Hey, back in previous editions Mictrotransievers and similar tactical communication gear was almost mandatory on runs.


My players brought this to my attention: With commlinks being cheap and so versatile, what's the point of using any other means of communication devices? Initially I thought communicating with mictrotrancievers would be more secure, but it seems it has the same kind of encryption that commlinks have, so it should be just as easy to intercept, sabotage or jam.

Sure, commlinks can be hacked, while I'm not sure that MTs can, but then again most runners use commlinks as well. Sure, you can turn them off but that means you lose out on another advantage comlinks have: Using tactical maps in conjunction with verbal communication.

So can you tell me what's the point of MTs? Are they just mementos of a past time, communication dinosaurs, or do they provide a benefit compared to comlinks?

They are always useful as a backup comm system.

I forget who mentioned it in another topic but they brought up the point of if your commlink is compromised, EVERYTHING on that commlink is now compromised (or very well could be) so unless all you use it for is MT style purposes, you're taking a bigger risk.

With a MT if they hack/jam/sabotage it all you've lost are communications and not stuff like contact phone numbers, addresses, places you think are really whiz and hang out at all the time (thus making it easier to find you), etc, etc.

Also, MTs are pretty damn cheap. 1200 for a rating 6, signal 6 device used for communications is awesome compared to 8000 for a fairlight caliban with a signal of 5. You also need an operating system to go along with it, pushing the cost up further and frankly, if you're going to be bringing your commlink on a run you better be DAMN sure you've got a superduper firewall because otherwise well, you might as well use a MT for all the good it'll do you to bring it along just to get hacked without the offender batting an eyelash.

Now if all you want is a rating 1 deal, you can get one for 200 whereas the absolute cheapest commlink/os you'll buy out of the box is 300 and well, that commlink is pretty useless for anything other than a decoy link to display your (fake)SIN and make the authorities happy while your super whiz amaze-o-deluxe with a side of fries commlink loaded with all sorts of goodies can operate in hidden mode or be turned off and not catch the stink eye.

...if they brought back the Transducer (Cyber Implant) in Augmented the Micro Transceiver makes an excellent stealth comm unit totally independent from your commlink.

Can you operate a commlink in "pure radio, voice only" mode? Not accepting anything but an (probably analog) voice signal, making it impossible to hack?

As others have said, it's essential a security choice. Microtranscievers are cheaper, are more secure, and have greater range. But, in all honesty, if someone can hack into your teams commlinks they probably won't have any trouble jamming or intercepting your microtranscievers, either. So it really just comes down to a choice.

It's also just as vulnerable as the rest of your PAN is if it's connected directly or indirectly to any other wireless device in the network. So you have to go with cabled earbuds and subvocals or... well, you may as well just be using your commlink if not for the greater range on the microtransciever.

I think the Idea is the Microtranceiver could operate this way, making it more secure than over-matrix communications.

My personal opinion is that the micro-tranceivers don't broadcast on matrix frequencies or with matrix encoding, and so if someone wanted to intercept the signal, they'd need their own micro-tranceiver to do so.

I interpret hooking a micro-tranceiver up to your commlink as getting that custom soft-radio. But your right, that's not anywhere in the rules.

A micro-transceiver is less suitable to take full advantage of a softradio, as he lacks any real interface.

But a microtranceiver hooked up to your commlink...

..does nothing more than your commlink itself.

I'm saying IF the commlink had a limited range of frequencies, the micro-tranceiver would act as a soft radio.

Real world comparison: my laptop has a wireless card, it can interface with other wireless devices, but can't communicate with my walky-talkies. My friend has a peice of equipment he hooks his laptop up to that allows him to send and receive data over HAM radio frequencies. My normal laptop cannot do this, but if I attached a similar device it could.

Back to SR: The commlink has wireless, as does almost everything else, but a special adapter would be needed for it to access microtranceiver signals. Incidentally, this device is a micro-tranceiver.

Theoretically, a microtransciever could also be a node....

and since p 320
"The transceiver’s Signal rating is
equal to its Device rating."

and the table on P 214 also uses "Device Rating"

You can claim that a rating 6 microtransciever also acts as a rating 6 node.

Not that I would let anyone get away with that.

Oh, it's a node, and could run all kinds of IC to protect that node. It's just not a commlink, and would not give you a persona, nor would agents running on it be able to do anything outside of it's node.

You can switch cyberware to wireless mode. Can you switch Comlinks to microtransceiver mode too?

You can turn wireless connectivity off on anything.

That applies to stringing a cable between two people's heads, both of whom have a Datajack. It has nothing to do with Microtranscievers which are in no way secure.

true. but kyoto kid asked about the transducer. a device that could convert thought to words and back again.

to me, two people with datajacks and fibre suggests that the datajack have absorbed the functionality of the transducer.

Ah, true, I see what you mean now. Though if the transmissions are "text messages," it makes a bit more sense.

...thanks. Looks like Datajacks and Micro Transceivers for everyone (except Da Brat and KK).

...hmmm, I wonder if a trode net would work for them?

Sure, trodes are just another form of DNI. But again, Datajacks are not the same as Transducers. DNI lets you control and activate devices, but you can't "talk through your brain" beyond the possibility of sending text messages and whatnot. That's exactly why there's a Transducer.

There is no Transducer in SR4.

Okay, ammendment: Why there needs to still be a Transducer.

Most people seem to disagree and happily use their implanted commlink, datajack or trodes to communicate mentally.

...yeah , but Implanted commlinks are not the same since they are always tied into to the Matrix and have a data trail associated with them. A micro transceiver functions on radio frequencies that have nothing to do the wireless matrix which is what makes them very ueseful in the field when you want to keep communications private.. You can also load (at least you could in previous editions) an MT with various electronic countermeasures to counteract jamming and eavesdropping. As has been discussed in various threads, Matrix based encryption in SR4 is something of a joke.

I guess would actually tend to agree with Dr Funk on this one and say that we then still need the Transducer, and the fact they didn't include it in Augmented is a shame.

It really isn't a big Essence/ sink anyway. (.1 Ess & I believe 1500 in SRIII).

Wonderful little piece of 'ware.

...What I'm looking at is bypassing the matrix altogether. No where does it say that you need the same countermeasures for a Transceiver as you do for a Commlink to keep communications secure. This would imply that the two units operate independently of one another. A Commlink uses an array wireless matrix nodes. A Transceiver uses the standard radio bands. A Commlink can be used to contact someone a great distance away by hopping from one node to the next. A Transceiver has a set range limit based on its power (formerly flux) rating.

The thing is you really don't "Talk" to people in VR. You message them. VR displays text and graphics, and you need an active Display Link to read it, and then, you have to read it thus requiring more attention than simply listening and responding verbally. I would find that rather distracting while on a run.

OK, the Transceiver may be as old hat in 2070 as the transistor radio is in the current day. But it is simple, still works, and is not dependent on the matrix to function. I see it as this: Commlinks use one set of dedicated frequencies to link with a node and Transceivers use a different set, with each being exclusive of the other. Otherwise there would be no reason for MTs to exist in the Gear section since the Commlink does everything (except maybe make the coffee and wash the car - waitaminute, I guess they got drones for that...ohhh never mind ).

I'm not really familiar with any rules for having multiple PANs. You either have one or you don't. A single wireless device hooked up to it renders the entire network vulnerable to attack through that device.

If I'm mistaking, please let me know. I'd love it if you could have multiple networks going and be able to shut one down that's under attack while maintaining your others.

Regarding transducers and their lack of an appearance in SR4: Please point to a text blurb that says audio communication is possible through pure DNI. And if it were that simple, why would anyone want a subvocal microphone that costs exactly the same as a set of trodes for their commlink.

...excellent point, & the reason why I believe the two devices are mutually exclusive of each other.

Oh, it'd be great if you could separate them completely. I just don't see how you can and still have interoperability (ie, with you being the "device" that connects everything together).

Now having a cheap commlink on you that's turned on but with which you're not personally networked to (ie, it's doing what it needs to do and you're checking up on it the old fashioned way; through the standard non-DNI interface), that's fine and that's what most people seem to be doing when they have one. Well, while simultaneously having their PAN completely skinlinked with wireless connectivity turned off, that is.

Well yeah, that's the thing. The moment you do connect to them at the same time, game over; it's all one network. You can have wireless devices that aren't connected to your PAN, but that means you can't operate them through that PAN either. You have to either rely on old fashioned controls and interfaces or hook it up to your PAN and use your standard DNI controls. You still only ever have one PAN; you're just connecting and disconnecting devices as you see fit.

Boy, did this topic blow up quickly

Ah it seems we're not the only one confused by the gear section's limited description on items, particularily how they work.

As far as I see, there is little in the rules themselves that show a benefit to using MTs contra commlinks. I see many of you have good points on how you see the use for MTs, but these are pretty liberal interpretations or even house rules.

After a while I got lost in the technical details, thinking of wireless signals and optical computers makes my head spin. Ah well. In my game I'm still going to allow EW against MTs, but I'll make them somewhat harder to intercept at least.

As for the datajack communication thing, seriously people, make your own thread

Well, if we use the computer network analogy:

Here is my desktop computer. Connected to it by cable are the screen, the printer, my keyboard, speakers, a microphone, a mouse, a laptop, a UBS-external harddrive and a radio which is used for accessing the internet through a wireless connection.

Can I keep the network going, sharing data between the desktop, laptop and external harddrive, cut the wireless connection, and use the radio with speakers and microphone as a CB radio to talk with a trucker, if the radio can access those frequencies?

Could I keep a commlink on as the network hub for my PAN (through skinlink), yet drop the wireless connectivity, and opening a simple radio link (voice only)?

From what I read so far, it should be rather easily be done, and allow voice communication without being vulnerable to hacking.

The thing you're missing, I think, is that for all intents and purposes, the character himself is the "hub" of the network. Anything connected to him is connected to everything else in his PAN. Doesn't matter if the wireless connection is using radio or any other type of wireless methods -- the rules never differentiate between them as far as I'm aware. Wireless is wireless.

Even if you have all the wireless connectivity on all your other devices turned off and are accessing them through skinlinks, plugging into a microtransciever or cheap commlink that has its wireless turned on renders them all vulnerable to attack. This is, in particular, where a microtransciever does shine over a cheap commlink as the microtransciever can easily have a Rating 6 across the board for the same price as a cheap commlink.

Funk: I assume that response was not directed towards my post. I wouldn't mind continuing our side topic in a new thread, if you'd like.

Sure. I'd love to see more discussion about multiple PANs. I'd honestly love it if you could do that as I get a little frustrated designing a security-conscious non-hacker character.