|
All:
I thought I’d share this with you, this M17 community of interest.
I had a long conversation with a friend on a repeater yesterday after I published Zero Retries 0164 and “Why M17 Is Significant - Part 2”.
My friend is the owner of the repeater we were talking on, and I was mentioning how much excitement I was seeing about M17, including the debut of the CS7000 M17. He just didn’t get it - he really didn’t understand that the key feature of M17 is that 颈迟’蝉 open.
I tried to explain that openness of M17 is the critical feature to the newest generation of Amateur Radio Operators who are digital / Internet natives, are likely techies, and many hackers like the ones who will take Amateur Radio exams this weekend at DEFCON and will become Amateur Radio Operators whose primary interest in Amateur Radio is to hack on radio technology.
To my friend, the openness of M17 versus DMR or D-Star or SF was irrelevant considering that DMR, D-Star, and SF are well-established, and why did we “need” another system?
I really couldn’t explain it to him in a way that got through to him. He wasn’t convinced, though I’m not sure that he wanted to be convinced.
A few hours later, the following analogy occurred to me. I emailed a more terse version of this to him, and I’ll expand this in next week’s Zero Retries. You’re the first to see this made public.
…
M17 versus the status quo of Amateur Radio digital and FM repeaters is analogous (in my mind) to the computer industry in 1976.
In 1976, mainframes and minis were doing the job satisfactorily for the computer industry. Everyone that needed and could afford a computer had one. That’s analogous to the current repeater technology and the current repeater owners.
But in 1975, one year earlier, microcomputers had come on the scene. The MITS Altair was unveiled in the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics magazine. By 1976 a completely new crowd entered the “computer industry” and were using these new (and still very imperfect, by mini and mainframe standards) microcomputers to do computing very differently than was possible with mainframes and minis.
The microcomputer folks didn’t ask “permission” from the mainframe and mini folks, and they didn’t try to persuade the mainframe and mini owners that microcomputer were “better” and they should start doing / using microcomputers.
Instead of asking permission or trying to persuade, they just started doing things their own new way?with microcomputers and rapidly evolved an entirely different version of the computer industry.
A decade later, the mainframe and mini computer industry looked around and said “what happened?!?!?” All of the energy in the computer industry had shifted to microcomputers.
…
In my opinion, from deep observation of M17 and trying to explain it and write about it substantively…
M17 in 2024 is at the “computer industry circa 1976" point of inflection.
Like microcomputers, M17 is open. Thus there’s no structural issue that prevents M17 from rapidly growing and evolving.
In the discussion with my friend, I pointed out that the M17 community doesn’t need?to persuade repeater owners, etc. that M17 is “better” or even “good enough” for them to consider using it or adapting their repeaters to it. M17’s technology means that M17 is growing with Internet linking, hotspots, adapters like Module 17, and repeaters that have added MMDVM and M17 is just one mode among many that MMDVM enables.
While my friend’s repeater mostly sits idle...
I have begun my planning to build up an MMDVM repeater (which will mostly be for M17 and hopefully MMDVM-TNC high speed data mode). I will build up, test it out in my shop (N8GNJ Labs) and eventually have ready for an opportunity to put it on the air from a good location.
I’m tired of trying to persuade people that “just don’t want to get it” about newer technology like M17. For the same amount of energy and resources, I’m just going to route around them.
The M17 community, worldwide, apparently feels the same. They’re doing M17 because they want to use open systems.
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ
---
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)EditorZero Retries Newsletter -? Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
|
Steve,
I've personally seen this.? I've talked
to a number of people of varying ages who have kept mainly to FM,
and while they've dipped their toe into the digital waters, they
have been underwhelmed by what they've found - systems with
restrictions on them, primarily around the vocoder.? There's a lot
of people who want to do the open source thing.? Some are coders
who want to play with the software itself, others simply believe
in the philosophy.? I'm partly the latter, but I'm also a systems
integrator, using open interfaces to combine software together
into new ways, often not considered by the original authors.?
Openness makes my cause much easier, as do standards (I love
USRP!).? Sometimes this also means working with software
developers and testing their efforts, another rewarding activity.
I've told them about M17 and they were all ears - the attraction
was the openness of M17, so much so that one of these people asked
me to provide a M17 bridge to a major network that he is involved
with.? Interestingly, he also found Codec2 more pleasing to his
ears than the *MBE family of codecs.? I find them roughly
equivalent to my ears.? Interestignly, Codec2 3200 transcoded to
AMBE2+ is practically indistinguishable to native AMBE2+ in audio
quality when monitored on a DMR radio.
On 11/8/24 6:10 am, Steve Stroh N8GNJ
via groups.io wrote:
All:
I thought I’d share this with you, this M17
community of interest.
I had a long conversation with a friend on a
repeater yesterday after I published Zero Retries 0164 and “Why
M17 Is Significant - Part 2”.
My friend is the owner of the repeater we were
talking on, and I was mentioning how much excitement I was
seeing about M17, including the debut of the CS7000 M17. He just
didn’t get it - he really didn’t understand that the key feature
of M17 is that 颈迟’蝉 open.
I tried to explain that openness of M17 is the
critical feature to the newest generation of Amateur Radio
Operators who are digital / Internet natives, are likely
techies, and many hackers like the ones who will take Amateur
Radio exams this weekend at DEFCON and will become Amateur Radio
Operators whose primary interest in Amateur Radio is to hack on
radio technology.
To my friend, the openness of M17 versus DMR or
D-Star or SF was irrelevant considering that DMR, D-Star, and SF
are well-established, and why did we “need” another system?
I really couldn’t explain it to him in a way that
got through to him. He wasn’t convinced, though I’m not sure
that he wanted to be convinced.
A few hours later, the following analogy occurred
to me. I emailed a more terse version of this to him, and I’ll
expand this in next week’s Zero Retries. You’re the first to see
this made public.
…
M17 versus the status quo of Amateur Radio digital and FM
repeaters is analogous (in my mind) to the computer industry in
1976.
In 1976, mainframes and minis were doing the job
satisfactorily for the computer industry. Everyone that needed
and could afford a computer had one. That’s analogous to the
current repeater technology and the current repeater owners.
But in 1975, one year earlier, microcomputers had
come on the scene. The MITS Altair was unveiled in the January
1975 issue of Popular Electronics magazine. By 1976 a completely
new crowd entered the “computer industry” and were using
these new (and still very imperfect, by mini and mainframe
standards) microcomputers to do computing very differently than
was possible with mainframes and minis.
The microcomputer folks didn’t ask “permission” from the
mainframe and mini folks, and they didn’t try to persuade the
mainframe and mini owners that microcomputer were “better” and
they should start doing / using microcomputers.
Instead of asking permission or trying to persuade, they just
started doing things their own new way?with
microcomputers and rapidly evolved an entirely different version
of the computer industry.
A decade later, the mainframe and mini computer industry
looked around and said “what happened?!?!?” All of the
energy in the computer industry had shifted to microcomputers.
…
In my opinion, from deep observation of M17 and
trying to explain it and write about it substantively…
M17 in 2024 is at the “computer industry circa
1976" point of inflection.
Like microcomputers, M17 is open. Thus there’s no
structural issue that prevents M17 from rapidly growing and
evolving.
In the discussion with my friend, I pointed out
that the M17 community doesn’t need?to persuade repeater
owners, etc. that M17 is “better” or even “good enough” for them
to consider using it or adapting their repeaters to it. M17’s
technology means that M17 is growing with Internet linking,
hotspots, adapters like Module 17, and repeaters that have added
MMDVM and M17 is just one mode among many that MMDVM enables.
While my friend’s repeater mostly sits idle...
I have begun my planning to build up an MMDVM
repeater (which will mostly be for M17 and hopefully MMDVM-TNC
high speed data mode). I will build up, test it out in my shop
(N8GNJ Labs) and eventually have ready for an opportunity to put
it on the air from a good location.
I’m tired of trying to persuade people that “just
don’t want to get it” about newer technology like M17.
For the same amount of energy and resources, I’m just going to
route around them.
The M17 community, worldwide, apparently feels the
same. They’re doing M17 because they want to use open
systems.
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ
---
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter
-?
Radios are
Computers - With Antennas!
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
|
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 4:10?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via groups.io <steve.stroh@...> wrote: Like microcomputers, M17 is open. Thus there’s no structural issue that prevents M17 from rapidly growing and evolving. Ehhh ... Uhhh ... MITS was one of those dip-switch programmed units, wasn't it? Could a C64 run VIC-20 code? (I never had either but at least they had keyboards ... they *were* keyboards ...). Certainly there was a way to run MS-DOS code on my Amiga, c.1990, but it required a "coprocessor card". Even now, my Macbook won't run Windows programs (not that this sort of thing means anything any more). So the "Like microcomputers, M17 is open" probably needs some refinement. I, too, like FM, but I'm also fine with moving along ... as my D-STAR HT tuned to my hotspot connected to a reflector attests. I wonder if your friend said the same thing when (the few) AM repeaters went away in favor of FM c.1970? -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Peter:
The diversity of microcomputers IS the open part.
You could take the new microprocessors and build whatever kind of computer you wanted.
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 4:10?PM Steve Stroh N8GNJ via
<steve.stroh=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
> Like microcomputers, M17 is open. Thus there’s no structural issue that prevents M17 from rapidly growing and evolving.
Ehhh ... Uhhh ... MITS was one of those dip-switch programmed units,
wasn't it?? Could a C64 run VIC-20 code? (I never had either but at
least they had keyboards ... they *were* keyboards ...).
Certainly there was a way to run MS-DOS code on my Amiga, c.1990, but
it required a "coprocessor card".
Even now, my Macbook won't run Windows programs (not that this sort of
thing means anything any more).
So the "Like microcomputers, M17 is open" probably needs some refinement.
I, too, like FM, but I'm also fine with moving along ... as my D-STAR
HT tuned to my hotspot connected to a reflector attests.? I wonder if
your friend said the same thing when (the few) AM repeaters went away
in favor of FM c.1970?
--
Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Tony:
Thanks for the validation of this idea.
That M17 is open is the part that’s almost entirely invisible to the vast majority of Amateur Radio. Open makes all the difference in the world to that segment of Amateur Radio that cares deeply about open standards. It’s almost unexplainable to most folks.
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
Steve,
I've personally seen this.? I've talked
to a number of people of varying ages who have kept mainly to FM,
and while they've dipped their toe into the digital waters, they
have been underwhelmed by what they've found - systems with
restrictions on them, primarily around the vocoder.? There's a lot
of people who want to do the open source thing.? Some are coders
who want to play with the software itself, others simply believe
in the philosophy.? I'm partly the latter, but I'm also a systems
integrator, using open interfaces to combine software together
into new ways, often not considered by the original authors.?
Openness makes my cause much easier, as do standards (I love
USRP!).? Sometimes this also means working with software
developers and testing their efforts, another rewarding activity.
I've told them about M17 and they were all ears - the attraction
was the openness of M17, so much so that one of these people asked
me to provide a M17 bridge to a major network that he is involved
with.? Interestingly, he also found Codec2 more pleasing to his
ears than the *MBE family of codecs.? I find them roughly
equivalent to my ears.? Interestignly, Codec2 3200 transcoded to
AMBE2+ is practically indistinguishable to native AMBE2+ in audio
quality when monitored on a DMR radio.
On 11/8/24 6:10 am, Steve Stroh N8GNJ
via wrote:
All:
I thought I’d share this with you, this M17
community of interest.
I had a long conversation with a friend on a
repeater yesterday after I published Zero Retries 0164 and “Why
M17 Is Significant - Part 2”.
My friend is the owner of the repeater we were
talking on, and I was mentioning how much excitement I was
seeing about M17, including the debut of the CS7000 M17. He just
didn’t get it - he really didn’t understand that the key feature
of M17 is that 颈迟’蝉 open.
I tried to explain that openness of M17 is the
critical feature to the newest generation of Amateur Radio
Operators who are digital / Internet natives, are likely
techies, and many hackers like the ones who will take Amateur
Radio exams this weekend at DEFCON and will become Amateur Radio
Operators whose primary interest in Amateur Radio is to hack on
radio technology.
To my friend, the openness of M17 versus DMR or
D-Star or SF was irrelevant considering that DMR, D-Star, and SF
are well-established, and why did we “need” another system?
I really couldn’t explain it to him in a way that
got through to him. He wasn’t convinced, though I’m not sure
that he wanted to be convinced.
A few hours later, the following analogy occurred
to me. I emailed a more terse version of this to him, and I’ll
expand this in next week’s Zero Retries. You’re the first to see
this made public.
…
M17 versus the status quo of Amateur Radio digital and FM
repeaters is analogous (in my mind) to the computer industry in
1976.
In 1976, mainframes and minis were doing the job
satisfactorily for the computer industry. Everyone that needed
and could afford a computer had one. That’s analogous to the
current repeater technology and the current repeater owners.
But in 1975, one year earlier, microcomputers had
come on the scene. The MITS Altair was unveiled in the January
1975 issue of Popular Electronics magazine. By 1976 a completely
new crowd entered the “computer industry” and were using
these new (and still very imperfect, by mini and mainframe
standards) microcomputers to do computing very differently than
was possible with mainframes and minis.
The microcomputer folks didn’t ask “permission” from the
mainframe and mini folks, and they didn’t try to persuade the
mainframe and mini owners that microcomputer were “better” and
they should start doing / using microcomputers.
Instead of asking permission or trying to persuade, they just
started doing things their own new way?with
microcomputers and rapidly evolved an entirely different version
of the computer industry.
A decade later, the mainframe and mini computer industry
looked around and said “what happened?!?!?” All of the
energy in the computer industry had shifted to microcomputers.
…
In my opinion, from deep observation of M17 and
trying to explain it and write about it substantively…
M17 in 2024 is at the “computer industry circa
1976" point of inflection.
Like microcomputers, M17 is open. Thus there’s no
structural issue that prevents M17 from rapidly growing and
evolving.
In the discussion with my friend, I pointed out
that the M17 community doesn’t need?to persuade repeater
owners, etc. that M17 is “better” or even “good enough” for them
to consider using it or adapting their repeaters to it. M17’s
technology means that M17 is growing with Internet linking,
hotspots, adapters like Module 17, and repeaters that have added
MMDVM and M17 is just one mode among many that MMDVM enables.
While my friend’s repeater mostly sits idle...
I have begun my planning to build up an MMDVM
repeater (which will mostly be for M17 and hopefully MMDVM-TNC
high speed data mode). I will build up, test it out in my shop
(N8GNJ Labs) and eventually have ready for an opportunity to put
it on the air from a good location.
I’m tired of trying to persuade people that “just
don’t want to get it” about newer technology like M17.
For the same amount of energy and resources, I’m just going to
route around them.
The M17 community, worldwide, apparently feels the
same. They’re doing M17 because they want to use open
systems.
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ
---
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter
-?
Radios are
Computers - With Antennas!
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
|
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 04:10 PM, Steve Stroh N8GNJ wrote:
I’m tired of trying to persuade people that “just don’t want to get it.”
I love this idea. It applies not only to M17, but to other aspects of ham radio as well. That’s the attitude I took with my one-day Tech classes, and now I’d guess that at least 50% of the Tech classes being offered are one-day Tech classes. I didn’t’ originate the idea, but I sure promoted it.
?
Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.
?
73,
?
Dan KB6NU
|
For the post-minicomputer generation, the relevant genX analogy will be that of Linux vs. Windows. Linux offered the same open source freedom that M17 does today in that it was a completely accessible, modifiable, and "free" alternative to Microsoft that we could tinker with. Today, almost every server on the internet runs Linux. If the M17 future follows that path, we'll see a ubiquitous mode found on nearly every transceiver. And people won't really think about it.
?
It's exciting to me as a "techie" because it can be entirely a software interaction. The intersection of software and RF is what got me interested in the hobby, and this extends that world of freedom and possibility.?
?
People will be persuaded to invest in M17 once they can see the benefits over other modes in practical application. That will come as the early adopters continue to build on this initial success and showcase what's possible.
?
73
K4HCK
Cale
|
Cale:
You’re right in making that additional analogy and I’ll use that also with full credit to you.?
Thanks,
Steve Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
For the post-minicomputer generation, the relevant genX analogy will be that of Linux vs. Windows. Linux offered the same open source freedom that M17 does today in that it was a completely accessible, modifiable, and "free" alternative to Microsoft that we could tinker with. Today, almost every server on the internet runs Linux. If the M17 future follows that path, we'll see a ubiquitous mode found on nearly every transceiver. And people won't really think about it.
?
It's exciting to me as a "techie" because it can be entirely a software interaction. The intersection of software and RF is what got me interested in the hobby, and this extends that world of freedom and possibility.?
?
People will be persuaded to invest in M17 once they can see the benefits over other modes in practical application. That will come as the early adopters continue to build on this initial success and showcase what's possible.
?
73
K4HCK
Cale
|
I was an early adopter of Linux, both
as a hobbyist (1995) and in commercial service as a router,
firewall and web server on a handful of old PCs (1997), and I saw
the Linux revolution coming.? It didn't take much to convince the
boss.? I had the knowledge and hands on experience, and the price
was right.? A year later, the first articles about Linux in
business started coming out in the tech press.
On 12/8/24 11:53 pm, K4HCK via
groups.io wrote:
For the post-minicomputer generation, the relevant genX
analogy will be that of Linux vs. Windows. Linux offered the
same open source freedom that M17 does today in that it was a
completely accessible, modifiable, and "free" alternative to
Microsoft that we could tinker with. Today, almost every
server on the internet runs Linux. If the M17 future follows
that path, we'll see a ubiquitous mode found on nearly every
transceiver. And people won't really think about it.
?
It's exciting to me as a "techie" because it can be
entirely a software interaction. The intersection of software
and RF is what got me interested in the hobby, and this
extends that world of freedom and possibility.?
?
People will be persuaded to invest in M17 once they can see
the benefits over other modes in practical application. That
will come as the early adopters continue to build on this
initial success and showcase what's possible.
?
73
K4HCK
Cale
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
|
I recall hosting at (a major dial-up ISO) in Seattle in 1996 on a pent 133 box running Debian.? We did that because we had the Big Pipe, a T3 (45Mb/s) feed from Sprint. Those were the days.
I was an early adopter of Linux, both
as a hobbyist (1995) and in commercial service as a router,
firewall and web server on a handful of old PCs (1997), and I saw
the Linux revolution coming.? It didn't take much to convince the
boss.? I had the knowledge and hands on experience, and the price
was right.? A year later, the first articles about Linux in
business started coming out in the tech press.
On 12/8/24 11:53 pm, K4HCK via
wrote:
For the post-minicomputer generation, the relevant genX
analogy will be that of Linux vs. Windows. Linux offered the
same open source freedom that M17 does today in that it was a
completely accessible, modifiable, and "free" alternative to
Microsoft that we could tinker with. Today, almost every
server on the internet runs Linux. If the M17 future follows
that path, we'll see a ubiquitous mode found on nearly every
transceiver. And people won't really think about it.
?
It's exciting to me as a "techie" because it can be
entirely a software interaction. The intersection of software
and RF is what got me interested in the hobby, and this
extends that world of freedom and possibility.?
?
People will be persuaded to invest in M17 once they can see
the benefits over other modes in practical application. That
will come as the early adopters continue to build on this
initial success and showcase what's possible.
?
73
K4HCK
Cale
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
-- Joe Hamelin, W7COM,?Tulalip, WA??Portland, OR, 360-474-7474
|
Wild times. I'll never forget when the office I worked in realized we were hitting capacity on the T1 line. It was mind boggling at the time that ~12 employees could use that much bandwidth.
|
On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:30?AM K4HCK via groups.io <cmooth@...> wrote:
Wild times. I'll never forget when the office I worked in realized we were hitting capacity on the T1 line. It was mind boggling at the time that ~12 employees could use that much bandwidth.
Just as I became aware, the University of Arkansas replaced the previous 56k connection to MidNet with a T1. Man, tall cotton. The university was pretty forward-thinking on networking, though. By 1991-92, they had fiber connecting all campus buildings in the steam tunnels. FDDI ring at 100 Mbit/s. Ho-hum now, but there was no 100 Mbit/s Ethernet then, only 10. And yes, the buildings were all 10BASE2 thinnet. Except the College of Business - they were Token Ring because "real" computers had to be (and were for them) IBM. So, so long ago. Mounting wuarchive over NFS, watching Shuttle launches over MBONE (or listening to Carl Malamud's talk show). Cu-SeeMe. Then Mosaic ... -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Steve,
I applaud you for working so hard to spread the word about M17 and open-source.
My suggestion is we mainly focus on what’s good about M17, open-source being a major such goodness. What we probably should avoid is communicating negative views about other DV systems. Though I have never had an explicit sales job, I have noticed over the years that really good sales people do not denigrate their competition or competitive products. They just talk up what they are offering.
And this goes for earlier modes, including analog FM. Many people enjoy that mode for its simplicity, and we may never convince them. That’s ok. As has been pointed out, newer generations include many who expect the advantages of digital, and some of those understand the importance of openness.
I once took a course in Change Management, that is, selling improvement processes to people in an organization. The leader gave us all kinds of suggestions, but also pointed out that some people will never change, but they will die at some point. Change is inevitable.
Jim – K6JM
From: M17-Users@groups.io <M17-Users@groups.io> On Behalf Of Steve Stroh N8GNJ
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2024 1:10 PM
To: m17-users@groups.io
Subject: [M17-Users] 1976 and M17
All:
I thought I’d share this with you, this M17 community of interest.
I had a long conversation with a friend on a repeater yesterday after I published Zero Retries 0164 and “Why M17 Is Significant - Part 2”.
My friend is the owner of the repeater we were talking on, and I was mentioning how much excitement I was seeing about M17, including the debut of the CS7000 M17. He just didn’t get it - he really didn’t understand that the key feature of M17 is that 颈迟’蝉 open.
I tried to explain that openness of M17 is the critical feature to the newest generation of Amateur Radio Operators who are digital / Internet natives, are likely techies, and many hackers like the ones who will take Amateur Radio exams this weekend at DEFCON and will become Amateur Radio Operators whose primary interest in Amateur Radio is to hack on radio technology.
To my friend, the openness of M17 versus DMR or D-Star or SF was irrelevant considering that DMR, D-Star, and SF are well-established, and why did we “need” another system?
I really couldn’t explain it to him in a way that got through to him. He wasn’t convinced, though I’m not sure that he wanted to be convinced.
A few hours later, the following analogy occurred to me. I emailed a more terse version of this to him, and I’ll expand this in next week’s Zero Retries. You’re the first to see this made public.
…
M17 versus the status quo of Amateur Radio digital and FM repeaters is analogous (in my mind) to the computer industry in 1976.
In 1976, mainframes and minis were doing the job satisfactorily for the computer industry. Everyone that needed and could afford a computer had one. That’s analogous to the current repeater technology and the current repeater owners.
But in 1975, one year earlier, microcomputers had come on the scene. The MITS Altair was unveiled in the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics magazine. By 1976 a completely new crowd entered the “computer industry” and were using these new (and still very imperfect, by mini and mainframe standards) microcomputers to do computing very differently than was possible with mainframes and minis.
The microcomputer folks didn’t ask “permission” from the mainframe and mini folks, and they didn’t try to persuade the mainframe and mini owners that microcomputer were “better” and they should start doing / using microcomputers.
Instead of asking permission or trying to persuade, they just started doing things their own new way with microcomputers and rapidly evolved an entirely different version of the computer industry.
A decade later, the mainframe and mini computer industry looked around and said “what happened?!?!?” All of the energy in the computer industry had shifted to microcomputers.
…
In my opinion, from deep observation of M17 and trying to explain it and write about it substantively…
M17 in 2024 is at the “computer industry circa 1976" point of inflection.
Like microcomputers, M17 is open. Thus there’s no structural issue that prevents M17 from rapidly growing and evolving.
In the discussion with my friend, I pointed out that the M17 community doesn’t need to persuade repeater owners, etc. that M17 is “better” or even “good enough” for them to consider using it or adapting their repeaters to it. M17’s technology means that M17 is growing with Internet linking, hotspots, adapters like Module 17, and repeaters that have added MMDVM and M17 is just one mode among many that MMDVM enables.
While my friend’s repeater mostly sits idle...
I have begun my planning to build up an MMDVM repeater (which will mostly be for M17 and hopefully MMDVM-TNC high speed data mode). I will build up, test it out in my shop (N8GNJ Labs) and eventually have ready for an opportunity to put it on the air from a good location.
I’m tired of trying to persuade people that “just don’t want to get it” about newer technology like M17. For the same amount of energy and resources, I’m just going to route around them.
The M17 community, worldwide, apparently feels the same. They’re doing M17 because they want to use open systems.
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ
|
On 14/8/24 2:10 pm, Jim - K6JM via groups.io wrote: Steve,
I applaud you for working so hard to spread the word about M17 and open-source.
My suggestion is we mainly focus on what’s good about M17, open-source being a major such goodness. What we probably should avoid is communicating negative views about other DV systems. Though I have never had an explicit sales job, I have noticed over the years that really good sales people do not denigrate their competition or competitive products. They just talk up what they are offering. Makes sense, and M17 has a lot to offer - well written specification, fully developed data transfer capabilities (packet mode) and 100% open source.? That's a lot for starters.? My own position is to integrate what I can, which I've had a lot of success with.
And this goes for earlier modes, including analog FM. Many people enjoy that mode for its simplicity, and we may never convince them. That’s ok. As has been pointed out, newer generations include many who expect the advantages of digital, and some of those understand the importance of openness.
One of the things I like about ham radio is how older modes (CW being the ultimate example) can live on and find a place alongside cutting edge innovation.
I once took a course in Change Management, that is, selling improvement processes to people in an organization. The leader gave us all kinds of suggestions, but also pointed out that some people will never change, but they will die at some point. Change is inevitable.
Unless it's from a vending machine. ;) -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
|
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:19?AM Tony Langdon via groups.io <vk3jed@...> wrote:
On 14/8/24 2:10 pm, Jim - K6JM via groups.io wrote:
I once took a course in Change Management, that is, selling improvement processes to people in an organization. The leader gave us all kinds of suggestions, but also pointed out that some people will never change, but they will die at some point. Change is inevitable. Unless it's from a vending machine. ;)
Most of those are card-swipe/NFC these days. Which is the point, I suppose. Open protocol works on me and I am a D-STAR fan over the other DV methods in the hobby. *I* don't like that all three (D-STAR, YSF, DMR) *all* use DVSI's IP to encode the voice. It's the one thing about D-STAR I don't like. OK, there are some other things I don't like about it but those are out of scope. :-) But it's not 2010, it's 2024, so onward. We've largely ... well ... maybe not *largely* ... solved the D-STAR<->YSF<->DMR interop issue with reflectors that will transcode between all three (it *is* between all three, right?). Now we need a new scheme that doesn't depend on anyone's IP but our own and M17 appears to be it. A couple questions: For those of us that do keep up (mostly): Source code is considered a published work and can be copyrighted. Who owns the copyright on CODEC2 Has Dave Whose-VK-call-escapes me patented any of the methods within it (ideas can be patented)? If so, what license are they released under? Same question, really, for the copyright. All the same questions apply to the M17 protocol. For D-STAR, it looks like JARL owns the copyright on the protocol, DVSI owns all the IP related to AMBE, and Icom owns the trademark on "D-STAR". Trying to figure out the equivalents for M17 in case someone asks me. On selling to the majority of amateurs that *don't* keep up what is the elevator pitch? DV exists and people are either using it or shunning it. **Without talking about intellectual property** what is the big deal about M17? -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
**Without talking about intellectual property** what is the big deal about M17?
Hams can change/improve/extend the protocol. The other protocols depend on DVSI to do that.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-----Original Message----- From: M17-Users@groups.io <M17-Users@groups.io> On Behalf Of Peter Laws Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 10:54 AM To: M17-Users@groups.io Subject: Re: [M17-Users] 1976 and M17 On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:19?AM Tony Langdon via groups.io <vk3jed@...> wrote:
On 14/8/24 2:10 pm, Jim - K6JM via groups.io wrote:
I once took a course in Change Management, that is, selling improvement processes to people in an organization. The leader gave us all kinds of suggestions, but also pointed out that some people will never change, but they will die at some point. Change is inevitable. Unless it's from a vending machine. ;)
Most of those are card-swipe/NFC these days. Which is the point, I suppose. Open protocol works on me and I am a D-STAR fan over the other DV methods in the hobby. *I* don't like that all three (D-STAR, YSF, DMR) *all* use DVSI's IP to encode the voice. It's the one thing about D-STAR I don't like. OK, there are some other things I don't like about it but those are out of scope. :-) But it's not 2010, it's 2024, so onward. We've largely ... well ... maybe not *largely* ... solved the D-STAR<->YSF<->DMR interop issue with reflectors that will transcode between all three (it *is* between all three, right?). Now we need a new scheme that doesn't depend on anyone's IP but our own and M17 appears to be it. A couple questions: For those of us that do keep up (mostly): Source code is considered a published work and can be copyrighted. Who owns the copyright on CODEC2 Has Dave Whose-VK-call-escapes me patented any of the methods within it (ideas can be patented)? If so, what license are they released under? Same question, really, for the copyright. All the same questions apply to the M17 protocol. For D-STAR, it looks like JARL owns the copyright on the protocol, DVSI owns all the IP related to AMBE, and Icom owns the trademark on "D-STAR". Trying to figure out the equivalents for M17 in case someone asks me. On selling to the majority of amateurs that *don't* keep up what is the elevator pitch? DV exists and people are either using it or shunning it. **Without talking about intellectual property** what is the big deal about M17? -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:19?PM Jim - K6JM via groups.io <jmm@...> wrote:
**Without talking about intellectual property** what is the big deal about M17?
Hams can change/improve/extend the protocol. The other protocols depend on DVSI to do that.
I should have said " **Without talking about intellectual property or the fact that the source is open**". Remember, *most* amateurs don't really understand "open source" and have no issue with critical parts of amateur radio needing a license from a 3rd party to be used. And DVSI, AFAIK but happy to be corrected, DVSI's CODEC has nothing to do with the D-STAR protocol, the YSF protocol, or the DMR protocol. It just encodes the voice and then the protocol wraps itself around the resulting voice blobs and sends them on their way. So hams, in theory, could modify any of the *protocols* without needing any assistance from DVSI ... which would, of course, mean that their traffic would be orphaned since it wouldn't work with anything else. There is a paper at TAPR that proposes replacing the DVSI voice packets with CODEC2 packets *within* D-STAR by using flags in an unspecified/unused byte in the stream header, but as has been noted here, M17 has made that proposal moot. And it would have the same issue - a CODEC2/D-STAR radio could not talk to an AMBE/D-STAR radio even if they were on the same network. -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
A couple questions:
For those of us that do keep up (mostly): Source code is considered a
published work and can be copyrighted. Who owns the copyright on
CODEC2 Has Dave Whose-VK-call-escapes me patented any of the methods
within it (ideas can be patented)? If so, what license are they
released under? Same question, really, for the copyright. Here is the source for Codec2, including the license and copyright information: I am not a lawyer, just followed lots of open-source stuff for the past 25 years. My understanding is that, at least in the US, copyright is automatically assigned to the author unless they specifically re-assign it. In the context of open source, that means that one project might have many copyright holders. The initial author decides on a license for the project, and all future contributions comply with and accept that license as part of their contribution. The copyright holder(s) have the right to change the license, or simultaneously release the project under a different license if they wish. Where this gets interesting is there are many copyright holders and not all agree to the license change/add. If that happens, either the code contributed by the person(s) who don't agree to the license change must be removed/replaced, or the license cannot change. Big projects often require copyright reassignment--often to a foundation or other governing body--as part of contributing to the project to avoid this complication. Looking through the Codec2 repo, I do not see any specific copyright (re)assignment required anywhere. The project is released under the GNU LGPL v2.1. If the copyright holders collectively decided to close-source the project in the future, the version up until that decision is made will always be available under the LGPL, so open source work could continue on a fork form that point.
All the same questions apply to the M17 protocol.
The spec is GPLv2 licensed. See: Other M17 projects use different licenses like the TAPR OHL. All M17 project repos are here: . See the "LICENSE" file in each repo for the specifics.
For D-STAR, it looks like JARL owns the copyright on the protocol,
DVSI owns all the IP related to AMBE, and Icom owns the trademark on
"D-STAR". Trying to figure out the equivalents for M17 in case
someone asks me.
On selling to the majority of amateurs that don't keep up what is
the elevator pitch? DV exists and people are either using it or
shunning it. Without talking about intellectual property what is
the big deal about M17?
Excluding IP, which is a big deal IMO, there are a few things. The folks shunning digi modes that I talk to personally are in 2 camps: 1. Analog FM is universal, cheap, and easy. 2. Digital is too fragmented so see #1. 3. Digital is too complicated. M17's elevator pitch to these is that with things like Module17 or Mobilinkd, M17 can be added to any radio with the proper interface. This makes it the most universal digital mode. To users of other digital modes, M17 offers voice *and* data (yeah, so can D-Star), not just silly pictures from an overpriced webcam mic accessory and GPS positioning. Isn't vendor locked (again, it can be added to anything with a proper data port). It supports hotspots and all the other features digital users are used to. As far as ease of use is concerned, which is the selling point for the worst of the current crop of digi modes, that's an implementation detail that's up to the team adding M17 to a given radio's firmware. I think it's very important to get this right. 73, Ben - KU0HN
|
Peter:
Good questions.
Codec 2 is licensed as LGPL-2.1 -?
The primary developer of Codec 2 was David Rowe?VK5DGR.
M17 Protocol specification () is copyrighted 2024 by M17 Project.
Not to be flip, and admittedly this is hard to explain to others who don’t live Open Source… but the primary reason to be interested in and promote M17 is…
That 颈迟’蝉 open!
Secondary reasons to be interested in and promote M17: - As an open source specification / system, 颈迟’蝉 extensible (and forkable, and embeddable)
- From the beginning it data was incorporated as a “peer to voice” - none of the other DV systems can say that. For example, you can attach to an M17 unit (that supports the data part of the spec - not all units do) as a KISS TNC. That’s really big.
- M17 has developed into an entire ecosystem of devices, including support in MMDVM hotspots and modems.
- The first “M17 works out of the box” radio is now shipping from Connect Systems - the CS7000 M17 - .
Really… this is a hard concept to get across to folks who aren’t “living” in open source. I’m trying to explain this in this week’s Zero Retries.
Basically, that M17 is open is singlehandedly causing people who do live open source to pay attention to Amateur Radio because with M17 they can now do (VHF / UHF) Amateur Radio that’s compatible with their open source ethos. That is bringing a lot of new people into Amateur Radio that previously had no interest.
Yeah, that’s too wordy for a proper elevator pitch, but “I didn’t have enough time to write a short note, so I wrote a long one”. (Sorry, old writer’s joke.)
Thanks,
Steve N8GNJ
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:19?AM Tony Langdon via <vk3jed= vkradio.com@groups.io> wrote:
On 14/8/24 2:10 pm, Jim - K6JM via wrote:
> I once took a course in Change Management, that is, selling improvement processes to people in an organization.? The leader gave us all kinds of suggestions, but also pointed out that some people will never change, but they will die at some point.? Change is inevitable.
Unless it's from a vending machine. ;)
Most of those are card-swipe/NFC these days.? Which is the point, I suppose. Open protocol works on me and I am a D-STAR fan over the other DV methods in the hobby. ?*I* don't like that all three (D-STAR, YSF, DMR) *all* use DVSI's IP to encode the voice.? It's the one thing about D-STAR I don't like.? OK, there are some other things I don't like about it but those are out of scope. :-) But it's not 2010, it's 2024, so onward.? We've largely ... well ... maybe not *largely* ... solved the D-STAR<->YSF<->DMR interop issue with reflectors that will transcode between all three (it *is* between all three, right?). Now we need a new scheme that doesn't depend on anyone's IP but our own and M17 appears to be it. A couple questions: For those of us that do keep up (mostly): ?Source code is considered a published work and can be copyrighted.? Who owns the copyright on CODEC2 ??Has Dave Whose-VK-call-escapes me patented any of the methods within it (ideas can be patented)?? If so, what license are they released under?? Same question, really, for the copyright. All the same questions apply to the M17 protocol. For D-STAR, it looks like JARL owns the copyright on the protocol, DVSI owns all the IP related to AMBE, and Icom owns the trademark on "D-STAR".? Trying to figure out the equivalents for M17 in case someone asks me. On selling to the majority of amateurs that *don't* keep up what is the elevator pitch?? DV exists and people are either using it or shunning it. ?**Without talking about intellectual property** what is the big deal about M17? -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
-- Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
|
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 2:38?PM Ben Kuhn via groups.io <ku0hn@...> wrote: I am not a lawyer, just followed lots of open-source stuff for the past 25 years. My understanding is that, at least in the US, copyright is automatically assigned to the author unless they specifically re-assign it. In the context of open source, that means that one project might have many copyright holders. The initial author decides on a license for the project, and all future contributions comply with and accept that license as part of their contribution. Looking through the Codec2 repo, I do not see any specific copyright (re)assignment required anywhere. The project is released under the GNU LGPL v2.1. I'm the same way but don't write code so probably miss some nuances (like, surely, the differences between the version numbers of GPL and LGPL to start let alone the other 300 "open" licenses). Excluding IP, which is a big deal IMO, there are a few things.
The folks shunning digi modes that I talk to personally are in 2 camps:
1. Analog FM is universal, cheap, and easy.
2. Digital is too fragmented so see #1.
3. Digital is too complicated.
M17's elevator pitch to these is that with things like Module17 or Mobilinkd, M17 can be added to any radio with the proper interface. This makes it the most universal digital mode.
To users of other digital modes, M17 offers voice *and* data (yeah, so can D-Star), not just silly pictures from an overpriced webcam mic accessory and GPS positioning. Isn't vendor locked (again, it can In other realms of the hobby, I'm inclined to just let some folks fall behind. I think I (personally) may take that tack with DV. And you're not giving me any ammo to do otherwise. :-) For your list, #1 and #2 are *not* wrong. I've not seen a DV <-> analog "reflector" yet, but there isn't a good reason there couldn't be one. There are bridges between the other DV methods. My problem with reflectors, other than the silly name, is that they require "on-shore" facilities. You can't, and likely won't ever be able to, talk simplex between any of the 3 predominant DV methods plus analog. Certainly both Yaesu and Icom (newer D-STAR modules) can switch between analog and DV but I don't see that as helpful in any way. So you need a box somewhere to transcode. The #3 one is where I go back to "let them fall behind". I see this in DV, I see it in APRS, I see this even with software packages like DXLab - some folks don't get it and likely won't get it. At some point ... rude as it seems ... you just need to let them go. *I* get the whole IP and licensing thing but most people including most hams do not. I was trying to come up with a way to pitch M17 to them without falling back on "it's open source!". That's true, of course, but means nothing to a LOT of people not on this list. I just think we need a pitch for them that avoids that issue. -- Peter Laws | VE[23]UWY / N5UWY | plaws0 gmail com | Travel by Train!
|
Peter Laws
Dan Romanchik KB6NU
K4HCK
Joe Hamelin