Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Sounds like the comments I've heard about Nextel/Sprint... the sound of 'business getting done'... Chuck Kelsey wrote: Unfortunately, this is exactly what Comcast was hoping -- the customer changed service. They don't want customers who keep making service calls requiring repeated tech support. These calls cost them money that they don't want to spend. I'll bet that they wasted no time in processing the termination of service. I'll further guess that the response to the termination was far faster than getting someone to come out for a trouble call. I realize it's aggravating, and I understand the frustration, but if people kept hounding companies like this they (the companies) just might get things fixed. The same goes for cellular phone service. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - Finally, they went down for 30 hours, including most of two business days, this time including phone, internet and TV. They were so arrogant about it when I called that I cancelled all three. I got DTV converter boxes and do without cable TV, got a copper-pair-based landline phone, and my new fiber-optic internet service rocks - it actually delivers its advertised speeds. Comcast never came close to achieving its ad claims. Comcast internet access is a flaky toy, in my experience. The company has a complete lack of uptime ethic. If you need to be able to count on your repeater, don't link sites through Comcast.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Thank you Kevin. I understand and appreciate the problem you describe. However, I am not trying to download at 2 Meg; indeed the VOIP app is very happy on a 44 K dial-up with the other Internet provider. There seems to be adequate bandwidth, as I can load my cable connection with additional downloads and it has no effect on the level of packet loss and delay. The garble is at a constant level, whether it is at 8 PM or 5 AM. It seems to me that my VOIP is being tampered with to force me to abandon it in favor of the company VOIP. Others may wish to consider using a link method other than VOIP, depending on their Internet providers. Kevin Custer wrote: Paul Plack wrote: As an engineer of a CATV Internet provider, maybe I can shed some light. Our basic speed is 2M down, and we have optional packages for 4M and 6M. When we do a speed test, it shows the actual speed transferred by our equipment and the servers on the other end. Unfortunately, many of the servers providing services like Yahoo, eBay, MSN, etc. can be loaded down and even with our somewhat humble basic 2M speed we see the effects of what's happening on the other end. These effects get worse to the user as their delivered speed is increased. Folks get 'used to' seeing some sites fly, then believe there is a 'problem' when all of the places they visit don't respond with the same snappiness.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Mike, My reply was not in response to your packet loss, I was trying to describe other effects that had been brought up in the discussion by Paul. I'm not saying your provider isn't tampering with packets or IP's destine for competitors VoIP servers. What I am saying is depending on the path, things can work differently. Packet filtering, blocking, and delaying can be a huge overhead. Most companies simply don't do anything because it's too much hassle, and too much overhead on core or edge routers. Web surfing and other data transfers don't have the adverse effects of packet loss like what shows up on streaming voice and video. They can be re-sent, prompted by the error correction, and the only thing you see (feel) is the delay in the page loading or the time of a download. I'd say there is something wrong somewhere and the VoIP is just showing how bad the problem really is. Go to a command prompt and type ping 4.2.2.1 -t This will institute a constant ping to a legacy GTE DNS server in Colorado. See what the results are... If your provider is having big trouble, after about 50 or 100 pings, you'll see the loss in a percentage. If they are having only a little trouble, you might see some lost after a few hundred. If you have basic packet loss, the provider need to be notified and given the opportunity to resolve. If they fail to resolve, you have a choice. Good luck, and let us know how you make out. Kevin Custer List Owner Thank you Kevin. I understand and appreciate the problem you describe. However, I am not trying to download at 2 Meg; indeed the VOIP app is very happy on a 44 K dial-up with the other Internet provider. There seems to be adequate bandwidth, as I can load my cable connection with additional downloads and it has no effect on the level of packet loss and delay. The garble is at a constant level, whether it is at 8 PM or 5 AM. It seems to me that my VOIP is being tampered with to force me to abandon it in favor of the company VOIP. Others may wish to consider using a link method other than VOIP, depending on their Internet providers. Kevin Custer wrote: Paul Plack wrote: As an engineer of a CATV Internet provider, maybe I can shed some light. Our basic speed is 2M down, and we have optional packages for 4M and 6M. When we do a speed test, it shows the actual speed transferred by our equipment and the servers on the other end. Unfortunately, many of the servers providing services like Yahoo, eBay, MSN, etc. can be loaded down and even with our somewhat humble basic 2M speed we see the effects of what's happening on the other end. These effects get worse to the user as their delivered speed is increased. Folks get 'used to' seeing some sites fly, then believe there is a 'problem' when all of the places they visit don't respond with the same snappiness.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
You also have to be careful when generalizing - Comcast here locally is actually the old ATT Broadband network, upgraded many times by Comcast after they purchased it. But the base technologies installed in each Comcast service area are NOT the same. (I can tell for sure that Comcast here locally is using Cisco gear - you can watch the speed throttling behavior and it matches every Cisco QoS box I've ever used. overshoots at first, and then falls back. Comcast around here recently started offering SpeedBoost where they're allowing a higher burst of speed for a set period of time PER CONNECTION (TCP, UDP, whatever you are using) and then that connection - just that one - gets throttled. I've tested this on my Comcast line pretty heavily just to know the expected behavior. I also avoid the public speed test sites and use a private server I KNOW is on more than a DS-3 worth of bandwidth for testing purposes.) So. when I see Comcast is great or Comcast sucks on different online message boards, I always take that with a grain of salt. It's just not the same gear everywhere. Nate WY0X From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Plack Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:03 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Kevin, thanks for your insight. Comcast must cap speeds below what it advertises intentionally, because even distant speed test servers would run higher speeds than what I could get to fellow Comcast users in the same part of town.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
There's other things to look at... have you looked at your Comcast router (in the admin menus) and seen what the received signal/noise ratio is at your location, and what upstream power it's having to use to reach them? I had a problem when I first set up the Comcast line into the house where the house wiring was old RG-6 crap that leaked like a sieve. An upgrade to the cable going to the router, and all was well. (I successfully use Vonage over it all the time.) The modem was screaming at somewhere around +50dBm to talk back to the head end. Now it's far more into the regular range at +34 or so. (Yep, the cable in the house was THAT bad.) However... and this is another gotcha... my circuit from Comcast isn't a residential account. It's a small business account, complete with a public static IP range. ($) Whether or not they've got their you-know-what together enough to treat QoS differently on my circuit versus everyone else in the 'hood... I don't know. They were utterly confused when I wanted commercial service at a residential address, which led to there being two copies of my address in their lookup database for Is service available in your area... one's marked SMALL BIZ... cracks me up. Nate WY0X -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Naruta AA8K Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:51 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP There seems to be adequate bandwidth, as I can load my cable connection with additional downloads and it has no effect on the level of packet loss and delay. The garble is at a constant level, whether it is at 8 PM or 5 AM.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
I've had NO trouble at all passing VoIP through Canopy. You might want to investigate ways to bring your links in over the Canopy/IP system at the site, Mark. Two of our repeater sites have EchoIRLP nodes, serviced off of Canopy and/or Trango Wireless gear. Works fine. No serious latency issues when built right. Also, there ARE Cisco and other routers capable of giving you EM circuits over IP, if that's the route you're planning to go down the road anyway... the Cisco telco routers will do it, and it's the basis of their special ROIP (Radio over IP) code loads, that ... well, if you can find 'em they look nice... features for delay of PTT, adjustable audio delay after PTT, etc... the router then understands that you're hooking it to a radio... but EM is in all the basic VOIP versions of IOS. The Cisco cards and routers are not real cheap though. Nate WY0X -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:01 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Thanks Nate. I'm not running a node or anything as of yet... More like researching my options for linking and so forth for the future. Right now, I'm trying to bring two remote RX sites to a comparator for a three-RX site system. My problem is, I have been waiting nearly TWO YEARS for the county to get their microwave backbone online - so I can have two E+M lines for my remote sites. (The county is gracious enough to give me space at their tower AND provide the repeater equipment, so beggars can't be choosers...) The problem is nobody at the county seems to know how to program the MainStreet equipment that is interfaced into their RF microwave. Rather than pull more of my hair out, I am investigating other avenues... and I know that T-1 lines are cost prohibitive. (Plus, there is no Telco service to the tower site.) There is, however, Internet service via a Canopy system... I'm hoping a friend I have can program the MainStreet ends for me, but getting him away from his employer long enough to do this is my latest problem to resolve... Ah, repeaters. sigh Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:45 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP I've done IRLP over a couple of different types of satellite connections (and as an official tech support volunteer, I must add that IRLP doesn't recommend this). It works. Latency never really seemed to be all that bad. We listened to it, and yeah... our voice into the rig was ahead of the other side coming out on a land-line based node, but it was possible to communicate just fine. The bigger problem seems to be packet loss. Sometimes words would get dropped, even with IRLP's relatively new buffers that were put in place not too long back (relatively... I've been doing IRLP now for almost 10 years?). But in-between those dropouts, everything's fine. Switching to a lower CODEC for the node to node connection, (GSM, roughly 12 Kb/S) or using a GSM channel on a Reflector if multiple nodes are participating in some event, helps sometimes. I could get the owner of one of these systems to call you on your local IRLP node, if you want to hear it. He could also describe who's satellite service he's using. Some node owners on the IRLP mailing list a while back reported good luck with WildBlue, haven't heard that much good about StarBand or DirectTV's offering... and of course, Hughes dedicated service ($$$) also works fine. This is all kinda water under the bridge to me -- I'm more interested in finding out if Icom's D-STAR Gateways can successfully operate (they're much more latency sensitive than IRLP or anything that's just an audio stream) on a satellite link. Don't have all the stuff here I'd need to test it and find out, though! To buy an extra repeater, controller, and gateway just for a test isn't in the cards. (GRIN) Nate WY0X -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Mike, I'm curious regarding latency issues, especially if using VoIP for connections like IRLP or remote voice links. Did you experience them when on satellite, or was it a non-issue in your experience? And I assume your connections losses while on the bird were due to rain fade or similar??? Mark - N9WYS Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1995 - Release Date: 03/11/09 08:28:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
For those that trust these public things and don't think the ISP's know we're using them (and thus, open their connections to JUST these places, wide-open.) www.speedtest.net is a cool one that works well. Nate From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Kupferschmidt Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:48 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP For those who need to measure their upload / download speed of their ISP, here are a couple of useful links to measure it: http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-speed-test/ http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ I like the 2nd one a lot better. For those you haven't experienced this yet, have fun ! 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Paul Plack mailto:pl...@xmission.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Your experience with Comcast VoIP may vary widely, depending on your location and time of day. In Oregon, I had Comcast VoIP, which I was assured was backed up for power outages. Sure enough, power went out in a windstorm, and the little UPS included with my modem kept it running, but the network itself was down. When the power came back on, so did the network. My neighbors with Verizon POTS service never lost it. Here in Utah, I work out of a home office, and was experiencing routine outages of both VoIP and internet, usually lasting 20-30 minutes, between midnight and 1am, when I needed both for work. This would happen two or three times a week. It was clearly some kind of routine maintenance, but the Comcast customer service reps (when I reached them on my cellphone) had nothing more useful than their scripts, and of course, Have you rebooted your router? Finally, they went down for 30 hours, including most of two business days, this time including phone, internet and TV. They were so arrogant about it when I called that I cancelled all three. I got DTV converter boxes and do without cable TV, got a copper-pair-based landline phone, and my new fiber-optic internet service rocks - it actually delivers its advertised speeds. Comcast never came close to achieving its ad claims. Comcast internet access is a flaky toy, in my experience. The company has a complete lack of uptime ethic. If you need to be able to count on your repeater, don't link sites through Comcast. If Comcast is intentionally sabotaging Vonage calls made using its system, it would be completely consistent with my expectations. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY mailto:jmac...@usa.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP I am a Comcast VOIP customer, the service works good. Comcast is a sleezy company, and I have had experiences with their IP blocking and/or packet interruptions.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Nate, If they have their feces integrated enough to treat commercial customers better, that only proves they're clueless about branding. I considered upgrading to their commercial-grade products, but saw little reason to believe that it would improve reliability or customer service. I wonder how many other sales they lose because business prospects were alienated first by their customer experience at home. I'm guessing an outage of all three services in my entire neighborhood that lasted 30 hours before the truck showed up, and was fixed 90 seconds after the truck showed up, is not a S/N issue. My current fiber-optic service is considered a residential product, and blows away Comcast's claimed business product speeds. It's also been much more reliable. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Nate Duehr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:30 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP There's other things to look at... have you looked at your Comcast router (in the admin menus) and seen what the received signal/noise ratio is at your location, and what upstream power it's having to use to reach them? ... Whether or not they've got their you-know-what together enough to treat QoS differently on my circuit versus everyone else in the 'hood... I don't know.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Ethercrash wrote: My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. IMHO Doug, KD8B, mentioned a critical point about your VOIP not being interfered with. Remember when network neutrality was voted down? This means that your Internet provider can delay or tamper with your packets. Here is my personal experience. I started having trouble with packet loss on my VOIP traffic on my broadband connection, both on my IRLP node and other VOIP. I did extensive troubleshooting with my PC (Windows XP Home Edition). I substituted another clean PC with Windows XP Pro. I built another PC with just Ubuntu Linux on it. I tested with only one PC directly plugged into the cable modem. In each case I was experiencing about a 10% packet loss with garbled voice and delayed syllables. On a whim, I tried using the original PC, but I disconnected my Comcast High Speed Digital LAN connection and had my PC dial up a modem on my other Internet provider. The connection was at 45.2 Kbps. My packet loss dropped to ZERO! The voices were clear, without garbles and delays. Each time that I have repeated the test, whenever I use the Comcast High Speed Digital, I get 5% to 15% packet loss and when I disconnect the Comcast and use a dial-up modem on my other Internet provider, I get 0% packet loss. Now, I do not use the Comcast Digital Voice VOIP service that Comcast sells, because I cannot use it for the IRLP or my other app. I'm guessing that the customers that do use Comcast Digital Voice do not have the same problem, or they would not still be customers. Of course, if you were using a Comcast Digital Voice competitor like Vonage and had this VOIP type of problem, you would probably discontinue Vonage. I appear to not be the only one experiencing problems: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080129-p2p-users-blast-comcast-in-fcc-proceeding.html I am on waiting lists for DSL and fiber optic service, but they are not available to me yet, even though I am a short distance from the telephone office. I used to use two-way satellite for my IP and now regret ending that service. I had only very brief storm outages compared to my downtimes with Comcast. Also, during power failures, Comcast has been going down here not long after the power does, so your Internet connection may not be available when you need it the most.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Mike, I'm curious regarding latency issues, especially if using VoIP for connections like IRLP or remote voice links. Did you experience them when on satellite, or was it a non-issue in your experience? And I assume your connections losses while on the bird were due to rain fade or similar??? Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Mike Naruta AA8K (snip) I am on waiting lists for DSL and fiber optic service, but they are not available to me yet, even though I am a short distance from the telephone office. I used to use two-way satellite for my IP and now regret ending that service. I had only very brief storm outages compared to my downtimes with Comcast. Also, during power failures, Comcast has been going down here not long after the power does, so your Internet connection may not be available when you need it the most.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
I am a Comcast VOIP customer, the service works good. Comcast is a sleezy company, and I have had experiences with their IP blocking and/or packet interruptions. -- Original Message -- Received: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:36:45 AM PDT From: Mike Naruta AA8K a...@comcast.net Remember when network neutrality was voted down? This means that your Internet provider can delay or tamper with your packets. Here is my personal experience. I started having trouble with packet loss on my VOIP traffic on my broadband connection, both on my IRLP node and other VOIP. I did extensive troubleshooting with my PC (Windows XP Home Edition). I substituted another clean PC with Windows XP Pro. I built another PC with just Ubuntu Linux on it. I tested with only one PC directly plugged into the cable modem. In each case I was experiencing about a 10% packet loss with garbled voice and delayed syllables. On a whim, I tried using the original PC, but I disconnected my Comcast High Speed Digital LAN connection and had my PC dial up a modem on my other Internet provider. The connection was at 45.2 Kbps. My packet loss dropped to ZERO! The voices were clear, without garbles and delays. Each time that I have repeated the test, whenever I use the Comcast High Speed Digital, I get 5% to 15% packet loss and when I disconnect the Comcast and use a dial-up modem on my other Internet provider, I get 0% packet loss. Now, I do not use the Comcast Digital Voice VOIP service that Comcast sells, because I cannot use it for the IRLP or my other app. I'm guessing that the customers that do use Comcast Digital Voice do not have the same problem, or they would not still be customers. Of course, if you were using a Comcast Digital Voice competitor like Vonage and had this VOIP type of problem, you would probably discontinue Vonage. I appear to not be the only one experiencing problems: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080129-p2p-users-blast-comcast-in-fcc-proceeding.html I am on waiting lists for DSL and fiber optic service, but they are not available to me yet, even though I am a short distance from the telephone office. I used to use two-way satellite for my IP and now regret ending that service. I had only very brief storm outages compared to my downtimes with Comcast. Also, during power failures, Comcast has been going down here not long after the power does, so your Internet connection may not be available when you need it the most.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
I've done IRLP over a couple of different types of satellite connections (and as an official tech support volunteer, I must add that IRLP doesn't recommend this). It works. Latency never really seemed to be all that bad. We listened to it, and yeah... our voice into the rig was ahead of the other side coming out on a land-line based node, but it was possible to communicate just fine. The bigger problem seems to be packet loss. Sometimes words would get dropped, even with IRLP's relatively new buffers that were put in place not too long back (relatively... I've been doing IRLP now for almost 10 years?). But in-between those dropouts, everything's fine. Switching to a lower CODEC for the node to node connection, (GSM, roughly 12 Kb/S) or using a GSM channel on a Reflector if multiple nodes are participating in some event, helps sometimes. I could get the owner of one of these systems to call you on your local IRLP node, if you want to hear it. He could also describe who's satellite service he's using. Some node owners on the IRLP mailing list a while back reported good luck with WildBlue, haven't heard that much good about StarBand or DirectTV's offering... and of course, Hughes dedicated service ($$$) also works fine. This is all kinda water under the bridge to me -- I'm more interested in finding out if Icom's D-STAR Gateways can successfully operate (they're much more latency sensitive than IRLP or anything that's just an audio stream) on a satellite link. Don't have all the stuff here I'd need to test it and find out, though! To buy an extra repeater, controller, and gateway just for a test isn't in the cards. (GRIN) Nate WY0X -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Mike, I'm curious regarding latency issues, especially if using VoIP for connections like IRLP or remote voice links. Did you experience them when on satellite, or was it a non-issue in your experience? And I assume your connections losses while on the bird were due to rain fade or similar??? Mark - N9WYS
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Your experience with Comcast VoIP may vary widely, depending on your location and time of day. In Oregon, I had Comcast VoIP, which I was assured was backed up for power outages. Sure enough, power went out in a windstorm, and the little UPS included with my modem kept it running, but the network itself was down. When the power came back on, so did the network. My neighbors with Verizon POTS service never lost it. Here in Utah, I work out of a home office, and was experiencing routine outages of both VoIP and internet, usually lasting 20-30 minutes, between midnight and 1am, when I needed both for work. This would happen two or three times a week. It was clearly some kind of routine maintenance, but the Comcast customer service reps (when I reached them on my cellphone) had nothing more useful than their scripts, and of course, Have you rebooted your router? Finally, they went down for 30 hours, including most of two business days, this time including phone, internet and TV. They were so arrogant about it when I called that I cancelled all three. I got DTV converter boxes and do without cable TV, got a copper-pair-based landline phone, and my new fiber-optic internet service rocks - it actually delivers its advertised speeds. Comcast never came close to achieving its ad claims. Comcast internet access is a flaky toy, in my experience. The company has a complete lack of uptime ethic. If you need to be able to count on your repeater, don't link sites through Comcast. If Comcast is intentionally sabotaging Vonage calls made using its system, it would be completely consistent with my expectations. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP I am a Comcast VOIP customer, the service works good. Comcast is a sleezy company, and I have had experiences with their IP blocking and/or packet interruptions.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Unfortunately, this is exactly what Comcast was hoping -- the customer changed service. They don't want customers who keep making service calls requiring repeated tech support. These calls cost them money that they don't want to spend. I'll bet that they wasted no time in processing the termination of service. I'll further guess that the response to the termination was far faster than getting someone to come out for a trouble call. I realize it's aggravating, and I understand the frustration, but if people kept hounding companies like this they (the companies) just might get things fixed. The same goes for cellular phone service. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - Finally, they went down for 30 hours, including most of two business days, this time including phone, internet and TV. They were so arrogant about it when I called that I cancelled all three. I got DTV converter boxes and do without cable TV, got a copper-pair-based landline phone, and my new fiber-optic internet service rocks - it actually delivers its advertised speeds. Comcast never came close to achieving its ad claims. Comcast internet access is a flaky toy, in my experience. The company has a complete lack of uptime ethic. If you need to be able to count on your repeater, don't link sites through Comcast.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
For those who need to measure their upload / download speed of their ISP, here are a couple of useful links to measure it: http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-speed-test/ http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ I like the 2nd one a lot better. For those you haven't experienced this yet, have fun ! 73, Don, KD9PT - Original Message - From: Paul Plack To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Your experience with Comcast VoIP may vary widely, depending on your location and time of day. In Oregon, I had Comcast VoIP, which I was assured was backed up for power outages. Sure enough, power went out in a windstorm, and the little UPS included with my modem kept it running, but the network itself was down. When the power came back on, so did the network. My neighbors with Verizon POTS service never lost it. Here in Utah, I work out of a home office, and was experiencing routine outages of both VoIP and internet, usually lasting 20-30 minutes, between midnight and 1am, when I needed both for work. This would happen two or three times a week. It was clearly some kind of routine maintenance, but the Comcast customer service reps (when I reached them on my cellphone) had nothing more useful than their scripts, and of course, Have you rebooted your router? Finally, they went down for 30 hours, including most of two business days, this time including phone, internet and TV. They were so arrogant about it when I called that I cancelled all three. I got DTV converter boxes and do without cable TV, got a copper-pair-based landline phone, and my new fiber-optic internet service rocks - it actually delivers its advertised speeds. Comcast never came close to achieving its ad claims. Comcast internet access is a flaky toy, in my experience. The company has a complete lack of uptime ethic. If you need to be able to count on your repeater, don't link sites through Comcast. If Comcast is intentionally sabotaging Vonage calls made using its system, it would be completely consistent with my expectations. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: JOHN MACKEY To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP I am a Comcast VOIP customer, the service works good. Comcast is a sleezy company, and I have had experiences with their IP blocking and/or packet interruptions.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Thanks Nate. I'm not running a node or anything as of yet... More like researching my options for linking and so forth for the future. Right now, I'm trying to bring two remote RX sites to a comparator for a three-RX site system. My problem is, I have been waiting nearly TWO YEARS for the county to get their microwave backbone online - so I can have two E+M lines for my remote sites. (The county is gracious enough to give me space at their tower AND provide the repeater equipment, so beggars can't be choosers...) The problem is nobody at the county seems to know how to program the MainStreet equipment that is interfaced into their RF microwave. Rather than pull more of my hair out, I am investigating other avenues... and I know that T-1 lines are cost prohibitive. (Plus, there is no Telco service to the tower site.) There is, however, Internet service via a Canopy system... I'm hoping a friend I have can program the MainStreet ends for me, but getting him away from his employer long enough to do this is my latest problem to resolve... Ah, repeaters. sigh Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:45 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP I've done IRLP over a couple of different types of satellite connections (and as an official tech support volunteer, I must add that IRLP doesn't recommend this). It works. Latency never really seemed to be all that bad. We listened to it, and yeah... our voice into the rig was ahead of the other side coming out on a land-line based node, but it was possible to communicate just fine. The bigger problem seems to be packet loss. Sometimes words would get dropped, even with IRLP's relatively new buffers that were put in place not too long back (relatively... I've been doing IRLP now for almost 10 years?). But in-between those dropouts, everything's fine. Switching to a lower CODEC for the node to node connection, (GSM, roughly 12 Kb/S) or using a GSM channel on a Reflector if multiple nodes are participating in some event, helps sometimes. I could get the owner of one of these systems to call you on your local IRLP node, if you want to hear it. He could also describe who's satellite service he's using. Some node owners on the IRLP mailing list a while back reported good luck with WildBlue, haven't heard that much good about StarBand or DirectTV's offering... and of course, Hughes dedicated service ($$$) also works fine. This is all kinda water under the bridge to me -- I'm more interested in finding out if Icom's D-STAR Gateways can successfully operate (they're much more latency sensitive than IRLP or anything that's just an audio stream) on a satellite link. Don't have all the stuff here I'd need to test it and find out, though! To buy an extra repeater, controller, and gateway just for a test isn't in the cards. (GRIN) Nate WY0X -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:56 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Mike, I'm curious regarding latency issues, especially if using VoIP for connections like IRLP or remote voice links. Did you experience them when on satellite, or was it a non-issue in your experience? And I assume your connections losses while on the bird were due to rain fade or similar??? Mark - N9WYS Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.10/1995 - Release Date: 03/11/09 08:28:00
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
One of Comcast's independent techs told me their system runs wide-open to the speed-test sites to ensure good results. I don't know if he was being honest, but I never got the same speeds in normal use that I did with the test sites! - Original Message - From: Don Kupferschmidt To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP For those who need to measure their upload / download speed of their ISP, here are a couple of useful links to measure it: http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-speed-test/ http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/ I like the 2nd one a lot better. For those you haven't experienced this yet, have fun ! 73, Don, KD9PT
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Hi Mark, I was using Earthlink/Direc two-way satellite. There is the inherent latency. If you are a gamer, it might bother you. I didn't mind it. My fade margin was on the low edge. At my latitude, the angle is fairly low and there was a tree at a distance that was partially obscuring. I would lose signal during an unusually heavy rain storm, and twice a year briefly during the sun crossing. Since I was at work at Noon, that didn't bother me. The downside was that the control software had to run on Windows on a PC. When I upgraded the PC from 98 to XP, Internet Connection Sharing no longer supported Netbeui and my Windows 98 PCs couldn't use the Internet. Comcast hooked me with their low-price initial come-on. I dropped Earthlink/Direc and gave away the dish and transceiver. It was a few months after that that we had the big power failure in the NorthEast. I waited a while and then started my generator. I brought up my PCs and started to watch the TV and pick up my e-mail. Not long after, Comcast cable TV and High-Speed Internet disappeared and didn't come back until days later when the power was restored. If I still had the satellite, I would have had Internet. Glad that I didn't have their reliable home phone service Comcast Digital Voice. Our POTS kept working. I got to see the local C.O. battery room once. A lot of chemical energy in there. They even started up their TURBINE backup generator for us. That was a cool sound. We've since had another long power failure and a brownout and the Comcast services stopped a short while after power did. It was early 2008 that the dropouts started on my VOIP app. I spent a lot of time chasing my Windows problem down before I tried my dial-up Internet provider. It was frustrating. I could start a couple of downloads going at the same time and there was no effect on the VOIP garble. Now it makes sense to me. Note: Comcast is not the only Internet provider that may tamper with your packets; read the fine print in your terms and conditions. Mark wrote: Mike, I'm curious regarding latency issues, especially if using VoIP for connections like IRLP or remote voice links. Did you experience them when on satellite, or was it a non-issue in your experience? And I assume your connections losses while on the bird were due to rain fade or similar??? Mark - N9WYS
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Paul Plack wrote: One of Comcast's independent techs told me their system runs wide-open to the speed-test sites to ensure good results. I don't know if he was being honest, but I never got the same speeds in normal use that I did with the test sites! As an engineer of a CATV Internet provider, maybe I can shed some light. Our basic speed is 2M down, and we have optional packages for 4M and 6M. When we do a speed test, it shows the actual speed transferred by our equipment and the servers on the other end. Unfortunately, many of the servers providing services like Yahoo, eBay, MSN, etc. can be loaded down and even with our somewhat humble basic 2M speed we see the effects of what's happening on the other end. These effects get worse to the user as their delivered speed is increased. Folks get 'used to' seeing some sites fly, then believe there is a 'problem' when all of the places they visit don't respond with the same snappiness. I realize some of the bigger providers have their share of delivery difficulties. Some of them over-sell their bandwidth to a degree that never allows for their customers to pull what they are provisioned, but if you are able to pull good speeds to the test sites, then the ability is there to have the same performance from any site. The Internet is a highway of robust and fragile networks that are interconnected and like a chain - is only as strong as the weakest link. Now that big pipe Internet connections to common folks like us are becoming more commonplace, we are seeing the fragile-ness of the parts that cannot keep up. I sit on a LAN with 25 synchronous MB to the Internet. My provider buys 1000 MB in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. With 2 gigs of Internet, the provider can really see the bottlenecks. You didn't even know they existed when you were on dial-up I'm not saying Comcast doesn't have their problems, but with multi-meg Internet connections available to the average consumer, you are going to see the weaker links; and it doesn't matter who your provider is. Kevin Custer
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Kevin, thanks for your insight. Comcast must cap speeds below what it advertises intentionally, because even distant speed test servers would run higher speeds than what I could get to fellow Comcast users in the same part of town. My fiber-optic residential connection is the first one I've had that's fast enough to truly reveal the limits of the net as a whole. It's asymetrical service, but the opposite of most. I'm capped at 15 megabit/second download, but upload is currently uncapped, and typically runs 50 - 65 megabits/second on a local connection. I may actually be bumping up against the router's practical limits at times. The last time I checked speed, I was seeing 22 megabits/second into San Francisco, and about 18 into Portland, in the upload direction. I recently used it for a Skype call to Chile, spent about a half-hour on the call, and had zero dropped packets with a round-trip time of 67 ms. Not too shabby. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Kevin Custer To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Paul Plack wrote: One of Comcast's independent techs told me their system runs wide-open to the speed-test sites to ensure good results. I don't know if he was being honest, but I never got the same speeds in normal use that I did with the test sites! As an engineer of a CATV Internet provider, maybe I can shed some light. Our basic speed is 2M down, and we have optional packages for 4M and 6M. When we do a speed test, it shows the actual speed transferred by our equipment and the servers on the other end. Unfortunately, many of the servers providing services like Yahoo, eBay, MSN, etc. can be loaded down and even with our somewhat humble basic 2M speed we see the effects of what's happening on the other end. These effects get worse to the user as their delivered speed is increased. Folks get 'used to' seeing some sites fly, then believe there is a 'problem' when all of the places they visit don't respond with the same snappiness. I realize some of the bigger providers have their share of delivery difficulties. Some of them over-sell their bandwidth to a degree that never allows for their customers to pull what they are provisioned, but if you are able to pull good speeds to the test sites, then the ability is there to have the same performance from any site. The Internet is a highway of robust and fragile networks that are interconnected and like a chain - is only as strong as the weakest link. Now that big pipe Internet connections to common folks like us are becoming more commonplace, we are seeing the fragile-ness of the parts that cannot keep up. I sit on a LAN with 25 synchronous MB to the Internet. My provider buys 1000 MB in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. With 2 gigs of Internet, the provider can really see the bottlenecks. You didn't even know they existed when you were on dial-up I'm not saying Comcast doesn't have their problems, but with multi-meg Internet connections available to the average consumer, you are going to see the weaker links; and it doesn't matter who your provider is. Kevin Custer
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Paul Plack wrote: Kevin, thanks for your insight. Comcast must cap speeds below what it advertises intentionally, because even distant speed test servers would run higher speeds than what I could get to fellow Comcast users in the same part of town. WAN traffic is indeed limited so the overhead remains small. Most companies charge extra to prioritize route WAN traffic. Kevin
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
I've tried several iterations of Linux and have YET to get SvxLink working Can't seem to find all the pieces and parts needed to get it installed... Is there a trick to Linux I don't get? -Jon -WB0VTM - Original Message - From: Gunnar Widell To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP Hi Brian. The software you need is SvxLink. It is FREE to download and has all the features you need, and a lot more. In SvxLink you can use the remotetrx function to split RX's and TX's (yes multiple!) between different QTH's. The built in voter can select the best RX. Several codecs are available if you have limited bandwidth to you internet. Dont be afraid that it is running under Linux. To kick start your repeater system: Find two computers with soundcards. Install Linux, most linux distribution work fine. (Fedora prefered) Install SvxLink, http://svxlink.sourceforge.net/install.php (If there are questions, see below for support!) Play with it! You can use a PC speaker as the TX and a microphone as RX to start with. Warning! You will probably get hooked by this impressive software. Find more information here: http://svxlink.sf.net There is also a Live CD that you can download to test svxlink. Burn this .iso and boot the computer with Linux and SvxLink. NO Install needed to test! http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=6c9ade2f0812130617u1bbabcc0q7057d8ee23346650%40mail.gmail.com When you get stuck, this is the place to go: http://svxlink.sourceforge.net/support.php 73 de Gus, SG3P http://sk0ct.se/ Brian; In general VOIP as an audio link is not very stable if you do not control the bandwidth loading of the Link. There are technologies like TDM over IP that have much less jitter and dropout issues.. but it still is reliant on the IP link being stable and not overloaded as well as not interfered with. VOIP is essential not going to be very real time and as a udp protocol is not very error correcting...The delays and dropouts may or may not be worth your effort... http://allstarlink.org/ these folks have a network application which could serve your needs.. but inherent system delays may still be more than you are willing to use on a repeater.. There generally is no provision for voting multiple receivers in any technology based on IP besides TDM over IP.. and that requires good link bandwidth controls.. The allstarlink IP based repeater controller is pretty cool. I am building a node at one of my sites.. but linking is subject to network delays.. Doug KD8B At 10:42 AM 3/9/2009, you wrote: My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). Whew... Now, question is: will it work? Or more properly, has anyone made this work? I'm going to try it on a small scale just to prove concept, but I'm curious if anyone has tried this already. My intention is to use something along the lines of Winamp with Shoutcast or Windows Media Encoder to stream the audio. I'd rather find a Linux-based CLI encoder if such an animal exists. I had thought about using IRLP nodes as endpoints, but IRLP policy would preclude that. Thoughts? Encouragement? FTW is he THINKING?!?! ;) I'd be interested in the group's thoughts, and I'll report the results of my experiments. Thanks 73, Brian, N4BWP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
In addition to what's already been mentioned, a pure linking box (no ID's etc.) on the commerical side is the JPS NXU2 http://www.jps.com/page/view/89about $750 for each end last time I priced them. Chuck n0nhj Ethercrash wrote: My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). Whew... Now, question is: will it work? Or more properly, has anyone made this work? I'm going to try it on a small scale just to prove concept, but I'm curious if anyone has tried this already. My intention is to use something along the lines of Winamp with Shoutcast or Windows Media Encoder to stream the audio. I'd rather find a Linux-based CLI encoder if such an animal exists. I had thought about using IRLP nodes as endpoints, but IRLP policy would preclude that. Thoughts? Encouragement? FTW is he THINKING?!?! ;) I'd be interested in the group's thoughts, and I'll report the results of my experiments. Thanks 73, Brian, N4BWP Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Brian; In general VOIP as an audio link is not very stable if you do not control the bandwidth loading of the Link. There are technologies like TDM over IP that have much less jitter and dropout issues.. but it still is reliant on the IP link being stable and not overloaded as well as not interfered with. VOIP is essential not going to be very real time and as a udp protocol is not very error correcting...The delays and dropouts may or may not be worth your effort... http://allstarlink.org/ these folks have a network application which could serve your needs.. but inherent system delays may still be more than you are willing to use on a repeater.. There generally is no provision for voting multiple receivers in any technology based on IP besides TDM over IP.. and that requires good link bandwidth controls.. The allstarlink IP based repeater controller is pretty cool. I am building a node at one of my sites.. but linking is subject to network delays.. Doug KD8B At 10:42 AM 3/9/2009, you wrote: My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). Whew... Now, question is: will it work? Or more properly, has anyone made this work? I'm going to try it on a small scale just to prove concept, but I'm curious if anyone has tried this already. My intention is to use something along the lines of Winamp with Shoutcast or Windows Media Encoder to stream the audio. I'd rather find a Linux-based CLI encoder if such an animal exists. I had thought about using IRLP nodes as endpoints, but IRLP policy would preclude that. Thoughts? Encouragement? FTW is he THINKING?!?! ;) I'd be interested in the group's thoughts, and I'll report the results of my experiments. Thanks 73, Brian, N4BWP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Order up two of the RLC DSP-404 controllers and you will have it linked via IP. I am using one at the repeater site and another for a voted site and works well. Mike K7PFJ - Original Message - From: Ethercrash n4bwp...@charter.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 9, 2009 8:42:42 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). Whew... Now, question is: will it work? Or more properly, has anyone made this work? I'm going to try it on a small scale just to prove concept, but I'm curious if anyone has tried this already. My intention is to use something along the lines of Winamp with Shoutcast or Windows Media Encoder to stream the audio. I'd rather find a Linux-based CLI encoder if such an animal exists. I had thought about using IRLP nodes as endpoints, but IRLP policy would preclude that. Thoughts? Encouragement? FTW is he THINKING?!?! ;) I'd be interested in the group's thoughts, and I'll report the results of my experiments. Thanks 73, Brian, N4BWP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
In the KISS mode, here is a simple solution that can be used for a trial. At the receiver site, use a PL decoder to gate audio into a SKYPE port on the computer at the receive site. Audio would only be present if the receive signal had the proper tone present. At the transmit site, use a SignalLink USB port on SKYPE to feed audio and PTT (COS) to your controller. Put the controller at the transmit site and feed the SignalLink audio and PTT signals to the controller in place of the normal receive signals. SKYPE does not need a PTT signal to activate the audio into the system. The system is full duplex, and audio from the receive site is active all the time. The PL at the receiver controls the audio input. At the transmit site, the SignalLink recovers the PTT using a VOX circuit with front panel adjustments to supply the COS input to your controller of choice. Use a control receiver at your transmit site to feed control DTMF signals to your controller using a frequency of 220 or above for a legal system. SKYPE does have the usual encode/decode delay, but does not have the UDP routing problem. All signals are TCP/IP in the SKYPE system. 73 - Jim W5ZIT --- On Mon, 3/9/09, Ethercrash n4bwp...@charter.net wrote: From: Ethercrash n4bwp...@charter.net Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Date: Monday, March 9, 2009, 9:42 AM My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). Whew... Now, question is: will it work? Or more properly, has anyone made this work? I'm going to try it on a small scale just to prove concept, but I'm curious if anyone has tried this already. My intention is to use something along the lines of Winamp with Shoutcast or Windows Media Encoder to stream the audio. I'd rather find a Linux-based CLI encoder if such an animal exists. I had thought about using IRLP nodes as endpoints, but IRLP policy would preclude that. Thoughts? Encouragement? FTW is he THINKING?!?! ;) I'd be interested in the group's thoughts, and I'll report the results of my experiments. Thanks 73, Brian, N4BWP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
At 08:42 AM 3/9/2009, you wrote: My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). If you don't want to mess with a PC at each site, you could use a RLC-DSP404 controller instead http://www.link-comm.com/ppage.php?cid=2scid=26. It has four built-in VoIP connections, one of which could be used as the link between the sites. It is huge overkill, but maybe no more so than using a PC just to get a VoIP link. The VoIP connections use the G.711 codec (64kbps), so the audio won't suffer from compression artifacts. It sends VoIP packets only when there is audio to send, and the other end treats the presence or absence of packets like COR to control the transmitter at the other end. Disclosure: I work for Link Communications. Steve --- Steve Strobel Link Communications, Inc. 1035 Cerise Rd Billings, MT 59101-7378 (406) 245-5002 ext 102 (406) 245-4889 (fax) WWW: http://www.link-comm.com MailTo:steve.stro...@link-comm.com
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Hi Brian. The software you need is SvxLink. It is FREE to download and has all the features you need, and a lot more. In SvxLink you can use the remotetrx function to split RX's and TX's (yes multiple!) between different QTH's. The built in voter can select the best RX. Several codecs are available if you have limited bandwidth to you internet. Dont be afraid that it is running under Linux. To kick start your repeater system: Find two computers with soundcards. Install Linux, most linux distribution work fine. (Fedora prefered) Install SvxLink, http://svxlink.sourceforge.net/install.php (If there are questions, see below for support!) Play with it! You can use a PC speaker as the TX and a microphone as RX to start with. Warning! You will probably get hooked by this impressive software. Find more information here: http://svxlink.sf.net There is also a Live CD that you can download to test svxlink. Burn this .iso and boot the computer with Linux and SvxLink. NO Install needed to test! http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=6c9ade2f0812130617u1bbabcc0q7057d8ee23346650%40mail.gmail.com When you get stuck, this is the place to go: http://svxlink.sourceforge.net/support.php 73 de Gus, SG3P http://sk0ct.se/ Brian; In general VOIP as an audio link is not very stable if you do not control the bandwidth loading of the Link. There are technologies like TDM over IP that have much less jitter and dropout issues.. but it still is reliant on the IP link being stable and not overloaded as well as not interfered with. VOIP is essential not going to be very real time and as a udp protocol is not very error correcting...The delays and dropouts may or may not be worth your effort... http://allstarlink.org/ these folks have a network application which could serve your needs.. but inherent system delays may still be more than you are willing to use on a repeater.. There generally is no provision for voting multiple receivers in any technology based on IP besides TDM over IP.. and that requires good link bandwidth controls.. The allstarlink IP based repeater controller is pretty cool. I am building a node at one of my sites.. but linking is subject to network delays.. Doug KD8B At 10:42 AM 3/9/2009, you wrote: My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). Whew... Now, question is: will it work? Or more properly, has anyone made this work? I'm going to try it on a small scale just to prove concept, but I'm curious if anyone has tried this already. My intention is to use something along the lines of Winamp with Shoutcast or Windows Media Encoder to stream the audio. I'd rather find a Linux-based CLI encoder if such an animal exists. I had thought about using IRLP nodes as endpoints, but IRLP policy would preclude that. Thoughts? Encouragement? FTW is he THINKING?!?! ;) I'd be interested in the group's thoughts, and I'll report the results of my experiments. Thanks 73, Brian, N4BWP
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
Brian, you've received lots of interesting suggestions. My only contribution would be that in the configuration you originally proposed, (and many possible combinations of the technology suggested by others,) you want the controller at the transmitter end. There's never a time you're legally required to ID the audio stream from the receiver on the internet, but there could be a number of scenarios in which the transmitter could wind up being keyed with no activity on the repeater input. The transmitter is the only thing you legally need ID'd. Keep us posted on your results! 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Ethercrash To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 8:42 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement... Recent Activity a.. 18New Members b.. 1New Photos Visit Your Group Group Charity One Economy Helping close the digital divide Check out the Y! Groups blog Stay up to speed on all things Groups! Yahoo! Groups Stay healthy and discover other people who can help. .
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP
I suspect you could use this for your needs: http://app-rpt.qrvc.com/ and a USB-equipped Linux capable system - doesn't need much horsepower since you're not forced to additionally compress the audio. I suggest using a small 'embedded' type Linux-running system, like the Ubiquiti Routerboard/Routerboard Pro. They're inexpensive and rock solid. OpenWRT has packages for what you need to run Asterisk. Non-obvious awesomeness of this: 1) You can also use it as the controller for your backhaul IP link (just add Atheros chipset MiniPCI card). You can add the minipci cards, prebuilt pigtails/coax, and 25+ dBi gain 5ghz antennas (assuming perfectly clear LOS between the repeater sites) for about $100/endpoint. 2) You're basically using a full blown phone switch/pbx controller to run your radio. Autopatch? Got it. Linking? Got it. Voice (cooler than dtmf!) control? Got it. Basically its only limited by your ability to configure Asterisk. 3) add another USB device and you're controlling another radio, with the same or a completely different configuration/usage of the first... Calculatons: Ubiquiti Routerstation: $69 USB header connector: $5 USB audio device: $10 CM9 802.11a/b/g adapter:$35 UFL to N-F pigtail: $10 26 dBi 5.8 GHz parabolic: $55 --- Total (per end):$184 Just add LMR-400, audio cables, and have a blast JS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater- buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ethercrash Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 9:43 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Split site link via IP My repeater group is considering building split-site 6m machine. As an inter-site link, I was thinking of using some sort of VOIP arrangement via the internet. I'm curious if anyone has tried something like this: My idea is to use a point-to-point, private link (i.e. not IRLP or Echo) to pump audio and maybe even some signaling between sites. The receive site would consist of the receive radio, controller (most likely an Arcom), and a PC to do the encoding/streaming. The transmit site would consist of a PC to decode the audio stream, a PL decoder for TX logic, and the TX radio. The basic premise would be to take audio from the RX (PL filtered), fed thru the controller, mixed with link PL, and fed to the PC's audio input. The PC then streams the audio over the internet to the RX site PC, where it is decoded and fed to the TX radio, which will be keyed by a PL decoder (provided the IP encode/decode process hasn't mangled the PL). Whew... Now, question is: will it work? Or more properly, has anyone made this work? I'm going to try it on a small scale just to prove concept, but I'm curious if anyone has tried this already. My intention is to use something along the lines of Winamp with Shoutcast or Windows Media Encoder to stream the audio. I'd rather find a Linux- based CLI encoder if such an animal exists. I had thought about using IRLP nodes as endpoints, but IRLP policy would preclude that. Thoughts? Encouragement? FTW is he THINKING?!?! ;) I'd be interested in the group's thoughts, and I'll report the results of my experiments. Thanks 73, Brian, N4BWP Yahoo! Groups Links
