Great, Jeremy! I was hoping for it but didn't want to be insistent. Will e-mail you offlist.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
