Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
* On 2012 29 Jul 09:34 -0500, Howard Small wrote:
If there is it does not control the on-air modulation/protocol which is
the difference here.
I think you missed the point that they are no longer the single sourceTrue, but here in the good ol' USA much grant money is being doled out
for various emergency networks employing such technology and it is
generally a "pay to play" game on the part of the end user amateur. The
grants only pay for repeaters and equipment in the facilities of served
agencies. What this effectively does is fracture and make amateur
radio's greatest strength--independent communicators--into a liability
as far as they're concerned.
And AMBE? This is a tired argument that is fairly meaningless.Tired, perhaps. Meaningless? Not to those of us who believe that the
technology of amateur radio's on-air protocols should be open to all. I
also would not recommend nor adopt PacTOR 2/3 for the same reason.
SSB did not receive wider acceptance until the patent(s) ran out as
techniques to employ SSB that worked around the patent(s) were inferior
to the patented methods.
Finally, there is no expectation by D-Star users that the rest of theActually, I'm not arguing against D-Star as it is an open and published
protocol as AX.25. The patent on AMBE chips restricts any third party
implementation of the codec until the patent expires. That is where I
have a deep philosphical difference. The remainder of D-Star is fine
Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)And I'm headed the other way!
At least the know what they are doing and why…Hmmmmm.
73, de Nate >>
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us