Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote:

Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course,
correct it isn't accepted by bigots.

I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort
that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed
technology.

I think we should not encourage the use of closed technology, and I
think many agree with that.

But I also think we should not discourage developments (in the case of
D-STAR the development of a digital radio system) because in critical
places in the system open technology does not exist, and development
of such open technology is impractical.

In such cases we should allow, not encourage, the use of closed
technology.

I see the chip with the AMBE codec as a component. A component for
which we don't fully understand how it works, but we know how to
use it as part of a design.

Many amateurs have built electronics devices using components they
did not fully understand how they were designed. Or did not care.
It is possible to build an amateur radio transceiver using application
notes for integrated circuits and other devices without really knowing
what is inside the integrated circuits.

The AMBE codec is just such a circuit, just like an IF amp/demodulator
that you put in your receiver design by just copying the application note's
circuit.

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote:

Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of course,
correct it isn't accepted by bigots.

I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort
that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed
technology.

I don't recall anyone seeking to only to encourage the use of closed
technology. May be some who are happy to use closed technology and those who
are happy to see that happen.
--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

"Yeti" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote:

Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why can't
people
be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy theirs?


Because D-Star isn't amateur radio.

There is no experimentation involved, and can't be.

If the CODEC was open, or if the open CODEC ever comes to fruition, would
you have the knowledge / skills to undertake any meaningful experimentation
or even the remotest prospect of developing those skills?

--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

"Rob" wrote in message
...

Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be
changed because that would break compatability between the many
implementations that existed after some time.

Which is something the "anti" AMBE CODEC people ignore.

If the open CODEC happens, their scope to "experiment" with it will be
limited- unless they only want to talk to themselves or with others they've
co-ordinated experiments with.

--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:02:28 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote:

"Yeti" wrote in message
...
On 24/09/2010 17:22, Brian Reay wrote:

Amateur radio has many facets, DStar is simply one of them. Why
can't people
be left to enjoy their pet facets while others get on and enjoy
theirs?


Because D-Star isn't amateur radio.

There is no experimentation involved, and can't be.

If the CODEC was open, or if the open CODEC ever comes to fruition,
would you have the knowledge / skills to undertake any meaningful
experimentation or even the remotest prospect of developing those
skills?


That doesn't matter, the point is someone will have and will do so. We
can't all do everything in amateur radio, but we should not prevent
those that want to do something in particular from being able to do it.

--

Brian Morrison

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...

We
can't all do everything in amateur radio, but we should not prevent
those that want to do something in particular from being able to do it.

Exactly, so let those happy with DSTAR and the AMBE CODEC use it and enjoy
it.

You can do the same with your pet interests.

Win-Win.


--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

On 24 Sep 2010 16:51:07 GMT
Rob wrote:

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:22:03 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote:

Oh dear Rob, you must be new here! While what you say is, of
course, correct it isn't accepted by bigots.

I think you'll find that the only bigots involved here are the sort
that believe that amateur radio should encourage the use of closed
technology.

I think we should not encourage the use of closed technology, and I
think many agree with that.

It seems entirely reasonable to me.


But I also think we should not discourage developments (in the case of
D-STAR the development of a digital radio system) because in critical
places in the system open technology does not exist, and development
of such open technology is impractical.

In such cases we should allow, not encourage, the use of closed
technology.

From a practical perspective I suppose that is the case, but it pains
me knowing that eventually the price of doing it will have to be paid.
Teach a man to fish etc.....


I see the chip with the AMBE codec as a component. A component for
which we don't fully understand how it works, but we know how to
use it as part of a design.

Yes.


Many amateurs have built electronics devices using components they
did not fully understand how they were designed. Or did not care.
It is possible to build an amateur radio transceiver using application
notes for integrated circuits and other devices without really knowing
what is inside the integrated circuits.

It is, but in the case of every other device it is possible to find out
what's in there at least to a level where a full understanding is
possible. And doing so would not be illegal.


The AMBE codec is just such a circuit, just like an IF amp/demodulator
that you put in your receiver design by just copying the application
note's circuit.

Well, once the legal system gets, or threatens to get, involved then I'd
contend that it isn't the same as a generic component. But I think we're
close enough in the discussion now that we can let it rest

--

Brian Morrison

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:08:15 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote:

"Rob" wrote in message
...

Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not
really be changed because that would break compatability between
the many implementations that existed after some time.

Which is something the "anti" AMBE CODEC people ignore.

If the open CODEC happens, their scope to "experiment" with it will
be limited- unless they only want to talk to themselves or with
others they've co-ordinated experiments with.


Well the plan is that eventually any closed system becomes out evolved,
so the advantages of the open alternative become available to all. I am
more than happy to share, DVSI are not.

--

Brian Morrison

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:10:03 +0100
"Brian Reay" wrote:

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...

We
can't all do everything in amateur radio, but we should not prevent
those that want to do something in particular from being able to do
it.

Exactly, so let those happy with DSTAR and the AMBE CODEC use it and
enjoy it.

You can do the same with your pet interests.

Win-Win.



I have no problem with allowing evolution to decide the future, it's a
good idea to make sure that some diversity evolves to allow that to
happen.

--

Brian Morrison

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:

Remember packet. The AX.25 protocol was open, but it could not really be
changed because that would break compatability between the many
implementations that existed after some time.

Which is something the "anti" AMBE CODEC people ignore.

If the open CODEC happens, their scope to "experiment" with it will be
limited- unless they only want to talk to themselves or with others they've
co-ordinated experiments with.

Seems to me there's plenty of opportunity for flexibility with regards
to codecs. The protocol could be designed to allow for negotiation of
a common codec between two radios - start out with a simple
"universal" codec to get the communication started, and then
optionally switch to a different one.

Something like this is done in the commonest voice-over-IP protocol
family (SIP). There are numerous codecs available, ranging from
bog-standard telephony-style (uLaw and aLaw), to simple linear PCM, to
ADPCM, to various forms of sophisticated coding and compression. Some
of these require paid licenses (e.g. G729), some come with a
commercial- but-free license (e.g. ILBC), some are based on patents
which have now expired and can be implemented freely (e.g. versions of
GSM), and some are aggressively open-source and free-as-in-
speech-and-beer (e.g. Speex).

Protocol negotiation becomes tricker when you're dealing with a
repeater system, or a more-than-two-way simplex conversation, but
that's where the fun and experimentation comes in!

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!