Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beartooth

beartooth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 152 posts

Re: Beartooth

#81

Post by adamweld »

tjohns wrote: post #43
jdietrich wrote: post #30

As with any smartphone product being marketed for use in wilderness environments, a note of caution is necessary. Rescue services have seen an increasing number of life-threatening situations caused by the unwise use of smartphones. Phones aren't sufficiently rugged and often lack user-replaceable batteries, so cannot be relied upon as a navigation tool or as a means of emergency communication. If you're considering…

+1 on everything you just said. A dedicated radio (FRS, GMRS, MURS, or amateur VHF) -- along with GPS and other survival gear -- is essential in the backcountry. Carry a cell phone, but don't rely on it. I see folks doing that far too often. That said: Having just done some research on distress beacons, I just want to point out that there's some better options than SPOT beacons out there. The problem with SPOT is tha…

+1 on the PLB. My family always carries one while out on hiking/climbing/backcountry skiing trips.

Re: Beartooth

#82

Post by dboreham »

ldayley wrote: post #75
roymurdock wrote: post #52

Just don't see a value prop to make this feasible. I go to festivals, skiing, camping with friends 2-3 times a year. At a festival, cell service is fine. Camelback with gatorade/water mix is the crucial piece of equipment. Just keep an eye on it, as random people will try to drink from your straw. For casual skiing we set times/places to meet up in case we get separated. Again, cell phones work fine on most mountains…

I don't think it is designed with this use case in mind, despite the marketing that mentions crowded festivals. I see a "Born in Bozeman" badges on the site, so I'm assuming this was born out of necessity for backcountry trekking in wild Montana and not hiking Mt. Tamalpais. I'm not far from Bozeman and I don't have to travel far from home before I lose network coverage from both Verizon and T-Mobile. Sure, I relish…

I bought a sat phone after an experience rescuing a couple (and their two large dogs) in 20 below weather from the Battleridge campground where their truck had become stuck. That's only 20 miles outside of Bozeman but cell service fades out long before there so they had no way to call for help. I've used it a few times over the years when camping and driving around the area on day trips. As you say, cell service is very much optional away from towns and the freeway.

Re: Beartooth

#83

Post by mathgeek »

On first load, all I see is the blatant "look at this person's butt in tight jeans while they insert a phone into their pocket" video clip. Drove me right off. Do we really need that sort of thing to promote a wireless device in this day and age?

Re: Beartooth

#84

Post by tjohns »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #60
chrissnell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about 2-meter radios, you're going to need a ham radio license to use them in the US. It's not hard, but it is necessary. Also, FCC regulations do not permit "broadcasting" on these bands. That is, you can't play music over them. Having a music festival playing in the background is flirting with that rule. You're better off just using FRS radios.

The "23 mile range" business is very optimistic. You'll probably never see over 5 miles of range unless it's line-of-sight between two mountains. However, they'd be great at most festivals or e.g. Burning Man. Look for something FRS or GMRS. There are also 2-meter (~144mhz) radios which parent is talking about like e.g. a Baaofeng UV-5R which are inexpensive software-defined radios that can operate on licensed and un…

FYI: There aren't any unlicensed bands you can legally use a Baofeng UV-5R on. They're only approved for use on the business or amateur bands.

Unfortunately all the unlicensed bands require band-specific hardware certification, which the Baofeng's don't qualify for, for various reasons.

Also, the Baofeng's aren't software-defined radios. Those cost much more money. :) It's just a standard programmable VHF/UHF radio, that happens to be very cheap.

Re: Beartooth

#85

Post by chipperyman573 »

freehunter wrote: post #17
csomar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think 2 miles is a good travel distance. (or maybe it is from a technical perspective but not from a practical one). That would assume lots of users which I feel can be problematic with a $399 price range and big form factor.

I've been trying to solve an issue similar to what Beartooth is doing, and 2 miles is amazing range. Bear in mind, these aren't huge towers hundreds of feet above the ground with 50kWh power sources and million dollar price tags, they're battery-powered, handheld, and consumer-priced. And cell towers with all the advantages listed only travel less than 20 miles. 2 miles with those limitations is a great distance. I t…

>Ham radio would go farther, but sending encrypted communications over ham radio is illegal, so that's right out. This is the next best thing.

How come? I don't know much about ham, but it doesn't seem like it'd make much sense to make it illegal.

Re: Beartooth

#86

Post by elbigbad »

rtkwe wrote: post #72
munificent wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is a cell phone supposed to communicate with the Beartooth? Given the name, I would presume Bluetooth.

Piggybacking here but the FAQ is painfully vague. On the question of what phones does it work with their answer is: > Beartooth pairs with both iOS and Android smartphones, as long as the operating system is up to date. Which is a pretty much useless statement on Android especially since they would know what API level their app targets... It certainly sounds like it'll use Bluetooth though and makes sense as a bridge…

My GoPro creates a wifi network and the phone just auto-connects to that to control the GoPro. So certainly the Beartooth could create a wifi network that the phone connects to and essentially sees the Beartooth as a traditional wifi network.

Re: Beartooth

#87

Post by elbigbad »

mathgeek wrote: post #83

On first load, all I see is the blatant "look at this person's butt in tight jeans while they insert a phone into their pocket" video clip. Drove me right off. Do we really need that sort of thing to promote a wireless device in this day and age?

I didn't get the "sex sells" angle from that. I'm a male and that's where I keep my phone while walking around. It tied the Beartooth in my mind more to the feelings of "this is a portable cell-phone related device" than to the "sex sells" angle.

Re: Beartooth

#88

Post by hammock »

roymurdock wrote: post #52

Just don't see a value prop to make this feasible. I go to festivals, skiing, camping with friends 2-3 times a year. At a festival, cell service is fine. Camelback with gatorade/water mix is the crucial piece of equipment. Just keep an eye on it, as random people will try to drink from your straw. For casual skiing we set times/places to meet up in case we get separated. Again, cell phones work fine on most mountains…

Air tube? I ski with beacon, probe & shovel, familiar with airbags but unfamiliar with air tubes.

Re: Beartooth

#89

Post by amitbr »

linksbro wrote: post #4

It transmits via some sub-1ghz free spectrum bands, which travel a good distance and have decent structure penetration. https://beartooth.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/216797018-Wh... This is why unlicensed spectrum bands are great; they allow for stuff like this to be built without a billion dollar spectrum price tag.

welocome to 915Mhz band. I.e. where LORA and Enterprise live. Words of caution, this band is becoming wildly cluttered.

Re: Beartooth

#90

Post by lfowles »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #85
freehunter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to solve an issue similar to what Beartooth is doing, and 2 miles is amazing range. Bear in mind, these aren't huge towers hundreds of feet above the ground with 50kWh power sources and million dollar price tags, they're battery-powered, handheld, and consumer-priced. And cell towers with all the advantages listed only travel less than 20 miles. 2 miles with those limitations is a great distance. I t…

>Ham radio would go farther, but sending encrypted communications over ham radio is illegal, so that's right out. This is the next best thing. How come? I don't know much about ham, but it doesn't seem like it'd make much sense to make it illegal.

Ham radio spectrum is strictly for non-commercial use. If encrypted communications were allowed, it would be a lot easier to sidestep that with plausible deniability.
Post reply on HN