For D* there is the one issue of less bandwidth. D* occupies about 6
kHz, about 1/3rd that of analog allowing for putting 2 D* in same space
as 1 analog. This is not including what can be done with digital such
as putting more than one set of users on one repeater using TDMA or some
sort of multiplexing like is now being done I think with P25 in the
Comercial world. These are starting to show up from the Comercial world
to Ham Radio, but much more can be done. It has been done by the cel
phone industry for over 15 years...it is old to them.
I think we as hams who have among us some very experienced people who
have dealt with digital comm for years in the Comercial world (2m/440,
etc analog came from Comercial world, just we Hams wanted more than "get
input/key repeater" and added all kinds of bells a farts) we can put
together systems that can be squeezed into the existing freq allocation.
Digital is going to revolution voice comm at least on VHF and above. A
well engineered open Internet interface will be an added feature that
will also revolution voice and data. We can go to CA or VA or IL and
using a local repeater there comm with our home repeater just as if we
were there and this will route things automatically. A feature the comm
world has been working on and doing for a number of years although from
my understanding has had slow progress.
However, there are draw backs with digital and I'm not talking about the
high cost we see now. Experience will lead to these draw backs and
solutions. Can't fix a problem if one does not know it exist or what is
a problem.
What I'm trying to say D* offers opportunities that will allow it to
come into the analog world and make better use of spectrum allowing it
to better and more efficiently use what spectrum we have now. The main
obstacle are the ones wanting to stand still.
73, ron, n9ee/r
Ron Wright, N9EE
727-376-6575
MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS
Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL
No tone, all are welcome.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:25 AM, KF4TNP wrote:
___________________________________
From: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Repeater-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com] On Behalf Of Kris Kirby
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:59 AM
To: Repeater-Builder@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] DSTAR / DIGITAL / FCC Denies Petition to
Utilize 2m Sub-Band for Digital
On Thu, 15 May 2008, KF4TNP wrote:
D STAR DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN PLAN if all communication are done
correctly and thing thought out . There is plenty of room if people
would work together but too many are stuck on OLD
I would be inclined to agree with you, however most existing repeater
owners are not likely to give up a repeater location, or coordination.
Additionally, there are locations where it does not make simple sense to
sacrafice a repeater location for the purposes of securing a digital
mode.
OK I agree
When I program up the radio I have all the fail soft and , and control
channels etc etc are programmed into the radios So if the system
fails. And it ends up in failsoft then one trunk channel is now for
the police , one for fire, etc etc etc.
Of course it is all how you plan the system before you deploy it .
Brent
Ah, another of our land-mobile guys speaks up. Brent, in your experience
of commercial trunking radio, and analyzing the D-star protocol
documents, wouldn't you agree that a common channel, similar to the APRS
frequency, is needed for D-star to be truly effective?
Now if you look at it that way. I would say I would give that a try, it
would be interesting
You do make a succinct point about the nature of systems planning ,
however one must remember that this is "amateur" radio, and not all
amateurs have experience with trunking radio, or intend to build a large
system. Much as those in the data and computer networking worlds have
learned (and often the hard way), it takes a lot of work and learning
and making the wrong decision a few times to discover the most reliable
and the most effective way to solve a problem.
True
Also correct me if I am wrong there is no way to turn off the dstar
system as in remote control? Maybe on the newer systems there might
be. I have also not heard a good sounding D system yet. Just my opnion
I am not familiar with the ICOM products enough to be able to answer
that question -- I would think it unwise to throw that into the
conversation without having a supporting reason. I will relate this: I
have seen numerous commercial stations and repeaters that did not
implement a remote control facility for allowing a control operator to
shut the repeater down.
Guilty, I have one at this time that I can not shut off. Well I can shut
the whole site off
That would not be nice.
Kris , you make great points as describe above
Where do you get the superpowers J -
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR < [EMAIL PROTECTED] us <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
But remember, with no superpowers comes no responsibility.
--rly <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
