"David Lake (dlake)" <dlake@...>
Timtoggle quoted messageShow quoted text
If this was professional radio, then I'd agree. But it isn't - it's hobby radio, and the goal is to experiment, not to provide a service-provider grade network.
As a friend of mine recently told a group, if you want high data rates, 100% coverage, 5 9s reliability and black-box equipment, we have 7 main mobile operators and at least two dozen MVNOs that will do that for you. And you can buy their hardware in the supermarket for next-to-nothing !
So I see nothing wrong with linking between modes at any quality in the spirit of "education through experimentation in radio" as my licence says.
If you are in a country that uses Amateur radio to support emergency response, I would have thought that linking at any quality was better than no linking at all.
I'm not sure of the situation in the US, but across much of the EU, voice transmission is rarely used these days by emergency services for routine matters - most dispatch is done by data with a hard copy printed in the vehicle for audit/accuracy purposes. I know that Italy still has individual analogue radio systems for each force/area but is swapping out later this year for a nationwide TETRA network and is one of the last countries to do so. TETRAPol in France is even older then TETRA - their national network went in some 20 years ago. The UK was late to the game, and it wasn't until about 6 years ago that the last isolated users came off their own radio systems onto the national backbone.
I don't see Amateurs building a global TETRA cellular system any time soon.....
Sent from my iPhone
On 23 May 2012, at 10:31, "Tim Hardy AF1G" <hardyt@...> wrote:
I'm not opposed to linking different protocols, but there is value in some of the objections to linking specific networks. If the objections or concerns can be mitigated, then fewer people would resist.