DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

rubycodez

Wed Apr 05 09:53:01 -0700 2006

manage

I see from your link that D-Star also has a data mode, a 1200 bps data link in the 2m band and at 1.2GHz a 128Kbps data stream.  So it's also like a packet radio system.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

jcorgan

Wed Apr 05 11:18:08 -0700 2006

manage

I have very mixed feelings about this.

Your statement that amateur radio should be leading the way is spot on.  The fact is, in many areas, we haven't.  This is one of them.  And commercial vendors will fill the gap if there is demand.

What I find curious is that, while there are many, many parallels between amateur radio and hobbyist software development, we don't seem to share the same results of innovation.

Yes, we have today packet radio, narrow-band HF data transfer (PSK31), radio direction finding for the masses, software radio technology like GNUradio, VOIP/radio gateways, and many more cases of new and interesting things coming out of the amateur community.  But compare this to the vastly larger "output" of amateur communities like free and open source software.  Why is that?

The barrier to entry for amateur radio operation is small and getting smaller (much to many oldtimers' consternation).  Many people stop here, but the knowledge needed to then go on to design and build one's own radio systems can all be had via Google these days.  There is a thriving "information exchange" among enthusiasts regarding design techniques, algorithms, propagation characteristics, etc.  It's truly fascinating to read about (and experiment with) some of the things that are happening at the cutting edge of technology in amateur radio.

Yet, we've been surpassed in most areas, technologically, by commercial companies ("appliance manufacturers").  D-Star is one of those areas.  High-speed networking is another.

Smart people play with computer technology for fun, and the result is that our modern computer infrastructure is wholly dependent upon the innovation unleashed in this fashion.

Wish I could say the same for amateur radio.  Well, at least I'm still having fun with it.

-Johnathan, AE6HO

Open is clearly much more in the amateur spirit..

the_rajah

Wed Apr 05 12:05:20 -0700 2006

manage

I was around when AM gave way to SSB on HF and there was, of course, grumbling, but there was nothing to prevent any of us from building our own sideband gear and, I among many did so. Nothing about having to pay a license fee to, say, Collins or whoever. Let's keep things free, as in libre.

73, K9LJB

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

WeblionX

Wed Apr 05 12:11:02 -0700 2006

manage

All right, I'm not well versed in amateur radio, but it seems like the AMBE vocoder (Sounds like an audio codec...) could be replaced by Speex since the protocol is open (Kind of like how OGG/OGM can contain a bundle of different encodings). So, if the protocol is an improvement, why not just adopt the protocol with Speex and if it's good, it'll be picked up by others.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

President4242

Wed Apr 05 12:22:32 -0700 2006

manage

Better yet- go ahead and do your own software with Speex, put up a website, and start promoting your OS-Star under the GPL, complete with plans for hooking the computer up to the radio.  You could also add other improvements- such as using something more like IP so that the data rate automatically adjusts if there is no audio being transmitted.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Conrad Nerdahl

Fri Jul 18 16:49:25 -0700 2008

manage

I'm not a big proponent of proprietary and closed systems.  However, it would seem that as amateurs, we might want to consider the AMB vocoder for use in D-Star since this also appears to be the same vocoder to be used in the first-responder Project-25 systems as well.  During emergency operational services, with both vocoders utilizing the same codec, it would seem more plausible to have all spectrums on the same voice codec for interoperable and converged functions.   Conrad / WA6KUE.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

goody

Wed Apr 05 14:28:26 -0700 2006

manage

On a most basic level, I believe if people are having fun with it and it doesn't detract from other hams' on-air experience, it's in the spirit of Ham Radio.  I do despise closed-source technology, though.  That is not in the ham radio spirit.  This is one reason why I grumble about Winlink.

This is one of those times that we may just have to bite the bullet and adopt some closed technology.  Perhaps it will lead to a drop-in open source replacement as has happened with pieces of commercial software, if it becomes popular enough.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

AB3A

Wed Apr 05 18:34:14 -0700 2006

manage

One of the dirty little secrets about ham radio gear is this:  Paramilitary forces often use it.  Third world countries often use it for government communications.  Even companies overseas often use ham radio gear for routine communications.  D-Star is the next logical step for them. 

Ham radio is not well organized enough to make D-Star work as advertised.  This is an excuse for Icom to build stuff for the latter folk.  I wish them well.  I think hams are better off exploring the stuff that commercial endeavors ignore.  A GNU based codec for on-air use would be a good start...

DE AB3A

Obsolescense

bill_mcgonigle

Sun Apr 09 09:58:51 -0700 2006

manage

The problem I see is most of those arguments are likely to apply to a better codec in 10 or 20 years.

What we don't want is a natural disaster to happen and be left with a network of hams who can't listen to each other. I'm not so sure analog is a bad thing.

I mean, if you want to do high efficiency, long distance, end-to-end voice transmissions, well, there's the Internet.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

No DIGITAL

Thu Jun 01 21:57:52 -0700 2006

manage

If you try to talk through an analog repeater, in digital mode, it will not work. The repeater must be able to receive a digital carrier and re-broadcast a digital carrier.

Since a digital carrier is different than an analog carrier, a non-digital radio can not re-broadcast the digital carrier. It's not just digital data, it's an actual digital signal. If you try to transmit, in digital mode, into an analog repeater, all the analog radios on the repeater will simply hear white noise and a digital radio listening will hear nothing. The digital radio will see activity on the signal strength meter, as would be normal when there is analog activity on the frequency.

_____________________________

Kevin McClinton, W7JRL
Amateur Technical Trainer

ICOM America, Inc.
2380 116th Ave. NE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Ph. (425) 454-7619
Fax (425) 637-8417
www.icomamerica.com

 

Here is what the EX DSTAR GUY SAYS;

The answer is, NO it will not work.

The reason is simple, the modulation scheme is not compatible, nor is the repeaters circuitry.

In a typical analog repeater, an FM demodulator is used to demodulate the FM signal, effectively "decoding" the voice signal imposed upon the carrier, by way of Frequency Modulation. The analog repeater then takes the analog audio, and passes it to the repeaters transmitter, where it is "re-encoded", by the FM modulator and sent over the air.

In a D-STAR repeater, an IQ demodulator is used, to "decode" the data imposed upon the carrier, by way of Gaussian Minimum Shift Keying. Once the digital signal, effectively ones and zeros, is extracted, it is buffered and regenerated. The regenerated signal is sent to the transmitter where it is "re-encoded" and sent out over the air.

As you can see, the operation is similar, up to the point where the signal is received, by the repeater, but after that, the process, and type of signal (one being audio and the other be data ones and zeros) is very different.

Any type of digital system, that uses tones, or audio, to represent data, can be passed through an analog repeater, because that’s what analog repeaters pass, Audio. Not all analog repeaters will pass that digital signal well, since there can be level and fidelity issues, but it should work. That’s also why D-STAR a "true" digital system will not go through any analog repeater.


_____________________________

Matthew F. Yellen K7DN
Systems Engineer

 

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Peter

Wed Jul 26 02:28:53 -0700 2006

manage

What about FCC rules part 97, section 309? Here's the actual text:

---------
(a) Where authorized by §97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this Part, an amateur station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using the following specified digital codes:


(1) The 5-unit, start-stop, International Telegraph Alphabet No. 2, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1, Division C (commonly known as "Baudot").
(2) The 7-unit code specified in ITU-R Recommendations M.476-5 and M.625-3 (commonly known as "AMTOR").

(3) The 7-unit, International Alphabet No. 5, code defined in ITU-T Recommendation T.50 (commonly known as "ASCII").

(4) An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any technique whose technical characteristics have been documented publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of facilitating communications.

(b) Where authorized by §§97.305(c) and 97.307(f) of this Part, a station may transmit a RTTY or data emission using an unspecified digital code, except to a station in a country with which the United States does not have an agreement permitting the code to be used. RTTY and data emissions using unspecified digital codes must not be transmitted for the purpose of obscuring the meaning of any communication. When deemed necessary by an EIC to assure compliance with the FCC Rules, a station must:

(1) Cease the transmission using the unspecified digital code;
(2) Restrict transmissions of any digital code to the extent instructed;

(3) Maintain a record, convertible to the original information, of all digital communications transmitted.
---------

Is digital voice technically a data mode or a phone mode? If it's phone, there doesn't seem to be any rule prohibiting the use of unspecified codes to make that happen (please correct me if I'm wrong). If it's data, though, doesn't this mean that AMBE ought to be publicly documented? At very least I think there's a case for asking the FCC to amend the rules for digital voice to prohibit closed voice encodings.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Steve Abarta

Thu Feb 01 19:51:01 -0800 2007

manage

I just came across your article on D-STAR...but being a "non-technical" Ham, much of what you said about APCO-25 and AMBE makes little sense. So I have a simple question...if I were to purchase an ICOM IC-91AD, would it be capable of receiving APCO-25 transmissions from my local police department? What is your assessment of the new breed of digital HTs that ICOM is producing? Steve K6TLM, Simi Valley, CA

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Steve Grantham

Mon Mar 12 16:24:27 -0700 2007

manage

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Or when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

If we can’t get the AMBE vocoder, and we want to promote other vocoders as Speex, or those yet to be developed, then we must have a digital repeater infrastructure that will repeat those signals.

Not personally knowing all the details about how the ICOM D-Star repeaters work internally, and even though they only repeat digitally, I’d suspect that there’d be some incompatibility in repeating non-D-Star signals.  I mean after all, ICOM does have a proprietary interest in the protection of their technology.  So I’d suggest the following.

Might we endeavor to facilitate the design and engineering of a D-Star compatible generic GMSK data repeater?  While it might not gateway the D-Star signals as ICOM intended, we could use the currently available D-Star user equipment to develop technology and infrastructure that could later be used with free vocoders whether Speex or something else.  We might even be able to facilitate a GMSK RF to internet interface or gateway design.

So let’s think about what we can build without needing any vocoder at all.  Once we have some generic digital transmission infrastructure in place, then we may be in a better position to develop and test our own “GnuRadios.”  So let’s try to build a suitable pipe and then change the DNA of the chicken.

Steve G.
AA5SG

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Al Barber

Wed May 09 16:56:47 -0700 2007

manage

Maybe we should all request refunds from ICOM for the radios we have purchased if they refuse to release the algorythm.  I personally want to run it on my computer so I can monitor D-STAR transmissions.using any fm radio.

 

73  de AA7OV

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Matthew Lange

Sat May 12 16:34:30 -0700 2007

manage

We can get the vocoders. See http://www.moetronix.com/files/vhfdvxpaper.pdf

--VA3MWL

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

kb9mwr

Mon Sep 10 17:38:41 -0700 2007

manage

It's legal.   Parts of the vocoder chip may be closed source as are the internal code of many mico-chips.  You can obtain the chip for about $20, and then you can encode/decode it.  And obviously presently (only) Icom has  commercial products that facilitate the transmission and reception.

It would be nice to see another manufacture adopt it.  Right now it's kind of like the expensive proprietary HF modem card for WinLink.  I hope if another manufacture adopts it they take it a bit further.   It would be nice to allow some user end flexibility to experiment with other license-friendly codecs.  It's possible with the given protocol to allow a dynamic scheme/ negotiation with fall back codecs or transcoding between them if needed.    If the radio hardware and firmware is flexible enough you should be able to flash upgrade the unit to support additional codecs down the road.  Sooner or later a better sounding and just as efficient codec will be out there if it's not already.  And hopefully it will be open.

The last thing we need is  some patent troll comes along and decides that they want you to pay up for using their CODEC.  Then what happens?

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Ken

Thu Oct 18 13:36:57 -0700 2007

manage

I'm purchasing an icom 2200H this weekend - without dstar.  But new technology is always interesting to me so I'm happy to change my mind if anyone sees any practical advantage or fun application for it.

Ken W9FHQ

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

n2jai

Wed Oct 24 10:37:58 -0700 2007

manage

I think almost all the new stuff is neat but I don't know how we are supposed to monitor this stuff for proper usage - self policing just went out the window - with the wifi capabilities and internet access how do we monitor for pecuniary interest or someone outright doing buisness using ham radio from there laptop in a car,
I think there is a bigger problem here then the arrl or the fcc can imagine !!

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

matt

Sat Nov 03 23:00:59 -0700 2007

manage

I don't have any equipment to receive PSK31 or 9600 baud packet, for example, but the fact I haven't got the right kit to receive them doesn't mean their usage can't be policed. The same applies to D-Star or any other mode.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Steve

Sun Nov 04 15:47:14 -0800 2007

manage

I think almost all the new stuff is neat but I don't know how we are supposed to monitor this stuff for proper usage - self policing just went out the window - with the wifi capabilities and internet access how do we monitor for pecuniary interest or someone outright doing buisness using ham radio from there laptop in a car,
I think there is a bigger problem here then the arrl or the fcc can imagine !!

And you don't think that not going on right now on analog fm ?
seems to me this won't fly anyway....with echolink and IRLP why would the average ham have any need for digital ? most of us are ragchewwers not techo gurus

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

matt

Sun Nov 04 19:32:31 -0800 2007

manage

If you're going to ask that, you may as well also ask why any ham would have any need for FM? SSB? PSK31?

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Steve

Mon Nov 05 07:27:39 -0800 2007

manage

I'm not trying to start ww3 here.....but it just seems that digital is covering the same ground at a higher price point. On the other hand 10 years from now everything could be digital....only time will tell

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Bob

Thu Dec 13 13:13:44 -0800 2007

manage

From an EmComm perspective, the problem is not "Open" protocols.  The primary problem is Interoperability with the very high percentage of non-digital mode Amateur Radio transceivers.  The secondary problem is the cost of digital equipment.

Interoperability is what makes amateur radio valuable in an EmComm situation.  9-11 and hurricane Katrina are cogent examples.  Almost every Radio Amateur could do voice FM.  Most could do V/UHF packet with a TNC or a Sound Card and Computer combination.  Many more could do HF SSB and data.  In most emergent situations, Radio Amateurs from many locations arrive and start communicating immediately.  Not necessarily so for the Federal, State, County and adjacent local agencies with their many different digital protocols.

During 9-11, the New York City Fire and Police departments could not communicate directly at a local to local unit level.

Most Radio Amateurs can not afford D-Star equipment.  If D-Star becomes the "preferred" mode for emergency service, we (the Amateur Radio Community) are going to have a lot fewer volunteers to work with. 

Analog is our (Radio Amateurs') advantage.  Let's not throw it away in the name of "progress"

Bob
KB2DHK

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

N4APG

Sat Feb 16 03:34:57 -0800 2008

manage

I like the fact amateur radio has options like D-STAR.  I am impressed with Icom's products in this area.

The thing I am concerned about is why ham radio should build (or buy) a communications capacity, like D-STAR, that is completely incompatible with the direction of First Responders communications standards - which is APCO-25.  Why would we ever not want easy communications with those we closely cooperate with in emergencies?   Synergistically, those folks support ham radio with high-quality low-cost or no-cost surplus equipment that we then use to accomplish our mission of supporting emergency operations and in amateur experimentation.

A central goal of APCO-25 is wide interoperability.  Any vendor may adopt the standard and sell equipment.  APCO-25, used in conventional (this means not trunked) mode, is no more difficult than using PL tones to access repeaters. 

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

John W. Bloodworth

Tue Mar 04 10:04:10 -0800 2008

manage

 

My answer to this would be yes and no..

I will answer the no part first.  Most of the world operates under a free market.  We are not forced to use any technology.  Also companies are free to develop technology and make the results open or closed.  If a company wants to use a closed codec in their products they are free to do so and we as consumers are free to not buy that product.

 

The yes part to my answer.

It appears that d-star was researched and developed under grants from the government of Japan and the JRRL.  My argument for the last 10 or so years that I have been floating around the open systems world., is that any technology that is developed with government funding should be required to be published under some type of “Free” license.  And if I can believe the information at Wikipedia that the original funding for the digital research that lead to d-Star then all codec’s should be published under an open license. 

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Tom

Sat Mar 22 15:02:48 -0700 2008

manage

I indeed am concerned about the use of the DVSI vocoder.

But are there any other hardware vocoders available?

It appears that the answer to the question, "Why did ICOM select the DVSI vocoder?" may be very simple.  As a designer of portable radios, I would want to save CPU cycles by pushing as much functionality into silicon as possible. 

If you try an internet seach for "vocoder chip", the results are dominated by references to DVSI products.

 

 

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

No DIGITAL

Sat Mar 22 17:35:10 -0700 2008

manage

ICOM D-STAR 2820H Reply


by K5ADF on March 25, 2007 I will try posting my comments on here since they were removed from the product review section. It seems as though I made some ICOM lovers unhappy with my opinion.

ICOM is pushing D-STAR. They have several transceivers on the market including the IC91, which I own. I am happy with it and the price I paid. I was awaiting the IC2820 D-STAR dual band radio with my money in my hand. I had talked to the ICOM representative at HamCation in Orlando in February. Even though I have never purchased a new product before it had been on the market for at least six months, I was ready to submit my order.

Then it happened. ICOM announced that it was ready to ship. I went immediately to my local dealer to place my order. What a shock to say the least. The IC2820H is priced at $650!!! That would not be too bad IF it included D-STAR. But it does not. That is an additional $300 making the total price with D-STAR $950!! I guess ICOM does not really plan to sell many of these radios.

The Yaesu FT8800 sells for $375, $275 less than the base IC2820H making the IC2820H almost twice the price as the Yaesu. The IC2720H, which the IC2820H replaces, is rated by 159 eham users as 3.3 with a lot of complaints about the final. The FT8800R is rated by 107 users as 4.5! It seems as though the FT8800R users are a much happier lot.

Therefore not only would I be paying a $275 premium for the basic rig but the radio it replaces leaves much to be desired. The rating difference is why I have FT8800R rigs in both my vehicles. I was ready to bite the bullet and hope that ICOM had solved their VHF/UHF mobile problems so that I could have a D-STAR mobile. Yes, I know about the ID800. I should be grateful however since now I will not be the one to find out the rig is perhaps no better than the one it replaces in terms of reliability.

I love my ICOM 956Pro and would not trade it.

Too bad ICOM - you really blew this one!!

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Tom

Sat Mar 22 22:30:14 -0700 2008

manage

Let me answer my own question.

Here's a possible alternative to the DVSI vocoder for Amateur experimentation with digital radio:

www.cmlmicro.com/products/index.asp

I found it by searching for "vocoder ic".  (DVSI dominates search results for "vocoder chip").

These parts are in the $11-14 range, quantity one, and appear to be available from a US Distributor:

www.cdiweb.com/PortalParametricSearch.aspx

Although the distributor's web site does not show any stock for any of these parts, it indicates that "samples are available".

The manufacturer's web site indicates that an evaluation kit is available.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

brouhaha

Sun Jun 01 02:35:24 -0700 2008

manage

As far as I can tell, using the CML Microcircuits chip instead of the DVSI chip is just trading one proprietary CODEC for another (RALCWI vs AMBE).  The point of the whole discussion isn't the availability of chips.  AMBE chips are available from DVSI and aren't all that expensive.

The point is that amateur radio operator should be able to engineer their own equipment to published technical standards.  For instance, if you have an SDR, or a PC connected to your radio, you have more than enough compute power to do vocoding in software, and shouldn't need to buy any extra chip to do it.  The AMBE specifications are not available, so it is not possible for hams to engineer their own D-Star compatible equipment, other than by purchasing the DVSI chip that contains the "secret sauce".

The only fully open low bitrate voice codec standard I know of is Speex.  I don't know how the voice quality compares to AMBE at similar bit rates.  It has the opposite drawback, in that there aren't (AFAIK) any Speex vocoder chips available commercially, for use in building dedicated hardware.  I think there are sub-$5 microcontrollers with enough processing power and memory to run a Speex vocoder.  Power consumption would probably be somewhat higher than the DVSI chip, which could be a problem for HTs.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

brouhaha

Sun Jun 01 12:19:33 -0700 2008

manage

I've looked over the specs on the DVSI chips, and it appears that the power consumption of a microcontroller running a Speex codec could actually be lower than that of the DVSI chip.

Also, the manuals for the ICOM D-Star digital voice repeater modules confirm that they are simply 4.8 Kbps digital repeaters, and don't involve any voice codec functions.  They should, therefore, work fine with a hypothetical Speex-based D-Star like system, though obviously there would not be voice interoperability between AMBE-based and Speex-based nodes.

DStar- is anybody else worried about this?

Dail

Tue Apr 01 05:22:24 -0700 2008

manage

As with any change in the "HOBBY" of Ham Radio there will be consternation by some that the changes are not completely pure to the original intent.  I think this kind of thinking is going to be the demise of the "HOBBY", not the lack of being able to build a radio. Is D-Star the panacea to the decline of our "HOBBY"? Probably not, but it is another facet for people to use in everyday enjoyment. If we don't change with the technology of today and tomorrow, we will watch a slow agonizing death of a great pastime. Then again, there are those who will espouse "SPARK GAP FOREVER".......

73

Dail

N6DGT