Large-Scale Packet Radio Networking

A large-scale packet network is, more than anything, a social entity. Sure, there's lots of hardware, but the most important component is the people. The key to success here is to match up that social group's structure and attitudes with it's goals, starting off with an unblinking analysis of just exactly what those goals are.

This matching of attitudes with goals needs to be adjusted in all cases I've seen here in the US, as virtually all of our digital ham organizations are patterned after the familiar repeater clubs that hams have had going for quite some time. Unfortunately though, when the "repeater club" organizational model is applied to the design, building and maintainence of a large-scale Packet Radio network, several serious problems inevitably develop. As time goes by, these problems tend to get worse instead of better.

For example; Ask any packet networker who's been at it for a while, and he will tell you tales of burnout that bring slow, lingering death to mind. A few key people end up doing most of the work and footing the bill, and everybody else is just along for the ride, complaining as they go.

That's a great system if you are only planning on putting up a few repeaters and need individual supervision of each installation, but I believe it is universally recognized now that it just doesn't work well for large-scale digital networks.

Once the initial growth spurt peters out, things start going to the dogs in a hurry. Those few key people lose interest or move on to other things, and the entire structure is placed in danger of falling apart.

This degeneration is pretty well inevitable, because those "key people" are the same ones I mentioned earlier, who do most of the work and foot most of the bill, while everybody else carps and complains about them. After a while they simply burn out, and finding new "victims" to take that hellish road in their place is not as easy as it used to be.

Clearly, a different way of doing things needs to be looked into.

It's my feeling that there is a need to work on a model for setting up and staffing an organization dedicated to building, developing and maintaining a large-scale digital ham radio network.

What specialized jobs besides "network manager" might be needed in order for the network to function as efficiently, effectively and smoothly as possible?

One function that is regularly overlooked is a Funding Czar. Most ham organizations get along just fine by collecting reasonable dues or maybe having an occasional event such as a Ham-Fest in order to put a little something in the kitty. An organization that intends to run and maintain a large-scale ham digital net needs to take funding a little more seriously than that, though.

Setting up a small cluster of local repeaters and running an digital RF network with a 600 mile footprint are two entirely different things. We need to recognize that fact and act accordingly.

A funding Czar's main job would be to oversee the operation of a non-profit organization. As with all non-profit organizations, it's main purpose would be to generate funding and materials in order to perform a public service. (emergency communications, education, and scientific research, in this case) For this reason, a professional should be hired and told that he will be generating his own salary. Work out a legal and satisfactory cut, familiarize him with your needs and goals, and then turn him loose.

There are numerous ways for non-profits to generate funds, including accepting donations of radio equipment and even towers/tower space from local corporations and government agencies that are upgrading to new equipment. You get a stack of UHF Micors and rolls of used but good heliax, while they get a tax write-off for the market value of the equipment without having to market it.

There's no need to mention, I suppose, that when they have to market that old stuff they hardly ever get a decent fraction of the market value?

Once you have obtained this donated equipment, sell it all to your in-house networkers at a bargain price, or to other hams at the regular street price. That is, if you need money more than radios.

Why not pay a few folks to clean up, recrystal and calibrate that stack of rigs, each matched up with a modem or TNC for true "plug 'n play" medium to high speed networking that can be done without requiring a service monitor and technician at each node site?

Doing this eases the "expert burnout" problem quite handily, and puts you in a good position to have ready spares on hand for rapid repair of a node that develops trouble. Just jerk out the whole setup and replace it with a new, perfectly calibrated one and put the malfunctioning modem/radio pair in the junk pile for parts or for possible realignment/repair. An appliance operator job. No burnout.

Since you can now afford to; Build parallel, redundant links so that the loss of one node will not interrupt service, instead only slowing things down a bit until it can be replaced or repaired.

Bulletproof your network; Go solar. Arrainge things so that when the phones, the Internet, and cellular are down and out, or pre-empted by FEMA, your independent digital Ham Radio network is still (as always) ready to do it's job.

And so on...

Besides the simple fact that a large-scale Packet network is going to require much better funding and distribution of labor than we have previously attempted in order to work well, we should also keep in mind the fact that a digital network cannot simply be passed on from hand to hand like a repeater site. Long-term node site usage by the organization should be sought, not short time use arrainged by individuals.

Donated tower space may or may not be tax deductable, but in any case it will always be a "bragging point", generating good will. A legitimate non-profit organization can negotiate long-term, wide-scale tower access deals with government or commercial entities that control access to many towers, not just one or two.

How about a "equipment coordinator", who ships the replacement radio/modem pairs off to wherever they need to be, and assists the node-ops with technical questions over the phone or e-mail? The beauty of standardized equipment is that troubleshooting becomes routine enough that most common problems and their cures are well documented and fairly easy for non-experts to deal with.

There are, of course, disadvantages inherent in having an organization supply the equipment to be used for a digital network, but these are outweighed or at least balanced by a number of advantages which networkers here in the US have never enjoyed in the past and so are not aware of.

Effective spectrum management, standardization of equipment and software, and reliable management of resources are currently virtually unknown in most US APR digital networking organizations.

Let's get serious! Think Large-Scale!

73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL

 

Sounds good to me. I have plenty of packet radio equipment that I would love to put to good use if there was enough local interest.

73,
Alex/AB0TJ

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ May 12 2002,08:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A large-scale packet network is, more than anything, a social entity. Sure, there's lots of hardware, but the most important component is the people. The key to success here is to match up that social group's structure and attitudes with it's goals, starting off with an unblinking analysis of just exactly what those goals are.

This matching of attitudes with goals needs to be adjusted in all cases I've seen here in the US, as virtually all of our digital ham organizations are patterned after the familiar repeater clubs that hams have had going for quite some time. Unfortunately though, when the "repeater club" organizational model is applied to the design, building and maintainence of a large-scale Packet Radio network, several serious problems inevitably develop. As time goes by, these problems tend to get worse instead of better.

For example; Ask any packet networker who's been at it for a while, and he will tell you tales of burnout that bring slow, lingering death to mind. A few key people end up doing most of the work and footing the bill, and everybody else is just along for the ride, complaining as they go.

That's a great system if you are only planning on putting up a few repeaters and need individual supervision of each installation, but I believe it is universally recognized now that it just doesn't work well for large-scale digital networks.

Once the initial growth spurt peters out, things start going to the dogs in a hurry. Those few key people lose interest or move on to other things, and the entire structure is placed in danger of falling apart.

This degeneration is pretty well inevitable, because those "key people" are the same ones I mentioned earlier, who do most of the work and foot most of the bill, while everybody else carps and complains about them. After a while they simply burn out, and finding new "victims" to take that hellish road in their place is not as easy as it used to be.

Clearly, a different way of doing things needs to be looked into.

It's my feeling that there is a need to work on a model for setting up and staffing an organization dedicated to building, developing and maintaining a large-scale digital ham radio network.

What specialized jobs besides "network manager" might be needed in order for the network to function as efficiently, effectively and smoothly as possible?

One function that is regularly overlooked is a Funding Czar. Most ham organizations get along just fine by collecting reasonable dues or maybe having an occasional event such as a Ham-Fest in order to put a little something in the kitty. An organization that intends to run and maintain a large-scale ham digital net needs to take funding a little more seriously than that, though.

Setting up a small cluster of local repeaters and running an digital RF network with a 600 mile footprint are two entirely different things. We need to recognize that fact and act accordingly.

A funding Czar's main job would be to oversee the operation of a non-profit organization. As with all non-profit organizations, it's main purpose would be to generate funding and materials in order to perform a public service. (emergency communications, education, and scientific research, in this case) For this reason, a professional should be hired and told that he will be generating his own salary. Work out a legal and satisfactory cut, familiarize him with your needs and goals, and then turn him loose.

There are numerous ways for non-profits to generate funds, including accepting donations of radio equipment and even towers/tower space from local corporations and government agencies that are upgrading to new equipment. You get a stack of UHF Micors and rolls of used but good heliax, while they get a tax write-off for the market value of the equipment without having to market it.

There's no need to mention, I suppose, that when they have to market that old stuff they hardly ever get a decent fraction of the market value?

Once you have obtained this donated equipment, sell it all to your in-house networkers at a bargain price, or to other hams at the regular street price. That is, if you need money more than radios.

Why not pay a few folks to clean up, recrystal and calibrate that stack of rigs, each matched up with a modem or TNC for true "plug 'n play" medium to high speed networking that can be done without requiring a service monitor and technician at each node site?

Doing this eases the "expert burnout" problem quite handily, and puts you in a good position to have ready spares on hand for rapid repair of a node that develops trouble. Just jerk out the whole setup and replace it with a new, perfectly calibrated one and put the malfunctioning modem/radio pair in the junk pile for parts or for possible realignment/repair. An appliance operator job. No burnout.

Since you can now afford to; Build parallel, redundant links so that the loss of one node will not interrupt service, instead only slowing things down a bit until it can be replaced or repaired.

Bulletproof your network; Go solar. Arrainge things so that when the phones, the Internet, and cellular are down and out, or pre-empted by FEMA, your independent digital Ham Radio network is still (as always) ready to do it's job.

And so on...

Besides the simple fact that a large-scale Packet network is going to require much better funding and distribution of labor than we have previously attempted in order to work well, we should also keep in mind the fact that a digital network cannot simply be passed on from hand to hand like a repeater site. Long-term node site usage by the organization should be sought, not short time use arrainged by individuals.

Donated tower space may or may not be tax deductable, but in any case it will always be a "bragging point", generating good will. A legitimate non-profit organization can negotiate long-term, wide-scale tower access deals with government or commercial entities that control access to many towers, not just one or two.

How about a "equipment coordinator", who ships the replacement radio/modem pairs off to wherever they need to be, and assists the node-ops with technical questions over the phone or e-mail? The beauty of standardized equipment is that troubleshooting becomes routine enough that most common problems and their cures are well documented and fairly easy for non-experts to deal with.

There are, of course, disadvantages inherent in having an organization supply the equipment to be used for a digital network, but these are outweighed or at least balanced by a number of advantages which networkers here in the US have never enjoyed in the past and so are not aware of.

Effective spectrum management, standardization of equipment and software, and reliable management of resources are currently virtually unknown in most US APR digital networking organizations.

Let's get serious! Think Large-Scale!

73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree 101 percent with everything that is said...bravo! my sentiments exactly....a couple of months back i had placed an ad in the forum about us diehards out here in Northern California that are striving to keep packet radio alive, well? the input i'd gotten out of it was basically the internet had killed packet radio communications...okay what would happen in a diasaster...okay lets say a major flood ran amuck through a city, uhhh phone lines and dsl don't really work that great under water....neither will that pop server, but a good old lap-top, rig and tnc can provide a great form of "emergency communications". Most mountain top sites do have emergency power so most nodes will keep running. we should pay close considerations to the "what if's"....73 de N7SCQ (node op sacto n7scq-1 and solano n7scq-2 nodes)

 

Great topic.

I've long been an advocate of large scale digital networking. Japan seems to be a bit ahead of the US in this regard. High-speed wireless data networking is commonplace there, whereas it is almost unkown here in the states.

The statement that the internet destroyed ham radio data is often used but I think, if it is true, is very unfortunate. The internet, like the telephone, is a wired way to communicate. The core concept of ham radio is that it is wireLESS! All the advantages of wireless-ness (portability, access in case of disaster, freedom from ISP's and their fee structures, etc etc) are there with radio, and not with the wireline.

There is a thrill in doing things in a wireless manner (or else we wouldn't be in this hobby&#33. Wireless data is an area of experimentation which ham radio seldom uses, except in some degree with weak signal work (PSK31, WSJT come to mind). With the increase in mobile operators and backpack-dxing, a wireless network becomes very valuable and increases the enjoyment of the hobby many times.

I agree there needs to be some form of official body to create and maintain something like this, much like the repeater orgs. I think there is interest out there, but people don't see anything new happening and so their packet stuff is just collecting dust right now! I for one would be willing to put my time and effort into helping to grow such a network & promote data in the hobby. But I have to say, I'd much rather put support into a high speed (mega-bit style) service than strictly an array of old 1200 BPS ancient packet modems! I think we can do better than that.

73s,
Bert

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wf7i @ May 14 2002,20:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Great topic.
<SNIP>



</SNIP>
I agree there needs to be some form of official body to create and maintain something like this, much like the repeater orgs.  I think there is interest out there, but people don't see anything new happening and so their packet stuff is just collecting dust right now!  I for one would be willing to put my time and effort into helping to grow such a network & promote data in the hobby.  But I have to say, I'd much rather put support into a high speed (mega-bit style) service than strictly an array of old 1200 BPS ancient packet modems!  I think we can do better than that.

73s,
Bert  [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I second the higher speed idea. at least 19.2kbps access to the backbone would barely just be viable in this day and age. I'd opt to build a infrastructure of 2.4ghz stuff, that can be upgraded later, however, 900mhz is much more robust without line of sight, and may be better for backpacking.

an alternative to infrastructure, is a "satellite-like" setup... as some may have seen on the cover of Nuts & Volts a while back last year, the Giant Self Sustaining, SOLAR WING, bwaaahahahaha... at about a quarter mile long, it is thought to be possible to circle high above in the atmosphere and run radio equipment as well..... compared to launching something into space... this seems like it's within reach of say, and organized group of individuals, to obtain, launch, and maintain something of this magnitude. then it would be one device, at very high speed, serving and area hundreds of miles around, perhaps thousands on some frequencies. of course this would be a massive undertaking, even for hundreds of investors, considering it's potential for return being slim... to nil. i can't immagine it can power too much equipment, and still maintain it's "orbit" perhaps by that grateful day, power systems will be more efficient.

the way i see it, a 50,000 foot tower never existed so cheap before. of course it's all experimental, but i have an idea or two i'd like to try, but only will work i think with the advent of anti-matter or the release of cold fusion energy sources. kinda defeats the purpose then.

73/88

 

Speed limitations due to FCC rules, lack of off the self equipment, By the time 9600
baud plug and play was available, packet was dead Even then 9600 baud is not fast
with the exception of short message and chit chat, the packet networks were pretty
worthless.

The internet didnt help, high speed, 56K modems were the norm, images, large
programs/files being passwd over the internet then you have to convince someone
they are going to go 9600 and are very limited on what and how much they can
send..

If you want a large scale network then skip the amateur freq and head to 802.11 wirless.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n8emr @ May 15 2002,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want a large scale network then skip the amateur freq and head to 802.11 wirless.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, but in my experience, it has proven to be impractical to build a large-scale RF network with nodes situated one mile apart. You'd be doing good to get across town, much less across a county or a state.

The large-scale net I worked with in the past covered three states, including most of Texas. (Except the desert and high plains, of course... Nobody there.) That's a large-scale packet network, just for reference.

The primary reason that 802.11 wireless, and other high-speed systems do not fly is that they are not practical. Hams have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the "baud rate race" paradigm though, that practicality rarely if ever enters the discussion, once high-speed packet becomes a part of it.

Over the last decade, I have read close to a thousand posts like yours on different reflectors and usenet groups. - The only problem is that NONE of those folks with helpful "Well, why don't ya" suggestions involving high-speed systems have come up with anything tangible and usable.

Not a single one has come up with anything USABLE.  - And by usable, I do not mean "usable in theory" vapor systems, or "usable if you are a rich electrical engineer" vapor systems. I mean practical, usable stuff that Hams can and will use. That's what works. The vapor stuff - is vapor.

It seems to me that most of these advocates of "vapor" high-speed packet are really more interested in discouraging Hams from working with what is proven to work - Medium and low speed packet - than they are in seeing the U.S. have a digital network again. They'll say it themselves - "If it's not high-speed, it's not worth doing".

That kind of negativity has to go.

You know, there is certainly nothing wrong with trying to speed up our network, but that's kind of hard to do when we don't have a network. The idea of achieving "critical mass" BEFORE you build network for that critical mass to build up in has returned the results we are living with today. - Loss of what we had, with nothing as good or better to replace it.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

In Europe, and (I am happy to hear) in Japan, the Hams there have high-speed networks in place right now. In neither of these two sucessful cases though, did they abandon thier 1.2 kb network, as we did in the U.S.. Instead, they upgraded and improved low-speed network that was already in place, and functional. After a while, it wasn't low-speed anymore.

The one active, growing packet net in the U.S. today started off from the dregs of a low-speed net that was a little slower than most to fold up and die. The organization that originally built that network (NEDA) actually did die. - But Hams in that area shut out the non-ham links from what they had left, along with most of the "baud rate race" ranters that go along with that, and guess what? They upgraded and installed over 80 nodes in less than three years.

AND once that network was again basically functional, they started sneaking in high-speed links in critical spots, up to 19.2kb, unless they've done something new since last time I checked.

I go by results. - And the result we have had returned from the "baud rate race/IP only" paradigm is the loss of almost all of our basic infrastructure. We had a network - but now we don't. Thousands of difficult to arrainge node sites were lost, not just the nodes that were once located there. Now we have almost nothing, basically because Hams were discouraged (as they still are) from building network with practical tools and methods that are already proven to work.

Fact is, Hams have found many useful things to do with low-medium speed packet, most especially involving emergency communications and and messaging that does not require Internet access.

Most Hams agree that the single most enjoyable activity on packet though, are the "keyboard QSO's"... How fast can you type, by the way? 56kb? I'm just a "hunt 'n peck" typist, myself.

There are an amazing number of useful, fun things that Hams can and will do, given usable network to play with. - Including upgrading it, in logical and practical steps, to higher speed, so that even more applications become practical.

The 32-bit version of FlexNet, the packet software most often used in the European network, comes bundled with "Flextalk", a terminal that assumes that your network is fast enough for exchanging audio files over packet. ( Most access is 9.6kb there now, most backbones at 19.2 fulldup.)  If you don't throw away your network, and work to improve it instead, these are the kind of toys you end up playing with.

The ironic thing about this is that in all three of the successful networks I have mentioned, Hams are now using IP regularly and appear to enjoy doing so. We can't do that in most of the U.S., because we don't have a network anymore... It's been "vaporized".

That's why I think we should re-examine the entire "baud rate race / IP only" paradigm that has dominated the thinking of our "experts" here in the U.S., over the last decade.

That kind of thinking has taken us to where we are today. I think it's time to admit that the theory has not worked out, and go on back to doing things in the way the successful folks do.

Dust 'em off, fire 'em up.

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, but in my experience, it has proven to be impractical to build a large-scale RF network with nodes situated one mile apart. You'd be doing good to get across town, much less across a county or a state. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

In packet networks, you are better off splitting long, unreliable path links into multiple short, reliable links. Never put all your eggs in one basket - so to speak.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The primary reason that 802.11 wireless, and other high-speed systems do not fly is that they are not practical. Hams have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the "baud rate race" paradigm though, that practicality rarely if ever enters the discussion, once high-speed packet becomes a part of it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What is not practical about commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) radio technology?

For an amateur packet radio network to be able to do anything useful; send detailed weather reports with pictures, distribute photos of a missing child, transfer large amounts of data quickly - without error, you'd need a data link rate of around 56 kpbs. With FEC and other protocol overhead the physical data rate would need to be around 128 kbps, maybe even more. A backbone for this example network would need to be considerably faster.

If we have the ability to use something that is faster, and a heck of alot lower in cost, why not embrace it?

Links to more information:

Physical Layer Considerations in Building a High Speed Amateur Radio Network

Spread Spectrum Rule Recommendations

GBPPR

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n9zia @ May 16 2002,07<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is not practical about commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) radio technology?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

COTS radios are imminently practical!

Packet networkers very seldom use Ham Radio gear for packet nodes. The radios most commonly used for packet nodes are Motorolas, Johnsons, GE's, Standards, and so on.

For more details, see:

www.packetradio.com

Charles, N5PVL

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n5pvl @ May 16 2002,12:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n9zia @ May 16 2002,07<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is not practical about commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) radio technology?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

COTS radios are imminently practical!

Packet networkers very seldom use Ham Radio gear for packet nodes. The radios most commonly used for packet nodes are Motorolas, Johnsons, GE's, Standards, and so on.

For more details, see:

www.packetradio.com

Charles, N5PVL[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Packet networkers very seldom use Ham Radio gear for packet nodes. The radios most commonly used for packet nodes are Motorolas, Johnsons, GE's, Standards, and so on.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There's your first problem. Step off of the 1970's hardware. I've homebrewed better data radios then some of this commercial gear. Commerical manufactures only care about making money, not VCO lock time or overall efficiency.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">www.packetradio.com[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

There's your second problem. Everything on that site is 15 years old.

 

Precisely. Fifteen years.. That's just about how far "high-speed / IP only" has set the U.S. packet net back.

Because of this, packetradio.com is an excellent place to find info on the low/medium speed packet stuff that DOES work, and is workable for large numbers of Hams who already have the equipment, but no network to use it on. That makes it a great place to start, in putting things back to rights and once again advancing the hobby.

I will mention here that you appear to have much more of a "problem" than I do.

I'm suggesting that Hams do what is proven to work... You are suggesting that we do the "high-speed/ IP only" thing, and are obviously just raring to discourage anybody who suggests anything different.

Yes, I am aware of what has held back U.S. hams from having a packet network, the last ten years. Your attitude, and others like it.

The attitude is not worthy of Amateur Radio. A good Ham does not deliberately lessen the enjoyment of other Hams.

Since building low/medium speed networking will in no way slow down implementation of high-speed packet, and can in no way hold you back , your rudeness and active discouragement of other Hams with other ideas has no excuse. None whatsoever.

The low/medium stuff all happens on 2m, 440Mhz, and 6m, along with the HF bands. It is impossible to do high-speed on those bands due to bandwidth restrictions, so low speed / high speed are not even competing for spectrum. Your attitude is indefensable, there IS no excuse for that kind of rudeness to your fellow Hams.

The "high-speed / IP only" paradigm has provided zero results, even after ten years of being "politically correct", hawked at Ham-Com, Dayton, and in Ham magazines. Lots of publicity, lots of support, lots of enthusiasts that have produced zero results. No network.

I'm pushing what works, you're pushing what has consistently failed for over a decade...

Who has the problem?  Hmmm?

Somehow, your arrogant, rude post did not make me feel like I had a "problem".

Another Ham demonstrates the essential negativity and intolerance that is an essential part of the "high-speed / IP only" paradigm. - Along with a heavy dose of senseless, unnecessary rudeness.

(Yawn) It's OK, I've heard hundreds of "high-speed / IP only" rants. There are only four or five of them that are parroted over and over again,  so your rude and ugly reaction to the idea of Hams doing things in a different way than your own are quite familiar to me. It comes from fear, and insecurity. Can't blame you for that.

The ironic part is that my suggestion will eventually produce a high-speed (but maybe not IP) network, and yours, just like it has for ten years, will produce nothing.

The idea here is LARGE SCALE packet radio networking, not those pitiful little NOS LANS, hanging off the Internet like a parasite in order to have "connectivity", because when you try to link them with Ham Radio, they don't work.

Of course I may be wrong, and there may be a mysterious NOS LAN that uses all Ham Radio, and has a 600 mile footprint.

Show me your network, or step aside for somebody who DOES know how to achieve critical mass.

Charles, N5PVL

 

I have a TNC, software to run it, and an unused 2m rig. You tell me when there's someone to connect to and I'll get the power supply out. Deal?

1k2 is fine with me. It will be useful enough - except that one-way transmissions aren't overly legal.

Sign me up - when there's something to sign up to.

73,

Chris

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I have a TNC, software to run it, and an unused 2m rig.  You tell me when there's someone to connect to and I'll get the power supply out.  Deal?

1k2 is fine with me.  It will be useful enough - except that one-way transmissions aren't overly legal.

Sign me up - when there's something to sign up to.

73,

Chris
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a link, follow it and look at the network maps to see which nodes are in your immediate area.

http://www.northeastflexnet.org

The packet net in your area is the most advanced one in the U.S., and is the ONLY one still advancing and growing. - You lucky dawg!

Charles, N5PVL

 

Hams interested in implementing a large-scale (national?) network in the U.S. should shoot me an E-mail.

N5PVL@TSARC.NET

Charles, N5PVL

 

Charles,

so what is the deal with using 2.4 Ghz 802.11 ?

We could use cheap hardware that is available of the shelve. It also will show that hams use the spectrum in the that band. Again, use it or lose it.

Maybe even a mix of 802.11 and AX25 gateways, depending on the area and an email only restriction for emergencies, so 1200 baud can handle it.

Lotsa people have notebooks with WiFi cards already.

Just thinking...

Andreas, N6NU
Menlo Park, CA