[BC] Radio Is Not what it Used to be

[Bill Sepmeier]

>From: Tom Bosscher <tom at bosscher.org>
>Reply-To: Broadcast Bill Sepmeier wrote:
> >Ok, so why don't we, the engineering community who maintains
> >everything everywhere, INSIST that manufacturers develop a
> >TCP/IP - based standard interface for EVERY single piece of gear made,
> >so that we can operate and troubleshoot EVERYTHING in ANY plant,
> >ANYWHERE on Earth from our desks?
>
>    Bill, Bill. Once again, you utter something so simply profound. As 
>usual, you are so correct.

Thanks, Tom... but if I was correct usually, I'd have no "crazy ex-wives 
club" and a lot more cash.  But I do love ya...  LOL!

Seriously though ... this is one reason I let my SBE membership lapse... 
again.

If the SBE was a real representative organization run by leaders in the 
business, they'd have probably negotiated this type of thing with the 
manufacturers a decade ago, back when me and Harold and Barry and a few of 
your other folks around here were talking about the "virtual rack" concept 
that NSN used. The same goes for the NAB, aother group I used to give money 
to and discuss this type of stuff with when I was in D.C..

If I'd have stayed employed I'd have probably run the flag up myself years 
ago, bigtime - I needed this capability years ago and used to wander around 
the shows begging the folks who make stuff to wake up and use IP.  But, I 
got distracted.   So did the NAB and SBE, apparently, trying to glue pretty 
glitter sparkles on a poor copy of a Pig's Ear called IBOC / DAB.

By the posts here though, it does sound as if some manufacturing people are 
waking up ... but if nobody standardizes on a real "virtual rack" interface 
for we humans to use with differing pieces of gear (like the Williams 
Pipeline people did, way back in the-80's when they took all of their 
pipleine and pumping station monitoring by VSAT to Tulsa, and like I did at 
NSN), the control and collection of  data from many different types of gear 
will be difficult if not impossible.  Without a standard, interpreting the 
data will remain just as wiggley as it was back in the 80's when NSN started 
doing this.  (I had to write "virtual rack" drivers for NSN's interface 
software in order that operation of gear made by Gentner, Burk, Moseley and 
the rest of the remote controls we used to monitor and interface with 
"looked" and "acted" the same at the net ops center to my operators.  I 
mean, I couldn't train operations people on 50 different schemes on 
different screens and we should NOT expect to have to train ourselves now, 
either!)

I haven't thought about this in years .. it would be SO easy now, compared 
to 16 years ago!! Jeesh! At least now you guys are getting some IP 
connectivity though ... when we wrote the drivers for the VRC2000, for 
example, we had to actually write active software that perfectly emulated a 
specific brand of dumb terminal on RS232, grabbing our data from specific 
"screen bit map locations" as defined by the dumb terminal display drivers 
that Gentner was using.  It worked, but man, it was a pain in the a$$ to get 
figured out!  Jacor bought all my "virtual rack" and driver code - but it's 
probably hopelessly dated now.  And it was all X.25 anyway, not IP.

Standards.  Plug and Play drivers that "fit" into a virtual rack GUI.  We 
deserve 'em ... so who wants to bang the drum now that I'm just too crazy to 
put on a suit anymore?

LOL!

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement