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
Michael, Why use the ham freq two words low noise floor. Ok three words watts!
on Ch 0, -1 and i think -2 of 2.4 are in the ham band the noise floor is very low I mean dead low. As for 5ghz I dont have the freq in front of me but there are several other ham only areas that can be covered. and most important power can over come noise floor any day of the week. Wick up that power to 10watts input to a 18dbd pannel and a simmilar setup on the other end and you are "cooking with gas" ok maybe radio waves if the stray bird chooses to sit infront of the dish on the other end. Of course you can go to 100watts input with power control. As far as crypto goes my understanding is that the FCC is allows hams to use a published key for example the one the ARRL can issue for their log software. (as discussed here).
BTW the old firmware of the ubiquity stuff would let you do compliance mode aka 4-6ghz.
Lin
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF n6mef@mefox.org wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Eric,
I applaud your intent. But, as far as I can tell, there are several major issues with what you're saying:
- 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?
- 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.
- 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
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
Right. But if I use ham frequencies, I still have problem #1 that I mentioned, which is that I can't freely communicate with anyone other than a local ham who has also installed the same custom stuff. And that population is very, VERY small. See: Part 97.109(e) Part 97.115 Part 97.219 So that rules out pretty much all inbound traffic over amateur frequencies from all 3rd parties and, to the usual extent, outbound traffic to some 3rd parties -- those in countries where we don't have the right agreements in place. So, what applications can I run over ham frequencies? Can I create an email gateway that automatically forwards inbound email from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. (That's why WL2K has the limitations is has.) Can I put up a web server that forwards inbound traffic from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. ..., etc., etc.
So, bottom line, I spend the time, money and effort to make mods to OTS stuff so I can use more power and get a better S/N. Great. Now what? I can talk to maybe one or two other guys in the area.
Hams are notorious for thinking of the frequencies and boxes and technology first. But if you think about what you can do with it first, you find that there's not much we're allowed to do with it except talk to ourselves.
It's like my bicycle example: Everyone else gets to ride a 10-speed bike anywhere they want. If we earn our license, we get to use a 20-speed bike with a jet engine strapped on the back. But we can only use it in our driveway. It's cool but not useful. To accomplish anything useful, I still need the 10-speed bike.
Sorry to be a kill-joy, but I'm honestly looking for real, useful, deployable applications that would drive more amateur usage, particularly for amprnet. But I haven't seen one yet.
Michael N6MEF
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+n6mef=mefox.org@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lin Holcomb Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:47 AM To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] Use of higher bands
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Michael, Why use the ham freq two words low noise floor. Ok three words watts!
on Ch 0, -1 and i think -2 of 2.4 are in the ham band the noise floor is very low I mean dead low. As for 5ghz I dont have the freq in front of me but there are several other ham only areas that can be covered. and most important power can over come noise floor any day of the week. Wick up that power to 10watts input to a 18dbd pannel and a simmilar setup on the other end and you are "cooking with gas" ok maybe radio waves if the stray bird chooses to sit infront of the dish on the other end. Of course you can go to 100watts input with power control. As far as crypto goes my understanding is that the FCC is allows hams to use a published key for example the one the ARRL can issue for their log software. (as discussed here).
BTW the old firmware of the ubiquity stuff would let you do compliance mode aka 4-6ghz.
Lin
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF n6mef@mefox.org wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Eric,
I applaud your intent. But, as far as I can tell, there are several major issues with what you're saying:
- 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? [clipped]
An application that is useful and worthhile (and allowed everywhere, I guess), besides emergency situations when everything is allowed, is environment monitoring. Collecting data that are made publicly available for anyone to use. Important but not that much data. Upstream connections from remotely located sensor networks.
Bjorn/SA0BXI
On 07/08/2013 09:40 PM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Right. But if I use ham frequencies, I still have problem #1 that I mentioned, which is that I can't freely communicate with anyone other than a local ham who has also installed the same custom stuff. And that population is very, VERY small. See: Part 97.109(e) Part 97.115 Part 97.219 So that rules out pretty much all inbound traffic over amateur frequencies from all 3rd parties and, to the usual extent, outbound traffic to some 3rd parties -- those in countries where we don't have the right agreements in place. So, what applications can I run over ham frequencies? Can I create an email gateway that automatically forwards inbound email from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. (That's why WL2K has the limitations is has.) Can I put up a web server that forwards inbound traffic from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. ..., etc., etc.
Bjorn,
Same problem, at least here in the States. If I use ham frequencies to transmit the data to a site that has Internet access, then that's fine. The public access wouldn't use the ham frequencies. But we can't allow the public to access the systems across amateur frequencies. That's not allowed by our FCC rules.
Also, as you mention, I would think that collecting environmental monitoring telemetry is a fairly low-bandwidth activity and the locations are usually not places where you could or would want to put up a tower and dish, etc. for clear line-of-site in the GHz range. I'm guessing that a lower power VHF solution that's much more forgiving of line-of-site issues, much less visually intrusive, and would probably make more sense for that application.
This discussion started with someone suggesting the use of the higher bands to get higher bandwidths so we could drive more usage with better applications. I'm all for it. But I'm hoping we can come up with what those applications are.
Michael N6MEF
-----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Pehrson [mailto:bpehrson@kth.se] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:58 PM To: AMPRNet working group; Michael E. Fox - N6MEF Subject: Re: [44net] Use of higher bands
An application that is useful and worthhile (and allowed everywhere, I guess), besides emergency situations when everything is allowed, is environment monitoring. Collecting data that are made publicly available for anyone to use. Important but not that much data. Upstream connections from remotely located sensor networks.
Bjorn/SA0BXI
On 07/08/2013 09:40 PM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Right. But if I use ham frequencies, I still have problem #1 that I mentioned, which is that I can't freely communicate with anyone other than a local ham who has also installed the same custom stuff. And that population is very, VERY small. See: Part 97.109(e) Part 97.115 Part 97.219 So that rules out pretty much all inbound traffic over amateur frequencies from all 3rd parties and, to the usual extent, outbound traffic to some 3rd parties -- those in countries where we don't have the right agreements in place. So, what applications can I run over ham frequencies? Can I create an email gateway that automatically forwards inbound email from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. (That's why WL2K has the limitations is has.) Can I put up a web server that forwards inbound traffic from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. ..., etc., etc.
What I meant was to give an example of an "outbound traffic" application since inbound traffic is controversial. You are of course right, that upstream connections from the individual remote nodes are lower frequency applications, but when aggregating towards the central repository, the data volumes build up. I guess there must be other outbound traffic applications of a similar nature where amateurs can be useful, e.g densifiction of the grids of websdr, wspr, radio telescopes, etc
And after all, to allow both in and outbound traffic applications between radioamateurs over the world is just a matter of putting proper authentication and authorization mechanisms in place, right?. I guess Echolink has accomplished that in a sense already although their method is a bit too manual. The academic world has accomplished this via grids, science gateways, certification and Identity provider authourities, etc. Like eduroam, edugain, etc.
Would that be a way to go?
On 07/08/2013 10:17 PM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Bjorn,
Same problem, at least here in the States. If I use ham frequencies to transmit the data to a site that has Internet access, then that's fine. The public access wouldn't use the ham frequencies. But we can't allow the public to access the systems across amateur frequencies. That's not allowed by our FCC rules.
Also, as you mention, I would think that collecting environmental monitoring telemetry is a fairly low-bandwidth activity and the locations are usually not places where you could or would want to put up a tower and dish, etc. for clear line-of-site in the GHz range. I'm guessing that a lower power VHF solution that's much more forgiving of line-of-site issues, much less visually intrusive, and would probably make more sense for that application.
This discussion started with someone suggesting the use of the higher bands to get higher bandwidths so we could drive more usage with better applications. I'm all for it. But I'm hoping we can come up with what those applications are.
Michael N6MEF
-----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Pehrson [mailto:bpehrson@kth.se] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 12:58 PM To: AMPRNet working group; Michael E. Fox - N6MEF Subject: Re: [44net] Use of higher bands
An application that is useful and worthhile (and allowed everywhere, I guess), besides emergency situations when everything is allowed, is environment monitoring. Collecting data that are made publicly available for anyone to use. Important but not that much data. Upstream connections from remotely located sensor networks.
Bjorn/SA0BXI
On 07/08/2013 09:40 PM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Right. But if I use ham frequencies, I still have problem #1 that I mentioned, which is that I can't freely communicate with anyone other than a local ham who has also installed the same custom stuff. And that population is very, VERY small. See: Part 97.109(e) Part 97.115 Part 97.219 So that rules out pretty much all inbound traffic over amateur frequencies from all 3rd parties and, to the usual extent, outbound traffic to some 3rd parties -- those in countries where we don't have the right agreements in place. So, what applications can I run over ham frequencies? Can I create an email gateway that automatically forwards inbound email from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. (That's why WL2K has the limitations is has.) Can I put up a web server that forwards inbound traffic from the Internet over ham frequencies? No. ..., etc., etc.
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html .
What I meant was to give an example of an "outbound traffic" application since inbound traffic is controversial. You are of course right, that upstream connections from the individual remote nodes are lower frequency applications, but when aggregating towards the central repository, the data volumes build up. I guess there must be other outbound traffic applications of a similar nature where amateurs can be useful, e.g densifiction of the grids of websdr, wspr, radio telescopes, etc
And after all, to allow both in and outbound traffic applications between radioamateurs over the world is just a matter of putting proper authentication and authorization mechanisms in place, right?. I guess Echolink has accomplished that in a sense already although their method is a bit too manual. The academic world has accomplished this via grids, science gateways, certification and Identity provider authourities, etc. Like eduroam, edugain, etc.
Would that be a way to go?
On 07/08/2013 10:17 PM, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Bjorn,
Same problem, at least here in the States. If I use ham frequencies to transmit the data to a site that has Internet access, then that's fine. The public access wouldn't use the ham frequencies. But we can't allow the public to access the systems across amateur frequencies. That's not allowed by our FCC rules.
Also, as you mention, I would think that collecting environmental monitoring telemetry is a fairly low-bandwidth activity and the locations are usually not places where you could or would want to put up a tower and dish, etc. for clear line-of-site in the GHz range. I'm guessing that a lower power VHF solution that's much more forgiving of line-of-site issues, much less visually intrusive, and would probably make more sense for that application.
This discussion started with someone suggesting the use of the higher bands to get higher bandwidths so we could drive more usage with better applications. I'm all for it. But I'm hoping we can come up with what those applications are.
Michael N6MEF
Op 08-07-13 21:40, Michael E. Fox - N6MEF schreef:
Hams are notorious for thinking of the frequencies and boxes and technology first. But if you think about what you can do with it first, you find that there's not much we're allowed to do with it except talk to ourselves.
It's like my bicycle example: Everyone else gets to ride a 10-speed bike anywhere they want. If we earn our license, we get to use a 20-speed bike with a jet engine strapped on the back. But we can only use it in our driveway. It's cool but not useful. To accomplish anything useful, I still need the 10-speed bike.
Sorry to be a kill-joy, but I'm honestly looking for real, useful, deployable applications that would drive more amateur usage, particularly for amprnet. But I haven't seen one yet.
Michael N6MEF
It's a common problem, not so much with the rules but more with intend of the hams, many have become frequentie users and not experiementers. if the experiment is the goal then the use doesn't matter anymore.
Compare it with contests, they have zero use, the only thing that matters is the number of contacts.
73 Andre PE1RDW
I can only subscribe to Michaels statements. Let's be realistic: our current infrastructure is obsolete at best and we make insufficient use of what we have because of high speed internet. Let's not oppose the internet. Let's use it.
And I reiterate the idea:
A cloud setup on ampr addresses for ampr users only. Connection modes and means are irelevant. Tunnels, ax25 links, whatever you want...
But this can work on existent infrastructure, use the internet fully (by encapsulation), be limited to hams only (e.g. by means of src address filtering) and raise no issuses about cryptology and other stuff. And it would be an encentive for other hams to join the ampr network (over internet if they like...).
-----Original Message----- From: 44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+marius=yo2loj.ro@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael E. Fox - N6MEF Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 22:41 To: 'AMPRNet working group' Subject: Re: [44net] Use of higher bands
Sorry to be a kill-joy, but I'm honestly looking for real, useful, deployable applications that would drive more amateur usage, particularly for amprnet. But I haven't seen one yet.
Michael N6MEF
_________________________________________
Greetings,
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013, Marius Petrescu wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ I can only subscribe to Michaels statements. Let's be realistic: our current infrastructure is obsolete at best and we make insufficient use of what we have because of high speed internet.
As Tom Clark W3IWI said a couple decades ago with regard to Packet Radio...
"The trouble with Packet Radio is the RADIO"
Let's not oppose the internet. Let's use it.
And I reiterate the idea:
A cloud setup on ampr addresses for ampr users only. Connection modes and means are irelevant. Tunnels, ax25 links, whatever you want...
But this can work on existent infrastructure, use the internet fully (by encapsulation), be limited to hams only (e.g. by means of src address filtering) and raise no issuses about cryptology and other stuff. And it would be an encentive for other hams to join the ampr network (over internet if they like...).
That is what we do here in Michigan. We have had as many as 22 "HamGates" deployed throughout the state, all interlinked using IPIP Encap (Protocol-4) through the Internet. Some nodes hung off other nodes where necessary, so did not have "fully meshed" routing. A few others were hung off Hamgates via RF only. But the vast majority of longer-range connctivity was via Internet encap routes.
It is all Catch-22, as they will not come and join the network unless there is already a network worth connecting to. As in Field of Dreams - If you build it, they will come...
--- Jay WB8TKL o Chair, ARRL Michigan Section "Digital Radio Group" (DRG) [www.mi-drg.org]
-
Bjorn Pehrson -
Jay Nugent -
Lin Holcomb -
Marius Petrescu -
Michael E. Fox - N6MEF -
PE1RDW