ital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of john_ke5c
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:35 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal
Distance)
> But to those of us who truly do wish to communicate
> But to those of us who truly do wish to communicate with an individual
> (as with those of us who are trained on AEDs), it is nice to have the
> capability when wanted/needed.
Oh I generally agree. I was just emphasizing how non sequltur the attempted
analogy with debfibrillators on airplane
john_ke5c wrote:
>>> Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar
>>> repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known
>>> only if he remembered to key up?
>>>
>> Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be
>> defib
how they
might make the radio more accessible.
_
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Ray T. Mahorney
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 6:03 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal D
At 04:20 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>You missed the whole point.
>
>You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to
>talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would
>like callsign routing banned. For those cases where it makes better
>sense, it is the rig
You missed the whole point.
You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to
talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would
like callsign routing banned. For those cases where it makes better
sense, it is the right solution, and it is part of the pr
your comment suggests that yet again Icomm missed the boat as far as
accessibility of the new
radios.
- Original Message -
From: "justin Mann "
To:
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 00:13
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Your argument about
Tony Langdon wrote:
>
>
>
> At 09:23 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>
> >You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with
> >callsign routing -- False.
>
> OK, that's one trick I would like to know, and without using
> multicast - because of the administrator intervention requ
At 12:16 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>I was definitely thinking of multicast. But saying "it's not possible"
>is incorrect. It *is* possible, with admin interaction and a multicast
>group per-arranged. Saying it's not as EASY, is correct.
True, in the strictest sense, but in the sense that the ma
> > Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar
> > repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known
> > only if he remembered to key up?
>
> Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be defibrillators
> on airplanes beca
I absolutely stand by my statements.
Embedded...
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:23 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Ed
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 4:53 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
At 09:23 AM 5/18/2009, you wrote:
>You said multiple country/repeater conversations aren't possible with
>callsign routing -- False.
OK, that's one trick I would like to know, and without using
multicast - because of the administrator intervention required, I
consider this feature to have extre
At 09:33 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
>We've had the discussion many times before.
>
>Last year at Dayton, everyone was having to source route to the
>local repeater to talk. No one was able to have a conversation
>because people kept barging in because they could not hear the
>activity on the local
Ed,
Some of the things in your latest post are patently false, but you're
now down to making personal attacks and assumptions about me that mean
it's time to end the conversation. You're obviously not ready to have
an adult conversation about the real issues at hand. You can't stick to
the t
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "john_ke5c" wrote:
> Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar
> repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known
> only if he remembered to key up?
Well, that is like making the argument that there
> Source routing to an individual callsign (native D-STAR) has its purpose
> as well. If the station (callsign) that I want to talk to is attached
> to a traveler, say a long haul truck driver or a road warrior, then
> simply calling the station using callsign routing makes more sense.
Calls
D-PLUS Linking has its purpose, for wide area nets and if you know where
the station is that you want to talk to and the repeater they are using
is linked.
Source routing to an individual callsign (native D-STAR) has its purpose
as well. If the station (callsign) that I want to talk to is atta
of repeaters during the net,
but they reconnect and life goes on.
Ed WA4YIH
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Nate Duehr
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 3:22 AM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Di
At 05:31 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
>And how does that work when attempting to use callsign squelch?
Hmm, I'd have thought that callsign squelch would be generally an
impediment to emergency operations. I know that if I was an operator
on duty, I'd much rather an open channel, so I could be atte
At 05:22 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
>That'd be silly. If I want to KNOW for sure the call made it to the
>other side, and get a RESPONSE from the network that says so, the ONLY
>option for that is callsign routing.
This is true, DPlus does not give any concrete indications that
you're getting any
On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:33:33 +1000, "Tony Langdon"
said:
> At 01:16 AM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
> >John is right on the money here.
> >
> >-
> >
> >Tactical Call Sign SOP:
> >
> >A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a
> >station's legal call sign:
>
> This would s
On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:28:54 -0400, "Woodrick, Ed"
said:
>
>
> Easy solution, stop callsign routing. Use repeater linking instead.
> Problem solved.
>
> Ed WA4YIH
That'd be silly. If I want to KNOW for sure the call made it to the
other side, and get a RESPONSE from the network that says so,
At 01:16 AM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
>John is right on the money here.
>
>-
>
>Tactical Call Sign SOP:
>
>A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a
>station's legal call sign:
This would seem to be the most sensible way.
73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
At 01:50 PM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
>They each have their purpose, we just need better gateway software.
Agreed. If implemented right, linking and callsign routing could
coexist, if the software was written to allow this mix. In addition,
controls to block either would be handy for certain uses.
At 04:31 AM 5/16/2009, you wrote:
>Has anyone actually tried that? I could brush up on my Novell skills
>from 1992.
Don't see why it wouldn't work. :)
>Never saw a more stable fileserver in my entire IT/telco professional
>career as a Novell 3.11 server. :-)
I certainly can't argue with that
John is right on the money here.
-
Tactical Call Sign SOP:
A tactical call sign is entered in the 4 digit comment field after a station's
legal call sign:
MY: NAØG /EOC
Such tactical calls can be readily pre-programmed in the MYCALL memory of most
radios.
With this procedure, your tact
lved.
>
> Ed WA4YIH
>
> From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
> ] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:29 PM
> To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
>
Subject: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
I think in the "real world" you would find that quite often a "tactical
callsign" is in use in multiple locations. (For example, during a hurricane in
the Gulf coast, multiple EOC stations may be on D-STAR a
: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Case in point: D-Plus linking is great, but it wasn't implemented in a
way to avoid the problems associated with mixing it with callsign
routing. I callsign route to a repeater that's involved in a D-Plus
link and (in my opinion) "bad" th
more today than we did 40 years ago. Do We!
From: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of k7ve
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 12:49 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
-
--- In dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com, "Nate Duehr" wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, "John Hays" said:
>
> > Here is my thought on this.
> >
> > Radios should be identified by their official callsign (and optional
> > designator character), tactical / special event callsigns c
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:33:22 -0700, "John Hays" said:
> I don't the reason for it, but I suspect that it was to support DD
> callsign to IP mapping and was just carried over to DV. Which is
> silly anyway, since the DD format is Ethernet encapsulation, not IP
> encapsulation. What if I w
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:31:17 -, "john_ke5c" said:
> > I don't like the idea of filtering "bogus" callsigns. What might be
> > "bogus" to you, might be my special event's tactical callsigns.
> > (There's nothing stopping anyone from registering "SAG1, SAG1, NET,
> > EVENT", etc.)
>
> I don'
On Thu, 14 May 2009 14:18:26 -0700, "John Hays" said:
> Here is my thought on this.
>
> Radios should be identified by their official callsign (and optional
> designator character), tactical / special event callsigns can be put
> into the 4 char comment, on voice, or in the message field fo
Of John Hays
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:33 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
On May 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> Agreed. I always assumed "registration" was to meet regulatory
> requiremen
On May 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> Agreed. I always assumed "registration" was to meet regulatory
> requirements somewhere, but the more I thought about it, regulations
> are
> written that each Amateur Station is responsible for their own
> transmissions.
>
I don't the re
> I don't like the idea of filtering "bogus" callsigns. What might be
> "bogus" to you, might be my special event's tactical callsigns.
> (There's nothing stopping anyone from registering "SAG1, SAG1, NET,
> EVENT", etc.)
I don't care if this is politically incorrect or insensitive, but if you w
On May 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> > (FIlters at the gateway could manage who could and could not use a
> > given gateway - and callsign pattern matching, e.g. regex, could
> > filter out most bogus callsigns)
>
> I don't like the idea of filtering "bogus" callsigns. What might be
On Thu, 14 May 2009 10:04:21 -0700, "John Hays" said:
> If the controller firmware would pass "ALL TRAFFIC" to the gateway the
> whole "G" port thing could go away. A smarter piece of gateway
> software could determine what needed relayed somewhere else and what
> is just local repeater t
On Thu, 14 May 2009 08:30:12 -0400, "Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM"
said:
> Ishikawason, nei ha ma?
>
> In the US we use the RPT2 (R2) setting for those that have GPS connected
> to their radio, rather it be a local contact or via the gateway, for
> general
> beaconing of their position by way of D-
On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:33:29 +0900, "JI1BQW"
said:
>
> >(Thinking about it, this MAY NOT be considered a bug in Japan
>
> May not be.
> Actually I felt a bit odd when I came across some English materials on
> the Internet suggesting that you always program the gateway callsign in
> RPT2 wh
m: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of John Hays
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:04 PM
> To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
>
>
>
>
>
> If the controller
hoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of John Hays
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 1:04 PM
To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
If the controller firmware would pass "ALL TRAFFIC" to the gateway the
whole "G" port thing could
ot;/repeater" syntax.
>
> -- John
>
>
> On May 14, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM wrote:
> >
> > From: Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM [mailto:kd4e...@...]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:11 AM
> > To: 'dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com'
>
o:kd4e...@verizon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:11 AM
> To: 'dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com'
> Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
>
> Any idea when the JARL will allow you all to install D-Plus???
>
> As far as the R2 goes,
>
> D
A.E.C.
http://www.polkemcomm.org <http://www.polkemcomm.org/>
_
From: Evans F. Mitchell KD4EFM [mailto:kd4e...@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:11 AM
To: 'dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: 880 vs 800 (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)
Any idea when the
Evans, thanks for the info.
> DPLUS: with R2 ON, this will tell the RP2C to pass your data stream to the gw.
> If you where on a dongle, you connect to a US gw, if we DO NOT have R2
> enabled or ON,
> you will not hear our transmission. When you omit R2 your data stream goes
> from
> the receive
Any idea when the JARL will allow you all to install D-Plus???
As far as the R2 goes,
DPLUS: with R2 ON, this will tell the RP2C to pass your data stream to the
gw.
If you where on a dongle, you connect to a US gw, if we DO NOT have R2
enabled or ON,
you will not hear our transmission. When you
Ishikawason, nei ha ma?
In the US we use the RPT2 (R2) setting for those that have GPS connected
to their radio, rather it be a local contact or via the gateway, for general
beaconing of their position by way of D-PRS. Now with that in mind,
in plain sight, one would not really care if the commun
I am back home and playing with my 80. I believe it is the same as 880
in terms of callsign settings.
Here is my findings:
- A gateway callsign at RPT2 is taken away when it is in the DR mode.
- In the normal VFO/memory mode, it stays there.
- Kerchunking with
UR=CQCQCQ
RPT1=JP1YJX
RPT2
>(Thinking about it, this MAY NOT be considered a bug in Japan
May not be.
Actually I felt a bit odd when I came across some English materials on
the Internet suggesting that you always program the gateway callsign in
RPT2 when calling CQ. We are advised to set nothing here. Another
reason
At 09:57 AM 5/14/2009, you wrote:
>Nate gave a long answer that addresses some of the variables, for a
>short demo of 5W at 100KM listen and see:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYhLtS-0gE
>
>If you can afford the difference between a 2200 + DSTAR board and an
>ID-880H you will have a much bette
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:57:22 -0700, "John Hays" said:
> Nate gave a long answer that addresses some of the variables, for a
> short demo of 5W at 100KM listen and see:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYhLtS-0gE
>
> If you can afford the difference between a 2200 + DSTAR board and an
> I
Nate gave a long answer that addresses some of the variables, for a
short demo of 5W at 100KM listen and see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYhLtS-0gE
If you can afford the difference between a 2200 + DSTAR board and an
ID-880H you will have a much better user interface plus 70cm.
John Ha
On Wed, 13 May 2009 23:15:12 -, "Rob" said:
> I have not yet gone to D-Star, but am thinking about it. My ARC had a
> presentation on the system, so I am somewhat interested. We have a
> D-Star repeater here locally.
> I have a home in Tennessee, but there are no local D-Star repeate
I have not yet gone to D-Star, but am thinking about it. My ARC had a
presentation on the system, so I am somewhat interested. We have a D-Star
repeater here locally.
I have a home in Tennessee, but there are no local D-Star repeaters. There is
one 30 or so miles away. I have reached other
57 matches
Mail list logo
