|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
Would 1MHz be adequate for what is needed?
It sounds impractical to use near the coast and one would have to avoid TV stations on Channels 11 & 13. We received the equivalent of 1/2 of what was taken at 219-220John D. Hays -- 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
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"John D. Hays" <john@...>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:51 AM, qrv@...
John D. Hays K7VE PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223   
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
From: Tony Langdon, VK3JED ; To: ; 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 http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
|
||
|
Thank you to John
"bruce.given" <bruce.given@...>
Hi,
I just wanted to make a very public thank you to John for all of his help to me while I have been getting a new repeater up and running. Thank you John for answering my dumb questions , you certainly have made my journey into the world of linux a whole lot more fun ! kindest regards Bruce Given VE2GZI
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 linkingAgain, 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 http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
The same applies here - there must be long-distance linking
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
backbones to bridge those gaps - temporarily it could be the Internet but long-term it needs to be wireless. If we could get back the piece of 220 here that UPS took, then wasted, perhaps that could be dedicated to the purpose? I don't know, nor do I know what's available elsewhere. For longer links perhaps a minimally-used piece of 10M or 15M might be utilized? Questions to be asked and answered in justifying this go to how much we care about our role in disaster comms and what are we willing to sacrifice to make it happen? Is emcomm at least as important as paper-chasing?
I'm not sure we'd ever get the node density sufficiently high for it --
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
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
At 11:13 PM 7/30/2012, you wrote:
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.I'm not sure we'd ever get the node density sufficiently high for it to work in this part of the world. Mesh networks are all well and good, but you have to have the sites to put the nodes. Australia is a country of low density living, even our big cities are relatively low density by world standards. 73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
|
||
|
|
||
|
Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"tec_1291500" <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.
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
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
Maybe because it's relatively simple to generate GMSK in software whereas 4FSK/C4FM requires (to the best of my knowledge) a dedicated IC to handle the timing; I know that GMSK demodulation has been included in GNURadio since at least 2005 (and the GMSK demodulation in that is written in Python). I think someone from Icom even explained why they chose GMSK over the other options for D-Star in an interview done at the Orlando Hamcation this spring. Matthew Pitts N8OHU
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Digest Number 24
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
Just visited here: <http://www.hsmm-mesh.org>
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I am impressed! I have owned a WRT-54G in the past and it was a robust device. I have a WRT-300L here, I took it offline due to an intermittent, it's not listed but I wonder if it might work (not that the WRT-54G's are very expensive). I didn't see anything re. inexpensive external amplifiers or recommended mobile antennas; very little discussion re. mobile at all via search, are mobile ops not a high priority yet? Based on my mobile travel plans the loop might take me near as many as 11 HSMM-MESH nodes later this year.
HSMM-MESH just plain works. If more people would try it out it might --
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
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"Trevor ." <m5aka@...>
--- On Sun, 29/7/12, Mickey Baker <fishflorida@...> wrote:
It is simply a classic example of a cascading market and Icom is toAnd the commercial side of ICOM saw the light and along with Kenwood went for C4FM (4 level FSK) back in 2005 and they haven't looked back since. http://www.southgatearc.org/news/apr2005/icom_kenwood_demo.htm The mystery has been why the amateur radio division of ICOM has persisted with GMSK all these years. BTW doesn't the original ABME vocoder chip become free of copy restrictions in 2015 ? 73 Trevor M5AKA ----
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Digest Number 24
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
The UDR56K-4 has an anticipated release in the 4th Quarter of this year,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
with a target MSRP of $395. Does that mean Retail Price: $350.? (Ouch!) One Ethernet jack, Four host USB ports, Power, and Antenna connections. All radio functions are controlled by software, using either a web browser interface or custom application. Integrated Radio Messaging System (RMS) and D-STARi gateway and controller software. Common Linux applications are easily installed using package management tools or may be compiled for the radio. Some applications of interest to the amateur radio community have already been tested, such as AX.25 networking, gpsd, Xwindows, bluetooth integration, wireless 3G/4G broadband, USB sound, and others. In talks with noted software developers to provide additional digital radio protocols and applications on the UDR56K platform.
The thinking is HSMM-MESH is a powerful tool in high density scenarios --
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
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Digest Number 24
"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
I need to look at the "wireless MESH NODE network".
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I did just read that IPv6 can greatly expand the data capacity of a packet. What, please is the "new NW Digital radio"?
The one thing that is common to all of these technolegies is eithernet and --
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
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
* On 2012 29 Jul 09:34 -0500, Howard Small wrote:
If there is it does not control the on-air modulation/protocol which is the difference here. I think you missed the point that they are no longer the single sourceTrue, but here in the good ol' USA much grant money is being doled out for various emergency networks employing such technology and it is generally a "pay to play" game on the part of the end user amateur. The grants only pay for repeaters and equipment in the facilities of served agencies. What this effectively does is fracture and make amateur radio's greatest strength--independent communicators--into a liability as far as they're concerned. And AMBE? This is a tired argument that is fairly meaningless.Tired, perhaps. Meaningless? Not to those of us who believe that the technology of amateur radio's on-air protocols should be open to all. I also would not recommend nor adopt PacTOR 2/3 for the same reason. SSB did not receive wider acceptance until the patent(s) ran out as techniques to employ SSB that worked around the patent(s) were inferior to the patented methods. Finally, there is no expectation by D-Star users that the rest of theActually, I'm not arguing against D-Star as it is an open and published protocol as AX.25. The patent on AMBE chips restricts any third party implementation of the codec until the patent expires. That is where I have a deep philosphical difference. The remainder of D-Star is fine by me. Lemmings are never wrong. ;-)And I'm headed the other way! At least the know what they are doing and why…Hmmmmm. 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
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Digest Number 24
k4rjj@...
HSMM-MESH just plain works. If more people would try it out it might be much bigger.
Ronny K4RJJ
From: "John Hays"
To: UniversalDigitalRadio@... Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:25:02 PM Subject: Re: [UniversalDigitalRadio] Digest Number 24
George
The thinking is HSMM-MESH is a powerful tool in high density scenarios and should be part of the ecosystem.
There is also a need for higher power, mobile and point to point links. The UDR56K will be a work horse for these applications. A self healing, dynamic, mesh protocol would provide the flexibility needed to accomplish those goals.
--
John D. Hays
206-801-0820 Sent from my iPhone
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Digest Number 24
John Hays <john@...>
George The thinking is HSMM-MESH is a powerful tool in high density scenarios and should be part of the ecosystem. There is also a need for higher power, mobile and point to point links. The UDR56K will be a work horse for these applications. A self healing, dynamic, mesh protocol would provide the flexibility needed to accomplish those goals. -- John D. Hays 206-801-0820 Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 29, 2012, at 9:15, "George Jones" <hamfiles@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Mickey Baker <fishflorida@...>
Gee, Nate, how quickly you went to marginalizing other viewpoints by characterizing folks as "lemmings."
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I submit to you that market forces may not be technically perfect - but that these forces drive the market and development money. In the current incarnation, DStar meets more of the need of the amateur radio market than anything else available right now with a commodity product. In my opinion, this relatively small market has reached a "tipping point" where demand cascades to eliminate potential competing technologies. Smart vendors will accommodate change. Others will ignore it, but, as the market moves, they will become irrelevant or they'll create another market... but the overall ham radio market is relatively small - there's not a lot of room for competing technologies. Rather, successful upstarts will adopt existing technology and build on it... like the promise of UDR. Before you again make the mistake of assuming that market forces resemble almost-brainless "lemmings" I'd suggest that you read The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell (ISBN 0-316-31696-2) This work examines the intellect of (and some lack of intellect) that establishes patterns in the seemingly random movement of markets. I think you'd find it an interesting read. We're not lemmings - we're communicators, and we (as a market) are choosing products that facilitate communications. Right now, the only product that seems to be doing that on a large scale is DStar. The adoption rate drives more adoption because the goal is communication. Market behavior, certainly, but no one is following anyone off a cliff. It is simply a classic example of a cascading market and Icom is to be commended in creating and driving the market - after all, at less than $300M worldwide, they're a relatively small company driving big ideas.
73, Mickey N4MB
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...> wrote:
--
Mickey Baker, N4MB Fort Lauderdale, FL “Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me, and I will learn.” Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying.
|
||
|
|
||
|
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Internet Fail & Cell Weakness = Need for Ham Network?
"Howard Small" <howard@...>
And there is nothing patent encumbered in any of your other equipment? DSP chips And AMBE? This is a tired argument that is fairly meaningless. Finally, there is no expectation I have a strong suspicion that you have not looked into the developments associated with D-Star Lemmings are never wrong. ;-) At least the know what they are doing and why… Howard VK4BS
|
||
|
|
