In article ,
Phil Kane wrote:
The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star
EMCOMM network and a Pactor network.

No, they are not. The ICOM radios can have the D-Star option added at
local expense. Neither the 2820 nor the 2200 have D-Star built in. There
certainly is no D-Star repeater support.

Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's
Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is
in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar.

The pactor is intended primarilly for county to state communication, not
user to user.

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:
I still want a PSK31 HT.

My God, why? APRS has a texting mode. The technology is in place and
well-defined.

APRS texting isn't terribly convenient,

That's a user-interface issue, not a technology issue. I could write software
tomorrow that hooks my D700 up and sends APRS text as easily as email, if
someone hasn't already. I've seen aftermarket keyboards for the D700 to do
this.

and you have to put up with the rest of the squacking to get it.

I have no idea what you mean by this. You aren't going to listen to
the PSK31 audio any more than you have to listen to the APRS audio when
using it.

A two-second burst of 1200 baud packet, even assuming a 500 ms
TXDELAY, has more text than a standard SMS. That's more than 50 seconds at
PSK31.

I'm not talking about sending data, or long messages, just ones similar
to what is sent in cell phone text messages.

"Cell phone text messages" are "data". Two seconds of 1200 baud packet can
send more "cell phone text" than more than 50 seconds of PSK31. If people had
to wait a minute for their SMS text messages to be sent instead of the few
seconds it does, they'd be less likely to use it.

This is about getting people interested and using Ham radio.

We HAVE the technology in place that is better than that proposed as the
salvation of amateur radio. No, a PSK31 HT isn't going to do anything
to support the hobby or bring new people in that APRS HTs haven't
already done. A PSK31 HT is an interesting concept; difficult product.

It isn't
necessarily about getting something that you or even I would buy.

If nobody buys it, then it won't ever be cheap. If WE, the existing
amateur base doesn't support it, it ain't gonna happen. Voice HTs work
because there is an existing repeater infrastructure. APRS HTs work only
because there is an existing APRS network infrastructure. If there is no
VHF PSK31 infrastructure, it isn't going to be used.

Younger folks, high school kids, would likely buy into something like that.

No "younger folks" are going to buy a new technology where there is no
infrastructure to support them.

Who's going to install the PSK31 digipeaters?

What I envision would be likely simplex.

The range of a PSK31 HT would be very short. FRS distances, at best. It
would be extremely sensitive to antenna orientation. You couldn't load
a message and then put the HT back on your belt while it takes a minute
to send. Who is going to pay several hundred dollars for an HT that can
only communicate three blocks in a city?

Although a repeater could come
into the picture somewhere, it wouldn't need to be a digipeater.

PSK31 is a DIGITAL mode. Repeaters for digital data are ofen called
digipeaters. WHO is going to install these repeaters? You can't use
the existing ones -- PSK31 is narrowband FSK, existing repeaters are
relatively wideband FM. If you are going to use an entire FM voice channel
bandwidth, you might as well use standard 1200 baud packet and APRS.
Existing technology. Where are all the youngsters using APRS messaging?
Why do you believe they would flock to a slower, shorter range system?

These are all pretty minor technical problems. I imagine that a person
might be able to differentiate between signals in an old school manner,
by tuning them in.

A PERSON might be able to, but a DIGIPEATER is not a person. And these
YOUNG PEOPLE you want to lure into the hobby with a PSK31 HT aren't going
to want to have to tune around hoping to be on the right frequency when
their friends send them messages. It's got to be channelized to make
it simple. An HT that's off channel by as little as 100Hz for PSK31 is
a different channel. That's REALLY tight technical standards for amateur
gear.

Ever try sending an image at 1200 baud?

I've sent SSTV images in a fairly short time. They aren't large images,

They are also not PSK31 data. Entirely different mode.

I have to say that I probably would never buy such a device. That
doesn't make it a dumb idea though.

No, the technical issues do, and expecting it to bring lots of new people
into the hobby as something similar to SMS text messaging is silly. We have
better technology already in our hands; where are the people?

But you're the guy who wants texting via PSK31? D-STAR texting, bad. PSK31
texting, good?

I don't declare D-Star Texting "bad", but I do declare the PSK31
texting pretty darn good.

In it's place, perhaps. Sitting in a radio shack with a $1000 HF radio
and a computer to decode it, yes. In an HT, no.

PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is
pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is
quite proprietary.

No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard.

Wanna use D-Star? Get out the plastic and go
without something else for a couple years.

Yes. Want a usable PSK31 HT? Go without something else for many years.

I think that what would be needed is for local governments to do the
actual purchasing, then hand it over to the Hams.

Wow.

The Hams are going to
have to have regular access to the D-Star repeater, or else they won't
buy-in.

The hams are going to have to have a lot of MONEY to have regular access
to any D-Star repeater.

My honest opinion however is that this is one of those technology
solutions that just add too much technology to the mix. One of the big
complaints from emergency responders is that they can't talk to each
other. This is due to the introduction of too much structure upon the
system.

This is due to licensing limitations that prevent LMR radios from being
fully and easily programmable in the field.

With D Star, we do the same thing with Hams.

I know of no D-Star radio which is not fully field programmable.

I thought I'd like to buy an ID-1 when it came out. At $3000 (one for me,
one for someone to talk to) I said "no thanks".

Yup. And the big problem as far as Amateurs go is that they can't get
into the system.

I have no idea what you mean by this. What "system" can they not get into?

Whereas you or I can build a CW, SSB, FM, or PSK31
radio for most any application we'd like, we can't do that with D-Star.

So what? Most people cannot build even a CW transmitter, much less
a PSK31 system. Have YOU built your own PC to run the PSK31 software
yet? I doubt it.

So unless those prices come waaaay down, D-Star is going to be a very
low volume mode, probably used only by emergency groups. Of course if
that is the case, they shouldn't be operating it on the Amateur bands,
because they can get more use out of it on their own frequencies,

I'm sorry. Exactly what frequencies do ARES groups have that aren't part
of the Amateur Radio Service? How do I legally put an amateur certificated
repeater on to a public-service frequency?

which won't have Amateur reestrictions.

Amateur restrictions are trivial compared to LMR. Nobody is demanding that
we all cut our bandwidth and channel spacings in half by 2013, e.g.. Our
licenses don't come with a list of specific frequencies we can use.

Mark Kramer wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

PSK31 has a huge advantage in that it is
pretty cheap, and not proprietary. D-Star is decidedly not cheap, and is
quite proprietary.

No, D-Star is not proprietary. It is an open standard.


I respectfully disagree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-STAR

to quote the relevant part:

"D-STAR has been criticized for its use of a patented, closed-source
proprietary voice codec (AMBE). [4] Hams do not have access to the
detailed specification of this codec or the rights to implement it on
their own without buying a licensed product. Hams have a long tradition
of building, improving upon and experimenting with their own radio
designs. The modern digital age equivalent of this would be designing
and/or implementing codecs in software. Critics say the proprietary
nature of AMBE and its availability only in hardware form (as ICs)
discourages innovation."

end quote


Wow.

Understood. I'll skip most of the post because I'm not looking for a
sentence by sentence rebuke here. Let's just take it that you don't like
my ideas, and we'll move on.

My thoughts are that having some sort of device that young people can
use to communicate with each other, in a manner such are they are used
to, such as texting, might just be a good thing. Add a couple more
friends, and you have a VHF chat room. No need for repeaters, no need to
intrude on other people's BW. The idea isn't to forge some new
technology. Too many people get caught up in that. It is an application
of available technology in a way that some folk might not see as useful,
but others might.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On May 23, 12:11 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

My thoughts are that having some sort of device that young people can
use to communicate with each other, in a manner such are they are used
to, such as texting, might just be a good thing.

The operative word there, IMHO, is "might".

Add a couple more
friends, and you have a VHF chat room. No need for repeaters, no need to
intrude on other people's BW. The idea isn't to forge some new
technology. Too many people get caught up in that. It is an application
of available technology in a way that some folk might not see as useful,
but others might.

The Big Problem I see is that ham radio will never be competitive in
areas where there is a similar mainstream/commercial alternative. IOW,
why would any non-ham with a cell phone that can text want a ham-radio
text-message device?

Where ham radio has always been a success is in offering things that
are *not* available anywhere else. For example, in the days before
cell phones, repeaters and autopatch were a big deal because they
offered communications that the average person could not get any other
way.

This doesn't mean I'm against anyone building whatever kind of ham rig
strikes their fancy, as long as it meets Part 97 rules. All I'm saying
is "do what interests you, don't expect it to attract a certain
demographic".

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:02:00 EDT, wrote:

For example, in the days before
cell phones, repeaters and autopatch were a big deal because they
offered communications that the average person could not get any other
way.

Oh? Before ham autopatches were popular on repeaters, the telcos -
both wireline and non-wireline - offered Mobile Telephone Service
(MTS) using mobile operators and Improved Mobile Telephone Service
(IMTS) permitting subscriber dial. Expensive - you bet - but they
were available to the average person. Some of those transceivers
found their way into the ham market after the telcos upgraded to newer
stuff.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On May 23, 8:41�pm, Phil Kane wrote:
�Before ham autopatches were popular on repeaters, the telcos -
both wireline and non-wireline - offered Mobile Telephone Service
(MTS) �using mobile operators and Improved Mobile Telephone
Service
(IMTS) permitting subscriber dial. �Expensive - you bet - but they

were available to the average person.

Right you are, Phil! I should have noted that while such services
existed, their cost was such that most "average people" could not
afford them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

The idea isn't to forge some new technology. Too
many people get caught up in that.

One of the bedrock notions of Amateur Radio is for licensees to "get caught up
in" the advancement of the radio art.

In my opinion, too FEW are "caught up in that".

Chat rooms for teenie-boppers isn't mentioned in "Basis and purpose"

73, de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Fumes of Solder

Phil Kane wrote:

Oh? Before ham autopatches were popular on repeaters, the telcos -
both wireline and non-wireline - offered Mobile Telephone Service
(MTS) using mobile operators and Improved Mobile Telephone Service
(IMTS) permitting subscriber dial. Expensive - you bet - but they
were available to the average person. Some of those transceivers
found their way into the ham market after the telcos upgraded to newer
stuff.


Actually, the "supply" of (pre-cellular) mobile phone service was
grossly inadequate to meet the demand for it. That is what drove the
development of cellular phones. Even the owners of the limos in which it
was installed often complained of having to wait 15 minutes or more to
get a dial tone. (You will recall that that service used the 150 MHz
band and there was no law against monitoring it. This was pre-Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.)

--
Klystron

On Fri, 23 May 2008 22:58:55 EDT, "KØHB"
wrote:

Chat rooms for teenie-boppers isn't mentioned in "Basis and purpose"

Neither is contesting or DXpeditions but we do that and look forward
to more of the same as part of the "real" ham radio experience.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

The idea isn't to forge some new technology. Too
many people get caught up in that.

One of the bedrock notions of Amateur Radio is for licensees to "get ca
ught up
in" the advancement of the radio art.

In my opinion, too FEW are "caught up in that".

Chat rooms for teenie-boppers isn't mentioned in "Basis and purpose"

Spread-spectrum, digital modes, moonbounce . . . none of these are
mentioned in "Basis and purpose".

I don't see any conflict between "chat rooms for teenie-boppers" and
"forge new technology". In fact, I see a lot of similarity between
"chat rooms for teenie-boppers" and the groups that have been squatting
on the same frequency on 75 meters for 40 years and complain of
interference, even though there's lots of unused newly-allocated space.

Some of those younger hams contribute a lot to our hobby, and I wish we
could figure out ways to attract more of them. Maybe a good start would
be to recognize their potential and quit using derogatory terms to
describe them.

73, Steve KB9X