Re: Digest Number 24
|
"George Jones" <hamfiles@...>
The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and TCP/IP. Currently the Internet is the method of transport where we as hams become dependant on the commercial common carriers and there failures. We need to take a closer look at wireless Mesh Node Networks.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
A number of hams around the US are modifying 2.4 and 5.8 GHz WiFi routers to be used at data bridges. The software being developed has features for re-routing a path should a particular node becomes unavailable. D-STAR and other DMR systems all use eithernet to get to the Internet. All of these systems can just as easily be transported over a wireless MESH NODE network. What we need is bandwidth with less interference. We are currently blessed with a number of microwave bands that go under used. We need to develop ham WiFi networks that operate at 3.4 GHz and some of our other bands. For long haul paths the new NW Digital radio presents some possibilities at 70 cm. George W4AQR w4aqr@...
----- Original Message -----
From: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...> To: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 9:19 AM Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Digest Number 24 There are 9 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1a. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: Matthew Pitts 1b. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: qrv@... 1c. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: Matthew Pitts 1d. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: Howard Small 1e. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: qrv@... 1f. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: Matthew Pitts 1g. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: Matthew Pitts 1h. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: Tony Langdon, VK3JED 1i. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? From: Nate Bargmann Messages ________________________________________________________________________ 1a. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004 Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:40 pm ((PDT)) Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems like D-Star, and to a lesser extent with Amateur use of DMR and NXDN. Matthew Pitts N8OHU Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android From: qrv@... <qrv@...>; To: <UniversalDigitalRadio@...>; Subject: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Sent: Thu, Jul 26, 2012 4:05:37 PM Google Chat was down this morning, then Twitter went down. Cell towers are infamous for failures during emergencies, esp. due to backup power failure and microwave-linking dishes knocked out of alignment. This is why we need a 100% wireless Ham network that is redundant not only in pathways, mapping around dead spots, but also redundant in mode and band - to overcome propagation and RFI challenges. Interoperability between digital formats will be key as it should be more resistant to certain forms of RFI and maybe more power-efficient when operating from battery power. It can be done but it will require coordinated promotion and cooperation among ARRL and other orgs, repeater owners, and vendors. WDYT? -- Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com David Colburn nevils-station.com I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22 Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1b. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "qrv@..." qrv@... kd4e2001 Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:31 pm ((PDT)) As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus Yaesu. Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu, and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom will have to choose a path based on all of that. Meanwhile, IPv6, APRS, and other technologies need to be leveraged into an interoperable, redundant network that is nearly impossible to break -- with Icom's cooperation or around them as necessary. Indeed; this is something that is highly needed with linked systems -- Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com David Colburn nevils-station.com I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22 Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1c. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004 Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:02 pm ((PDT)) Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't directly compatible, even within the same technology, so we have to find alternate ways to interconnect them as it is. I'm also hearing that some groups don't even want to allow connections from within their own technology if it's not from their preferred manufacturer, so it's not a matter of the manufacturers like Icom preventing such things. I'm actually talking to a guy that has an NXDN system about interlinking our different systems. Matthew Pitts N8OHU ________________________________ Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1d. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "Howard Small" howard@... howardmsmall Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:41 pm ((PDT)) I can’t agree with your reading of the situation. Yaesu has not offered an alternative – all they have offered is a radio: no infrastructure, nothing, just a radio that is pretty well incompatible with any of the other offerings amateurs are embracing. On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third party developers enhancing the system significantly and at the same time reducing the cost. The only thing that is long in the tooth is AMBE and it works so there is no reason to look for another codec. All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effective hardware along the lines of the ID-31 and with the third party infrastructure development D-Star will continue to grow: just look at the number of ircDDB based repeaters that are on line today compared with a year ago! Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptance of D-Star that I have observed… Howard VK4BS From: UniversalDigitalRadio@... [mailto:UniversalDigitalRadio@...] On Behalf Of qrv@... Sent: Sunday, 29 July 2012 06:56 To: UniversalDigitalRadio@... Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? As someone noted, D-Star is getting a bit long in the tooth so it was inevitable that an alternative would appear - thus Yaesu. Icom has to decide to play-nicely or to try to block Yaesu, and/or sabotage efforts to interconnect, and then Hamdom will have to choose a path based on all of that. Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1e. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "qrv@..." qrv@... kd4e2001 Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:43 pm ((PDT)) We will have to map around the stubborn for the sake of the goal. There's always another Ham (or Hams), another tower (or towers), another way. The absence of a robust, independent, redundant, and diverse wireless network has represented a serious weakness in the larger system. SEDAN tried to fill the gap with Packet, APRS covers a lot of ground, and D-Star has a role but suffers multiple liabilities (not the least of which are cost, complexity, and poor grassroots adoption). IMHO, YMMV ... Not really; most currently available digital voice systems aren't -- Thanks! & 73, KD4E.com David Colburn nevils-station.com I don't google I SEARCH! duckduckgo.com Network: groups.yahoo.com/group/qrv Restored to design-spec at Heaven's gate 1Cor15:22 Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1f. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004 Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:20 pm ((PDT)) I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems. Matthew Pitts N8OHU Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1g. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "Matthew Pitts" daywalker_blade_2004@... daywalker_blade_2004 Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:31 pm ((PDT)) I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digital gear and hardware adoption; I disagree that complexity is how it has to be. I don't have my local work in progress D-Star node information programmed into my IC-91A and have the controller program set so the information will be passed automatically; the only things programmed for it are my callsign and the simplex node frequency and it works just fine. I will be working on support for the missing D-Star functionality (Analog Bridging) in both hardware and software and put it to use locally, as well as linking via AllStar Link and Echolink to analog and digital systems. Matthew Pitts N8OHU Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1h. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "Tony Langdon, VK3JED" vk3jed@... proton69au Date: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:33 pm ((PDT)) At 02:15 PM 7/29/2012, you wrote: I agree about the need for a wireless network, cost of pure digitalWell, I'm not sure what sort of wireless network you're talking about, but down here, one can never forget distance. The telcos actually do a pretty good job of providing coverage down here, given the limitations of microwave propagation and population density. That said, I'll be totally out of phone/Internet range for a week next month. If the powers that be let me setup as a demonstration/last ditch backup, then I will have email access via Winlink. :) My view on infrastructure based networks in an emergency is flexibility. We have to be able to take advantage of infrastructure when it's available for reliability, and be able to operate independently where infrastructure is not available (whether due to never being available or breakdown). Furthermore, we have to be able to know the state of infrastructure availability, so we can switch between infrastructure and independent modes of operation, as conditions dictate. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ 1i. Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network? Posted by: "Nate Bargmann" n0nb@... n0nb Date: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:15 am ((PDT)) * On 2012 28 Jul 22:41 -0500, Howard Small wrote: On the D-Star side, it is no longer just Icom but many third partyExcept for the fact that it is patent encumbered and that is a stumbling block for those of us who want an amateur radio community controlled, from microphone to speaker, digital voice "standard", ala AX.25. All Icom has to do is keep developing user-friendly, cost effectiveThat may well be. I am leary of any solution that relies on a single source supplier for any sort of amateur radio provided emergency response. At the moment D-Star has two strikes against it, IMO, a single source for gear, Icom, and the codec, AMBE. That said, people are at liberty to purchase what they want, it's the expectation on the part of those that do so that the rest of the community should conform with them is what I have a problem with. Just my opinion but it is based on the rate of increasing acceptanceLemmings are never wrong. ;-) 73, de Nate >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us Messages in this topic (10) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|