For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

On 7/1/2010 2:15 PM, Brian Reay wrote:
"Brian wrote in message
k...
I was following up on the current situation with David Rowe's work
on the Codec2 digital voice codec the other day, and noticed that it's
not progressing much due to essentially lack of development time when
David needs to put food on the table. So I decided to make a donation.

I was absolutely astonished to receive a thank you from David that said
"your are the first person to donate to Codec2", I really didn't expect
that at all. Surely I thought, other people have been this way before?
It seems not.

I'm not that surprised, I've had similar responses to shareware type
donations.

Never the less, you've chipped in, perhaps others who are pro-digital but
anti DSTAR will follow your example.

"Mike G" wrote in message
...
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?
snip untrimmed top post

Maybe because it's a commercial standard and commercial standards
have nothing to do with Amateur radio?

Steve Terry
--
"I would like to plead for my right to investigate natural phenomena
without having guns pointed at me.
I also ask for the right to be wrong without being hanged for it."
- Wilhelm Reich, November 1947

"Mike G" wrote in message
...
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

They seem to have a few reasons but I will leave it to the anti-DStar
crowd to give them.

As for myself, it just isnt the sort of avenue I follow in the hobby but I'm
more than happy for others to.

--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote:
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?


It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or
adjust it.

In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that.

Which means it's not amateur radio.

Hell, even the name is a registered trademark of Icom.

Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote:
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?


It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve it or
adjust it.

In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that.

Which means it's not amateur radio.

Ok but if you have bought a commercial transceiver for amateur radio,
can you look at or improve upon any part of it?

E.g. the firmware that is running on the microprocessor(s) that control it?

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:20:32 -0400
Mike G wrote:

For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?

D-STAR uses a proprietary codec, that means for anyone that doesn't
believe that amateur radio should use technology that forbids reverse
engineering and hence interoperability with homebrew designs it's
not acceptable.

--

Brian Morrison

On 24 Sep 2010 09:07:52 GMT
Rob wrote:

Yeti wrote:
On 24/09/2010 03:20, Mike G wrote:
For what reasons would someone be "anti D-Star"?


It's a closed codec - you can't look at it, play with it, improve
it or adjust it.

In fact, being patented, it's ILLEGAL to do any of that.

Which means it's not amateur radio.

Ok but if you have bought a commercial transceiver for amateur radio,
can you look at or improve upon any part of it?

E.g. the firmware that is running on the microprocessor(s) that
control it?

No, but by studying the interfaces and functions you could design your
own processor and firmware that would replace the original.

With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV
dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that
makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes.

--

Brian Morrison

Brian Morrison wrote:
With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV
dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that
makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented modes.

The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone
implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves.

There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better
codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can.

Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop
something and need donations. But this development needs more than
donations.

Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than
you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work.

On 24 Sep 2010 09:42:02 GMT
Rob wrote:

Brian Morrison wrote:
With D-STAR unless you buy the pre-programmed DSP chips or the DV
dongle you can't legally reimplement the AMBE codec at all, and that
makes it very different from other kit that implements unpatented
modes.

The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone
implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop
themselves.

Really? I thought that what those of us that can't live with it thought
is that we don't like technology that locks out homebrew. That's what
the use of DVSI's AMBE codec does.

I don't know exactly why JARL chose AMBE other than because it was the
only codec available at the time. If so, they should have thought about
that a lot harder and perhaps decided to sponsor the development of a
free codec instead. That would have been really good, but I suppose I
can see that it would have introduced a delay. D-STAR has other faults,
one being that it appears not to be extensible so that there is no way
to include other codecs and allow the correct one to be used according
to the other user's set up.


There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a
better codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can.

Well we'll see won't we? It's taken a while to find people with the
necessary expertise but Codec2 is now moving forward with people
working on it that have that expertise.


Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop
something and need donations. But this development needs more than
donations.

Yes, it needs talent and for that you need exposure to collect them
together. That's happening now.


Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job
than you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work.

I have no problem with that, remember that the "free" part of free
software is referring to freedom, not money. But if someone refuses to
provide something that I can look inside and understand then I won't
use it.

It's called a choice.

--

Brian Morrison

Rob wrote:

The problem is that amateurs cannot live with the fact that someone
implemented a codec that is better than what they can develop themselves.

There would be no problem when amateurs could actually develop a better
codec than AMBE. But they have not shown they can.

Everyone can put up a site with a statement that they want to develop
something and need donations. But this development needs more than
donations.

Sometimes is it better to just admit that someone did a better job than
you could have done yourself, and just pay him for the work.

I think you need to study the implications of the words 'amateur',
'professional' and 'commercial', and then have a read of the Amateur
licence.


Spike