"Charles Brabham" writes:
Why? - My explanation for this is that the same amateurs who tend to be
interested in WIFI also tend to disparage the idea of established amateur
radio digital networking. - They all appear to believe that we would be a
lot better off to just use the Internet instead of building independent
amateur radio infrastructure. - So they don't do it.

It could also be that they're more interested in low-speed DX networks
than local wifi-like networks. Wifi works perfectly well on part 15
with no licenses needed. Why bother with a licensed version of the
same thing? And how do you re-tune the wifi cards to ham bands anyway?

"news" wrote in message
...
In message . net, Hank
Oredson writes

You just hook it up ... totally simple.
Might want an amplifier and good antenna.
Took me about 3 minutes to get a WiFi link running here.
It was between two packet BBS nodes (running SNOS)
and two Windows machines. "It just works."


Yup, I can see that, but it's the "amplifier and good antenna" bit that
I'm particularly interested in. What do people use? URLs?


It's a long topic.
There are many many options.
Use Google.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

"Charles Brabham" wrote in message
m...

"news" wrote in message
...


Can you point me to reflectors/forums for WiFi ham band networks? I would
like to catch up with what people are doing in this area.

I can give an overview of what's being accomplished in this area...

Summary: Lots of hot air, accompanied by little or no action.

We have done some test links, to verify path issues.
Then we did the cost analysis.
About $2k per endpoint for the paths we need to cover.
So we have some short links, but any interesting links require
investment from a group of hams instead of a single ham.
That has not happened.

As far as I can tell, nobody has utilized the WIFI/SHF stuff in a
substantial way. There are lots of "mini-networks" here and there, but I
have yet to hear about anything of an established, permanent nature that
"rings a metroplolis" or even a small town. Another common networking task
that has gone unreported is linking packet nets in two cities via WIFI/SHF
links. Nobody has stepped forward to even claim to have accomplished that
basic task.

The problem is cost.

The ARRL HSMM group has been around for years and years now - but there is
no substantial WIFI/SHF amateur radio network - anywhere - to show for it.

The same applies to the dozens of WIFI/SHF reflectors and forums that have
popped up over the last decade.

Lots of speculation and nit-picking technical arguement - but no usable
network. ( On any substantial scale. )

The technical issues are simple to solve, they just involve money
to buy amplifiers, coax, antennas. The money issue cannot be solved.

There is really no particular reason why these things could not be done.
It is all well within the realm of possibility, but for some reason there
has been no particular effort to utilize WIFI/SHF equipment for these
basic networking applications, except on a small, local scale. I've noted
that even the small LANs that pop up from time to time utilizing WIFI/SHF
gear seldom stay in operation for very long.

It's money.

Why? - My explanation for this is that the same amateurs who tend to be
interested in WIFI also tend to disparage the idea of established amateur
radio digital networking. - They all appear to believe that we would be a
lot better off to just use the Internet instead of building independent
amateur radio infrastructure. - So they don't do it.

That has not happened here. We just don't have the money to do it.
Note that the Portland Metro area is broken up by many large
and small hills. We need at least two dozen sites to cover the
whole area. At a few $k per site we are talking total investment
greater than $50,000. We have had 9600 in place for years,
but those sites will mostly not work for WiFi. Think "wet trees".

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"Charles Brabham" writes:
Why? - My explanation for this is that the same amateurs who tend to be
interested in WIFI also tend to disparage the idea of established amateur
radio digital networking. - They all appear to believe that we would be a
lot better off to just use the Internet instead of building independent
amateur radio infrastructure. - So they don't do it.

It could also be that they're more interested in low-speed DX networks
than local wifi-like networks. Wifi works perfectly well on part 15
with no licenses needed. Why bother with a licensed version of the
same thing? And how do you re-tune the wifi cards to ham bands anyway?


Hams can run more power, use larger antennas, and cover
reasonable distances. But you knew that, right?

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

"Radio Active" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 May 2005 03:45:42 GMT, "Marty Albert"
was heard mumbling in the corner:

You are 100% correct... Lack of interest is, in my opinion, the largest
single factor.

The speed is also a big deal, as you say... 1200 bps vs. a 2-4 Mbps cable
connection seems to be a slam dunk.

The higher the speed the more the bandwidth needed to support it. We
don't have the bandwidth in any of the spectrum we have to support 2-4
Mbps.

What ??? You are joking, right?

But, keep in mind that we are talking about is an easy to build and use
device that, with a 15+ year old design, was known to 80 Mbps over a
fairly
short path.

How much bandwidth did it use?

That sort of makes mucking about with 802.11 junk sort of a wasted effort.

ROFLOL!

The mistake was made about 15 years ago when the drive was to effectively
duplicate the Internet on the ham bands. Simply put, there are not, never
have been, and likely never will be enough hams in the world to do that.
Besides, why try to duplicate a defective system?

The internet is defective? Interesting. So, your idea of what amateur
radio should be is a national digital communications network? You have
no room for other modes of communications? No SSB? No CW?

For the life of me, I can see no reason why Frank's device could not be
re-designed today to well over 512 Mbps, perhaps very close to gigabit
speeds. If you make the jump to the new copper solutions for 10 Gbps, we
may
even be able to get close to that...

Look at the bandwidth 1200 bps or 9600 bps uses and then figure out
what 512 Mbps would take up. Then read Part 97.

What's the problem?

Imagine a large metropolitan area, like maybe Dallas/Fort Worth, ringed by
an 8 Gbps nodes with spokes at 8 Gbps "dropping" into and through the
city.
A series of 1 Gbps nodes come off of the spokes to feed into the
neighborhood. In the neighborhoods, picture a bridge node that users can
connect to at, say, 100 Mbps. Lastly, picture these "City Wheels" being
connected to other city wheels at 10 Gbps.

And just where are you going to get that much radio spectrum to do
that?

SHF. We already have the spectrum.

Are you drooling yet?

No, I'm laughing.

Clueless but happy.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

I agree that this is vital to any large-scale regional network - don't
shut out the current packet infrastructure. I know there are TCP/IP
nodes that also support AX.25 connections so this should be possible.

As to why this hasn't been done on a large scale - it would require
quite a bit of cooperation. A star topology would require several
sites with line-of-sight. Imagine a situation where four ham clubs
happen to have repeater sites that had line-of-sight, and your task was
to "sell" the backbone network concept to every club, and arrange the
logisitics of getting it all built. Besides raising funds there would
be issues of ownership and administration.



quote:
Another common networking task
that has gone unreported is linking packet nets in two cities via
WIFI/SHF
links. Nobody has stepped forward to even claim to have accomplished
that
basic task.

Why? - My explanation for this is that the same amateurs who tend to
be
interested in WIFI also tend to disparage the idea of established
amateur
radio digital networking

TDM = Time Domain Multiplexing

WDM = Wide Dimensional Multiplexing

SDM = Statistical Domain Multiplexing.

TDM and, to a limited degree, WDM have been around and used for several
decades in high performance networking. SDM is relatively new, about 5
years.

There are far more ways to multiplex intelligence on a medium than PSK and
FSK, although both are used in high performance systems.

You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places off... The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as little as 10
KHz.

Take Care & 73
--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM


"Dana H. Myers" wrote in message
...
Marty Albert wrote:
As I recall, at 23 cm and 80 Mbps we had an effective bandwidth of
around
100 KHz on the "final" design... That design incorporated TDM, limited
SS,
and WDM of the signals.

What exactly does this all mean?

Passing 80,000,000 bits/sec in 100,000Hz of bandwidth sounds
pretty fantastic - to the extent that makes me question the
validity of the measurements.

Today, we could use TDM, WDM, SDM, high-end SS, and a few other tricks
and,
assuming a target data-rate of 100 Mbps, get the on air bandwidth down
to
around 50-75 KHz, maybe even a little less.

Whoa. Hold on. Help me understand what units and methods
of measurement you're using. Right now, you're off by several
decimal places in even the most generous way.

Dana K6JQ

"Marty Albert" writes:
You are 100% correct... I may very well a few decimal places off... The
mathematical models show that 100 Mbps should be possible in as little as 10
KHz.

Yes, you are a few decimal places off, but in the wrong direction ;-).

Amen to that, Hank...



--
From The Desk Of
Marty Albert, KC6UFM

"Hank Oredson" wrote in message
. net...
"Radio Active" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 May 2005 03:45:42 GMT, "Marty Albert"
was heard mumbling in the corner:

You are 100% correct... Lack of interest is, in my opinion, the largest
single factor.

The speed is also a big deal, as you say... 1200 bps vs. a 2-4 Mbps
cable
connection seems to be a slam dunk.

The higher the speed the more the bandwidth needed to support it. We
don't have the bandwidth in any of the spectrum we have to support 2-4
Mbps.

What ??? You are joking, right?

But, keep in mind that we are talking about is an easy to build and use
device that, with a 15+ year old design, was known to 80 Mbps over a
fairly
short path.

How much bandwidth did it use?

That sort of makes mucking about with 802.11 junk sort of a wasted
effort.

ROFLOL!

The mistake was made about 15 years ago when the drive was to
effectively
duplicate the Internet on the ham bands. Simply put, there are not,
never
have been, and likely never will be enough hams in the world to do that.
Besides, why try to duplicate a defective system?

The internet is defective? Interesting. So, your idea of what amateur
radio should be is a national digital communications network? You have
no room for other modes of communications? No SSB? No CW?

For the life of me, I can see no reason why Frank's device could not be
re-designed today to well over 512 Mbps, perhaps very close to gigabit
speeds. If you make the jump to the new copper solutions for 10 Gbps, we
may
even be able to get close to that...

Look at the bandwidth 1200 bps or 9600 bps uses and then figure out
what 512 Mbps would take up. Then read Part 97.

What's the problem?

Imagine a large metropolitan area, like maybe Dallas/Fort Worth, ringed
by
an 8 Gbps nodes with spokes at 8 Gbps "dropping" into and through the
city.
A series of 1 Gbps nodes come off of the spokes to feed into the
neighborhood. In the neighborhoods, picture a bridge node that users can
connect to at, say, 100 Mbps. Lastly, picture these "City Wheels" being
connected to other city wheels at 10 Gbps.

And just where are you going to get that much radio spectrum to do
that?

SHF. We already have the spectrum.

Are you drooling yet?

No, I'm laughing.

Clueless but happy.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli

"n3soz" wrote in message
ups.com...
I agree that this is vital to any large-scale regional network - don't
shut out the current packet infrastructure. I know there are TCP/IP
nodes that also support AX.25 connections so this should be possible.

As to why this hasn't been done on a large scale - it would require
quite a bit of cooperation. A star topology would require several
sites with line-of-sight. Imagine a situation where four ham clubs
happen to have repeater sites that had line-of-sight, and your task was
to "sell" the backbone network concept to every club, and arrange the
logisitics of getting it all built. Besides raising funds there would
be issues of ownership and administration.


The Star network topology has been tried with Packet. It was called TexNet.

The TexNet network did something that no other large-scale ax25 packet
network ever did - It disappeared completely, leaving hardly any trace
behind to show that it once existed.. From 100+ linked nodes to none in just
a few years.

I suppose that would qualify TexNet as the worst disaster in the history of
digital amateur radio. It's untimely demise was directly related to the use
of the obsolete Star network topology. All the other large-scale packet
networks used the same Partially-Meshed network topology that the Internet
utilizes, and I notice that all of those are still around to this day.

Charles Brabham, N5PVL

Director: USPacket http://www.uspacket.org
Admin: HamBlog.Com http://www.hamblog.com
Webmaster: HamPoll.Com http://www.hampoll.com
Weblog: http://www.hamblog.com/blog_n5pvl.php