| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 11.09.00 01:44l 186 Lines 7304 Bytes #999 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_244B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/244B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0GPP<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0ROT<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<
PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000911/0022Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:12335 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_244B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 00 22:34:21 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_244B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> news:un1hoie4z.fsf@harvee.billerica.ma.us...
> > Hans & Colleen Brakob <hhbrakob@pop.mpls.uswest.net> writes:
> >
> > > Horshitstew said:
> > >
> > > > Because they wouldn't be hamstrung by the Amateur
> > > > limiations on performing business, or freely
> > > > accessing the Internet. Those are HUGE
> > > > advantages.
> > >
> > > Classic non-sequiur.
> > >
> > > Advantages to whom? I don't know of any amateurs
> > > who want to perform business on the air, and
> > > since we all have nonrestricted access to the
> > > internet by other means, why would any technically
> > > aware person want to access it via amateur radio?
> >
> > providing a community high-speed Internet access by amateur
> > radio could be considered public service and justification for
> > spectrum.
>
> I'm a little confused how this might work. I assume by "high-speed"
> you mean faster than modem access, i.e. cable or xDSL speeds?
yep.
>
> > despite the corporate PR, in many communities there is no Internet
> > access other than via modem. This is particularly true in rural and
> > 2nd/third tier cities.
>
> How would the ham radio system access the internet, other than
> via modem?
leased lines silly :-)
>
> > developing, applying, and running higher-speed wireless Internet
> > services in the community would be welcome by significant portion of
> > the population. It could advance technical knowledge in the hobby. It
> > would be good PR. It would attract technical people into the
> > hobby. It would go a long way to changing the image of amateur radio
> > from a bunch of overweight, aging, white men with ugly towers in the
> > backyard playing with low-tech radios to something a little more
> > modern.
>
> So you suggest higher speeds than are available via modem?
> How would the hams get this higher speed access to the internet,
> so they could share it in the community?
>
> Try a simple example. 100 users in the community, online via
> high speed ham radio links. Let's assume 256kbps for the ham radio
> links, so they are at least a little faster than the modem dialups.
> That's 25.6 Mbps total bandwidth required of the ham radio links.
> However the ham radio system connects into the internet must
> supply this bandwidth. How could that be done? Who would pay?
yes, I am suggesting higher speeds than are available via modem. We
would use the same cost structure as an ISP in that you purchase
bandwidth in bulk and then oversell that bandwidth. Think of it as
buying shares in a T1. At any given moment how much bandwidth you get
is not guaranteed but can range from nothing to the full pipe. Part
of the appropriate use contract would be the ability to deny bandwidth
pigs or at least charged them more for using more data.
To use your example of 100 users in the community, the end-user link
would be 256 kilobits per second. Guaranteeing them the full
bandwidth all the time would be very expensive proposition. However,
if you purchase a T1, you can oversell a 256 kbps chunk of bandwidth
25 times which is a reasonable oversell factor for high-speed
service. This means, at worst you would get 10.24 kbits per second
which is slower than a modem but the condition would not persist.
It's also possible to give people sufficient information so they can
judge whether or not to even try.
Yet another option for dealing with bandwidth issues is to put a cap
on any given user's bandwidth during peakload but this is to be rather
messy. I personally prefer more "personal" persuasion methods. ;-)
we already have a model for paying for a shared resource. How do ham
repeaters keep operating? By volunteer labor and by club members
paying dues for the service. The same would be true for a community
access Internet service. It would take volunteer effort as well as
club members paying into the communal pot.
At this point, I expect some naysayers to raise the "tragedy of the
Commons" issue. It would be possible to develop an authentication
protocol which uses various ecash protocols to "pay-as-you-go" for the
bandwidth. It would allow you to pay for the bandwidth use so that
bandwidth pigs would be charged more.
Like a repeater club, if the members don't participate, the network
will fall apart. It's probably a kinder death than the ones I have
seen in the corporate world when an organization should just close the
door and turn out the lights instead of struggling to keep going.
I would expect also using a mixture of ham and part 15 equipment. I
think hams would do best at providing backbone type services with part
15 equipment used for the last 200 feet. Proxim FHSS cards are
reasonably cheap ($130 retail).
> > unfortunately, we can't do this now because we are limited by the
> > content prohibitions in our regulations. those restrictions are
> > important because they do provide barriers against commercial use of
> > amateur frequencies. However, I do believe it is possible to rework
> > those regulations such that we would be allowed to carry Internet
> > traffic but not as a commercial entity.
>
> We could ask the FCC to extend the (now limited) common carrier
> protection to cover this situation.
interesting idea. I hadn't thought of it that way but that could
work.
---eric
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 16:09:50 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: MURS potential
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10009060107040.6945-100000@exp.bde-
arc.ampr.org>,
kd6lvw@att.net wrote:
> The reason why K6VE is there is because he is the ONLY ONE LEFT who
is holding
> things together. Remove his system and the entire packet network for
Southern
> California dissolves. (Also, K6VE's system is not on ALL THREE of
those
> channels.) As for his ERP, his station's location, being AT HIS
HOUSE on Mount
> Wilson,
lucky devil.
> will virtually guarentee an effective ERP greater than 2W,
unless
> someone forces him to use a milliwatt radio (most amateur equipment
comes with
> 1W min. [HT's] or 5W min. [Moblies] in that frequency range). Try
working with
> him, not against him, and see where that gets you.
In the usual sense, he has a great location - but for the cell concept,
he has a bad location.
> As Hank Oredson says in a different response, just how do you expect
to "glue"
> your cells together without some sort of backbone or meta-cell?
>
> Also, what's the deal with using just 2m? You treat it as if there
are no
> other digital amateur radio allocations whatsoever.
MURS is kinda on 2m(~156Mhz), and that is the only personal service
that allows digital AND business comms.
However, I've got both 2m and 70cm amateur radios(lots of 'em), and a
bunch of UHF-based FRS/GMRS stuff too. In general, I prefer the
propagation characteristics and reduced feedline loss of VHF vs. UHF.
The main reason that I even started using 70cm was because 439.025
was/is the defacto 9k6 standard channel is SoCal.
> > > I thought you were the fella hyping
> > > what "technically aware" would do if you could just find a few 12-
> > year-
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_244C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
