Colleagues, in my previous post, I referred specifically to DSTAR simply
because that is the current technology that is receiving the most attention.
What I really meant, but admittedly, it didn't come out the way I meant, is
that I think that technology is the wave of the future for communications;
that is, analog to digital conversion and then, digital back to analog.
Right now, it is all being done, as far as I can tell from my research, on
VHF and UHF frequencies, but I think we will see the day when it will be
used on all frequencies. When it was first developed by the Japanese, it was
used entirely on 1.2 GHz. As far as I can tell. However, here in the United
States, largely because of the much different terrain, it has been adapted
to our VHF and UHF bands. 

I am most fascinated with your, almost entirely negative, reactions toward
this technology. It seems that it offers some advantages such as being very
narrow band, 6.25 KHz., and contrary to what has been stated here on our
list, it is supposed to be much better audio to the extent that it doesn't
fade or flutter in and out like our other modes; being digital, the signal
is either in our out, not in-between. 

So, while the ultimate version may or may not be DSTAR, I think it will be
some version of this type of technology. BTW: DSTAR is actually open
technology, and some hams have built and experimented with their own
versions and equipment; though, the only commercially available gear, at
present, to my knowledge, is the ICom gear. There is a fellow building and
selling a type of Dangle that is an interface connected to a computer from
the USB port, but I don't really know anything more about it. 

So, let's open up our minds and embrace it as an advancement and try to get
in on the ground floor of its development toward the objective of
encouraging the developers to incorporate accessibility into the equipment
so it will be fully accessible to us. Most forms of communications in their
infancy left a great deal to be desired until they were refined and further
developed and perfected. Single sideband is one of the best examples. It
caused a major war to break out between the "A M 'ers" and the sidebanders,
and the initial quality of sideband was poor. To be honest about it, to this
day, I still much prefer the good ol' A M signals in terms of audio quality,
but technology marches on, and the point that won out was efficiency, not
audio quality. 

Ron, K8HSY