[aprssig] PIC processor for APRS info for D-STAR mobiles?

Ron McCoy rmccoylist at blueantservices.com
Tue Jul 8 06:40:43 EDT 2008


Could you briefly outline the " significant detriments to the primary 
use of the communications channel?" I think I got a glimmer from another 
poster but I'd like to hear your reasoning.


Pete Loveall AE5PL Lists wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Miller
>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:42 PM
>> To: TAPR APRS Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [aprssig] PIC processor for APRS info for D-STAR mobiles?
>> Please explain in more detail why this channel (the 1200 bps data
>> portion of the D-STAR DV stream, not a separate RF channel, we
>> understand that already) can't be used for arbitrary data.  Icom's
>> marketing implies that it can.
> I didn't say that you can't put arbitrary data into the Icom data port.  I said that there is no "data channel".  It is not implemented that way.  I think the Mic-E analogy post that I referenced should be help clarify this to most people familiar with the Mic-E transmission design (again, not the Mic-E packet format, but the transmission methodology).
>>> Please read my post demonstrating the basic comparison of D-PRS/D-
>> STAR and your Mic-E concept.  If you are still confused, please contact
>> me offline and I will try to explain that comparison.
>> Pete, I'm not sure if you're just not explaining it very well or if
>> you're being intentionally obtuse, but I've tried to follow the
>> explanation and Bob's not the only one who's not getting it.  Have a
>> little patience with us, and I'm sure we can get it straightened out.
> Again, if you understand why the Mic-E design was unidirectional, then you will understand why you don't want to use D-STAR DV as a data protocol.  I am not being "intentionally obtuse".  In fact, it seems, many others understood the Mic-E analogy which puts it into terms most long-time APRS participants understand.  I am sorry if it is a difficult concept that using a voice transmission medium as a data transmission medium on a frequency that is primarily used for voice is problematic at best and interfering at worst.  Sometimes, "what can be done" is not a good use of a communications medium because of significant detriments to the primary use of the communications channel.
> 73,
> Pete Loveall AE5PL
> pete at ae5pl dot net
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig

More information about the aprssig mailing list