Amateur Internet
Harry Robinson (KC9EOT)
on
April 24, 2009
View comments about this article!
I was just thinking, with all the control that companies and government was to put on the Internet lately and with the capabilities of Ham Radio, why aren't we pursuing our own kind of like Internet network?
Yes I know the government could control that easily to, and with what we know it wouldn't compare to the Internet itself in speed, etc etc etc. There are a lot of reasons we can't, the biggest is belief that we can't. You know the difference between the possible and impossible is a dream and the difference between a dream and reality is work.
I think with all we have at our disposal we could probably pull this off providing quick communications coast to coast for emergency nets and regular nets running 24/7.
I don't mean for sending movies, playing games etc. but just for communication purposes. I think we could do it with a little work and have 24/7 communication ability for any reason anywhere, at any time. I'm talking faster than packet and such to. New technology, probably but we can do it.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by W7ETA on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm sorry OM, but I don't understand what you are posting about?
I can barely manage to understand how to link a tube oscillator to a tube amplifier.
Setting up a 24 hour, 7 day a week for coast to coast emergency communications based upon the internet?
Government intervention?
Company intervention?
Incidentally. If it weren't for spell check I wouldn't post anything--I just can't remember how to spell words based upon whatever spelling rule is chosen for a specific word. But, I do believe that too is used in place of the word also. that sticks out in my mind because in High School English class, a student, from Italy, explained that to me. There I was, borne in the USA speaking English and he had to explain that to me.
Best from Tucson
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Here's yet another random, half-baked rambling posing as an article.
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N1OU on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What controls have "companies and the government" put on the internet lately? Cite specifics from reputable sources, please. The only "controls" that I know of out in cyberspace are the ones we have to use to protect ourselves from hackers and those who like to destroy electronic networks with viruses, worms, and other forms of menacing code.
Note to eHam editors (if they read these pages at all). Please set some requirements for articles and comments. Those of us who can write have quit contributing of late. Wonder why?
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K5END on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is a book called "The Victorian Internet."
It's interesting. Check it out.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K5END on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Those of us who can write have quit contributing of late. Wonder why? "
Unrestricted flaming is part of the reason.
Like Mel Brooks said in "History of the World, Part 1" of the prehistoric birth of the artist who painted on cave walls, came the inevitable "afterbirth" of the critic who p&&&ed on the wall painting.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K5END on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If it weren't for spell check I wouldn't post anything-"
Give yourself some credit, OM.
You conjugated the subjunctive case correctly in that sentence.
Used as an example in this sentence is the subjunctive case:
If Joe Average were to know what the he subjunctive case is, he would be more diligent in his conjugation.
Mark Twain studied German, which has a more complex subjunctive conjugation matrix, and said, simply, "Damn the subjunctive."
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute more rambling. hihi
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by W9VER on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The problem is that we need to get Part 97 modified, mainly conflicts with encryption. IP over radio is a great Ideal and the current regulations are quite restricting, but yet it's okay to use Winlink on HF.
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KV5E on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ITU Region 1 and 3 have allocations for 3.3 to 3.5 GHz Broadband and Redline and other manufacturers have WiMAX BTS and subscriber units for this band.
The equipment is pricey but with some grant money it's doable.
On a smaller lower speed scale here in DFW we are building a 1.2 GHz DD backbone for EOC and mobile units using DStar, 128 kbs 802.3...not enough to waste time on youtube but plenty for logistical communications.
Craig
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K0BG on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We sort of, kind of do (how's that for vernacular?), and it's called APRS for lack of a better name. I don't use it myself, but it is possible to send messages (call it e-mail if you wish) all over the world. You just have to be close to a node. Folks like Kenwood have made the transition to APRS rather easy; all it takes is money essentially.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AA4PB on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, there are people working on that for ham radio - sort of. Its not a nationwide stand-alone network, but rather more local radio links to allow an EOC to bridge a local outage and get back onto the Internet at the closest point.
For hams to build a duplicate, parallel, nationwide "Internet" that runs on radio would be quite an undertaking. Probably way more than we have the resources for. It makes more sense to me to "bridge" a local outage for a limited amount of emergency traffic and then get the traffic back onto the Internet as quickly as possible.
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by NY7Q on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WHAT????????????????
I WOULD RATHER SEE RADIO PUT BACK INTO RADIO
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AA4PB on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
but yet it's okay to use Winlink on HF
---------------------------------------
Here we go again :-) Winlink uses Pactor. Pactor is NOT encrypted, it is encoded for the purposes of improving the transmission. The technique is known publicly. There are no encryption keys. That is what makes it legal.
Encrypting a transmission in order to obscure the meaning is a different matter and that is illegal.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AA4PB on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I WOULD RATHER SEE RADIO PUT BACK INTO RADIO
----------------------------------------------
A lot of people would agree but I think it's a preference based on feeling for the hobby rather than a sound technical solution.
As an example, say I need to get a message from my EOC in California to D.C. The Internet is working fine except for the area right around my EOC. Why would I want to transmit that message at slow speed via numerous RF links all the way from California to D.C. when I could use the slow speed RF to go the 10 miles across the outage and then put it back onto the Internet and have it in D.C. in a matter of seconds?
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N0FPE on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This was all tried back in the day with the 56k GRAPES LANS and the older 9600baud backbone systems. This was all working great until it was killed off by the internet. I helped build out a 9600 baud back bone system across the state and to the state EOC. worked damn good. Good old 1200 Baud packet for user inputs. Gracilis Pack10 Switches, telnet ect. All gone now due to lack of use.
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by W5GNB on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If I understand your questions correcly, we already have in place pretty much what you are suggesting.
We have on the Internet: Echolink, APRS, IRLP, CQ100, Etc......
All of these systems are very effective in internet communications. The problem I see for Internet during some sort of emergency or disaster is that all the infrastructure that supports the internet is vulnerable to being damaged or destroyed from the disaster itself.
Perhaps the most reliable internet system during emergency situations would be the satellite internet services but then you have a latency (time for the signal to go up and back down from the satellite) issue that sometimes causes problems there.
Give me a couple of GOOD CW operators and some good old Heathkit gear and I believe you could probably beat anything that is out there today for solid communications.
73's
Gary - W5GNB
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KB2VYZ on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We already have an amateur radio internet, it's called the amprnet, ALL amprnet addresses begin with 44 and typically look like this: 44.xx.xx.xx(x), looks just like a typical internet IP address. However, the speeds are quite slow. Here is a link with definitions: http://www.ampr.org/ . D-STAR offers a much quicker way to transfer data files, D-STAR also allows one to use voice while transferring files, which can not be done using amprnet/packet. This is a link showing the current line of D-STAR radios and their capabilities. Since this message is pre-coffee, and it has been at least 10 years since I had used the amprnet, I did the best I could, however, there should be enough in this reply to get you the most recent information.
73 de Frank/KB2VYZ
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4ZN on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems to me that there is a need for a robust error corrected digital mode link that everyone understands and that nearly everyone can do. This would likely be implemented as a sound card digital mode that would transmit text only to conserve bandwidth.
I believe we can do this now, the big trick is to automate routing and information security for disaster relief operations, and having a smooth interface with the current internet or government specific network just outside the affected area.
What is needed is the ability to communicate in a disaster area without reliance on an installed infrastructure in a disaster area. This used to be accomplished via CW when the military et. al. used such transmission. But CW is not automatically error corrected.
Anymore, getting anyone to communicate in plain text only to save bandwidth is going to be a chore. Instead of filling out a message form, served agency personnel would simply type (or cut and paste) on a computer.
This is something the Amateur community can work on! Essential information can be reduced to text files. The old image of a radio op pounding brass will be replaced with the operator getting text file on the EOC network and routing them to the right place over the airwaves.
The key would be the ability to do all this without pre-installed infrastructure. This is what the Amateur service has always been all about - a cadre of infrastructure independent communicators who can 'make do' and make things work.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KB2VYZ on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It helps to post the link to the D-STAR information.
http://www.icomamerica.com/en/products/amateur/dstar/dstar/default.aspx
See what happens pre-coffee!
73 de Frank/KB2VYZ
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N0AH on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Emeregency satellite internet via a dedicated amateur frequency on a bird designed for this use in a stationary position is due. Where is all of that stimulus money?
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N9DG on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ponder for a moment the amount of raw data bandwidth that would need to be accomodated, even just for the bare essentials of all the stuff that goes over the Internet. You will quickly realize that all of the available Amateur frequencies combined could not handle it. Never mind the hardware infrastruction to implement it.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by W2KYM on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Everyone needs to understand, the internet is vulnerable to go down too easily. Hams dumped packet and went with internet email too fast, thus bringing down packet to an almost crashing halt. Several groups are positioning themselves to resurrect it again not just for emergency purposes, but everyday use as well.
Too many hams are satisfied with their "shack-on-the-belt" handhelds with rubber ducky antennas (then bad mouth repeater owners and clubs because they can't hit the repeater) to get into the hobby with guns a blazing. You don't need a modern PC to get into packet or APRS. I used to have a ball on the packet chat years ago using 2M input to the 220 backbone. Sure we used internet for that backbone, but me thinks you can bring the speed down to 300 baud and use HF as a backbone also and there's nothing wrong with Spread Spectrum to utilize 56K speeds.
It's out there, just need to utilize it.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N9DG on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
OOPs... "infrastruction" = infrastructure.. But I'm going to copyright "infrastruction" ;)..
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If your state, county, and local public agencies are not implementing mutual aid contracts with adjacent agencies to provide for "jumping the gap" in the case of a local disaster then the voters should put a boot up their collective behinds.
If these same agencies are not implementing plans to provide their *own* communications in the case of a wide area disaster (e.g. satellite phone/data) then the voters should be putting a boot up their collective behinds.
If the ham network is to facilitate public-to-public communications, such as H&W email from a victim to a relative, fine. How many hams today are going to spend a fortune to build a high-speed network to do this?
If you are thinking about building such a network for a taxpayer-funded public agency then you need to stop and ask yourself *WHY*? If you aren't using commercial/NTIA equipment and frequencies purely because it is more convenient to do it on ham spectrum, i.e. you have ham license and don't want to learn how to do commercial stuff, then ask yourself if you aren't really *just giving away* our spectrum to public agencies out of convenience. Remember, it isn't your spectrum to give away and I don't remember anyone asking me to sign a waiver allowing it to be given away.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by W5DQ on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0AH writes "Emeregency satellite internet via a dedicated amateur frequency on a bird designed for this use in a stationary position is due. Where is all of that stimulus money?"
Last time I looked, AIG executives had a chunk of it in bonuses. Much more of it is being funneled to foreign banks as part of the banking industry bailout :( I wouldn't look for any of it to end up in the hands of amateurs for anything until the BIG BOYS get their fill!!!
As to the topic at hand, as a couple of posters replied, this sort of thing was tried (packet radio network) and was coming into its own right about the time that the Internet took off. With the ever increasing infrastructure (not infrastruction :) of the Internet, the old exisitng packet radio just could not compete on a point to point throughput measure. Now given the level of sophistication of the Internet backbone system today, should this be disrupted then we all would be in a world of hurts. As to packet radio network, pockets of the old infrastruture still exists today but as a national/international network, it just isn't there anymore. Depending on the Internet proper to provide the long haul connectivity isn't the way to go either since that is the weak point in the scenario. It would take a while I am sure to get back to where we were with packet before the Internet in the early 90's. It's too bad the two infrastrutures could not have developed simutaneously and support one another but the ease at which things can be sent over the Internet simply won out over the slow packet system.
We still have our local BBS and node network locally but it sees very little usage these days.
Gene W5DQ
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by NY7Q on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
EOC??
I'M TALKING RADIO INTO RADIO.
ALL THE DIGITAL CRAP NEEDS TO GO AWAY
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by WB9URN on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W7ETA, be careful when correcting anyone.
As you said.."There I was, borne in the USA speaking English and he had to explain that to me."
I think you meant 'born'
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KG6WLS on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think with all we have at our disposal we could probably pull this off providing quick communications coast to coast for emergency nets and regular nets running 24/7."
Gee! Internet radio, huh? What happens in a real emergency when the internet infrastructure is not available during a disaster? What happens when utility power is not available during a disaster?
Battery, radio, wire, bug, paper & pencil.
73
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Last I checked, we are licensed as part of the Amateur Radio Service, not the Amateur Internet Service.
Creating an "Amateur Internet" is not only unnecessary but a little ridiculous considering our mission capabilities for Emergency Communications via radio.
Isn't it enough to have WinLink, APRS, EchoLink and the other digital toys to choose from??
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K8QV on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A lot of people would agree but I think it's a preference based on feeling for the hobby rather than a sound technical solution."
Solution for what? Is there a problem?
Ham radio hobbyists are not the backbone of emergency service. In addition to our radios we already have Internet chatrooms with MSN, Yahoo, EchoLink, etc.
We are radio hobbyists and we aren't funded, trained, equipped or even necessary for emergency communication. Occasionally we can be helpful in certain situations, but layering on more computers and Internet doesn't make sense even if you think public safety hinges upon the hams. The Internet and computers themselves are the most vulnerable components in the chain.
If you want to save the world when the professionals can't, a battery operated CW station is the most useful and foolproof tool for getting messages in and out. But that's not as much fun because it requires minimal equipment and moderate radio skills.
If you truly have an interest in USEFUL emergency communication, organize a CW net for simple, low power, battery operated, easily deployable stations. The term "useful" means you can provide communication when the more complex professional methods can't.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K7CB on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N1OU said:
"Note to eHam editors (if they read these pages at all). Please set some requirements for articles and comments. Those of us who can write have quit contributing of late. Wonder why?"
To eHams defense...no one makes you read any of the articles. You chose to do so on your own. Whether you find it of interest or not is also your decision. Just because YOU may find the article to be of little use, doesn't mean anyone else does.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KR4WM on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If the internet is involved, it's questionable at best, and heresy at worst. Don't depend on the internet when the chips are down. Be self-sufficient. Don't depend on the phone company's infrastructure in an emergency! That's not why our service exists! We exist to be self-sufficient! Think of it this way- if you were deserted on an island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, what would you want for communications? I don't think you'd want a laptop or a cell phone, neither would do you any good! Amateur radio is supposed to overcome the shortcomings of conventional communications, and you can't do that by depending on the internet. -KR4WM
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K5END on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You don't need the Amateur bands to do "internet."
Check out Motorola Canopy, Alcatel MDR 8000 "Lite" or GE MDS INet or LEDR, and a plethora of others.
They've already been there and done that.
Various speeds available.
Plug and play.
Ten miles and more point to point, or local Access Point type for the "subscriber" (user.)
No licensing required.
VOIP, data, name it.
Bring money.
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K2ID on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If this was accomplished, how long do you think it would be before you recieve an email selling Viagra? Who would develop anti-virus software to protect your radio? Someone would need to develop very tiny firewalls for all those HTs out there.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N5PVL on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I was just thinking, with all the control that companies and government was to put on the Internet lately and with the capabilities of Ham Radio, why aren't we pursuing our own kind of like Internet network?"
The project you are thinking about is still in the planning stages, it may be another year or so before we start looking for participants.
Some of the most significant problems encountered by the Packet network will have to be addressed before the first HamRadioNet station goes on the air. - We're about halfway there, still have a ways to go.
Amateurs radio operators are the only group of private individuals in the world who have the ways and means to fund, build and maintain a worldwide digital communications network, completely independent of the internet and commercial or government entities. This is our own mount Everest, that only we may climb 'because it is there' only for ham radio operators like ourselves.
We do not have to worry about how our efforts will compare to others in this area, as there are no others who can reasonably attempt to approach this task.
Whatever we accomplish here will be the state of the art, and will represent the combined, cooperative efforts of thousands of individual amateur radio operators around the globe.
I'll post something here when I have something non-vaporous to post about. Anybody who wants in on the ground floor would probably do best to start hanging out at USPacket.Org forum for the time-being... The HamRadioNet website is under construction, not ready for use.
http://www.uspacket.org
Looking for programmers, networking aficionados.
Hams who do not respect the hobby, their fellow hams or themselves need not bother to show up at USPacket... On the other hand, it's fun to give them the boot so what the heck... Come one, come all!
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by W3WN on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now, this can't be right...
Mr. anti-"Hinterneters" is working on a packet based Amateur Radio Internet?
I'd almost suspect a ringer, but the tone sure sounds like Charles.
Nah. Can't be.
|
| |
|
Echolink,IRLP
|
|
|
by G3SEA on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Echolink & IRLP have already demonstrated what the author is suggesting.
These' systems ' while not totally radio are a useful adjunct to the Emergency HF Systems where applicable.
I doubt if Disaster victims care what system helps them.
KH6/G3SEA
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by G0GQK on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its about time the US authorities put a huge tax on wacky baccy,perhaps it would stop brains from getting frazzled.
G0GQK
|
| |
|
RE: Echolink,IRLP
|
|
|
by N4JTE on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not meaning to offend the "author" but is the Speak Out forum no longer posting these type of "questions" ?
Always thought an article should have some real content,a new idea, an old idea, perhaps a picture or two that might actually inspire the readers and bring out something that might be of interest, that might show a little effort by the poster. Maybe it's time to refine what eham considers an "Article"
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think what's being proposed isn't really an "amateur internet", but simply an amateur-radio-based message system.
One way to implement such a system would be to have a network of automatic microwave (above 1 GHz) digital relay stations all over the country, each in constant communication with its neighboring relay stations, and connected to local access stations on lower frequencies (say, 2 meters through 440). Individual amateur stations would access the network via those local access stations.
The use of the microwave bands would be necessary to get adequate data bandwidth.
Such a system would use protocols and other methods similar to those used on the internet, but adapted for amateur radio. Individual amateurs would be identified by callsign and grid square, so that the relay stations would know how to route messages.
Interconnection with the internet would be possible, but not normally used.
Sure it would be a lot slower than the internet, but it would also be more immune to disruption.
It's all possible, and with 1980s technology.
The real problems are all in the bell-the-cat category.
First, any such system would require a large number of relay and access stations on-the-air 24/7, all built, maintained and paid for by amateurs. We're talking at least hundreds of such stations, maybe a couple thousand. In densely populated areas getting adequate support might not be difficult, but once you get away from the cities there are likely to be big gaps in the network. How many dollars and hours are *you* willing to put into such a station for such a system?
Second, there's the problem of filtering out inappropriate messages. The packet folks ran into this years ago; I'm not sure how they solved it.
Third, there's the real and very big problem of "who would use it most of the time - and why?"
One of the big attractions of amateur radio is that we communicate with little or no infrastructure. It's a thrill to get on, say, 80 CW and have a QSO with a station hundreds or thousands of miles away using only our stations, skill, and the ionosphere. But if the QSO is via a huge infrastructure of amateur relay stations, it's close to being just another version of text messaging or email. Sure it would be great in emergencies, but how many amateurs will invest the time, money and effort to develop, build and maintain such a network just as a backup?
Fourth is the Tower of Babel problem. For any such system to work, it would need a considerable amount of standardization. Getting amateurs all over the country to agree on so many specifics could be a real problem - just look at repeater-coordination arguments! No outside group is going to set standards; we have to do it ourselves, and there are bound to be folks who want to do it their way.
So how do we solve all of the above?
73 es GL de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by WA3SKN on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. This is not an article.
2. It is already being done!
CW begat RTTY begat amtor begat packet begat APRS! (and about a dozen other modes I've left out, including PSK31)
For various technical reasons we are speed and bandwidth limited.
But check out APRS... it is not just for "position reporting" anymore!
73s.
-Mike.
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N0AH on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
On second thought, I remember when I was in Hattiesburg, MS after Hurricane Katrina that I met a couple of lost FEMA officials whose satellite phone was not working....oppssss......I also forgot most of the amatuer birds are flying space junk or pieces at the bottom of the Gulf. I guess where just depends which way the wind was blowing at the time of the launch vehicles blowing up. But I digress from the internet. I have a mail box. I get lots of neat stuff there. But it is not ham radio. Be it my mail box on line or on the street. Neither have an antenna-
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N0AH on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ok, maybe I am on WIFI.................this new technology stuff- I just can't keep up with it-
|
| |
|
Why not amateur radio?
|
|
|
by AI2IA on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Instead of trying to glue all sorts of things to amateur radio, why not simply try using your amateur radio skills?
Chances are that you have a nice rig with all the bells and whistles on it. How about really learning how to use it? How about making the effort to pull in and hold those weak stations? How about overcoming the difficulties of QRN? When was the last time you tried CW, AM, SSB, FM, RTTY, ATV, or any other mode you don't use?
You have a good, dependable antenna? Good! Take it down and put up a different one.
Build a transceiver, a radio, a piece of test equipment. Improve your ground. Design a new QSL card. Get away from the computer screen. This is amateur radio, not everything else.
|
| |
|
RE: Why not amateur radio?
|
|
|
by N7YA on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On their once-every-6-years visit to eHam, i think the site owners should rename this area from "articles" to "whatever, just do what you want".
This would probably eliminate a lot of this arguing...at least the arguing over what belongs in this section and what doesnt.
|
| |
|
RE: Why not amateur radio?
|
|
|
by KC8FRJ on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For reasons such as this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10216151-94.html
The subject of a "Amateur Radio Internet" seems valid enough, maybe a bit misstated.
It would be nice if Amateurs set up and had their own broadband data radio network. I would be willing to jump in and help/participate.
D-Star looks interesting and very promising, save the silly proprietary codec which we should lose as soon as possible. APRS is simplistic packet with positioning issues, a non-starter for a data network. PSK31 is just a transport layer (a very good one I might add). I have been lead to believe WinLink is a proprietary protocol (Never looked enough to validate the statement).
Regards!
|
| |
|
RE: Why not amateur radio?
|
|
|
by N5PVL on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"On their once-every-6-years visit to eHam, i think the site owners should rename this area from "articles" to "whatever, just do what you want".
This would probably eliminate a lot of this arguing...at least the arguing over what belongs in this section and what doesnt. "
I wouldn't count on that. No matter what you do, there's always some whiner with their panties all in a twist over the ways it's done, for some reason or another.
Since there's no way to satisfy or get away from the whiners, I have found it is best to simply ignore them, and do things the way you think is best.
To heck with them... Don't you agree?
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KD5SFK on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.your-website-in-24-hours.com/travishams/tcares.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=14&Itemid=26
|
| |
|
RE: Why not amateur radio?
|
|
|
by K5END on April 24, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: "http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10216151-94.html "
This is very interesting.
It looks like the work of a disgruntled employee who knew what he was doing. This is not random vandalism.
The SONET optical fiber networks are built in ring topologies for redundant paths and survivability. A carryover term from the microwave technology, this is referred to humorously in the business as "backhoe fade." In many cases "4" is the magic number of fiber cuts needed to kill a hardened system. One would need to know what fiber cables to choose, and where to cut them. The sabotage was effective; therefore someone knew exactly what to do. And finding the right cables underground at strategic locations by pulling up manhole covers...this is a slam dunk case to prove it is an inside job. Very few people would have the information necessary to carry this out. Check the HR records first.
Cut all the fibers you like.
My Yaesu and Icom will still work just fine.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KD6AKC on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think K4ZN has the idea right. Our ability to support the community during an emergency is what preserves our access to amateur frequencies -"furthering the art" won't carry us much longer if we don't invent something soon; and what the "served community" is looking for is way beyond the old brass-pounding. This seems to be driving our role into either inventing something new like an alternative internet-ish function, or becoming Red Cross volunteers or auxiliary EOC employees - neither of which actually use ham radio (which then threatens the preservation of our bands). I see more and more reference to "skilled" rather than "equipped" when reading ARES articles now. Being able to operate the EOC's radio is sufficient - in some cases the desired - qualification. Ever notice how most of the ARES training is on the EOC org chart rather than on how to set up an emergency station that works with the amateur emergency system...oh wait, there isn't an amateur emergency system (except for brasspounding or the voice equivalent - try sending a 400 line spreadsheet over that!), it's all ad-hoc and not on the EOC org chart.
So what made brass-pounding successful back when? It was cheap, simple, plentiful, dispersed. If we can come up with a network having the same qualities, some bearable speed, and an interface that allows a local ethernet to use it as a gateway to another local ethernet (i.e. EOC to HQ), we'll be useful to the EOCs as equipped hams. Packet had alot of these qualities, but suffered in the speed and interface aspects - which I think is what killed it. Packet demonstrated we hams can create a national network, maintain and equip it, and find daily uses for it - but it needs to be simple and relatively cheap. D-star is cool, but way expensive. Unless someone comes up with a cheap d-star kit codec, or a way to do 128kb on PACTOR, I don't think the current options meet the criteria. Simple, cheap, plentiful, dispersed. Any ideas?
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N5PVL on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So what made brass-pounding successful back when? It was cheap, simple, plentiful, dispersed. If we can come up with a network having the same qualities, some bearable speed, and an interface that allows a local ethernet to use it as a gateway to another local ethernet (i.e. EOC to HQ), we'll be useful to the EOCs as equipped hams. Packet had alot of these qualities, but suffered in the speed and interface aspects - which I think is what killed it. Packet demonstrated we hams can create a national network, maintain and equip it, and find daily uses for it - but it needs to be simple and relatively cheap. D-star is cool, but way expensive. Unless someone comes up with a cheap d-star kit codec, or a way to do 128kb on PACTOR, I don't think the current options meet the criteria. Simple, cheap, plentiful, dispersed. Any ideas?"
I can see where your logic has broken down.
Your error is in even conjecturing about our networks 'competing' with the internet, especially in the speed of data transfer.
The 'high-speed ham radio' fantasy is popular among some, but unfortunately it is also quite illegal, violating the laws of physics, the most basic laws of economics, and the underpinnings of all good law which requires at least a passing acquaintance with common sense.
As long as the "high-speed ham radio' nonsense is parroted around by unthinking amateurs, we will of course be unable to support any kind of reasonable, realistic activity by amateurs that actually CAN be done.
You're going to have to tear your lips free of the high-speed data transfer tit, OM, before you can ever hope to say anything relevant or productive about large-scale amateur radio networking.
Hope you wise up soon, start being part of the solution - instead of continuing on as part of the problem.
Are we supposed to innovate? - If you think so, perhaps you should look the word up in a dictionary, so you'll at least know what the word means.
Attempts to turn ham radio into a third-rate, less useful version of the internet brings the word 'emulation' to mind in a paltry kind of sense, but no literate person would ever confuse that kind of foolishness with actual innovation, you know; - Where you try to do something NEW and DIFFERENT?
The internet.... Get over it, and you open the door to innovation for amateur radio. Digital ham radio enthusiasts need to pop that tit out of their mouths and grow up, if they really want to see progress or innovation in digital amateur radio.
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KD6AKC on April 25, 2009
"I think K4ZN has the idea right. Our ability to support the community during an emergency is what preserves our access to amateur frequencies...."
>>> Agreed.
'-"furthering the art" won't carry us much longer if we don't invent something soon; and what the "served community" is looking for is way beyond the old brass-pounding. This seems to be driving our role into either inventing something new like an alternative internet-ish function, or becoming Red Cross volunteers or auxiliary EOC employees - neither of which actually use ham radio (which then threatens the preservation of our bands)."
>>> Why does inventing something new have to involve - and evolve around the Internet? ....and of all things, why does it have to include the Red Cross?
If the ARRL wants ARES to snuggle up with the Red Cross, great, but I feel sorry for hams that who feel this is the best they can do with their capabilities. The Red Cross has their own communications capabilities and plenty of funding and prefers to do everything their own way. Getting extra communications capability for free via ham radio just makes their staff project managers and coordinators look good.
BTW, what is an "auxiliary EOC employee"?? Any ham who mans a local or state EOC is usually their to support EOC operations in shifts, including the handling of radio message traffic, manning the phones and taking incoming calls for assistance, coordinating services, etc., etc.
The bottom line is, there are PLENTY of duties for hams in the typical EOC and in the field- which first and foremost is radio traffic via voice modes in support of public service infrastructure and can include weather and situation reports via digital modes.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KI4ITV on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all...Keep your interwet dreams on VHF/UHF+ , if you must.
Second...about this often repeated statement...
"Our ability to support the community during an emergency is what preserves our access to amateur frequencies"
Just when are we going to quit perpetuating this line of BS?
And just what does "support the community" really mean with regard to Amateur Radio?
Does it mean focusing solely on EMCOM so we can be the mouths and ears of specific "served agencies" when poor planning sneaks up on them in their own radio service?
*No, I think not, and surely shouldn't be "the plan".
Does it mean there is a reasonably trained group of citizens who actually use and know enough about radio to raise concerns or questions when PS radio is putting all their eggs in one (or the wrong) basket?
*Yes, I think that would be a good long term and very appreciated community support use for the amateur pool.
Does it mean that we have to draft otherwise uninterested bodies into Amateur Radio from the PD, FD, or other volunteer entities who don't have enough knowledge about radio to actually have the skills that made this service as useful as it can be in the first place?
*No, that's a misplaced understanding of what made us useful to begin with.
Does it mean that when we do have a communication breakdown, we are best able to help our neighbors, friends, or other people who are without any basic communication ability by providing information, passing H&W traffic, and helping real citizens find more comfort in a bad situation?
* YES, this should be the focus of our community service groups, and would be the very best way to cement positive public opinion with regard to antenna restrictions or ham radio in general.
It's better to be good and useful than official.
Friends, don't let friends go "whacker".
Trey-
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KI4ITV on April 25, 2009
First of all...Keep your interwet dreams on VHF/UHF+ , if you must.
Second...about this often repeated statement...
"Our ability to support the community during an emergency is what preserves our access to amateur frequencies"
Just when are we going to quit perpetuating this line of BS?
>>> This is NOT BS, it's reality. You're just kidding yourself if you think for a second that hams will not lose spectrum if we chose to occupy the bands exclusively as hobbyists or experimenters.
In the 50's, 60's and 70's, hams were counted on for Civil Defense activations. We didn't have to worry about losing VHF or UHF spectrum because commercial use of UHF was in it's beginnings. That's all changed now, and VHF and UHF spectrum is prized territory.
Even the HF bands are being eyed for new SW services, and of course, BPL.
In addition, just about every ARRL press release justifying spectrum protection or expansion involves amateur radio's EmComm capabilities.
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AA8X on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Were it a net to coordinate taking back our county, then I think it would be a great idea to start one.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KG6WOU on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Unnecessary, the infrastructure is just as shaky and honestly, if it's needed for emergency use, I would far rather see the GOVT do it on the GOVT frequencies.
I'm not for the use of the internet on amateur radio because as far as I'm concerned it immediately links business uses of amateur radio. Once it's 'encoded' so that it's not obvious from listening, then commercial use is implied.
I also don't like the Hinternet concept - let a commercial provider supply that need as a pay service if it's so damn important.
Amateur radio would be making big mistakes, IMHO to connect AR and the internet much more than as done with IRLP/Echolink/D-Star - where it's primarily a voice carrier. That use makes sense, but beyond that? No.
Why is it that internet access is suddenly this Holy Grail of Amateur Radio? Don't you get enough of this at home?
Question: WHEN DID YOU BECOME SO IMPORTANT THAT 24/7 COMMUNICATION BECAME NECESSARY? Yes, I'm shouting. You on the cell phone driving - would you stay home w/out the cellie? Snort.
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KD4LLA on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why do we need to support anyone? Besides, there was packet radio network in the southeast US that worked rather well till the Internet came along. After I moved here to MN I could never seem to get any HF packets in/out.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KE7UXE on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After so many posts it is hard to make this one but here goes.
I think that this thread completely misses what the internet is. It is sooooo much more than email and message passing which are what much of what those here are talking about. When it comes to message passing in an emergency we are already there.
The internet is an animal never before seen in human history. It is literally the wellspring of all knowledge. In less than a second I can peruse the art collection of Statfembrohaus Museum in Nuremberg and in the flash of an eye find out the correct dosage of Tetracycline for acne treatment. I can shop prices and by a tube for my boat anchor, pay for it from my bank account instantly and track its delivery progress to my front door. I can read a book that has been out of print for 200 years. If I am blind it will talk to me. If I can't move it can be wired to a cap so I can think my mouse movements and access information. And for the language police who think it is cute to correct our grammar I will point out that the internet is redefining the whole concept of language.
Where is the internet going? Current technology allows deaf people to have a Cochlear implant. This electronic device sends a signal directly to the auditory centers of the brain allowing them to hear. This is the tip of the iceberg. As we become better at nanotechnology we may be able to have a device in our brains that connects us directly to the internet and for that matter to other people if we wish. It is not science fiction it is current research.
Amateur radio has its place. As is witnessed by this forum, the internet has its place it. But to think that we can somehow do anything even remotely approaching what the internet does is folly. We may be able to connect to the internet but we are just a crude and very limited portal.....little give and mostly take.
Currently nearly 2 billion unique individuals use the internet and we are all affected by it. It is fair to say that it contains the sum total of public human knowledge if one knows how to find it. At least enough of that knowledge to keep anyone informed and busy for the rest of their lives if they are so inclined.
So what is the future of the internet? Someday, in the not to distant future, we may all be directly connected to the internet (or what comes after). Brain to brain as it were. So if you want me to taste that great pizza you are having in Chicago you can send the taste to me. And if I need the answer to some obscure question......all I need do is wonder.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KI4ITV on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
...WA1RNE >>>Just for clarity, let's make it known that I was not specifically picking nits with you OM. :-)
Now lets take this line by line. My words have the >>> this time.
" This is NOT BS, it's reality. You're just kidding yourself if you think for a second that hams will not lose spectrum if we chose to occupy the bands exclusively as hobbyists or experimenters."...WA1RNE
>>>Now did I actually say "exclusively as hobbyists or experimenters"? Nope. I did take the time to lay out an appropriate scenario for helping the general public though. You know, the ones who don't already have access to a licensed radio service available specifically for their own use. But, that's not a vision worthy of the EMCOMM huka.
>>>It is BS for the most part, Amateur radio is a worldwide hobby that has its primary use allocations established by international treaty and Article 25 section 1 of the ITU has only this to say about it
"25.9A § 5A Administrations are encouraged to take the necessary steps to allow amateur stations to prepare for and meet communication needs in support of disaster relief. (WRC-03)"
I'm very happy that the ITU has underdscored the importance of ALLOWING us to so. The three letter diety of all things RF did not wish that governments restrict us in a way that would prevent us from helping when we could. It did not say how we should, why we should, or even that we should. Just that we could and it would be prudent not to keep us from doing so.
"In the 50's, 60's and 70's, hams were counted on for Civil Defense activations. We didn't have to worry about losing VHF or UHF spectrum because commercial use of UHF was in it's beginnings. That's all changed now, and VHF and UHF spectrum is prized territory."...WA1RNE
>>>My dad was/is a ham, he did the civil defense thing back in the day. I am aware of this. Times have changed a little, a service like this would be better suited to its own allocations like MARS and CAP currently have. That way, not just any idiot can get on there and act a fool.
>>>The spectrum we a most likely to lose is not ours anyway, we are secondary on some bands and almost non-existant on the others. We are more likely to lose the secondary allocations by not operating properly and yielding the right of way to primary users due to inexperience or foolishness.
"Even the HF bands are being eyed for new SW services, and of course, BPL."...WA1RNE
>>>BPL is not using the spectrum. It is interfering with the spectrum, which is not cool no matter who is using the frequencies, BPL is also too late to the party. It will die its own slow death. The recent trend in SW broadcast has been in targeting other parts of the world or even moving to other technologies altogether, uhm, like the internet.
"In addition, just about every ARRL press release justifying spectrum protection or expansion involves amateur radio's EmComm capabilities."...WA1RNE
>>>Well they would now, wouldn't they. It's not like they have any financial incentive to put monsters under our beds...you know, since they are the primary provider for all instruction and print material related to EMCOMM, or even the central office of the official EMCOMM labor force.
Thanks OM, we just have a different opinion on this.
seven-three
Trey-
|
| |
|
RE: Why not amateur radio?
|
|
|
by 5R8GQ on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AI2IA Said
"Instead of trying to glue all sorts of things to amateur radio, why not simply try using your amateur radio skills?
Chances are that you have a nice rig with all the bells and whistles on it. How about really learning how to use it? How about making the effort to pull in and hold those weak stations? How about overcoming the difficulties of QRN? When was the last time you tried CW, AM, SSB, FM, RTTY, ATV, or any other mode you don't use?
Build a transceiver, a radio, a piece of test equipment. Improve your ground. Design a new QSL card. Get away from the computer screen. This is amateur radio, not everything else."
--------------------------------------------------
AMEN brother, well said.
Let's keep the RADIO in Amateur Radio.
And what is this "government control" of the Internet that the author speaks about? It's a free-for-all. In 10 minutes on Google I can download; how to cook Meth,
how to build a pipe bomb, how to convert a carbine to full-auto, how to make armor piercing bullets, buy Schedule II drugs w/o a prescription, and access kiddy porn. Yeah, yeah, the government's really controlling the Internet all right!
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N9AMI on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why bother? First off we have enough do nothing Emcomm nets. Secondly what is HF for?? Why would we need an special ham internet link? More waste but Obama might want to spend a few billion on one.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K8QV on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was afraid a thread might get by without the gratuitous (that means totally irrelevant) invocation of the name Obama.
Whew! My faith is renewed!
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N2EY on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE7UXE:
Your description of the internet is very good, but incomplete.
The best thing about the internet is that anybody with access to it can post information about almost anything.
The worst thing about the internet is that anybody with access to it can post information about almost anything.
You can get all sorts of information on the internet, and some of it may even be right. But there's nothing to stop folks from posting all sorts of faulty info, intentionally or unintentionally. So they do. Often something gets repeated and archived as fact, when it's completely wrong. For example - do you *really* know that the tetracycline dose you got off the 'net is the right one?
Bad information can be worse than no information, because if you have no information, you know that you don't know something, but with bad information, you may think you know something and you really don't. Worse, you may make bad decisions based on bad information that you wouldn't make with no information.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KE7UXE on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Bad information can be worse than no information, because if you have no information, you know that you don't know something, but with bad information, you may think you know something and you really don't. Worse, you may make bad decisions based on bad information that you wouldn't make with no information."
Of course there can be bad information. But the real question should be....which is better; the opportunity to search hundreds of sources in search of the truth or to remain in ignorance altogether".
The internet is a huge clearinghouse of information; some good and some not so good. Just as you and I were taught to use the library in search of information so are people now being taught to filter the information they get over the net.
The internet doesn't feed you it allows you to read. If I want specific information I go to trusted sites for it. I think I trust the Mayo clinic. And 10 years ago I would not have had access to thier research at all.
In the past we relied upon the efforts of an expert whose job it was to sort through published papers and find the truth. Now that same expert has access to information they could only have dreamed of years ago.
|
| |
|
RE: Why not amateur radio?
|
|
|
by N5PVL on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And what is this "government control" of the Internet that the author speaks about? It's a free-for-all. In 10 minutes on Google I can download; how to cook Meth,
how to build a pipe bomb, how to convert a carbine to full-auto, how to make armor piercing bullets, buy Schedule II drugs w/o a prescription, and access kiddy porn. Yeah, yeah, the government's really controlling the Internet all right!"
You left out "How to get on the FBI and/or DHS terrorist watch list."
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AE6RV on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE: "First of all...Keep your interwet dreams on VHF/UHF+ , if you must. "
Amen, 2.4GHZ and up would be best.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N5PVL on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE: "First of all...Keep your interwet dreams on VHF/UHF+ , if you must. "
Nope. There is no amateur radio band or frequency where porno, ads and business communications are legal.
There never will be.
The hinternet losers need to get out of amateur radio altogether, round-file their tickets, take a hike and never come back.
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K9ZF on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whew, what a ton of replies!
I would guess this is why the eHam "editors" keep listing these "posts" as articles. Lots of response. However, I agree with the most of the replies in that this doesn't belong in the articles section. It should be a forum question.
From Ask Dot Com dictionary:
....ar..ti...cle
 
–noun
1. a written composition in prose, usually nonfiction, on a specific topic, forming an independent part of a book or other publication, as a newspaper or magazine.
As you can see, I don't believe this submission qualifies as an article. No offense intended for KC9EOT, I just believe the "editors" should have put it in the proper category.
73
Dan
--
Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Clark County Indiana. EM78el
K9ZF /R no budget Rover ***QRP-l #1269 Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
<http://www.qsl.net/n9rla> List Administrator for: InHam+grid-loc+ham-books
Ask me how to join the Indiana Ham Mailing list!
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC2MMI on April 25, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The author posts a question--not an article. (Mods, please!)
The answer is that the internet is only one of many computer networks, public, private, military, or otherwise. And "the internet" is in turn composed of many parts and "layers", one of which is the "transport layer" which normally means fiber-optic links or other telecom "longlines" providing the physical connections between internet nodes. (Computers.)
Replace the transport layer with radio links, and voila, you've got what the OP asks about. WiFi "Ad hoc" networks already do this, and there are several that spread over entire metropolitan areas. No amateur licensing or regulations involved.
The rest is a simple exercise in raising interest among amateurs, complying with regulations that would block such a network, and raising the serious money to do it.
So can it be done? Sure, easily, from the technical level. You're just swapping radios for wires. Would that be legal? Don't know, don't care, I think "economically unfeasible" comes up first.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on April 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"First of all...Keep your interwet dreams on VHF/UHF+ , if you must."
>>> FYI, this was not my post - KI4ITV gets credit for that one, although in context I agree with it.
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AE6RV on April 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N5PVL: "Nope. There is no amateur radio band or frequency where porno, ads and business communications are legal."
Good point. I wonder how many hams are in violation due to using hopped up routers with their callsign in the attempt to combine amateur radio and the internet over wireless?
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 26, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some people are doing it, on 900MHz, 2.4 & 5GHz...
Currently, you can do more without your license than with it...
128kbps on 1.2GHz vs 2.25mbps on 900MHz???
108mbps on 5GHz...
Websites:
http://twitter.com/rafmanne
http://picasaweb.google.com/rafwireless
http://www.rafwireless.com
http://twitpic.com/photos/rafmanne
http://www.youtube.com/rafmanne
Until amateur radio Part 97 reflects the realities of today's data, Part 15 will continue to be the tinkerer's haven for hams who want to move beyond 30 year old AX.25 packet radio...
Why can't ham radio have APRS via wi-fi? Open APs could relay your position to web site? Impossible, yet I can use Latitude to track my phone on Google maps?
Raf
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by G6NJR on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not more darn internet links on ham radio for cryin out loud .
It begins to look like people are afraid of turning their radios on these days and prefer to turn the computer on instead .
Radio works internet is only for the instant moment it cannot be trusted , it only takes on router to go down , one company to decide we dont like how you are using your internet link and bang dead in the water with no paddle .
No i say keep the internet seperate and devoid of the radio (having run a packet radio system with internet gateway some years ago ) i can now see it dont work
Pete G6NJR
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Until amateur radio Part 97 reflects the realities of today's data, Part 15 will continue to be the tinkerer's haven for hams who want to move beyond 30 year old AX.25 packet radio...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you mean encrypted transmissions and carriage of any kind of traffic since Part 97 allows everything else Part 15 does plus Part 97 allows higher power levels.
Those who want to allow encryption on the ham bands and who want to allow any kind of traffic on the ham bands are not hams interested in self-training, intercommunication between hams, and in technical investigations. They are interested in amateur radio becoming a psuedo-common carrier able to offer permanent infrastructure to facilitate the communications of unlicensed parties while also offering privacy of communications to those unlicensed parties.
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why can't ham radio have APRS via wi-fi?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who says it can't?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Open APs could relay your position to web site? Impossible, yet I can use Latitude to track my phone on Google maps?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's not impossible. Not if you can get the amateur community to install as many open wi-fi routers as there are cell phone towers in the US.
Do *YOU* want to pay for that many internet connections at that many remote sites?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AE6RV on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR: "Those who want to allow encryption on the ham bands and who want to allow any kind of traffic on the ham bands are not hams interested in self-training, intercommunication between hams, and in technical investigations. They are interested in amateur radio becoming a psuedo-common carrier able to offer permanent infrastructure to facilitate the communications of unlicensed parties while also offering privacy of communications to those unlicensed parties."
I tried to discuss this with an editor at CQ once. He wasn't interested in any viewpoint that challenged the legality of using encryption on the ham bands. He tried to justify his position by pointing me to something space-com related. Encryption on the ham bands is not only illegal, but total anathema to the idea of an amateur service.
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AD5FD on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
amateur radio internet...yes its already been done called the Hinternet. read your qst and cq, guys!
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K0RGR on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When you say 'ham Internet' you open up a lot of can's of worms in some people's minds, and indeed, we would not want to duplicate what the 'Net does. Nor could we, using available Amateur facilities.
If you want to see what's going on, search the net for the term 'hinternet'.
Recently, there has been discussion of building a ham traffic network based on random meteor scatter. The principles have been around quite a while, and modestly equipped hams are doing meteor scatter using computers now. Such a network would let hams send and receive messages anywhere, with no infrastructure.
Right now, APRS is fairly impressive in it's ability to do this, but it relies on the Internet for long distance communications. There are APRS satellites, but we would need a lot more of them to be truly useful.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N3OX on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Recently, there has been discussion of building a ham traffic network based on random meteor scatter. The principles have been around quite a while"
The USDA is using right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNOTEL
Meteor scatter would be an EXCELLENT use of Amateur Radio emergency communications energies. Small antennas, ever-present propagation over much greater than line of sight distances.
It's awfully technical to get widespread adoption as a ham EMCOMM technique though, and I'm sure the people who are already doing meteor scatter every day don't want to go hang out with the EMCOMM-focused crowd too much.
Being able to send emails around via meteor scatter would really be a great thing in serious communication emergencies, though.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KY5U on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Because there isn't enough bandwidth. Look at the total bandwidth for the average bands like 80, 40, 20M. Then look up the bandwidth used by a simple 802.11 box. Answer your own question.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ae6rv:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I tried to discuss this with an editor at CQ once. He wasn't interested in any viewpoint that challenged the legality of using encryption on the ham bands. He tried to justify his position by pointing me to something space-com related. Encryption on the ham bands is not only illegal, but total anathema to the idea of an amateur service.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The level of knowledge about encryption among the so-called elite of amateur radio is ludicrous.
The encryption the CQ editor is speaking of is to prevent takeover of a satellite control channel by unauthorized personnel -- it is not even meant to be an intercommunication channel between amateur control operators.
In addition, the encryption of satellite control channels as laid out in Part 97 hasn't even kept up with current encryption techniques. With the right techniques, encryption of the actual control messages isn't actually required. It may be desirable but isn't required to protect the channel.
The encryption that is needed on the ham bands is for restricting access to vulnerable nodes -- it is *NOT* needed to hide the meaning of messages. Restriction of access is NOT the same thing as hiding the meaning of messages.
Privacy concerning payload has been a common carrier attribute since the dawn of the very concept. This includes both the carrier not needing to know anything about the payload being carried other than its external attributes (e.g. weight, size, acceleration limits, etc) as well as the public at large.
This is *NOT* a concept that is compatible with the paradigm of the amateur radio service. The transparency of our communications *is* a defining attribute of amateur radio. Changing this attribute is quite likely to be fraught with unintended consequences.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KG4CLD on April 27, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Here's yet another random, half-baked rambling posing as an article."
This is an example of a typical "EGGHEAD" spewing his jargon instead of actually considering what was state.
All inventions started out as half-baked ideas, wild flights of fancy and/or just plain kooky thoughts. His idea is worth your considerations as are any other thoughts posted here on Eham.
You should never shout rebutles unless you are prepared to explain all the positive aspects and help others understand the 'pros & cons' to their logical conclusions. It is the basis of learning and development.
Bad form Chuck. Bad form...
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yea, "encryption" on 802.11 that most unlicensed 15 year olds can crack in less than 10 minutes with a linux CD. Please refrain from using the argument of "encryption" & ham bands when referencing the internet connection thereof. It is moot & becoming rather comical...
If hams were still interested in "self-training", there would be little daylight between ham radio & "leading edge" implementation of wireless 802.11a,g,n communication advances in the field of OEM, let alone our shacks. Instead, wireless internet & ham radio is so far apart, the Grand Canyon is a small hole in comparison. It has nothing to do with psuedo common carrier. Thats crap! Yet I can take a 900MHz link radio, dump it into a 2.4GHz Access Point & give EMCOMM connectivity within 10 miles of my site. Add a solar panel & what is the difference between ham radio & Part 97?
Answer: The link I describe can DIRECTLY augment an emergency response by interfacing DIRECTLY allowing officials access to web, intranet or VPN. Amateur radio only offers hand holding, message forms & the same 50 year old messaging "technology". Nothing has changed in EMCOMM in 50 years except the long winded net controls...
My point of APRS pinging off "open" access points is the are 1000's of open AP's to ping off for free. They are even out here in rural America, where the real "hinternet" isn't on Part 97 ham radio. It uses ham radio frequencies to mate fiber optics with RF to provide "Last Mile" connectivity. Continue to ignore the possibilities of 802.11 in ham radio while the frequencies are used for internet connectivity!
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4LCD wrote:
"This is an example of a typical "EGGHEAD" spewing his jargon instead of actually considering what was state."
I'll take the egghead label as a compliment. There was very little actually stated in the "article," which is why I made the remarks that I did. It would have been better posed as an eHam "Speakout" topic, or Elmers Forum question. The Articles Editor bears some responsibility for the quality of articles presented here.
"All inventions started out as half-baked ideas, wild flights of fancy and/or just plain kooky thoughts. His idea is worth your considerations as are any other thoughts posted here on Eham."
This is very egalitarian and appealing; however the notion that everyone's ideas are of equal worth is simply absurd. One needs to develop one's ideas in order to be taken seriously.
"You should never shout rebutles unless you are prepared to explain all the positive aspects and help others understand the 'pros & cons' to their logical conclusions. It is the basis of learning and development.
Bad form Chuck. Bad form... "
I do not accept the responsibility to "help others understand" half-baked ideas presented by others. Learning and development are demonstrated by accepting responsibility for communicating one's own ideas.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N9DG on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Because there isn't enough bandwidth. Look at the total bandwidth for the average bands like 80, 40, 20M. Then look up the bandwidth used by a simple 802.11 box. Answer your own question."
Even the amateur microwave allocations couldn't support both the high bandwidth and long distances that the original author implies is needed/desired.
The true technical “advancement of radio art” provided by ham radio today isn't in the construction and singular defined purpose use of communications systems and networks within the amateur bands. It is instead how amateur radio provides the starting point for those to get into technology and communication related careers and to then excel at them. It is from the application of the extra knowledge and experience learned from within ham radio that allows them to be key players in the development of the non amateur communications infrastructure. So that is where the pay off of ham radio really is.
People are there most creative and productive when they are having fun doing what it is that they are doing. And those who can bring, or use, some of that hobby/technical “fun” into their day jobs often do quite well for themselves. So yes, the technical aspects of ham radio are very important and very relevant, so ham radio is not just about “communicating”.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
4RAF:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Yea, "encryption" on 802.11 that most unlicensed 15 year olds can crack in less than 10 minutes with a linux CD. Please refrain from using the argument of "encryption" & ham bands when referencing the internet connection thereof. It is moot & becoming rather comical..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What in Pete's name are you talking about? WEP has been vulnerable since inception. WPA is vulnerable if you use *short* keys. Use long keys and I've not read of *anyone* that can crack it, using a linux CD or anything else. WPA2 is even better.
Encryption on the ham bands is *NOT* a moot argument. It is at the very heart of what amateur radio is considered to be.
K4RAF:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If hams were still interested in "self-training", there would be little daylight between ham radio & "leading edge" implementation of wireless 802.11a,g,n communication advances in the field of OEM, let alone our shacks. Instead, wireless internet & ham radio is so far apart, the Grand Canyon is a small hole in comparison. It has nothing to do with psuedo common carrier. Thats crap! Yet I can take a 900MHz link radio, dump it into a 2.4GHz Access Point & give EMCOMM connectivity within 10 miles of my site. Add a solar panel & what is the difference between ham radio & Part 97?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's not crap and you know it. The difference between commercial applications of 802.11 and amateur radio applications of 802.11 is spelled out in Part 97. Amateur radio is for intercommunication between amateurs and *NOT* for facilitating communications between unlicensed third parties. If you want to provide infrastructure for public agencies that cannot be licensed under Part 97 then do so, BUT DO IT USING COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS!
K4RAF:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Answer: The link I describe can DIRECTLY augment an emergency response by interfacing DIRECTLY allowing officials access to web, intranet or VPN. Amateur radio only offers hand holding, message forms & the same 50 year old messaging "technology". Nothing has changed in EMCOMM in 50 years except the long winded net controls...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep, you are right. And it doesn't need to be done using amateur spectrum at all!
K4RAF:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My point of APRS pinging off "open" access points is the are 1000's of open AP's to ping off for free. They are even out here in rural America, where the real "hinternet" isn't on Part 97 ham radio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What you suggest is a violation of the service agreement that many end users have with their internet provider. My agreement does not allow me to offer my internet connection up as a "gateway" for any user not a part of my household. If *you* were to try and use my internet connection "for free" internet access you would be putting *my* service agreement in jeopardy. While the AP's may be "open", the internet gateway may very well not be.
While those AP's may be "open" from a technological viewpoint that doesn't mean they are open from an ethical viewpoint. Using someone else's equipment and bandwidth as a "parasite" merely because you can is not something I would teach my kids to be acceptable practice.
K4RAF:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It uses ham radio frequencies to mate fiber optics with RF to provide "Last Mile" connectivity. Continue to ignore the possibilities of 802.11 in ham radio while the frequencies are used for internet connectivity!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why would you want to use ham frequencies for "last mile" connectivity for unlicensed entities when commercial applications exist just for providing this kind of service?
Is it because of convenience? Is it because the hammer that your ham license gives you causes you to see everything as a ham-nail to be hit with your ham-hammer? Is it because it makes you feel good?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim,
Personally, you epitomize the ever present problems in amateur radio. By arguing the legalities with consternation, you ignore the realities of your argument.
1) If you dont want to run encryption, than simply turn it off...
2) The only thing stopping amateurs from having their own net is that amateurs are not doing it.
3) I thought EMCOMM was using amateur enginuity to surmount the result of some emergency.
4) Despite your denial, 10's of MILLIONS of 802.11(x) devices are using AMATEUR FREQUENCIES under Part 15 right now. I guess you & people like you would rather concede defeat & resulting loss of using those frequencies. Perhaps you are the type to fire up a straw Part 97 (amplifier included) station to screw with Part 15 users?
902-928MHz & 2.4-2.483GHz are SHARED amateur bands, however Tim, people like you have done nothing to develop a damn thing except an attitude that 802.11 is beneath you. Continue to do it & when the bands are totally reallocated away from amateur radio, don't cry. You have not done a damn thing to apply yourself but to argue nothing could be done. Those 2 bands are LOST by the scale of Part 15 usage nationwide!
Your loss, not mine...
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KE6ZYK on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, what a thread. I don't usually add to these things, but I do have some thoughts on the subject that deal with what we do in emergencies, who gets left out and what hams can do. And yes there is a place for internet.
I live on the west coast in a place likely to have an Indonesian style tsunami one day. If the there is a great earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California will be inundated with thousands of casualties. On a large scale, it's likely the phone system and internet will go down.
There are trained hams and pretty good emergency services in place for this, but there is a group of people who get left out. The relatives. Across the country, every mom, dad, son, daughter, brother and sister of every person in the area will be sick to their stomachs wondering if their loved ones are alive and ok. That was how I felt on 911. My Mom and sister were flying into NY.
As hams, we are the link. I've already told my neighbors, that if something happens, come find me, somehow I'll get you in contact.
Phone patches work well for this, but it's time consuming and if nobody is home it dies pretty quick. With email, it doesn't matter if anyone is home, they'll get the message in time and one email gets forwarded on to a lot of familiy members pretty quick. Outside of the disaster zone, you get a lot of bang for the buck with email. Whether we use existing services or come up with some new backbone, it's the way people communicate and work these days and we need to be ready. Facebook might even be better yet.
10 years ago when I sailed the pacific, there were ham radio/email gateways around the world. Slow, but we could send emails. It seems that should work fine in an emergency, as long as know how to access them. After 10 years, I no longer have a clue.
I think though, more likely, if we have a disaster, there will hams across the country ready with phone patches, but also sitting at computers ready type messages as needed. We should build on that and keep it simple rather than something new and complex.
Mike
KE6ZYK
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N3OX on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
I think though, more likely, if we have a disaster, there will hams across the country ready with phone patches, but also sitting at computers ready type messages as needed. We should build on that and keep it simple rather than something new and complex."
We should make it very simple for people to do store and forward on emails, NOT type them anew.
Being set up for Email-patching would be quite useful.
Phone patching, like you say, is less useful.
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Personally, you epitomize the ever present problems in amateur radio. By arguing the legalities with consternation, you ignore the realities of your argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is pure B.S. "arguing the legalities with consternation"? what the heck is that supposed to mean?
The legalities are the legalities -- period.
If you want to ignore the legalities that is *YOUR* decision. You shouldn't be cheerleading for the amateur community to ignore them however. Nor should you be surprised when someone points out to you that your actions are not ethical.
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
1) If you dont want to run encryption, than simply turn it off...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The amateur community is supposed to be self-policing and self-regulating. That *means* something to me. What does it mean to *YOU*?
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
2) The only thing stopping amateurs from having their own net is that amateurs are not doing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But it needs to be done in a legal, ethical manner. Becoming parasites on unsuspecting 802.11 device owners is certainly not ethical and is probably illegal in many instances.
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
3) I thought EMCOMM was using amateur enginuity to surmount the result of some emergency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, it needs to be done in a legal, ethical manner. Amateur ingenuity doesn't mean using amateur installations when commercial installations would be better. It doesn't mean giving away amateur spectrum to unlicensed entities to use whenever they want when commercial spectrum will work just as well.
k4raf:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4) Despite your denial, 10's of MILLIONS of 802.11(x) devices are using AMATEUR FREQUENCIES under Part 15 right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now you are dissembling. Those Part 15 devices are not primary users. Part 15 devices share spectrum with LOTS of other users. So what? That doesn't define what *we*, as amateurs under Part 97, are allowed to do, either legally or ethically.
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I guess you & people like you would rather concede defeat & resulting loss of using those frequencies. Perhaps you are the type to fire up a straw Part 97 (amplifier included) station to screw with Part 15 users?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now you are making up strawmen to argue with. We don't *have* to encrypt messages in order to use wifi devices as part of an amateur network. A large number of new devices support the use of IPV6. That will provide access control without having to use encryption of data payload.
All you are doing is whining about it not being simple and easy to use consumer Part 15 devices as Part 97 devices. I'm sorry but I don't accept whining from my kids about life not being easy, why would I accept it from you?
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<902-928MHz & 2.4-2.483GHz are SHARED amateur bands, however Tim, people like you have done nothing to develop a damn thing except an attitude that 802.11 is beneath you. Continue to do it & when the bands are totally reallocated away from amateur radio, don't cry. You have not done a damn thing to apply yourself but to argue nothing could be done. Those 2 bands are LOST by the scale of Part 15 usage nationwide!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have exactly no idea what I have done and what I haven't. You are *still* whining about not being able to use 802.11 Part 15 devices as Part 97 devices.
I *have* set up IPV6 links on my local network with linux-to-linux and linux-to-windows links. I *know* how it works and how to do it. Setting up those links over wifi devices that will handle IPV6 would be no problem. Put an IPV6 gateway immediately after the AP and you'll have no reason to use encryption on the AP at all. It'll all be done from IPV6 node to IPV6 node.
Then you can have your amateur network *WITHOUT* encryption of data payload and everything will be copacetic with Part 97.
What have *YOU* done besides bi**h about not being able to call a consumer Part 15 device a Part 97 device?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ke6zyk:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
With email, it doesn't matter if anyone is home, they'll get the message in time and one email gets forwarded on to a lot of familiy members pretty quick.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Respectfully, have you ever tried this in a disaster area with survivors?
If my wife was one of the disaster victims then expecting her to remember email addresses for H&W messages would be a total waste of time.
As email applications get more and more sophisticated, this gets to be a bigger and bigger problem for more and more people. All they know is that they click on the name "John Doe" to send a message to him. They have no idea what John Doe's actual email address is. This is my wife *to a "T"*.
You would be amazed at how many young people today don't know anyone's actual phone number -- they just look the name up in their cell phone list and hit connect. If they lose their cell phone during a disaster they will have no way to actually contact any relative because they won't know a telephone number to use.
As we lose touch with the underlying addressing schemes for email and telephone we are going to find that manual messages with a name and town (and address if known) are going to gain the importance they used to have. We may be able to transport them faster than we used to using CW but until we get an email "book" like we have a phone "book", email is likely to get less important instead of more important. In fact, as more and more people abandon the wireline networks for cell phone-only houses, the actual usefulness of the old "phone book" is going to decrease in straight proportion.
When someone tells you that email is the coming thing for EMCOMM H&W think hard about how many actual email addresses *YOU* have memorized besides your own!
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N5PVL on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4RAF says:
"Add a solar panel & what is the difference between ham radio & Part 97? "
Sober up, Bud... You're getting to be a little bit on the incoherent side, there.
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This snipe from a troll who rambles on about 25 year old packet radio?
Give it up Charles... the difference I described is a distinction without a difference...
Raf
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KG4CLD on April 28, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NI0C WROTE:
"I do not accept the responsibility to "help others understand" half-baked ideas presented by others. Learning and development are demonstrated by accepting responsibility for communicating one's own ideas."
The responsibility isn't yours to deny. It is, in my opinion, the forefront example of fellowship. Or did you forget, this is Amateur Radio? This wasn't a family member you can rebuke at the dinner table. This is a person, to which respect and dignity shouldn't be shunted because your understanding and experiences deems this poorly prepare article is for the dullards. Intelletual reasoning should have prompted you to offer some type of examples so he could learn from the experience.
There are people out there who do not poses the blinding intellect and adventurous experiences you crown yourself with. Consider that in your reasoning before you make a half-baked half-baked remark..!
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by NI0C on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4LCD wrote:
"..did you forget, this is Amateur Radio?"
What frequency are you tuned to? This isn't radio, it is an internet discussion about radio. More specifically, this space is a discussion of the current submitted article.
"This is a person, to which respect and dignity shouldn't be shunted because your understanding and experiences deems this poorly prepare article is for the dullards."
Your have a vivid imagination. My remarks were not personal, nor did I say the article is for dullards. I merely reported the obvious-- that the author did not develop his idea at all. Indeed, a lot of very smart people are carrying on a lively discussion here, reporting on their experiences and otherwise doing what the author failed to do.
Some of us (including me) are disappointed that eHam doesn't have higher standards for what constitutes an article. I think an article should inform the community, and be based on some experience or research, rather than merely blurting out some idea that one had while shaving one morning. There are other spaces on the website for the latter.
"Intelletual reasoning should have prompted you to offer some type of examples so he could learn from the experience."
Well, I have. I've published articles in this space.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well this was certainly a wake up. I am not surprised by the flames although I must say by the amount perhaps a little. I guess it is a waste of time to bring up new ideas. I am not surprised by t he spelling critics either since we seem to have a inordinate amount of english genius types on the internet and I see no reason they wouldn't exist here as well. Then you have those of us who just want to get the point across and are not overly concerned with spelling since this isn't a term paper or some life and death medical research grant funded piece of information going to some ivy league professor type in a class room filled with some halfway decent students and a few snobs and such that later on in life become internet critics. You guys really need to chill.
What I was talking about is not rtty bbs psk or the like. I am talking about an internet system through radio but since so many of you want to waste time critiquing information rather than thinking about an idea I guess I'll just drop the subject and do it myself.
For the rest hope you all have a nice day.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NIOC...
What I put in were some thoughts on an idea that does not exist...yet, in hopes that others may have some thoughts that together may develop into something, I see that this forum doesn't work that way so I will cease to use it. One thought I was thinking about for instance though would be to take say 8 tones where the second and third harmonic did not match any of the the other tones 1st, 2nd or 3rd harmonic and transmit them together for a given length of time on a single frequency. On the receiving end you could have 8 phase lock loop type circuits to listen for these tones and change the 8 bit pulse into a single computer byte thus giving you the ability to transmit a byte of information in parallel mode over the radio. Next question is how fast could you feasibly do that and still get reliable error checking data moving back and forth. Yes it can be done across wires and I believe it could be done on radio as well. If we could do it across the radio we could actually set up a means with repeaters and such to have a sort of RF internet but alas most people want to scratch their heads and complain that this isn't the place for poorly thought out ideas even though the idea was meant to be the beginning of something and not a paper on a completed project so I will bow out and keep my thoughts to myself. See ya 73s
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ab0wr
Regarding your thoughts on encryption....If you consider PSK, RTTY, CW etc encryption then yes this is encryption but since those modes are not encryption this would be no different and thus would not be illegal.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K4ZN
You are correct it would be faster, using 8 tones for each transmission would increase 1200 baud to 9600 baud, 9600 baud would be 76k baud and 56k would be = to 448k. Since it done in tones, like psk it would be very narrow in theory. I can do it on copper so there is no reason we can't on the radio. The only question is imbedding frequencies in a signal, and how far we could go with that.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc9eot:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are correct it would be faster, using 8 tones for each transmission would increase 1200 baud to 9600 baud, 9600 baud would be 76k baud and 56k would be = to 448k. Since it done in tones, like psk it would be very narrow in theory. I can do it on copper so there is no reason we can't on the radio. The only question is imbedding frequencies in a signal, and how far we could go with that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess I would be interested in what you think modes like Olivia and Pactor are?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KG4CLD on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC9EOT WROTE:
"most people want to scratch their heads and complain that this isn't the place for poorly thought out ideas even though the idea was meant to be the beginning of something and not a paper on a completed project so I will bow out and keep my thoughts to myself. See ya 73s"
Take from this, not the negativity of the "EGGHEADs." They're just looking to badger, the same as those bleeding liberals in Washington do everytime one of them slips on the perverbial sidewalk. Your idea sparked controversy, but it also sparked those ol'factories into overdrive. I'd say to you, keep them coming, perhaps research a little bit more in order to provide detail, and never become afraid to voice your opinion.
There are a few that have, in their own minds, separated amateur radio forums from amateur radio. This is an amateur web site, for the discussion of amateur topic, from amateurs like yourself. Keep your ideas coming and don't allow the EGGHEADS from becoming 'yoke on the counter.'
73 OM!
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC2LTO on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I stopped reading about 1/4 the way down but plan on continuing tomorrow. Basically, there are a few points I would like to address (most of which are personal projects I was going to start with a few other amateur students at Rochester Institute of Technology but would be very willing to open up to the amateur community)...
1. A faster data modulation technique. Most data on Amateur data links are encoded with AX.25, a standard based off of x.25 which is almost gone in the telecom industry. Considering there are many other effective modulation techniques used in commerical telecom, such as QAM or OFDM, there is no reason we should not develop a faster, error-checking data modulation standard to work along side of (or better yet supercede) current ones. I envision such a protocol to be versatile, perhaps backward compatible, and robust.
2. A way to easily, quickly, and cheaply set up a data link. Yes, I do happen to have a passion for IP namely because that is the way most things are migrating nowadays. However, this does not mean you solely have to use this aforementioned protocol for IP. I envision a protocol that is easy to hook into any radio (HF, VHF, VHF on several modes) and start transmitting and recieving data. My initial intent would be to cover dead zones in wireless network coverage at my campus, for example, or setup a wireless backhaul to transmit data to a local event. I would love to be able to do this via software and a sound card/VOX-type circuit, external and independant FPGA device, or similar. There are many options I would like here...
3. An autonomous, best-effort routing system. I remember reading a post about diverting traffic from the Internet to a server in DC through radio nodes. This would be very unnecessary. The way I envision such an internetwork (which in itself would be a side project one could apply these aforementioned protocols to, or just use existing ax.25) is one with intelligence: it would behave much like a class 5 switch or ip router. Such routers, for those of you unfamilar, look at the ports available to the node (eg. Internet and Radio Relay in our system) and choose the one that is either available or has the least traffic traversing it.
---
So OP, you're in good company. If anyone is reading this and is either interested in such projects or has questions/comments about my statements, please do contact me at ajr9166 [at] rit,edu. Hopefully, with input, we can get started on such projects. I would love to reach out and bridge efforts with existing projects such as amprnet or the hinternet.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC2LTO on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh yea, and in addition there are a few more things to mention:
1. There are threats to the internet. Research "Net Neutrality" and get back to me if you decide otherwise.
2. Such a network does not need to pass encrypted traffic. THere could be a protocol built into the protocol or encapsulation algorithm to deny such traffic, or in a node connected to the internet dump such traffic through internet nodes ONLY.
3. Bandwidth would be researched at a later date for a new protocol, but I have a feeling that with the correct modulation technique (eg. QAM) one would not need a whole lot of spectrum.
4. As an added challenge, I think this project could be a parallel to the Internet2. For those of you unfamilar with the I2 project (http://internet2.edu), it is a research network that has one component that finds ways to transmit data long distances at very high speeds. This new network could show how a radio backbone could do something similar. To my knowledge, nothing like this is done via strictly radio unless you use a satellite uplink, but hey, where's the fun in that?
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N3OX on April 29, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"56k would be = to 448k"
Which amateur band would you propose for us to run 448kbps?
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on April 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
NO TNX!!!! I will just keep sending my donations to the TRILATERAL committee
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc2lto:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
1. A faster data modulation technique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ummmmm, what emission designator are you going to send the faster data modulation technique over?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Most data on Amateur data links are encoded with AX.25
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Could you explain where in the OSS stack ax.25 fits?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I envision a protocol that is easy to hook into any radio (HF, VHF, VHF on several modes) and start transmitting and recieving data. My initial intent would be to cover dead zones in wireless network coverage at my campus, for example, or setup a wireless backhaul to transmit data to a local event. I would love to be able to do this via software and a sound card/VOX-type circuit, external and independant FPGA device, or similar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you are going to use this with HF and VHF radios *and* use a sound card then you are obviously looking at using AFSK. What throughput do you expect to get out of a signal restricted to an audio bandwidth? Do you expect this throughput to be sufficient to handle an IP link? What dynamic range can you get for a signal being transmitted via SSB or FM? How will this impact your QAM data modulation technique?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
An autonomous, best-effort routing system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do a google on "linux bgp zebra". Let us know what you find.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on April 30, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc2lto:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
For those of you unfamilar with the I2 project (http://internet2.edu), it is a research network that has one component that finds ways to transmit data long distances at very high speeds. This new network could show how a radio backbone could do something similar. To my knowledge, nothing like this is done via strictly radio unless you use a satellite uplink, but hey, where's the fun in that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What data throughput rate do you expect this radio network to provide?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's really funny that with all the knowledge you claim to have Tim, you don't grasp why this concept, if even applied locally [using OFDM microwave], might prove interesting & rewarding.
Hams used to be tinkers, like when we ran the first TCP/IP over AX.25 in 1985, they said it was illegal, it took up too much channel time, it couldn't be "monitored" or it was encrypted because not everyone could "see". Now look at where TCP/IP has gone. Where is ham radio in that same time span? Nowhere because 25 years later, hams are mostly aspiring paralegals, who would rather argue than actually do or try what they are arguing about. There is little brotherhood or community left when it comes to fraternity I remember during the HeyDay of packet radio, RATS, NN2Z & KA9Q in NJ...
When you operate something like a WISP, you would run ham radio side just the same, like a WISP...
Before you say "NO" as you will, consider why these guys 'get it' & are doing it on a grand scale?
http://www.svwux.org
What's your problem with it?
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
8 bits in parallel mode is a 57kbd signal containing 8 bits in each clock signal giving you the equivalent of 448kb serial in a 57 kbd parallel signal
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N5PVL on May 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With all of the pressure that has existed for decades to establish high-speed data links over amateur radio for various reasons, you might ask yourself, "Well, why aren't we seeing any of this stuff except on a token, 'experimental' basis?
It really is a very good question, that deserves the time to research and think through, thoroughly.
I can give a partial answer, a complete answer would take more time than I have to work with, at least for fun stuff.
What happens to most all attempts at high-speed ham networking is that if the laws of physics and economics do not get you, then human nature will step in to gum up the works.
On HF, there is simply not enough available bandwidth.
On VHF and UHF, you start to see more bandwidth but at the same time, the expense and complexity of the high-speed capable equipment is really significant.
With WIFI equipment the cost isn't so bad, but it is short-range and addressing that drawback gets expensive and technically challenging, very fast.
The really big holdup in this area of Ham-WIFI though is a 'human nature' problem... Ham-WIFI aficianados are stuck on the 'hinternet' paradigm and do not see any effort there as worthwhile unless they can use encryption and ignore the content restrictions in PART97. - Running AX25 over WIFI equipment and operating within PART97 as hams talking to hams ( as opposed to accessing the internet ) is just toooo odious for them to consider. Actually, 'onorous' is the term they use to describe operating as a ham, under PART97. - So they talk about Ham-WIFI a lot, do it very little, and spend most of their time dissing the hobby and their fellow hams, trying to dream up ways to eliminate PART97 altogether.
Foot-shooters at best.
All of the SHF stuff that is not WIFI is outrageously expensive, sensitive to the least little problem and generally difficult to work with. You can't have an anarchic network built by independent individuals ( like Packet Radio ) because so much organization and cooperation is necessary in order to get it to work at all.
So, we hardly ever see any of this stuff except on a token, 'experimental' basis. Lots of talk, no action.
All the best work has been done in Europe, where the laws are different, and the hams are pretty well forced to show that what they are doing is feasible and follows good engineering practice before they are allowed to put it on the air.
There is much more of course, but I think I have touched on most of the major points.
Personally, I'd like to see high-speed ham digital networking take off and have tried to find a good way to make that happen for years. Like many others, I have discovered that it's a lot easier to talk about than to do, and as you add more participants it gets harder, not easier to get it working and keep it that way.
That's why the Packet network never got up to internet speed, not because Packet users had anything against the idea. What they balked at was the significantly higher expense, complexity, and need for ridgidly structured organization that the high-speed stuff demands.
Note the frustrated, sarcastic and generally whiny tone of most high-speed ham radio aficianados, the lack of respect for the hobby and their fellow hams. These folks are so miserable and ineffective because they just want to plug and play but the laws of physics, economics and human nature conspire against them.
Because of the damage their complaining, scheming to eliminate PART97 and the whining/accomplishment ratio there do to the hobby and their fellow hams, I stopped feeling sorry for them decades ago. - I generally tend to look down upon high-speed ham radio freaks now, because I know how destructive, ignorant and vaporous they and their schemes are. They repeat the same errors over and over again, never learning or progressing.
I go by results... Show me good results, and I'm the first to congratulate you.
There is no history of good results there for me to applaud. Quite the opposite...
---{ But I'm always ready to be pleasantly surprised! }
__________________
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"These folks are so miserable and ineffective because they just want to plug and play but the laws of physics, economics and human nature conspire against them."
However, some folks have pulled off 27 mile connections on 5Ghz with 200mW & dishes. Current link is a 5Ghz shot 17 miles to 3mb fiber feed. No amp, no callsign, no whiney ham BS...
Plug N Play? Too complex?
Hardly...
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N3OX on May 1, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What they balked at was the significantly higher expense, complexity, and need for ridgidly structured organization that the high-speed stuff demands.
"
Boy, significantly higher expense, complexity, and a rigidly structured organization?
Sounds like a great way to spend my spare time.
Sounds almost as fun as spending my weekends doing EMCOMM drills.
:-)
- - - - - - -
Anyway, I think the ham-radio high-speed problem is partially a percolation problem. In order to create wide range links, you have to have enough interested people with enough range to reach a threshold where the network spans large portions of a state at least, even better if it goes cross country.
You can use bands with shorter link lengths if you have a much, much higher density of interested parties.
But by the time you get to the idea of trying to do this with nearly stock Wi-Fi gear, you pretty much need to get every other ham interested in it just to cover a major urban area.
K4RAF says: "some folks have pulled off 27 mile connections on 5Ghz with 200mW & dishes. Current link is a 5Ghz shot 17 miles to 3mb fiber feed. No amp, no callsign, no whiney ham BS... "
So how long till we have a nationwide amateur hobbyist 5GHz network?
The connection to the internet is to people who play with this stuff. People want to have cheap, long haul connections to the actual internet even though they live in the boonies and can't get broadband.
They want games, Youtube, https://, Slashdot and porn. They don't want to just be able to get on their high speed network and talk to other high speed networkers about their high speed network.
They want to stick it to the cable companies because they think that we should be paying $15.99 / month for a 100MBps connection with no cap.
But it's important to realize, I'm sure, that part of the reason they're doing what they're doing is so they can have reasonable speed internet connection.
As far as I see it, there's no point to try to build out a high speed ham network on the VHF bands because there's just no content to push over it most of the time.
What the heck would we use it for on a day to day basis?
73
Dan
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Hams used to be tinkers, like when we ran the first TCP/IP over AX.25 in 1985, they said it was illegal, it took up too much channel time, it couldn't be "monitored" or it was encrypted because not everyone could "see". Now look at where TCP/IP has gone. Where is ham radio in that same time span? Nowhere because 25 years later, hams are mostly aspiring paralegals, who would rather argue than actually do or try what they are arguing about. There is little brotherhood or community left when it comes to fraternity I remember during the HeyDay of packet radio, RATS, NN2Z & KA9Q in NJ... "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BS. No one I know ever said IP was "illegal". Wasteful, perhaps, but never illegal.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"When you operate something like a WISP, you would run ham radio side just the same, like a WISP... "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And when did WISP's become part of the Amateur Radio Service?
As Charles pointed out, part of the problem is the people wanting to do away with Part 97 for selfish purposes.
If you want to be a WISP then be a WISP. If you want to be an amateur then be an amateur.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Before you say "NO" as you will, consider why these guys 'get it' & are doing it on a grand scale?
http://www.svwux.org
What's your problem with it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
****Permanent client station sites (EOCs, etc.)****
Read their documentation. They are wannabe common carriers. They are trying to redefine the ARS into being a psuedo-common carrier providing permanent communications infrastructure **FOR CLIENTS***!!
The ARS is defined as being for self-training, intercommunication between amateurs, and for technical investgations.
There isn't anything in the definition about providing permanent infrastructure for non-licensed, unlicensed, non-amateurs to use for their private, non-amateur use.
Its just more of wanting to redefine Part 97 for selfish purposes.
This is a bunch of guys with a ham-hammer who see everything as a ham-nail.
If you are going to put up permanent infrastructure for a government agency do it on NTIA frequencies and not on amateur frequencies.
What's that you say?????........ It's not as easy as taking off the shelf equipment and using it on the ham bands?
Who said being easy was a valid excuse for getting rid of Part 97 and for doing something on the ham bands?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Tim, all you seem to want to do is denigrate reality for your own selfish purposes. According to you, Part 97 is fine, just as it was written 50 years ago?
IMHO, Part 97 needs to be rewritten to reflect digital realities of current technologies [like 802.11(x)]. Even the AX.25 rules are 25 years old. Cut me a break, it ain't common carrier, it is just wireless data, PERIOD.
If you don't want a rewrite, it's for purely selfish reasons... You are in denial of the millions of Part 15 devices that are using amateur frequencies right now. You said go use NTIA freqs? NTIA has nothing to do with it, as Part 15 falls only under FCC jurisdiction. Even licenses for "common carrier" are obtained from the FCC.
That's fine though, all you guys who refuse to participate means a lower noise floor & less aggravation for those of us who choose to use those frequencies. I don't need any amplifiers so why bother with operating anything under Part 97 with a callsign?
I have no desire to deal with amateur paralegal "what if's" all day long. I'd rather see you nay-sayers go do some mobile NetStumbling, profile the wireless activity in an area & then dive in ONLY if you dare...
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 2, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Well Tim, all you seem to want to do is denigrate reality for your own selfish purposes. According to you, Part 97 is fine, just as it was written 50 years ago?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It *IS* fine, just as it stands.
Amateur radio was never meant to be a common carrier for non-licensed, un-licensed, non-amateur entities.
There is *NO* reason for it being designated as such today.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
IMHO, Part 97 needs to be rewritten to reflect digital realities of current technologies [like 802.11(x)]. Even the AX.25 rules are 25 years old. Cut me a break, it ain't common carrier, it is just wireless data, PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are still whining about encryption? I told you how to fix that with your Part 15 equipment that you want to use on Part 97 -- it's called IPV6 or IPV4 with IPSec extensions. This is an old document but it discusses the issues pretty extensively: http://www.6journal.org/archive/00000276/01/troy-Final-IRP-Report.pdf
Building a network with IPSec (either IPv6 or IPv4) is not nearly as simple as just hooking up a couple of Linksys WRT54G wireless routers. You need firewalls behind the routers and a way to manage security associations.
But nothing worthwhile is *ever* easy. You have to *learn* some stuff instead of just hollering about not being able to use Part 15 equipment for Part 97 purposes.
If you are providing permanent infrastructure to facilitate the communications of non-licensed, un-license, non-amateur entities then you *ARE* acting as a common carrier. You can deny this all you want but it remains the truth. An inconvenient truth perhaps, but a truth nonetheless.
Neither is the issue ax.25 vs 802.11. That's just a red herring.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you don't want a rewrite, it's for purely selfish reasons... You are in denial of the millions of Part 15 devices that are using amateur frequencies right now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Encryption on the ham bands is one of the *WORST* possible things we could be asking for. It would open us up to all kinds of charges of amateur radio being used to facilitate illicit and illegal activities -- including terrorism.
Part 15 devices are low power and depend upon telecom or ISP facilities for useful interconnection. That makes them open to snooping by NSA and DHS. Higher powered amateur radio links would *NOT* be accessible in this manner. This, coupled with encryption, is a recipe for disaster in the ARS.
You can ignore this all you want, you can make fun of it all you want, it still won't make the issue go away.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You said go use NTIA freqs? NTIA has nothing to do with it, as Part 15 falls only under FCC jurisdiction. Even licenses for "common carrier" are obtained from the FCC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who said anything about doing it under Part 15? And, yes, doing this in the right way *would* require interfacing with the FCC -- except for public agencies that can get NTIA spectrum assigned and whose comm facilities do not fall under FCC jurisdiction. Did you somehow think that FEMA goes to the FCC to get their communication frequencies?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That's fine though, all you guys who refuse to participate means a lower noise floor & less aggravation for those of us who choose to use those frequencies. I don't need any amplifiers so why bother with operating anything under Part 97 with a callsign?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As long as you are operating under Part 15, who cares?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I have no desire to deal with amateur paralegal "what if's" all day long. I'd rather see you nay-sayers go do some mobile NetStumbling, profile the wireless activity in an area & then dive in ONLY if you dare...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words you have no answers, only whining. You have no desire to learn how to apply commonly known security measures that don't require encrypting message payloads. You have no desire to learn how to do things in a legal and ethical manner. You just want to *whine* about those that don't want to see the ARS redefined into being a common carrier.
Nice.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by N5PVL on May 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3OX says:
"As far as I see it, there's no point to try to build out a high speed ham network on the VHF bands because there's just no content to push over it most of the time.
What the heck would we use it for on a day to day basis?
73
Dan "
That's what I call "hitting the nail on the head", OM.
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
N3OX says:
"As far as I see it, there's no point to try to build out a high speed ham network on the VHF bands because there's just no content to push over it most of the time.
What the heck would we use it for on a day to day basis?
73
Dan "
That's what I call "hitting the nail on the head", OM.
73 DE Charles, N5PVL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree. This only becomes an issue if you want to turn the ARS into a psuedo-common carrier handling third party-to-third party traffic with no control operators monitoring and supervising the third party traffic as is required by Part 97.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 3, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Which just show how out of date Part 97 Digital rules are? This is not 1969...
3rd Party? What am I supposed to do, use a hacker program like Kismet to sniff or "monitor" 3rd party packets?
For what Tim?
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Which just show how out of date Part 97 Digital rules are? This is not 1969...
3rd Party? What am I supposed to do, use a hacker program like Kismet to sniff or "monitor" 3rd party packets?
For what Tim?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
97.115(b) The third party may participate in stating the message where:
(1) The control operator is present at the control point and is
continuously monitoring and supervising the third party's participation;
For what? To be in compliance with Part 97.
97.3(a)(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried
out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio
technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.
See that word intercommunication? That means intercommunication between amateurs. It does *NOT* mean intercommunication between third parties.
If we become a service dedicated to carrying third party traffic then we no longer fit the definition of what the amateur service is supposed to be. We just become another common carrier.
Giving our spectrum away to non-licensed, un-licensed, third party entities or having our spectrum taken away for use by non-licensed, un-licensed, third-party entities -- where's the difference? We still lose the spectrum for intercommunication between amateur radio operators.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
Just Offering Wireless Expertise in an Emergency!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whatever... You're just stuck on 1969 3rd party rules, some ideal that we're trying to be a "common carrier" & refusing to see that some revision changes to Part 97 need to reflect common sense. You think young people are interested in repeaters, net controls & voice traffic? Heh, hardly!
Attitudes like yours just means Amateur Radio will continue to be pushed away from public service/EMCOMM scenarios. Those gov't entities will go directly with non-ham communications replacement, like satellite, cellular EVDO or DirectConnect without amateur radio "minders" to hold their hands every step of the way.
So much for "When ALL Else Fails..."
IMHO: The Silicon Valley guys have it right, running it as you say you can't & they are operating it today without any FCC sanctions.
Imgine that, guys who are actually doing experiments with links, guys who know what a Bullet 2 or 5 actually is or know that microwave 802.11 is NOT limited to short distance use!
Shame that ham radio is still the true VaporNet, nowhere near the "HinterNet" model promised around 2003 by the ARRL!
Raf
|
| |
|
Doing Your Part?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We still lose the spectrum for intercommunication between amateur radio operators."
It makes no difference then. By not using any of the 802.11 bands yourselves, curmudgeon & time-warped hams have all but officially lost 900MHz & Above to millions of Part 15 devices by not using any of "it".
Ask 1 of the 9 guys who operate stateside EME on 2.4GHz... 2.$GHz is LOST with Noise floors around -75dB these days!
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Just Offering Wireless Expertise in an Emergency!
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Whatever... You're just stuck on 1969 3rd party rules, some ideal that we're trying to be a "common carrier" & refusing to see that some revision changes to Part 97 need to reflect common sense. You think young people are interested in repeaters, net controls & voice traffic? Heh, hardly!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a all-or-nothing kind of guy I guess. There sn't anything that says 802.11 experimentation has to be only setting up comm links for 3rd parties to use as communication links. The fact that all *YOU* can see is forcing amateur radio to become a common carrier doesn't mean that others can't see it in a different light.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Attitudes like yours just means Amateur Radio will continue to be pushed away from public service/EMCOMM scenarios. Those gov't entities will go directly with non-ham communications replacement, like satellite, cellular EVDO or DirectConnect without amateur radio "minders" to hold their hands every step of the way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is the way *IT SHOULD BE*!!!
Those gov't entities should be providing *THEIR OWN COMM LINKS*. They shouldn't be depending on amateur radio to give up amateur spectrum to do this.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So much for "When ALL Else Fails..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And if the gov't provided comm's never fail then what difference does it make? Gov't *should* be designing their comm's to never fail -- or at least to have fall-back priority comm's.
When all else fails the gov't should have their own mobile comm stations and mutual aid compacts with adjacent entities to provide for essential communications. They should *NOT* be depending on *undependable* volunteers to provide essential comm's. That is nothing more than a direct abdication of the responsibilities they assume as public servants.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
IMHO: The Silicon Valley guys have it right, running it as you say you can't & they are operating it today without any FCC sanctions.
Imgine that, guys who are actually doing experiments with links, guys who know what a Bullet 2 or 5 actually is or know that microwave 802.11 is NOT limited to short distance use!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now you are back to offering up strawmen to argue with. Experimentation is NOT providing permanent infrastructure in amateur spectrum solely for the use of third parties to communicate.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Shame that ham radio is still the true VaporNet, nowhere near the "HinterNet" model promised around 2003 by the ARRL!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps you should ask yourself exactly why that is instead of complaining about ham radio not being able to compete with AT&T for providing wireless communications to "CLIENTS".
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Doing Your Part?
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"curmudgeon & time-warped hams"
ROFL!!
Because we want to see the ham bands retained for intercommunications between amateurs instead of being used for competition with AT&T and Verizon we are "curmudgeons".
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Just Offering Wireless Expertise in an Emergency!
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Actually here in South Bend we have lots of kids who are interested in that very thing. We have a technical repeater where people go to ask questions and there are people on it every night, there are also several other repeaters heavily used buy people of all ages. Young people are interested in all types of radio here so maybe you might spend some time exposing your young people to other areas.
|
| |
|
RE: Just Offering Wireless Expertise in an Emergency!
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
AB0WR just read the rest of your post, my God man, did you read this thing. I ..... are you for real? We are talking about the way thins are not the way things should be or might be,,,,the way things are! This is just wierd
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR
I read some more of your tripe. Nobody said anything about changing part 97, encrypting, or letting non licensed hams use this idea. If you can, think of it this way. Its 8 data signals sent using tone, similar to psk and would not take up anymore bandwidth than psk to provide a new mode for communications such that psk is serial data what this would be to parallel data, nothing more, no changing rules, no using part 15 devices, no getting the government involved,(that would be the last thing we'd want), just perhaps a new mode of communication in the digital age. Take pill and chill out.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No Tim, I am not all or nothing guy, instead you are just so ABSOLUTE in your opinion. I am an adaptive guy who has a natural curiosity toward what is technically possible in the realm & reality of wireless. I don't require my callsign plastered about or to oversee control over unlicensed people to feel important. I am a radio man since age 10. The rules, however, do not reflect real world reality of protocols, control & monitoring circa 2009.
Ham radio has squandered such a golden teaching moment IMHO. The double irony in that fleeting moment is a plentiful source of equipment you so readily dismiss all uses amateur frequencies (mostly 902-928MHz & 2.4-2.473GHz) on OFDM & utilizes most of the AX.25 parameters. PACLEN & FRACK are just 2 that I smile seeing on my 5GHz link radio console.
If you paralegals choose not to use the frequencies for anything, it simply leaves more room for those of us who are involved in wireless networking. The FCC knew hams wouldn't cry about sharing an unused band or 2. Look for it on 3.3-3.5GHz in the future when that 3.65-3.7GHz licensed band is expanded due to nationwide activity.
I am going back to blogging on Twitter.com/rafmanne & vlogging my channel on YouTube. I will continue to build systems, links & installing as vast a network as I can manage but nothing in ham radio service. Some people like myself & a handful I have met along the way can't live outside reality, except to dream of what might be possible. Curmudgeons live in the past & don't build a damn thing but a hole to live in...
Raf
|
| |
|
Why Internet over radio is useless for HAMs
|
|
|
by KJ4ADN on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First off, the fiber cuts in So. California could have been done by anyone, the information isn't just "out there" - it's readily found on every company web site that owns or leases fiber. The manholes are MARKED with the company name or something like "Telephone" or "Communications". I would imagine the most difficult part of cutting the fiber is cutting through the Kevlar or strength member!
This fiber cut happened just weeks after we completed a Winlink test - which according to some was a huge success, and to others, demonstrated the data rates (bandwidth) requirements are FAR BEYOND the needs & requirements of emergency communications.
Of the multiple problems Winlink faces besides bandwidth, it's partenering with the Internet automatically makes it useless for REAL emergency communications - and the recent incident should have been a 'wake up call'. How many times have we heard, "the internet / computers are running slow today" - and it's NOT due to some emergency!? How many times have we been struck with DOS (Denial Of Service), or deliberate "throttling" of bandwidth by the ISP?
There are so many areas where the internet is vulnerable.... which is precisely WHY I got into HAM radio - I wanted communications when 'all else failed'.
Heck, I wouldn't even depend on the local VHF/UHF repeaters!
KJ4ADN - Bill
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 4, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc9eot:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I read some more of your tripe. Nobody said anything about changing part 97, encrypting, or letting non licensed hams use this idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You apparently didn't bother to read what K4RAF has been posting.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you can, think of it this way. Its 8 data signals sent using tone, similar to psk and would not take up anymore bandwidth than psk to provide a new mode for communications such that psk is serial data what this would be to parallel data, nothing more, no changing rules, no using part 15 devices, no getting the government involved,(that would be the last thing we'd want), just perhaps a new mode of communication in the digital age. Take pill and chill out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I asked you to explain what Olivia, mfsk8, mfsk16, mt63, etc are.
You apparently didn't bother to even do this amount of basic research.
For instance, Olivia 1000/32 uses *32* tones in a 1000hz bandwidth.
They all use a technique called orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. Back in the 60's and 70's it was even called multi-carrier modulation.
While you are to be applauded for your creativity in coming up with this idea, you are about 40-50 years too late.
What you carry and how you carry it are two different issues.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Tim has no ideas, just delusional legal arguments, so he's never late...
|
| |
|
The Spectral War is Lost to WiFi
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Heh, why don't they need hams in EMCOMM for a network connection?
http://www.dailywireless.org/2009/05/03/emergency-hot-spot/
http://www.proxicast.com/products/Cell-PAK-Feat.htm
Done: No Ham Radio "3rd Party" Hand Holding included... One hell of a "Go Bag"...
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I didnt bother explaining them because I dont care about them. For instance you talk about Olivia using 1000hz bandwidth, thats a waste, I am talking about using about 50 maybe 100 at most. You really need to open your mind a little. The difference between the possible and impossible is a dream, the difference between a dream and reality is a little work. Y9ou think something up then you make it happen. You dont lose until you quit, your problem is is your so negative about things you never start.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc9eot:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I didnt bother explaining them because I dont care about them. For instance you talk about Olivia using 1000hz bandwidth, thats a waste, I am talking about using about 50 maybe 100 at most. You really need to open your mind a little. The difference between the possible and impossible is a dream, the difference between a dream and reality is a little work. Y9ou think something up then you make it happen. You dont lose until you quit, your problem is is your so negative about things you never start.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps you *should* be interested in them since they will show you how to do this.
8 tones in a 50hz bandwidth gives each tone a 2hz bandwidth plus a 2 hz guard band (one hz on each side).
How much data can you send with a 2hz bandwidth per tone? 2 bits per second, perhaps? That would give you a total of 8 tones x 2hz/tone of 16hz or 16bits per second.
You are going to be able to send a *LOT* of data with a speed of 16bits per second. Especially when you can send 300bits/sec with ONE tone on HF.
The problem here is not me being negative. The problem is the physics of what you propose. No amount of dreaming can make a 2hz bandwidth carry more data than the phyics allow -- except, perhaps, in your dreams.
You and RAF make a great pair. One whining about the physical limits of the universe and the other whining about amateur radio not being able to compete with AT&T and Verizon. And neither of you want to listen to reason, you only want to bash those pointing out the problems with your assertions -- i.e. kill the messenger instead of understanding the message.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We're joined by the "messenger" who only whines about the 1960's rules he can quote. That's all he can quote because he has never actually done anything but live his life as a radio cop.
Sometimes, if the messenger willingly wears blinders, he deserves to be slapped around when he runs over your dog & claims "I didn't see him till it was too late".
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KB7PST on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3OX: As far as I see it, there's no point to try to build out a high speed ham network on the VHF bands because there's just no content to push over it most of the time.
I think that's the problem in a nutshell. A high speed ham network would be neat, but there has got to be a use for it. The use is not going to be merely accessing the internet or duplicating the internet in some way. Even the AMPRnet really wasn't about internet access over packet radio. It was more about pushing the technology and trying something new.
Now, if we could put voice links over this stuff, or hell, even morse-over-ip, then we might be able to drum up some interest.
Don't get me wrong, I think high-speed data is the right way to go. But we have got to have something to do with the thing before I'm willing to shell out any money putting something up.
My $0.02
Alex,
KB7PST
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC2LTO on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB7PST: I think there needs to be something in place before people start using it. That is like saying to the people that pioneered radio, "Well, we don't need to talk wirelessly to people. I have them locally in my community, or can contact them via telegraph." I'm glad you agree experimentation with a high-speed network is the way to go and with a robust protocol I think pumping anything over the network is possible.
The big thing, I think, is to have an elaborate digital interconnect via radio. Whether you pump voice over it, morse code, or data there is one advantage digital has over analog: integrity. Analog signals attenuate over time and degrade information quality whereas digital is On...On...On...Off once it gets to a certain point. But until that point, the data is /always/ decipherable.
|
| |
|
It's Not Just Me Either
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We'll have WiMAX on the moon before guys like Tim "get it" & release their kung-fu thirst for CONTROL over others' innovative thoughts & their acting on them...
http://bit.ly/aTDeM
|
| |
|
RE: It's Not Just Me Either
|
|
|
by KC2LTO on May 5, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quite honestly, I do not understand why so many people always bicker about what people think things should be, the way they want to be, etc. (Not mentioning names, Tim) This goes for a vast majority of amateur radio topics. I am in no way, shape, or form saying this affects me but perhaps when younger generations see this in the community they are shunned away from the hobby altogether (adding to the less-attractiveness of it)... Just a thought.
But either way, several posts have gone off topic. We should all *embrace* the different ideas, modes, and types of communication that people want to work with. Ultimately they all come down to one common thing we have a passion for: RF. Imagine what a wonderful world it would be if everyone could use what mode they wanted, the way they wanted to without having to feel ousted by others (even if only a select few). Fortunately, Amateur Radio does provision for this (minus some obvious things like encryption and the like, but there are common sense limitations to much of this). Especially considering there is dedicated spectrum for Data communication and Phone, as this article really concerns.
So there really is no issue here about whether an "Amateur Internet" is the right way to go. The ambiguity, I think, is that such a technology would connect to the internet and serve as a backhaul for certain links when really it /could/ do something like this, but is not necessary. A radio-based internetwork that can interface with other services (such as the Internet) is where a lot of the people in this forum want to take this. Let's focus on that and with all our effort positive, perhaps work on something outstanding!
|
| |
|
RE: It's Not Just Me Either
|
|
|
by KB5WBH on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Imagine what a wonderful world it would be if everyone could use what mode they wanted, the way they wanted to without having to feel ousted by others (even if only a select few)."
It is a wonderful world and you can use what modes you like within the current FCC Rules. If the bullies don't like it then its something they will have to get over.
There was a news item on the Zed about a plan to use 5.8ghz for a new ham network. I doubt it will happen over the whole country because hams are cheap. They want everything via the sound card..lol. I do hope the 5.8ghz network will take off other than where its planned though.
Enjoy Ham Radio, stay within the rules and brush off what the bullies have to say, everyone else does.
73
Mike kb5wbh
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3OX
I hear ya, I guess it is proverbial which came first the chicken or the egg idea. There isn't a lot of stuff to push over the air right now, I think, because nobody has come up with a good way to do it reliably on a large scale...yet. One could argue that its not worth building something because there is now use for it and in some cases be absolutely correct in doings so; On the other hand the argument could be made if you provide a way of doing something, then people will figure out how to use it. I dont know which side of the fence this would all on, thats just not something you can figure out in a case like this but you gotta admit, either way it would be interesting
|
| |
|
RE: It's Not Just Me Either
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Quite honestly, I do not understand why so many people always bicker about what people think things should be, the way they want to be, etc. (Not mentioning names, Tim)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ROFL!!
You remind me of the guy getting a speeding ticket that tries the excuse on the cop of "But *everyone* else is speeding!".
There *is* a reason for the rules being written as they are. There *are* rules of physics that limit what is possible.
It isn't "bickering" when someone points out the reason why the rules are written as they are or what the rules of physics are.
Using the term "bickering" is just a lazy way of arguing. It's an argumentative fallacy called Dysphemism.
Whining about not being able to use encryption on the ham bands is just that -- whining. There *is* a reason why there is a rule against it. If you don't like the rule, file a rule change proposal with the FCC -- but be ready for the avalanche of public comments telling you why it would be a bad thing.
Whining about not being able to compete with AT&T and Verizon is just that -- whining. If you want to be able to use the ham bands to compete for "clients" with AT&T and Verizon then file a rule change proposal with the FCC to change the definition in the rules for the Amateur Service to include "carriage of third party-to-third party traffic" as well as intercommunication between amateurs so as to allow hams to be able to compete for third party clients. But be ready for the avalanche of public comments telling you why it would be a bad thing.
If you think this is "bickering" then it's *your* problem, not mine.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I meant to say Tim, your really something, but thats ok enjoy your spark gap
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You suggest people are whining about encryption on the ham bands...again I am trying to tell you there is no encryption suggested by anyone, there is no rule broken! Forget the rules! We are not going to break any of them!
Do you understand what you are saying? If you are saying a potential new mode of communication is going to break rules regarding encryption because it doesn't send characters instead of tones, then every digital mode out there is encryption! You can't say that. Is a new mode encryption breaking rules simply because people don't know how to use it until they learn? Again that implies that all digital modes are a form of encryption because there are many who do not have the equipment to use digital modes so they can not "decode" it. And finally, one more time, nobody is thinking about turning this potential mode over to private citizens or hooking it to the present day internet, you want to do that go play with echolink or something. I am talking about parallel data communications between amateurs and please dont tell my integrated circuits it wont work because they dont know it yet and they seem to be able to handle the idea fairly well on a small scale.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC2LTO on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Right on, Kc9EOT.
As for you, AB0WR, I really question your education and intellect when you say things like "we are trying to defy the laws of physics." Simply, if we were attempting to do so you would have no argument because you would not have to argue with us that our ideas are invalid - you would be content knowing they would never work. You are just scared they might actually work because certain modulation schemes most certainly fall within the bounds of applicable physical sciences.
Second, (a rhetorical question) please explain why QAM, OFDM, and other modulation techniques "defy the laws of physics" as you state? If they do, then how come I can watch HD on my 42" big screen? Exactly, you do not have an answer because there they exist.
I would teach you a little bickering, or whining, as you put it but that was supposed to be your mother's job. Not to mention, again, your intelligence when you argue that I remind you of the "guy who argues a speeding ticket because everyone is doing it." It is quite the contrary my good friend: this is about applied theory inside of the bounds of existing regulation. Not about who can be more bad-ass and defy regulation and justify it with utilitarianism or "everybody's doing it."
Listen, we are not here to have a flame war. Grow up, grab a book, and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute to the *discussion*.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc9eot:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You suggest people are whining about encryption on the ham bands...again I am trying to tell you there is no encryption suggested by anyone, there is no rule broken!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For Pete's sake man, what do you think WEP and WPA modes on Part 15 wireless nodes is if it isn't encryption, especially encryption of message payload?
What do you think K4RAF has been whining about? It's about not being able to make full use of Part 15 wireless access points under Part 97 because it requires the use of WEP or WPA!
Of course you do NOT have to use WEP or WPA but that makes things more complicated! God forbid a ham should actually have to do some technical investigations to learn how to use IPSEC!
And you apparently don't even know what WEP and WPA is!
And *I'm* the one being accused of wanting to return to spark?
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc2lto:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Second, (a rhetorical question) please explain why QAM, OFDM, and other modulation techniques "defy the laws of physics" as you state? If they do, then how come I can watch HD on my 42" big screen? Exactly, you do not have an answer because there they exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did NOT state QAM and OFDM defy the laws of physics.
When I pointed out the bandwidth required for those modes *YOU* were the one that stated that it could all be done in a 50hz bandwidth instead of a 1000hz bandwidth -- and *THAT* defies the laws of physics.
Do you have *ANY* idea of what the bandwidth of the digital TV signal is that you watch on your 42" big screen? Do you really believe that can be done in a 50hz bandwidth?
I asked you to explain how modes like Olivia work. You have yet to do so. Yet you seem to think a mode such as Olivia can be squished down into a 50hz bandwidth. You *still* need to go do some technical investigation to find out how "Orthogonal" FDM actually works. Then come back and tell us how you can squeeze an Olivia signal with 32 multiple tones down into a 50hz bandwidth.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc2lto:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Listen, we are not here to have a flame war. Grow up, grab a book, and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute to the *discussion*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean something intelligent like suggesting that a 32tone OFDM signal can be squeezed into a 50hz bandwidth?
ROFL!!!
Heal thyself physician.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC2LTO on May 6, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AB0WR: You cannot make up facts for the sake of argument. Never once did I mention packing huge amounts of data into ANY particular amount of bandwidth.
Oh! Lawyered!
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tim you are just around to cause problems and make things difficult, why do you love to that miserable. There is a limit to amount of signals you would want to jam into a certain space as you would want to design it such that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd harmonics dont interfere with each other. Eventually, as you so nicely pointed out, you would reach a point of interference. The ideal amount today would be 8 data bits and 1 clock bit. It can be done on copper so there is no reason it can't be done via a radio but you my friend have a severe attitude problem that requires you to berate things other people do which probably leave you with few friends which is really to bad. If you put half your energy into thinking up new things as you do berating other people you would enjoy life much more but first you have to get over yourself.
Have a nice day
|
| |
|
Making Up the Facts as You Go?
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What do you think K4RAF has been whining about? It's about not being able to make full use of Part 15 wireless access points under Part 97 because it requires the use of WEP or WPA!
Where did I ever say it REQUIRED WEP or WPA? WEP is the lowest level & can be "monitored" in under 15 minutes. Just leave your router open without any security. No one will notice & you must conform to Tim's 1969 legal perceptions.
I just want to see other hams use this stuff more or apply it but by your "logic", no one can. Absurd there Timmy boy...
Wanna watch?
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc9eot:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Tim you are just around to cause problems and make things difficult, why do you love to that miserable. There is a limit to amount of signals you would want to jam into a certain space as you would want to design it such that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd harmonics dont interfere with each other. Eventually, as you so nicely pointed out, you would reach a point of interference. The ideal amount today would be 8 data bits and 1 clock bit. It can be done on copper so there is no reason it can't be done via a radio but you my friend have a severe attitude problem that requires you to berate things other people do which probably leave you with few friends which is really to bad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just more technological BS. Do you somehow think there is not a bandwidth involved in sending signals over a length of copper?
The issue isn't how many individual tones you have, it is an issue of how much bandwidth is required to transmit a *change* in each tone. That bandwidth is directly related to how fast your clock signal is. The faster your clock, i.e. the more data you want to send per second, the more bandwidth you need to transmit each individual tone's changes from on to off and back to on. That means the spacing of the tones has to increase as you increase the clock rate.
You would be much better served to actually *learn* some theory rather than complain about my "attitude".
Did you even bother to see how many tones the 1000hz Olivia signal I mentioned actually uses?
My guess is that you didn't.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you put half your energy into thinking up new things as you do berating other people you would enjoy life much more but first you have to get over yourself.
Have a nice day
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"berating"? If you think someone pointing out the laws of physics as they apply to your assertions is "berating" you I can only imagine how you fared in school.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
k4raf:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"What do you think K4RAF has been whining about? It's about not being able to make full use of Part 15 wireless access points under Part 97 because it requires the use of WEP or WPA!
Where did I ever say it REQUIRED WEP or WPA? WEP is the lowest level & can be "monitored" in under 15 minutes. Just leave your router open without any security. No one will notice & you must conform to Tim's 1969 legal perceptions.
I just want to see other hams use this stuff more or apply it but by your "logic", no one can. Absurd there Timmy boy...
Wanna watch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Amateur's cannot use 802.11 devicies if they want to use WEP or WPA encryption of the message payload.
Use IPSEC for packet integrity, access control, and verification of sender while leaving the message payload unencrypted and amateurs can use 802.11 technology all day long with no problems.
As I said, if you want to use encryption under Part 97, petition the FCC to change the rules. Just be ready for the public comments you will get about it.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC2LTO on May 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm going to fail to mention that the essence of IPSEC is encryption...
AB0WR, what is your profession/major again?
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 7, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From a 10 second lookup of IPSEC on Google:
"Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) is a suite of protocols for securing Internet Protocol (IP) communications by authenticating and ENCRYPTING each IP packet of a data stream."
Another reference:
"Internet Protocol security (IPsec) is a framework of open standards for protecting communications over Internet Protocol (IP) networks through the use of CRYPTOGRAPHIC security services."
Uh Tim, amateurs can use what method to secure a network without any "encryption"?
You'd be a bit more convincing if you weren't so, well, "misguided"...
Raf
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 8, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc2lto:
k4raf:
You *REALLY* should go do your homework on IPSEC. I explained it in an earlier message.
Please do more than just read the first sentence on Wikipedia!!!!
IPSEC *can* encrypt message payloads -- IT DOESN'T HAVE TO!!!!
You can get access control, packet integrity, and origin authentication (e.g. to prevent man-in-the-middle replays or to prevent later denial that an access was made) all without encrypting the message payload.
I've done it. I've used it. I've verified that it works -- even between Linux and Windows computers. It's not *easy* but then no one ever said it had to be easy. That's where the "self-training" part of the definition of the Amateur Service comes into play.
You two are quite a pair. Both of you whining about me not knowing what I am talking about when it is obvious that all *YOU* two know is what the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on IPSEC says.
ROFL!!
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KC9EOT on May 8, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why are you arguing about this anyway. When I posted this I never mentioned encryption of anything. I am just talking about a means of transmitting what we do now in a faster mode and in a means similar to the internet. I dont propose it to be used like the present internet as that also include buying and selling, encryption of data and things that we really shouldn't be doing; But a means to transfer a radar image to something the field on the HF band and do so in seconds in a reliable manner could be helpful if you are sitting in an area and dont know where a tornado threat is and AB you still dont undertand.
|
| |
|
RE: Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by AB0WR on May 9, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
kc9eot:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Why are you arguing about this anyway. When I posted this I never mentioned encryption of anything. I am just talking about a means of transmitting what we do now in a faster mode and in a means similar to the internet. I dont propose it to be used like the present internet as that also include buying and selling, encryption of data and things that we really shouldn't be doing; But a means to transfer a radar image to something the field on the HF band and do so in seconds in a reliable manner could be helpful if you are sitting in an area and dont know where a tornado threat is and AB you still dont undertand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BANDWIDTH, man, BANDWIDTH!
Transferring a radar image in seconds on HF requires BANDWIDTH!
As several people have tried to point out, there just isn't enough bandwidth to do what you want.
I tried to show you how today's multiple tone signals work. Can you tell us what the bandwidth of a single tone being keyed with a 1000hz clock is? How close can you put two tones being keyed at 1000hz based on this bandwidth?
You simply cannot arbitrarily squeeze multiple tones together to decrease bandwidth while also increasing the clock frequency keying each tone in order to increase data throughput -- which is what you proposed. Today's multiple tone signals like Olivia are "squeezed" just about as far as is possible.
You can continue to rail about me not understanding but that does not, in any way, make what you propose any more doable. Rather than complain about me pointing out the inconvenient truths of physics you would be better off to actually go take a look at those rules of physics.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
Amateur Internet
|
|
|
by KB9MWR on May 10, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Harry,
As pointed out the concept of a backup wireless intranet on ham radio frequencies has been around for a long time dating back to the 1970's and 80's.
It was originally referred to as the AMPR net.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet
Many state-wide 1200-9600 baud packet networks were setup. Many of them used X1J-4 (or other) nodes capable of not only AX.25 but also TCP/IP. Some of the bigger cities had 56k GRAPES radio modems.
As you point out, there is more and more "online" reliance these days. So the vandal story you point out should be an eye opener.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10216151-94.html
There was also a denial of service attack on the root DNS servers a few years back that comes to mind.
When the Minneapolis 35W bridge collapsed, a private funded wifi network came in handy:
http://kb9mwr.blogspot.com/2009/02/minneapolis-wi-fi-network-aids-rescuers.html
Here is an example of some hams who realize that such an "amateur internet/intranet" is just what needs to be setup:
http://kb9mwr.blogspot.com/2009/04/wisconsin-amateur-radio-club-digital.html
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Wrong Side of the Gate
Emergency Power -- Survival Style
Hams Get Some Credit:
EMCOMM Training Options
Heat, Wind, Smoke and Fire
Other Opinion Articles
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
40 Meters -- What Are You Doing?
|
