Here is a nice video with Paul ZL3IN and Bruce Robertson VE9QRP have a nice conversation using codec2. This is what I think Amateur radio is all about. Open source and moving in the direction we need. Check it out and see what you think. I think this a better route than D-Star. I have never embraced D-Star as a true Amateur Radio mode. Should I look into it more or stand my ground on D-Star. Watch the video and then let me know.
Codec2 Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Codec_2/
The Codec2 Project
http://codec2.org/
I agree with your overall perspective on Codec2. Although I am not a D-Star fan nor a detractor, your assertion that Codec2 is better than D-Star doesn't line up. The much discussed proprietary CODEC in D-STAR is only a small part of the standard. Codec2 therefore cannot replace D-STAR, only the CODEC in D-Star. And that would beg the question: Is it then still D-Star?
ReplyDeleteGlenn DJ0IQ and W9IQ
I never said it was better than D-Star, only that I thought it was a better fork in the road to go down. D-Star is D-Star anything else will have to stand on its own. I am just having a problem with the closed source code with D-Star, only because in all my ham teachings nothing was supposed to be unencrypted unless it was satellite telemetry. So this is my problem.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI am sure you meant encrypted, not unencrypted in your response. I hope it was not your intent, but many amateur radio writers throw in the term "encryption" to galvanize the readers' responses. As a professional in the field of cryptography, I try to put some balance into the discussion.
The DVS codec used for D-Star is not designed for encryption. It is a chip designed specifically to optimize voice quality over a narrow bandwidth digital channel. To call that encryption is a stretch. Anyone who would choose this chip as a their sole cryptographic method is a fool - it would be considered extraordinarily weak encryption at best.
I believe it is wrong to equate a "closed source" solution to "encryption" in this context. There is no direct correlation. Also, consider that some of the most secure (strong) encryption schemes are well published algorithms that are implemented in many open source versions.
The FCC never uses the term "encryption" in part 97. Instead it chooses the language "messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning" to define a prohibited transmission in 97.113.(4). It is clear from this context that a readily available CODEC such as the DVSI chip that is called out in a publicly available standard such as D-STAR is not used for the "purpose of obscuring".
As I said, I am not a D-Star fan nor detractor, but I observe that what is at most heart of most of the debate about the use of the DVS codec is that the ham radio community has no alternative - it is "sole sourced" in engineering vernacular. I am sure the reaction would be similar if the algorithm was published ("open") but patented with a royalty requirement.
I do still agree with your overall premise, that the Amateur Radio community will benefit from a free, open source codec that yields performance and cost that is as good or better than commercially available solutions.
Keep on blogging...
- Glenn DJ0IQ and W9IQ
Yes I meant encrypted. I like your comments, this is why I have this blog. I want to share and learn. I have never disliked D-Star, maybe I don't understand the why, and prefer the ability to experiment and build. I guess I just don't really care for proprietary things in Ham radio. I am also not a fan of Pactor II and III, so I think I am consistent in my beliefs. I am starting to like open source more and more every day. I am even working with Linux, which I never thought I would. I thank you for your comments and would like to hear from you again and also anyone else who would like to join in.
ReplyDelete73
Jim
KC4BQK
Hi Jim,
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that the ham radio community is better off with non-proprietary solutions. It is the nature of the hobby to want to experiment, improve, home-brew, and probe our technical boundaries. A non-proprietary environment supports these tenets.
I too enjoy Linux, on which I have written several firewall applications and network tracing loggers. I like the speed and the openness. Linux on an old MS box works like a champ.
Thanks for the nice QSO.
- Glenn DJ0IQ and W9IQ
Here's a comment from a newbie. I've never tried D-Star but one thing for sure, it isn't vaporware. It exists now and can be purchased and used, now, and from what I gather, it evidently works. It has utility. It gets used I gather for emergency communications in some cases. It allows amateurs to get experience with a digital format, and can be used by those who don't possibly have the time to develop formats and technology of their own but seek to use technology to perhaps help others. The more it gets used, the more likely it will develop into more and more of a tool wihch can be effectively used for emergency communications situations. In that light, I appreciate the fact that D-star exists and that a manufacturer is attempting to give us a standard tool that works in field conditions which can be used and that they make it available. It makes me want to do business with them, as they are marketing into a difficult market and giving a real go at it. As far as Codec-2, I look forward to it being made available in off-the-shelf radio equipment which can be purchased which works. As a new amateur, I do not particularly look forward to building a state-of-the-art transceiver of my own or messing with source code. I want to delve into emergency communications for the total purpose of helping others in disaster situations, so that loss of human life is minimized and so survivors can get the help they desperately need. Look what is happening in Japan right now - if we can develop into being crack professionals at emergency communications quicker and more efficiently, with this deployed professionally at the site of every disaster by accomplished HAM radio operators and other non-HAM emergency responders, then many innocent people will receive the help they desperately need in these conditions. So based on this, I think "D-Star" is a very good thing, particularly if it can be utilized for such purposes and be a tool to help others. But I very much look forward to there being off-the-shelf product with "Codec 2" in it. Open source code, cool. But it needs to WORK when the going gets rough without some mod resulting in equipment not actually working in field conditions because of some glitch.
ReplyDeleteBecause, there is more sometimes to the amateur hobby than building stuff of your own - there is the other side where guys go out into these disaster areas and their 'hobby' is to see if they can facilitate real effective help to those in need. So what one wants is something you can purchase that you know is going to work, will be reliable, and has the best chance of surviving the site conditions.
Just wanted to give another perspective. Now, on to the actual practical business of becoming less of a "newbie."
I won't even talk about open source for now. D-Star is expensive for what it is. You have to buy "The Radio" and then buy the D-Star part separately, this makes it expensive. Also to set up the repeaters and the digital side is expensive. Talking digital, D-Star is slow compared to other HSMM modes we should be implementing. Also Ham radio is not only EMCOM, it is experimenting and being on the cutting edge of technology. I don't want to say anything bad about many of the new hams today, but many are only appliance operators. The ability of building and repairing your equipment could be handy in an emergency situation. I enjoy all the thoughts about D-Star, but it is not a magic bullet and if it can survive and grow, great, but it has not really taken off. I believe there is a great future in the digital modes for Ham radio. 73 KC4BQK
ReplyDeleteI take my technician exam tomorrow and came across this thread, but noticed the date and hope my comment is still relevant. It seems that the dstar codec could be reverse engineered and a different-but-compatible codec substituted to allow homebrew equipment to exchange audio with commercially available gear. The rest of the dstar platform and existing infrastructure could still be used.
ReplyDeleteI am not necessarily advocating this approach, but just musing hypothetically about whether it might be possible. I have also heard about attempts to make an adapter to allow the dstar upgrade chip to work with non-icom equipment.
I hope you joined us in the Ham ranks! There are many people working on alternative "open" modes for ham radio. D-Star is what it is. A faster data and voice mode is already here. It os HSMM-Mesh. The speeds are so much faster. There is also work on moving it past LOS. This is where a lot of fun is happening!
ReplyDeleteDigital voice and data wasn't the main attraction of dstar for me. It was the callsign based routing that worked crossband - allowing worldwide voice on 2m or 440.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, thank you, I passed and hope to receive my call sign by Wednesday. I missed General by 5, but without having studied for it - maybe that's not too bad. I'm currently investigating what dual band gear to install into my truck (I won't have a home station).
Welcome to the group! I am not against D-Star, it has its good points. I have a problem with it being a proprietary mode. I also have a problem with the pactor modes. Welcome to the hobby, you can have a good time mobile. I have a complete station at home and in the truck. I enjoy mobile operation more than operating at the house.
ReplyDelete73
Jim
KC4BQK