Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[J. Moen]

I have not read any studies comparing analog FM vs. D-STAR performance under 
weak signal conditions.  My own experience is that unless there is multipath, 
D-STAR tends to work better.  Here's an unscientific example -- I have worked a 
D-STAR repeater with very tall antenna from over 40 miles away using an HT, and 
I assume I was getting close to 5 watts.  I used a 17 inch rubber duck antenna. 
 No R2D2 garble either direction.  Analog FM might have been possible, but with 
more noise.

However, if the signal suffers from multipath, in my experience D-STAR is hit 
harder by that than analog FM.  

If you are interested in D-STAR, one way to ensure you can enjoy it no matter 
what is to get either a DVAP (DV Access Point) or build yourself a D-STAR 
HotSpot.  This would allow your D-STAR radio to run on low power, but the DVAP 
or HotSpot would connect into the D-STAR DPlus network of worldwide repeaters 
and reflectors.  

This may not be for you, but if you are interested in the HotSpot idea, take a 
look at what I did -- it's at http://www.k6jm.com/hs-setup.htm

   Jim - K6JM
  - Original Message - 
  From: n9aa 
  To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 8:34 PM
  Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar  
  The is no single answer to your question, Tom. As with any analog repeater, 
your ability to get into the D=Star repeater is going to depend on your 
antenna, how high it is, and how much power you're running. It's certainly 
possible to hit a repeater from the distances you're talking about, but having 
an antenna high enough will certainly make it easier.

  If you can hear the repeater well with your beam, there's a good chance 
you'll be able to get into it. 

  73,
  Scott, N9AA

  --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "billyjack2682006" 
 wrote:
  >
  > Hi this is N9HSM Tom, I am learning alot from this group. I got a question 
How can you be be from the Dstar repeater before you drop out? or How close the 
Dstar has to be before you can get into. The closer Dstar is about 50 to 75 
miles away. I have a beam. but not the Dstar radio yet. Also I like to thank 
the person who put it on radio reference., Thanks alot for your help N9HSM
  >

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Gerry Creager]

We did some comparison tests with comparable repeaters on comparable 
antennas on the same site, in Dallas, TX, a couple of years ago. 
Consistently, we were able to communicate via DStar about 10% farther 
than via analog. This was consistent in all tested directions, and for a 
variety of mobile systems.

Of course, it's infrequent that you have two very comparable systems to 
compare to, but we were lucky. As with most mobile radio applications, 
while you can model performance, the real test is in how it performs 
when you're out there. Note that the 10% value is consistent with the 
predicted difference presented by digital process gain.

73 gerry n5jxs

n9aa wrote:
>  
> 
> The is no single answer to your question, Tom. As with any analog 
> repeater, your ability to get into the D=Star repeater is going to 
> depend on your antenna, how high it is, and how much power you're 
> running. It's certainly possible to hit a repeater from the distances 
> you're talking about, but having an antenna high enough will certainly 
> make it easier.
> 
> If you can hear the repeater well with your beam, there's a good chance 
> you'll be able to get into it.
> 
> 73,
> Scott, N9AA
> 
> --- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com 
> , "billyjack2682006" 
>  wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi this is N9HSM Tom, I am learning alot from this group. I got a 
> question How can you be be from the Dstar repeater before you drop out? 
> or How close the Dstar has to be before you can get into. The closer 
> Dstar is about 50 to 75 miles away. I have a beam. but not the Dstar 
> radio yet. Also I like to thank the person who put it on radio 
> reference., Thanks alot for your help N9HSM
>  >
> 
> 


-- 
Gerry Creager -- gerry.crea...@tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
<>

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Gerry Creager]

john_ke5c wrote:
>  
> 
>  > Of course, it's infrequent that you have two very comparable systems to
>  > compare to, but we were lucky. As with most mobile radio applications,
>  > while you can model performance, the real test is in how it performs
>  > when you're out there. Note that the 10% value is consistent with the
>  > predicted difference presented by digital process gain.
> 
> How do you compare the similar systems - full sync range vs full 
> quieting range? What parameter was 10 per-cent better?

We attempted to determine "communications-quality" audio. Thus, if we 
were unable to recover audio reliably on the analog systems, or lacked 
full sync on the digital systems, that constituted an end-point.

> How similar were the systems with regard to antenna, antenna height, 
> feedline, duplexer quality, pre-amps, and power output?

Common receive and transmit antennas on commercial multicouplers. Power 
output and sensitivities were documented similar. Good quality heliax 
from hardware to multicouplers. They were similar in performance, 
specifications.  It was actually a planned test on VHF and UHF.

> Thanks for the data!

I just KNEW there'd be a skeptic in the crowd!

73 gerry

-- 
Gerry Creager -- gerry.crea...@tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
<>

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Nate Duehr]

On Jun 1, 2010, at 8:28 AM, john_ke5c wrote:

> My sujective assessment from experience is that "comparable" analog and 
> digital systems perform "about the same". I can objectively compare analog 
> systems using SINAD, and I can objectively compare digital systems using BER. 
> There is just no standard for objectively comparing analog and digital 
> systems against each other

Unless... and I've been saying this for what, three years now...?... the CODEC 
manufacturer publishes where their drop-out point is in BER.

Then you could make a judgement call about which SINAD measurement on analog is 
the "drop-out" point (or refer to various debated publications over the years), 
and consistently use that number vs. the BER drop-out point as a way to get as 
close to an apples-to-apples comparison you can get, without doing a full MOS 
voice analysis test.

It's do-able if the AMBE CODEC weren't a proprietary black-box... or if DVSI 
would publish the drop-out point in BER where the chipset says, "I give up."

The use of the one significantly good performance CODEC chipset in almost every 
form of digital two-way radio from major manufacturers, that also happens to be 
completely proprietary and closed, hampers the ability to test outside of a 
DVSI lab under NDA.  I doubt even the Icom, Motorola, Kenwood, and other 
engineers have been able to do that... sadly.  But if they're under an NDA, 
we'll never see the numbers... 

I hear there's a relatively new ($20-$25K) IFR test set that can record 
arbitrary digital waveforms off-air (clean input to the receiver port in a lab 
environment, assuming that the manufacturer's own user radios are clean...), 
and then reproduce them with the push of a button.  That plus attenuation would 
lead to some nice starting numbers, barring published ones from DVSI.

Unfortunately I don't have nor need one of those Service Monitors at that 
price.  A local lab was trying to acquire one last year.  I'll have to check 
and see if they ever received it.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
n...@natetech.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Nate Duehr]

On Jun 1, 2010, at 11:17 PM, n9aa wrote:

> I'm going to assume that by engaging in all of this mental masturbation and 
> ignoring the original poster's question, you're all trying to make sure he 
> loses all interest in D-Star, correct?

Sure, go ahead.  You have the answer?  Losing all interest in D-STAR over 
discussion of a question he brought up probably isn't going to happen. 

The whole point of what you call "mental masturbation" (great attitude there, 
you know there are young hams who read this stuff) is actually thought and 
conversation.  You know, bouncing ideas off of others to get to the bottom of 
something.  It is a discussion list, after-all.

The guy asked if you could run D-STAR Gateways on wimpy computers.  The answer 
is yes, but not well.  The simple answer was right there in the manual.  Run 
the manufacturer's recommended system or higher performance. 

The discussion is related to how to figure out how to do it if one's really in 
dire need of doing so.  That said, the vast majority of us don't need such 
under-powered hardware wasting our time, but we're pointing the direction to 
figure it out.  Lots of tools, no time to screw with it.  Teach a man to fish...

Let me repeat: iostat, netstat, sar, top, nice, etc. All commands where anyone 
with the time and patience to do so, can completely profile the applications 
running on a D-STAR gateway.  Most of those have been around for about 20 years 
on Unix-like operating systems, and are well-documented.  The "art" of system 
profiling and tweaking isn't quite so well documented, but it's out there in 
mailing lists like this one.  Discussed and debated by hundreds of Unix admins 
for years until some best practices have been defined, but not really written 
down in too many places for Unix, and even less for Linux.

> The fellow asked a simple question, let's try for once to give him a simple 
> answer. It's very unfortunate that these threads always seem to degenerate 
> into some kind of p*ssing contest between the same two or three fellows. 

And the simple answer is, "Buy a fast machine that meets the manufacturer's 
recommendation and then some.  They're cheap."

The assumption here was that someone who's asking "can I run D-STAR on a 
machine below the manufacturer-recommended specifications" has already chosen 
the harder path, and by asking the question, shows that they have.  They want 
information on how to do it differently.  We're just providing the information 
on how to go about figuring out something the manufacturer said wasn't the way 
to go.  Just like ham radio has always been.

Please feel free to follow your own advice and discuss the topic, as it is a 
discussion list after all.  We're all here of our own free will, for 
discussion.  Your comment is pretty silly considering you didn't answer the 
question either.  Feel free.

It's just an internet discussion list about a hobby.  No pissing match, even if 
there were one on this topic, would mean a hill of beans in the real world.  
But there was no pissing match here. 

Let's hear your thoughts on the topic.  Give us the answer.  I like your style, 
boss.  You have answers.  Fire 'em up.  Send 'em to the list.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
n...@natetech.com

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[J. Moen]

Nate WY0X wrote: "The guy asked if you could run D-STAR Gateways on wimpy 
computers."

No, N9HSM's question was simply "I got a question How [far] can you be be from 
the Dstar repeater before you drop out? or How close the Dstar has to be before 
you can get into."

I do agree with Nate's point that we don't have an agreed-upon way to measure 
and answer the question rigorously.  My answer was certainly subjective, though 
based on real experiences, but certainly not based on engineering measurements.

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.

N9HSM further said: "The closer Dstar is about 50 to 75 miles away. I have a 
beam."  Based on my experience, I would not bank on being able to make the 
repeater 75 miles away.  It might be possible, depending on a lot of things.  
But if I knew N9HSM, I'd advise him to get both a D-STAR radio and a Hotspot or 
DVAP, and starting talking to other D-STAR users on the DPlus network.  Over 
time, he might get interested in setting up his own D-STAR repeater, or helping 
others set one up nearby.  Then his D-STAR radio could work directly into that 
repeater.

   Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: Nate Duehr 
  To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar  

  
  The guy asked if you could run D-STAR Gateways on wimpy computers. The answer 
is yes, but not well. The simple answer was right there in the manual. Run the 
manufacturer's recommended system or higher performance. 

  The discussion is related to how to figure out how to do it if one's really 
in dire need of doing so. That said, the vast majority of us don't need such 
under-powered hardware wasting our time, but we're pointing the direction to 
figure it out. Lots of tools, no time to screw with it. Teach a man to fish...

  Let me repeat: iostat, netstat, sar, top, nice, etc. All commands where 
anyone with the time and patience to do so, can completely profile the 
applications running on a D-STAR gateway. Most of those have been around for 
about 20 years on Unix-like operating systems, and are well-documented. The 
"art" of system profiling and tweaking isn't quite so well documented, but it's 
out there in mailing lists like this one. Discussed and debated by hundreds of 
Unix admins for years until some best practices have been defined, but not 
really written down in too many places for Unix, and even less for Linux.


  

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

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Woodrick, Ed]

Nate,

Actually the statement that you state below DOES happen. I've seen it a number 
of times.

You've been a part of this same D-STAR Signal Coverage conversation many times 
and the answer is always the same, time after time. And you don't seem to see 
where even classic BER calculations have significant issues defining the 
quality of the signal that is received. The FEC plays havoc with classical 
signal measurements.



Ed WA4YIH

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:02 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar



On Jun 1, 2010, at 11:17 PM, n9aa wrote:


Sure, go ahead. You have the answer? Losing all interest in D-STAR over 
discussion of a question he brought up probably isn't going to happen.

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Nate Duehr]

On 6/2/2010 3:41 AM, J. Moen wrote:
Nate WY0X wrote: "The guy asked if you could run D-STAR Gateways on 
wimpy computers."
No, N9HSM's question was simply "I got a question How [far] can you be 
be from the Dstar repeater before you drop out? or How close the Dstar 
has to be before you can get into."


Sorry, I mixed up two threads.  One of them may have been over on 
"-Gateway", as I put all D-STAR mail into the same folder, 
automagically, up on the server before I ever read it.


:-)

Nate WY0X

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Nate Duehr]

On 6/2/2010 5:39 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
You've been a part of this same D-STAR Signal Coverage conversation 
many times and the answer is always the same, time after time. And you 
don't seem to see where even classic BER calculations have significant 
issues defining the quality of the signal that is received. The FEC 
plays havoc with classical signal measurements. 


Actually Ed, I have always said the BER dropout point is a TEST point.  
A known place where you can compare system-to-system.  You can't make 
better what you can't measure.


Been doing this kind of measurement (with and without FEC) for decades 
in land-line digital telco... it works just fine


If a company says, "at X% BER our chip gives up" then you have a known 
test point.  FEC doesn't matter... because the FEC is included and part 
of that specification.  The chip can have the best FEC in the world, it 
still drops out at the same point, time after time, consistently -- 
giving the perfect test point.


Nate WY0X

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[John Hays]

On Jun 3, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:


On 6/2/2010 5:39 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:

You’ve been a part of this same D-STAR Signal Coverage conversation  
many times and the answer is always the same, time after time. And  
you don’t seem to see where even classic BER calculations have  
significant issues defining the quality of the signal that is  
received. The FEC plays havoc with classical signal measurements.


Actually Ed, I have always said the BER dropout point is a TEST  
point.  A known place where you can compare system-to-system.  You  
can't make better what you can't measure.


Been doing this kind of measurement (with and without FEC) for  
decades in land-line digital telco... it works just fine


If a company says, "at X% BER our chip gives up" then you have a  
known test point.  FEC doesn't matter... because the FEC is included  
and part of that specification.  The chip can have the best FEC in  
the world, it still drops out at the same point, time after time,  
consistently -- giving the perfect test point.


Nate WY0X

__._,_.__


The company claims 20% BER to loss of usable signal on AMBE chips.


_




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
Email: j...@hays.org

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar

[Nate Duehr]

On 6/3/2010 5:52 PM, John Hays wrote:
> The company claims 20% BER to loss of usable signal on AMBE chips.

Yeah, they couched it.  (I've seen that spec too.)

That's not the drop-out point, that's "usable"... you can't build a 
scale off of that as a known starting point.  "Usable" could mean a lot 
of things.

Nate WY0X




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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dstar_digital/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
dstar_digital-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
dstar_digital-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
dstar_digital-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

[Antonio IW2OAZ]

Mike wrote:

> Yes the new version supports 38400, I have been using it with my
> ICE92 as well as my ICE2820.
>
> The program automatically looks for a new version everytime it starts
> if your internet connection is open.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike G1ZRN.
>
>  
Thank you Mike tried just now and works well...Thank you and all the 
best for your program.

-- 

73 de Antonio IW2OAZ
http://www.iq2gm.com

Re: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

[Antonio Esposito]

 Sounds good RF<->Internet gateway...will wait with impacience :-)

73 de Antonio IW2OAZ
http://www.iq2gm.com

RE: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

[gervais fillion]

Sorry guy's
i did not fellow all the discussion here,
what is DstarTv???
http://www.emoticonesgratuites.ca/?icid=EMFRCA120

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

RE: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

[gervais fillion]

thanks mike
 
qsy there!
gervais
http://www.emoticonesgratuites.ca/?icid=EMFRCA120

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

RE: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

[Fran Miele]

It is a Logitech Quickcam Orbit MP. Even without the webcam installed the
software freezes up when I click on webcam 

 

Fran

 

  

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:57 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

 

--- In dstar_digital@ 
yahoogroups.com, "Fran Miele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are there any instruction for setting it up. I tried it with my 
91Ad but no

What's the make and model of the webcam ? I haven't found any so far 
that didnt work so I'd be interested in this. The software simply 
calls the windows image capture driver (if it can find one), if it 
can't find a driver or there isnt a capture device it should throw a 
warning message.

Regards

John GM7HHB.

 



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

RE: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

[Fran Miele]

I can try to update the drivers. I am running XP pro SP2

 

Fran

 

  

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:26 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dstar_digital] Re: DStar TV ?

 

Very strange!

I tested it with a logitech quickcam chat and a my own logitech pro 
5000 both work fine. Can I suggest you make sure you have the latest 
drivers as I've read that there may be issues with this model and 
older drivers. 

I

Re: [dstar_digital] Re: DSTAR Demonstration

[Donald Jacob]

Steve,
I think that you are confusing the date with the election.
73
Don  WB5EKU

[The classroom demonstration will be Tuesday, November 4 at 9:15 AM. CST.  I 
mentioned in my correction daylight savings time changes back this weekend.  
Ron mentioned daylight savings time ends November 2nd, (this weekend).  The 
demonstration will still be at 9:15 AM.  CST and not CDT, and for folks using 
UTC, will be 14:15Z and not 15:15Z unless I have made some mistake ?  Thanks, 
Steve NU5D]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ron Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   according to the US NO the dates for Daylight Savings time is:
> a.. In 2008, daylight time begins on March 9 and ends on November 2.
> a.. Ron Brown, AB5WF
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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

Re: [dstar_digital] Re: DSTAR Demonstration

[Donald Jacob]

Steve,
Sorry.. it just looked like you said that DST ended on Tues, Nov 4..
Sorry for mis-reading it.
73
Don  WB5EKU


On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Donald Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Steve,
> I think that you are confusing the date with the election.
> 73
> Don WB5EKU
>
> [The classroom demonstration will be Tuesday, November 4 at 9:15 AM. CST. I
> mentioned in my correction daylight savings time changes back this weekend.
> Ron mentioned daylight savings time ends November 2nd, (this weekend). The
> demonstration will still be at 9:15 AM. CST and not CDT, and for folks using
> UTC, will be 14:15Z and not 15:15Z unless I have made some mistake ? Thanks,
> Steve NU5D]
>
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ron Brown <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > according to the US NO the dates for Daylight Savings time is:
> > a.. In 2008, daylight time begins on March 9 and ends on November 2.
> > a.. Ron Brown, AB5WF
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


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

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DStar uses

[John D. Hays]

Tell that to anyone trying to coordinate a 2 meter (and often 70cm) 
repeater pair around a metropolitan area.  The whole repeater 
coordination policies need to be revisited, but that's a different thread.

It's also a disappointment when you can't get a Tesla Roadster 
(http://www.teslamotors.com/) for the price of a golf cart.  Each to its 
purpose and associated trade-offs.

Steve wrote:
>
> As pointed out the real hindrance is the 6.25 KHz narrow bandwidth 
> design of D-Star. A dirty shame since we have tons of bandspace, so I 
> really don't see the need for narrow band in amateur radio.



> While overall it's a disappointment, D-Star is something new to mess 
> with, so I will.
>
>


-- 
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: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DStar uses

[Jay Maynard]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 05:13:11PM -, Steve wrote:
> As pointed out the real hindrance is the 6.25 KHz narrow bandwidth design
> of D-Star.  A dirty shame since we have tons of bandspace, so I really
> don't see the need for narrow band in amateur radio.

Really? I bet your local frequency coordinator would disagree heartily.

73, Jay Maynard, K5ZC
Chairman, Minnesota Repeater Council
-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC at K6ZC port Bhttp://www.conmicro.com
http://www.k6zc.org  http://www.tronguy.net
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com   (Yes, that's me!)
http://www.hercules-390.org

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DStar uses

[Jay Maynard]

On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 06:00:11PM -0500, Jay Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 05:13:11PM -, Steve, KB9MWR, wrote:
> > As pointed out the real hindrance is the 6.25 KHz narrow bandwidth design
> > of D-Star.  A dirty shame since we have tons of bandspace, so I really
> > don't see the need for narrow band in amateur radio.
> Really? I bet your local frequency coordinator would disagree heartily.

In fact, I know he does...since the coordinator for the Wisconsin
Association of Repeaters and I have had this conversation more than once.
There are more than a few D-Star coordinations in Wisconsin that make use of
the ability to fit two D-Star systems into one analog repeater channel.
-- 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC at K6ZC port Bhttp://www.conmicro.com
http://www.k6zc.org  http://www.tronguy.net
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com   (Yes, that's me!)
http://www.hercules-390.org

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DStar uses

[Tony Langdon]

At 03:13 AM 5/10/2009, you wrote:

>As pointed out the real hindrance is the 6.25 KHz narrow bandwidth 
>design of D-Star.   A dirty shame since we have tons of bandspace, 
>so I really don't see the need for narrow band in amateur radio.

Hmm, try looking for a simplex 2m frequency down here and say that 
again...  The band's pretty well occupied.  Of course, on 23cm, it's 
a different situation.

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

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DStar uses

[Woodrick, Ed]

If you take a look at the bandwidth limitations of 144 MHz, you'll see why the 
high-speed data isn't suitable for that band.  440 MHz can do a little better, 
but you have to head to 1.2 before you can get much. And that's pretty much the 
same as any other service. Anything below 900 MHz is considered prime territory 
and bandwidths aren't allow to get too big.

I'm in an area which is pretty much out of 146 MHz bandwidth, pretty close to 
out on 440, and even 1.2 is filling up.

If you are after high-speed data transfer, then the 802.11bg services are your 
best bet. They are in high production and therefore low cost.

But if you want the widest spread implementation of digital voice and/or data 
in Amateur Radio, then you're looking at D-STAR.

BTW, 1200 bps data transfer is far from useless. Texting is probably one of the 
most used data transfers in the world and it fits quite well into 1200 bps.

Ed WA4YIH

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Steve
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 1:13 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DStar uses





I tend to go along with Ken's thinking. The overall D-Star isn't all that 
impressive to me. Mainly because of that utterly useless data throughput. 1200 
baud was useful in the 1980's.. been there, done that with packet.

I've played with the 1.2 GHz ID-1 (the only D-Star radio) that provides a 
decent data throughput. Overall I'm not impressed with it's performance and 
price.

As pointed out the real hindrance is the 6.25 KHz narrow bandwidth design of 
D-Star. A dirty shame since we have tons of bandspace, so I really don't see 
the need for narrow band in amateur radio.

While overall it's a disappointment, D-Star is something new to mess with, so I 
will.

--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, 
"John D. Hays"  wrote:
>
> This is really a question of bandwidth. The D-STAR Digital Voice system



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

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Barry]

All I sometimes get when I do talks about it, is "What's the point?!  Why
bother?"

 

After a few extra questions and further exploration into their supposed
disbelief, it usually comes out at the end; "after all, its too
expensive..."

 

I think jealousy is a prevailing trait with many, that is, until one day
they pop up on the mode...

 

Neil G7EBY.

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Bert Bruner - KE4FOV]

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.
 
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.
 
Bert KE4FOV 




From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:33 AM
 
 All I sometimes get when I do talks about it, is "What's the
point?!  Why bother?" 
After a few extra questions and further exploration into their
supposed disbelief, it usually comes out at the end; "after all, its too
expensive..."



I think jealousy is a prevailing trait with many, that is, until
one day they pop up on the mode...



Neil G7EBY.

 

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] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Woodrick, Ed]

What I can say is that I spent the entire weekend at Dayton talking to people 
about D-STAR. There were a lot of people who had interest in it. I'm pretty 
sure that after stopping by and hearing about it, a number of folks went home 
with a D-STAR radio. There were a large number of folks who dropped by the 
booth.

I only had 1 or 2 of the classic "negative" hams. This is great, because the 
number has dropped over the years. At this point, we've now got answers to most 
of the negative questions. There are number of manufacturers making equipment 
for D-STAR. We can make a non D-STAR radio a D-STAR radio, and we now have 
approved non-Icom repeaters that can be connected to the network.

There will always be those who don't want to hear about D-STAR. That's okay. 
There's no rule in ham radio that everyone has to do everything. We have HFers 
that have never been above 50 MHz and folks who have never been below it. We've 
got folks who work people that live on the earth, and we've got people who talk 
to satellites, even the moon.

But there are still a lot of people who don't know what D-STAR is and we need 
to work at making sure that we at least get the word out.

Ed WA4YIH


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:33 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH


All I sometimes get when I do talks about it, is "What's the point?!  Why 
bother?"

After a few extra questions and further exploration into their supposed 
disbelief, it usually comes out at the end; "after all, its too expensive..."

I think jealousy is a prevailing trait with many, that is, until one day they 
pop up on the mode...

Neil G7EBY.

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Mike Besemer (WM4B)]

FWIW, I’m still a bit skeptical, but I did lay down my money for an ID-880H
several months ago.  We’re due to have a new repeater installed at a Georgia
Public TV site nearby and I’m anxiously awaiting an opportunity to have my
skepticism proven wrong!  I honestly hope that D-STAR works as advertised
when ‘the big one’ comes because it’ll be a huge tool for our toolbox.  

 

Of course, I hope analog repeaters remain on the scene for a long time to
come too.

 

73,

 

Mike

WM4B

 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Woodrick, Ed
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:33 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

 

  

 

What I can say is that I spent the entire weekend at Dayton talking to
people about D-STAR. There were a lot of people who had interest in it. I’m
pretty sure that after stopping by and hearing about it, a number of folks
went home with a D-STAR radio. There were a large number of folks who
dropped by the booth.

 

I only had 1 or 2 of the classic “negative” hams. This is great, because the
number has dropped over the years. At this point, we’ve now got answers to
most of the negative questions. There are number of manufacturers making
equipment for D-STAR. We can make a non D-STAR radio a D-STAR radio, and we
now have approved non-Icom repeaters that can be connected to the network.

 

There will always be those who don’t want to hear about D-STAR. That’s okay.
There’s no rule in ham radio that everyone has to do everything. We have
HFers that have never been above 50 MHz and folks who have never been below
it. We’ve got folks who work people that live on the earth, and we’ve got
people who talk to satellites, even the moon.

 

But there are still a lot of people who don’t know what D-STAR is and we
need to work at making sure that we at least get the word out. 

 

Ed WA4YIH

 

 

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:33 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

 

  

All I sometimes get when I do talks about it, is "What's the point?!  Why
bother?"

 

After a few extra questions and further exploration into their supposed
disbelief, it usually comes out at the end; "after all, its too
expensive..."

 

I think jealousy is a prevailing trait with many, that is, until one day
they pop up on the mode...

 

Neil G7EBY.

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Woodrick, Ed]

Don't forget that you don't have to wait for the Georgia PBS Network to come on 
line, there's nothing keeping any individuals or repeater groups from putting 
other repeaters online in Georgia. There's also the DVDongle, DVAP, and 
hotspots that can be used to access the network.

Ed WA4YIH

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B)
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:41 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH


FWIW, I'm still a bit skeptical, but I did lay down my money for an ID-880H 
several months ago.  We're due to have a new repeater installed at a Georgia 
Public TV site nearby and I'm anxiously awaiting an opportunity to have my 
skepticism proven wrong!  I honestly hope that D-STAR works as advertised when 
'the big one' comes because it'll be a huge tool for our toolbox.

Of course, I hope analog repeaters remain on the scene for a long time to come 
too.

73,

Mike
WM4B


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Woodrick, Ed
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:33 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH



What I can say is that I spent the entire weekend at Dayton talking to people 
about D-STAR. There were a lot of people who had interest in it. I'm pretty 
sure that after stopping by and hearing about it, a number of folks went home 
with a D-STAR radio. There were a large number of folks who dropped by the 
booth.

I only had 1 or 2 of the classic "negative" hams. This is great, because the 
number has dropped over the years. At this point, we've now got answers to most 
of the negative questions. There are number of manufacturers making equipment 
for D-STAR. We can make a non D-STAR radio a D-STAR radio, and we now have 
approved non-Icom repeaters that can be connected to the network.

There will always be those who don't want to hear about D-STAR. That's okay. 
There's no rule in ham radio that everyone has to do everything. We have HFers 
that have never been above 50 MHz and folks who have never been below it. We've 
got folks who work people that live on the earth, and we've got people who talk 
to satellites, even the moon.

But there are still a lot of people who don't know what D-STAR is and we need 
to work at making sure that we at least get the word out.

Ed WA4YIH


From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:33 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH


All I sometimes get when I do talks about it, is "What's the point?!  Why 
bother?"

After a few extra questions and further exploration into their supposed 
disbelief, it usually comes out at the end; "after all, its too expensive..."

I think jealousy is a prevailing trait with many, that is, until one day they 
pop up on the mode...

Neil G7EBY.

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Mike Besemer (WM4B)]

True, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.  We’ve had a big push on
analog repeaters in the past few years and we’re about repeatered to death.
Maybe somebody crazier than me will be willing to work it!  As for other
options… I’ve got a kid starting college this fall… guess where all my money
is going!

 

73,

 

Mike

WM4B

 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Woodrick, Ed
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:09 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

 

  

Don’t forget that you don’t have to wait for the Georgia PBS Network to come
on line, there’s nothing keeping any individuals or repeater groups from
putting other repeaters online in Georgia. There’s also the DVDongle, DVAP,
and hotspots that can be used to access the network.

 

Ed WA4YIH

 

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Mike Besemer (WM4B)
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:41 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

 

  

FWIW, I’m still a bit skeptical, but I did lay down my money for an ID-880H
several months ago.  We’re due to have a new repeater installed at a Georgia
Public TV site nearby and I’m anxiously awaiting an opportunity to have my
skepticism proven wrong!  I honestly hope that D-STAR works as advertised
when ‘the big one’ comes because it’ll be a huge tool for our toolbox.  

 

Of course, I hope analog repeaters remain on the scene for a long time to
come too.

 

73,

 

Mike

WM4B

 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Woodrick, Ed
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:33 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

 

  

 

What I can say is that I spent the entire weekend at Dayton talking to
people about D-STAR. There were a lot of people who had interest in it. I’m
pretty sure that after stopping by and hearing about it, a number of folks
went home with a D-STAR radio. There were a large number of folks who
dropped by the booth.

 

I only had 1 or 2 of the classic “negative” hams. This is great, because the
number has dropped over the years. At this point, we’ve now got answers to
most of the negative questions. There are number of manufacturers making
equipment for D-STAR. We can make a non D-STAR radio a D-STAR radio, and we
now have approved non-Icom repeaters that can be connected to the network.

 

There will always be those who don’t want to hear about D-STAR. That’s okay.
There’s no rule in ham radio that everyone has to do everything. We have
HFers that have never been above 50 MHz and folks who have never been below
it. We’ve got folks who work people that live on the earth, and we’ve got
people who talk to satellites, even the moon.

 

But there are still a lot of people who don’t know what D-STAR is and we
need to work at making sure that we at least get the word out. 

 

Ed WA4YIH

 

 

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:33 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

 

  

All I sometimes get when I do talks about it, is "What's the point?!  Why
bother?"

 

After a few extra questions and further exploration into their supposed
disbelief, it usually comes out at the end; "after all, its too
expensive..."

 

I think jealousy is a prevailing trait with many, that is, until one day
they pop up on the mode...

 

Neil G7EBY.

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[J. Moen]

I had a spare analog FM radio in the closet, as well as a laptop sitting idle, 
and for less than US $150, I put up a HotSpot so I can access the dPlus D-STAR 
network from within 5-10 miles around my house.  For that same amount, someone 
could convert an existing analog repeater to a dPlus-linking D-STAR compatible 
repeater, and soon, to a fully G2 compliant repeater.  I tested my HotSpot in 
repeater mode with two radios, and it does work.

The HotSpot approach means you don't have to wait for a big deal repeater to 
come online to enjoy D-STAR. I use a 91AD HT around the house, and an ID-800H I 
bought used for mobile work.  It doesn't have to cost a lot of money to enjoy 
D-STAR.

  Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) 
  To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 6:11 PM
  Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH
  True, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.  We've had a big push on 
analog repeaters in the past few years and we're about repeatered to death.  
Maybe somebody crazier than me will be willing to work it!  As for other 
options. I've got a kid starting college this fall. guess where all my money is 
going!
  73,

  Mike

  WM4B


--


  From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of Woodrick, Ed
  Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:09 PM
  To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

  Don't forget that you don't have to wait for the Georgia PBS Network to come 
on line, there's nothing keeping any individuals or repeater groups from 
putting other repeaters online in Georgia. There's also the DVDongle, DVAP, and 
hotspots that can be used to access the network.

  Ed WA4YIH

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[J. Moen]

Yes, the simplest part of setting up a new D-STAR compatible repeater is the 
D-STAR part.  The real work is the traditional stuff -- site, analog radios, 
duplexers, antennas etc.

Don't forget to get a club call -- things get confusing when a D-STAR repeater 
has the same call as an individual.

   Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: john_ke5c 
  To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:12 AM
  Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH  
  > The HotSpot approach means you don't have to wait for a big deal repeater 
to come online to enjoy D-STAR. I use a 91AD HT around the house, and an 
ID-800H I bought used for mobile work. It doesn't have to cost a lot of money 
to enjoy D-STAR.

  I am involved with four or five (depending on how you define involved) DStar 
gateways, and the next major development will be AFFORDABLE homebrew 
repeater/gateways. We are just starting to look into this (hotspot in the mail) 
for our next installation. Plus it feels more like hamming - get a pair of old 
commercial FM radios, retune some used duplexers, etc., and hook it all up. 
73--John

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[Nate Duehr]

On 5/24/2010 11:19 AM, J. Moen wrote:
Yes, the simplest part of setting up a new D-STAR compatible repeater 
is the D-STAR part.  The real work is the traditional stuff -- site, 
analog radios, duplexers, antennas etc.


That would be ANY repeater, actually.  ;-)

Why do hams think the radio part of well-performing repeaters is the 
expensive part?  Always amazes me.


If it's going to be used to offer service to a so-called "served agency" 
(even though we can't legally provide service to anyone, nor accept 
remuneration for same)...


- Site rent (or a sweetheart deal) for somewhere really worth putting a 
repeater at

- Hardline & Connectors
- Double-shielded jumpers
- Commercial-grade antenna
- Proper weatherproofing materials (no, $1/roll electrical tape doesn't 
cut it)

- Commercial-grade filtering products (duplexer/pre-selector cans/etc.)
- Commercial-grade power supply
- A secure way to remotely power cycle it all (especially D-STAR repeaters)
- Commercial-grade router that can be remotely managed (unless you enjoy 
pain)
- Commercial-grade server with dual power supplies (unless you enjoy 
outages)
- Commercial-grade Lightning protection/grounding for everything, 
including the Internet connection.


Optional:
- Commercial-grade pre-amplifier (if you have appropriate test gear to 
see if you made a positive or negative difference adding it)
- Commercial-grade final Amplifier (again, don't bother if you don't 
know what "balanced system" means and have added the pre-amp)


And you can remove "commercial-grade" and fight with maintenance on it 
as much as you like (it's a hobby, after all), if you're not planning on 
signing up with a "served agency" to be primary for emergency traffic on 
it, and emergency traffic will only show up as a last-resort.


Buying an Icom D-STAR repeater: Couple thousand bucks
Buying all the appropriate stuff to put it up correctly: Another couple 
thousand bucks.
Owning the right test gear to know you did it right: ANOTHER couple 
thousand bucks.

Knowing you did it right: Priceless.

:-)

Unless you're individually quite wealthy, a properly done repeater is 
not "affordable" at all.  Consider a typical new high-quality HF rig, 
something a contester would be proud to use after reading the technical 
specifications... and look at the price tag a repeater done right 
costs at least that much.


The list above is just the standard list we use to deploy ANALOG 
repeaters... typed up off the top of my head. Proper repeater 
installation hasn't really changed in 20 years, other than a modern 
crimp-on RF connector done with the right tools actually does yield more 
consistent results, faster... and they didn't back then...


If you're going up to 1.2 GHz... even more expensive "additional gear" 
is required.


Nate WY0X
p.s. I didn't install the RF side of W0CDS, and will make no claims for 
or against its performance.  I know the people who did, and they usually 
do things right... but in regards to W0CDS, I just maintain the Linux 
box for 'em.

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH

[J. Moen]

Nate,

Thanks for making my point -- the D-STAR part is the easy part, and if you go 
non-ICOM, it's nearly free.  The hard, and expensive work, is the traditional 
repeater part of it, which you have outlined very well.  

So the good news -- when someone has an existing analog repeater which they'd 
like to convert to D-STAR, they can do it easily and inexpensively.  Probably 
the biggest issue is adding in a reliable internet connection.  Even there, 
some people have repeaters with line of site from their abode, and with proper 
directional antennas, a wifi connection is not too difficult.

I got into HF in 1959, and I've never done a real repeater, but whenever I read 
posts from people, like you, who have put up one or many repeaters, I gain more 
and more respect for the knowledge and effort that's required.

   Jim - K6JM

  - Original Message - 
  From: Nate Duehr 
  To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 12:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH



  On 5/24/2010 11:19 AM, J. Moen wrote: 

Yes, the simplest part of setting up a new D-STAR compatible repeater is 
the D-STAR part.  The real work is the traditional stuff -- site, analog 
radios, duplexers, antennas etc.

  That would be ANY repeater, actually.  ;-) 

  Why do hams think the radio part of well-performing repeaters is the 
expensive part?  Always amazes me.

  If it's going to be used to offer service to a so-called "served agency" 
(even though we can't legally provide service to anyone, nor accept 
remuneration for same)... 

  - Site rent (or a sweetheart deal) for somewhere really worth putting a 
repeater at
  - Hardline & Connectors
  - Double-shielded jumpers
  - Commercial-grade antenna
  - Proper weatherproofing materials (no, $1/roll electrical tape doesn't cut 
it)
  - Commercial-grade filtering products (duplexer/pre-selector cans/etc.)
  - Commercial-grade power supply
  - A secure way to remotely power cycle it all (especially D-STAR repeaters)
  - Commercial-grade router that can be remotely managed (unless you enjoy pain)
  - Commercial-grade server with dual power supplies (unless you enjoy outages)
  - Commercial-grade Lightning protection/grounding for everything, including 
the Internet connection.

  Optional: 
  - Commercial-grade pre-amplifier (if you have appropriate test gear to see if 
you made a positive or negative difference adding it)
  - Commercial-grade final Amplifier (again, don't bother if you don't know 
what "balanced system" means and have added the pre-amp)

  And you can remove "commercial-grade" and fight with maintenance on it as 
much as you like (it's a hobby, after all), if you're not planning on signing 
up with a "served agency" to be primary for emergency traffic on it, and 
emergency traffic will only show up as a last-resort.

  Buying an Icom D-STAR repeater: Couple thousand bucks
  Buying all the appropriate stuff to put it up correctly: Another couple 
thousand bucks.
  Owning the right test gear to know you did it right: ANOTHER couple thousand 
bucks.
  Knowing you did it right: Priceless.

  :-)

  Unless you're individually quite wealthy, a properly done repeater is not 
"affordable" at all.  Consider a typical new high-quality HF rig, something a 
contester would be proud to use after reading the technical specifications... 
and look at the price tag a repeater done right costs at least that much.

  The list above is just the standard list we use to deploy ANALOG repeaters... 
typed up off the top of my head. Proper repeater installation hasn't really 
changed in 20 years, other than a modern crimp-on RF connector done with the 
right tools actually does yield more consistent results, faster... and they 
didn't back then...

  If you're going up to 1.2 GHz... even more expensive "additional gear" is 
required.  

  Nate WY0X
  p.s. I didn't install the RF side of W0CDS, and will make no claims for or 
against its performance.  I know the people who did, and they usually do things 
right... but in regards to W0CDS, I just maintain the Linux box for 'em.  

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Gateway Backup System

[Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM]

What sites have you tried or looked at
 
Need more information please. It has been done
here in Florida twice, with no issues to report.
 
 

Evans F. Mitchell
KD4EFM / WQFK-894

 Fla. D-Star Tech Support Group
 http://www.florida-dstar.info  

 Polk ARES A.E.C.
 http://www.polkemcomm.org  

BB8330 PIN: 30965B58



 

  _  

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of aj4g
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 10:44 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Gateway Backup System


  



I have tried all these sites and none of them work correctly. If you get the
server up and running, it won't link reflectors, it says the user is not
registered, although they are registered.
Anyone actually tried to make a full backup and restore it to a working
server and make it work?

aj4g

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .

[Mike Besemer (WM4B)]

John,

 

It's not about loss. it's about shielding.  I once replaced a piece of
double shielded coax about 6" long with a piece of good quality single
shielded coax the same length (the original piece was chaffed on the
outside) and I totally wrecked the repeater.  Going back to double shielded
fixed it again.  

 

I worked professionally in electronics most of my life, but had never dealt
with repeaters or duplex until about 5 years ago.  It was like starting over
again.

 

73,

 

Mike

WM4B

 

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of john_ke5c
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:09 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .

 

  

> A few months ago, the same digital repeater was setup in Mt. Lukens in Los
Angeles and in the same setup where an analog repeater used to be. Right
away we noticed the difference in receive sensitivity. We made some test at
a low level location and that is where we realized that even in less than 2
miles we can't access the repeater.

You have a desense/overload problem. The receive bandpass filter will really
help you. If you add a preamp, add it after the all important receive
bandpass filter of course.

> We will change the internal cables and make measurements in test points
and will look for a better duplexer and see if things will get better. 

RG-213 saves 0.1 db over RG-58. Wow! We wouldn't waste our time.

73--John



<><>

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .

[Steve Bosshard (NU5D)]

Very simple test:
A very quick and easy test for desense.

2 people and a GOOD dummy load needed.  (type NM connection that will attach
directly to the bulkhead fitting on the back of the repeater).

Have one person with dummy load in hand at the repeater with a talkie.   The
second in the field in a poor signal area with a talkie.  Confirm poor
communications.

Next, tell the station in the field to wait a minute while you replace the
TX port connection with a dummy load, then give a 30 second test
transmission.

If the test transmission from the field is markedly improved with the dummy
load in place of the transmit antenna there was probably receiver desense.
(realizing the TX range with a dummy load is very limited - mainly to the
tech in the equipment room).

Instead of guessing or speculating, just do the simple tests I mentioned in
the earlier post.  This takes guess work out of the picture.

steve

As far the internal cable goes I have never seen any desense caused by cable
used in Icom repeaters.  I prefer RG142 or 1/4" super flex for short
internal jumpers and use this on my SMR trunked radio systems in low power -
100 watts or less applications.  Unless there is a reason to do so, I
wouldn't change the cables.  steve


-- 
NU5D - Nickel Under Five Dollars

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .

[Woodrick, Ed]

I'd also check that the duplexer didn't get  knocked and detuned. As well as 
making sure that the 440 input is connected to the input and not output.

Ed WA4YIH

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On 
Behalf Of john_ke5c
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 12:09 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .



> A few months ago, the same digital repeater was setup in Mt. Lukens in Los 
> Angeles and in the same setup where an analog repeater used to be. Right away 
> we noticed the difference in receive sensitivity. We made some test at a low 
> level location and that is where we realized that even in less than 2 miles 
> we can't access the repeater.

You have a desense/overload problem. The receive bandpass filter will really 
help you. If you add a preamp, add it after the all important receive bandpass 
filter of course.

> We will change the internal cables and make measurements in test points and 
> will look for a better duplexer and see if things will get better.

RG-213 saves 0.1 db over RG-58. Wow! We wouldn't waste our time.

73--John

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .

[Greg Forrest]

It is not the loss, it's the isolation we are all after.  Some typical RG58
cables have less than 80 dB, while the solid shield cables can exceed 120
dB.  Even with the 80 dB stuff, that's 160 dB total (cable-to-cable) so it
should be fine, unless the transmitter has a problem.  

I measured two separate RP4000 receivers for transmitter noise and
desensitization (high-power, into a good matched load) using the recommended
analog techniques, both with factory cables installed.  Neither problem was
found in my units (they are about 2 years old). My standard is no greater
than 1 dB degradation.  

Both suffer from generally poor sensitivity, but nothing like you are
experiencing. I am guessing about 3-6 dB worse than a comparable analog
receiver when installed with the same antenna system/same site.

The GMSK signal also seems to be much more susceptible to multipath than
analog.  I have noticed that when the repeater site is much higher than any
surrounding hills,  the receiver performs significantly better (meaning
there is possibly fewer local reflection points).  

I suspect it is site noise; Lukens is a busy site...perform an analog
receiver sens test with the antenna system, and into a matched load.

Greg
N6LDJ


> > We will change the internal cables and make measurements in test
> points and will look for a better duplexer and see if things will get
> better.
> 
> RG-213 saves 0.1 db over RG-58.  Wow!  We wouldn't waste our time.
> 
> 73--John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the
> original  message in reply unless needed for clarity.  ThanksYahoo!
> Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .

[Jamie Hughes]

While I enjoy the support forum, you guys are trying to outguess each other
on the cause of the issue. And really none of us will know unless we go get
a first hand poke at it. I guess I would like to offer up an idea of listing
the priority of what I might do so not to confuse K6IRP. So here are my
ideas, and there might be a little give and take as far as priorities but
all tasks should be completed, let it be known that I will only suggest
things I think you should be able to do with relative ease. That said
hopefully someone in your club has access to some standard RF test
equipment. I prefer a service monitor since it will have all the features of
individual tools. I would suggest you creating a site log to document all of
your findings. This will help you determine if things are changing and maybe
help you determine the cause to the changes (Weather, humidity, temp, etc).
Please excuse my elementary steps. I am starting basic and moving technical
to assist those that might not understand.

 

So here we go:

1.  Check the antenna

a.  Place an SWR meter between the duplexer and the antenna.

 i.If you find this hard to do
with the repeater, use an HT

b.  Measure forward and reflected power

1.  Check the transmitter (Has to be the repeater)

a.  Place an SWR meter on the Transmitter of the repeater with a dummy
load attached
b.  Measure output power

2.  Test loss through duplexer
3.  Check the duplexer (yes you need to do this even if step 3 reveilles
nothing out of the ordinary)

a.  You will need to verify that you have maximum isolation between the
TX and RX frequencies.

 i.Spectrum Analyzer is needed,
along with a frequency generator. On service monitors you will find an all
in one tool Tracking Generator

1.While you might believe your duplexer to be tuned properly, start as
wide as possible, this will double check the tuning and will show if there
might be something else going on such as growth in the cavity. Older
cavities can grow things in them detuning the duplexer. This will also help
you confirm the proper tuning if you indeed have a pass/notch duplexer.
Please, please, please, verify that your tuning process of the duplexer
follows the manufactures procedure. While many of us have tuned duplexers
for a long time, some are tricky, and can sneak up and surprise you.

b.  Once you have tuned the duplexer using the service tools, use the
repeater itself or another high powered transmitter to verify your test tool
findings.

4.  Check your cabling

a.  You can do the same process for checking to the duplexer, this will
verify that your connectors are installed properly.
b.  During the test, shake the crap (vigorously, not destructively) out
your cabling. Nothing like finding a cold solder joint in an N connector.
c.  Label your cables, and replace or repair as needed.

5.  Desense Testing

a.  This will require an ISO T (Isolation Tee)

 i.This will allow you to
combine the TX and RX ports from your test equipment.

   ii.The kicker here is (D-Star)
that you will need a way to vary your output power to measure the receivers
sensitivity, I suppose you could use a D-Star HT and vary and attenuate its
output power. "Typically" you want your repeater to start repeating around
(-120 dB - -116 dB) leaning more towards (-116 dB). If the transmitter keys
on and off repeatedly, you are desensing the repeater, you will need to
isolate the TX and RX ports more. You will want to locate the point in which
the repeater stops bouncing on and off. This will tell you just how bad the
desensing is. You can isolate one side or the other, typically done on the
RX side since front ends are normally weak to noise, and are typically done
with high Q pass cavities.  

 

Based on freqs and power, really most coax should do you just fine. That is
if your lengths aren't extremely long. But you will be measuring loss
through them so you will know what it is. That said, higher quality cable is
always better than lesser, but sometimes the microfarbles (little gains or
losses) do not justify the cost. 

 

If you desire more assistance please feel free to contact me directly. And I
hope this helps.

 

73's

Jamie

KD7HPE

 

From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of john_ke5c
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 5:50 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Dstar Repeater receive is bad . .

 

  

> It is not the loss, it's the isolation we are all after. Some typical RG58
> cables have less than 80 dB, while the solid shield cables can exceed 120
> dB. Even with the 80 dB stuff, that's 160 dB total (cable-to-cable) so it
> should be fine, unless the transmitter has a problem. 

These short jumpers are inside a metal bo

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR PARACHUTE MOBILE Sat Sept 5, 2009

[Robbie De Lise]

Just so you know,

A belgian Ham Radio op was doing HF from a plane somewhere, and his license
got revoked and a fine to be payed because its illigal to do ham radio 'in
the air' (in belgium).

73s
Robbie ON4SAX

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 12:11 PM,  wrote:

>
>
> Brian and Nate,
>
> Wouldn't that be something if we could arrange a jumper-plane-jumper
> DSTAR
> QSO? I am up for trying it some weekend soon.
>
> We (AF6IM and KF6WRW) have been keeping our toggles stowed until we
> get to about 3000 ft. Gives us slower descent for more comm time and
> slower forward speed to cut wind noise. Speaker mic is noisy but very
> intelligible. In Oct we are going to try HF radio comms on a HAHO
> exiting at about 2 ft with oxygen. The masks have internal mics.
>
> A 97 sq ft canopy? No thanks ;-). I like my Triathlon 190 just fine.
> Been jumping since 1968 starting with a "boatanchor" USAF surplus C9
> round jet ejection canopy. Man that cheap chute landed hard. It is a
> miracle I didn't break a leg. Made over a hundred painful landings
> under that beast until I could afford a very used ParaCommander.
>
> I am turning 60 in October. Been a skydiver since 1968 and a ham since
> April 08. Really love the new hobby and am having a lot of fun
> combining it with the old one.
>
> 73
> Mark
> AF6IM
>
>  
>

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR PARACHUTE MOBILE Sat Sept 5, 2009

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 4, 2009, at 4:11 AM, boeing...@gmail.com wrote:

> Brian and Nate,
>
> Wouldn't that be something if we could arrange a jumper-plane-jumper
> DSTAR
> QSO? I am up for trying it some weekend soon.

That would be interesting!

> We (AF6IM and KF6WRW) have been keeping our toggles stowed until we
> get to about 3000 ft. Gives us slower descent for more comm time and
> slower forward speed to cut wind noise. Speaker mic is noisy but very
> intelligible. In Oct we are going to try HF radio comms on a HAHO
> exiting at about 2 ft with oxygen. The masks have internal mics.

If you pulled at 3000' MSL here, well... you'd be dead/underground!

(Since the airport I launch out of is at 5885'!   ;-)  )

> I am turning 60 in October. Been a skydiver since 1968 and a ham since
> April 08. Really love the new hobby and am having a lot of fun
> combining it with the old one.

It is fun to mix things up, isn't it?  Kinda like making a big bowl of  
Chex Mix for a party!  LOL!

--
Nate Duehr
n...@natetech.com

facebook.com/denverpilot
twitter.com/denverpilot

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR PARACHUTE MOBILE Sat Sept 5, 2009

[Brian Mury]

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 03:11 -0700, boeing...@gmail.com wrote:

> Wouldn't that be something if we could arrange a jumper-plane-jumper 
> DSTAR
> QSO? I am up for trying it some weekend soon.

As I said, I don't have a DSTAR handheld :-(. I could try to borrow one
if I can find someone nearby who has one. Maybe I shouldn't tell them
what I plan on doing with it! ;-)

I think the tricky part would be timing our jumps so we are in the air
at the same time. Hard to make a jump plane wait around (on the ground
or in the air) to get the timing right...

Brian

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR PARACHUTE MOBILE Sat Sept 5, 2009

[Brian Mury]

Nate,

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 09:39 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > We (AF6IM and KF6WRW) have been keeping our toggles stowed until we
> > get to about 3000 ft. 
> 
> If you pulled at 3000' MSL here, well... you'd be dead/underground!

1. Unlike pilots, skydivers always use AGL, not MSL. When we are headed
straight at the ground at 120 mph (or possibly a lot more depending on
body position), we really want to know how far away the ground is
without having to remember and subtract the ground elevation. Since we
almost always land at the same location we took off from, and are not in
the air long enough to worry about significant barometric pressure
changes, it makes sense to use AGL.

2. When Mark says "keeping our toggles stowed", he is not talking about
deploying the parachute.  The toggles are the steering controls.
Parachutes are packed with them locked partway down in order to improve
the deployment. Once the canopy is open, the jumper releases the toggles
to allow the canopy to go to full flight. Leaving them stowed will
result in slower flight and a lower descent rate, useful to give Mark
more time to play with the radio, as well as reducing wind noise that
the mic will pick up.

Brian

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR PARACHUTE MOBILE Sat Sept 5, 2009

[James Ewen]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Brian Mury wrote:

> As I said, I don't have a DSTAR handheld :-(. I could try to borrow one
> if I can find someone nearby who has one. Maybe I shouldn't tell them
> what I plan on doing with it! ;-)

Just make sure you have it nicely secured... On my third freefall, I
tucked my IC-24 AT into the upper arm of my jumpsuit. It was a really
tight fit getting it in there, and I figured it would be good there. I
ran the mic cable down my arm, and out the cuff. The mic was clipped
onto the cuff.

Well, after 6500 feet of freefall, and a nice deployment, I looked for
the mic... uh-oh, it's dangling out my sleeve. A quick pat of my
shoulder looking for the radio brought a moment of panic. Where's the
radio? Uh-oh, did the radio jump out, and make a mad dash for the
ground? Nope, after a frantic pat-down, I found it in the small of my
back. A little rearranging and it was back where it should be. I spent
almost a minute chatting with some friends back in town, about 50
miles away on a local repeater. At about 1000 ft AGL, I signed off,
telling them I needed to prepare for final approach and touchdown. I
flew the whole time in free flight, after pulling the toggles down,
and getting headed in the right direction. No serious complaints of
wind noise or anything. That would have been the summer of 1990...

I always wanted to try a hop and pop with the radio, but never did.
You could hit a lot of repeaters from 10,000 feet up. We get great
coverage from our balloon borne crossband repeaters at that altitude,
and it gets better as you go up.

James
VE6SRV

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR PARACHUTE MOBILE Sat Sept 5, 2009

[Nate Duehr]

On Sep 6, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Brian Mury wrote:

> Nate,
>
> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 09:39 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > > We (AF6IM and KF6WRW) have been keeping our toggles stowed until  
> we
> > > get to about 3000 ft.
> >
> > If you pulled at 3000' MSL here, well... you'd be dead/underground!
>
> 1. Unlike pilots, skydivers always use AGL, not MSL. When we are  
> headed
> straight at the ground at 120 mph (or possibly a lot more depending on
> body position), we really want to know how far away the ground is
> without having to remember and subtract the ground elevation. Since we
> almost always land at the same location we took off from, and are  
> not in
> the air long enough to worry about significant barometric pressure
> changes, it makes sense to use AGL.


Ah, gotcha.


> 2. When Mark says "keeping our toggles stowed", he is not talking  
> about
> deploying the parachute. The toggles are the steering controls.
> Parachutes are packed with them locked partway down in order to  
> improve
> the deployment. Once the canopy is open, the jumper releases the  
> toggles
> to allow the canopy to go to full flight. Leaving them stowed will
> result in slower flight and a lower descent rate, useful to give Mark
> more time to play with the radio, as well as reducing wind noise that
> the mic will pick up.

Fascinating, I never knew that.  Thanks.

--
Nate Duehr
n...@natetech.com

facebook.com/denverpilot
twitter.com/denverpilot

Repeaters/Infrastructure Building (Was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: DSTAR newcomer FINISH)

[Nate Duehr]

On 5/25/2010 12:53 AM, J. Moen wrote:
Thanks for making my point -- the D-STAR part is the easy part, and if 
you go non-ICOM, it's nearly free.  The hard, and expensive work, is 
the traditional repeater part of it, which you have outlined very well.


Yeah, I was just supporting your point with details, Jim.  So many 
hams think a repeater is something you slap up on a piece of RG-8U on a 
Comet in your backyard...


For the record, I can't say I've ever "put up a repeater", but let me 
explain that... I realized early on that repeaters that performed well 
were up on high mountains around here, which meant site rent, and then 
got involved in various clubs/organizations that already had repeaters 
they'd let anyone they trusted to, work on them.  Spent a lot of time 
being mentored by the folks already taking care of those systems.  Some 
of whom put them up and rebuilt them and learned all these lessons the 
hard way over a few decades.  They have great advice.


I learned that most organizations are DYING for QUALIFIED people to work 
on all repeater systems.  They need not only good technicians, but 
technicians who know how to get along with others (rare in Ham Radio) 
and people they can trust to troubleshoot and "do no harm" when a system 
has a problem.


Also the number of hams willing to purchase and keep their own service 
monitors and other necessary test gear is really, REALLY low.


So fo years I've helped with rennovation/revamp of repeaters, and/or 
installing repeaters at sites that already have some infrastructure. 
Never a complete "from the ground up" install, so to speak... because 
the systems that are up are already on the best sites for coverage.  No 
point in putting things lower, unless you have a specific local coverage 
need.


Last year when we *moved* a repeater from one building/tower system to 
another.  We took the time/money to give it all new antennas and 
hardline on the new tower, etc... it was worth it.  (Carrying a 6' rack 
cabinet full of MASTR II stuff with four guys on the corners, like a 
sarcophagus, with straps, through mud, is entertaining.)


So yeah, I've touched all the "moving parts" of a repeater system, and 
could install a whole one, but the real need out there these days is in 
people with skills to help maintain and revamp existing systems.  An 
additional side effect to this is that once you're involved and serious 
on the analog side, you have a "respect platform" in your local group of 
techies to say, "Hey guys, X repeater isn't really used all that much.  
Do you think we might consider doing a D-STAR repeater on that pair?"


There are some built-in "gotchas" with a D-STAR system that make it a 
LOT harder to figure out the problem if you have no analog repeater 
experience, too.  Things like how to check a D-STAR system for de-sense 
if you've never seen it on an analog repeater... it won't make as much 
"sense".  (No pun intended.)


(Recall that we've actually seen people on the list say things like, "It 
can't have desense! It's digital!"  Sometimes folks get excited and 
forget that the laws of RF physics aren't repealed as soon as you slap a 
"digital" label on something!  GRIN...)


Like anything worth doing, it's worth learning to do it right, and it's 
worth the money too... in the long run.  Like most things worth doing, 
you also never really ever quit learning about whatever topic it is.  I 
learn something new every time I go up to a repeater site.


Had a very interesting thought recently: We have different license 
classes by band... why not an "Infrastructure" license?  If you're going 
to install infrastructure you must pass a test that includes questions 
about how infrastructure is different than a typical single-user 
station, bandplan coordination, legalities as they relate specifically 
to infrastructure stations, etc etc etc.  Not just for repeaters, all 
infrastructure. Those topics all apply, even on HF infrastructure.  
Fascinating thought.  Would be pretty easy to flesh it out with a good 
generalized question pool, too.  Sends the right message, too... "You're 
responsible for something that can cause more people problems than just 
your single-person station."  Etc.


--
Nate WY0X

RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: [DStar-Gateway] The great "red herring" (US Primarily)

[Michael Walker (VA3MW)]

Hi Nate

 

There is no good answer here.  No one defines on how we use the tool
(radio), but just to allow the tool to be used in as many configurations as
possible.

 

I could not agree more on the digital to analogue conversion, however, in
reality, what 'most' of the world wants is the ability to send your data
(voice) and have it seamlessly converted.  If you were to back up 5 years
ago, what would you have said to the fact that all you can do is call others
with only a digital cell phone and you can't call those on an analogue one.

 

We are not talking about converting CW to Audio (are we?).  

 

Personally, I believe we need to do this to help increase our numbers, if
not only for a disaster, but so that we can bond together like the Borg.  J

 

The ID issue isn't the issue.  That part is solved, either by voice, machine
or it just doesn't matter for your country.  

 

Off soapbox.

 

Mike VA3MW

 

p.s.  But, I will 100% agree with you if you can help me keep my openvpn
connection from dropping on my vista 64 laptop to my Astaro gateway.  It
wouldn't be so bad if it would tell me it dropped. ;)

 

From: Nate Duehr [mailto:n...@natetech.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:23 AM
To: dstar-gate...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com; rtp...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: [DStar-Gateway] The great "red herring" (US
Primarily)

 






John D. Hays wrote:

> This message is not advocating the interconnection, it is merely to 
> point out that the ID argument is not valid. A given gateway operator 
> may have other reasons for not wishing interconnection, and it is within 
> their rights to deny it.

I'm not advocating or not the interconnection either, but I think the 
argument people are making isn't one of "legal ID", it's one of "we're 
losing a feature" when we interconnect.

Why upgrade to a digital system that gives you the callsign of the 
operator on the far end, if someone's just going to inject analog 
signals that have no ID associated with them, or worse a "fake" callsign 
that's always the same... into that nice, advanced, digital system with 
the neat feature? That's backwards thinking, not forwards.

In other words... once you have a digital system that does these 
things... "Who cares?" about analog? (This coming from a guy who also 
operates 10 analog repeaters... analog has its place, but connecting it 
to the D-STAR network, is just kinda... dumb.)

That's the rub, methinks... not that someone can't legally ID the 
signal. Voice works just fine for that, and always will.

You can even ID an analog repeater legally that way here in the U.S. ... 
"This is WY0X via the WY0X repeater." on a repeater without an automatic 
ID'er... is perfectly legal here. I don't RECOMMEND it, but it's legal. 
Right up until the point where some noise or grunge opens the repeater's 
receiver some day when no one's listening...

Nate WY0X





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

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: [DStar-Gateway] The great "red herring" (US Primarily)

[George Henry]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nate Duehr" 
To: 
Cc: ; 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 12:22 AM
Subject: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: [DStar-Gateway] The great "red herring" (US 
Primarily)


[snip]

>
> You can even ID an analog repeater legally that way here in the U.S. ...
> "This is WY0X via the WY0X repeater." on a repeater without an automatic
> ID'er... is perfectly legal here.  I don't RECOMMEND it, but it's legal.
> Right up until the point where some noise or grunge opens the repeater's
> receiver some day when no one's listening...
>
> Nate WY0X
>


I'll argue that one, Nate...  The language of 97.119(a) is pretty clear, 
however, I've emphasized the relevant words below:

"Each amateur STATION, except a space station or telecommand station, must 
transmit ITS assigned call sign on ITS transmitting channel at the end of 
each communication, and at least every ten minutes during a 
communication"

A repeater is an amateur STATION.  Therefore, the only amateur STATIONS that 
can legally ID a repeater are the repeater itself, or the repeater licensee. 
So while you could legally ID for your own repeater, there is nothing in the 
wording of 97.119 that can be construed to allow any amateur station to 
transmit station identification for any OTHER amateur station.

73,

George, KA3HSW

Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: [DStar-Gateway] The great "red herring" (US Primarily)

[Nate Duehr]

On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:20 PM, George Henry wrote:
> A repeater is an amateur STATION. Therefore, the only amateur  
> STATIONS that
> can legally ID a repeater are the repeater itself, or the repeater  
> licensee.
> So while you could legally ID for your own repeater, there is  
> nothing in the
> wording of 97.119 that can be construed to allow any amateur station  
> to
> transmit station identification for any OTHER amateur station.
>
Fair enough George, good info.  I can think of at least three ways  
around it, the easiest way around it is to make everyone authorized to  
use a repeater a co-owner.  GRIN...

The original topic was whether or not the callsign ID's inside the D- 
STAR data protocol are necessary/required, and I still say "no" on  
that one.  Voice is fine.  My side point was that a repeater doesn't  
even have to have an automated ID.

Lawyers will argue the wording into something so twisted that they'll  
have jobs forever, since that's what they're paid to do... fiscal  
incentives are often root-causes to all sorts of things.

No one who has a transmitter that's ID'ed in any method with a legal  
callsign is ever going to have to worry about the above corner-case.   
It was just a wild example, attempting to point out the obvious...  
voice or data ID -- doesn't matter which... only one is required.

--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
n...@natetech.com