Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 01:12 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote: Note how they added MORE features to the latest rig that didn't play nicely with D-PLUS. Are they stupid? #1. They currently have a monopoly and know we'll buy even if D-Plus become incompatible in some way. #2. They believe their solution is far superior and we are the ones not doing it right. #3. They don't have to support anything D-Plus related. We have US based D-Star reps. Talk to them and ask if ICOM Japan is stupid.
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
Chris Fowler wrote: We have US based D-Star reps. Talk to them and ask if ICOM Japan is stupid. Last year, I was in a meeting with the head of Icom's D-STAR development from Japan. I tried to explain to him how DD could be more effectively marketed in the US (a lower cost unit with an Ethernet port on one end and an antenna connector on the other - I had a few EMCOMM people in the room who agreed that this was needed on 23cm, plus some interest in a 70cm DD device), and his reaction demonstrated a total lack of interest in what the US market thought, e.g. he was the expert and he would define what we needed in the market place. When the 9100 was announced, I looked at the specs and the US regulations and it appears to me that D-STAR meets the requirements to operate on more than the 10m HF bands. (Part 97.305 D-STAR has a modulation index of 0.5 and a bandwidth comparable to phone transmission (AM)) I suggested to US Icom product management that the firmware should not limit D-STAR below 10m, the response was it's too late in the development. I am a fan of Icom amateur radios, and own a few and will probably buy more over time -- but even though Icom's US amateur radio management is pretty tuned in to the US market, they still work for Icom Japan. Their software, on the other hand, is not very good at all. If they would publish full specifications a lot of software could be written that would expand their sales considerably. Fortunately, we have some good reverse engineering experts in our ranks and there his a lot of activity going on to create alternatives to the Icom G2 system. Unfortunately, those same folks are building G2 compatible software that propagates the horrible architecture that currently exists. -- John D. Hays Amateur Radio Station K7VE http://k7ve.org PO Box 1223 Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org sip:j...@hays.org Email: j...@hays.org mailto:j...@hays.org
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote: Nate, Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD. FUD means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, none of which I am spreading. D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters. That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when I turned up W0CDS. I can produce that e-mail if you like. If you can point to the official documentation that says it's not required, please feel free. If things have changed, it'd sure be nice if this stuff wasn't passed on by word-of-mouth and folklore in a network this large. Documentation from those who make the decisions, would be great. I've never seen any. Show us the way... People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don't like its implementation. I don't use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom's gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized. It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY it to be utilized, otherwise they wouldn't have put their name on it and started shipping it, would they? You read too much into things, Ed. I never said one or the other was bad or good... I said they both hase plusses and minuses, and that Icom's ENGINEERING DESIGN of their Gateway, and thus, how they did their USER DESIGN of the rigs, never included D-PLUS. That's all well-known fact, after all. Note how they added MORE features to the latest rig that didn't play nicely with D-PLUS. Are they stupid? They know D-PLUS is everywhere on the U.S. Trust system. Or do you propose that they just ignored it? Why would they do that? Because... they don't care at all about it. That or they're hideously horrible engineers who aren't paying any attention at all... and I can't bring myself to say that. You judge. But it's clear they're not paying any attention to making radios (if they had time to put changes in to make callsign routing easier, they sure as hell could have added linking memories and other interface changes to make D-PLUS easier... but then they'd have to explain why they don't have D-PLUS loaded on the repeaters in Japan. They'd LOSE FACE... which is not something Japanese businessmen do lightly, nor engineers. Been there, seen that in my professional job, got the t-shirt. Like I said, I asked Icom to let me build them a complete computer for their demo system they were going to bring to Colorado and they refused to allow D-PLUS on it. I was told it could NOT be put on Icom-operated demo gear, per Japan. I can dig up those e-mails if you'd like them too. Icom's own reps are NOT SUPPOSED TO DEMO D-PLUS. I'm only going off of that fact. If you'd like to call them and get them to post documentation otherwise, again... feel free. I can with good conscous, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement. Now in this, we probably agree. D-STAR would have been dead without the ability to link the very few users in each repeater's coverage area to other areas with more activity. As the local area gets busier, though -- most groups have to set aside one module in the stack where they allow D-PLUS linking, and keep another for local traffic. Normal patterns of behavior for linked and unlinked repeaters these days... D-STAR has no claim to fame on this one. Linked repeater systems are popular, because they're more useful for CQ types of contacts. All completely normal. On D-STAR, just get callsigns on the screen on the linked system... that's about the only difference. No one attempts low-speed data (other than GPS-A) on Reflectors unless they're set aside for the purpose because it's a channel-hog and people don't understand it. In fact, people just don't understand much about D-STAR, really. They want to mash-to-mumble, and have it go world-wide. That's fine, if that's your goal in Ham Radio... but that goal can be accomplished a LOT cheaper with a pile of MASTR II's and some old clunker PC's on analog. So the benefit of D-STAR over a well-built linked analog system is fairly nil when linked. It offers nothing the other system doesn't do. (In fact, the analog system might even be VOTED - I'm not holding my breath for a voted D-STAR receier system) By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today? I hang
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
Nate WY0X wrote: Guess what... None of the public safety folks in the big cities care, or even know, what D-STAR is... Oh, that's that Ham Radio thing if you're lucky. I hung out at the largest Fire/Medical dispatch center in the Denver Metro area last night. No one there had even heard of Ham Radio, let alone... D-STAR. I can absolutely confirm this statement is true for New York City. Gary KB2BSL
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:13 AM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote: Nate, Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD. FUD means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, none of which I am spreading. I stand by my points. Just in your response you responded with FUD about the ID-1 and low speed data. All of your statements were essentially saying I doubt that they will work I fear that the cost of the ID-1 is too much D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters. That's not what the e-mail I have from the Trust Server team said when I turned up W0CDS. I can produce that e-mail if you like. Ask Robin or Pete or the Trust Team if DSTARMON or DPLUS is REQUIRED. It is not. I know what the letter says. And there are repeaters on the US Trust Server who do not have them installed. People refusing to learn c allsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don't like its implementation. I don't use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom's gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized. It's the way *Icom* intended THEIR GATEWAY You statement was THE ONLY REASON I had another reason, therefore your point is incorrect. Nate WY0X
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
Nate, Please get your fact straights before spreading FUD. D-PLUS was created before the DVDongle. D-PLUS is NOT REQUIRED for a D-STAR repeater, or one that is connected to the Trust Server. Again, DPLUS IS NOT REQUIRED! Of course not installing it would probably be foolhardy as linking is pretty much a way of life for may repeaters. People refusing to learn callsign routing IS NOT THE ONLY REASON. I know how to do it (after all, I kinda wrote the book). But I don't like its implementation. I don't use it. I think that it is a relatively ill-conceived function that was only half-heatedly though through. I believe that you also may be making a mistake to believe that Icom's gateway implementation is the way that it was intended to be utilized. I can with good conscious, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement. By the way, what have you done for D-STAR today? Ed From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:59 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links... THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing a problem is because people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to the interloper and tell them what's happening. Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to this so-called problem in the first place, not the other way around. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.commailto:nate%40natetech.com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
I can with good conscious, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement. Now that truly is a foolhardy assertion! 73--John I don't think so, I fully agree with Ed, I have seen many user´s drop off dstar, due to callsign routing technique not satisfying their desire to listen in on a qso first before joining in. To justify Ed´s point, you could shut down dplus on all gateway´s, and watch Last Heard to see the difference in activity. I know where I would wager a bet on the difference. vk4tux
RE: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
And if you want “Real D-STAR” then might as well shut down the Last Heard list and APRS gateway. ☺ Ed WA4YIH From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 5:09 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing I can with good conscious, state that without DPLUS, DSTAR would probably have died. Or at least be at significantly lower levels of penetration than today. A LOT of people enjoy listening to REF001C and the nets. A lot of grant money has been spent with the capability to link repeaters pretty much a requirement. Now that truly is a foolhardy assertion! 73--John I don't think so, I fully agree with Ed, I have seen many user´s drop off dstar, due to callsign routing technique not satisfying their desire to listen in on a qso first before joining in. To justify Ed´s point, you could shut down dplus on all gateway´s, and watch Last Heard to see the difference in activity. I know where I would wager a bet on the difference. vk4tux
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
I don't think so, I fully agree with Ed, I have seen many user´s drop off dstar, due to callsign routing technique not satisfying their desire to listen in on a qso first before joining in. Good point. Hams love listening. It's part and parcel of the hobby, whether people like it or not. Echolink has repeatedly had the same discussion over silent connects, where people connect, say nothing, then disconnect. Once you discount those that happen for technical reason, the majority of the rest are people listening to see if there is any activity. Ham radio modes really do need to cater to listeners. I do it myself, I often park my hotspot on REF003 C and listen. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
On Apr 7, 2010, at 5:54 PM, ki4umx wrote: Hi Nick, I see several have answered the technical side of your question, so I'll limit myself to why I WOULD NOT use source routing except in emergencies. With source routing, you have no idea what is going on at the target repeater, and you stand the chance of BLASTING into a QSO or net that is going on. I've heard this more than once! If the target repeater is linked at the time, you would BLAST into ALL linked repeaters! Multicast is just as bad - on more than one occasion I have heard 1/2 of a QSO coming over Reflector 1C because one of the Hams was using Multicast (probably forgot to turn it off) and the other was not. The worst part - they probably weren't even talking on the repeater that was linked to 1C, but a repeater that was part of the Multicast Programming WAS linked to 1C. 73 Hank-KI4UMX This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular features vs. the add-on features, than anything. If the two were aware of each other in any way, a message could be sent back to the user who is barging in saying the remote system is linked somewhere. Easy to fix, if Icom were really interested. They're not. And D-PLUS can't do it all alone so to speak. It would require a new release of Gateway software that had been built with linking in mind. As it stands today, two things must happen... 1. Users MUST be aware of what they're putting in the fields, and transmitting. While no one's perfect, putting a standard CQCQCQ route for your local GW into the memory channel and making sure you bump OFF of it and then back on, before transmitting locally (or through a D-PLUS link) is the best practice. All the current Icom rigs reset the four callsign fields anytime you tune to a new memory channel. 2. ANNOUNCE what you're doing. There's absolutely no reason to go so far as to AVOID callsign routing. Instead just SAY OUT LOUD that you're doing it. No ham in their right minds is going to be upset with you for barging in if you SAY that you're callsign routing and they know what that means and realize you can't hear what's going on at the far end. Callsign routing obviously is a fully-workable system all by itself (without D-PLUS linking) -- Japan's been using it, and ONLY it, for the entire time D-STAR has been deployed there. Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links... THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing a problem is because people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to the interloper and tell them what's happening. Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to this so-called problem in the first place, not the other way around. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X n...@natetech.com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
At 05:59 AM 4/9/2010, you wrote: This is more a sign of really poor integration of the regular features vs. the add-on features, than anything. If the two were aware of each other in any way, a message could be sent back to the user who is barging in saying the remote system is linked somewhere. There's still the issue of local QSOs, source routing is still rather blind that way. Being one who did have to source route for a few months, as the only way to get out of the local area, I did get to learn that method. Also, things got tricky when we had people source routing from two different places, so which do you reply to? ;) Often this was because source routing was already in use with a couple of locals talking to one station, then someone else drops in. They get no busi indication, because they actually manage to time it for the break between transmissions (Murphy's Law). So, not all routing conflicts are with DPlus. Some are with local users, and some are with other source routed traffic, and sometimes you coincidentally time it so you manage to cause a bit of confusion. :D That said, there are a few scenarios where I will still use source routing. It's low overhead (no need to tear down a default link, establish a new link, then tear that down when you're done) and has some smarts for finding people. Easy to fix, if Icom were really interested. They're not. And D-PLUS can't do it all alone so to speak. It would require a new release of Gateway software that had been built with linking in mind. That would help too, though being able to source route while a system is linked has its advantages too, like for that quick call - a couple of overs and you're gone type of thing (assuming the link itself is idle at the time). As it stands today, two things must happen... Both common sense and basically what I do. THE ONLY REASON you find callsign routing a problem is because people refuse to learn it. Anyone that understands it, can deal with it... including hitting their One-Touch button to route back to the interloper and tell them what's happening. I agree here. Trying to treat D-STAR like it wasn't source-routed and adding software to make it act like an analog system, is what got us to this so-called problem in the first place, not the other way around. Both methods have their place. Source routing works well for some scenarios, not for others. In particular, it doesn't handle large scale nets well (the multicast feature requires administrative intervention, and concentrates bandwidth use where it's least appropriate - at the end nodes). It does handle point to point traffic very well. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
Hello all!!! Okay, so I got some great info. To follow up, when I am using our local repeater, in the middle of a QSO, the repeater will vacillate between linkking and unlinking. I'm not controlling anything. It really gets my hackles up when it knocks me out of my QSO and my transmissions is continuously lost! this has been a big source of frustration. I don't know if the others can hear me, and I asl them to atleast let me finish my QSO! wonder if there is a way for others even if they are not registered for everyone to hear so they don't key up and knock my transmission! That is what really makes me want to throw the !** radio in the toilet! Is it time for us revolt and set up a new system? it is simply not going to work in heavily populated areas if it continues this way! I know others share my frustration too. If they made the registration process uncomplicated by just typing in your name, call sign and password, instead of registering with a club, and putting in the necessary sp aces, asterisks and #'s, everything would be much simpler and less confusion for un non- technical folks. Make everything so there is no need for a users manual just to !*#$* sign up. Surly someone agrees, si? 73- cat
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
interpreter...@gmail.com wrote: If they made the registration process uncomplicated by just typing in your name, call sign and password, instead of registering with a club, and putting in the necessary sp aces, asterisks and #'s, everything would be much simpler and less confusion for un non- technical folks. Make everything so there is no need for a users manual just to !*#$* sign up. Surly someone agrees, si? 73- cat Registration of user radios shouldn't even be required, but that's how Icom designed it. Until a new gateway system is written that abandons it, we're stuck with it. -- John D. Hays Amateur Radio Station K7VE http://k7ve.org PO Box 1223 Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 VOIP/SIP: j...@hays.org sip:j...@hays.org Email: j...@hays.org mailto:j...@hays.org
Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Re: Linking vs. Source Routing
At 03:59 PM 4/8/2010, Nate Duehr wrote: ... All the current Icom rigs reset the four callsign fields anytime you tune to a new memory channel. A small correction - they don't reset the MY CALL field - that one stays put until you change it. ...Callsign routing obviously is a fully-workable system all by itself (without D-PLUS linking)... Over here, D-PLUS is virtually a requirement so a private company can sell and offer DV-Dongle... gateway operators don't really get a choice as to whether or not they want that particular add-on. And I'm not saying it isn't useful... it is... but I'd almost wish people HAD to learn the Icom way FIRST so they FULLY understand how the system was DESIGNED to work, prior to getting the keys to drive the D-PLUS links -- Nate Duehr, WY0X If I had to choose between call sign routing or DPLUS linking, it would be a no-brainer for DPLUS. Call sign routing has it's uses, but it's too convoluted and complicated. DPLUS does 95% of what we wanted D-STAR to do, but the Japanese engineers just didn't understand. Well, I don't mean to scare you new D-STAR users off of call sign routing. It exists. It's not THAT complicated. And it is useful. But I won't be surprised if most of you never bother to learn it, because most of the time, DPLUS does exactly what you want. I don't expect that call sign routed Barge-Ins will be much of a problem, simply because so few of us will be doing it. One use: alerting the users of a repeater that's busy with DPLUS that you'd like to reach somebody there. Hmmm... maybe DPLUS needs Call Waiting. Unless you prefer an expensive repeater system that carries almost no traffic, DPLUS and the reflectors make D-STAR worth having. Thanks you, Robin! 73, Gary KN4AQ ARVN: Amateur Radio//Video News Gary Pearce KN4AQ 508 Spencer Crest Ct. Cary, NC 27513 mailto:kn...@arvidionews.comkn...@arvideonews.com 919-380-9944 www.ARVideoNews.com
