It depends on what you’re trying to do. If you are trying to communicate with another specific unit, which you don’t seem to have been doing, if it was in range you would more likely to have drawn a response.
If you’re treating the GTM like a CB, then you have Shout. It has a limited range. It’s usually used where there are a group of known active users working together in close proximity. If you just are randomly messaging, then that’s something most users don’t do and who might find replying to an unknown user intimidating or disquieting.
Calling CQ is a bit of an art even in amateur radio where it is a commonly accepted practice. I can’t say that we know enough about the goTenna equivalent of CQ yet to say what works best, given it is a small percentage of what users typically do, but here’s some info on how to improve results if you’re a Ham, some of which might translate to using Shout.
Callling CQ
BTW, what was the typical content/message you used when sending Shouts?
Yes, turning off Shouts is not the default, but a user choice. Why they might not be answered probably has more to do with reasons similar to why ham CQs are likewise not often answered. See resource in my previous reply above.
That last sentence again suggests you either don’t understand how Shouts (non-meshed) work vs how direct messaging works in a mesh network or you’ve got expectations that don’t fit the system design of meshing. Allowing incoming Shouts doesn’t utilize the mesh, simply enables another a feature that is independent of the mesh network.
And as an aside, routinely propagating Shouts across the network as some have repeatedly suggested threatens the commons that the primary mode, Direct Messaging, depends on. Most people who use the system prefer that it deliver reliable messaging, which very few other systems provide vs the general broadcast nature of Shouts that every analog transceiver ever built provides.
Well, based on how you state the problem, it does seem that you expect the GTM to act very much like other radios that you are more familiar. But no need to explain further if what I’ve already stated doesn’t get any traction here for you.
Did you address messages directly to others? If not, then that’s the biggest part of the lack of response. Most users, as already stated, communicate with others they know via their specified UIDs. A random Shout from an unknown user might be answered, but would more likely draw the lack of reaction you’ve observed and I’ve attempted to explain. This is in part due to intentional design to privilege person-to-person comms, but it’s also human nature to bear a certain reluctance to engage with strangers. That’s why Hams have found it necessary, even on a network/system that is biased in favor of such contacts, to work at encouraging people to both effectively make doing so inviting as well as to overcome the shyness that pervades in such interactions before trust is established between the parties involved.
I guess at this point, I’d have to ask what exactly are you needing to rely on? It seems like you are seeking a capability that sounds a lot like the role filled by amateur radio, despite your denial of such expectations. You should give some thought to this. Mesh networking is not about broadcasting as in calling CQ, pure and simple, or even about carrying on conversation in the clear so everyone can listen in, yet you seem to be pointing towards those concepts as needing incorporation into the GTM in all your criticism here in how it fails to meet expectation that are commonly associated with broadcasting modes we’re more familiar with.
I think you’re trapped here by insisting that your square peg should fit the round hole, because you basically dismiss my frankly cogent observation in your next comment.
That’s exactly what THIS mesh network is supposed to be, for reasons I’ve only lightly touched upon. It has to be different than traditional radio networks in order to function as a reliable messaging service. Unless certain limits are placed strategically to discourage abuse, the features users rely can also make mesh virtually unusable by becoming exploits for the bad-intentioned or even merely ignorant to use to tie up a mesh network. Essentially, stepping backward this way would be a lot like deciding that email didn’t need spam filtering or user-specific addressing. Imagine email where the spammers can just send one nastygram and it would be received by everyone in the world with email.
Well, if you insist that the positives necessary to make mesh work reliably are really negatives, I can’t help which end of the telescope you’re looking into, the one that is just weird or the one that reliably provides a good view of faraway information.
But no one needs an invite to use mesh networking the way goTenna delivers it. You just need some sort of social relationship that could be facilitated by better, more reliable communication. You make that choice, get your goTennas and go. No one has to be vetted by the “co-op board” - they simply need to decide they want to communicate. However, like that old human endeavor, marriage, it takes two to tango. Even in an age where such institutions are changing rapidly, that basic bond has to be there as a foundation to build on. If you wake up one day and you’re 40 and not married and you want to be, do you blame your cellphone for not having already brought you the mate of your dreams? You shouldn’t.
So go ahead and explore other solutions. There’s a recent thread here on those alternatives that might save you some time and, well, good luck at finding better mesh networking. While goTenna Mesh has some functionality to bring unknowns together, it’s actually targeted more at strengthening existing relationships by facilitating communications between the parties involved. Without those relationships, you are probably going to find the goTenna Mesh frustrating and should probably polish you radio voice and get your Ham ticket.