Cisco IPICS Brings IP Networking to Two-Way Radios [Archive]

K1LPI

10-24-2005, 09:31 PM

Cisco Brings IP Networking to World of Two-Way Radios

Cisco IPICS system creates an intelligent system for integrating disparate push-to-talk radio systems with other voice, video, and data networks for business operations and public safety.......

Cisco unveiled the Internet Protocol Interoperability and Communications System, or Cisco IPICS. Cisco IPICS is an Internet protocol (IP) network collaboration platform that brings two-way radios into the realm of IP networking, offering all the benefits of this widely embraced, standards-based technology and extending the reach of two-way radios to other voice, video and data networks.

Complete article at:

Complete article (http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2005/ts_102405.html?CMP=ILC-001)

Submitted by K1LPI. Looks like a topic of interest as it will apply equally to amateur radio repeaters and ARES emergency nets, traffic handling, and links to the internet.

kc7rad

10-25-2005, 04:29 PM

What's funny about all of this Cisco stuff, is their complete denial that hams have been doing this for years with IRLP and EchoLink. #I can grab my HT here in the office, using our local IRLP node, and talk all over the world!

No, Cisco was not the first to do it... #Just the first to market it and make it seem as if it is their own.

73's
Ken

wa7tof

10-25-2005, 06:11 PM

Neither Cisco nor IPICs was the first on the market for this technology. I currently work for ARINC (www.arinc.com) as an RF engineer and we have been working with this technology for many years now, with installations in the LMR market for a year and a half. To set the record straight, Cisco came to ARINC to test the product out with our applications. It is ARINC's products in the field that has prompted Cisco to enter this market. I know this sounds like an advertisement for ARINC but it's not intended that way. Just to make a point - which is Cisco is getting in to the market because of the market already in place by ARINC using Cisco's equipment.

73,
Tim - WA7TOF

K8ERV

10-25-2005, 06:25 PM

Who wants to talk all over the world? I am local, and the most interesting person I want to talk to. Along with my dawg. My wife is excluded.

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

KB8YIO

10-25-2005, 06:30 PM

i called cisco.. they did not want to discuss this new technolgy with me.. as it is still being developed.

w0pm

10-25-2005, 07:13 PM

Telex/Vega has had a VOIP/Radio product on the market for several years. And I started using VOIP to tie between my commercial UHF trunked repeater systems about 5 years ago.

John Rayfield, Jr.

W2NJS

10-25-2005, 07:18 PM

I was in a sales presentation hosted by Polycom several months ago; same type subject, digital voice over
networks. At the end I mentioned that I was currently using
this same technology on IRLP and Echolink and the guy
making the presentation was amazed. Of course, what I
use doesn't provide the ability to hunt down a person no
matter where they are but it's basically the same thing.

W2NJS

ac3p

10-25-2005, 08:05 PM

We were using cell phones in the mid-1970's but we didn't call it cellular.

KD6NIG

10-25-2005, 08:31 PM

Being that it is a Cisco product, I don't expect it to be cheap.

But it doesn't matter to me. I don't think Ham Radio should be used for Internet anyway, and they already have wireless providers, wireless transmitters, heck, you can get the internet though your cell phone.

Guess it will be handy for some people, but not really a major breakthrough for Ham Radio, cept for those who will use it and trash some of our spectrum with it. Already happens with Echolink-I just love people who set up nodes on national calling freqs then complain when thier 'frequency is in use' by someone.

I'm sure it won't be long before some LID decides to use the nat'l calling frequency for his home computer network.

VE7TKO

10-25-2005, 10:12 PM

Quote[/b] (k1lpi @ Oct. 24 2005,14:31)]Cisco Brings IP Networking to World of Two-Way Radios

Cisco IPICS system creates an intelligent system for integrating disparate push-to-talk radio systems with other voice, video, and data networks for business operations and public safety.......

Cisco unveiled the Internet Protocol Interoperability and Communications System, or Cisco IPICS. Cisco IPICS is an Internet protocol (IP) network collaboration platform that brings two-way radios into the realm of IP networking, offering all the benefits of this widely embraced, standards-based technology and extending the reach of two-way radios to other voice, video and data networks.
Hams were there first. The JARL, "Japan Amateur Radio League", first published the standard for D-STAR in 2001. The system was researched and tested for three years prior to the release of the standard. D-STAR is an open protocol and is available to be implemented by anyone. D-STAR stands for "Digital Smart Technologies for Amateur Radio".

The first radio to use this system is the "ICOM ID-1". This radio just looks like an Ethernet connection to your laptop or other network devices. Once the D-STAR network is totally in place, 1200 MHz, 70 cm and 2-meter D-STAR repeaters will be able to interconnect seamlessly around the world. You will be able to connect with your fellow hams, no matter where in the D-STAR system they travel.

When a ham makes his initial transmission to the local D-STAR repeater, the call sign information is attached to the digitized voice packets and is recorded by the repeater controller. The controller than shares this information with other D-STAR systems around the world through a D-STAR gateway registry.

A detailed description of the D-STAR standard may be seen at: http://www.icomamerica.com/amateur/dstar/ . A home brewed D-STAR repeater has already been set up in Portland OR. You can expect this "open protocol" to be implemented on many other bands as skilled hams build the necessary repeaters.

I have been using an "ICOM ID-800H" for about a month now. Although a D-STAR repeater is not yet available in my area, I am having fun just learning about the digital side of my radios. Low speed data, D-APRS and digital voice can all share the same frequency, at the same time. A small jack on the side of my "ICOM IC-V82" allows me to plug my lap top computer directly into the radio without the need of a TNC. This is pretty versatile if you ask me.

Yesterday I discovered a new feature on my D-STAR equipment. Often I turn the volume on my HT down while I am speaking to a non-ham. I would occasionally forget to turn it back up. If the EMR button is turned on, on my base unit, the volume on my HT is automatically turned up to 12 when they call me.

Kenwood has now made a commitment to produce D-STAR compliant ham radios. As hams and ham radio manufactures continue to think out side of the box, we will again resume the leadership role in radio technology. The term, "A ham Did It First", should be our standard. Not all hams are skilled enough to build new experimental equipment, but we are all licensed to experiment, with the help of a good Elmer.

KQ6XA

10-26-2005, 05:57 AM

There have been UHF "IP extender" units available in Japan for many years. They are complete FRS-like UHF repeaters combined with a LAN or Internet converter. Businesses all over Japan and Asia use them for building-to-building and intra-site seamless UHF HT 2-way voice systems. The IP extender boxes are small, inexpensive, and simple; designed to be mounted on the inside a wall of a building... they have 2 antennas, an RJ-45 (10-baseT) connector, and a wall-wart for power.

Bonnie KQ6XA

NY7Q

10-26-2005, 03:04 PM

ham radio = transmitter/receiver, transceiver, and associated equipment, antennas...etc.
internet has no place coupled with ham radio..
computers have no place with transmitters/receivers.

K4SDI

10-26-2005, 04:24 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 25 2005,15:12)]Hams were there first. The JARL, "Japan Amateur Radio League", first published the standard for D-STAR in 2001. The system was researched and tested for three years prior to the release of the standard. D-STAR is an open protocol and is available to be implemented by anyone. D-STAR stands for "Digital Smart Radio". Blah Blah Blah Blah...........
Oh $hit, not another Icom advertisement, give it up already!!!!

K0RGR

10-26-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Oct. 26 2005,08:04)]ham radio = transmitter/receiver, transceiver, and associated equipment, antennas...etc.
internet has no place coupled with ham radio..
computers have no place with transmitters/receivers.
ham radio = telegraph key and spark gap

telephone equipment has no business being attached to spark gap

talking over the radio removes all the skill required

AI4GV

10-26-2005, 05:59 PM

[QUOTE]ham radio = transmitter/receiver, transceiver, and associated equipment, antennas...etc.
internet has no place coupled with ham radio..
computers have no place with transmitters/receivers

And all this time I thought PSK31 was ham radio.
I guess we should get rid of autopatch too.
What about microprocessors? Do they count?

W5HTW

10-27-2005, 01:47 AM

Who needs BPL to kill ham radio? We're doing a pretty good job of it on our own.

kg5vk

10-27-2005, 12:19 PM

head in the sand, don't embrase technology

where would we be http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

can you imagine only one mode ?
that would be BORING !

what I love about Ham Radio is the diversity

if you want to be a DX or a RAG chewer
a codie or a phone or digital guru
from morse to satelite communication we have plenty of choices.

and those that smirk about the embrace of VOIP and Ham Radio
echo link in our part of the country helped save hundreds of lives during the recent Huricanes, we embraced the medium and used what worked.

and in case you did not know what worked was Echo Link and HF ARES Nets
and the op at Bell Chase Naval AS on HF is a contester !

Diverse operating skills is what made the difference !
You can go stick your head in the sand I would rather embrace the new stuff !

73
steve
KG5VK

kr4wm

10-27-2005, 12:36 PM

Ham radio > coax > antenna > airwaves = WIRELESS (aka RADIO)

Computer > commercial paid-for wiring > internet = WIRED (also known as the INTERNET) NOT ham radio.

If commercial interests want to use the internet to place their phone calls, that's fine, but when hams use it, we degrade our service, and cripple ourselves by relying on commercial entities to provide service for us. This has nothing to do with CW, spark-gap, SSB, FM, AM, or any other longing for the past- it's a simple fact that some hams, new AND old, fail to understand. Amateur radio is supposed to be dependent on #1. If you're PAYING someone (or some company) to maintain a critical portion of your communications link, you cease being amateur radio. Amateur radio, by definition, is a NON-commercial service. I'm not saying VOIP is illegal when paired with amateur radio, but it -IS- morally reprehensible. -KR4WM

na4it

10-27-2005, 04:44 PM

Now here's a thought:

I think we all agree that a lot of the technology in the business world in communications was pioneered by amateur radio.

Maybe we need to start getting patents and copyrights on everything new, and when the business interests want to copy it and say they did it, make 'em pay.

Shoot, we even have a med helicopter locally the uses internet to radio from their office to the bird.

Wonder what happens when the Internet (the one that Al Gore invented) hiccups?

Oh well, another million lost.................

ve3esc

10-27-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote[/b] (KB8YIO @ Oct. 25 2005,11:30)]i called cisco.. they did not want to discuss this new technolgy with me.. as it is still being developed.
Really?!? I saw it first hand at a Cisco seminar 2 days ago. Got to play with it. Its slick as far as implemenations go, but CLEARLY not first to market like they seem to be portraying!

ve3esc

10-27-2005, 09:07 PM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Oct. 25 2005,13:31)]I'm sure it won't be long before some LID decides to use the nat'l calling frequency for his home computer network.
I'm not sure that you understand what we are talking about. I'm getting the impression you think this is IP over Voice... ie, data over the radio. It's just a commercial implementation of echolink/irlp. I'm doubtfull many hams would use it instead of echolink due to price and the fact that you would need it on the other end too whereas echolink/irlp are already accepted standards in HAM.

ve3esc

10-27-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Oct. 26 2005,08:04)]ham radio = transmitter/receiver, transceiver, and associated equipment, antennas...etc.
internet has no place coupled with ham radio..
computers have no place with transmitters/receivers.
I think you should turn off your computer and write us each a nice letter and put a stamp on it and send it by mail.

Ham radio is about communication, electronics and the spirit of invention and innovation.

Hams have a proud history of inventing things that have later gone on to become commercially accepted.

VE3SXY

10-27-2005, 09:49 PM

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Oct. 26 2005,08:04)]ham radio = transmitter/receiver, transceiver, and associated equipment, antennas...etc.
internet has no place coupled with ham radio..
computers have no place with transmitters/receivers.
What is this... the 1970s?

Anyone catching on here... digital isn't going anywhere. It's here, you need to embrace it... just like FM thirty years ago!

The irony is that you're chatting on a ham radio board using the Internet and a computer... can't figure that one out.

I'm quite proud to run a multi-site repeater system interconnected via VoIP, which is controlled completely by software on a computer... Audio is crystal clear... Voting.. You name it.

I'd like to see the cost for implementing a RF link between each tower to make it happen... not in my budget.

kr4wm

10-27-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote[/b] (VE3SXY @ Oct. 27 2005,14:49)][quote=NY7Q,

Anyone catching on here... digital isn't going anywhere. It's here, you need to embrace it... just like FM thirty years ago!

The irony is that you're chatting on a ham radio board using the Internet and a computer... can't figure that one out.

I'm quite proud to run a multi-site repeater system interconnected via VoIP, which is controlled completely by software on a computer... Audio is crystal clear... Voting.. You name it.

I'd like to see the cost for implementing a RF link between each tower to make it happen... not in my budget.
OK, I'll try to explain it in a way you can understand it... apparently you misunderstand my objection. I'm not opposed to digital communications. I'm opposed to the sending of amateur radio signals over the internet. It removes the spirit and integrity of the hobby. Only someone who is morally bankrupt would openly admit that combining the internet with amateur radio is a good thing- at least where sending a signal from point-to-point is involved. I'm not saying that it's technically impossible to do, only that it doesn't "feel right", and I don't know of anyone who gets "warm fuzzies" from making a cold contact from the non-accomplishment of making an internet-to-ham-radio contact.

Digital CAN be a good thing for amateur radio, as you will see below:

Digital comms via ham radio = CW, packet, RTTY, PSK-31, Hellschriber, DRM, etc.

Digital comms NOT via ham radio = Echolink, D-star, WIRES, IRLP, etc.

This has nothing to do with old vs. new or techs vs. generals and extras, or CW vs. codeless. I never said it was wrong to use computers. E-mail is a wonderful thing. But when you make a radio contact over the internet, it just removes all the magic, all the deserved excitement, and all the wonder of nature, that IS amateur radio! -KR4WM

K9PBR

10-27-2005, 10:13 PM

For you guys that don't like ECHOLINK or IRLP! The next time we are running a net over ECHOLINK or IRLP, helping out your State, your Town or maybe even you, with information on your family or Loved ones. Or maybe helping Emergency Officials get to your area. Remember you didn't want this technology in Ham Radio!!

kr4wm

10-27-2005, 10:56 PM

Quote[/b] (K9PBR @ Oct. 27 2005,15:13)]For you guys that don't like ECHOLINK or IRLP! The next time we are running a net over ECHOLINK or IRLP, helping out your State, your Town or maybe even you, with information on your family or Loved ones. Or maybe helping Emergency Officials get to your area. Remember you didn't want this technology in Ham Radio!!
Your local emergency preparedness division can set up and work a VOIP AOL or Yahoo chat room WITHOUT your help. It is YOUR ASSIGNMENT, whether you choose to accept it or not, to show them that amateur radio is a STEP UP AND ABOVE the internet, and more useful, not having to rely on downed power lines, cut cables, and disconnected telephone networks. -KR4WM

kr4wm

10-27-2005, 11:18 PM

Don't believe what I'm saying? Visit the ARRL website and read the article titled: Amateur Radio volunteers fill communication gap when telephones fail (Oct 25, 2005) It states, and I quote: It also cut off at least 150,000 telephone and Internet service customers for up to 12 hours along with many cell phone users. No more need be said about this failed "new" technogy. Look back at Charles Brabham's posts on this very website. Over and over, repeated time and time again, VOIP fails the test of security when it's needed most. I've been involved in emergency services on a professional basis for over 25 years (retired in 2003). I would not trust my life to someone using VOIP for emergency comms. -KR4WM

WZ4I

10-27-2005, 11:24 PM

VOIP failed?

What?

No...........

kc0vcu

10-28-2005, 03:44 AM

I suppose that someone will point out that sending voice in FSTV the same way that TV broadcasters do is against the Ham spirit too.

Probably something along the lines of it has to be done as SSB, not FM. Or Integrate it in the signaling with the Video, and show that you are testing something new.

My only complaint about IRLP and EchoLink is that I have yet to find a user client that runs on Linux. Windows, sure no problem. Mac, well I suppose, but we think the Windows client is better. Linux? You want us to do something using Open Standards? What are you nuts?

Sure some of the systems out there stream their repeater traffic via MP3 streaming software. I can listen to that with no problem. But actually communicate with the repeater directly from a linux desktop? Forget it.

I see nothing wrong with using IP to carry Voice from one repeater to another, from one PC to another, or from PCs to Repeater(s). Anyone who thinks this is against the Ham Spirit, (whatever they think that is) has to decide that auto-patches are wrong as well, as they would provide a means to dial from one repeater into another and interconnect them that way. Since the user of the auto-patch does not know what protocol is carrying the call, (straight analog pretty much is not used between cities these days, usually not within a city either) and many long distance carriers are using VOIP over their own networks to provide their own long distance lines, you could end up using the phone system to do the same thing Hams are experimenting with via IRLP and EchoLink.

Then again there are still people who complain that anything other than CW above 20wpm isn't Ham radio.

Good luck with that.

73
-Rusty - kc0vcu

w0pm

10-28-2005, 04:39 AM

For some reason, this entire thread has become an 'argument' over using the 'internet' to carry ham radio 'audio traffic' with VOIP.

The original post said NOTHING about the 'internet'. #It was talking about "IP networks" and VOIP over those networks. #This does NOT have to be the 'internet', and when used in the context of where it was used (speaking of commercial-grade VOIP, especially connecting radio systems using VOIP), it usually is NOT referring to the 'internet'.

IP networks do NOT have to be 'wired'. #They can be 'wireless'. #VOIP works quite well over 'wireless' networks (microwave, satellite, etc.)

I just recently installed a commercial VOIP system, operating over a microwave point-to-point IP network, to replace dispatch console-to-radio phone lines for a sheriff's department. #The entire system is 'wireless' (NO phone lines of any kind). #It works GREAT.

Maybe more hams should study up more on the latest technology, and the uses of that technology, instead of speaking about things of which they know nothing about.

# John - W0PM

VE7TKO

10-28-2005, 05:20 AM

Quote[/b] (w0pm @ Oct. 27 2005,21:39)]For some reason, this entire thread has become an 'argument' over using the 'internet' to carry ham radio 'audio traffic' with VOIP.

The original post said NOTHING about the 'internet'. It was talking about "IP networks" and VOIP over those networks. This does NOT have to be the 'internet', and when used in the context of where it was used (speaking of commercial-grade VOIP, especially connecting radio systems using VOIP), it usually is NOT referring to the 'internet'.

IP networks do NOT have to be 'wired'. They can be 'wireless'. VOIP works quite well over 'wireless' networks (microwave, satellite, etc.)

I just recently installed a commercial VOIP system, operating over a microwave point-to-point IP network, to replace dispatch console-to-radio phone lines for a sheriff's department. The entire system is 'wireless' (NO phone lines of any kind). It works GREAT.

Maybe more hams should study up more on the latest technology, and the uses of that technology, instead of speaking about things of which they know nothing about.

John - W0PM
AMEN

Sock it to em!

Quote[/b] ]VE3SXY said: I'd like to see the cost for implementing a RF link between each tower to make it happen... not in my budget.
You must be talking about the IPARN network.

k9ekg

10-28-2005, 05:32 AM

Quote[/b] (w0pm @ Oct. 27 2005,21:39)]For some reason, this entire thread has become an 'argument' over using the 'internet' to carry ham radio 'audio traffic' with VOIP.

The original post said NOTHING about the 'internet'. It was talking about "IP networks" and VOIP over those networks. This does NOT have to be the 'internet', and when used in the context of where it was used (speaking of commercial-grade VOIP, especially connecting radio systems using VOIP), it usually is NOT referring to the 'internet'.

IP networks do NOT have to be 'wired'. They can be 'wireless'. VOIP works quite well over 'wireless' networks (microwave, satellite, etc.)

I just recently installed a commercial VOIP system, operating over a microwave point-to-point IP network, to replace dispatch console-to-radio phone lines for a sheriff's department. The entire system is 'wireless' (NO phone lines of any kind). It works GREAT.

Maybe more hams should study up more on the latest technology, and the uses of that technology, instead of speaking about things of which they know nothing about.

John - W0PM
Thank you for explaining this to the uneducated. No phones? WHO CARES. Wireless VoIP works great when phones are down. Some people just need to get a clue.

kr4wm

10-28-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote[/b] (w0pm @ Oct. 27 2005,21:39)]IP networks do NOT have to be 'wired'. They can be 'wireless'. VOIP works quite well over 'wireless' networks (microwave, satellite, etc.)

I just recently installed a commercial VOIP system, operating over a microwave point-to-point IP network, to replace dispatch console-to-radio phone lines for a sheriff's department. The entire system is 'wireless' (NO phone lines of any kind). It works GREAT.

Maybe more hams should study up more on the latest technology, and the uses of that technology, instead of speaking about things of which they know nothing about.

John - W0PM
You're correct. Ten Tec has been experimenting with this, and AOR as well. It's basically the DRM standard. I have no problem with non-wired VOIP, aka DRM. My opinion is that amateur radio operators should free themselves of reliance on ANY commercial means of passing emergency traffic. I could care less about the format CW, PSK31, Hell, RTTY, packet, DRM, VOIP on RF, etc. I just have a SERIOUS problem with hams being dependent on commercial entities. (Usually, when someone talks about VOIP, they're talking about the internet.) And to the chap who was concerned about my opinion on phone patches, I'm not against them, but they're not used for tying repeaters together, the link would be too unreliable. They're used for making temporary repeater-to-phone communications. And they're not used during mass disasters (that I've ever heard), because a net controller takes over the repeater and controls the traffic. During a hurricane incident, our local repeaters are too busy with disaster traffic to be used to make a phone patch. Historically speaking- (we've used two local repeaters for this purpose, with others on "standby") one carries shelter traffic, the other carries all "other" traffic, usually co-ordinating government units. I've already proven my point that VOIP/internet linking is unreliable- rather, it's proven this on it's own. However, if you're using point-to-point VOIP on an RF link, I think that's great! More power to you!!! Write and submit an article to the ARRL, to this website, or somewhere else- the rest of us are waiting to read up on how to implement this ourselves!

kr4wm

10-28-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote[/b] (VE3SXY @ Oct. 27 2005,14:49)]I'd like to see the cost for implementing a RF link between each tower to make it happen... not in my budget.
Lemme see... a transmitter and receiver from HamTronics (I think they're still in business) around $300. Most every existing controller has a link feature (some don't) so no cost there. A pair of Yagi antennas at each end- can be homebrewed, around $100. Some feedline, doesn't have to be hardline, depends on the length of the run, maybe $100? Probably around $600 at each end of an RF link. Maybe $1000 if you buy lots of new stuff. Maybe $300 each site if you use surplused Motorola gear.

VOIP/IP Internet link? Let's see... a reasonably fast computer at each end- around $1200 each site (oops, we're already past the cost of an RF link...!) and an internet connection- a rucurring monthly cost. Dial up is too slow an unreliable, so we have to have a high-speed connection at each tower site, $45 a month per site from most cablemodem companies. Maybe half that if you use DSL (not available in all areas). Am I missing anything here?

RF link = free after $2000.00 (max) installation (except for occasional repairs)

VOIP/IP Internet link = $2400.00 installation plus recurring monthly cost for as long as you have it.

VE3SXY

10-28-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 27 2005,22:20)]Quote[/b] ]VE3SXY said: I'd like to see the cost for implementing a RF link between each tower to make it happen... not in my budget.

You must be talking about the IPARN network.
Nope. I'm talking about a makeshift and experimental amateur trunked radio system. I can roam around on three towers right now... voting and linking is all handled by one computer. Clear, consistent voice. Although I would never depend on this for commercial or public safety purposes... The system is quite robust. Details to follow in the New Year....

And, KR4VM you bring up some good points... well sort of.

I can understand your frustration of ham radio being tunneled through the net... There's nothing better than making a contact over the air... using only air.

However, understand that making contacts reliably isn't always the case... there are numerous factors (e.g. conditions). And someone like me, dropping $1000-2000 to get an HF station going isn't something I'm really interested in doing. Especially if I can dial up an IRLP node and reliably talk to somebody that way. It has nothing to do with class, I just think it’s boring.

Understand, for SOME amateurs... using computers or tunneling data through the net is a way of making things a bit more interesting and new for the hobby. Morally corrupt? I'm not going to even touch that one. All I can say, I sure hope you don't use the Internet in anyway to communicate with other hams.

VE3SXY

10-28-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote[/b] (kr4wm @ Oct. 28 2005,05:31)]RF link = free after $2000.00 (max) installation (except for occasional repairs)

VOIP/IP Internet link = $2400.00 installation plus recurring monthly cost for as long as you have it.
So.

I currently have three towers right now. By the way, this is a 900 MHz system. Even getting two to five link frequencies isn't going to happen on UHF/VHF. And I would need to triple your cost to do what I am doing.

All three sites are using Pentium I (retail cost: Lot of Five: $80 CDN). All three sites are using a donated broadband connection ($0). All sites are running UNIX using OpenSource software (SpeakFreely). The software to make everything happen is written by me; which will be OpenSource ($0)

Total Fiscal Cost: $80 first year. $0 each year. That's for three sites with two channels on each tower. And good roaming coverage, using good commercial hardware. And once you set it up properly, you don't really need to make repairs.

Like I said, voice is always consistent and clear. And just a 45ms delay on voice when key up occurs.

There is a reason why people use VoIP... and it's not because it sounds cool. It's cost efficient and robust if you know what you're doing!

AI4GV

10-28-2005, 02:59 PM

What is also interesting is hams have been talking about using digital voice communications for a while now. A few years ago I remember reading about slow digital voice over HF to reduce the bandwidth. I just like the idea that people are trying new things.

What I would like to see is the D-STAR protocol, APCO, or several other digital voice protocols available in such a way where I could attach my computer to a software controlled radio, download the software, choose whatever format I want to send the signal, and have some sort of choice. I don't mind being able to buy an ICOM with D-STAR on it, but I would like to be able to do some of this myself too.

I'm not sure I see the terrible danger of hooking a radio up to the internet. Sure, it's not reliable for emergencies, but it's fun to be able to walk around with a portable radio and talk to family or friends in other places. I'm not trying to get credit for DX contacts. I also don't think it will mean the end of RF linked repeaters.

ve3esc

10-28-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote[/b] (kr4wm @ Oct. 28 2005,05:31)]VOIP/IP Internet link? Let's see... a reasonably fast computer at each end- around $1200 each site
Where the heck do you buy your hardware?!?! A reasonably fast computer for this purpose would probably cost less then $300 and even cheaper used.

k9ekg

10-28-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote[/b] (ve3esc @ Oct. 28 2005,09:18)]Quote[/b] (kr4wm @ Oct. 28 2005,05:31)]VOIP/IP Internet link? Let's see... a reasonably fast computer at each end- around $1200 each site
Where the heck do you buy your hardware?!?! A reasonably fast computer for this purpose would probably cost less then $300 and even cheaper used.
He's not buying anything. Just trying to justify a losing arguement without doing any homework. Silly, really...
VoIP works great with wireless: VoIP Wireless uses RF, and wrecks the arguement that its all phone lines.

KD6NIG

10-28-2005, 09:04 PM

The reason why its being debated here is because you posted this article to a ham radio bulletin board.

If you didn't want people to assume you were relating it to ham radio, then perhaps a different bulletin board would have gotten the reaction you're looking for?

K8TTK

10-28-2005, 10:03 PM

What did that ICOM ad have to do with anything?

I think that too many people here compare VoIP with the internet, and phone calls (Vonage).

Gotta think just a little deeper in life dudes.

Kind of funny how the MA/COM OpenSky system that has been out for a few years now and is all IP based, and each radio is assigned an IP address. The current MA/COM, Motorola and Cicso links are just that... Links. They just happen to use the Internet Protocal (IP) ((Oops, I said internet again, so it must be bad) to route all the disparate radios into the same groups so they can talk to each other.

K8TEK

10-28-2005, 10:41 PM

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Oct. 26 2005,11:04)]ham radio = transmitter/receiver, transceiver, and associated equipment, antennas...etc.
internet has no place coupled with ham radio..
computers have no place with transmitters/receivers.
Too bad that $2,000 rig you are using IS a computer, with a radio as an option.

w0pm

10-28-2005, 11:10 PM

Quote[/b] (kr4wm @ Oct. 28 2005,07:19)]Quote[/b] (w0pm @ Oct. 27 2005,21:39)]IP networks do NOT have to be 'wired'. #They can be 'wireless'. #VOIP works quite well over 'wireless' networks (microwave, satellite, etc.)

I just recently installed a commercial VOIP system, operating over a microwave point-to-point IP network, to replace dispatch console-to-radio phone lines for a sheriff's department. #The entire system is 'wireless' (NO phone lines of any kind). #It works GREAT.

Maybe more hams should study up more on the latest technology, and the uses of that technology, instead of speaking about things of which they know nothing about.

# John - W0PM
You're correct. Ten Tec has been experimenting with this, and AOR as well. It's basically the DRM standard. I have no problem with non-wired VOIP, aka DRM. My opinion is that amateur radio operators should free themselves of reliance on ANY commercial means of passing emergency traffic. I could care less about the format CW, PSK31, Hell, RTTY, packet, DRM, VOIP on RF, etc. I just have a SERIOUS problem with hams being dependent on commercial entities. (Usually, when someone talks about VOIP, they're talking about the internet.) And to the chap who was concerned about my opinion on phone patches, I'm not against them, but they're not used for tying repeaters together, the link would be too unreliable. They're used for making temporary repeater-to-phone communications. And they're not used during mass disasters (that I've ever heard), because a net controller takes over the repeater and controls the traffic. During a hurricane incident, our local repeaters are too busy with disaster traffic to be used to make a phone patch. Historically speaking- (we've used two local repeaters for this purpose, with others on "standby") one carries shelter traffic, the other carries all "other" traffic, usually co-ordinating government units. I've already proven my point that VOIP/internet linking is unreliable- rather, it's proven this on it's own. However, if you're using point-to-point VOIP on an RF link, I think that's great! More power to you!!! Write and submit an article to the ARRL, to this website, or somewhere else- the rest of us are waiting to read up on how to implement this ourselves!
Quote[/b] ]You're correct. Ten Tec has been experimenting with this, and AOR as well. It's basically the DRM standard. I have no problem with non-wired VOIP, aka DRM.

No, VOIP is NOT the same as DRM. #VOIP is used over an IP network (wired or wireless)....DRM is an 'over the air' digital protocol.

Quote[/b] ]I think that too many people here compare VoIP with the internet, and phone calls (Vonage).

Gotta think just a little deeper in life dudes.

Kind of funny how the MA/COM OpenSky system that has been out for a few years now and is all IP based, and each radio is assigned an IP address. The current MA/COM, Motorola and Cicso links are just that... Links. They just happen to use the Internet Protocal (IP) ((Oops, I said internet again, so it must be bad) to route all the disparate radios into the same groups so they can talk to each other.

Finally, someone that really understands this technology.

As to someone mentioning something about a 'debate'...this thread did not start with ANYTHING that should have been 'debatable'. #The so-called 'debate' started when someone jumped in with comments about things that are totally unrelated to the original post. #VOIP could easily be used in conjunction with ham radio and have NOTHING to do with the internet.

# #John - WØPM

ve3esc

10-29-2005, 01:22 AM

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Oct. 28 2005,14:04)]The reason why its being debated here is because you posted this article to a ham radio bulletin board.

If you didn't want people to assume you were relating it to ham radio, then perhaps a different bulletin board would have gotten the reaction you're looking for?
Funny thing that....I posted this article on "that other" amateur radio forum and got a very different reaction!

I was personally at a Cisco conference on Wednesday and heard their crap and saw it first hand and made a point of telling their guy that "we did it first". (not really that proud a moment actually...:-) )

Doesn't change the point. The point is that if there is radio in the amature alotted bands being used in a non-professional communication by properly licensed individuals the guess what OF's...it's ham radio, whether you like it or not.

K8TTK

10-29-2005, 02:16 AM

Isn't it amazing that on the HamSxxx (you can't say hamsexy on this site can you? No admin has answered that yet) site you don't see the major clashes that are here, and that radio related subjects (their Radio-Chat? fourm) is all civil?

Maybe we should be rethinkning that site.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

Someone mentioned that people here are operating computers with the radio option. Very true. Look at all these HF rigs with mega color displays, computer interfaces, and more keypad buttons than all the keyboards at Microsoft. Since the advent of the all the programmable/synthized (sp) radio's, everyone has litterally been operating computers. Its just the next logical step in the evolution of the hobby.

On one side, you have all these stale farts complaining about how we should be using spark gap, and on the otherside you have these stale farts complaining about how we are suppose to be experimenting within the hobby....but not too much because that leads us to the middle ham...

The middle ham is a ham who wants to experiment with all the new stuff, but is stymed by OF #1, encouraged by OF #2, but is told not too much, because you will tick off #1 and that #2 doesn't want to look too bad, so don't bother anyways, so the middle ham just gives up and the community looses yet another memeber, only to repeat the cycle.

k9ekg

10-29-2005, 06:20 AM

Quote[/b] (NY7Q @ Oct. 26 2005,08:04)]ham radio = transmitter/receiver, transceiver, and associated equipment, antennas...etc.
internet has no place coupled with ham radio..
computers have no place with transmitters/receivers.
Glad you think so, and glad to see you working so hard to advance amateur radio. Wake up...

Its what I love about this hobby, the mass amounts of people unwilling to experiment or accept change and the persecution of those who do. I love my wireless VoIP and see many places for it in amateur radio, as well as my computers. I will continue to use and exploit its benefits to those hams who have a dribble of experimentation wanton left in them.

Get a clue.

PA2RA

10-29-2005, 12:05 PM

Quote[/b] (kc0vcu @ Oct. 27 2005,20:44)]My only complaint about IRLP and EchoLink is that I have yet to find a user client that runs on Linux. Windows, sure no problem. Mac, well I suppose, but we think the Windows client is better. Linux? You want us to do something using Open Standards? What are you nuts?
there is a Linux client for Echolink available...

http://svxlink.sourceforge.net/

73, Rene PA2RA

KU2US

10-29-2005, 07:20 PM

Turn on your radio, press the key or mic button, RF travels to antenna, RF travels out of antenna, RF bounces off ionosphere, RF is recieved into another Hams antenna, RF is converted into voice or Dots and dashes, Ham operator recieves message and replys. Ham radio operator smiles. THIS IS HAM RADIO, EVERYTHING ELSE IS "GARBAGE"..Screw echolink, screw outboard computer assistance, screw telephone wires and screw the internet. Repeaters you say? They are OK because they still transmit signals that fly through the AIR. the air is FREE! No internet provider fees. No one is making a profit off me when I key down. That is what its all about KIDDIES..$$$$$$$....All you folks who are astonished by echolink et.et. (Internet, cable,telephone bills)..Believe me when I say that some day soon, all of this fancy digital technology that you love so much, which you dont have to work for, will come back big-time and ruin all of us. Example-BPL...YEP! Ham radio operators have invented much of what we have today, and we are inventing and improving ourselves right out of existance. Please dont tell me about progress, and the "new" electronics digital age is here, not when they can read my license plate from a satelite?? Everyone will be begging for the simple days-too bad, they are gone forever..THANKS TO US...SAD!!!! Doom and gloomer-NOPE, just facts..In FACT it is here NOW !!-.*VONAGE*.....Let The Forest Fire Begin...

K8TEK

10-29-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote[/b] (KU2US @ Oct. 29 2005,15:20)]Everyone will be begging for the simple days-too bad, they are gone forever..THANKS TO US...SAD!!!! Doom and gloomer-NOPE, just facts..In FACT it is here NOW !!-.*VONAGE*.....Let The Forest Fire Begin...
I can just see it now. #Everyone in America listening to Marty Robbins on their AM radio, watching The Andy Griffith Show on their black and white tv, driving cars that spit out more gasses then the hams on 80 meters.

I am sure EVERYONE will be begging for the SIMPLE days.

K8TTK

10-29-2005, 08:36 PM

Quote[/b] (KU2US @ Oct. 29 2005,12:20)]Turn on your radio, press the key or mic button, RF travels to antenna, RF travels out of antenna, RF bounces off ionosphere, RF is recieved into another Hams antenna, RF is converted into voice or Dots and dashes, Ham operator recieves message and replys. Ham radio operator smiles. THIS IS HAM RADIO, EVERYTHING ELSE IS "GARBAGE"..Screw echolink, screw outboard computer assistance, screw telephone wires and screw the internet. Repeaters you say? They are OK because they still transmit signals that fly through the AIR. the air is FREE! No internet provider fees. No one is making a profit off me when I key down. That is what its all about KIDDIES..$$$$$$$....All you folks who are astonished by echolink et.et. (Internet, cable,telephone bills)..Believe me when I say that some day soon, all of this fancy digital technology that you love so much, which you dont have to work for, will come back big-time and ruin all of us. Example-BPL...YEP! Ham radio operators have invented much of what we have today, and we are inventing and improving ourselves right out of existance. Please dont tell me about progress, and the "new" electronics digital age is here, not when they can read my license plate from a satelite?? Everyone will be begging for the simple days-too bad, they are gone forever..THANKS TO US...SAD!!!! Doom and gloomer-NOPE, just facts..In FACT it is here NOW !!-.*VONAGE*.....Let The Forest Fire Begin...
Go back and reread a few previous posts, then it will make more sense in what the orginal post, and a few subsequent posts are trying to point out...

When you pressing you little PTT for all your RF, consisder that this may happen depending on what you are using...

Your voice may be going thru a DSP processor or two...

Using a double conversion super-heterodyne system using a newly developed image rejection mixer

Can't forget the high performance D-MOSFET array for the 1st mixer stage is infused with a signal from the high-level C/N, high-drive Local Oscillator from the PLL unit

Can't forget about using a display like:
http://www.icom.co.jp/world/products/amateur/7800/pct/img8.jpg

Did I mention that you need to check often for FIRMWARE updates for your RADIO?

Hmmm.

I suspect not too many people these days are using a radio that doesn't even have a PLL chip.

Just another person trying to kill off the hobby so no one after them can enjoy it after they are pusing up daisy's.

n9gqr

10-31-2005, 12:40 AM

It's all too High Tech for the old folks to understand! #Only thing killing the hobby are all you old hams dying off. #20 years down the road when your all dead, there will be no ham radio if we don't spark the interest of the younger generation to keep it going. Change is good!

K4JF

10-31-2005, 01:13 AM

Quote[/b] (n9gqr @ Oct. 30 2005,17:40)]20 years down the road when your all dead,
When my what is all dead? I'm all alive, thanks!

K4JF

10-31-2005, 01:16 AM

Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 28 2005,15:03)]I think that too many people here compare VoIP with the internet, and phone calls (Vonage).
Gotta think just a little deeper in life dudes.
Since VoIP stands for "Voice over Internet Protocol", it is only natural to think that the internet has something to do with the, uh, internet!

VE7TKO

10-31-2005, 01:45 AM

Quote[/b] (K4JF @ Oct. 30 2005,18:16)]Quote[/b] (K8TTK @ Oct. 28 2005,15:03)]I think that too many people here compare VoIP with the internet, and phone calls (Vonage).
Gotta think just a little deeper in life dudes.
Since VoIP stands for "Voice over Internet Protocol", it is only natural to think that the internet has something to do with the, uh, internet!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif IP: Internet Protocol, the protocol that controls how data packets are exchanged on the Internet.
Air Link: The portion of data transmission that takes place as a radio signal. The D-STAR air link includes both modulation methods and data packet construction.
Go to: http://www.southgatearc.org/competitions/ic-v82.htm and enter to win an ICOM IC-V82. Your odds of winning are better than if you buy a lottery ticket and it won’t cost you one thin dime.

ve3esc

10-31-2005, 04:47 AM

ve3esc

10-31-2005, 04:53 AM

Quote[/b] (VE7TKO @ Oct. 30 2005,18:45)]Air Link:[/color][/b] The portion of data transmission that takes place as a radio signal. The D-STAR air link includes both modulation methods and data packet construction.
Go to: http://www.southgatearc.org/competitions/ic-v82.htm and enter to win an ICOM IC-V82. Your odds of winning are better than if you buy a lottery ticket and it won’t cost you one thin dime.
I'm just curious.... are you aware that this conversation is about taking voice via A2D converter from a radio operating in the ham band, encapsulating it in a codec inside an IP packet and transporting it across some sort of media (wired, or wireless) to a D2A converter and out into another radio operating in the ham band?!?!?!

This thread has nothing to do with DIGITAL VOICE over radio such as APCO-25 or D-STAR. Please review this thread. If you feel free to add something with regards to the use of VOIP then fine. Otherwise, please take your "digital voice over air" stuff to another thread!

kg4kkn

11-04-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote[/b] (kr4wm @ Oct. 27 2005,17:04)]OK, I'll try to explain it in a way you can understand it... apparently you misunderstand my objection. I'm not opposed to digital communications. I'm opposed to the sending of amateur radio signals over the internet. It removes the spirit and integrity of the hobby. Only someone who is morally bankrupt would openly admit that combining the internet with amateur radio is a good thing- at least where sending a signal from point-to-point is involved. I'm not saying that it's technically impossible to do, only that it doesn't "feel right", and I don't know of anyone who gets "warm fuzzies" from making a cold contact from the non-accomplishment of making an internet-to-ham-radio contact.

Digital CAN be a good thing for amateur radio, as you will see below:

Digital comms via ham radio = CW, packet, RTTY, PSK-31, Hellschriber, DRM, etc.

Digital comms NOT via ham radio = Echolink, D-star, WIRES, IRLP, etc.

This has nothing to do with old vs. new or techs vs. generals and extras, or CW vs. codeless. I never said it was wrong to use computers. E-mail is a wonderful thing. But when you make a radio contact over the internet, it just removes all the magic, all the deserved excitement, and all the wonder of nature, that IS amateur radio! -KR4WM
Morally bankrupt? Since when did morals have the slightest bit to do with amateur radio? You pass the test(s), you pay the fee, you get a license. That's it.

Theives, murderers, rapists, burglars, pornographers, tax cheats, speeders, shoplifters, and even politicians and priests have ham licenses. Morals have nothing do with anything.

Many people's lives depend on someone answering when they hit the xmit key. They couldn't care less about fuzzies or whether their voice is going purely over RF or if it's instead going over some sort of IP gateway.

Here's a thought. Find some first responders using an IP gateway repeater system and tell them that their radios aren't really radios and that they're missing the warmth and personal touch of a person-to-person pure RF conversation. They'll either not care, throw you in a padded cell, or just laugh.

Most people just want radios that work. Whether they do that via pixie dust, the proverbial tin cans and string, RF, or IP, doesn't matter.

kr4wm

11-06-2005, 06:49 PM

You've been reading the threads at ham***y.com haven't you?

OK, I guess "morally bankrupt" was a poor choice of words. We need to come up with a derogatory term for ham radio operators who couple radios to the internet as a primary means of making DX contacts, i.e., linking to distant repeaters. How about RF handicapped? Oops, that won't work, it's not politically correct. How about RF challenged? But then, not being politically correct never really bothered me that much. RF handicapped it is! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

kb9aln

11-07-2005, 05:51 PM

My, this discussion can only be described as being crazy.

On the one hand, we have an apparent "buzz agent" promoting the virtues of Icom's D-Star radio. (For the initiated, a "buzz agent" is an individual that accepts gifts or other perks to promote a product in casual conversation and among their friends and acquaintances). Not the first time I've seen this here, any time there is a forum thread having a sentence containing the phrases "digital" and "ham radio", we see a freshly worded Icom D-Star advertisement.

On the other hand, we have the "no-progress" folks. These are the folks that, bless their little hearts, are bound and determined to use old Hallicrafters and the like, keeping the rich heritage of our hobby alive. And they are stuck there.

On the third hand, we have people who are equally passionate about internet toys. Yes, admit it, they are toys. Just like the Hallicrafters I spoke of earlier.

On the fourth hand, and inclusive of the previous groups, we have people who are totally uninformed making judgements about technology that they truly don't understand. And refuse to learn about it.

I've been a ham for about 17 years and have seen this before. Over the course of that time, one thing has remained consistent - the lack of demonstrable technical skill on the part of the general ham population.

Case in point is the guy lamenting that there is no IRLP client for Linux. He then further clarifies that he is looking to hook up a local mike and as is commonly done with Echolink. Someone points to a link telling him that there is an Echolink client for Linux.

I've heard the complaint before that IRLP will not accept a local mike. And everybody is stymied about this. Geez, hasn't anyone thought of getting a soldering iron out and Making a simple interface?

There appears to be some hope, though. There have been some sane and well-reasoned commentary. These are the folks who do know how this stuff works, have picked up a soldering iron, and some have even written their own programs. These are the folks that "get it". Hang in there, ham radio needs you to stay alive.

Forget all of the dire predictions fo ham radio's demise through accepting non-amateur methods of communication. Our demise will come from our own unwillingness to learn, and our own inability to sucessfully weild a soldering iron.

That day appears to be coming pretty soon, based on what I read here. Crazy discussions like this will not change that.

--kb9aln

AI4GV

11-07-2005, 06:40 PM

I wonder what might happen if I actually returned to the original topic and said something about the article...

What I found interesting after reading the link is that this technology supposedly allows a company (or an amateur?) to use their current radios. No equipment upgrade needed. Seems like a major advantage over APCO or D-STAR. Of course we've had TCP/IP available via packet radio using AX.25 for years, but voice is not available (I don't think). If this could work like some of the packet networks it seems like you could use voice with other hams by linking several packet nodes together (without the use of the internet of course). Please forgive my ignorance of packet radio. I still have much to learn so corrections are welcome.

Unfortunatly the article didn't mention anything about a radio interface, data rates, or anything. Maybe I missed something.

ve3esc

11-07-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote[/b] (AI4GV @ Nov. 07 2005,11:40)]I wonder what might happen if I actually returned to the original topic and said something about the article...

What I found interesting after reading the link is that this technology supposedly allows a company (or an amateur?) to use their current radios. No equipment upgrade needed. Seems like a major advantage over APCO or D-STAR. Of course we've had TCP/IP available via packet radio using AX.25 for years, but voice is not available (I don't think). If this could work like some of the packet networks it seems like you could use voice with other hams by linking several packet nodes together (without the use of the internet of course). Please forgive my ignorance of packet radio. I still have much to learn so corrections are welcome.

Unfortunatly the article didn't mention anything about a radio interface, data rates, or anything. Maybe I missed something.
Yes.. I wonder if we could, because APCO-25 and D-STAR... ARE NOT the original topic. The Cisco product does not take your voice and transmit it across the air in digital format!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Cisco product takes your voice from the air (in whatever modulation scheme you are using including AM, FM, digital etc) and converts it to digital format to be sent over a TCP/IP network.

kb9aln

11-08-2005, 06:37 AM

Have to comment on a few things that AI4GV Said:

>I wonder what might happen if I actually returned to the original #
> topic and said something about the article...

You'd be tampering with an old internet forum tradition <Grin>.

>What I found interesting after reading the link is that this technology
>supposedly allows a company (or an amateur?) to use their current
>radios. #No equipment upgrade needed. #

I have not read all of the press releases about it, but that is the idea that I get, too. It is meant to be some kind of "frame relay" for radio. Apparently, you go in with your existing radio (lets say it's operating in conventional analog FM mode), your audio gets converted to data that is transported via the TCP/IP protocol through a network, and then reconverted to its original analog content. Then it is fed into another radio, such as an APCO 25 radio. In this way, it joins disparate networks. Kind of like what a multi-protocol data router, except for radio. Maybve that's a poor analogy, but the only one I could come up with at the moment.

>Seems like a major advantage over APCO or D-STAR. #Of course we've
>had TCP/IP available via packet radio using AX.25 for years, but voice is
>not available (I don't think). #If this could work like some of the packet >networks it seems like you could use voice with other hams by linking
>several packet nodes together (without the use of the internet of course).
>Please forgive my ignorance of packet radio. #I still have much to learn
>so corrections are welcome.

You have hit the nail on the head. One of my friends was able to actually use AX.25 to pass digital voice. He calls it VOA, for Voice Over Ax.25.

He did it mainly as a lark. The point that he makes with his experiment is that data is data, whether it represents text or digital audio, it is still data.

I asked him why he used AX.25. After all, AX.25 is not exactly robust, and not exactly an advanced protocol. He did it chiefly because it IDs with every packet and is FCC approved. The relieved him of two obligations, that of identification and conforming to an allowed digital protocol.

And while he has gotten it to work, it was more of an experiment than a push to get another mode up.

I can see a day when the network used to connect radio systems is VOIP. The infrastructure to handle IP is already there, both wired and wireless. What you have described, sending VIOP over TCP/IP encapsulated in AX.25 packets is possible. I would not be surprised to hear that someone has done it. And some form of VOIP seems like it could be a standard in network-transported voice communications.

>Unfortunatly the article didn't mention anything about a radio interface,
>data rates, or anything. Maybe I missed something.

I don't think you missed anything, that is kind of immaterial when you are converting voices to digital and sending them over an IP network. All you need on either end of the link is compatable radios. In other words, a complete system like this would really be a cluster of radios (or a software-defined radio capable of all supported modes more likely) connected to a network hub, in turn connected to the internet.

Now the next question is, will there be a "universal" digital over-the-air #radio protocol developed in the future, so that there is no need for the Cisco system? Cisco isn't betting on it, obviously. What they are doing is recognizing that we have all of these different analog and digital radio systems out there, and they are joining them with VOIP. If there is such an over-the-air digital standard developed, then I wonder how we'll start a conversation.

Will we have to type in a 12 or 15 digit IP address to get a specific radio? Funny, then it becomes less like a "Push-To-Talk" radio and more like a telephone. Hmm. Warm up those DTMF pads!

--kb9aln

AI4GV

11-08-2005, 05:24 PM

>Yes.. I wonder if we could, because APCO-25 and D-STAR... >ARE NOT the original topic.

I think the point of mentioning these was that they are a form of digital voice. At least that was my reason for bringing them up again. Unfortunately the discussion ended up being mainly about them.

>>Unfortunatly the article didn't mention anything about a radio interface,
>>data rates, or anything. Maybe I missed something.

>I don't think you missed anything, that is kind of >immaterial when you are converting voices to digital and >sending them over an IP network.

I'm still curious about the data rate simply because this would have some bearing on the voice quality as well as the potential of adding video. I've heard that 9600 bps is the minimum for most digital voice formats.

Bandwidth is also a question which I don't think was covered in the article. Im assuming the technology is compatible with the bandwidth available for most commercial radios.

I'm not surprised about someone coming up with a way to send voice over Ax.25. I've often thought this would be possible, but not being much of a programmer I'm not sure how it could be done. Maybe someday I'll have the time to play with it.

ve3esc

11-09-2005, 03:51 AM

Quote[/b] (AI4GV @ Nov. 08 2005,10:24)]Bandwidth is also a question which I don't think was covered in the article. Im assuming the technology is compatible with the bandwidth available for most commercial radios.

I'm not surprised about someone coming up with a way to send voice over Ax.25. I've often thought this would be possible, but not being much of a programmer I'm not sure how it could be done. Maybe someday I'll have the time to play with it.
Bandwidth on the radio side is irrelevent as the radio will be transmitting voice, not data in whatever native format it uses to transmit that voice normally, be it SSB, FM, AM, APCO-25, Simplex, Trunked, yada yada yada.

The only data/bandwidth concerns are on the IP network side that is used to interconnect the systems. A properly designed IP network will handle lots of traffic. For example we have over 500 phones on 4 1/2 floors and a remote office 500 miles away, all with VOIP and all working just fine.

As for transmitting voice over AX.25, this is inverse of what the cisco product does. The cisco product doesn't do any radio, it doesn't do voice over digital like apco-25 and it doesn't really care what modulation the radio uses or if it's an FRS, VHF, HF, EDACS, MOTOROLA, or whatever else. It just takes what comes into the radio from the air, and converts it to a data stream that then goes out the WIRE, not over the air.

If I am scanning and listening to a radio that is plugged into the cisco product it will sound just the same. It won't be digital and it won't be ax.25 or some other magic digital voice encoding. It will be whatever the radio system does today because it's essentially just commercial IRLP back ending on a web based "switchboard".

Hopefully everyone "get's it" now and we can stop using this VoIP thread to discuss UNRELATED technologies like APCO-25 et al. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

K4JF

11-10-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote[/b] (ac3p @ Oct. 25 2005,13:05)]We were using cell phones in the mid-1970's but we didn't call it cellular.
They weren't cell phones, they were mobile phones. The network of radio cells didn't exist back then. The system of small cells of coverage and automatic handoff to the next cell when moving is the difference. Mobile phones in the 70s were higher power and operated from towers, each with fairly wide coverage and many terrain-induced dead spots. Most were VHF and expensive, too.

AI4GV

11-10-2005, 07:38 PM

Any idea what features are available from the radio side? Seems like it would be simple enough to dial into other parts of the network (or other smaller networks that are part of the larger network) via your DTMF keypad. The article doesn't limit the technology to voice alone, but would permit you to use other features of your radio over the entire network (GPS for example).

The "integration among various devices" part sounds interesting too. Seems like there would be the potential for a PDA with an 802.11a/b/g wireless card and VoIP capability (like my Zaurus) to communicate with any number of radio systems (analog trunking, digital, etc.) in several locations while sitting at a coffee shop a few thousand miles away. At the same time I have visions of some poor soul sitting at his desk having his pager go off, PDA buzz and vibrate because there is a new email there, cell phone ring, having an email alert on the same cell phone, hearing a call on his radio, and having a messaging client pop up on his desktop.