I would love to crunch the data and make it 
> available to the Dstar community.
> 
>  
> 
> I have a lot of questions so I'm looking for any suggestions or help the 
> group can provide. Some questions are:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. When is the best time to try such an experiment?
> 
> 2. Would it make sense to try it more than once, maybe every two months, 
> maybe alternating direction?
> 
> 3. What to do when the chain is broken? This is a big one since it wouldn't 
> be much fun the have half the country waiting for a new station to fill in a 
> blank space.  I'm really stumped by this one. Is there some sensible way to 
> start a new message on the far side of a broken chain? I suspect someone in 
> our group has the answer.
> 
> 4. How to report contacts to some central site. I'm sure the contest folks 
> know exactly how to do this, but I really don't know the mechanics of 
> collecting QSL data.
> 
>  
> 
> Anyway, I hope this might start some discussion that can get the experiment 
> launched.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks & 73
> 
>  
> 
> Ted W1GRI
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: [D-STAR_23cm] D-STAR Activity at Friedrichshafen Hamfest?

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:54 AM 6/29/2010, you wrote:

>Loosely translated:
>
>"Coming soon..."

Hehe, fair enough. :)


73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: [D-STAR_23cm] D-STAR Activity at Friedrichshafen Hamfest?

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:35 AM 6/29/2010, you wrote:


>PS. There was also some news announced about the D-Star ICC. Here 
>are some pictures from the presentations and of some of the homebrew 
>D-Star hardware:

So, what was the news about the ICC, for those of us who couldn't make it?

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: D-STAR Situation in France / European Parliament Petition

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:22 AM 6/29/2010, you wrote:
>We've done this tree time, by showing and explaining how d-star 
>works and why it's ok with french regulation. But there is one guy 
>... who simply doesn't want, because he dont want that amateur have 
>access to new technology.
>This guy is an old hamradio ... and is th only guy who block us.

Someone needs to remind him about the amateur's code (substitute your 
national society where "American Radio Relay League" appears).

Seems point Three is being totally forgotten by thig guy in France.


The Amateur's Code -- 1928

ONE:
The Amateur is considerate...He never knowingly uses the air in such 
a way as to lessen the pleasure of others.

TWO:
The Amateur is Loyal...He offers his loyalty, encouragement and 
support to his fellow radio amateurs, his local club and to the 
American Radio Relay League, through which amateur radio is represented.

THREE:
The Amateur is Progressive...He keeps his station abreast of science. 
It is well built and efficient. His operating practice is above reproach.

FOUR:
The Amateur is Friendly...Slow and patient sending when requested, 
friendly advice and counsel to the beginner, kindly assistance, 
cooperation and consideration for the interests of others; these are 
the marks of the amateur spirit.

FIVE:
The Amateur is Balanced...Radio is his hobby. He never allows it to 
interfere with any of the duties he owes to his home, his job, his 
school, or his community.

SIX:
The Amateur is Patriotic...His knowledge and his station are always 
ready for the service of his country and his community.

Paul M. Segal, W9EEA


73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] D-STAR Situation in France / European Parliament Petition

[Tony Langdon]

At 04:57 AM 6/29/2010, you wrote:
>You should take a look at this :
>http://draf.asso.fr/index.php?post/2010/06/28/D-STAR-situation-in-France

Looks like a Government agency that doesn't really understand D-STAR 
or other newer digital modes.  I'm sure that if someone can sit the 
officials down and get them to listen, all of their fears could be put to rest.

Governments around the world have dealt with the Internet connection 
issue.  Ours, for instance, has considered that as long as general 
Internet access isn't possible, then the Internet part of the 
connection is treated more like a dedicated landline link between 
amateur stations, and is permitted.  This issue first came up in the 
IPhone days (late 1990s), and the ACMA has progressively clarified 
the regulations in this area.

The other key issue seems to be that Government agencies feel they 
can't monitor D-STAR communications.  Someone needs to show them that 
ANY D-STAR radio can intercept these transmissions, and that a DV 
Dongle implements the vocoder, which can be used with any receiver or 
Internet system that can recover the audio stream.  There's nothing 
to stop French authorities monitoring D-STAR transmissions, it's as 
easy as listening into FM, AM or SSB, with the right radio (i.e. any 
of the Icom units currently on the market).

Someone needs to sit the French officials down and allay their fears 
about D-STAR, as well as sell the potential benefits to the French 
public of amateurs with D-STAR capabilities on French soil.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] A new add-on-tool for DStar gateways announced at Hamradio event

[Tony Langdon]

At 10:38 AM 6/28/2010, you wrote:
>http://db0fhn.efi.fh-nuernberg.de/doku.php?id=projects:dstar:ircddb
>
>There's chatter about this on the gateway group, and it seems to be 
>public knowledge.  Apparantly

I believe it was unveiled publicly at Hamburg (I think) this weekend 
just past.  I was chatting with Jann about it a few days ago.  I 
think it has a lot of promise.  From what I understand, the K5TIT 
team are on board with this one.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: In hindsight... [daydream]

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:58 AM 6/28/2010, you wrote:

>If G4ULF and KB9HKM supported this mode; if AA4RC modified his 
>reflectors to create a "data mode" reflector; and if the 
>node-adapter folks would add such a data mode (serial in/out at 4800 
>bps), you could do this with non-DStar radios over much of the 
>existing network infrastructure.  AMBE is not needed for this mode. 
>Interesting to speculate.  73!

Given that this would be simple to implement over the non Icom parts 
of the network, this would be interesting to experiment with.  4800 
bps of data only would be interesting.  Now, the next question is 
whether we would have to follow the Ethernet framing, or whether we 
could define the data stream as we see fit.  Packet headers can add 
considerable overhead under some circumstances, and then there's the 
overhead of changing over for ACKs.  For some applications, a raw 
data stream might be a better starting point.  For others (e.g. IP 
based data), packets are better.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: D-Star & air interface authentication

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:50 PM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
>I don't see any need for authentication/security protocols for 
>D-star beyond what's already in place. What ever in the world for? 
>We've done just fine for many years without it on analouge V/UHF 
>repeaters, Echolink and etc. We don't need it anymore than we would 
>need it on HF DX.

One exception.  D-STAR really needs some authentication for Dongle 
users.  All we have is registration, not authentication.  However, at 
least it is possible (in DPlus) to disable individual dongles, if necessary.

The current status quo is "too much" for RF users and "too little" 
for Internet connected users.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: D-Star & air interface authentication

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:36 AM 6/25/2010, you wrote:
>All,
>
>thanks for your replies and arguments.
>
>Authentication subject has been raised in connection with negative
>examples in analog repeater networks and AMPR in the past.
>Until then while the repeater works locally - security is a problem of
>repeater's owner.

I still disagree that on air security is warranted.  It goes against 
the open, experimental nature of ham radio.  And I'm sure it could be 
circumvented.

As others have pointed out, the best approach is:

1.  Assume the other person is genuine, unless you have reason to 
suspect otherwise (innocent until proven guilty).

2.  If there is a problem with pirate or antisocial operation, locals 
in the area work with the repeater/gateway owner (who can take 
action, such as turning their system off) and local authorities  (who 
have the power to prosecute).

If we have a problem in our local area, and it becomes persistent, 
the first step is to DF the problem.  At the same time, gather as 
much data, such as on air recordings, log of times, etc.  Then pass 
all this to the authorities for them to deal with.

I believe authentication has too many problems for the amateur 
world.  It reduced the implicit trust we have on air.  It creates 
administrative headaches and reduces flexibility.

There is one area that strong authentication does have a place, and 
that is for the interfaces between amateurs (i.e. individuals 
accessing the amateur networks directly from their PC or phone) or 
amateur systems (e.g. a repeater) and the Internet.  Strong 
authentication is needed here to limit access to amateurs.  This 
essentially creates a global virtual amateur network on top of the Internet.

>We can assume that a weak place in security is an air interface of local
>repeater (at confidence links between Gateways).

The On air will always be the weakest link, but it's also the one 
that's (supposedly) policed locally.


>Therefore:
>- authentication can work locally on a concrete repeater
>- authentication takes place only at process of registration
>- It is not required distribute authentication data  base on all network
>- It is not required send keys over the air.

However, it is not needed and serves to create more problems than it 
solves.  This sort of authentication belongs on commercial or public 
service networks, where there is a closed user base.  It is not 
appropriate for an open amateur network, in my opnion.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] D Star Contest

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:54 AM 6/24/2010, you wrote:

>Forget reflectors and repeaters, Watch last 
>heard and place a target callsign in your urcall 
>to callsign route, with a 20 character message like "Contest pls 1 touch¨

That's not a bad tactic to use, I like it! :)


>Probably 1 out of 20 receiving your call will 
>know how to callsign route back to you (one touch your call).

Sadly, you're probably right on that score. :(


>In my opinion those using dplus links to contact 
>a station, then give them a lesson on callsign 
>routing to log a contact are cheating, and are 
>putting the *Japanese contestants at a disadvantage.

Agree, it should be callsign routing from a cold 
start, but how do you enforce that?

Also, as I said in another message, one touch 
reply seemed to be broken to Japan on VK3RMM the 
other day when I tried to respond to a Japanese 
CQ.  I couldn't get the routing information when I used the call button.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] D Star Contest

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:39 AM 6/24/2010, you wrote:


>You will have to find a repeater that does not run the DPlus 
>software as that is prohibited by Icom.

Not correct, but you do have to use callsign routing, not DPlus to 
make the contact.  Callsign routing is supported by all gateways.  It 
doesn't matter that DPlus is present, you just have to not use it for 
the contact to be valid.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] D Star Contest

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:26 AM 6/24/2010, you wrote:

>There is a D Star Contest taking place over this week but I have 
>heard no one and no one has replied to calls. I don't want to go on 
>to 001C in case the bazookas from across the Atlantic are lined up 
>on me!! So any suggestions please for finding Reflectors/Repeaters 
>where some contest activity would be appropriate?

No reflectors, the contest uses only callsign routing on radios and 
the gateways.

Actually, something might be a bit broken.  I had a JA calling CQ the 
other day, and callsign routing on VK3RMM C, but I wasn't able to one 
touch reply to him.  I thought the JA - US trust bridge fixed one 
touch replies ages ago, but it wasn't going to work for me.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: G2 32 bits vs 64 bits

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:16 PM 6/21/2010, you wrote:

>G2, dstarmon, dprs, and dplus all seem to be running just 
>fine.  Maybe something will show downstream, but for now it seems 
>that 64-bit Centos will with the fix above.

While my experience with 34 bit software on a 64 bit system suggests 
you're right in that it'll work as long as the correct 32 bit 
libraries are in place, I am also aware that G2 is very quirky 
software, so it's safer to stick with what's specified.  However, you 
might be doing some good testing by having it running on a suitably 
configured 64 bit OS.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] G2 32 bits vs 64 bits

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:37 AM 6/21/2010, you wrote:

>Then I remembered my own problems experimenting in the past, and 
>this looks like the same error I had gotten.  I wonder if there is 
>anyway to save this, or if the sensible thing is to do a 32 bit 
>Centos install and go through the steps again?  TIA.

I'd be using a 32 bit install, myself.  Having just attended a D-STAR 
workshop, it is my understanding that Icom specify the i386 (32 bit) 
CentOS 5.x distribution to run their software on.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 01:02 AM 6/15/2010, you wrote:

>Free??  TANSTAAFL  or in this case installing a laptop in my car is not
>free. For me it needs to be a hardware implementation. I do not mind
>outboard modems or adapters hooked to the 9600 baud port on my mobile
>radios.

In my case, "it depends".  For some applications, PC based software 
is a good solution, as is a hardware modem attached to a radio.  In 
other applications, there is no room for add on boxes of any kind, PC 
or node adapter.  For example, when I take my IC-91AD out, I just 
want to carry the radio and no additional boxes to make it do 
D-STAR.  For that scenario, an internal hardware implementation of 
the codec is the only answer.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 11:56 PM 6/11/2010, you wrote:

>The answer to why there's a push for 6.25 KHz, 
>could best be answered during a chat with G4TSN, 
>who will fill you in on how hard it is to get 
>new kit on the air on VHF, especially near 
>conurbations. This problem exists across much of 
>Europe and the US, it's not a local issue.

It is a problem across much of the world.  Here, 
the situation is slightly different, but again 
one where narrow bandwidth helps.  We're pretty 
much our of 2m repeater pairs here in 
Melbourne.  However, despite there being a bit of 
spectrum for simplex, as while we have 4MHz on 
2m, unlike the US, we don't have any repeaters 
below 146 MHz.  This leaves quite a bit of 
simplex room from around 145.2 (top of the 
digital/packet sub band) to 145.8 (bottom of the 
satellite segment), minus a couple of "special 
purpose" frequencies (ARDF/foxhunting, Morse 
practice beacon, RTTY).  However, this simplex 
room is quite full, with several IRLP/Echolink 
nodes, as well as various clubs and groups, who 
regular use simplex frequencies.  In fact, the 
simplex part of the band is often busier than the repeaters down here.

Even with D-STAR's (effective) 12.5 kHz 
bandwidth, we're able to slip D-STAR in between 
the 25 kHz spaced FM channels.  6.5 kHz bandwidth would make this even neater.


>TDM would have the benefit of reusing the 
>precious spectrum (see above) and the valuable 
>hill top sites/equipment, that volunteers spend 
>so much effort financing and maintaining.

TDM could be particularly valuable for repeaters, 
especially as sites become more limited in 
availability, so if one site can carry more than 
one stream of traffic, that would work to our advantage.


>TDM is also something to experiment with. To 
>say, "Why do TDM?", could encourage others to 
>say, "Why do sound card based GMSK?". Both of 
>the items above are valid for experimental 
>purposes and self training. There are 
>undoubtedly many amateurs that have not worked 
>on TDM systems professionally and some might 
>enjoy learning about TDM, just as some amateurs li
>ke to use a PC, soundcard & software to do the 
>job of a GMSK modem chip and a PIC.Â

That's a good enough reason for me to play.  In 
this part of the world, we'd also be looking at 
playing with methods to increase the coverage 
area of TDM, such as optimising the duration of 
the time slices and pre-compensating for 
propagation delay.  This was one of the well 
known limitations of GSM, the 30-35km cell radius 
limit (of the basic GSM system, without any cell 
extenders).  Open terrain and low population 
densities meant this became a real issue in rural areas.


>As it happens, there is already a well developed 
>open source stack for GSM that could be adapted 
>to our needs... but now we're heading rather OT.

That would be a good starting point.  Hmm, maybe 
we need to move to another digital voice experimenters group. ;)


>I agree that Codec2 is a neat project and one to 
>be encouraged. Whether Codec2 has any place 
>within D-Star or even if D-Star will still be 
>the preferred DV mode when Codec2 matures, are 
>entirely different questions altogether.

I agree.  I can't see Codec2 and D-STAR having 
any significant roles together (because of the 
amount of D-STAR gear already out in the field), 
but I do see Codec2 as having a lot of potential 
for experimentation, particularly in new VHF/UHF 
modes, as well as HF DV, if the developers can 
get the bitrate into the 1000bps and below region 
(to make Shannon's Law work in our 
favour).  Codec2 will allow the next generation 
of DV modes to be developed on a PC, which is a 
low cost way of getting a lot of people into the 
mode.  Look at what PCs did for PSK-31 and SSTV years ago.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

>If any of you speak the C language he could use your hand! At the 
>very least, getting Codec2 to a

Unfortunately, I don't. :(

>  beta-testing stage would be exciting to say the least! However, it 
> won't happen without community support.

Well, when it gets to the point that some beta testing is needed, 
then I can offer my assistance. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 01:14 PM 6/11/2010, you wrote:

>I think most of us are in total agreement with Jim on these 
>points.  We would love to see open source and unencumbered  DV 
>Vocoders.  The push back is only when someone wants to use it to break

Agree on all counts guys.

>D-STAR, which has an installed base and a defined protocol.  If 
>someone is successful in creating a new DV Vocoder, I'm sure many of 
>us will give it a go -- I will probably be early in the line :)

I'll probably be elbowing you out of the line! :D

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:33 AM 6/10/2010, you wrote:


>Of course we could come up with better network protocols (security, 
>no #...@$# pre-registration of radios -- the callsign is the 
>registration, strong authentication for network connected devices, 
>better discovery and update, classes of traffic with full admin 
>control by rule, ...)  the air protocol is basically documented.

Agree totally.  The network side of D-STAR could be overhauled, and 
we hams have the experience of running G1 and G2, as well as relevant 
experience from networks such as IRLP and Echolink (both of which 
kick D-STAR to death on the network security side of things).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 11:34 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:


>So my question is, how long has the G3RUH modem and other CODECs 
>been around that could make a VHF/UHF communications system like 
>D-STAR. From my knowledge, the solution has been available for 
>probably 5+, if not 10+ years. But yet the glorious "Amateur Radio 
>Experimentation" hasn't come up with a solution that used it.

I'd say 10+ years.  The reason I say this is:

1.  The G3RUH modem was around over 20 years ago, though it was 
harder getting one on the air than it is now (more radios with 
suitable interfaces brought out to a connector nowadays).

2.  Speak Freely (which IRLP is heavily based on, and Echolink is a 
more distant cousin of) has had open source implementations of LPC, 
LPC-10 and CELP (4800 bps), all of which could easily be carried over 
9600bps.  I was running Speak Freely in 1995 over 14.4k dialup.

>What we need is something like the ability to place hot spots all 
>over the place and the hot spots interoperate and are connected to 
>the Internet (as well as other possibilities) and are smart enough 
>to handle handoffs from other hotspots as you move around. And then 
>the radios are probably similar to today's D-STAR radios, but able 
>to handle the handoffs and can provide 4.8, even 9.6 bps error 
>protected data transfer.

Hmm, a low speed voice data network, meshed by a mixture of Internet 
based and RF based high speed backhaul links?  That could be interesting.

>
>Forget about duplexers and use 440 in and 1.2GHz out.

That would simplify the engineering considerably!  All we need is 
cost effective 1.2 GHz radio hardware (440 will be a piece of 
cake).  10m/6m 4800bps nodes would be interesting to play with as well.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:06 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:

>I would also like to see a move away from 4800 Bd GMSK and maybe go 
>to 9600 Bd and using the G3RUH modem, most of our radios would be 
>able to handle it, it'd be easy to distinguish on air, and there'd 
>be extra bits available to add some FEC to the slow data.

Now, this might be a way to bring codec2 into the fold, by having a 
new voice/data system, with no RF level compatibility with D-STAR, 
and learning from D-STAR's shortcomings.  Gateways could be built to 
translate between the two systems, so the D-STAR network is tied to 
the new network.

I know my hotspot radio could handle 9600, it was originally built to 
handle the G3RUH modem.  What would I like to see?

Variable voice/slow data bandwidth - bandwidth can be allocated to 
voice, slow data or a mix (i.e. similar to D-STAR) of the 
two.  Obviously, the protocol will need to be able to signal 
dynamically whether a frame contains voice or data.  being able to 
smoothly shift between high quality 9600 bps voice to 9600 bps of 
just data would be handy.

9600 bps is a more useful bandwidth, but I'd also like to see a 
narrowband version (4800 bps or slower), which could be used where 
channel bandwidth is limited.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:07 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:

>The only addition would be a system to transcode voice from one 
>vocoder to another. Although JARL "intended" for DSTAR to be ran 
>with AMBE, "DSTAR+" or whatever its called would be a "fork" of the 
>protocol, however allowing for multiple vocoder styles with the base 
>rule that AMBE be one of them, assuming they could squeeze into the 
>same bit rate. It would be a "playground" in which new vocoders, 
>especially "ham" developed ones could be experimented with.

The problem here is that the only way to include all users is to 
transcode back to AMBE, which means on air, we might as well stick to 
AMBE.  The transcoding would be of some use for the Internet side of 
things, but again, with the overhead of UDP/IP, we could do this 
today without developing Codec2 - simply use GSM, there's bandwidth 
to burn on the Internet side of things, and as the codec gets more 
efficient, the packet overheads greatly exceed the payload.

As soon as you transmit anything other than AMBE over the air, you 
have a lot of useless radios and unhappy people who have put money 
into D-STAR out there.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:07 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:


>I thought that reverse enginering ambe would be illigal...

You misread, the proposal was about transcoding, which is not illegal 
(it still uses an AMBE chip on the AMBE end), and is commonplace in 
the telco world.

However, I did raise other serious issues with the proposal, which 
would break existing equipment in the field.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 01:43 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:

>OK, but there's nothing wrong with extending the current protocol 
>and calling it D*Star+ or just "D*Star Compatible" or whatever.

2 words:  "backwards compatibility".  There would have to be a LOT of 
money spent to make this work.


>Heck, there are already some freely available CODECs out there 
>anyway that seem to perform pretty well (although weren't 
>specifically designed for wireless usage): Speex and the Skype-CODEC 
>come to mind.  (I'm not up on the specific licenses, however -- 
>they're "free as in beer" at least, though.)

Speex is free (as in freedom), same as codec2.  However, it operates 
at a higher bit rate, which was one reason codec2 was 
developed.  Skype is only "free as in beer", and I'm not sure what 
codec(s) they actually use.


>One thing to keep in mind is that, since most hams operate D*Star 
>through repeaters anyway, one approach here would be to have the 
>*repeater* have both AMBE and CODEC2 (or whatever) capabilities, and 
>just translate between them on-the-fly.  (This approach is used with public

2 problems:

1.  The repeaters currently have no audio hardware on board.  They 
are simple bit regenerators, so we're talking about adding up to at 
least 3 voice transcoding modules (one for each band) per stack, to 
make this possible.

2.  What about the case where radios on air are running incompatible 
codecs.  Current Icom (AMBE only) and home brew PC based SDR (Codec2 
only).  I see a lot of potential for this sort of breakage.  The only 
way around this would be to enforce AMBE in any situation where older 
radios could intercept the signal.  This means adding codec2 would be 
totally pointless, since AMBE would still be required anyway.

>service radio systems, since there lots of different companies 
>decided to build their own proprietary protocols and used different 
>CODECs as well.)  I would wager that repeater usage probably 
>accounts for more than 90% of D*Star voice traffic, and getting 
>repeater builders to incorporate a backwards compatible radio into 
>their system (that has the same interface as the current Icom boxes) 
>is nowhere near as daunting as getting everyone with an HT or mobile 
>D*Star rig to buy something new.

I can think of a lot of corner cases that wouldn't work, unless you 
mandate the repeater transmits in AMBE (which renders Codec2 
pointless in D-STAR). :)


73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:40 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:


>Not to mention, any manufacturer who wanted to implement Codec2 
>*wouldn't need* a pre-manufactured vocoder chip. They'd implement 
>the vocoder algorithm into their existing firmware on the onboard processor

I doubt the onboard processor would be up to the job.  The codec 
would most likely be implemented in a DSP chip (much like AMBE 
is).  The only onboard processors that might be up to the job would 
be those in the latest smartphones.  Radios tend to use less powerful 
processors (they don't have the need for the grunt).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:27 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>Reduce the $$$ barrier? The D-Star chip costs about $25. No one is 
>going to be able to manufacture an open source vocoder chip for less 
>than that.

For radio users, there would be no $$$ advantage.  Codec2, when 
packaged for inclusion into a radio would probably cost almost the 
same as AMBE (you'd be paying for someone to package it into a 
chip).  For PC users, there would be a significant cost advantage, 
because a $200 DV Dongle would no longer be needed.


>What WOULD significantly lower the price is competition. Encourage 
>more manufacturers to market D-Star rigs and you'll see the price drop.

Agreed.


>I'm not sure that this project has any future, but two codecs will 
>probably destroy D-Star, not make it more popular.

I think the new codec will have its place in non D-STAR DV systems, 
such as HF digital, which is in need of a decent low speed codec that 
can be incorporated into PC based software, but the developers will 
need to shoot for 1200 bps or lower (the lower, the better).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] I would like to see

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:04 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>Icom offer a low cost adapter to facilitate full PC control of their 
>DSTAR Radios.  Imagine changing the UR or Repeater settings in an 
>ID800 on the run.  Or actually being able to SEE the display on a 
>2820 in the car in daylight.  Having a shopping list stored in your 
>PC that would use alpha tags for the different fields and let you 
>mix and match UR, RPT1, RPT2 quick and easy.  Also since there are 
>more and more repeaters this would facilitate using the same box of 
>UR's and callsigns with different repeater frequencies (and could 
>even automatically add the band character, A, B, C or G).

It's a pity that Icom didn't see fit to include Bluetooth 
capabilities, because the current generation of smartphones (iPhone, 
Android, etc) would have made an ideal portable control panel and 
even data terminal for chat, and Bluetooth would have been the ideal 
way to interface to the radio.


>If the price is right, Icom would have an instant market for 12,800 
>copies and provided the protocol to communicate with their radios 
>were public, a scad of software developers could offer Icom Dstar 
>Compatible user interface software.

That would be an interesting option, all the same, though for me, 
usually not portable enough.  For me, the lack of Bluetooth is a 
serious omission from the Icom radios.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 11:25 PM 6/7/2010, you wrote:


>I'm not sure if the person who wrote the Codec2 page fully understands D-Star.
>Several times they refer to D-Star as 9600 baud, it's actually 4800 for DV.

2400 w/ 1200 bps FEC for the voice part.  However, the link that was 
given is definitely focusing on a 2400 bps codec.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Codec2 development - open source vocoder

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:34 PM 6/7/2010, you wrote:


>And that D-STAR protocol definition is defined by the JARL...
>
>How much of a prospect is it the JARL would be willing to update the 
>DSTAR protocol with an open source vocoder if it were competitive to AMBE?

Assuming the JARL were open (pun not intended!) to the idea.  The 
rest of this message deals with the case where the JARL to decide to 
amend the D-STAR protocol (if they don't, then we would be dealing 
with a fork instead).

The biggest challenge will be not breaking gear that's in the 
field.  The DV Dongle is the easiest case, because the new (open) 
codec can simply be added to DVTool, and run entirely in software 
when needed, with the dongle only being used to encode/decode an AMBE stream.

The Icom radios would require a series of replacement boards for 
their existing DV boards, to use the new codec, otherwise you're 
going to have a bunch of users who will find D-STAR suddenly becomes 
hit and miss.  Also, the spec would need to be updated to include 
notifying the remote end which codec is in use, somewhere in the 
protocol, since this can no longer be assumed.  There could be an 
opportunity in the new add-on board to have field programmable 
components on board, so any further enhancements to the codec/DSP can 
be downloaded and installed.

The above is the minimum that would have to be done.  There might be 
other unintended consequences that need to be dealt with (I can see 
the possibility for all sorts of "corner cases").
>---
>Codec2 is in at least partial code form so far: 
>http://www.rowetel.com/ucasterisk/codec2.html

Looks promising.  Where I see this gaining traction first is in HF 
digital voice experimentation, which hit a major speed bump when 
patent issues became apparent. However, codec2 will need to get into 
the 1200bps and below range to be really effective in this application.


>It seems to be competitive in the current market, a third-party 
>daughter board similar to UT-118 would have to be developed that had 
>dual AMBE/Codec2 capability, and sold at-cost to undercut the 
>current UT-118 cost.  Assuming (warning - monster assumption!) the 
>SMT design was donated by hams and it was sold at cost, and it had 
>automatic codec detection and switching capability, it would be a 
>competitive way to bring an open source codec to "DSTAR".

And be able to be fitted without too much hassle/expense to existing 
equipment in the field (like my 91AD).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:41 PM 6/2/2010, you wrote:

>In business, the decision maker frequently cannot get quality 
>engineering data to help make a decision, and is forced to figure 
>out what experts "feel" is the answer based in their own 
>experience.  We are kind of in that postion here.  I don't think 
>we'll steer N9HSM too far wrong if we say D-STAR is about as good, 
>and some claim somewhat better than, analog FM.  I would add that 
>D-STAR is somewhat worse than FM when experiencing multipath.

It is difficult to make true objective comparisons, but my experience 
would agree subjectively with the above.  When there is no multipath, 
D-STAR does noticeably outperform FM over the same path.  With 
multipath, results vary.  Certainly from a moving train in the 
suburbs, D-STAR is tough.  As you can see at 
http://vkradio.com/pt.html , working FM under these conditions was 
routine for me, once upon a time.  I haven't been able to hold a 
stable D-STAR signal long enough to be able to reliably access the 
repeaters from the train.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] D-STAR use in emergency comms

[Tony Langdon]

I've been invited by the local D-STAR community here to give a 
presentation on the use of D-STAR in emergency communications in 3 
weeks time.  As so far, no one in VK has used (to my knowledge) 
D-STAR in an emergency communications role, and the fact that I have 
participated in the SE WX Net, it's up to me to present the topic.

I've only had a small exposure to D-STAR in emergency communications, 
so I'm looking for sources of information to help prepare my 
presentation.  Would anyone here be able to help with information on 
the use of D-STAR for emergency communications?

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Adelaide reflector now on Twitter

[Tony Langdon]

For users of the Adelaide reflectors (ref023 and XRF013), they is now 
on Twitter.  Status updates, such as planned downtime will be posted 
here as soon as they are known.  To access the feed, follow the user 
"adelaidereflect" .

The Twitter feed will cover the IRLP and D-STAR reflectors, as well 
as the Echolink conferences on the same host.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Honest questions .....

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:22 AM 5/18/2010, you wrote:

>But if you would do a little legwork and reading, you'll find that 
>indeed, the hotspots access the DPlus network and that the G4ULF 
>repeater is accessing the G2 network.

I think Nate is asking for the results of the reverse engineering, 
not (closed) reimplementations of the reverse engineered specs.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Honest questions .....

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:57 AM 5/18/2010, Woodrick, Ed wrote:

>And while you indicate that the G2 and DPlus protocols aren't open 
>source, they definitely have been reversed engineered and we have 
>third party solutions talking to them now.

This also has precedent.  The exact same thing happened with 
Echolink, where alternative clients exist only because the protocol 
was reverse engineered.

>
>But the main part with experimentation is that the D-STAR network is 
>a collection of systems that interoperate with each other. If 
>someone gets on and starts experimenting against the live network, 
>this can have DRAMATIC impact to the network's operation. You don't 
>necessarily only impact your own small part of the world.

That's just an argument for test networks, so serious experimentation 
can take place without taking the rest of the world off air due to 
buggy code or wrong assumptions. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Tony Langdon]

At 01:02 AM 5/17/2010, you wrote:


>The pace of change in the world is incredible and it continues to 
>increase. For a lot of people, especially those who have been able 
>to live much of their lives in a relatively stable niche, 
>complacency adds stability. D-Star is very different and for that 
>reason alone makes many people uncomfortable.

For me, it's the opposite.  The rapid changes in D-STAR is what I 
find exciting. :)

>
>As I've promoted D-Star, I've discovered that some Hams don't care 
>what it can do, they just don't like it. No amount of rational 
>explanation about technology and the usefulness of its features will 
>overcome a purely emotional resistance. In such cases, I've 
>discovered that my time is more productive focusing on people who 
>are interested, but need additional information.

Definitely.  It's like the old saying "Never teach a pig to 
sing.  It's a waste of time and annoys the pig".  Trying to convert 
those with emotional resistance to D-STAR is just as pointless, they 
won't budge, and will dig in harder.  However, in time, some of these 
people will eventually come around in their own time, as people 
around them migrate to D-STAR, or they discover that it can be a lot of fun.

As you say, it's best to focus on the interested who are looking for 
more information, or those who haven't got much awareness of D-STAR at all.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:23 PM 5/16/2010, you wrote:

>But D-STAR certainly is useful, usable and fun without an Internet 
>connection, and even without a repeater - it works fine simplex.  In 
>fact, simplex is preferred for using the DV data mode and using D-RATS.

I'm glad that I came up on D-STAR before the first repeater was 
installed here, because I was able to experience D-STAR 
simplex.  Sure, in some ways, it was much like FM simplex, but with 
greater noise free range.  Some of the paths I worked on D-STAR 
simplex were marginal at best on FM.

Of course, with 2 gateways and a hotspot(mine!) within range, there's 
more fun to be had these days, but I know from experience that D-STAR 
simplex is both fun and useful.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: I Want To Know???

[Tony Langdon]

At 09:58 AM 5/9/2010, you wrote:

>I can also hit FM repeaters 100 miles, but there are also FM 
>repeaters 15 miles away that I can't hit. There's a lot of 
>variability in how individual repeaters operate. Also, I had no idea 
>what type of equipment that you have, mobile, handheld, or fixed. 
>So, indeed, 37 miles can be far, dependent on all sorts of parameters.

I try and compare apples with apples here - D-STAR repeaters with FM 
single site repeaters on or _very_ close to the same site, for these reasons.

>There are significant portions of this country that doesn't have ANY 
>repeater coverage. It's like the AT&T commercial that I just saw "We 
>cover 97% of America" that's the people, not the geography of America.

Even more so Australia, where 91-98% of the population is covered by 
the telcos.  In terms of area, that's the little bit down the easy 
coast from Cairns down and around the southeast corner to a bit 
beyond Adelaide, plus Darwin, Perth, Tasmania and several major 
highways.  However, within 90 minutes drive from the second largest 
city in the country, I can be outside of cell coverage, but ham radio 
on FM and D-STAR in some directions is going strong.

Go another hour or so further out, and while there's repeaters, 
you're starting to find HF a better proposition.  A few hours further 
out and the repeaters themselves disappear.  Now you're in HF 
territory, and only just starting to enter that vast place called the 
Outback. :)  No cell, VHF, UHF, just good old HF and sat phones, 
though HF is cheaper to run, and I still consider to be the more 
proven technology. :)  Even non hams are advised to install HF radio 
(there are a couple of services targeted at the general public that 
you can obtain a licence to use).

>
>To answer one of your question, if the power fails, can you still 
>use D-STAR? Absolutely, basically it is the same rules as FM. You 
>can still talk the same 50+ miles on simplex. At the basics, D-STAR 
>is just a mode like AM, FM, or SSB.

Yep, indeed.  Simplex was all I had when I first bought into D-STAR, 
and it was very active.  Of course, when the repeaters came, activity 
moved there.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: I Want To Know???

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:37 AM 5/9/2010, you wrote:


>I agree. If you're not interested in D-Star, why waste the time of 
>those who are? Just go and do something else.

Exactly.  There's so much to do in ham radio that if D-STAR is not 
your thing, there's a lot of other things to choose 
from.  Personally, I enjoy D-STAR, especially since the advent of 
hotspots and other third party products and projects.


>And you keep forgetting that America is not the whole world either. 
>There's a load of people outside your country who get very bored 
>with US-centric diatribes.

*puts up hand* :D


73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: I Want To Know???

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:38 AM 5/9/2010, you wrote:


>"  My experience with D-Star repeaters is they give me a bit more 
>range than analog FM "
>
>Not the norm . ANALOG has more range

It depends.  I have witnessed many examples of D-STAR performing well 
on RF paths where FM would have been marginal at beast.  Provided 
multipath is not an issue, D-STAR can outperform FM.  The first 
experiences were on simplex, before we got our first 
repeater.  Simplex was quite active during this period when D-STAR 
radios became widely available, but before any infrastructure came 
along (late 2007 for me).

When the repeater went up, I heard contacts from areas I was _very_ 
familiar with, that I had never been able to get reliable signals 
into repeaters on the same site on bands above 6 metres.  D-STAR was 
rock solid.

Later on, some 120+ mile paths were worked over the ranges, that were 
a tough call on analog.  These contacts were widely mentioned.

D-STAR works, and in the right conditions, it works extrememyl 
well.  However, to be fair, one does have to say that if there is 
significant multipath, D-STAR is the first mode to suffer, then FM is 
the next, and SSB survives multipath even better.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] D-Star commercial radios

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:12 AM 5/6/2010, you wrote:


>e_l_green KI6WBX wrote: "Which brings up the question of why 144/440 
>is all that's commercially available for D-STAR use, given the crowding... "
>
>I've read that since Japan amateurs don't have access to the 220 mHz 
>band, Japanese radio manufacturers are less inclined to design for 
>that band.  Too bad they can't make enough money selling into other 
>markets worldwide to justify tri-band D-Star radios.

Most of the world doesn't have access to 220 MHz.  Here, it's a TV 
broadcast channel (and is occupied by one of the new digital services).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: ARRL Field Day Rules - 145.67 simplex

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:06 PM 4/21/2010, you wrote:


>Morning Tony
>
>That was MY point keep d-star and digital OFF the standard simplex 
>frequencies.
>NOW we all know that can be a problem SO  Why not get the ARRL 
>to hold a vote of WHICH frequencies are most used by FM ?

Well, D-STAR needs to go somewhere, and the ARRL should be taking a 
leadership role over there.

>
>Likr here in Tampabay Florida ...
>
>We use 146.52 and 147.550 but little is on most others like 146.55, 
>146.58 

Interestingly enough, Australia is normally considered a "backwater", 
but here in Melbourrne, it's actually quite hard to find a free FM 
simplex frequency some nights.  A combination of geographic and 
cultural factors lead to this.  Geographically, Melbourne is 
relatively flat, so simplex works well over much of the 
city.  Culturally, clubs tend to congregate on various "club 
frequencies", which are often busy for extended periods with 
ragchewing.  Add several IRLP and Echolink simplex nodes, and 
frequencies run out rather rapidly.

Still, the WIA found some relatively unused frequencies in the packet 
radio segment, which were re-designated as D-STAR simplex.  Because 
we kept 25 kHz spacing, it's also possible to squeeze in between FM 
channels, if the recommended D-STAR frequencies are busy.

>  IF nation wide lets say 146.58 is little used then work  things 
> out to put D-Star/digital on that frequency and allow the locals to 
> work things out maybe placing d-star on a back up one in that location ?

That's something that should be looked into.  As I said, the WIA here 
does a reasonably good job of maintaining the band plans on a 
national basis.  I certainly find the US situation hard to follow by 
comparison.  In the cities, we follow the band plans closely.  In 
rural areas, things are a lot more open to local interpretation, 
because of the small number of hams in those areas.  I have been in 
areas where there were literally no others in FM range, without the 
aid of tropo - only parts of the band plans that matter there are 
satellites and the weak signal segment!  In such areas, FM users 
simply sit on 146.500 (national calling frequency), in case a passing 
mobile comes up.  While driving through a remote area, I heard 
someone calling on 146.500.  Turns out the guy driving the car behind 
me saw my antennas and took a punt that I was (1) a ham, and (2) 
listening on 146.500. :)

Now, I think it's a bit early to monitor 145.125 (national D-STAR 
calling frequency) while mobile in  remote areas, but one day that 
might happen down here.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: ARRL Field Day Rules - 145.67 simplex

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:30 PM 4/21/2010, you wrote:
>WOW- I sure poked an ant bed here, didn't I
>
>My point is DSTAR can operate SIMPLEX, as that is what I thought the 
>point was for field day. Now assuming we're talking about SIMPLEX, 
>one could SHARE a SIMPLEX frequency with all the other hams out there.

Not without a lot of annoyance for a bunch of reasons.

>Hams are a pretty intelligent lot- they passed at least one or two 
>exams to get an operators

Well, some are, some aren't so bright, when it comes to 
practicalities.  The ham exam is like a driving test.  A driving test 
doesn't make you a racing car driver, it just means you (in theory) 
have enough knowledge to be able to avoid trouble and play nicely 
with other drivers.  The real learning happens AFTER you pass the 
test.  The ham exam is more so, and it has nothing about sorting 
things out in the real world.  We learn that through experience 
(experimentation, trial and error, etc) and sharing knowledge.

>license. Hams are supposed to be resourceful people, as well, aren't 
>they? I don't know how hard it would be for folks in a local area to 
>say, as one person here suggested- use a PL tone for all the analog 
>FM folks- pick something magical, like 100Hz PL tone. Everyone turns 
>on their PL, and no one has to hear any MSK modulation whatsoever. 
>The DSTAR folks would run in automatic mode, and could hear the 
>analog FM operators, and even make contact with them. DSTAR folks 
>can talk with the other DSTAR folks, as well.

OK, problems (or challenges):

1.  Disemminating the tone information.  How to you get through to 
all hams, including those who only haul their gear out for Field Day?

2.  Those who use various old radios that don't have CTCSS.

3.  Mutual interference.  You may not hear the D-STAR stations on FM, 
but they are there and are wiping out the weak station you're trying 
to work.  This sort of mixing modes creates a MASSIVE hidden station 
effect.  Of course, the D-STAR users can set their radio to auto 
detect, which helps part of the problem, but the FM users don't know 
the D-STAR ones are there, unless they look at the S meter.

4.  In a real emergency, modes would be segregated by whoever is 
coordinating communications, so they should be segregated on Field 
Day ("train as you play").

5.  Some people are especially annoyed by different modes "intruding" 
on their patch.  You ARE going to create a bunfight with this one.

Unlike the US, Australia (through the WIA) did step in early and add 
D-STAR to the national band plan, so down here, we know the best 
parts of the band to play D-STAR on simplex. :)


>DSTAR uses FM transmission mode to transmit GMSK (Gausian 
>Minimum-Shift Keying) signaling.

That's like saying 1200bps packet or AFSK RTTY and analog FM are 
alike (and they're probably more alike than D-STAR and F3E in some ways!). :)


>The point is here we need cooperation. Again Field Day is about 
>getting a message across.

And having incompatible modes on the same frequency is NOT the way to 
do it! :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: ARRL Field Day Rules - 145.67 simplex

[Tony Langdon]

>Actually, our only dual-mode P25 repeater around here went by the 
>wayside, because the digital users got tired of the non-CTCSS 
>understanding analog users keying up in analog in the middle of a 
>QSO to ask "What's wrong with the repeater?!"...

That's the problem I see with dual mode.  Dual mode can work in a 
small community with clueful users (or who at least know each other 
and keep in touch with local happenings).  It would work on my 
repeater here, because I'm the main user, but wouldn't do it on a 
busy repeater.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Repeater stack

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:34 AM 4/21/2010, you wrote:


>what is the lightning like in your area?
>If it is anything like it is here in Florida... go with a commercial grade
>antenna... otherwise your putting up a toothpick maker

If on a site where any weather extremes are possible - wind, snow, 
ice, lightning, whatever, spend the money on commercial grade 
antennas, they'll pay for themselves in the long run.  I use a dual 
band antenna on my (analog) repeater here, but the environment is a 
domestic one.  It's not an exposed tower on top of a mountain.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Cqing??

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:27 AM 4/19/2010, you wrote:


>Announce before linking on the local system what you are going to 
>do, then wait for about 3 minutes I would say, if a QSO is in 
>progress, some systems can take time to actually relay remote 
>traffic and some don't until another new user keys up there first.

Yes, that 3 minute wait is important.  Seems that dplus doesn't pass 
traffic if a transmission is in progress when the link is established 
(I have confirmed this when using my hotspot).  Because of this, you 
have to wait that 3 minutes to be sure the link is clear.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Tony Langdon]

>
>I don't think so, I fully agree with Ed, I have 
>seen many user´s drop off dstar, due to callsign routing technique not
>satisfying their desire to listen in on a qso first before joining in.

Good point.  Hams love listening.  It's part and 
parcel of the hobby, whether people like it or 
not.  Echolink has repeatedly had the same 
discussion over "silent connects", where people 
connect, say nothing, then disconnect.  Once you 
discount those that happen for technical reason, 
the majority of the rest are people listening to see if there is any activity.

Ham radio modes really do need to cater to 
listeners.  I do it myself, I often park my hotspot on REF003 C and listen.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:59 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote:

>This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular 
>features vs. the add-on features, than anything.  If the two were 
>"aware" of each other in any way, a message could be sent back to 
>the user who is "barging" in saying the remote system is linked somewhere.

There's still the issue of local QSOs, source routing is still rather 
"blind" that way.  Being one who did have to source route for a few 
months, as the only way to get out of the local area, I did get to 
learn that method.  Also, things got tricky when we had people source 
routing from two different places, so which do you reply to? 
;)  Often this was because source routing was already in use with a 
couple of locals talking to one station, then someone else drops 
in.  They get no busi indication, because they actually manage to 
time it for the break between transmissions (Murphy's Law).

So, not all routing conflicts are with DPlus.  Some are with local 
users, and some are with other source routed traffic, and sometimes 
you coincidentally time it so you manage to cause a bit of confusion. :D

That said, there are a few scenarios where I will still use source 
routing.  It's low overhead (no need to tear down a default link, 
establish a new link, then tear that down when you're done) and has 
some smarts for finding people.


>Easy to fix, if Icom were really interested.  They're not.  And 
>D-PLUS can't do it all "alone" so to speak.  It would require a new 
>release of Gateway software that had been built with linking in mind.

That would help too, though being able to source route while a system 
is linked has its advantages too, like for that quick call - a couple 
of overs and you're gone type of thing (assuming the link itself is 
idle at the time).


>As it stands today, two things must happen...

Both common sense and basically what I do.

>THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing "a problem" is because 
>people refuse to learn it.  Anyone that understands it, can deal 
>with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to 
>the "interloper" and tell them what's happening.

I agree here.


>Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding 
>software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to 
>this so-called "problem" in the first place, not the other way around.

Both methods have their place.  Source routing works well for some 
scenarios, not for others.  In particular, it doesn't handle large 
scale nets well (the multicast feature requires administrative 
intervention, and concentrates bandwidth use where it's least 
appropriate - at the end nodes).  It does handle point to point 
traffic very well.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR communication

[Tony Langdon]

At 01:55 PM 4/8/2010, you wrote:


>I don't know if this coordination problem is only in the USA.  Here, 
>it seems some regions are finding solutions and others aren't.   As 
>a fan of DStar, and knowing that some regions have slowly and 
>diplomatically refarmed portions of 2 meters, then taken advantage 
>of DStar's narrower bandwidth, I'm disappointed that isn't happening 
>everywhere.  But, we are all human, and people normally don't like change.

Well, the issues are different in different parts of the world.  Like 
in Australia, we kept 25 kHz spacing, because of our lower density of 
activity.  There was talk at one stage of changing the spacing on 2m 
to 20 kHz, because 2m pairs were running out in Melbourne and 
Sydney.  We also had the additional problem (until 2005) that only 
146-148 MHz was available to all licence classes, so opening up 
repeaters in that part of the band might cause issues.

Since then, a few things have changed.  Firstly, the regulation 
changes now allow all licence classes to use the entire band (144-148 
MHz).  Next, the simplex frequencies between 145.2 and 148.8 MHz 
became heavily used by groups on simplex, as well as IRLP and 
Echolink simplex nodes.  Finally, D-STAR came along.  As it turns 
out, there's enough room in the guard band between 25 kHz repeater 
channels to fit new D-STAR allocations in between them, provided that 
there's no nearby analog repeaters on the adjacent frequencies.  So 
D-STAR repeaters on 2m occupy the guard band between FM repeaters, 
and on simplex, part of the (now under utilised) packet sub band was 
set aside for D-STAR.  Of course, in the "general use" area, there's 
room to slip in between FM users between 25 kHz channels.

I know this doesn't help the US one iota, but it's an illustration of 
different situations in different parts of the world.

>Our coordination group does a very good job of avoiding 
>interference.  It allows only repeater owners or trustees of 
>coordinated repeaters to vote.  That makes sense, but of course it 
>means the majority vote against any change that would make them move 
>frequency, or loose coordination due to virtual non-use or being a 
>paper repeater.

The WIA is our coordinating body, so it's in the hands of the 
national organisation here.

>But in practice, the best use of the spectrum and interests of the 
>amateur community do not appear to be factors in these 
>decisions.  Many frequency pairs are held by low-use coordinated 
>repeaters, but there is no policy to periodically review 
>coordination decisions to see the spectrum continues to be used in 
>the best way.  And the existing members are unlikely to vote in a 
>change to the policies to do that.

Here, while it's possible to have "paper repeaters" (I have some due 
to various circumstances), one has to pay for them, because repeaters 
are licensed separately.  That probably helps keep the number of 
paper repeaters down, and they tend to be on lesser used bands, 
because one licence can be used for multiple co-sited systems 
(providing the other frequencies have coordination), and it's cheaper 
to get as many frequencies up front, than to do it later (as each 
change attracts a change of licence fee).

At this time, I have one 70cm repeater physically operating, a 23cm 
allocation (no hardware yet :( ) on the same licence, as well as a 
70cm and 23cm (on a separate licence) that I'm looking for a site to 
host.  Because a change of licence is necessary, I could get these 
also changed to allow the possibility of D-STAR at no extra 
cost.  Still have to sort out the site issue, as due to local 
politics (some fool found out that the owners of the repeater don't 
live in the area), I lost access to the old site in 2008. Pity, it 
was an excellent site too. :(

>
>These are not easy issues, and I respect our coordinators for the 
>excellent technical work they are doing.  Repeaters that exist for 
>emergencies and emergency training exercises probably should stay 
>coordinated even though the repeater is hardly every used.  Finding 
>the best solution is really hard.
>
>So I am impressed when some places in the US seem to be finding 
>solutions to these difficult problems.

Well, hope you guys keep finding solutions.  :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Linking vs. Source Routing

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:40 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:
>I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is 
>the difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing 
>(UR: /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figure out.

Linking uses the DPlus addon.  It behaves (in concept) like IRLP and 
Echolink, in that a virtual connection is established between the 
endpoints, anyone within range can be heard (assuming they have the 
correct RPT1 and RPT2 settings in their radio for the local gateway 
to notice them).

Routing works differently.  Firstly, only your traffic will go to the 
destination you're routing to.  If other local users want to talk to 
the same station, they have to set their routing the same as you.  At 
the far end, the recipient needs to have a reverse route point to you 
for them to be able to communicate back to you.  This is (usually) 
easily achieved by using the radio's one touch reply button, which 
reads the incoming data stream and programs your radio accordingly.

Routing also has another neat trick.  Know a D-STAR user, but don't 
know how to find them?  Simply use their call as the UR callsign, and 
unless they've recently switched gateways, your call will arrive 
where they were last heard.

In my experience, I find routing is great for one on one QSOs, 
especially when you aren't sure where the other person is.  Linking 
is usually the best choice for roundtables and nets, especially when 
there's multiple gateways involved, because linking supports 
reflectors.  The support built in for routing to support such 
activity is clunky and requires administrator intervention to setup.

Unfortunately, a lot of D-STAR users never get to learn routing 
properly, and they're missing out on some neat features.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR communication

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:38 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:


>James KD0AJZ wrote: "My problem is that D-Star is not all that far 
>from me but I cannot talk on it while I am at my home. However I can 
>walk yes, walk less than a block and talk all day on it."
>
>Sounds like a problem I've had with a nearby repeater.  That 
>repeater's signal strength is good at my location, but I cannot get 
>through reliably, often only as R2D2.
>
>I've concluded I'm in an unlucky location where I experience 
>multipath, and DStar doesn't like multipath.  (The repeater's 
>antenna is just on the other side of the tall hill or mountain, and 
>the top is between me and the antenna.)  Mobile, I make the repeater 
>all over this area, but as I pull into my driveway, it goes R2D2.

I had a similar problem, though in my case, it was caused by distance 
from the repeaters.

>
>Solution for me was to put up a HotSpot using a Mini Hotspot board 
>and the DVAR Hot Spot software and a spare analog radio.  My DStar 
>HT has no problem working my HotSpot, which I typically connect to 
>the "local" repeater.

I went down the same path.  As the repeaters here link to a reflector 
by default (though it can be overridden by users), I connect to the 
reflector that most of the repeaters are on.

>If I were you, I'd borrow a directional antenna (Elk Antennas has a 
>nice dual-band LPA) to see if the problem is simply signal 
>strength.  If that doesn't fix it, you may be having multipath and 
>you may want to go the HotSpot, DVAP or DV Dongle route.   That 
>would be cheaper than moving, I suspect.

A directional antenna, if pointed in the right direction is also 
likely to help with multipath issues, by reducing the strength of 
reflections, relative to the main signal, when correctly aimed.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR communication

[Tony Langdon]

At 11:47 PM 4/7/2010, you wrote:

>As to hitting the repeater, as someone else mentioned, it's just RF. 
>VHF/UHF frequencies are notorious for moving the radio 3 inches and 
>going from full quieting to no signal at all. Remember, the repeater 
>is probably running at least 20 watts out of an antenna with gain. 
>An HT runs a couple of watts out of an antenna with loss. HT 
>coverage of a repeater is ALWAYS significantly less than mobile coverage.

And multipath can do awful things to a digital signal, even when the 
signal strength is fine.  I have lived in areas where the multipath 
was bad enough to cause phase distortion on FM signals.  I'm sure if 
D-STAR existed back then, I'd have had enough R2D2 to supply the 
Rebel fleet! :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR communication

[Tony Langdon]

At 04:18 PM 4/7/2010, you wrote:

>Some repeater owners/operators over here still don't allow users to 
>control the links.  I find it silly, but it's sometimes how they're set up.

You can't tell some people.  It's actually not so bad if someone's 
always around to push the buttons (like used to happen with an IRLP 
node down here), but if there's NO ONE to control the links, it's a 
downright pain and a nuisance for local users.


>I hate to say something negative about the practice or the people, 
>but it's not helping with standardization any.
>
>We limit our commanding to registered stations, but travelers and 
>others who are registered can do what they please here in Denver.

That's a reasonable policy.  At least it stops the fool with NOCALL 
set in their HT from playing around. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DSTAR communication

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:56 PM 4/7/2010, you wrote:


>Makes since. Thanks.. WOw. have I been educated tonight. But isn't 
>that what this is suppose to be all about? Helping each other with 
>these sort of things.
>I appreciate your help in how this stuff works. This makes since 
>because I think some of the ones around here are just as you stated.
>
>Thank You I know there is more for me to learn here but this is a big start.

Yes, there's a bit to learn.  When the repeaters here were first 
setup, they were permanently linked to a reflector with no user 
intervention possible.  Now, they only link by default to the chosen 
reflector, and users can unlink them and link elsewhere (or talk 
locally).  WHen the system has been idle for some time, it will 
automatically reestablish its default link.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Emergency comms poll.

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:52 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:

>After considerable experience on D-Star nets, both via dplus links 
>and Icom's multiplex facility, and in callsign routed QSO's, I am of 
>the distinct opinion that D-Star communciations are fairly 
>unreliable. Dropped streams are frequent.  Folks double on each 
>other and knock each other out.  For strickly local nets with five 
>or more folks, analog outperforms D-Star hands down.  Icom's 
>multiplex facility is as bad or worse, and cumbersome to set 
>up.  Comparison to wider area nets is difficult since I have little 
>experience with echolink and IRLP, but I'd sure like to hear from 
>folks who do.  Ammunition is good so long as it is not a dud...

IRLP and Echolink are quite reliable for wide area nets.  I use them 
all the time.  D-STAR works reasonably well down here, though I do 
hear the occasional dropped stream.  IRLP and Echolink are rock solid 
in my experience, and they have a long history of successful wide 
area emergency comms nets.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Emergency comms poll.

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:16 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:

>Its what we do, not with what we do it that counts.

I agree 100% Don.  We should become well versed in as diverse a range 
of options as we can.  Our greatest strengths are diversity (as in 
having a lot of communication options to choose from) and skills.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] Emergency comms poll.

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:00 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:

>   o Yes, even with loss of internet connectivity, D-Star will 
> perform better than analog., D-Star will perform better than analog.
>   o Yes, but only without loss of internet connectivity, D-Star 
> will perform better than analog.
>   o No, D-Star will perform no better than analog with or without 
> loss of internet connectivity.

Can I have an "It depends on the situation" box?  I don't believe you 
can definitively say that D-STAR will perform better or worse than 
analog on the whole.  I belive it will be dependent on the situation, 
hence my view that D-STAR is here, we should have it as one of many 
tools in the toolbox. :)  I have seen in general use where D-STAR 
performs much better than analog, typically fixed point to point 
paths, and I have also seen D-STAR totally outclassed by analog 
systems (try operating both mobile from inside a train, or from the 
wrong side of a hill and see which gets the best results).  Of 
course, there's also the issue of having access to slow data, which 
can be useful for some situations.

Again, another poll I probably won't vote on, because it's an issue 
where discussion is more useful than judgement. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DV dongle QSO ham radio?

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:35 AM 3/28/2010, you wrote:

>Here is what I feel like are "valid" dongle uses.
>
>1) Traveling in hotel.
>2) No D-Star repeater in range at home.
>3) Link to a specific reflector and not use local repeater.

All of these are common uses for the dongle, though my preference 
would be to use a DVAP, because I like the flexibility of being able 
to wander around the house/hotel/etc.  For monitoring a particular 
reflector, the dongle has the advantage (compared to my 91AD) of not 
having to watch the battery state.


>I would have to admit there have been times I've been on a reflector or
>on a local repeater using the DVD and the only people I've spoken to
>were using DVDs at the time.

Down here, RF users dominate, as there are a number of mobile D-STAR operators.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DV dongle QSO ham radio?

[Tony Langdon]

At 12:03 AM 3/28/2010, you wrote:



>The important question to me: is Internet use good or bad for ham 
>radio (IRLP, Echolink, WIRES, DVDongle/DVAP, remote HF control, etc.)
>
>My answer is "Yes."

Exactly Gary, you've pretty much covered the issues.

>We do need RF capability - lots of it - just to maintain our 
>distinct character. We need it to back up our claim of being 
>"unstoppable" - communications anywhere, anytime, off the grid. As 
>far as I know, nobody's linked any D-STAR repeaters by RF yet. Can 
>we get D-STAR communications out of a disaster area with a hop or 
>two of RF, then fully connected to the Internet?

Now there's a good projects to try - RF linked D-STAR, using a system 
developed by hams.  Eventually, even HF links for regional coverage 
would be nice, though the bitrate would have to be cut down (then it 
wouldn't be D-STAR!).


>We want RF because, well, because we love it. It's more than our 
>heritage, it's our reason for being hams. RF poses challenges that 
>are interesting to learn about and overcome. The rest of the world 
>wants only consistency and reliability in communications. We want it all.

Agree totally.  As someone who first discovered VoIP in the mid 1990s 
(I remember the first version of Iphone and played with Speak Freely 
back then - over a 14.4k modem!), I found Internet-Internet VoIP 
"interesting", but several years later, I discovered that adding RF 
to the mix made it a lot more fun, and got hooked on the idea of 
connecting radios to the Internet.  Nearly 10 years later, I'm still 
hooked, though wanting to crack some of the bigger nuts, such as a 
reliable way to incorporate HF into the Internet connected 
realm.  Not so much as a remote base for assisted DXing, but as a way 
of bridging the "last 100 miles" into a disaster area and the rest of 
the Internet connected infrastructure (which is tougher to do 
seamlessly).  I actually have a working system, well almost.  The 
difficult problem of reliable detection of SSB is pretty close (and 
I've gained a significant S/N boost in the process), the only thing 
keeping it off the air is boring old issues like filtering and 
shielding to keep transmitted RF out of the system. :)


>In the middle
>For many hams, especially new hams but also plenty of us old 
>curmudgeons, the Internet is woven into the fabric, and it's not 
>going away. We like it. We probably use Skype, Yahoo or AIM (and 
>hams who dismiss this technology would be better off knowing it, if 
>not embracing it). Ham radio still has its own character.

The Internet is an important part of modern ham radio culture.  Its 
real strength lies in allowing us to share ideas when not on the air 
(such as this group).  However, we do have to remember to play some 
real ham radio from time - Get on air, work on projects, do some 
emergency comms/public service work, etc.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DV dongle QSO ham radio?

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:03 PM 3/27/2010, you wrote:

>Pick up your mic./Dongle/whatever and put a call out – it’s all Ham Radio.

Agree 100%.  Enjoy the hobby, whatever form it takes for you! :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] DV dongle QSO ham radio? (was: New poll for dstar_digital)

[Tony Langdon]

At 07:55 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote:

>However you will find most of us turn up on different devices for a 
>qso all the time without any thought to how that affects our qso.

That's my experience.  While many of us have DV Dongles, we do mix up 
our use of different devices.  My own usage pattern is now RF 
dominated, with DV Dongle as backup.  Until I installed the hotspot, 
I had to use the dongle in the shack, due to the high level of 
computer noise, but the hotspot fixes that problem! :)

With regards to Echolink, I also tend to reach for the radio first on 
that mode as well, though I do have both PCs and an iPhone as 
alternative access devices.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

[DSTAR_DIGITAL] DV dongle QSO ham radio? (was: New poll for dstar_digital)

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:09 PM 3/26/2010, you wrote:

>Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
>dstar_digital group:
>
>Three folks with amateur radio callsigns chat over the internet, 
>each using a dv dongle.
>
>   o This is an example of a round table amateur radio QSO.
>   o This is an example of an internet chat room.

This is a better topic for a discussion than a poll, but it's an old 
one too, in that it has been raised in the context of Echolink and 
eQSO over the years.  The more people you ask, the more differing 
opinions you'll receive! :)

Personally, I like to throw RF around, so I prefer to use a gateway 
or hotspot (just finished building a hotspot), rather than the 
dongle, but the dongle is a useful tool that fits some situations better.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Alternative D-STAR Equipment

[Tony Langdon]

At 10:53 PM 3/18/2010, you wrote:

>The ID-1 has remote capabilities via USB, the buggy software is included
>with it. BTW, anyone know if they ever updated it? Can't seem to find it on
>Icom's site.

The IC91AD can also be remotely controlled, using the RS-91 software 
and the appropriate serial cable.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Alternative D-STAR Equipment (Was: Looking for DSTAR MAP)

[Tony Langdon]

At 10:11 AM 3/18/2010, you wrote:
> > It is a question of the G2 network at this point, there is a lot 
> of politics going on about who and what can connect, but the technology 
> exists.
>
>Maybe that's what I was trying to say. :)

Politics is definitely a bigger barrier than technology at this point 
in time. :(

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Alternative D-STAR Equipment

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:40 AM 3/18/2010, you wrote:

>The one thing I hate is using memories to do everything.  Go to a new
>area and you've got to program new memories.  Ever see one of Mark's ,
>KJ4VO, files?  He has everything in there.  I get confused just looking
>at one.

I think the way memories currently work is wrong.  To me, you need to 
be able to specify the frequency independently of the callsigns, 
because the same frequency can be used by different repeaters in 
different areas.  You could have a "favourites" list, which works 
like an independent set of memories, and can be applied.  Also, 
D-STAR radios really need a decent text interface.  I've recently 
upgraded from a phone with a standard numeric keypad to an iPhone, 
and the difference the interface makes to text messaging is huge.

D-STAR radios need a better keypad entry system, whether it's a full 
keyboard (like a Blackberry), or a touch screen (like an iPhone), 
since there's so much textual information.  Voice command would also 
be useful for mobile operators, so you could say:

"Set gateway W1ABC port C", which would set R1 to W1ABD C and R2 to 
W1ABC G (since the command contained the word "gateway".

"Set route W1ABC via VK3RWN port C"  - does a complete route to 
W1ABC, setting R1 to VK3RWN C and R2 to VK3RWN G along the way.

DPlus linking could be done also

"Link VK3RWN port B to REF013 port C"

A decent interface between the operator and radio would make D-STAR 
_much_ easier.


>If Open D-Star could use the data portion to send linking commands and
>Kenwood would implement an ability like that then I think they could
>retain some reasonable margins.

If Kenwood implemented a better user interface, like my 3 examples 
(keyboard, touch screen, voice), I think they'd sell like 
hotcakes.  No need to change the protocol, just the interface.  Then 
add to that, field upgradeable radios (like modern phones), and I'm 
sure they could justify a decent margin.  Consumers get to upgrade 
firmware in their phones, routers, DVD players, etc.  Why should mass 
produced ham radios be stuck in the dark ages?

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Random Thoughts on an Open D-STAR Architecture [Was: Home Rptr is MIA, What do I do???]

[Tony Langdon]

At 10:12 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:


>And indeed, back to my initial statement. It's pretty obvious how 
>hard it is to reach any consensus and how many different opinions that exist.
>
>Take a look at the more popular Amateur Radio programs, how many of 
>them are Open Source?

Not many, but the successful VoIP systems of the previous generation 
have some openness in their protocols and an API of some sort.

IRLP - The voice protocol is the public domain Speak Freely 
protocol.  Authentication uses PGP.  It's theoretically possible to 
have a private keyring for non IRLP nodes using the same 
protocols.  The software interface to the IRLP board has been 
re-implemented in open source, and internally, the bulk of the code 
is bash scripts, with plenty of hooks for adding extra functionality.

Echolink - A number of open source implementations exist, so the 
protocols are now effectively open.  Echolink also has an open, 
published API to allow programmers and tinkerers to add functionality 
to the program.  Some of the open source implementations have their 
own means to extend functionality.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Random Thoughts on an Open D-STAR Architecture [Was: Home Rptr is MIA, What do I do???]

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:26 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:



>1. Use a VPN network with multiple (failover) servers to connect to, 
>linked together, geographically spread out. This enables us to 
>create a private network on top of the internet or any other network 
>medium that can encapsulate the VPN. We think about using OpenVPN.

The problem I have with a VPN or any form of tunneling where you have 
to connect to a fixed point first (as opposed to encapsulating 
packets as needed on specific links) is that you can easily end up 
with sub optimal routing (especially for those of us far from the 
core of the network).  The setup time for OpenVPN is quite lengthy 
(in the order of 30 seconds in my experience), so to bring it up 
dynamically on a point to point basis would be rather slow.

You need something that can encapsulate packets, but that can also 
send them _directly_ to the destination gateway over the 
Internet.  Strong authentication is desirable, but I don't believe 
that it's necessary to bother with the overhead of encrypting the 
payload.  Something like how IRLP does it (PGP authentication, audio 
in the clear), but faster and more flexible to deal with the 
unconnected nature of callsign routing or DD data movement.

>2. Ip addresses. Every repeater gets a subnet inside the 10/8 
>network, this can be organised as the 44/8 was. Maybe we can even 
>use the 44/8 instead of 10/8 to not interfere with existing networks 
>inside a 10/8

Yes, 10/8 is a problem here, for starters.  And do we really need to 
worry about IP addresses (other than those on the Internet, of 
course) at the D-STAR level?  IP addresses should be assigned to 
gateways on an as needed basis.  Do we need to give each DD node an 
IP, or can the gateways have a DHCP server to dynamically assign IPs 
to local DD stations?

>these are just our ideas. If you are serious about developing 
>something like you say, I think we best startup some sort of 
>workgroup and combine the best ideas. We really like the VPN idea as 
>it offers natural authentication that is proven to work. The 
>(open)VPN setup can be implemented in the software.

Interesting ideas, certainly a lot of good ideas there.


>Our preffered language would be Java. I see in your code snipped 
>that you prefer this too.
>Let me (us) know what you think.

Personally, I don't like Java, because I like to run lightweight 
systems, and the JRE can be a real memory hog.  Java's performance 
these days is excellent, it's just that the memory footprint can get 
a bit large.  Pity, because Java is one of the few modern languages 
that I've actually done any serious programming with.  I also have a 
long term goal of running all my radio stuff (IRLP/Echolink/D-STAR 
etc) on embedded/low power boxes.  This is both a cost saving 
measure, as well as doing a tiny bit for the environment. :)

I also agree with everything being 100% command line.  I run any 
server/infrastructure box without a GUI if I can.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Random Thoughts on an Open D-STAR Architecture [Was: Home Rptr is MIA, What do I do???]

[Tony Langdon]

At 06:59 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:


>I have been doing a lot of thinking about a new D-STAR Architecture 
>(and hope to provide some more concrete material at some point), but 
>this discussion brings up some basic ideas that have been 
>percolating in my ruminations.
>
>Icom started from a different model than community usage patterns 
>suggest is the proper way to do things.

There is certainly a mismatch between the Icom implementation and the 
typical usage patterns.


>Here are some of the design principles that I think are important:
>
>1 - Internet connected devices need an easy mechanism for discovery 
>- use Secured Dynamic DNS.  (Set TTLs based on likelihood of IP 
>Address changes (static IPs have very long TTLs, dynamic TTLs very short)

Yep, good start.

>2 - Have a low latency, redundant and reliable service to map 
>radio/repeater/simplex node/gateway/service Callsign Addresses to 
>DNS names.  Maybe something like a Cassandra (Apache) cluster. (Use 
>caches on local boxes for the "working set of callsigns" that a 
>local system needs, don't copy full databases around.)

Well, systems like Echolink manage to avoid a lot of 
lookups.  Echolink does update the servers, but at least some clients 
cache the IP list, and most updates are partial.

>3 - User authentication - completely eliminate registration for RF 
>devices that use Callsigns, since Callsign Addresses are sent "in 
>the clear" anyone can forge them (pirate the callsign) and

Agree totally.  I can't see a valid reason for RF registration, at 
least for DV mode.  At the same time, design in a strong 
authentication system for direct Internet access (DV Dongles, D-RATS, 
etc), and back that up with a validation process that is as thorough 
as is practical (in the real world).

>deterrent than a silly "registration" system.  A fairly simple 
>regular expression could filter "MY" callsigns to make sure they at 
>least look like a legitimate callsign, here is a Java Example/Test 
>code for callsign checking, including a mark for VK foundation 
>licenses (who are not permitted to use D-STAR):

Yes, that filter could be used in a few ways, from refusing to 
forward traffic from these callsigns.  However, this sort of 
filtering would actually be best applied at the repeater.

Echolink has a similar policy.  They won't validate VK Foundation 
calls for link or repeater stations (but will for direct PC access), 
because they have been informed that "F calls" are not allowed to 
setup RF gateways or repeaters.  They are allowed to _use_ other 
peoples' RF (on FM, not DV of course), or access Echolink from their 
PC directly.

One quirk of our regulations is that it _may_ be legal, or at least 
not considered worth bothering with, for a Foundation call to access 
D-STAR gateways outside Australia using a DV Dongle and no RF 
locally.  Certainly no one has raised any eyebrows about F calls 
accessing 23cm, 6m or even 220 or 70 MHz repeaters in foreign 
countries from their PC.  Technically, it's an "elevation of 
privileges", which is an issue with our laws, but as no RF is 
generated locally, then the ACMA has no jurisdiction, at least as far 
as the amateur regs go.  The advent of Internet connected modes means 
authorities _really_ need to rethink how regulation works.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] D-STAR Info Newsletter

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:52 PM 2/17/2010, you wrote:


>
>Something new has just been introduced into the 
>world of D-STAR. The DV Access Point Dongle, 
>released in January by Internet Labs, provides a 
>way to connect to the International D-STAR 
>Network. Like their current product, the DV 
>Dongle, the DV Access Point Dongle (DVAP) for 
>short is used with…. (Continued in the DSTARInfo Newsletter)

Another fantastic newsletter, some interesting articles this time around.

Keep up the good work.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] 2200H vs 880

[Tony Langdon]

At 02:23 AM 2/14/2010, you wrote:

>My current thoughts are to get the 2200 now and the digital board later
>when funds are available.

I'll add my voice to the chorus, and I concur with the general 
consensus.  Of the two radios mentioned, definitely put down the 
extra money and go for the 880.  The D-STAR features are much better developed.

As others have pointed out, buying a used ID 800 is an option to save 
a few dollars.  I've just come from a local hamfest down here, and I 
noticed a couple of 800s secondhand.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Automatic Operation - Control Point Definition

[Tony Langdon]

At 05:56 AM 2/10/2010, Nate Duehr wrote:


>I've got the PDF somewhere... on a hard drive... somewhere... 
>copyrighted by ARRL so I can't post it anywhere anyway... (I 
>asked.)  Other people have it posted on the web, and feel they'll go 
>ahead and risk infringement of the Copyright.  :-)

If it was in QST, ARRL members can look for it online.  No need to 
reinvent the wheel here, unless there's some odd quirks in US regs, I 
don't see why the interpretations for Echolink and IRLP can't be 
applied to Hotspots.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: New guy

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:28 AM 1/21/2010, you wrote:

>What many of us do is to utilize every means possible to provide 
>communications. There are times when atmospheric conditions make it 
>impossible to use HF. There are times when any repeater will go off 
>the air for some reason. What makes Amateur Radio reliable is the 
>large toolbox that we have available to us.

I agree totally Ed.  The more tools we have, the more able we are 
able to conduct our operations.  Today, Internet assisted modes 
enable us to do things that were not feasible with HF, such as 
running nets with reliable global reach.

As you say, the last mile (or as in the case of major disasters, the 
last 100 miles) is always the biggest challenge.  Because of the low 
density of IRLP, Echolink and especially D-STAR here (compared to 
sheer land area - coverage here in town is good), I'm always 
interested in new ways of using these newer modes in conjunction with 
HF, which is usually the best choice for regional coverage down here, 
to extend the usefulness of HF into areas where large antennas are 
not feasible, or where high noise levels affect reception.

The current crop of remote bases help, but I'm looking even bigger. 
:)  Where does D-STAR fit?  It's still too early for us down here to 
tell.  The emergency communicators don't yet see D-STAR as a 
priority, though several of us are keeping a close eye on its 
development, for possible future use.

>
>As to the Internet being the first thing lost, that indeed is 
>evidently, since you say, your experience, but it isn't my 
>experience. During the LA earthquakes, Internet access existed. 
>During Katrina, there was Internet access in downtown New Orleans. 
>I'm suspecting that there's still Internet access in Haiti.

There has been the odd snippet that suggests Haiti still has some 
Internet access in places.

>At the worse, a D-STAR repeater without Internet is just as 
>functional as a FM repeater. At its best, a D-STAR repeater is a 
>mechanism by which we can remotely talk into disaster areas.

Inded, a good summary. :)

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Has anyone tried using the node adapter in the simplex mode as a link on ...

[Tony Langdon]

At 08:00 AM 1/21/2010, you wrote:
> > analog connected to DSTAR!!  NO THANK YOU!
>
>I've used a system with a very functional analog 
>interconnect.  There's always some passionate rhetoric when this 
>topic comes up, a lot like node adapters.  Everyone is certainly 
>entitled to an opinion.

There's a time and place for everything, including interconnection to 
analog based systems and networks.  I have written about this in the 
past in my blog at http://vk3jed.blogspot.com (scroll down towards the bottom).

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Purchasing a Node Adapter

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:53 AM 1/21/2010, you wrote:

>Is there anyone else developing an adapter that is not dependant on 
>Satoshi's firmware?

There is new firmware being developed for the node adapter/mini 
hotspot hardware that is not based on Satoshi's firmware.  Stay tuned 
to the various groups.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com