Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap
"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
At 04:34 PM 8/1/2012, you wrote:
Not trying to start a flame war (but probably will... I'm sorry in advance), but I feel it's important to point out. Anytime you go from analog to digital, audio quality/information is lost. If you go from D* to DMR, you are taking spoken voice (analog) and making it digital (IMBE) in your radio, the repeater receives the bits and spits out audio again (digital to analog), and encodes it AGAIN as digital (AMBE) to be sent to the received, where it once again gets converted to analog. That's two A-D conversions... each loses quality, and at these bit rates, we don't have much budget for dropping additional audio info. People already complain about it sounding tinny!While the codec conversions are unavoidable, you do NOT have to go all the way back to analog, if you are able to build some suitable hardware. That's already been done for D-STAR, with the DV Dongle being suitable for such a transcoder. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
||
Re: Bridging the digital voice and data gap
Tyrell Berry <kd7kuj@...>
Not trying to start a flame war (but probably will... I'm sorry in advance), but I feel it's important to point out. Anytime you go from analog to digital, audio quality/information is lost. If you go from D* to DMR, you are taking spoken voice (analog) and making it digital (IMBE) in your radio, the repeater receives the bits and spits out audio again (digital to analog), and encodes it AGAIN as digital (AMBE) to be sent to the received, where it once again gets converted to analog. That's two A-D conversions... each loses quality, and at these bit rates, we don't have much budget for dropping additional audio info. People already complain about it sounding tinny! SO, for me it's not a religious "thou shalt not inter-connect technologies" argument, it's more of a "the sacrifices made MAY make such a project technically unfeasible" Just food for thought.
On Jul 31, 2012 6:05 PM, "Matthew Pitts" <daywalker_blade_2004@...> wrote:
|
||
|
||
Bridging the digital voice and data gap
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
|
||
|
||
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
* On 2012 31 Jul 08:00 -0500, qrv@... wrote:
If we could get back the piece of 220 here that UPS took, thenWasn't a portion of replacement bandwidth allocated at 219-220 MHz? I know for certain that the American Association of Railroads is using 220-222 MHz for Positive Train Control on a national basis. The railroad I work for is rolling it out now. It will not be allocated back to amateur radio. 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?
"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
At 01:50 AM 8/1/2012, you wrote:
Tony,What I'm saying is that mesh networks have a low probability of success anywhere here, and permanent PrP links have the same weaknesses as the telcos and regular repeaters in some of the more common disaster scenarios, and probabilities (Black Saturday did take out some repeaters). As far as Winlink goes, there are even ways to cope with a loss of Internet there; it all comes down to a desire to be less dependant on commercial networks that may not be a priority in a specific incident case and having the alternative tested and working.Agree. I'm playing Devils advocate here, because I'm sensing a bit of a "religious" argument creeping in, and I'm saying there's other ways to work without having to build infrastructure. Down here, we can go a lot further, sometimes all that's needed is a supply of skilled operators to man agency radios, so people with hands on skills can be out in the field dealing with the emergency. That is one of the ham roles in this part of the world. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
||
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
Would 1MHz be adequate for what is needed?
It sounds impractical to use near the coast and one would have to avoid TV stations on Channels 11 & 13. We received the equivalent of 1/2 of what was taken at 219-220John D. Hays -- 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?
"John D. Hays" <john@...>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:51 AM, qrv@...
John D. Hays K7VE
|
||
|
||
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
From: Tony Langdon, VK3JED ; To: ; Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 1:13:42 PM
At 10:51 PM 7/31/2012, you wrote:
>The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking >backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be >the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless. Again, why? The wireless becomes infrastructure also, it's going to be prone to failure, unless you haul it out. Again, I believe a flexible approach of using the Internet when its available, and bypassing it when it's not is better than spending $$$$ on more infrastructure that could also fail. The real strangth of hams is their flexibility and decentralised nature. Setup wireless links, and you're creating another telco of sorts, with more or less similar issues. One of the most likely disasters in this part of the world is wildfire, and that has a habit of taking out infrastructure perched on mountains. Guess what! We're back to hauling out the HF radios (which is often what I'd first grab for comms out of the local area anyway :) ). Oh, I should mention that the telcos here are extremely quick in setting up temporary exchanges and portable cell sites to restore services after a disaster. Even testing and practice, because I'm outside the major metropolitan areas, the only choice I have of communicating with the rest of the emcomm guys here are the Internet (email or IRLP/Echolink), one 2m and one 70cm repeater that's on a mountain midway between us, or (as is most commonly used) good old HF. As for the utility of the Internet, I have been involved in nets which successfully combine the Internet (for reliable long haul comms) with HF (for penetrating into an affected area). Winlink is an example of a whole system that does exactly that for email. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
||
Thank you to John
"bruce.given" <bruce.given@...>
Hi,
I just wanted to make a very public thank you to John for all of his help to me while I have been getting a new repeater up and running. Thank you John for answering my dumb questions , you certainly have made my journey into the world of linux a whole lot more fun ! kindest regards Bruce Given VE2GZI
|
||
|
||
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
At 10:51 PM 7/31/2012, you wrote:
The same applies here - there must be long-distance linkingAgain, why? The wireless becomes infrastructure also, it's going to be prone to failure, unless you haul it out. Again, I believe a flexible approach of using the Internet when its available, and bypassing it when it's not is better than spending $$$$ on more infrastructure that could also fail. The real strangth of hams is their flexibility and decentralised nature. Setup wireless links, and you're creating another telco of sorts, with more or less similar issues. One of the most likely disasters in this part of the world is wildfire, and that has a habit of taking out infrastructure perched on mountains. Guess what! We're back to hauling out the HF radios (which is often what I'd first grab for comms out of the local area anyway :) ). Oh, I should mention that the telcos here are extremely quick in setting up temporary exchanges and portable cell sites to restore services after a disaster. Even testing and practice, because I'm outside the major metropolitan areas, the only choice I have of communicating with the rest of the emcomm guys here are the Internet (email or IRLP/Echolink), one 2m and one 70cm repeater that's on a mountain midway between us, or (as is most commonly used) good old HF. As for the utility of the Internet, I have been involved in nets which successfully combine the Internet (for reliable long haul comms) with HF (for penetrating into an affected area). Winlink is an example of a whole system that does exactly that for email. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
||
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless. If we could get back the piece of 220 here that UPS took, then wasted, perhaps that could be dedicated to the purpose? I don't know, nor do I know what's available elsewhere. For longer links perhaps a minimally-used piece of 10M or 15M might be utilized? Questions to be asked and answered in justifying this go to how much we care about our role in disaster comms and what are we willing to sacrifice to make it happen? Is emcomm at least as important as paper-chasing?
I'm not sure we'd ever get the node density sufficiently high for it --
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?
"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
At 11:13 PM 7/30/2012, you wrote:
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.I'm not sure we'd ever get the node density sufficiently high for it to work in this part of the world. Mesh networks are all well and good, but you have to have the sites to put the nodes. Australia is a country of low density living, even our big cities are relatively low density by world standards. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
||
Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"tec_1291500" <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
|
||
|
||
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
Maybe because it's relatively simple to generate GMSK in software whereas 4FSK/C4FM requires (to the best of my knowledge) a dedicated IC to handle the timing; I know that GMSK demodulation has been included in GNURadio since at least 2005 (and the GMSK demodulation in that is written in Python). I think someone from Icom even explained why they chose GMSK over the other options for D-Star in an interview done at the Orlando Hamcation this spring. Matthew Pitts N8OHU
|
||
|
||
Re: Digest Number 24
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
Just visited here: <http://www.hsmm-mesh.org>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I am impressed! I have owned a WRT-54G in the past and it was a robust device. I have a WRT-300L here, I took it offline due to an intermittent, it's not listed but I wonder if it might work (not that the WRT-54G's are very expensive). I didn't see anything re. inexpensive external amplifiers or recommended mobile antennas; very little discussion re. mobile at all via search, are mobile ops not a high priority yet? Based on my mobile travel plans the loop might take me near as many as 11 HSMM-MESH nodes later this year.
HSMM-MESH just plain works. If more people would try it out it might --
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 toAnd 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 ----
|
||
|
||
Re: Digest Number 24
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
The UDR56K-4 has an anticipated release in the 4th Quarter of this year,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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 --
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@...>
I need to look at the "wireless MESH NODE network".
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
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 --
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?
Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
* On 2012 29 Jul 09:34 -0500, Howard Small wrote:
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 sourceTrue, 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 theActually, 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
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
|
||
|