Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John D. Hays]

D-PLUS Linking has its purpose, for wide area nets and if you know where 
the station is that you want to talk to and the repeater they are using 
is linked.

Source routing to an individual callsign (native D-STAR) has its purpose 
as well.  If the station (callsign) that I want to talk to is attached 
to a traveler, say a long haul truck driver or a road warrior, then 
simply calling the station using callsign routing makes more sense.  
Hopefully, the participants in a "local" QSO that gets interrupted by a 
remote call are not the types that think they have exclusive use of a 
frequency and have the courtesy and skill to let the remote station know 
what is going on. 

Callsign squelch is not D-STAR native, but it is a nice feature added to 
their radios by Icom.  It seems quite a few folks think that callsign 
squelch is the only reason to have the UR callsign set, but I see it as 
a secondary feature.

Woodrick, Ed wrote:
>
>
> ...
>

> That's something that just WILL NOT HAPPEN, no way, no how, with 
> callsign routing. There have been three or four way conversations with 
> people from different states and different countries. That CAN NOT 
> HAPPEN with callsign routing.
>
> We have the Southeaster Weather Net where 25+ repeaters and 50+ users 
> link up. There's less doubling here than on a FM local repeater net. 
> You CAN NOT DO THIS with callsign routing.
>
> If I am having a conversation on a repeater with someone local and 
> someone source routes in, they don't know an existing QSO is on the 
> repeater, even if the wait 15 minutes. The only way that they can find 
> out is if they keep transmitting and watching their display and 
> eventually see the error code come back. For me to tell them that the 
> repeater Is busy, I've got to program my radio as I'm driving 70 mph 
> down the road. And then make a call, and then change the programming 
> on my radio. A process that usually takes a couple of minutes.
> ...
>

> Ed WA4YIH
>
> 


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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[john_ke5c]

> Source routing to an individual callsign (native D-STAR) has its purpose 
> as well.  If the station (callsign) that I want to talk to is attached 
> to a traveler, say a long haul truck driver or a road warrior, then 
> simply calling the station using callsign routing makes more sense.  

Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
only if he remembered to key up?  Without dplus and reflectors, DStar would be 
on its way to join HF digital.  I agree 100% with Ed.

73 -- John

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[k7ve]

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "john_ke5c"  wrote:

> Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
> repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
> only if he remembered to key up? 

Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be defibrillators 
on airplanes because they only are useful 0.1% of the time when a passenger 
has a heart attack.

I used to be a "road warrior" and on any given day may have been in one or more 
different major cities. My travels took me to 5 continents and many of the US 
States and Canadian provinces.  Had D-STAR been available then, the first thing 
I would have done after leaving an airport terminal is to key-up on a D-STAR 
repeater -- then my friends and more importantly my family (my wife, all 4 
sons, and my daughter-in-law are all licensed) could call me without knowing 
where I was, what repeater I was on, what frequency, etc. For family members 
that don't regularly operate, just having the radio preprogrammed would make it 
almost like an intercom, PTT to "Dad" anywhere he might be...

As D-STAR grows beyond a handful of repeaters in any given area, there 
certainly will be repeaters that are quite, where callsign routing to the 
individual station makes a perfect use case.  In fact, I think most of the 
linking right now is more of a function of insufficient local traffic and 
trustees wanting to hear something coming out of that expensive repeater they 
put up.

Also, applications like D-PRS, Digital Data (if done right), and D-RATS do make 
use of callsign routing.  DPLUS is not the solution to these.

In many ways, DPLUS is just IRLP/Echolink for Digital Voice.  (No slant on its 
utility, but it is not the final definition of D-STAR communications - it is an 
application that uses defined D-STAR.)

>Without dplus and reflectors, DStar would be on its way to join HF digital.  
>

HF Digital is alive and well (from CW, to packet, to PSKxx, to Pactor, ...).  
If you are referring to digital voice on HF, a big factor there was that the 
"good" implementation was plagued by ignoring intellectual property rights and 
using a vocoder without the owner's permission.  When a good, legal and/or 
licensed vocoder for HF is implemented, I think you will see a rise in HF 
Digital Voice.  Shoot, with a good modulation scheme, D-STAR might even find a 
home on HF if we can move to bandwidth defined modulation authorization instead 
of discrete designators.

> 73 -- John
>

Not every QSO is a random fishing expedition, sometimes you want to speak to a 
specific station, regardless of its location and frequency.

See: http://k7ve.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=26

John - K7VE

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[john_ke5c]

> > Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
> > repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
> > only if he remembered to key up? 
> 
> Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be defibrillators 
> on airplanes because they only are useful 0.1% of the time when a 
> passenger has a heart attack.

I'm glad you agree: defibrillators are as useful to the average airline 
passenger as callsign routing is to the average DStar radio user.  

73 -- John

Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[john_ke5c]

> But to those of us who truly do wish to communicate with an individual 
> (as with those of us who are trained on AEDs), it is nice to have the 
> capability when wanted/needed.

Oh I generally agree.  I was just emphasizing how non sequltur the attempted 
analogy with debfibrillators on airplanes was.

73 -- John

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[John D. Hays]

You missed the whole point.

You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to 
talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would 
like callsign routing banned.  For those cases where it makes better 
sense, it is the right solution, and it is part of the protocol, so 
those of us that understand it, will continue to use it.

Banning callsign routing use would be like banning defibrillators on 
airplanes (the point).  They are not for every passenger, but for those 
who need them, I'm glad they are there.

Those of us who understand and support callsign routing acknowledge that 
DPLUS provides functions that are useful to many, the reverse courtesy 
seems to be totally absent.

john_ke5c wrote:
>
>
> > > Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a 
> DStar repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then 
> would be known only if he remembered to key up?
> >
> > Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be 
> defibrillators on airplanes because they only are useful 0.1% of 
> the time when a passenger has a heart attack.
>
> I'm glad you agree: defibrillators are as useful to the average 
> airline passenger as callsign routing is to the average DStar radio user.
>
> 73 -- John
>


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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Tony Langdon]

At 04:20 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>You missed the whole point.
>
>You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to
>talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would
>like callsign routing banned.  For those cases where it makes better
>sense, it is the right solution, and it is part of the protocol, so
>those of us that understand it, will continue to use it.

I can see why someone who uses DPlus linking to run large nets of 
some importance might have an issue with callsign routing getting in 
the way.  I think the real issue is that D-STAR is still evolving, 
and DPlus is an aftermarket add on, which is doing its best to work 
with the G2 software.  Over time, the best solution is for a more 
flexible G3 (or G4, or... ;) ) gateway package, with an official API 
for adding extensions such as DPlus, so that interactions between the 
gateway software and any add ons can be more precisely 
controlled.  This would probably resolve a lot of DPlus's quirks as well.

If Icom doesn't do this, then the ham community needs to come up with 
a suitable alternative.

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

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Mathaeus (Matthew Fonner)]

john_ke5c wrote:
>>> Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar 
>>> repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known 
>>> only if he remembered to key up? 
>>>   
>> Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be 
>> defibrillators on airplanes because they only are useful 0.1% of the 
>> time when a passenger has a heart attack.
>> 
>
> I'm glad you agree: defibrillators are as useful to the average airline 
> passenger as callsign routing is to the average DStar radio user.  
>   
But to those of us who truly do wish to communicate with an individual 
(as with those of us who are trained on AEDs), it is nice to have the 
capability when wanted/needed.

Matt / N3WNX

RE: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

[Barry A. Wilson]

AEDs & Call Sign Routing,

 

I think it was a wise choice to require AED’s on commercial air craft.
If it is never needed then all the better, but if an emergency occurs it may
just be the one tool that saves a life when access to rapid emergency care
is unavailable. For such a small investment in overall costs it’s a no
brainer. Here in the US there has been strides to get rapid emergency
response and transport to most major communities within 6 minutes.  I know
it can far exceed that time… but if you’re in a commercial aircraft that
time may be closer to 30 minutes. WAY too long to get back on the ground and
before getting a patient into the medical care system.   

 

   In the early days of aviation flight attendants were often nurses. As
long as I can remember there has always been oxygen on aircraft. AED’s are
just one more tool in the tool box to assist in emergency care and I’m glad
they are there.

 

   So when used Call Sign Routing works well. If I were traveling like I use
to… it would be ideal to have. In another 5-10 years it may be so common
place that where ever you operate may have access to a gateway connected
system. Just like having an AED accessible on aircraft, shopping malls,
schools, job sites… if it’s available it can be used when needed.  

 

73

 

Barry A. Wilson KAØBBQ

D-STAR  UR=/WØCDS  B

 

 

   DD A 1299.9000 RPS

DV A 1283.9625 -12.000

DV B 446.9625 -5.

DV C 145.2500 +0.6000

 

 

 

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of john_ke5c
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:35 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal
Distance)

 






> But to those of us who truly do wish to communicate with an individual 
> (as with those of us who are trained on AEDs), it is nice to have the 
> capability when wanted/needed.

Oh I generally agree. I was just emphasizing how non sequltur the attempted
analogy with debfibrillators on airplanes was.

73 -- John



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]