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 Eth
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
Nate,
Good reply! this is all good stuff! A very good read
Oh, what do you think about those who try to improve the hobby (D-Star)
but look down on? Like the hams in Germany?
Will
Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On 4/9/2010 8:48 AM, Woodrick, Ed wrote:
>
>> Nate,
>>
>> Please get your fact straights bef
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
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
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 th
>
>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
: [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
> gra
>
>
> > 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 re
> 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.
Chronologically dplus appeared before the dongle, but conceptually? The dongle
market certainly appears to drive dplus development since.
> Again, DPLUS IS N
ilto: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... ga
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 s
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
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 c
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
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, an
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "Nicholas" wrote:
>
> I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is the
> difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing (UR: /KJ4OXTC)?
> This is something I have yet to figure out.
>
> Thank you and 73s,
> Nick KF4SE
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Tony Langdon wrote:
>
> At 08:40 AM 4/8/2010, you wrote:
> >I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is
> >the difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing
> >(UR: /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figure out.
>
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> On 4/7/2010 4:40 PM, Nicholas wrote:
> >
> > I may be asking a question that has already been answered. What is
the
> > difference between Linking (UR: KJ4MMCCL) and Source Routing (UR:
> > /KJ4OXTC)? This is something I have yet to figu
19 matches
Mail list logo
