18 Jan 16 21:35, you wrote to Holger Granholm:

 RM>>> I am for example talking about D-Star/DMR/Fusion.

 RM>>> There you have 3 possibilitites:
 RM>>> 1) talk on simplex HT  HT over radio waves (talk
around on DMR)
 HG>> So far that is OK, but I don't understand what (talk around on DMR)
 HG>> is.

 RM> Just the DMR Name for Simplex ;)
 RM> DMR assumes you use a repeater. So they call direct HT to HT talkaround ...
 RM> it is just a term

the ""problem"" such as it is comes when non-radio is
involved... you won't be able to reach those folks on the other side of the
IP connection when the internet is down over there... this is like all the
new-fangled VOIP cr4p that everyone is jumping on... how can you call your
provider when the internet is down?? same difference... if all your
supposedly ham radio contacts are on the other side of an IP connection,
them you're s#ite out of luck... in a real emergency, that can cost
lives...

 RM>>> 3) HT  repeater 1  IP  repeater
2  HT all over radio
 RM>>> except the IP link between the 2 repeaters. Those two repeaters
 RM>>> can be seperated by thousands of kilometers or whatever non-SI
 RM>>> units you like.
 HG>> This is where our opinions differ.

 RM> Indeed ;)
 RM> But some people here claim that there are no differing oppinions ;))

you have to know those folks and where they are coming from... you're
pretty new here in this echo and some folks have very strigent ideas about
what the HAM hobby is all about... it isn't just about making contacts...
it is more about being able to communicate when other modes are no longer
available...

 HG>> As soon as you involve an IP link, or any other transport other than
 HG>> radio waves, it ceases to be ham radio

 RM> For me it is HAM if it is related to my radio hobby.
 RM> Including the above usecase and also for example Echolink (at least when
 RM> there is at least one real radio repeater involved ;)

radio wave comms are the last bastion... the one that can save lives and
keep disparate groups connected when the worst comes... think climate
change and whole earth icing...

 RM> Live and let live.

 RM> We have different viewpoints - so what ;))

that's a huge "what" when it comes down to being able to contact
others or not...

 HG>> D-Star, DMR and Fusion are communication methods between two parties,
 HG>> that don't use radio waves for the entire link.

 RM> Not necessarily - see above.
 RM> Had many QSOs on the same DMR repeater, where no IP was involved.

that's only part way...

 HG>> Read also in QST 12/2015 p62 about the future of digital
 HG>> communications.

 RM> Not everybody lives in the US, or is an ARRL member.

what makes you think that holger is in the US or is an ARRL member?? hint:
you should look at his origin line and also look at a map to find out where
the aland islands are ;)

 RM> (I assume QST is the american HAM club magazine - anyways in my local
 RM> austrian QSP magazine there was also recently an article about DMR and
 RM> the DV4Mini)

never assume anything ;)

 RM> As we speak about that - I assume that the DV4Mini is seen as pure
 RM> evil coming directly from hell ;)))

 RM>
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=
 RM> UTF-
8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dj0abr.de%2Fgerman%2Ftechnik%2Fdstar%2Fdv4%2Fdv4m
 RM> ini.htm&e dit-text=

that url is broken all to hades... you should also use a url shortening
service when posting any urls longer than 75 characters... plus there's the
fact that fidonet is a text only network and there may or may not be any
sort of ability to click on a link or even to copy and paste it back
together properly... we won't even mention systems that chop lines that are
too long...

 RM>>> From MY point of view having the possibility of using option 3
 RM>>> does NOT disqualify those technologies as being HAM!
 HG>> Neither D-Star, DMR and Fusion qualify as ham radio as soon as they
 HG>> use an intermediate transport medium, other than radio waves!

 RM> Thank you for providing your definition.

 RM> As already discussed mine differs from yours.
 RM> I think this point has been sufficiently discussed by now, and does not
 RM> need to be reiterated.

problem here is that ""someone"" is attempting to
assert their view, even with opposing points, and still claiming that their
view is ""the proper one""... my signature text applies
i this case as well as numerous others ;) ;) ;)

)\/(ark

"So let me ask you a question about this brave new world of yours.
When you've killed all the bad guys, and when it's all perfect, and just
and fair, and when you have finally got it exactly the way you want it,
what are you going to do with the people like you? The trouble makers. How
are you going to protect your glorious revolution from the next one?"
- The twelfth Doctor

... Drink Canada Dry?  This is going to take a while.
---