Regarding digital repeaters and radios-- all fine and good. But none of this is available to hams right now, and it'll be a decade or so till it completely replaces what is out there. As you mentioned the barriers are proprietary protocols and licensing costs.
As for modifying the IAXy or Sipura boxes, The firmware is proprietary in the IAXY (non-gpl). The only way I see to use the IAXy is to modify the firmware to deal with COR and PTT instead of off-hook and ring generate, and hack the codec interface for 4 wire audio. I suppose you could call Digium and see if they might license the IAXy tech to you for dedicated 2-way radio use. Your $99 solution for a single port analog to radio interface is illusory. Even if you could make a modified IAXy or Sipura, the customization would blow the discounts afforded by economies of scale out of the water, not to mention the licensing fees Digium might charge you to adapt it to a radio application. The only way I see the cheap single port TCP-IP adapter come to pass is if someone comes out with a VOIP router/gateway box which runs Linux and can be made to run Asterisk. The WRT54G is close. If the WRT54G had a VOIP port which could be modified to run in 4-wire mode, then this would be a cheap platform which could be hacked to do what you want. I'm beginning to wonder if we might be competition for something you are cooking up. Steve WA6ZFT. We are currently investigating packaged solution which fits into a short 1U rack and runs off of 13.8V. I hear rumors that a WRT54G can be made to run Asterisk. This could be a platofrm on which you could kludge a codec > > From: Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2004/12/08 Wed PM 03:40:17 EST > To: [email protected] > CC: Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: 4-wire E&M + VoIP (was: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Remote > Receiver > > > Steve Rodgers wrote: > > >Nate, > > > >Why not use a full duplex RF link to your data center? That way you could > >have "dumb" hardware at the site, and all your smarts at the data center. > >You > >could also avoid paying for a DSL connection at the site as well. > > > >Steve > >WA6ZFT > > > > > Ah, a number of reasons. > > Commercial sites you pay by the antenna, but there's more often than not > at least one TCP/IP pipe that someone already pays for at most > commercial sites now that an appropriate deal can be made to ride along > on, and some really fat shared pipes available at some. > > Simplicity - maintaining a cheap IAXy device (throw it away if it > breaks) is better than messing with multiple link radios, feedlines, > antennas, etc. Put the redundancy in the data network instead. > > Why? If you put your own IP pipes in, you can do other things with > them... it's more "universally useful" than a dedicated link radio to do > other "stuff" with at the sites... remote monitoring, reprogramming, run > club servers, remote power switching, etc etc etc... and > what-have-you... lots of uses only limited by imagination -- a dedicated > link radio is a one-hit wonder. > > Your solution definitely "works", we're just imagining the "next level". > > Hams are so far behind the commercial technology it's not even funny. > Many modern commercial repeaters now have an Ethernet port right on the > back and various proprietary ways to pass audio, signalling, etc... from > the repeaters to PC's or other repeaters, or whatever else you like on > the networking side. Many are using TCP/IP multicast and UDP transport > which is great for private networks but a pain in the butt on the > Internet-at-large without building VPN tunnels but that could "easily" > be changed by the manufacturers. They're on a steep learning curve > right now figuring out how to do data networking at a layer more > involved than just transporting the bits for other people. > > There are those of us out here who'd happily work on "better" solutions > to these common problems and possibly even come up with interesting ways > for the commercial folks to interoperate (experimentation is what hams > do best!), but we're essentially locked out by price and lack of truly > open standards. Normal stuff, but frustrating if digital stuff is "what > you know"... you know you could come up with interesting solutions to > common problems of inter-operation, etc. > > I got a chance to play with some APCO-25 digital radios recently and got > the eye-opener of how "old-school" ham repeaters really are. You gain > an incredible amount of functionality by putting more digital "brains" > in the radios. > > It's really a little disappointing that even though APCO-25 is an open > standard, the codec they chose to use is a licensed one instead of based > on an open standard also. I don't think IMBE is going to give away the > CODEC for non-commercial use. (Although I haven't asked.) So the > Vocoder is the stumbling block for us bit-heads who'd love to experiment. > > This doesn't mean another open standard couldn't be made up out of the > blue, but the existing base of gear starting to hit the streets for > APCO-25 would be a nice way to outfit people that want to play along. > > Someone could hack together a proposal for say, call it... the > "OpenCodec P-25" standard using a free (possibly open-source) codec, but > you'd have a hell of a time figuring out how to put such changes into an > existing radio without insider help at a manufacturer -- or maybe a > "miracle of understanding" of how useful such a thing would be. (If the > manufacturers didn't have to pay IMBE for their vocoder... would the > cost drop be worth it to them to cooperate on a spin-off standard that > kept all of P-25 but switched out the codec? Cooperation is something > they all traditionally don't do well, just getting them to agree on P-25 > I hear was quite a feat in and of itself, but it's working. The next > level for them is to shed the commercial codec.) > > Anyway, off on a side-track here... back to the station where we park > the steam locomotive (analog radio) to wait for it's death... the diesel > locomotives have been here a while and the airplanes are coming. Not > saying what we already do isn't fun, but it's not exactly > state-of-the-art either. > > Nate WY0X > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
