[amsat-bb] Re: Remote control languages

[Bruce Bostwick <lihan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Bruce:
>      That would be great.  But you would have to find someone that could
>translate the control commands for all the radios into the "standard."
>Since very few radios program the same this could be a huge job and
>would probably require a sample of each radio for final testing.  The
>translation file could be distributed via internet periodically much
>like virus definitions files are now.  But the trick would be keeping
>the data up to date every time a new radio came out.

Hopefully a temporary job -- my *main* goal would be to get the radio 
manufacturers interested in tapping into an existing market base by 
adopting an already established standard, the way Kenwood has picked 
up on APRS in the TH-D7A and TM-D700A.  Manufacturers tend to 
engineer incompatibility into interfaces they design for their own 
products, but if there is an existing standard they can implement, 
they're generally much better behaved.  I was looking for something 
that could push them into adopting a platform independent standard of 
some sort.

>      A more practical approach in my opinion would be to get the
>manufacturers to set up some kind of standards organization which would
>develop and publish them.  They could even standardize audio interfaces,
>amplifier-keying methods, packet interfaces, microphone interfaces, etc.

I have dreams about this sort of thing .. ;-) .. then I wake up and 
visualize a world of *almost* compatible hardware with just enough 
quirks to make radios from different manufacturers non-interoperable. 
Basically what we already have.

Reality is, someone's going to have to push this into the market and 
do the homework on it before the manufacturers will adopt any kind of 
standard that lets their equipment talk to anything made by anybody 
else.  Kenwood adopting packet and SSTV is a classic example -- the 
protocol was developed by amateurs on their own money, took off and 
achieved near total market penetration, and Kenwood decided since the 
development and marketing had been done for them, they'd add it as a 
feature.  Same is going to apply to universal remote control, more 
than likely.

>      It would take strong leadership from many organizations, clubs,
>etc., to pressure (shame?) them into doing it.  Part of the pressure
>might even include doing as you suggest, even on a limited basis,
>despite the difficulties.

Unfortunately, yes, the corporate model of ham radio manufacturing 
does mean that the manufacturers will do everything they can to lock 
users into their own brand, so developing a universal standard that 
works is going to require the developers to do a lot of design and 
implementation on their own, for sheer love of advancing the radio 
art, and be prepared for the big guns to move in and take credit for 
it once it shows signs of becoming a sure thing.  It's not entirely a 
thankless job .. ;-)

>And the major ham magazines could refuse to
>accept advertising for equipment that does not incorporate standards
>(good luck, they need to make money too).

Although this can be a powerful persuader, if the standard is there 
and proven to work, and it becomes a no-brainer that that's the way 
to get your ad in QST .. ;-)

>Maybe a good way to start
>this going would be to organize a panel discussion at Dayton.

Probably an excellent suggestion .. best to get as much input on this 
as possible early on while it's still in the brainstorming stage.  I 
think a big part of the answer is going to be asking the question 
right -- i.e., what are the things we tell radios to do, what should 
the radio do if we tell it to do something it doesn't understand, and 
how do we make it scaleable so you can plug a dumb terminal into the 
port and use it that way, or plug special purpose contesting software 
into it and set up the whole state of the radio including memory 
channel settings and memory keyer programs so you're ready to push 
the button and go?  When the standard really becomes standard, all 
sorts of automagical stuff becomes possible, especially if there's 
room in the standard for anything you want to do ..

-- 
<BGB>
                  --... ...--  -.. .  -. ..... ...- -...
              Bruce Bostwick  N5VB  Austin, TX  Grid EM10DH
ARRL / UT ARC / Austin ARC / Travis Co. ARES / ARRL+W5YI Vol. Examiner
    http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~lihan/  mailto:lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org