Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
From: Tony Langdon, VK3JED ;
Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 1:13:42 PM
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