All,
So in some of the recent discussions with SPOT about their upcoming
products, they tell me that they have indeed surveyed their users
about whether they would like to have altitude outputted. They have
not (yet) told me how much extra it would have cost, but they said
that the majority of users they surveyed were not willing to pay any
extra to have altitude outputted by their devices. They said that
while the "hangliders" have been passionate about it, that there
hasn't been a large enough group of users who said they were willing
to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
usage.

So the purpose of this posting is to ask if any of the users on this
newgroups anywhere in the world have EVER been survey'd by SPOT or an
affiliated organization ANYTHING related to the addition altitude to
the information outputted by a SPOT device. If you have, please let
me know. My guess is that there won't be anyone on here that has ever
been asked. I'm hoping to try to get something posted somewhere on
the AOPA site with a similar question to see what the response there
is as well. I will also ask some of our more active paraglider
buddies as well. I will also push back a little on any proposed
pricing they might have considered. Since I don't know that, please
also let me know if you would be willing to pay say (I'm making this
up) $5 extra a year to have altitude outputted from your device and
available on your shared page?

Armed with some of this feedback, I hope to push back a bit more in
hopes of trying to get altitude output onto the plate for the next
version of SPOT.

Thanks in advance!!

-Mark

On Aug 5, 9:27*pm, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
> So the purpose of this posting is to ask if any of the users on this
> newgroups anywhere in the world have EVER been survey'd by SPOT or an
> affiliated organization ANYTHING related to the addition altitude to
> the information outputted by a SPOT device.

I responded to a survey several months ago. It had no specific
questions on altitude reporting but I found a place where I could make
a free form comment and requested altitude be added to the tracking
reports.

Andy

On Aug 5, 8:37*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Aug 5, 9:27*pm, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
>
> > So the purpose of this posting is to ask if any of the users on this
> > newgroups anywhere in the world have EVER been survey'd by SPOT or an
> > affiliated organization ANYTHING related to the addition altitude to
> > the information outputted by a SPOT device.
>
> I responded to a survey several months ago. It had no specific
> questions on altitude reporting but I found a place where I could make
> a free form comment and requested altitude be added to the tracking
> reports.
>
> Andy

I did the same. The 'survey' seemed more like a fishing expedition
for numbers to claim in advertisements.

I completed the survey a while ago, hoping our feedback would count.
But the flying community is a small percentage of users. For most
users, ground elevation is all they need.
If anyone wants more coverage area, better reliability, more frequent
message rate, with altitude, direction and speed information, they can
get it from other (and more expensive) providers.
Lets see if at least the version 2 unit gets messages out closer to
the every 10 minutes they claim. I'm more concerned with the frequent
gaps in message reception. Unless there are multiple messages at the
same location, a good assumption would be "still flying".
Jim

MarkHawke7 wrote:
> All,
> So in some of the recent discussions with SPOT about their upcoming
> products, they tell me that they have indeed surveyed their users
> about whether they would like to have altitude outputted. They have
> not (yet) told me how much extra it would have cost, but they said
> that the majority of users they surveyed were not willing to pay any
> extra to have altitude outputted by their devices. They said that
> while the "hangliders" have been passionate about it, that there
> hasn't been a large enough group of users who said they were willing
> to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
> usage.

A few months ago, I answered a survey from SPOT that had several
specific questions about altitude information and the additional price
I'd be willing to pay. I think I said something like $25/year.

Glider pilots, maybe balloon pilots, live on altitude, but I can't
imagine ground-based users having the slightest interest in altitude,
and I doubt airplane pilots care much, either, since they tend to fly at
constant altitudes. Perhaps they could offer to replace OK message with
the altitude, and do it without extra charge, since it would not be
adding any extra bits to the message. You'd have to press the OK button
every now and then, of course.

Eric Greenwell

On Aug 5, 10:44*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> MarkHawke7 wrote:
> > All,
> > So in some of the recent discussions with SPOT about their upcoming
> > products, they tell me that they have indeed surveyed their users
> > about whether they would like to have altitude outputted. *They have
> > not (yet) told me how much extra it would have cost, but they said
> > that the majority of users they surveyed were not willing to pay any
> > extra to have altitude outputted by their devices. *They said that
> > while the "hangliders" have been passionate about it, that there
> > hasn't been a large enough group of users who said they were willing
> > to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
> > usage.
>
> A few months ago, I answered a survey from SPOT that had several
> specific questions about altitude information and the additional price
> I'd be willing to pay. I think I said something like $25/year.
>
> Glider pilots, maybe balloon pilots, live on altitude, but I can't
> imagine ground-based users having the slightest interest in altitude,
> and I doubt airplane pilots care much, either, since they tend to fly at
> constant altitudes. Perhaps they could offer to replace OK message with
> the altitude, and do it without extra charge, since it would not be
> adding any extra bits to the message. You'd have to press the OK button
> every now and then, of course.
>
> Eric Greenwell

Although altitude reporting would be very useful for contest
situations, it's not a priority for me. I place my SPOT on top of my
instrument pod, and with rare exception, get tracking message through
every 10 minutes. Not that things couldn't be improved, but for
roughly $13.00 a month, my crew can always find me. That's worth
every penny.

> to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
> usage.

> -Mark


Additional bandwidth usage? I don't get it. We're talking about the
message that gets sent from the Spot unit through the satellite,
right? How can one additional data element constitute "additional
bandwidth"?

As long as the Spot unit itself if capable of determining it's
altitude, I would think the only change required is a software update
and the message protocol for transmit and receive via the satellite.
An extra couple of bytes of data in the message doesn't seem like it
should be a big deal.

What am I missing?

When I right click on a message, there's an option called show
altitude profile. When clicked a plot of altitude vs distance is
plotted. Anyone else seen this?

Kathy

On Aug 6, 10:31*am, Kathy > wrote:
> When I right click on a message, there's an option called show
> altitude profile. When clicked a plot of altitude vs distance is
> plotted. *Anyone else seen this?
>

> Kathy

That is meaningless local terrain altitude.

Darryl

On Aug 6, 8:16*am, Westbender > wrote:
> > to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
> > usage.
> > -Mark
>
> Additional bandwidth usage? *I don't get it. We're talking about the
> message that gets sent from the Spot unit through the satellite,
> right? How can one additional data element constitute "additional
> bandwidth"?
>
> As long as the Spot unit itself if capable of determining it's
> altitude, I would think the only change required is a software update
> and the message protocol for transmit and receive via the satellite.
> An extra couple of bytes of data in the message doesn't seem like it
> should be a big deal.
>
> What am I missing?

Is there an increase in bandwidth? Absolutely, and it is likely to be
about 2X just to add altitude data. The Globalstar networks uses 144-
bit (18-byte) simplex data packets which have 45-bits overhead, 27-
bits ESN (Electronic Serial Number) and 72-bit payload. I suspect SPOT
uses the same encoding scheme as other Gloablstar simplex devices with
the Lat/Lon encoded in 48 bits within the 72 bit payload. But by the
time you lose another few bytes for message type and status there is
likely no space for altitude data (there is no space left in standard
Globalstar location message packets, I suspect SPOT uses a simmilar
data layout as those, I have never see an exact spec of the SPOT
packet configuration). But you can send the altitude in an separate
packet (Globalstar supports chained packet messages or they could just
reassemble this at the application level at the other end). So my best
guess is whatever the SPOT tracking bandwidth requirement is currently
that would double it to add altitude reporting.

But does doubling of the bandwidth involve a significant increase in
cost to SPOT? I have *no* idea (and the rest of this just says that in
a long winded way...). So how do you cost the bandwidth? Well doing
that bottom-up that would take more space than I have on the back of
my envelope, but here is a flavor.... The data is encoded using CDMA
(spread spectrum) technology but the channel congestion/capacity is
not obvious. At some congestion level you start increasing loss of
data packets also the cost becomes the business cost of reputation/
guarantee to customers of data packet reliability (that's not just
SPOT customers but all Globalstar simplex data customers). And this is
a "local area" type bandwidth from your simplex modem to whatever
ground stations its signal is being bent back to. The simplest
baseline cost is the amortization of the billions of dollars it has
taken Gloabalstar to put the global system in place, you can either
calculate this at the actual cost or the steeply discounted post-
bankruptcy acquisition cost of Globalstar's assets. So you could
probably generate some scary big numbers if modeling bandwidth
congestion costs. The other way is just to look at what Globalstar is
willing to to price their bandwidth at. If bandwidth costs dominated
their service costs then adding altitude for constant margin to them
would require doubling the subscription rate. Reporting altitude and
location at 1 minute intervals would require a 20X increase in
current subscription costs. That does not seem likely, and SPOT just ~
tripled the data bandwidth requirement for tracking with the new SPOT
messenger by resending the past two position reports with each new
report and I will be surprised if we see a huge increase in the cost
of the add-on track service. The constellation and ground stations are
sunk cost. Globalstar might as well drive up usage even at deep
discount rates to make any revenue. If they manage to create a market
they can keep growing this until congestion becomes a potential issue.
And at that point they can manage this by raising subscription costs.
The other interesting thing is actual utilization - I suspect many
typical spot users never actually send much traffic at all, never use
track mode, etc. and the device sits mostly idle. And the use of the
system bandwidth by active users could cost more than the actual
bandwidth cost. I'd love SPOT to say how they model bandwidth cost :-)

There are significant costs associated with creating and marketing
different product SKUs and I would expect those costs, especially for
a small market like people who want altitude reported, to be
significant. You might produce a different version of the product that
always had altitude on to save a complete doubling of bandwidth usage
at no benefit to most customers, and that device may need physical UI
changes (buttons etc). To cover those additional costs you probably
want to market this at a higher unit and subscription price point -
this type of situation often traps you in the difficulty of escalating
pricing of products for a smaller market niches. The other attack on
this is to look at competitive pricing of Iridium tracking solutions,
on the high side, and possible lower cost future technology, but my
(marketing/business consulting) gut feel is don't expect a slight
increase in price if you want things like altitude or high frequency
track reporting.

Darryl

On Aug 5, 8:27*pm, MarkHawke7 > wrote:
> All,
> So in some of the recent discussions with SPOT about their upcoming
> products, they tell me that they have indeed surveyed their users
> about whether they would like to have altitude outputted. *They have
> not (yet) told me how much extra it would have cost, but they said
> that the majority of users they surveyed were not willing to pay any
> extra to have altitude outputted by their devices. *They said that
> while the "hangliders" have been passionate about it, that there
> hasn't been a large enough group of users who said they were willing
> to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
> usage.
>
> So the purpose of this posting is to ask if any of the users on this
> newgroups anywhere in the world have EVER been survey'd by SPOT or an
> affiliated organization ANYTHING related to the addition altitude to
> the information outputted by a SPOT device. *If you have, please let
> me know. *My guess is that there won't be anyone on here that has ever
> been asked. *I'm hoping to try to get something posted somewhere on
> the AOPA site with a similar question to see what the response there
> is as well. *I will also ask some of our more active paraglider
I filled out the online survey several months ago. I asked for
altitude reporting. In addition, I asked for multiple SPOT units to be
displayed on a single tracking page. Could be accomlished by selecting
individual SPOTs to join a group that you can create by getting their
permissions to join, analagous to Facebook friends. The maybe some
Yahoo App for this in existance.

buddies as well. *I will also push back a little on any proposed
> pricing they might have considered. *Since I don't know that, please
> also let me know if you would be willing to pay say (I'm making this
> up) $5 extra a year to have altitude outputted from your device and
> available on your shared page?
>
> Armed with some of this feedback, I hope to push back a bit more in
> hopes of trying to get altitude output onto the plate for the next
> version of SPOT.
>
> Thanks in advance!!
>
> -Mark

On Aug 6, 12:50*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:16*am, Westbender > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
> > > usage.
> > > -Mark
>
> > Additional bandwidth usage? *I don't get it. We're talking about the
> > message that gets sent from the Spot unit through the satellite,
> > right? How can one additional data element constitute "additional
> > bandwidth"?
>
> > As long as the Spot unit itself if capable of determining it's
> > altitude, I would think the only change required is a software update
> > and the message protocol for transmit and receive via the satellite.
> > An extra couple of bytes of data in the message doesn't seem like it
> > should be a big deal.
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> Is there an increase in bandwidth? Absolutely, and it is likely to be
> about 2X just to add altitude data. The Globalstar networks uses 144-
> bit (18-byte) simplex data packets which have 45-bits overhead, 27-
> bits ESN (Electronic Serial Number) and 72-bit payload. I suspect SPOT
> uses the same encoding scheme as other Gloablstar simplex devices with
> the Lat/Lon encoded in 48 bits within the 72 bit payload. But by the
> time you lose another few bytes for message type and status there is
> likely no space for altitude data (there is no space left in standard
> Globalstar location message packets, I suspect SPOT uses a simmilar
> data layout as those, I have never see an exact spec of the SPOT
> packet configuration). But you can send the altitude in an separate
> packet (Globalstar supports chained packet messages or they could just
> reassemble this at the application level at the other end). So my best
> guess is whatever the SPOT tracking bandwidth requirement is currently
> that would double it to add altitude reporting.
>
> But does doubling of the bandwidth involve a significant increase in
> cost to SPOT? I have *no* idea (and the rest of this just says that in
> a long winded way...). So how do you cost the bandwidth? Well doing
> that bottom-up that would take more space than I have on the back of
> my envelope, but here is a flavor.... The data is encoded using CDMA
> (spread spectrum) technology but the channel congestion/capacity is
> not obvious. At some congestion level you start increasing loss of
> data packets also the cost becomes the business cost of reputation/
> guarantee to customers of data packet reliability (that's not just
> SPOT customers but all Globalstar simplex data customers). And this is
> a "local area" type bandwidth from your simplex modem to whatever
> ground stations its signal is being bent back to. The simplest
> baseline cost is the amortization of the billions of dollars it has
> taken Gloabalstar to put the global system in place, you can either
> calculate this at the actual cost or the steeply discounted post-
> bankruptcy acquisition cost of Globalstar's assets. So you could
> probably generate some scary big numbers if modeling bandwidth
> congestion costs. The other way is just to look at what Globalstar is
> willing to to price their bandwidth at. If bandwidth costs dominated
> their service costs then adding altitude for constant margin to them
> would require doubling the subscription rate. Reporting altitude and
> location *at 1 minute intervals would require a 20X increase in
> current subscription costs. That does not seem likely, and SPOT just ~
> tripled the data bandwidth requirement for tracking with the new SPOT
> messenger by resending the past two position reports with each new
> report and I will be surprised if we see a huge increase in the cost
> of the add-on track service. The constellation and ground stations are
> sunk cost. Globalstar might as well drive up usage even at deep
> discount rates *to make any revenue. If they manage to create a market
> they can keep growing this until congestion becomes a potential issue.
> And at that point they can manage this by raising subscription costs.
> The other interesting thing is actual utilization - I suspect many
> typical spot users never actually send much traffic at all, never use
> track mode, etc. and the device sits mostly idle. And the use of the
> system bandwidth by active users could cost more than the actual
> bandwidth cost. I'd love SPOT to say how they model bandwidth cost :-)
>
> There are significant costs associated with creating and marketing
> different product SKUs and I would expect those costs, especially for
> a small market like people who want altitude reported, to be
> significant. You might produce a different version of the product that
As you said Darryl, cost per bit is the key metric. The main question
I have is whether the cost structure to globalstar is such that the
system can attract enough subscribers to generate the cashflow
required to replace their aging satellite fleet. Or whether SPOT
coverage and tracking reliability will continue to decline as
satellites go silent. The globalstar pipes are narrow to begin with,
but who knows how much spare capacity there is left slipping away
unsold?


always had altitude on to save a complete doubling of bandwidthI usage
> at no benefit to most customers, and that device may need physical UI
> changes (buttons etc). To cover those additional costs you probably
> want to market this at a higher unit and subscription price point *-
> this type of situation often traps you in the difficulty of escalating
> pricing of products for a smaller market niches. The other attack on
> this is to look at competitive pricing of Iridium tracking solutions,
> on the high side, and possible lower cost future technology, but my
> (marketing/business consulting) gut feel is don't expect a slight
> increase in price if you want things like altitude or high frequency
> track reporting.
>
> Darryl

On Aug 5, 10:44*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> MarkHawke7 wrote:
> > All,
> > So in some of the recent discussions with SPOT about their upcoming
> > products, they tell me that they have indeed surveyed their users
> > about whether they would like to have altitude outputted. *They have
> > not (yet) told me how much extra it would have cost, but they said
> > that the majority of users they surveyed were not willing to pay any
> > extra to have altitude outputted by their devices. *They said that
> > while the "hangliders" have been passionate about it, that there
> > hasn't been a large enough group of users who said they were willing
> > to pay an additional amount to justify the additional bandwidth
> > usage.
>
> A few months ago, I answered a survey from SPOT that had several
> specific questions about altitude information and the additional price
> I'd be willing to pay. I think I said something like $25/year.
>
> Glider pilots, maybe balloon pilots, live on altitude, but I can't
> imagine ground-based users having the slightest interest in altitude,
> and I doubt airplane pilots care much, either, since they tend to fly at
> constant altitudes. Perhaps they could offer to replace OK message with
> the altitude, and do it without extra charge, since it would not be
> adding any extra bits to the message. You'd have to press the OK button
> every now and then, of course.
>
> Eric Greenwell

I'm not too concerned with altitude. As long as my wife can see that
I'm ok and can be found if help is needed I'm happy with it.

Jim Dingess