Eric,
I applaud your intent. But, as far as I can tell, there are several major
issues with what you're saying:
1) The FCC rules push me to NOT use amateur bands for data. Any
application that is actually useful is going to be something that
communicate with non-hams, too. Look at the popularity of WL2K. But Part
97 prohibits traffic from being automatically forwarded if it was originated
by a 3rd party. So I can send an email to my grandmother. But she can't
send me a message if delivering it would require automatic forwarding (such
as between JNOS BBSs) over an amateur frequency to reach me. So that means
I need a non-amateur network path to every machine. So we're working on
that, including using 5.8G consumer stuff. But, gee whiz, once that's done,
and I've got a few Mbps between each system, (and it's encrypted to boot!)
why use the amateur frequencies at all?
In my mind, studying for and getting an amateur radio license should give
you MORE privileges. And sure, we get access to more frequencies, but we're
highly restricted on what we can do with them. It's like giving a kid a new
bike and then telling him he can only use it in the driveway. What's the
point?
2) Can't get there from here. Here in silicon valley, 900 is pretty
worthless - much too noisy. 2.4 is very crowded. It's hard to get enough
S/N to rise above the noise floor. We shoot point-to-point 5.8G links using
5 degree dishes to give us enough S/N. Sector antennas just didn't work.
But we can't use 5.8G at 2 of our locations because trees obstruct the path.
Anything higher in frequency would be even worse.
3) COTS is available? I don't think so. Not really in any useful,
accessible way. We use the Ubiquity stuff on 5.8G. I don't want to make
any modifications that will void a warranty. (Actually, I don't want to
dink around with hardware modifications anyway.) But even if that is
possible, see problem #1. What would be the point unless it's just to talk
to the other hams that have done the same thing? In all of silicon valley
-- a few million people -- I can probably count the number of hams with the
time and desire to do that on one hand.
Now, lest you think I'm just a nay-sayer - you can see what we do here:
http://www.scc-ares-races.org/packet.html
I'm the sysop for 6 JNOS BBSs, including the gateways and other network
stuff. I authored most of the content on the above web page and the pages
it links to. (That page doesn't mention the email gateway services we're
about to roll out).
I think focusing on the technology is the wrong thing to do. Figure out
what application you want to enable and then solve that problem. For our
county, our application was mostly emcomm and the ability to locate anywhere
in the county (literally anywhere, with or without power, with or without
Internet) and be able to send/receive text and forms data. The county uses
several ICS-type forms. City CERT orgs send damage report summary forms.
The hospitals have several forms they use. It's a really big deal for them.
That's all made possible by custom software written by several folks here.
So, what is the application that will drive more AMPRnet use? Honestly,
because of #1 above, I don't think there is one! ;-(
But hey, if anyone has ideas, I'm always looking for the next thing.
Michael
N6MEF
-----Original Message-----
Again I ask why are the higher bands not as attractive?
Readily available
COTS Gear is available for 900Mhz, 2.4GHz, 3.4Ghz, 5.7Ghz, 10Ghz, & 24Ghz.
We ought to be looking to fill 5.7, 10, & 24 to the point that we can
show value in being there. it is our non use of these bands that makes
them easy targets for reallocation and takeover. Try reallocating for
instance the 2M Band in a major metropolitan city, you'd have an
uproar, but the middle microwave bands, easy chicken, egg.
Eric
AF6EP