Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/J7C5JFCQM2YMKP6FZ4BE33OW4S5MXVUN/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "J7C5JFCQM2YMKP6FZ4BE33OW4S5MXVUN",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/QTJJ3METCMSEEET5WELOFRUPK5OBSELC/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "vk3jed (a) gmail.com",
        "mailman_id": "e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/e049fcabdd4648088cd7ce227ab7c655/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Tony Langdon",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Icom D-Star",
    "date": "2011-04-23T21:33:12Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/YTYY7GIYY5YDBZMBRPWGCXEHCIIB3NEO/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/ZQLXYEF4XKL4OU7U4E2ZXDNS4EDFFBNL/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "At 01:42 AM 4/24/2011, Gregg Wonderly wrote:\n>In the end, digital compression of spectrum space is going to happen more and\n>more.  AM style broadcast is hugely inefficient even though it is painfully\n>simple to do.  I don't really believe that D-Star is the right choice for\n>\"everything\" because it is single source.  But, so is Microsoft windows,\n\nThere's no \"one size fits all.  D-STAR has its place, and being the \nnew kid on the block, it's open to a lot of tinkering.\n\n>MacOS-X, and many other software based systems.  If you are an FPGA \n>programmer,\n>perhaps you can build an FPGA based CODEC for amateur radio that \n>would do voice\n>compression etc.  But in the end, you also have to have an \n>transmitter with the\n>appropriate bandwidth output to reduce the spectrum used.\n\nWell, maybe one day someone will package something like Codec2 into a \nchip.  That will be a good day for ham radio, BUT it'll never make \nD-STAR.  Why?  Because it's not in the spec and will break the \nexisting installed hardware base.  However, the future is likely to \nconsist of \"multimode\" radios, which can handle multiple codecs and \nprotocols, and which will be capable of having a yet unknown cocecs \ninstalled in the field.  Also, eventually the DVSI patent will run \nout, just like the patent for SSB did many years ago.\n\n>The simple fact is that HAM radio emission standards (simple voice modulated\n>with some simple emission standard) are now more than a century old.   As\n\nNot quite.  CW certainly is, AM is around the century mark, I think \nSSB is a little over 80 years old from its first conception, and FM \nis 75 years old. :)\n\n>capable as they are, the abilities they present seem minimal to \n>some.  I think\n>that there are great things about them because they do allow long distance\n>communications which the HAM community regularly uses to support distant\n>operations which provide aid to areas struck by natural disaster.\n\nI think this is one area where ham radio will be increasingly \nimportant.  Alongside the newer modes, it can also be a living \n\"museum\" where older modes can live on.  The only mode that hasn't \nsurvived is spark gap Morse, because it's so spectrally inefficient \nit became illegal.  So ham radio, while it still does advance the art \nalso preserves the art as well, and both are important functions to \nme.  If something happened that required falling back to older analog \nmodes, there's a pool of experienced operators on hand, who know he \nquirks that the commercial world will forget.\n\n\n>But, we all have to understand that it costs money to do anything \"new and\n>different\".  People experimenting with stuff is great, but it \n>minimizes who can\n>participate if you have to \"build it\" or \"pay a lot\".   That's just life in\n>general.  You can't participate in everything unless you have the \n>resources to\n>do that.\n\nAnd there's experimentation.  I don't have the background and \nresources to play at a low hardware or software level, but at a \nhigher level, equivalent to \"mashups\" on the Internet I have played \nand still do.\n\n\n>In the US, any digital communications that is coded in some way only needs to\n>have a publicly visible document detailing how it works for the FCC \n>regulations\n>to be met.   Other places in the world may have different requirements and\n>that's nothing new is it?\n\nRequirements here are much the same as the US, somewhat more liberal \nwhen it comes to modulation and coding.  Basically there are two \nthings that matter.  (1) Not to exceed the maximum necessary \nbandwidth (D-STAR fits on all bands except 2200m), and (2) The coding \nmust not be for the purpose of \"obscuring the meaning of the \nmessage\".  D-STAR certainly fits, because radios are readily \navailable, and they don't need encryption keys.\n\n73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL\nhttp://vkradio.com\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}