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 believe that we should encourage the use of open technology and allow
radio amateurs to own their future. A sure way to kill amateur radio is
to make it dependent on corporations who do not share our interests at
a fundamental level.

--

Brian Morrison

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.

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

"Rob" wrote in message
...
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.


Except digital voice doesn't work on noisy channels, which makes it pretty
useless for _REAL radio amateurs unless someone is going to stick repeaters
up every half mile. - that's gonna mean a lot of money to ICOM in my book
even if there was enough fools to fund it.

"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