On Jun 26, 2008, at 3:20 PM, nj902 wrote: > Beg to differ, Nate. > > I know you computer gurus are all gaga about the world-wide call sign > routed [Nextel Direct-Talk] D-Star model, but from the point of view > of an Emergency Management Agency, we have no interest in having one > of our communications resources tied to the entire planet during a > local emergency. >
Hmm, how to respond to this to clear up misconceptions about what I'm saying... I'm not "gaga" about it, in fact I find it has serious flaws. Source- routing is great as long as there's always an "ack" system to prove you source-routed all the way to your destination. D-STAR has this (RPT vs UR back from the repeater) but it often "disappears" in practice, and I'm not sure why. The system could also benefit from real-time warnings about doubling (which would require a lot wider frequency split or a mobile duplexer built into the rig so you could listen at the same time as transmitting) etc. It's not perfect, by any means. But as I'm learning to say, "It is what it is." A Gateway-equipped D-STAR system is instantly a fully- linked, source-routed system. If that's not what you wanted to use, why are you building a Gateway-equipped D-STAR system for your local use? It is what it is. Or another way to look at it, use the appropriate tool for the job. A local only net, probably shouldn't be on a D-STAR Gateway-equipped system, if there's some logical, serious concern, about interruptions from afar. > We might be interested in regional networking or access from the State > EOC - it depends on the circumstances. > I understand completely. All I'm saying is that plenty of EmComm nets and activities happen on "shared" spectrum in both training (peacetime) and very trying times, and those Nets don't have the ability to "block out" other spectrum users. They have procedures and knowledge of how to adapt to an interloper, intentional or accidental. > Actually, if D-Star really takes off, it is inevitable that there is > no way everyone will play together and there will be separate > networks, subnetworks, connect & disconnect on demand, or whatever > turns out to be the evolution of things. > Perhaps. Right now it's bringing dissimilar groups together around the technology. And there ARE mechanisms built in to "filter out" things and/or people you don't want to hear, but not to force them not to "timeshare" on the repeater, really. Digital code squelch comes to mind here. The distinct "user groups" can agree to a code and only hear the "other guys" if they find/use the same code, press the EMR button and holler "HELP" or however that darn BK button works... I haven't quite figured that one out yet. Does anyone on an EmComm Net really need to run "open squelch" other than the Net Control? Food for thought. But... in order to take full advantage of that particular part of the technology, the participants need to pay attention to the displays on their rigs. Take that a step further. Do the participants in the event really need to hear each other? Could the Net Controller callsign route to everyone as needed? If folks go back to making sure they voice ID, could the radios be pre- programmed with "RS1" "RS2" "MED1" "MED2" for things like Rest Stop 1, Rest Stop 2, Medical 1, Medical 2, etc... and the Net controller's rig have all of those available as UR memories? Want to get less specific? "RS" for all Rest Stops. "MED" for all Medical. "SAG" for all Sag Wagons. Just to use one type of event as an example... a bike race. Change these as you see fit to match your needs. These are just rambling thoughts... your Net runs your way. That's how it goes. I'm just challenging folks to think about how to implement this new technology they've "chosen". It will do a LOT of things, but few are pushing the envelope and trying them out as ways to make things better. But sticking to the old "analog repeater" ways is limiting, to some extent. Someone has to break ground and try some other methods. If they work well, great. If it sucks... call it a learning experience. Certainly "real" public safety dispatch has changed over the years. Trunking, Talk Groups, etc... all used regularly now. The Fire Chiefs may listen to all districts, but the grunts don't. Same with the police. And the garbage truck guys may be sharing the same repeater infrastructure too! > New ideas don't automatically mean BETTER ideas. For proof just look > at the glitzy, state-of-the-art, digital dashboard in the 84 > Corvette. Others tried it too. Look into any car today - what do you > see? Good old fashioned analog readouts. People found that the old > model works best. > Never said they did. Just saying instead of putting the "load" on the admin to try to tear down and reconnect a system at the whim of the users of the system, on a system that was never intended to be disconnected from the overall cooperative network, may not be the right solution. The end-users on such a system have a (small?) responsibility (but an important one) to really learn how the system works prior to taking more drastic measures (shutting down a Gateway system, or not installing one at all). > The new technology stayed in the dashboards - all those dials are > microprocessor driven - but the new technology was refined to work the > way the users want it to work. Likewise, new technology will be part > of amateur radio's future - but the user interfaces - and the > architecture of the systems that we use will be driven by what meets > amateur radio needs. > Yep, I think you're talking about "D-STAR version Two" or something down the road. (Pun not intended... "road", since you're talking about cars, but it strikes me as funny.) D-STAR has warts. So do other systems. All behave differently. > It's easy to see the attraction of the call sign routed model - it is > an attraction for existing hams, particularly computer oriented hams, > to be able to do things that ham radio could never do before - but is > it an attraction to potential new hams??? > I think you're headed off into the ditch here of speculation that can't be known. Whether or not D-STAR (or any other technology) is "good for Amateur Radio" starts to lead down a path that is really un- knowable. Was CW "good for Amateur Radio" at the close of the Spark Gap era? Was SSB "good for Amateur Radio" at the close of the AM era. Additionally, with Amateur Radio, no "era" ever really closes. One friend of mine describes it this way, we're both radio pioneers and radio historians. If there's a new way to do things via radio, hams are probably doing it. If there's an old way of doing things via radio, you can probably find a ham on the air doing it at the exact same time. It's one of the coolest and most ironic things about our hobby. With our culture here in the U.S., the fact that it's called "new technology" is the biggest "driver" of interest, no matter what it is -- good or bad. Consumers buy up "new" gadgets at stores every weekend. Show 'em the typical analog rig and they say, "So? I have an FRS radio. What would I need that ham thing for?" Show 'em the coverage of a repeater, they say, "cool, but our family doesn't scatter out that far and we have cell phones for that". Show 'em an autopatch? Um... same thing. Show 'em an IRLP or EchoLink system where they can talk to someone halfway around they world, they say they have Skype. Show 'em D-STAR, a radio where they can travel to areas and talk back home via callsigns and what not... they're still not really all that impressed. To be honest. One engineering friend who's also a management type put it this way, "You guys just got mobile data that far along that you have it in city- wide types of coverage from an integrated radio system? Wow. I would have thought you guys would have been doing that a long time ago. I haven't seen a cop car without a data terminal in it in many years!" He went on to say that he was glad knowing Ham Radio was there, backstopping communications needs and offering help in times of trouble. He "gets it" and would fight to the death for me to have a tower (as long as I wasn't his neighbor, hah hah), etc. We talked about the fact that our new system here also can route that voice/data worldwide (assuming the Internet connections are alive and/or heroics are done to recover them -- satellite, whatever) and he liked that a lot. Thought it was fascinating. But even he understands that our shortwave activity sometimes is the real "fixer" of an area that needs communications with areas outside the local area, and that the D-STAR and other gadgetry he knows I play with, doesn't always work. MIXING our technologies with real-world goals, like the EmComm groups do... covering critical infrastructure when cell phones are out... or building some new data system that sends telemetry both locally, and worldwide, complete with direct callsign routing... for a PURPOSE is what ham radio folks have to come up with on our own. Build a system for a reason, and likely people in your personal space of influence are like-minded. Show 'em that particular "something real" and they might also become a Ham and get involved. They just might get interested. Ever met a ham who after his elmer or innate interest got them off their duffs enough to take the test, didn't want to learn anything else or try anything else in the hobby after they joined up? I haven't seen many. A few, but even those experiment with different bands under whatever technology banner they're "flying". > We should be careful here - if we want there to be amateur radio in > the future - it may not be a real good idea to evolve the "product" > into a poor imitiation of the same thing any 16 year old can get at a > the local mall for $29/month. > The difference here is, the 16 year old paying for the $29/month service can't BUILD things with it. They can't create their own special data network, and talk to their newfound radio friends at the same time in voice. It's not about us re-creating the cellular network -- we all know it's too big, too fast, and does things our systems can't. It's about creating new and different niche networks that the cell companies or whoever aren't interested in marketing to the general public. It's about a bunch of hobbyists trying new things, building, operating, practicing skills, researching, learning, etc. Frankly, as soon as we think of good ideas, commercial entities will copy it and do it better. That's been ham radio for many decades now. "APRS-like" services are available to track your kids, your dog, even find you via an emergency transmission through a satellite if you get lost in the woods. We hams did it first. (Well, some might argue that the military did in some cases, but that's not a world most of us can "see into" so you can say ham radio did many things first in the public sector.) I see your concern and your needs for your EmComm group. If you want digital (something you have to want for a reason), and you want no linking -- a non-Gateway equipped D-STAR system really isn't the best quality way to do it. P25 repeaters are better built (quality wise) and you MIGHT need P25 and a lot of user radios for your EmComm group. (OH LORD, I'm going to get flamed for that one... where's my fire-retardant undies?) You WILL lose the ability (without specific radios) to do low speed data, callsign routing, worldwide networking, and various other things. But if the needs of your local group are met, more power to you. Use P25. Use analog. Use two tin cans and a string, if you like. Only you and your group can determine if you want D-STAR. I would never force it on anyone. It took me two to three YEARS to get interested, ask some of the long-timers in D-STAR. I have regular phone calls form people saying they LAUGHED when they saw me starting to come around... because they knew I would, eventually. But all of that said... if D-STAR doesn't meet your needs or your EmComm groups needs, or the added features that a world-wide source- routed voice and data network of cooperating stations provide... If those features aren't enough to sway you... a network that works TODAY, by the way... not something that still needs to be engineered (P25 networking on a wide scale, for example... can be done, but isn't going to happen overnight and D-STAR is WAY ahead of the game now)... Then DO NOT use it. Use what works for you. That is REALLY what hams are best at -- and have ALWAYS been best at. I advocating that our KNOWLEDGE level of each type of system is where our strength lies. Having experts who KNOW how and when to use D- STAR, versus when to use the local analog machine, versus when to fire up on 40m HF, versus IRLP/EchoLink, versus WinLink, SSTV, PSK31, Olivia, whatever... that's the "resource" we're supposed to be! I would NOT argue with you that D-STAR is perfect for you, if it's not. That's your call. I'm only saying that if EmComm is using D-STAR in a particular area, on a Gateway-equipped system, they'd better learn how it really works -- if they do that, the "problem" of someone interrupting is minimized. If there's a TON of interrupters... sure... have a backup plan... and by all means, have a local admin shut the Gateway down! Have a plan, base the plan on the system utilized, teach people how to use the system, and rely on "hacks" like shutting the Gateway off or blacklisting a callsign, as the "trick up the sleeve" of the local repeater admins, not as normal procedure. Does that make more sense or give a better feel for what I was trying to communicate? You kinda went off there on "reasons D-STAR might be harmful to ham radio" and I kinda followed along in this reply, but I'd rather go back to the original topic, since it's far more on-topic... how to handle Nets for specific groups that take place on D-STAR. Because that's untested ground in many ways. Holding a standard voice Net on D-STAR is possible, but not necessarily the best. Example: Robin running the first Reflector Net tests, thought outside of the box, and took checkins by people kerchunking. Their callsign came up in his logs, and he knew who was there, without a single word being spoken. That's pretty powerful. How long does it take a Net to get everyone checked in? Can you reduce it in time by a factor of ten? Can you (during an event) just ask someone to key momentarily to capture a callsign you missed on your site log? "Rest Stop 1, could you pleast key your radio momentarily so I can copy down your callsign"....? "[click/beep]"... "Thank you! Net Control standing by for calls." It's all about adapting procedures to the technology at hand. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED]
