Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
Search
Digest Number 38
开云体育Very light on detail. I was disappointed, but then perhaps an emergency communicator does not need to know ?much about the technology. ? NARRI (see ) uses D-Star, IRLP and All Star Linking (Asterisk app_rpt node 2030 which can do it all). ? Kent W7AOR ? From:
D-STAR_23cm@... [mailto:D-STAR_23cm@...] ?
Messages In This Digest (1 Message)1a. Re: New ARRL Course on Digital Technology for EmComms From: kb9mwr | Message1a.
Reply to sender |
Reply to group |
Recent Activity ·???????? ?2
·???????? ?2
·???????? ?2
Share Photos
photos and more online. Yahoo! Groups
Resources and tips for green living Weight Loss Group
Get support and make friends online. Need to Reply? Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest. | | | | | | | MARKETPLACE
|
|
That's was going to be my guess on the course.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Any inter-connectivity between those systems? Specifically between the D-Star and Asterisk systems? Steve, KB9MWR --- In D-STAR_23cm@..., "Kent Johnson" <w7aor@...> wrote:
|
开云体育There have been some attempts to link between Asterisk and D-STAR, actually it has been done a few times. ? BUT, there are SERIOUS legal concerns when doing so, which has resulted in most people deciding that it should not be done. ? A few examples, ? If I am on D-STAR talking, D-STAR identifies for me, so I don’t have to worry about voicing my call sign. If the system that I am linked to is then connected to a non-D-STAR system, such as an FM repeater, then the FM stations never know my call sign. ? If Asterisk is connected to a non-Amateur system such as a land-line telephone or remote VOIP user, then there are no mechanisms to assure that a non-Amateur cannot talk on an Amateur system. ? Ed WA4YIH ? From: D-STAR_23cm@... [mailto:D-STAR_23cm@...] On Behalf Of kb9mwr
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:39 AM To: D-STAR_23cm@... Subject: [D-STAR_23cm] Re: Digest Number 38 ? ? That's was going to be my guess on the course. |
|
John Barrett
Phone patches have been around for years and have been used to allow non-hams to talk on the air -- so where is the problem so long as the communication does not otherwise violate the rules ?? (no commerial interest, no foul language, etc) I would think it is the responsibility of the ham initiating the call, and of the control operator of the patch to make sure the conversation is within the rules.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Lastly -- during an emergency -- all those rules go in the pot anyway when it comes to immediate danger to life, limb, or property. Woodrick, Ed wrote:
|
|
At 04:23 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote:
Well, if you can bridge to Asterisk/AllStar, you can also bridge to the PSTN, given that Asterisk supports that. Of course, you could use a D-STAR radio connected to a conventional autopatch unit. One possible challenge I can see is DTMF. D-STAR radios don't make use of AMBE's capability to transmit DTMF digits out of band, and the vocoder is likely to seriously distort the tones. One workaround might be to use the slow data channel for command and control of the autopatch. Would likely require some development work, because the data channel has no error correction, and you don't want errors when transmitting phone numbers! :) 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL |
|
The difference is the control point. Very few phone patches allow for inbound connections, outbound is the commonly accepted implementation. With outbound, there's a definitive process where a licensed amateur initiates the communication.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
But, phone patches are generally implemented on simplex or a single repeater. With some connections to D-STAR, the asterisk system has been connected to a repeater that is connected to a reflector, that's when you get in a lot of issues. Many reflectors have a number of systems from a number of countries connected to it. Not all of those countries allow for third party traffic. That can be a big problem. And while I always hate to get into this argument, the rules pertaining to immediate danger to life, limb, or property really aren't the way that you state it. Let me put it another way. Why would your local fire or ambulance service need their own systems? Because just about everything that they do is immediate danger to life, limb, or property. Do you want them coming into the amateur bands and using our resources? For those of us who practice emergency communications, we should be professionals so that what we do during an emergency is NOT an emergency, it's a professional communications system. This is what fire and ambulance professionals do. We shouldn't need, nor desire to break the rules. Ed WA4YIH -----Original Message-----
From: D-STAR_23cm@... [mailto:D-STAR_23cm@...] On Behalf Of John Barrett Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 7:30 PM To: D-STAR_23cm@... Subject: Re: [D-STAR_23cm] Re: Digest Number 38 Phone patches have been around for years and have been used to allow non-hams to talk on the air -- so where is the problem so long as the communication does not otherwise violate the rules ?? (no commerial interest, no foul language, etc) I would think it is the responsibility of the ham initiating the call, and of the control operator of the patch to make sure the conversation is within the rules. Lastly -- during an emergency -- all those rules go in the pot anyway when it comes to immediate danger to life, limb, or property. Woodrick, Ed wrote:
------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links |
开云体育As I mentioned in my other message, that is done on a local basis. When you have D-STAR systems connected to reflectors, you get into International law and have to be very careful. ? Bridging D-STAR to a phone patch is one thing, bridging it to Asterisk is quite another. A phone patch is a much more controllable situation. Asterisk is commonly assumed as a pipeline to everything that can be connected to it, which is quite a lot! ? Ed WA4YIH ? From: D-STAR_23cm@... [mailto:D-STAR_23cm@...] On Behalf Of kb9mwr
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 12:24 AM To: D-STAR_23cm@... Subject: [D-STAR_23cm] Re: Digest Number 38 ? ? I wasn't referring to Bridging D-star to AllStar or another amateur analog network. |
|
I wonder why the D-STAR radios don't make use of AMBE chips ability to process DTMF. The vocoder supposedly has RTP Payload support for DTMF Digits (much like RFC2833).
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I guess I like the idea as a control-op of being able to monitor the d-star repeater from the IP phone on my desk. And being able to take a directed D-Star call over that phone. --- In D-STAR_23cm@..., Tony Langdon <vk3jed@...> wrote:
|