[CTSARA] [GNARC] Projects and Activites: An Idea and InformalSurvey

Wed Aug 19 17:27:38 EDT 2009

Excellent points.  I agree linking has its pros and cons.  However I think
there is, or might perhaps be, a technical solution- let every repeater
serve every purpose to every user, just not all at the same time.

Concept-
Let's for the moment ignore how this would be done (more on that later) and
focus on concept.  For the sake of this argument I'm assuming WECA, SARA and
GNARC enter into a cooperative linking agreement so there are 3 repeaters
along the i-95 corridoor to consider.  This is also just a suggestion from a
newly-sorta-active ham, so if something i say is absurd please let me know..

First off, each repeater should have a noticably different courtesy tone,
and this tone should be played throughout the link so users can easily tell
which repeater a transmission originates on.  The repeater should noticably
change it's tone when unlinked, for example by playing the tone twice.  The
repeater's periodic 'welcome' announcements should announce the current link
status (linked or unlinked), and ideally the link status of the other
repeaters in the system.
Linking and unlinking the repeater should be a simple procedure that anybody
should be able to perform from a radio with DTMF keypad.  The repeater would
default to a linked state, and would revert to being linked after 5-10
minutes of not being keyed in unlinked mode.  A website would be established
(or a page on the existing sites) explaining the link tones and what they
mean.

Result-
This would allow maximum flexibility in all situations.  
For example if a club has their weekly net (or talk-in to a local meet),
chances are the other areas won't care about it so that club having the net
can unlink their repeater, allowing anybody not wanting to join the net to
use either remaining repeater (the two of which would still be on the link
together).
If two hams in norwalk are trying to have an area-specific conversation, and
someone in Westchester wanted to use just their repeater, then either
Norwalk or Westchester could unlink.  The westchester ham could recognize
that each transmission in the conversation was concluded with norwalk's
courtesy tone, and thus would know he could safely unlink Westchester
without cutting anybody off.

Implementation-
As for the specifics, I'm really interested in what Asterisk can do with
app_rpt.  I've used asterisk since before it had version numbers (you'd just
download the current CVS) and I'm pretty good with dialplan programming.
I'll certainly be looking into what app_rpt can do...

What I envision / hope is possible, is to use Asterisk and app_rpt to make a
system sort of like an IVR (the computer phone menu you get when you call
any big business)...  the repeaters welcome message would say something like
'press 9 for help', so anybody who transmits a DTMF 9 would then get a
recording offering several options.  (press 1 to link, 2 to unlink, 3 to
hear network link status, 4 for echolink/IRLP instructions, 5 to hear the
local weather report read off in a computer voice, 6 for info about this
repeater's club next meeting, etc etc).  I'm sure a quick brainstorm could
figure out a bunch of other such things.  Obviously control info like this
would not be re-transmitted over the link, any DTMF tones would
automatically un-key the link (but not the repeater's local output freq) for
the duration of that transmission with no courtesy tone.
The result would be that instead of just being a dumb re-transmitter, a
repeater could be a service that users can interact with.  And having the
'menu' means nobody would need a special document to be able to use the
repeater's services.  

This of course means that average users get a much higher degree of control
over the system than they do now.  However I don't think this would be a
problem-- with the exception of a few website postings, all the hams I've
heard from so far have been very mature and well-behaved.  And even if there
was a malicious user, the most they could do is annoy people by unlinking or
repeatedly requesting info recordings, not actually damage anything in a way
that'd need repair.  Besides, that's the sort of sophomoric stuff I got into
ham radio to avoid, and is noticably absent from ham radio in my limited
experience.  

The result of this should in theory be that the 3 machines provide maximum
benefit to everybody.  The only time it fails is in a few high-traffic
situations, IE if multiple users on one repeater want to use it for
different things.  However short of establishing a whole new set of
repeaters, complete with their own inputs/outputs (a very expensive, time
consuming and otherwise difficult proposition)- this seems like (assuming it
works, and assuming anybody other than me likes this idea) the best
available option...

Thoughts?

  _____  

From: Curt Seaton [mailto:seaton.1 at netzero.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 4:41 PM
To: kb1qxr at arrl.net
Cc: ctsara Mailman
Subject: Re: [CTSARA] [GNARC] Projects and Activites: An Idea and
InformalSurvey

I am so pleased to have you guys making these types of comments, it shows
tremendous interest in our 'hobby' and the betterment of our communications
abilities.  I would welcome the opportunity to discuss many possible
scenarios with as many of you folks that are truly interested, in regard to
improving capabilities.   But for thought process, there are some trade-offs
that need to be considered whenever you desire to expand capabilities as you
have already mentioned and compared to Weca and Limarc.

Some repeaters are set up as 'local' to provide a way for 'locals' to
communicate with each other somewhat better than simplex operation would
provide.  Some repeaters are set up for users who commute some distances and
wish to maintain contact with their 'crowd of friends'.   Some repeaters are
set up for major areas and are interlinked by various methods (separate
discussion on methods for this) which provide a user to contact someone
anywhere over a vast area.   Some repeaters have IRLP or Echolink and are
for connecting to distance users when desired.   Some repeaters are set up
for emergency priority communications and have rather elaborate emergency
systems to maintain communications when all else fails.  Then there are the
APRS and digipeater groups for different data modes.....

As can be seen from the above, no one repeater can easily do all of the
needs unless it is at the sacrifice of some other parameter.  For example,
if some user is in QSO with a fellow ham a few miles distance on a repeater
that is linked thruout the entire state, then NO one else in the state can
use the repeater system unless joining in the first QSO, and they may not
wish to join in but rather have their own QSO with someone else....
Obviously more repeaters could be so located as to provide the capability
for more than one QSO at a time, but then as you pointed out, when no one is
using any repeater, then which repeater do you monitor....????    

It was agreed when repeaters first came into ham usage many years ago, that
the primary intent was to provide communications for any emergency need, and
that emergency had highest priority over any other communications.  That
established the short transmit times for any and all timers on repeaters and
some even go to shorter timers during commute hours to keep the repeater
'open' for any emergency call.  So there has been lots of growth since the
first repeaters were established and this discussion takes place at
virtually all repeater groups as they form another repeater system,
determining how to utilize their particular repeater...  so this is where we
have now arriven...   (arrived).   

SO, where do we go from here?  Linking, has benefits, but has
responsibilities to all other repeaters on the 'network' and could prevent
another repeater from serving the public service during a local emergency
unnecessarily.  It could have the opposite effect by preventing more users
from using the repeaters as there is another group using it most of the time
and 'not sharing'..   it happens.....    

I welcome a meeting to discuss pros and cons, but there have to be lots of
possible combinations evaluated and very easy ways to disconnect from any
linking situations if other users choose to not be a part of one major round
table discussion or in the event of an emergency or just because someone
wants to use their local repeater for local usage....    Lots to consider..

Keep thinking...  there could be some improvements made, but most of these
scenarios have already been evaluated some time ago and probably could use a
'revisit' to see if modes should be changed..

73 to all

Curt W1FSM

As can be

Chris- KB1QXR wrote: 

Hello again and sorry for yet another overly verbose QXR post...

>From what I gather the WECA system is using voting receivers, an excellent

way of providing improved coverage especially to mobile units with low-power

transmitters.  I don't actually have them programmed in my radio right now

but I will give them a shot...

The basic point with the link though is this- any method of communication is

only as useful as the number of people you can reach with it.  From what

I've heard (using my trusty HT) of the Stamford and Norwalk machines, they

both have great coverage.  The problem is that because they are separate

machines, John standing by on the Stamford machine won't hear someone

looking for a QSO on norwalk.  And the lack of use doesn't attract users

looking for a friendly QSO.

Take LIMARC (a large long island linked repeater system) for example, around

here we can get their W2VL machine, 146.850-, 136.5 PL.  Tune in any time

during the day and more often than not you'll hear at least 2 hams, if not 3

or more.  Sure they have an impressive network, and they cover more people,

but their biggest advantage is that they have lots of traffic.

To make an analogy- Let's say two friends invite you to two parties on the

same night.  One party has 3-4 guys sitting doing nothing, the other has

food and music and tons of people having fun.  Which one would you go to?

I'm not saying we should compete with LIMARC.  But in the above situation,

lets say the only party was the boring one- sitting at home and watching a

movie now seems like a better option, no?  But if enough people came to the

boring party (perhaps by combining several boring parties together), it

wouldn't be boring anymore and **more people would want to come to the

now-fun party**.

(and for the record that's just an analogy- I'm not saying anybody is boring

:) )

Links are also good for EMCOMM use, in an emergency situation a linked

system that covers the whole 'foot' of southwestern CT would surely be quite

useful.  However I am personally reluctant to trust anything VoIP as

'emcomm-ready', look at california a few months back- fiber cuts in 3 places

and the city's whole infrastructure becomes a headless chicken.  A

site-to-site RF link seems like a much more reliable idea.

The main downside to the link is that overall capacity goes down (IE a qso

in stamford ties up the norwalk frequency pair), however from what listening

experience I have, I don't think the area ever really has so much traffic

that it would be a problem.

Lastly, as for getting people together- in my experience with my group of

friends, the best strategy is to first (2weeks in advance) send out an

informal survey suggesting 4-6 possible times for an event and/or asking for

suggestions.  From this, make a hard schedule about 1week in advance, and

send out a reminder 24hrs before the event...

73's and sorry for the long post....

--Chris KB1QXR

-----Original Message-----

From: Jonathan Solomon [mailto:jonstv at gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:00 AM

To: kb1qxr at arrl.net

Cc: ctsara Mailman

Subject: Re: [CTSARA] [GNARC] Projects and Activites: An Idea and

InformalSurvey

Chris-

You bring up some good points.  Frank, you do too.  I'm in, though, right

now, I'm more passive than I want to be.

Chris, the linked repeaters is an interesting idea.  WECA is already a set

of linked, or rather tied, repeaters, seeking the strongest signal.

As for the SARA (at least VHF) repeater, John, WB1GRB is often on the  

side, especially when he's working, and Bill (KB1IFY?) is on as well.   

But the "problem" is that I'd guess most people who use the repeater aren't

able to work the repeater during the day.

But it boggles my mind that when I leave work (sometime between 5p and 10p,

I hardly ever get a QSO.  Rumor has it the GNARC 'NLK repeater is active

during the rush hours.

Anyway, Frank, I think the best way to get people to join is to be

definitive... Pick a date, forget about people who can't come (unless it's a

major day, like the first Monday night football or

something...) and have the meeting.  Do that enough times and people will

come.

Perhaps something "regular" like a Sunday breakfast the 2nd or 3rd week of

the month; something to keep people going between regular club meetings.

Weather it's official (ie a "club" get together) or unofficial.

Great... now I'm out of change (har har... my $0.02)

Off to work.

Jon

W3EIC

On Aug 19, 2009, at 5:27 AM, Chris- KB1QXR wrote:

Greetings all,

I've been licensed for about a year but didn't do much with it until 

recently, so forgive me if this is a 'dumb' idea...

There are a number of repeaters in this area going up I-95, 

westchester, stamford, norwalk, etc.  Why not link them all, or at 

least a few of them?

I don't know about other machines but it seems there isn't much 

daytime activity on the Stamford repeater (at least from my (limited) 

experience).

In contrast, LIMARC (which as I understand it operates several linked 

repeaters on Long Island) almost always has a good conversation going.

Let's say you did a 3 way link- WECA (westchester) - SARA (stamford)

- GNARC

(norwalk)... this would cover a good chunk of southwestern CT, greatly 

expanding the number of operators that might be listening at any 

point.

Ideally this would be done with RF and site-to-site links for optimal 

resiliance in emergencies, however that is of course expensive, so if 

this were to be tested it would seem like VoIP would be the way to go 

at least in the short term.  It seems to me (and of course I could be 

way wrong) that it would greatly increase the utility of the area 

repeaters for very little effort...

Plus which this provides an opportunity for another fun acronym :)   

Perhaps

SCAN- Southern CT Amateur Network?

On another note, I'd also be interested in app_rpt related stuff.  I 

figured I was probably the only one that had even heard of Asterisk...

just my 2c...

______________________________________________________________

CTSARA mailing list

Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/ctsara

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm

Post: mailto:CTSARA at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net

Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html