Topics

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

"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

"qrv@..." <qrv@...>
 

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.

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
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
--

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

"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
http://vkradio.com

Matthew Pitts <daywalker_blade_2004@...>
 

Tony,

I'm not so sure it needs to work as you're describing; what I see is that the mesh networks should back up the Internet in areas where they are practical, and link to other areas using other means in case the Internet is down, ss well as linking in smaller node clusters where such exist.

As far as Winlink goes, there are even ways to cope with a loss of Internet there; it all comes down to a desire to be less dependant on commercial networks that may not be a priority in a specific incident case and having the alternative tested and working.

Matthew Pitts
N8OHU


Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android



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

"John D. Hays" <john@...>
 



On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:51 AM, qrv@... 

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.


We received the equivalent of 1/2 of what was taken at 219-220 Mhz.(about 1996) specifically for point-to-point linking.  97.303l  (http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=202)


John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223 
  

 

"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 219-220
Mhz.(about 1996) specifically for point-to-point linking. 97.303l
(http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=202)
John 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

"Tony Langdon, VK3JED" <vk3jed@...>
 

At 01:50 AM 8/1/2012, you wrote:


Tony,

I'm not so sure it needs to work as you're describing; what I see is that the mesh networks should back up the Internet in areas where they are practical, and link to other areas using other means in case the Internet is down, ss well as linking in smaller node clusters where such exist.
What I'm saying is that mesh networks have a low probability of success anywhere here, and permanent PrP links have the same weaknesses as the telcos and regular repeaters in some of the more common disaster scenarios, and probabilities (Black Saturday did take out some repeaters).


As far as Winlink goes, there are even ways to cope with a loss of Internet there; it all comes down to a desire to be less dependant on commercial networks that may not be a priority in a specific incident case and having the alternative tested and working.
Agree. I'm playing Devils advocate here, because I'm sensing a bit of a "religious" argument creeping in, and I'm saying there's other ways to work without having to build infrastructure. Down here, we can go a lot further, sometimes all that's needed is a supply of skilled operators to man agency radios, so people with hands on skills can be out in the field dealing with the emergency. That is one of the ham roles in this part of the world.

73 de VK3JED / VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com

Nate Bargmann <n0nb@...>
 

* On 2012 31 Jul 08:00 -0500, qrv@... wrote:

If we could get back the piece of 220 here that UPS took, then
wasted, perhaps that could be dedicated to the purpose?
Wasn't a portion of replacement bandwidth allocated at 219-220 MHz? I
know for certain that the American Association of Railroads is using
220-222 MHz for Positive Train Control on a national basis. The
railroad I work for is rolling it out now. It will not be allocated
back to amateur radio.

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