It's true that analog/slow-speed digital systems like the old ham stuff are getting obsolete for most communications including emergencies, but satellite-based links and phones, while reliable, are still super expensive (equipment / MRC), proprietary / difficult to source and repair locally, and slow/high latency.
There are a few groups of hams who are creating high-speed "HSMM" IP networks. I'm a member of one located in Winnipeg - we take old/broken/cheap Ubiquiti/Mikrotik/etc gear and antennas (usually single pol) being discarded by local WISPs (and AFMUG members who donated gear, thank you!) and run them in the 2.3Ghz (Canada only?) and 5.9Ghz ham bands. These are for testing, ham VoIP and low-bandwidth uses, but with the nice tower locations we are building up (some of the best in the city) in an emergency we could install 5-10mbit low-latency IP communications within hours to multiple locations... that is with the current hardware in our garages, not needing $100K of satellite gear. One of our later plans is links through a few rural ham sites (you can go really far on 5.9ghz without interference) all the way to a different major city, or possibly province, with its own internet feed. So even if the batteries at our sites run out, sending out a few people with generators would still keep our VA4WAN system online - and therefore emergency sites - even if our city somehow lost all electrical power and fiber internet feeds. On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Eric Kuhnke <[email protected]> wrote: > this might be an unpopular opinion here... > > ham dorks and analog radio grey beards think that they're going to be a > vital communications resource in a serious emergency (8.5 earthquake, > tsunami, cat4 hurricane, etc). they make a lot of noise during their field > days and special events about how they support emergency responders. > > But in reality it's the all-IP, digital, packet based communications > infrastructure which cannot be touched by terrestrial disasters which will > provide vital service in and out of a disaster area. For example your local > county's fire department, which very well may have used some DHS grant > money to put a 1.2 meter self aiming Ku-band VSAT on top of a command post > vehicle. All you need is electricity (which you also need for ham gear) and > you have connectivity anywhere in North America, no matter how messed up > the disaster, unless the vehicle itself is destroyed. > > Or, for example, ham people who think their noisy radios will provide > local communications, when you would be much better served by handing out > folding 40W solar panels and Iridium satellite phones with standby-plan SIM > cards in them. The Iridium network is completely impervious to terrestrial > disasters (unlike mountaintop ham radio repeaters, etc), because it passes > traffic satellite-to-satellite through space until it reaches the > commercial gateway in Arizona. Unless somebody flies a 767 into the Iridium > gateway, it will continue to function. There is also a DoD gateway in > Hawaii which traffic can be routed through. > > A theoretical county-sized emergency operations department could keep a > stockpile of Inmarsat iSatphone handhelds, which communicate with a set of > geostationary satellites and will work reliably anywhere south of 65 > degrees latitude. The satellites are impervious to your local disaster and > the teleport locations through which Inmarsat traffic passes are unlikely > to be in the same location as your disaster. > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Lewis Bergman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I am still curious on why anyone thinks they deserve free stuff because >> they belong to a club. I belong to the club of "I don't want to pay for >> anything". I know, they supposedly have a public emergency benefit. I >> haven't ever seen them be anything more than a murderer in those situations >> but maybe we just have a bunch of HAM dorks around here. >> >> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 7:27 AM Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I see a bunch of different states listed, so it may be used as the hub, >>> but I'm not familiar with the software. >>> >>> https://www.yaesu.com/jp/en/wires-x/index.php >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> >>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> >>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> >>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> >>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> >>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> >>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *"Jerry Head" <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected] >>> *Sent: *Friday, February 19, 2016 7:20:56 AM >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] HAMSs and Internet >>> >>> Hmm he sent a few pictures, does this look like a conference server? >>> >>> >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/lm7yqdblb6mri0l/Screenshot%202016-02-19%2007.16.28.png?dl=0 >>> >>> >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2u283gy05fgt9i/Screenshot%202016-02-19%2007.18.23.png?dl=0 >>> >>> >>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/51jov0xxmybov37/Screenshot%202016-02-19%2007.19.32.png?dl=0 >>> >>> I have not applied the Google to research that device in the third >>> picture...yet. >>> >>> >>> On 2/19/2016 12:59 AM, Brian Webster wrote: >>> > Unless they are trying to host a voice repeater conference server they >>> do not need anywhere near that kind of bandwidth. A conference server would >>> host multiple connects all at the same time, if they needed 500k per >>> connection that would add up. I would not let them host a conference server >>> on your wireless network, that stuff is better placed in big data centers. >>> > >>> > I am an amateur radio operator and have data and voice networks I >>> maintain for the clubs locally. Honestly 1 to 3 meg is more than enough for >>> what they will need. Anything more than that and they will likely be doing >>> things that they should be paying for on your network. They may be trying >>> to do some live video stuff but you don't need to shoulder that burden, >>> they can do live TV broadcasts on spectrum they have available, not as easy >>> to do as IP cams and Ethernet but they can do it. >>> > >>> > If you have the tower space you might consider offering them places to >>> put their own links if all they need is bandwidth between sites. There are >>> amateur radio spectrum allocations in the 3.3 GHz band as well as 5.9 GHz, >>> and I am pretty sure they can load international firmware and run their own >>> links on MicroTik or Ubiquiti radios. This would keep the traffic off your >>> network and possibly discourage them from putting up links legally licensed >>> in the bands you are using for your business. Technically they have >>> licensed rights and could knock you off the air. Best not to start that >>> war, they can operate in the 900, 2.4 and 5 GHz bands legally at much >>> higher power. If you can get them off on to the spectrum that does not >>> overlap the unlicensed bands everyone wins. They also have their own IPv4 >>> space available (ampr.org). >>> > >>> > Feel free to hit me up off list and/or have them contact me if you >>> need to. I will happily try to explain how they can create win-win for >>> everyone. >>> > >>> > Here is a link to a frequency chart that shows amateur radio licensed >>> allocations. Remember they are considered licensed incumbents and you >>> cannot interfere with their operations. >>> > >>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Regulatory/Band%20Chart/Hambands_color.pdf >>> > >>> > >>> > Thank You, >>> > Brian Webster >>> > www.wirelessmapping.com >>> > www.Broadband-Mapping.com >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jerry Head >>> > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 9:05 AM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Subject: [AFMUG] HAMSs and Internet >>> > >>> > I think a few of the list members out there are HAMs so I need some >>> advice please. >>> > I support our local HAM group and have allowed them to place >>> repeaters on two of my towers at no charge to their group. Now one of their >>> members has asked for Internet service at one of the sites for HAM use. I >>> have heard something about HAMs using the Internet to "talk" so I guess >>> this is not unusual. >>> > For me the kicker is that he is asking for 20x20Mbps service...I >>> certainly have the capacity but that just seems excessive. >>> > Opinions anyone? >>> > >>> >>> >
