WILL NOAA Radio EVER GO TO DIGITAL
- Thread starter ssd
- Start date
- Status
Of course not, that would turn $40 radios into $240 radios for no reason.
n5ims
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,993
Near term (say at least the next 10 years or so) we'll probably still have analog broadcasts as we do today. They are the most effecient way to distribute the warnings currently. Broadcast radio/tv/cable only works if you're currently watching/listening and is no good if you're not.
These low cost, always monitoring radios will go off (assuming they're correctly programmed) regardless of what else you're doing. Since they sound the alert (that totally freaks out my grandaughter) and states the warning message. When set correctly and in a good location, they'll alert you even if you fall asleep.
With "Ever" being the operative word in your question, there's no telling (but probably not d-star or P25 - too many costly license fees to pay). What will the future hold? Who knows for sure. Perhaps some type of GPS enabled alerts on your cell phone that will notify you of warnings in your current location (not just where your bill goes). Perhaps instead of only a few warning sirens that are designed to alert folks outside, lower cost versions on each street light or other closely spaced common item that will alert folks inside and out. Perhaps security companies will come up with 2-way security systems that not only reports alarm activations (break-in and fire), but will allow them to alert you in real-time of issues that may affect you (severe storm a mile away, fire next door, break-in in your immediate area happening now, gunfire two blocks away, etc.).
The list goes on and on and will nearly certainly be modified as technology progresses.
Baylink
Member
Digital is *not* the be all and end all of radio communications.
Hell, *AM* has it's reasons to exist: Aviation comms never shifted not solely because of the installed base, but because with AM, *at least someone can tell you that you doubled*; capture effect makes that difficult to impossible to tell.
Hell, *AM* has it's reasons to exist: Aviation comms never shifted not solely because of the installed base, but because with AM, *at least someone can tell you that you doubled*; capture effect makes that difficult to impossible to tell.
Baylink
Member
In some cases, David, speculation is not uncalled for; did you not believe this to be one of those cases?
talkpair
Member
Unless the FCC mandates a move to digital, I don't see it happening.
Like entertainment AM and FM radios, there are just too many out there to do something like that.
They probably recognize that there are a certain percentage of those currently with radios that would NOT change to digital radios.
Like entertainment AM and FM radios, there are just too many out there to do something like that.
They probably recognize that there are a certain percentage of those currently with radios that would NOT change to digital radios.
What mode NWS or NOAA uses will really just depend on what the users are capable of using. Digital stuff is going to be a 'future' up-grade for some time yet. That depends on both the 'input' and 'output' side of things (information providers/watchers). I really don't think 'Dstar', 'Wires', or 'SkyCommand' will ever be viable methods, they are just too proprietary.
- 'Doc
- 'Doc
jim202
Member
How much longer are you boys going to keep asking the same question and beating this dead horse
topic into the ground?
Accept the fact that the NWS will stay on the mode they are on for some time to come (many years).
topic into the ground?
Accept the fact that the NWS will stay on the mode they are on for some time to come (many years).
Actually NOAA Weather Radio, as a Federal service, falls under the NTIA and not the FCC.
radioman2001
Member
It's not very likely to happen in most of our lifetimes. I own a number of Marine Mobile frequencies, and I don't see the FCC mandating digital on them, in fact Marine channels are not even going narrow band. I can use the entire spectrum between my channels if I own both sides. Marine radio is more like television than a commercial service. People don't want to pay anymore than necessary for the use of those frequencies, and these days the product is more like consumer rather than commercial in nature. Mobile costs are one thing, but the cost of replacing all those 5K transmitters to digital is another reason I don't see it happening anytime soon. I would love to see any documentation that says otherwise.
I also understand that aircraft frequencies are going digital, just when and how is still up in the air, so to speak.
I also understand that aircraft frequencies are going digital, just when and how is still up in the air, so to speak.
Baylink
Member
As I noted in a previous reply, radioman, there are excellent technical reasons why aviation tactical radio should remain AM; have you anything resembling a citation that it's being considered to switch to digital, cause I'd be interested to know whom to yell at. 
radioman2001
Member
I would have to look for where I either seen it, or heard it. I believe it was going to start in the EU. Their frequencies are as crowded or more crowded as here in the states. You could probably Google it. i did find this Batboard • View topic - COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT GOING DIGITAL???. It states that there are already multi-mode radios out there. Will look further.
Baylink
Member
Well, given the headline that says "Commercial aircraft", I have to ask if they're discussing what I would call "non-tactical" communications: airline company comms such as ARINC provides.
newsphotog
Member
D-STAR is not proprietary to anyone. It is an open protocol developed by the Japanese Amateur Radio League. The vocoder, however, is manufactured and licensed by DVSI, which is available for purchase by anyone, even in small quantities.
Baylink
Member
I really ought not to reopen this can I got here, marked "Worms" (it must be generic , but saying "D-Star is not proprietary" is sort of disingenuous when not only is the name trademarked, and the codec patented and not free(-beer-)ly licensable, but I've seen no documentation that suggests that the Air Interface *provides a key to select between voice channel codecs*. In lieu of that capability, then you can *only* use it with AMBE, and that's about as "proprietary" as it gets, as that term is commonly used today to describe technology.
"Available for purchase" seems precisely on point to "proprietary" in that context.
, but saying "D-Star is not proprietary" is sort of disingenuous when not only is the name trademarked, and the codec patented and not free(-beer-)ly licensable, but I've seen no documentation that suggests that the Air Interface *provides a key to select between voice channel codecs*. In lieu of that capability, then you can *only* use it with AMBE, and that's about as "proprietary" as it gets, as that term is commonly used today to describe technology."Available for purchase" seems precisely on point to "proprietary" in that context.
newsphotog
Member
I'm not talking about using a trademarked name, and regardless, that has nothing to do with the protocol itself. You can request the schematics for the protocol if you want. As for "provides a key to select between voice channel codecs" -- what does that have to do anything? D-STAR is a mode just like anything else... CW, PSK31, ATV... are you going to complain about those too? D-STAR rigs can also do FM.
I never said AMBE was open-source. Yes, D-STAR uses the AMBE vocoder. But the D-STAR protocol itself is open. Why don't you build your own vocoder then, and see what the options are. I'd really like to see your results.
There are lots of open-source projects for open-source D-STAR out there. In my area, I've seen some homebrew D-STAR repeaters and also some projects converting FM rigs to D-STAR enabled rigs. It's unfortunate that so many people are falling victim to the misinformation that OF's are distributing on the internet.
I never said AMBE was open-source. Yes, D-STAR uses the AMBE vocoder. But the D-STAR protocol itself is open. Why don't you build your own vocoder then, and see what the options are. I'd really like to see your results.
There are lots of open-source projects for open-source D-STAR out there. In my area, I've seen some homebrew D-STAR repeaters and also some projects converting FM rigs to D-STAR enabled rigs. It's unfortunate that so many people are falling victim to the misinformation that OF's are distributing on the internet.
Baylink
Member
I'm clear that *you're* not talking about the trademark, but I don't believe it's realistic to dismiss that constraint, and still call the protocol open.
As for the vocoder, Bruce Perens has in fact commissioned someone to build an actually-open replacement vocoder. But since the protocol has no way to *specify its use*, I don't know that that will help either.
So far as I know, this key *does* exist in the P25 CAI ... [looks]
Nope; I'm wrong; while P25CAI has a field for which *encryption* algo you're using, it too doesn't have one for which voice codec you're using.
Oh well, no one's *saying* *P25's* open.
The fundamental point here is that calling it "non-proprietary" or "open" bends those words all out of shape as they are commonly used by the communities in which they're used.
Why it is that when you point this out to people who misuse them in that fashion, they act as if you're saying the protocol, the people who promulgate it -- and they themselves -- are *eeevil*, I'm not at all clear.
Cause we're not saying that.
We're just saying that "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more, no less" is only a useful approach if you are not a fan of John Donne.
As for the vocoder, Bruce Perens has in fact commissioned someone to build an actually-open replacement vocoder. But since the protocol has no way to *specify its use*, I don't know that that will help either.
So far as I know, this key *does* exist in the P25 CAI ... [looks]
Nope; I'm wrong; while P25CAI has a field for which *encryption* algo you're using, it too doesn't have one for which voice codec you're using.
Oh well, no one's *saying* *P25's* open.
The fundamental point here is that calling it "non-proprietary" or "open" bends those words all out of shape as they are commonly used by the communities in which they're used.
Why it is that when you point this out to people who misuse them in that fashion, they act as if you're saying the protocol, the people who promulgate it -- and they themselves -- are *eeevil*, I'm not at all clear.
Cause we're not saying that.
We're just saying that "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more, no less" is only a useful approach if you are not a fan of John Donne.
- Status
