RE: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-19 Thread Barry A. Wilson
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dstar_digi...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of john_ke5c Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 8:35 PM To: dstar_digital@yahoogroups.com Subject: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance) But to those of us who truly do wish to communicate

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-18 Thread John D. Hays
You missed the whole point. You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would like callsign routing banned. For those cases where it makes better sense, it is the right solution, and it is part of the

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-18 Thread Tony Langdon
At 04:20 PM 5/18/2009, you wrote: You missed the whole point. You and Ed seem to advocate that DPLUS is the only legitimate way to talk across the D-STAR network and have at least alluded that you would like callsign routing banned. For those cases where it makes better sense, it is the right

Re: Native D-STAR vs. DPLUS linking (was: Re: [DSTAR_DIGITAL] Signal Distance)

2009-05-18 Thread Mathaeus (Matthew Fonner)
john_ke5c wrote: Callsign routing to a long haul truck driver who is in range of a DStar repeater say 5% of the time, and whose whereabouts even then would be known only if he remembered to key up? Well, that is like making the argument that there shouldn't be defibrillators on