VHF's most valuable function is as a multiple source broadcast communication (anyone-to-everyone), so replacement with any sort of point-to-point technology is totally inappropriate. AIS uses VHF for, amongst other things, that very reason.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mandatory AIS ?
- Thread starter Riverbed
- Start date
The problem with VHF is the guy calling "ship on my port bow".... every poor SOB with another vessel on his starboard bow is trying to figure out whether HE's the one being called. AIS identifies every vessel so you can call that vessel by name, and everyone else can ignore the call.
Also with ever-increasing radio traffic we're going to find that folks turn their squelch up to the point that they don't hear ANY calls.... but a DSC call with the correct ID code will still get their attention. But without the AIS you wouldn't know the proper code.
Also with ever-increasing radio traffic we're going to find that folks turn their squelch up to the point that they don't hear ANY calls.... but a DSC call with the correct ID code will still get their attention. But without the AIS you wouldn't know the proper code.
George you may find this funny Nextel with their new extended 866MHz to 869MHz downlink (site transmitters) is causing problems with Metro PCS 1700 AWS uplink (site receive). This a major FOPA it is the 2nd harmonic (the strongest) and it falls in the AWS uplink band. I'm sure this can be resolved with the correct filtering but what a "new" mess. You would think CTIA and the FCC would think about the consequences of the 2nd harmonic from one carrier falling into the uplink of the 1700MHz AWS band yes/no?
Bill
Bill
No, they often don't, especially since AWS is an odd duck in this country, primarily used by by T-Mobile who bid a ton for it. I think, but do not know, that they protected theirs better, though they use the same AWS 1700 up 2100 down methodology. A client of mine is an MVNO for their 3G data network; they are doing some pretty amazing things putting HSDPA+ on it; he is seeing 6mbs+ on tests being run in LA and Philly.
For those of you can't for the life of you figure out what jibberish jargon we are using, let me put it this way. In major metros, T-Mobile may soon have the fastest cell network of them all, better than Verizon's upcoming first phase "4G" . And no, they don't take away your radar to do it!
For those of you can't for the life of you figure out what jibberish jargon we are using, let me put it this way. In major metros, T-Mobile may soon have the fastest cell network of them all, better than Verizon's upcoming first phase "4G" . And no, they don't take away your radar to do it!
quote:
Originally posted by Billylll
The only flaw I see in not actually placing the units at the location is if the aide or target moves then that would create a false location. Otherwise it's not a bad idea.
The AIS to DSC is a very nice feature when integrated into an entire system meaning, communications and navigation.
Bill
Agreed. Hence, why I said "for all but floating aids." If a fixed ATON is moved (intentionally), and its new charted position is corrected (as it should be), the AIS transmitter responsible for it needs to make the change as well.
Actually, having a shore-based position for a floating aid might be a good thing, as it would at least still mark the SPOT the aid is supposed to mark, such as a wreck or shoal. Even if the buoy is lost, the position is still marked.
Only problem I can see with it is it may progress to the point to where the floating aids are REMOVED to save money... and if you don't have an AIS and chartplotter you're slick outta luck.
Only problem I can see with it is it may progress to the point to where the floating aids are REMOVED to save money... and if you don't have an AIS and chartplotter you're slick outta luck.