First Look at SPOT Satellite Messenger

SPOT Satellite Messenger Debuts at Outdoor Retailer

SPOT Inc., a subsidiary of Globalstar, introduced its subscription-based SPOT Satellite Messenger which is being promoted as a multi-purpose tool that can used as a distress beacon as well as providing options to request help without a full blown Search and Rescue response. It can also be used to notify friends, family or associates that you are okay and as a means to track your location. Join us as we take a preliminary First Look to see if we're willing to consider betting our life on SPOT at this juncture.

http://www.equipped.org/SPOT_ORSummer2007.htm

Thanks for the great comments about this product.

I agree 100% that a distress call should be put through regardless of if the unit can get a GPS fix or not. This seems a very poor decision on their part.

I also disagree with the idea of not putting through 911 messages w/o a subscription. The reality of it is IMO that this will change later anyway after they have their first mishap. Death or injury, lawsuits, and then a change of policy. Best to find a business model that works in this regard up front.

I do have a couple of specific questions. Since the unit is considered a "one-way" communications device, I am curious if the actual underlying data protocol is one way as well.

What I'm trying to get at here is when SPOT sends a message to the satellite, does it get an acknowledgment that the message was in fact received by the satellite?

What I'm worried about is if it broadcasts without confirming an acknowledgment, you could think message went out but in fact did not.

Further, is there some sort of checksum incorporated into the data protocol to ensure the message was not garbled in transmission? If so, what happens if it was? Does it re-send, give the user an error, etc?

Thanks for your report Doug!

-john

This is no different than any 406 MHz distress beacon, or 121/246 MHz, for that matter. Distress beacons have historically been one way devices. SPOT does provide visual confirmation via the LEDs whether the transmission was sent, as with a PLB, but it is strictly a one way device.



As I understand it, each alert is sent three times, though in the case of the OK/Check only one is passed to your contacts. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some sort of checksum done, that's SOP for all digital simplex stuff of which I am aware (406 MHz beacons included), because it is one way and there's inherently no other way to confirm it got through without being garbled, but I don't know for sure and will ask.

End-to-end ....
does this means :
- a location is transmited and a signal is sent back to the unit to acknoledge the location translmission
or
- a location is transmited and you have to access some web site to check if the signal correctly arrived at the other end
??????
The first explanation would mean two-way communication, but you say there is none ;
The second explanation would mean you have no way to test in the field, only at home/office ;
So, what is the third, correct, explanation I have been to dumb to understand ??

Or does "end-to-end" applies to the unit only (from pushbutton to antenna), not the entire system, satellite and Geos response center included ????


TIA

End-to-end refers to the entire system. You have to be able to either check the web site or be able to check with one of the contacts that would receive a text message (which could also be yourself). The whole point of conducting a self-test is to do it before you go, not once you are in the field. Self-test is to ensure everything is working at a point in time that you can either repair or replace before it is critical. It provides confidence that the device will work when you need it to. Once you are already in the field it's too late, there's nothing to be done about it at that point.

All in all, it sounds better to me than OnStar, which a lot of folks think is a cureall for traveling problems/emergencies. At least this one you can carry around with you...

Oh .. thanks .. now, I get it ...

But the core of the 406MHz PLB is a simple analog broadcast signal, right? So it just keeps broadcasting. With a data signal, if it gets missed, it's missed. No second chances. And with a data signal, a slight hiccup in signal will potentially cause the entire message to be invalid.



Yah, it sounds like maybe sending the message three times is their way of working around the issue. Not horrible, but users should understand how it works.

I assume that the 911 calls continue to broadcast over and over, but the OK check probably does not.

This would mean that it is possible for you to send an OK check/tracking and not realize it didn't get through.

-john

That is incorrect. The 406 MHz transmission is digital. That's how they can include all the identification data. Old 121.5/245 MHz beacons are analog. The 121.5 MHz homing transmission in PLBs is analog. 406MHz is Digital.



That isn't necessarily a correct assumption. They may well do a checksum. We don't know.



The 911 transmits until the battery is dead.



Life is uncertain. Eat dessert first.

You can only do so much with the tools available. That issue is inherent in any simplex system. That's why good designs take measures to increase the chances the message gets through. A good example of that is their triple transmission. They may well have other mitigation strategies, I don't know.

On-Star is great, for what it is. It is not a panacea. It's a lot better than nothing, usually works better than your handheld cell in marginal areas of cell coverage and I know folks who were very glad they had it. As you note, many, if not most users expect more than it can deliver in some situations. Most don't realize it is cell based. On-Star is NOT a satellite based system, it is cellular .

I think that you are going to have to make a case for a change in federal law. Require anyone who is providing an electronic messaging service to accept 911 calls at all times. Subscription, credit on cell phone or not. Make refusing to do so a federal offence.

As a point, I had Fire Marshal training last week. Took the oppotunity to have a chat with the serving Fire Officer doing the course. Just to clarify various issues about cellphones and giving position data using a G.P.S.

He tells me that:

In Europe and the U.K. any cellphone that has 999 (U.K. old emergency services no.) or 112 (pan-European) will override the P.I.N. security lock (if in use), lock on to any available network and pass the call. That's with or without credit (for pay as you go tariff's). I understand that this is a "voluntary" agreement between all the service providers.

I don't know what the legal position is in the United States but in the United Kingdom everyone has very specific dutys of care and a case could be made for charging anyone who refuses to render reasonable assistance with endangering life.

Doug,
Any chance that the SPoT system will encourage the PLB industry to also have a non-emergency mode? Call it a system check mode, where it sends a signal which is automatically turned around in an email format to a designated email address -- no manual handling at all. The GPS version would incorporate any available GPS loc data into the email.

Just a thought. I like the non-emergency modes of SPoT, not too thrilled with subscription requirements in an emergency/survival tool.

Well, never say never my grandfather told me.

It's not really up to the "industry," there's more than the manufacturers, etc. involved. The issue for conventional 406 MHz PLBs is that they are part of an international system that is resistant to change and is understandably very focused on saving lives, period. The COSPAS-SARSAT system is also dependent upon satellites, ground stations and the like that are currently government controlled. Having said that, there's no technical reason it couldn't be done, but the politics and such would be difficult, to say the least. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Now, having said that, the next generation DASS system would allow a good deal more flexibility, if the PTB decide to make use of it. That's been a debate that's raged for quite some time noww. Companies like SPOT may help move that debate into more unconventional, non-traditional areas, maybe, possibly, but I still wouldn't hold my breath.

Its funny, when I first started reading this thread - and before I read Doug's review - I expected the new system to be a text-entry version of the satellite telephone system - much like I can send text messages even when in the fringe of cell access.

First, I LOVE the orange color of the case. Orange is way cool.

Second, I was kind of shocked that this device has an onboard GPS. For the price that is pretty darn good.

Third, the long-term pricing seems similar. Over five years SPOT would cost $150 + $500 for five years of service, totalling $650 plus the cost of batteries. The ARC TerraFix w/ internal GPS costs $550 with a 5-year battery life.

Fourth, the PLB has the advantage of global access and a better response system. I also like that the PLB includes a short-range homing beacon, though I'm not sure how many SAR teams have the ability to use that signal. The SPOT's ability to send coordinates via e-mail is pretty slick - something that I would think would be easy for the COSPAS-SARSAT to do, BUT it would eat into what would be precious battery life if an emergency occurred.

I wonder what the consequences of someone sending a deliberately falls SPOT 911 signal would be. Probably similar to dialing 911.

Asside from concerns about the survivability of the GlobalStar system, this product sure appears to be a viable product, though it certainly doesn't have all the advantages of the COSPAS-SARSAT system. I'll still think PLB's are the way to go though.

Thanks for the excellent info Doug. I find this stuff really interesting, both the technical aspects and the ingenuity of people creating new services.

Not to be a total wet blanket, but I am not yet convinced that a ham radio and a GPS receiver combo might not be just as useful, and more flexible. I don't think anyone makes one of those yet (RINO is FRS). Of course it requires (simple) licensing and some user knowledge, but the infrastructure is there, worldwide, and free. You don't have to rely on pre-designated people necessarily, plus you get instant feedback on your transmissions. Hams (should) know how to forward emergency info too. Of course this unit would cost more than $150, but it's a one-time cost and you have a generally useful device as well. To go along with your proper PLB that you only use when in distress, not just a spot of trouble.

I can't believe somebody would carry a SPOT in a pre-planned serious use situation and not also have a GPS receiver and a 2-way radio. I may not be looking at this right, but it seems to me some of these subscription low-initial-cost devices are preying on ignorance, and are primarily to give a feeling of safety/security more than actually definitely provide any. Seems to be a common marketing strategy these days for all sorts of goods.

Cynical and skeptical enough for ya?

FWIW, the SPOT system is being used to track contestants in the Primal Quest adventure race which is currently underway.

-john

I would like a short description of PLB etiquette.

On another forum I read a description of hikers planning to use
one in either a medical emergency or for evacuation for lesser
problems. They didn't want to pay for the helicopter ride, so
were planning to use some sort of signal that would instruct
rescuers to send only state or fed machines rather than private
ambulance services. If sent a private machine they talked about
sueing in small claims court.

I'm pretty liberal and do SAR volunteer work, but
this lack of self responsibility and lack of planning to get yourself out
of a jam bothers me. It will bother me even more
when a helicopter goes down trying to get to someone with bad
blisters (or pulls a James Watt flying out from the grand canyon
due to boredom).

What are the correct uses of the PLB?

First, a PLB and SPOT are two different devices which operate differently. SPOT has the ability to send a "Help" message (to friends or family, etc.) as well as "911" (a Distress alert). There is no "etiquette" or standards or specific law with regards use of SPOT. I imagine that local and state laws related to false alerts and the like will be held applicable if it is abused. A PLB is legally supposed to be "used only in situations of grave and imminent danger." Obviously, this is subject to personal interpretation and can vary. What I find "grave and imminent danger" another person may not consider as such. An 80 year old person may find a situation a "grave and imminent danger" when someone half their age may not. This has been the situation for many years with all 406 MHz beacons and it has generally not been a problem. The bottom line is that authorities will consider a PLB distress alert as one where life is at risk and will respond accordingly. By and large, I'd expect the same will be the case for a SPOT 911 alert.

However, we already have had a case where an SPOT inadvertent false Help alert (unit turned on inside a pack) turned into a distress response when authorities were called by the alert recipient and only a last minute discovery by the SPOT user that the SPOT had been set off allowed him to cancel the alert with an OK signal. That is one possible advantage a SPOT has, but it was a design failure that more easily allows such alerts to be sent out inadvertently in the first place, compared to the PLB which has design standards in place to help prevent such things. This is a classic example of why SPOT's "Help" alert capability isn't quite all it's cracked up to be.

Ha ha. That's pretty funny Doug. Somehow, I suspect the inverse more likely. :-)

-john

I think that Doug may perhaps signal distress when afore mentioned grizzly bear is trying to chomp on his melon... ;-)