Hi Holger!   
      
   17 Jan 2016 08:56, from Holger Granholm -> Richard Menedetter:   
      
    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.   
      
   Just the DMR Name for Simplex ;)   
   DMR assumes you use a repeater. So they call direct HT to HT talkaround ...   
   it is just a term   
      
    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.   
      
   Indeed ;)   
   But some people here claim that there are no differing oppinions ;))   
      
    HG> As soon as you involve an IP link, or any other transport other than   
    HG> radio waves, it ceases to be ham radio   
      
   For me it is HAM if it is related to my radio hobby.   
   Including the above usecase and also for example Echolink (at least when there   
   is at least one real radio repeater involved ;)   
      
   Live and let live.   
      
   We have different viewpoints - so what ;))   
      
    HG> D-Star, DMR and Fusion are communication methods between two parties,   
    HG> that don't use radio waves for the entire link.   
      
   Not necessarily - see above.   
   Had many QSOs on the same DMR repeater, where no IP was involved.   
      
    HG> Read also in QST 12/2015 p62 about the future of digital   
    HG> communications.   
      
   Not everybody lives in the US, or is an ARRL member.   
   (I assume QST is the american HAM club magazine - anyways in my local austrian   
   QSP magazine there was also recently an article about DMR and the DV4Mini)   
      
   As we speak about that - I assume that the DV4Mini is seen as pure evil coming   
   directly from hell ;)))   
      
   https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_   
   &hl=en&ie=UTF- 8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dj0abr.de%2Fgerman%2Ftechnik   
   2Fdstar%2Fdv4%2Fdv4mini.htm&e dit-text=   
      
    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!   
      
   Thank you for providing your definition.   
      
   As already discussed mine differs from yours.   
   I think this point has been sufficiently discussed by now, and does not need   
   to be reiterated.   
      
    HG> 73 de Sam, OH0NC   
      
   CU, Ricsi   
      
   --- GoldED+/LNX   
    * Origin: fido.ricsi.priv.at (2:310/31)