Date   
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and NXDN.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: qrv@... ;
To: ;
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Sent: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 4:05:37 PM

 

Google Chat was down this morning, then Twitter went down.

Cell towers are infamous for failures during emergencies,
esp. due to backup power failure and microwave-linking
dishes knocked out of alignment.

This is why we need a 100% wireless Ham network that is
redundant not only in pathways, mapping around dead spots,
but also redundant in mode and band - to overcome propagation
and RFI challenges.

Interoperability between digital formats will be key as it
should be more resistant to certain forms of RFI and maybe
more power-efficient when operating from battery power.

It can be done but it will require coordinated promotion and
cooperation among ARRL and other orgs, repeater owners, and
vendors.

WDYT?

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Meanwhile, IPv6, APRS, and other technologies need to be
leveraged into an interoperable, redundant network that is
nearly impossible to break -- with Icom's cooperation or
around them as necessary.

Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems
like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and
NXDN.

Matthew Pitts N8OHU
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't directly compatible, even within the same technology, so we have to find alternate ways to interconnect them as it is. I'm also hearing that some groups don't even want to allow connections from within their own technology if it's not from their preferred manufacturer, so it's not a matter of the manufacturers like Icom preventing such things. I'm actually talking to a guy that has an NXDN system about interlinking our different systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


From: "qrv@..."
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

 
As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Meanwhile, IPv6, APRS, and other technologies need to be
leveraged into an interoperable, redundant network that is
nearly impossible to break -- with Icom's cooperation or
around them as necessary.

> Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems
> like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and
> NXDN.
>
> Matthew Pitts N8OHU

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22


Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Howard Small" <howard@...>
 

I can’t agree with your reading of the situation. Yaesu has not offered an alternative – all they have offered is a radio: no infrastructure, nothing, just a radio that is pretty well incompatible with any of the other offerings amateurs are embracing.

 

On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third party developers enhancing the system significantly and at the same time reducing the cost. The only thing that is long in the tooth is AMBE and it works so there is no reason to look for another codec.

 

All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effective hardware along the lines of the ID-31 and with the third party infrastructure development D-Star will continue to grow: just look at the number of ircDDB based repeaters that are on line today compared with a year ago!

 

Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptance of D-Star that I have observed…

 

Howard

VK4BS

 

From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of qrv@...
Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2012 06:56
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

 

 

As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

We will have to map around the stubborn for the sake of the goal.

There's always another Ham (or Hams), another tower (or towers),
another way.

The absence of a robust, independent, redundant, and diverse wireless
network has represented a serious weakness in the larger system.

SEDAN tried to fill the gap with Packet, APRS covers a lot of ground,
and D-Star has a role but suffers multiple liabilities (not the least
of which are cost, complexity, and poor grassroots adoption).

IMHO, YMMV ...

Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't
directly compatible, even within the same technology, so we have to
find alternate ways to interconnect them as it is. I'm also hearing
that some groups don't even want to allow connections from within
their own technology if it's not from their preferred manufacturer,
so it's not a matter of the manufacturers like Icom preventing such
things. I'm actually talking to a guy that has an NXDN system about
interlinking our different systems. Matthew Pitts N8OHU
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 02:15 PM 7/29/2012, you wrote:


I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.
Well, I'm not sure what sort of wireless network you're talking about, but down here, one can never forget distance. The telcos actually do a pretty good job of providing coverage down here, given the limitations of microwave propagation and population density. That said, I'll be totally out of phone/Internet range for a week next month. If the powers that be let me setup as a demonstration/last ditch backup, then I will have email access via Winlink. :)

My view on infrastructure based networks in an emergency is flexibility. We have to be able to take advantage of infrastructure when it's available for reliability, and be able to operate independently where infrastructure is not available (whether due to never being available or breakdown). Furthermore, we have to be able to know the state of infrastructure availability, so we can switch between infrastructure and independent modes of operation, as conditions dictate.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
 

* On 2012 28 Jul 22:41 -0500, Howard Small wrote:

On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third party
developers enhancing the system significantly and at the same time
reducing the cost. The only thing that is long in the tooth is AMBE
and it works so there is no reason to look for another codec.
Except for the fact that it is patent encumbered and that is a stumbling
block for those of us who want an amateur radio community controlled,
from microphone to speaker, digital voice "standard", ala AX.25.

All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effective
hardware along the lines of the ID-31 and with the third party
infrastructure development D-Star will continue to grow: just look at
the number of ircDDB based repeaters that are on line today compared
with a year ago!
That may well be. I am leary of any solution that relies on a single
source supplier for any sort of amateur radio provided emergency
response. At the moment D-Star has two strikes against it, IMO, a
single source for gear, Icom, and the codec, AMBE. That said, people
are at liberty to purchase what they want, it's the expectation on the
part of those that do so that the rest of the community should conform
with them is what I have a problem with.

Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptance
of D-Star that I have observed…
Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)

73, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Howard Small" <howard@...>
 

 

And there is nothing patent encumbered in any of your other equipment? DSP chips
in new HF receivers, etc?

Except for the fact that it is patent encumbered and that is a stumbling
block for those of us who want an amateur radio community controlled,
from microphone to speaker, digital voice "standard", ala AX.25.

I think you missed the point that they are no longer the single source for D-Star equipment.
And what has emergency response got to do with our hobby? Some may wish to play that game but
it is only one facet.

And AMBE? This is a tired argument that is fairly meaningless. Finally, there is no expectation
by D-Star users that the rest of the community should conform in the same way that CW, packet, APRS, whatever
don’t have an expectation.

I have a strong suspicion that you have not looked into the developments associated with D-Star
recently …

Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)

At least the know what they are doing and why…

Howard

VK4BS

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

It would be nice to have a patent free alternative, but where is the money going to come from to get Codec2 developed to the point where it is a viable alternative to AMBE? As I said in another group where this topic has come up, it's hard to get investors excited about something that does a fraction of what existing commercial products do; besides, AMBE is under constant development itself and the version used in newer digital voice modes is backward compatible with what is used for D-Star.

As for the "single source" part of your argument, you're correct insofar as a turnkey solution is concerned for end user hardware; the repeater side has been available as hardware and software for non-Icom repeaters for several years and AMBE doesn't affect that side all that much, as those don't decode the voice data.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Re: Digest Number 24

"George Jones" <hamfiles@...>
 

The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as hams become dependant on the commercial common carriers and there failures. We need to take a closer look at wireless Mesh Node Networks.

A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi routers to be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR and other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE network. What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently blessed with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to develop ham WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For long haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm.

George W4AQR
w4aqr@...

----- Original Message -----
From: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>
To: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:19 AM
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Digest Number 24


There are 9 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1a. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: Matthew Pitts
1b. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: qrv@...
1c. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: Matthew Pitts
1d. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: Howard Small
1e. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: qrv@...
1f. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: Matthew Pitts
1g. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: Matthew Pitts
1h. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: Tony Langdon, VK3JED
1i. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
From: Nate Bargmann


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:40 pm ((PDT))

Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and NXDN.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: qrv@... <qrv@...>;
To: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>;
Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Sent: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 4:05:37 PM



Google Chat was down this morning, then Twitter went down.

Cell towers are infamous for failures during emergencies,
esp. due to backup power failure and microwave-linking
dishes knocked out of alignment.

This is why we need a 100% wireless Ham network that is
redundant not only in pathways, mapping around dead spots,
but also redundant in mode and band - to overcome propagation
and RFI challenges.

Interoperability between digital formats will be key as it
should be more resistant to certain forms of RFI and maybe
more power-efficient when operating from battery power.

It can be done but it will require coordinated promotion and
cooperation among ARRL and other orgs, repeater owners, and
vendors.

WDYT?

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22







Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "qrv@..." qrv@... kd4e2001
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:31 pm ((PDT))

As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Meanwhile, IPv6, APRS, and other technologies need to be
leveraged into an interoperable, redundant network that is
nearly impossible to break -- with Icom's cooperation or
around them as necessary.

Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems
like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and
NXDN.

Matthew Pitts N8OHU


--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22





Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:02 pm ((PDT))

Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't directly compatible, even within the same technology, so we have to find alternate ways to interconnect them as it is. I'm also hearing that some groups don't even want to allow connections from within their own technology if it's not from their preferred manufacturer, so it's not a matter of the manufacturers like Icom preventing such things. I'm actually talking to a guy that has an NXDN system about interlinking our different systems.


Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


________________________________
From: "qrv@..." <qrv@...>
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?



As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.

Meanwhile, IPv6, APRS, and other technologies need to be
leveraged into an interoperable, redundant network that is
nearly impossible to break -- with Icom's cooperation or
around them as necessary.

Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems
like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and
NXDN.

Matthew Pitts N8OHU
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22





Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "Howard Small" howard@... howardmsmall
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:41 pm ((PDT))

I can’t agree with your reading of the situation. Yaesu has not offered an alternative – all they have offered is a radio: no infrastructure, nothing, just a radio that is pretty well incompatible with any of the other offerings amateurs are embracing.



On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third party developers enhancing the system significantly and at the same time reducing the cost. The only thing that is long in the tooth is AMBE and it works so there is no reason to look for another codec.



All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effective hardware along the lines of the ID-31 and with the third party infrastructure development D-Star will continue to grow: just look at the number of ircDDB based repeaters that are on line today compared with a year ago!



Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptance of D-Star that I have observed…



Howard

VK4BS



From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of qrv@...
Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2012 06:56
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?





As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth
so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus
Yaesu.

Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu,
and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom
will have to choose a path based on all of that.





Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "qrv@..." qrv@... kd4e2001
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:43 pm ((PDT))

We will have to map around the stubborn for the sake of the goal.

There's always another Ham (or Hams), another tower (or towers),
another way.

The absence of a robust, independent, redundant, and diverse wireless
network has represented a serious weakness in the larger system.

SEDAN tried to fill the gap with Packet, APRS covers a lot of ground,
and D-Star has a role but suffers multiple liabilities (not the least
of which are cost, complexity, and poor grassroots adoption).

IMHO, YMMV ...

Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't
directly compatible, even within the same technology, so we have to
find alternate ways to interconnect them as it is. I'm also hearing
that some groups don't even want to allow connections from within
their own technology if it's not from their preferred manufacturer,
so it's not a matter of the manufacturers like Icom preventing such
things. I'm actually talking to a guy that has an NXDN system about
interlinking our different systems. Matthew Pitts N8OHU

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22





Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:20 pm ((PDT))

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android





Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:31 pm ((PDT))

I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android





Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "Tony Langdon, VK3JED" vk3jed@... proton69au
Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:33 pm ((PDT))

At 02:15 PM 7/29/2012, you wrote:


I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital
gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has
to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node
information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller
program set so the information will be passed automatically; the
only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node
frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for
the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware
and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via
AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems.
Well, I'm not sure what sort of wireless network you're talking
about, but down here, one can never forget distance. The telcos
actually do a pretty good job of providing coverage down here, given
the limitations of microwave propagation and population
density. That said, I'll be totally out of phone/Internet range for
a week next month. If the powers that be let me setup as a
demonstration/last ditch backup, then I will have email access via Winlink. :)

My view on infrastructure based networks in an emergency is
flexibility. We have to be able to take advantage of infrastructure
when it's available for reliability, and be able to operate
independently where infrastructure is not available (whether due to
never being available or breakdown). Furthermore, we have to be able
to know the state of infrastructure availability, so we can switch
between infrastructure and independent modes of operation, as
conditions dictate.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com






Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Posted by: "Nate Bargmann" n0nb@... n0nb
Date: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:15 am ((PDT))

* On 2012 28 Jul 22:41 -0500, Howard Small wrote:

On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third party
developers enhancing the system significantly and at the same time
reducing the cost. The only thing that is long in the tooth is AMBE
and it works so there is no reason to look for another codec.
Except for the fact that it is patent encumbered and that is a stumbling
block for those of us who want an amateur radio community controlled,
from microphone to speaker, digital voice "standard", ala AX.25.

All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effective
hardware along the lines of the ID-31 and with the third party
infrastructure development D-Star will continue to grow: just look at
the number of ircDDB based repeaters that are on line today compared
with a year ago!
That may well be. I am leary of any solution that relies on a single
source supplier for any sort of amateur radio provided emergency
response. At the moment D-Star has two strikes against it, IMO, a
single source for gear, Icom, and the codec, AMBE. That said, people
are at liberty to purchase what they want, it's the expectation on the
part of those that do so that the rest of the community should conform
with them is what I have a problem with.

Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptance
of D-Star that I have observed…
Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)

73, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us





Messages in this topic (10)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Mickey Baker <fishflorida@...>
 

Gee, Nate, how quickly you went to marginalizing other viewpoints by characterizing folks as "lemmings." 

I submit to you that market forces may not be technically perfect - but that these forces drive the market and development money. In the current incarnation, DStar meets more of the need of the amateur radio market than anything else available right now with a commodity product. In my opinion, this relatively small market has reached a "tipping point" where demand cascades to eliminate potential competing technologies. Smart vendors will accommodate change. Others will ignore it, but, as the market moves, they will become irrelevant or they'll create another market... but the overall ham radio market is relatively small - there's not a lot of room for competing technologies. Rather, successful upstarts will adopt existing technology and build on it... like the promise of UDR.

Before you again make the mistake of assuming that market forces resemble almost-brainless "lemmings" I'd suggest that you read The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
 by Malcolm Gladwell  (ISBN 0-316-31696-2)  This work examines the intellect of (and some lack of intellect) that establishes patterns in the seemingly random movement of markets. I think you'd find it an interesting read.

We're not lemmings - we're communicators, and we (as a market) are choosing products that facilitate communications. Right now, the only product that seems to be doing that on a large scale is DStar. The adoption rate drives more adoption because the goal is communication. Market behavior, certainly, but no one is following anyone off a cliff. It is simply a classic example of a cascading market and Icom is to be commended in creating and driving the market - after all, at less than $300M worldwide, they're a relatively small company driving big ideas.

73,

Mickey N4MB



On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...> wrote:

Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)

73, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us




--
Mickey Baker, N4MB
Fort Lauderdale, FL
“Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me, and I will learn.” Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.

Re: Digest Number 24

John Hays <john@...>
 

George

The thinking is HSMM-MESH is a powerful tool in high density scenarios and should be part of the ecosystem. 

There is also a need for higher power, mobile and point to point links. The UDR56K will be a work horse for these applications. A self healing, dynamic, mesh protocol would provide the flexibility needed to accomplish those goals. 

--
John D. Hays
206-801-0820
Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 29, 2012, at 9:15, "George Jones" <hamfiles@...> wrote:

 

The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and
TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as hams
become dependant on the commercial common carriers and there failures. We
need to take a closer look at wireless Mesh Node Networks.

A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi routers to
be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for
re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR and
other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these
systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE network.
What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently blessed
with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to develop ham
WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For long
haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm.

George W4AQR
w4aqr@...

----- 

Re: Digest Number 24

k4rjj@...
 

HSMM-MESH just plain works.  If more people would try it out it might be much bigger.

 

Ronny

K4RJJ 


From: "John Hays"
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@...
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:25:02 PM
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Digest Number 24

 

George

The thinking is HSMM-MESH is a powerful tool in high density scenarios and should be part of the ecosystem. 

There is also a need for higher power, mobile and point to point links. The UDR56K will be a work horse for these applications. A self healing, dynamic, mesh protocol would provide the flexibility needed to accomplish those goals. 

--
John D. Hays
206-801-0820
Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 29, 2012, at 9:15, "George Jones" <hamfiles@...> wrote:

 

The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and
TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as hams
become dependant on the commercial common carriers and there failures. We
need to take a closer look at wireless Mesh Node Networks.

A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi routers to
be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for
re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR and
other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these
systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE network.
What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently blessed
with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to develop ham
WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For long
haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm.

George W4AQR
w4aqr@...

----- 

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
 

* On 2012 29 Jul 09:34 -0500, Howard Small wrote:


And there is nothing patent encumbered in any of your other equipment?
DSP chips in new HF receivers, etc?
If there is it does not control the on-air modulation/protocol which is
the difference here.

I think you missed the point that they are no longer the single source
for D-Star equipment. And what has emergency response got to do with
our hobby? Some may wish to play that game but it is only one facet.
True, but here in the good ol' USA much grant money is being doled out
for various emergency networks employing such technology and it is
generally a "pay to play" game on the part of the end user amateur. The
grants only pay for repeaters and equipment in the facilities of served
agencies. What this effectively does is fracture and make amateur
radio's greatest strength--independent communicators--into a liability
as far as they're concerned.

And AMBE? This is a tired argument that is fairly meaningless.
Tired, perhaps. Meaningless? Not to those of us who believe that the
technology of amateur radio's on-air protocols should be open to all. I
also would not recommend nor adopt PacTOR 2/3 for the same reason.

SSB did not receive wider acceptance until the patent(s) ran out as
techniques to employ SSB that worked around the patent(s) were inferior
to the patented methods.

Finally, there is no expectation by D-Star users that the rest of the
community should conform in the same way that CW, packet, APRS,
whatever don’t have an expectation.

I have a strong suspicion that you have not looked into the
developments associated with D-Star recently …
Actually, I'm not arguing against D-Star as it is an open and published
protocol as AX.25. The patent on AMBE chips restricts any third party
implementation of the codec until the patent expires. That is where I
have a deep philosphical difference. The remainder of D-Star is fine
by me.

Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)
And I'm headed the other way!

At least the know what they are doing and why…
Hmmmmm.

73, de Nate >>

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us

Re: Digest Number 24

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

I need to look at the "wireless MESH NODE network".

I did just read that IPv6 can greatly expand the data capacity of a packet.

What, please is the "new NW Digital radio"?

The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and
TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as hams
become dependant on the commercial common carriers and there failures. We
need to take a closer look at wireless Mesh Node Networks.

A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi routers to
be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for
re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR and
other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these
systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE network.
What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently blessed
with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to develop ham
WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For long
haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm.

George W4AQR
w4aqr@...
--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Digest Number 24

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

The UDR56K-4 has an anticipated release in the 4th Quarter of this year,
with a target MSRP of $395.

Does that mean Retail Price: $350.? (Ouch!)

One Ethernet jack,
Four host USB ports,
Power, and Antenna connections.

All radio functions are controlled by software, using either a web browser interface or custom application.

Integrated Radio Messaging System (RMS) and D-STARi gateway and controller software.

Common Linux applications are easily installed using package management tools or may be compiled for the radio.

Some applications of interest to the amateur radio community have already been tested, such as AX.25 networking, gpsd, Xwindows, bluetooth integration, wireless 3G/4G broadband, USB sound, and others.

In talks with noted software developers to provide additional digital radio protocols and applications on the UDR56K platform.

The thinking is HSMM-MESH is a powerful tool in high density scenarios
and should be part of the ecosystem.

There is also a need for higher power, mobile and point to point links.
The UDR56K will be a work horse for these applications. A self healing,
dynamic, mesh protocol would provide the flexibility needed to
accomplish those goals.

--
John D. Hays
206-801-0820
Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 29, 2012, at 9:15, "George Jones" <hamfiles@...
<mailto:hamfiles@...>> wrote:

The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet
and
TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as
hams
become dependant on the commercial common carriers and there failures. We
need to take a closer look at wireless Mesh Node Networks.

A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi
routers to
be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for
re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR
and
other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these
systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE
network.
What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently
blessed
with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to
develop ham
WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For
long
haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm.

George W4AQR
w4aqr@... <mailto:w4aqr%40tampabay.rr.com>

-----

--

Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com
David Colburn nevils-station.com
I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com
Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv
Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22

Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Trevor ." <m5aka@...>
 

--- On Sun, 29/7/12, Mickey Baker <fishflorida@...> wrote:
It is simply a classic example of a cascading market and Icom is to
be commended in creating and driving the market - after all, at less
than $300M worldwide, they're a relatively small company driving big
ideas.
And the commercial side of ICOM saw the light and along with Kenwood went for C4FM (4 level FSK) back in 2005 and they haven't looked back since.

http://www.southgatearc.org/news/apr2005/icom_kenwood_demo.htm

The mystery has been why the amateur radio division of ICOM has persisted with GMSK all these years.

BTW doesn't the original ABME vocoder chip become free of copy restrictions in 2015 ?

73 Trevor M5AKA
----