Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>

At 10:51 PM 7/31/2012, you wrote:
The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking
backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be
the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless.
Again, why? The wireless becomes infrastructure also, it's going to be prone to failure, unless you haul it out. Again, I believe a flexible approach of using the Internet when its available, and bypassing it when it's not is better than spending $$$$ on more infrastructure that could also fail. The real strangth of hams is their flexibility and decentralised nature. Setup wireless links, and you're creating another telco of sorts, with more or less similar issues. One of the most likely disasters in this part of the world is wildfire, and that has a habit of taking out infrastructure perched on mountains. Guess what! We're back to hauling out the HF radios (which is often what I'd first grab for comms out of the local area anyway :) ). Oh, I should mention that the telcos here are extremely quick in setting up temporary exchanges and portable cell sites to restore services after a disaster.

Even testing and practice, because I'm outside the major metropolitan areas, the only choice I have of communicating with the rest of the emcomm guys here are the Internet (email or IRLP/Echolink), one 2m and one 70cm repeater that's on a mountain midway between us, or (as is most commonly used) good old HF.

As for the utility of the Internet, I have been involved in nets which successfully combine the Internet (for reliable long haul comms) with HF (for penetrating into an affected area). Winlink is an example of a whole system that does exactly that for email.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL

Join to automatically receive all group messages.