Date   
How can I get involved? Alpha/Beta?

k4rjj@...
 

How can I get involved?  Alpha/Beta?

 

Ronny

K4RJJ

 

Re: How can I get involved? Alpha/Beta?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

I was debating about asking the same question, to be honest.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


From: "k4rjj@..."
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 4:08 PM
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] How can I get involved? Alpha/Beta?

 
How can I get involved?  Alpha/Beta?
 
Ronny
K4RJJ
 


RF Frequency Range

"George Jones" <hamfiles@...>
 

What frequency range will the RF cover?
What is the transmitted bandwidth at 56K?

For some time now we have wanted to leverage the use of the 430 - 440 MHz
portion of the US band for D-STAR data.
There is a lot of wide open frequencies in many parts of the country that go
unused in this section. With some careful planning we should be able to
coordinate frequencies in this part of the band taking into consideration
protection for the satellite sub-band and weak signal work. Our friends in
Europe seem to be doing a better job at band planning for spectrum
efficiency than our coordinators in the states. With every new mode comes
the thought of what frequency should I use. By thinking of these things
now, maybe we can avoid some of the issues we have seen in the 440 - 450 MHz
section.

The 420 - 430 MHz part of the band is also available in many parts of the
US. My hopes would be that the designers could build the RF such that it
could cover the entire 420 - 450 MHz range. This would give the end user
more flexibility in building a network with these new radios. I know this is
a tall order with government approvals required for intentional radiators.

George W4AQR
hamfiles@...

Re: RF Frequency Range

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

The specification is for the entire 70cm Amateur radio band,  420-450 mHz.  (75% of our team lives north of Line-A, so 420-430 on air tests require getting south of the line!)

The bandwidth is dependent on a number of factors, but for 56K GMSK the modulation mask is in the 73-80 KHz range.  FCC rules dictate a bandwidth of less than 100 KHz.  We will be providing spectrum analysis charts for the production units.

The radio is capable of additional modulation methods, e.g. 4FSK, which also fit the D-STAR specification, that may give us more bits per KHz., but at least for the domestic market we need to stay in the 100 Khz. bandwidth for data and the modulation methods that are being used.  There is a 100 KBPS hard limit on the RF-IC (which contains the modem).

There are some things that could be done with respect to error correction to improve reliability while preserving the D-STAR data format.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  



On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, George Jones <hamfiles@...> wrote:
 

What frequency range will the RF cover?
What is the transmitted bandwidth at 56K?

For some time now we have wanted to leverage the use of the 430 - 440 MHz
portion of the US band for D-STAR data.
There is a lot of wide open frequencies in many parts of the country that go
unused in this section. With some careful planning we should be able to
coordinate frequencies in this part of the band taking into consideration
protection for the satellite sub-band and weak signal work. Our friends in
Europe seem to be doing a better job at band planning for spectrum
efficiency than our coordinators in the states. With every new mode comes
the thought of what frequency should I use. By thinking of these things
now, maybe we can avoid some of the issues we have seen in the 440 - 450 MHz
section.

The 420 - 430 MHz part of the band is also available in many parts of the
US. My hopes would be that the designers could build the RF such that it
could cover the entire 420 - 450 MHz range. This would give the end user
more flexibility in building a network with these new radios. I know this is
a tall order with government approvals required for intentional radiators.

George W4AQR
hamfiles@...


Re: How can I get involved? Alpha/Beta?

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 

Matthew and Ronny,

All alpha work is internal to the core development team.  Early beta work will be limited to the core development team, later beta will involve a few selected individuals some of whom we have already identified (internally), there may be a possibility for a very limited 1-4 additional people in the beta phase.

If you would like to make a proposal to participate, contact me directly via email.

We are not looking for people who are just looking for early access to the UDR56K-4.  Being a small startup we will be very selective on beta testers. Here are things that might get a favorable ranking in our beta list:

1. Since in depth beta testing requires making hardware available, we'll need to work out the terms for having access to hardware. 
2. We are specifically interested in people who have a track record of developing open source amateur radio related software or hardware and have something specific they want to build and test.
3. Commitment to devote significant time to the project.
4. Provide feedback and documentation of efforts to the core team.

Thank you for asking.


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  



Re: Update ?!

will wright <w4wwm@...>
 

Hello to the group,

It's great to here updated news on the UDR56k. I'm hoping it will be a
great radio to run on a new US network called DSAP (Digital Smart Access
Point). From my understanding there are 2 new developing test irc
servers running as we speak for Dstar like hotspots or maybe gateways,
think both.

Not much information as of yet but will be coming soon.

Will

NXDN... RF Specs now open.

"William Stillwell - KI4SWY" <wkstill@...>
 

Has anybody read the NXDN Open air RF Specs that were released?

 

 

 

William Stillwell – Ki4SwY

ICOM NXDN Repeater – 442.7625

IRLP Node # 8549

New Port Richey, FL

 

Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

Google Chat was down this morning, then Twitter went down.

Cell towers are infamous for failures during emergencies,
esp. due to backup power failure and microwave-linking
dishes knocked out of alignment.

This is why we need a 100% wireless Ham network that is
redundant not only in pathways, mapping around dead spots,
but also redundant in mode and band - to overcome propagation
and RFI challenges.

Interoperability between digital formats will be key as it
should be more resistant to certain forms of RFI and maybe
more power-efficient when operating from battery power.

It can be done but it will require coordinated promotion and
cooperation among ARRL and other orgs, repeater owners, and
vendors.

WDYT?

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and NXDN.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: qrv@... ;
To: ;
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Sent: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 4:05:37 PM

 

Google Chat was down this morning, then Twitter went down.

Cell towers are infamous for failures during emergencies,
esp. due to backup power failure and microwave-linking
dishes knocked out of alignment.

This is why we need a 100% wireless Ham network that is
redundant not only in pathways, mapping around dead spots,
but also redundant in mode and band - to overcome propagation
and RFI challenges.

Interoperability between digital formats will be key as it
should be more resistant to certain forms of RFI and maybe
more power-efficient when operating from battery power.

It can be done but it will require coordinated promotion and
cooperation among ARRL and other orgs, repeater owners, and
vendors.

WDYT?

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Meanwhile, IPv6, APRS, and other technologies need to be
leveraged into an interoperable, redundant network that is
nearly impossible to break -- with Icom's cooperation or
around them as necessary.

Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems
like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and
NXDN.

Matthew Pitts N8OHU
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't directly compatible, even within the same technology, so we have to find alternate ways to interconnect them as it is. I'm also hearing that some groups don't even want to allow connections from within their own technology if it's not from their preferred manufacturer, so it's not a matter of the manufacturers like Icom preventing such things. I'm actually talking to a guy that has an NXDN system about interlinking our different systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


From: "qrv@..."
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

 
As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Meanwhile, IPv6, APRS, and other technologies need to be
leveraged into an interoperable, redundant network that is
nearly impossible to break -- with Icom's cooperation or
around them as necessary.

> Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems
> like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and
> NXDN.
>
> Matthew Pitts N8OHU

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Howard Small" <howard@...>
 

I can’t agree with your reading of the situation. Yaesu has not offered an alternative – all they have offered is a radio: no infrastructure, nothing, just a radio that is pretty well incompatible with any of the other offerings amateurs are embracing.

 

On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third party developers enhancing the system significantly and at the same time reducing the cost. The only thing that is long in the tooth is AMBE and it works so there is no reason to look for another codec.

 

All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effective hardware along the lines of the ID-31 and with the third party infrastructure development D-Star will continue to grow: just look at the number of ircDDB based repeaters that are on line today compared with a year ago!

 

Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptance of D-Star that I have observed…

 

Howard

VK4BS

 

From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of qrv@...
Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2012 06:56
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

 

 

As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

We will have to map around the stubborn for the sake of the goal.

There's always another Ham (or Hams), another tower (or towers),
another way.

The absence of a robust, independent, redundant, and diverse wireless
network has represented a serious weakness in the larger system.

SEDAN tried to fill the gap with Packet, APRS covers a lot of ground,
and D-Star has a role but suffers multiple liabilities (not the least
of which are cost, complexity, and poor grassroots adoption).

IMHO, YMMV ...

Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't
directly compatible, even within the same technology, so we have to
find alternate ways to interconnect them as it is. I'm also hearing
that some groups don't even want to allow connections from within
their own technology if it's not from their preferred manufacturer,
so it's not a matter of the manufacturers like Icom preventing such
things. I'm actually talking to a guy that has an NXDN system about
interlinking our different systems. Matthew Pitts N8OHU
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 02:15 PM 7/29/2012, you wrote:


I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.
Well, I'm not sure what sort of wireless network you're talking about, but down here, one can never forget distance. The telcos actually do a pretty good job of providing coverage down here, given the limitations of microwave propagation and population density. That said, I'll be totally out of phone/Internet range for a week next month. If the powers that be let me setup as a demonstration/last ditch backup, then I will have email access via Winlink. :)

My view on infrastructure based networks in an emergency is flexibility. We have to be able to take advantage of infrastructure when it's available for reliability, and be able to operate independently where infrastructure is not available (whether due to never being available or breakdown). Furthermore, we have to be able to know the state of infrastructure availability, so we can switch between infrastructure and independent modes of operation, as conditions dictate.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
 

* On 2012 28 Jul 22:41 -0500, Howard Small wrote:

On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third party
developers enhancing the system significantly and at the same time
reducing the cost. The only thing that is long in the tooth is AMBE
and it works so there is no reason to look for another codec.
Except for the fact that it is patent encumbered and that is a stumbling
block for those of us who want an amateur radio community controlled,
from microphone to speaker, digital voice "standard", ala AX.25.

All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effective
hardware along the lines of the ID-31 and with the third party
infrastructure development D-Star will continue to grow: just look at
the number of ircDDB based repeaters that are on line today compared
with a year ago!
That may well be. I am leary of any solution that relies on a single
source supplier for any sort of amateur radio provided emergency
response. At the moment D-Star has two strikes against it, IMO, a
single source for gear, Icom, and the codec, AMBE. That said, people
are at liberty to purchase what they want, it's the expectation on the
part of those that do so that the rest of the community should conform
with them is what I have a problem with.

Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptance
of D-Star that I have observed…
Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)

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

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

It would be nice to have a patent free alternative, but where is the money going to come from to get Codec2 developed to the point where it is a viable alternative to AMBE? As I said in another group where this topic has come up, it's hard to get investors excited about something that does a fraction of what existing commercial products do; besides, AMBE is under constant development itself and the version used in newer digital voice modes is backward compatible with what is used for D-Star.

As for the "single source" part of your argument, you're correct insofar as a turnkey solution is concerned for end user hardware; the repeater side has been available as hardware and software for non-Icom repeaters for several years and AMBE doesn't affect that side all that much, as those don't decode the voice data.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Howard Small" <howard@...>
 

 

And there is nothing patent encumbered in any of your other equipment? DSP chips
in new HF receivers, etc?

Except for the fact that it is patent encumbered and that is a stumbling
block for those of us who want an amateur radio community controlled,
from microphone to speaker, digital voice "standard", ala AX.25.

I think you missed the point that they are no longer the single source for D-Star equipment.
And what has emergency response got to do with our hobby? Some may wish to play that game but
it is only one facet.

And AMBE? This is a tired argument that is fairly meaningless. Finally, there is no expectation
by D-Star users that the rest of the community should conform in the same way that CW, packet, APRS, whatever
don’t have an expectation.

I have a strong suspicion that you have not looked into the developments associated with D-Star
recently …

Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)

At least the know what they are doing and why…

Howard

VK4BS

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android