Email Detail
Show an email
GET /hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/SQ6AX5D6AYR37KZ4LZKOS7UQHDPARWBW/?format=api
{ "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/SQ6AX5D6AYR37KZ4LZKOS7UQHDPARWBW/?format=api", "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api", "message_id": "[email protected]", "message_id_hash": "SQ6AX5D6AYR37KZ4LZKOS7UQHDPARWBW", "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/V7RGAVHNQMCS6MZXXX5MTMGU7DOGNQAE/?format=api", "sender": { "address": "kf6kyi (a) gmail.com", "mailman_id": null, "emails": null }, "sender_name": "Mark Vandewettering", "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: D-STAR experiment on Cubesat", "date": "2008-06-09T17:35:15Z", "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/36WCCNIDZXUOQINP3CJ5KGANHX7D33BG/?format=api", "children": [ "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/Q4SWLKGY6RXUYJ4FUTVZGNL5ONILPM7H/?format=api", "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/VJJ7DY2KQTQIAULH2MQ57HIHU4CJL2XB/?format=api", "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/ELBBUYWPTE24KZUIQOTH37RNK5OV5UQ6/?format=api" ], "votes": { "likes": 0, "dislikes": 0, "status": "neutral" }, "content": "\nOn Jun 9, 2008, at 8:55 AM, David B. Toth wrote:\n\n> At 01:59 AM 6/9/2008, Mark Vandewettering wrote:\n>\n>\n>> Sadly, it's basically impossible to make a software version which\n>> interacts with D-Star because of the fact that the vocoder they chose\n>> to use is encumbered by patents. This is one of the principle\n>> reasons that I can't generate any enthusiasm for D-Star, despite\n>> having a number of interesting capabilities that would be useful for\n>> amateur radio.\n>\n> Mark: I had raised some of the same concerns as you have, but let us \n> put this into perspective.\n> We (hams) needed something in the form of a chip to go into portable \n> radios. It already existed in the form of a chip that does AMBE, and \n> it IS cheap (less than $20) ...\n\nYes, I understand. It's not a miserable state of affairs, but it's \nnot great either. I'll expound more at the end.\n\n> Even if ham radio had waited for an Open Source Vocoder, we still \n> would not have it and certainly not in chip form.\n>\n> Other manufacturers CAN get the chip, there is no lock on it. In \n> fact, Kenwood makes a D-STAR radio in Japan, like the ID-1 ...\n\nIt is my understanding that it is simple a relabeled Icom radio. If \nit really weren't an issue for other manufacturers, one might \nreasonably ask why we aren't seeing D-Star radios from other \nmanufacturers. Granted, there could be other reasons, but something \nis apparently keeping other manufacturers from building these radios. \nThis means that essentially we are in a single source situation, where \nwe can expect D-Star to remain fairly expensive. Indeed, the codec \nchip costs $20, but we see the price differential for these radios to \nbe well over $100, even on an HT which is fairly expensive to begin \nwith. That's a pretty high markup. (IC-91AD is $524, IC-91A is $408 \nat universal radio). The UT-118 to do an upgrade is $189. The DV- \nDongle is $200.\n\n> That being said, I know that Bruce Perens is pushing for an Open \n> Source standard for HF and VHF (different ones if necessary) and I \n> agree we should work towards that goal. That does not mean that we \n> should categorically ignore D-STAR ... as others have pointed out, \n> almost EVERY development in radio was patented, and in comparison, \n> this is nothing. If I recall correctly, people had to pay royalties \n> to build regenerative receivers, and that didn't stop anyone.\n\nI don't think I actually said we should ignore D-Star. I merely said \nthat it didn't capture my own enthusiasm. If it captures yours, by \nall means, do whatever you desire to advance it. There is little \ndoubt that if, say, your own reason for being in amateur radio is \nEMCOMM, that D-Star gives you some nifty capabilities at a reasonable \ncost and with reduced bandwidth requirements, and we shouldn't be \nespecially afraid of these radios.\n\nBut I do think there are reasons to be less than fully happy.\n\n1. We have committed ourselves to building a system with parts from a \nsingle manufacturer. On this list, we have heard that Kenwood is \nunable to build new TH-D7As because they can't get a part which is \nsingle sourced, only 10 years into its lifetime. It doesn't seem to \nme to be good engineering to design our repeater systems around such a \npart, given our expected longevity for repeaters. I admit, this \nconcern is largely paranoia, but paranoia pays off occasionally.\n\n2. We are denying ourselves an opportunity: the opportunity to \nunderstand, modify, and create new digital voice systems. If we go to \nusing AMBE, we are stuck: stuck with a technology that we can't extend \nor expand because of IP property law. Indeed, we will have invested \nconsiderable sums of money in such a system, which will present a \nserious impediment to future developments, since we will have so much \nmoney already invested in the old system.\n\n3. Gadgets like the DV-Dongle cost $200, and you hook them to your \nPC. Your PC could do _everything_ that the DV-Dongle does in software \n(obviously, since the AMBE chip is just a low end TI DSP, mask \nprogrammed with the AMBE decoder). Imagine how much higher the \ndeployment of D-Star would be if we could have a freely available open \nsource application that people could run on their Windows, Mac and \nLinux machines for _zero cost_. As Gordon Bell once said \n(paraphrasing from memory) \"the cheapest part of a computer are the \nparts that aren't there\". Replacing a $20 with, well, nothing but \nelectrons is a big deal.\n\nBruce echos most of these issues on his page:\n\n\thttp://codec2.org/\n\n\t\n\tMark KF6KYI\n\n\n\n\n>\n>\n> Your mileage may vary ...\n>\n> Dave\n>\n> VE3GYQ/W8\n> Spencerville, OH\n>\n\n", "attachments": [] }