I just don't like D STAR and I don't LIKE ICOM

I
Can
Only
Monitor

D Star is nothing but a copy cat attempt to try to make amateur radio more like public service.

In the hills of western Pennsylvania, it does not work! Period!

Maybe if all your emergencies were within 5 miles of the repeater, and everything was wiped off the face of the earth, except your D Star Repeater, it might work. But that does not happen in the real world.

Please, let D Star die a death of natural causes.
It has no place in amateur radio, except for the LIDS who wants to be different. Does it have interoptibility - NO, if your transceiver is analog - you are SOL - so why use it?

Once people progresses beyond the stage of 2 meters, playing around with walkie talkies, and moves up to HF, the thought of wanting to go back to two meters is almost ludrichrist for anything other then doing local ecomm work.

Yeti wrote in -
september.org:

On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote:
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?


It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it
or
adjust it.

In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that.

That's not strictly true. The whole point of a patent (from the Latin
'patere' - to reveal) is that an inventor discloses the workings of his
invention to the public in return for legal protection and the exclusive
right to prevent others from exploiting his invention commercially. It
does not prevent others from studying the invention and designing
improvements and even patenting those improvements if they meet the
required criteria. Of course, it will not be possible to exploit those
improvements without the permission of the holder of the original patent
(and vice versa). Whether an individual may build a patented device for
personal 'research' purposes will depend on the patent law in the
country where the patent was granted.


Which means it's not amateur radio.

I agree.

Hell, even the name is a registered trademark of Icom.

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:54:46 +0000 (UTC)
Custos Custodum wrote:

In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that.

That's not strictly true. The whole point of a patent (from the Latin
'patere' - to reveal) is that an inventor discloses the workings of
his invention to the public in return for legal protection and the
exclusive right to prevent others from exploiting his invention
commercially. It does not prevent others from studying the invention
and designing improvements and even patenting those improvements if
they meet the required criteria. Of course, it will not be possible
to exploit those improvements without the permission of the holder of
the original patent (and vice versa). Whether an individual may build
a patented device for personal 'research' purposes will depend on the
patent law in the country where the patent was granted.

The problem is that with something like AMBE, which is an algorithm,
the patents actually only apply to a few absolutely crucial operations
in the encoding/decoding but the text of the patent is as vague as
possible so that the patent can then be as widely applied as possible
and thus cover many alternative ways of doing the same thing.

It's nothing more than legalised extortion in reality, the existence
of the patent reveals very little to anybody because it's been written
to avoid doing exactly that. So the idea of the protection given
balancing the revelation of commercially beneficial information has
disappeared into the mists of time and patents are now used as a way to
tie your competitors up in legal knots even in the case of obvious and
trivial claims.

Now suppose that someone reverse engineered AMBE and made it available
to radio amateurs by putting the information into the public domain.
DVSI would have to take action to prevent this, because by not doing so
they would be undermining their own patent since failing to defend
against an infringing implementation could easily lead to the patent
becoming worthless.

--

Brian Morrison

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400
Mike G wrote:

For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't
believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse
engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's
not acceptable.

--

Brian Morrison

On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400
Mike wrote:

For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't
believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse
engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's
not acceptable.

It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who
are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge
technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB
broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue
systems".

Funny world.

73 de G3NYY


Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt.

DAB doesn't work for mobile use.

Neither does D-Star.

On 24/09/2010 21:00, Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400
Mike wrote:

For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't
believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse
engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's
not acceptable.

It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who
are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge
technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB
broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue
systems".

Funny world.

73 de G3NYY


Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt.

DAB doesn't work for mobile use.

Neither does D-Star.

You'll be getting an email from you know who!

On 24/09/2010 21:01, Len GM0ONX wrote:
On 24/09/2010 21:00, Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400
Mike wrote:

For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't
believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse
engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's
not acceptable.

It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who
are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge
technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB
broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue
systems".

Funny world.

73 de G3NYY


Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt.

DAB doesn't work for mobile use.

Neither does D-Star.

You'll be getting an email from you know who!

They always make me laugh.

But I think he's given up now.

"Yeti" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2010 21:01, Len GM0ONX wrote:
On 24/09/2010 21:00, Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 19:24, Walt Davidson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:21:15 +0100, Brian
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400
Mike wrote:

For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't
believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse
engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's
not acceptable.

It is rather curious, is it not, that it's often the same people who
are aggressively in favour of D-Star "because it is leading edge
technology", and yet are vociferous in their opposition to DAB
broadcasting "because it is no better than the existing analogue
systems".

Funny world.

73 de G3NYY


Interesting analogy (pardon the pun) Walt.

DAB doesn't work for mobile use.

Neither does D-Star.

You'll be getting an email from you know who!

They always make me laugh.

But I think he's given up now.

0ops ?....