Speaking of...I still have this box of Bullets packed up and ready to ship to you Colin. I know, I know...I am a slacker.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Colin Stanners <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >>>> > >>>> >>>> >> >
