[GA ARES] Missed signals 1

[Robert Copelan]

It is true that both Netmeeting and VoIP use more
"bandwidth" than a standard email.  Each has its place
in the "tool box".  eMail does an excellent job of
moving discrete messages from a single point to one or
more destination points. Very useful when the receiver
isn't immediately available.   Netmeeting or VoIP
provides the ability to have a real-time, interactive
communication and decision process. Using eMail in a
decision process is like using a screwdriver to drive
a nail.  It can be done but takes a while. 

There is absolutly NO requirement for Internet access
when using VoIP. IP does not mean the World Wide
Internet.  Internet Protocols function very well even
in a privetly designed network without any knowledge
or access to the World Wide Internet.  When the
requirement is to setup communications for an 
Incident Command Center or between various elements of
IC in an incident area then a real time solution is
needed.  Those folks need to be able to TALK with each
other and access real time information.  Voice nets
are point to point and require a control operator for
EACH .  VoIP allows "many to many" connectivity and
reduces the control operator requirements signifantly.


Every mode has situations where there are problems. HF
is affected by propogation and sunspots.  VHF/UHF is
dependent on relay points or systems on tall towers.
Satellite links require a line of sight to the
satellite and available bandwidth on the satellite. 
WiFi effectivity is reduced by the number of stations
attempting to use a channel.  The Internet is affected
by impacts on the backbone, the political climate in
the countries who are trying to control it, as well as
the greed of the Internet Service Providers who try to
restrict what passes through their routers. 

We can not count on any pre-installed infrastructure
surving a Katrina or 9/11 type incident. I've heard
studies about the likely incidents for Georgia. Most
seem to fall into Wx or chemical spill related.  Did
anyone in their wildest dreams anticipate multiple
jetliners being flown into major infrastructure
buildings? (keep in mind how close the White House
came to being part of that incident)  Groups who would
do us harm read the same After Action reports as we
do. They understand the importance of the relationship
of communications to command and control (maybe even
better than we do since they seem to function rather
well WITHOUT any visible infrastructure). Disabling
that infrastructure can have an effect much larger
than simply taking out a major building.  

Maybe WiFi/HSMM can't bridge the whole state right now
but it can do a very good job of building a private
network  that provides a local area with all the
services of the World Wide Internet, bridges to
Internet gateway points, ties into the Winlink network
for long haul email or utilizes D-Star/similar
technology for long haul connectivity. It can provide
the local connectivity (voice, email, video, web) for
EOC, shelters, Fire/EMS stations, hospitals and allow
those agencies to use our system seamlessly (like
Winlink/Paclink does for email) without knowing or
caring how the data packets get delivered.  

Almost every technology used on the World Wide
Internet can be utilized on a private network (most at
ZERO cost). NOTHING in a well designed HSMM network
depends on the World Wide Internet to exist.  None of
it requires any more pre-scheduling than is done today
when a person decides to call someone else on the
phone.  They either reach them, reach voice mail, or
call back later.  If they send an email then then they
have the expectation that it will be delivered and
eventually a reply will come back. 

Its a long email.. sorry for that but hopefully was
interesting for some.  2 points to wrap it up:
1. In the 20th century the amateur operator was highly
visible and at the center of the "action".  In the
21st century we will add more value by supporting the
emcomm infrastructure and not be right in the middle
of the operation. 

2. This is probably the most important benefit: There
are alot of folks (including a large number of the
younger generation) who are Internet geeks.  Maybe
this is the avenue we can use in order to interest
them in Amateur Radio and to continue the innovative
and inventive spirit of Amateur Radio that developed
such technology as SSB. We are mandated by the FCC in
91.1a,b,c to provide emergency communications and
advance the radio art. 

It looks like Georgia is well on the way to having a
very flexible, interoperatable solution using the
several available technologies.  

Respectfully,
Robert
WB4DHC 

 
--- John Kraus KC4ZGQ <DIGITAL_COMMS_GA at cox.net>
wrote:

>
> 
> I have never had any objection to the exploration of
> these 
> technologies.  Both are inherently broad-band and
> will need more network 
> overhead than will simple email. I see them as
> adjuncts to Winlink 2000 not 
> as replacements for it.  That is why I settled on
> Winlink as the defacto 
> baseline.
> 
> They require that parties be present at both ends at
> the same time which is 
> not true of Email.  This requires considerable
> pre-scheduling and will 
> constitute a real issue for busy EOC personnel.
> 
> I see VOIP as an attempt to use networking to
> replace phone nets and I 
> think it is a cumbersome solution to deploy where no
> internet exists. It is 
> a viable adjunct where the internet is undamaged.
> 
> Even the lowest VOIP solution need about 10kbs 
>
<http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/index.php?page=Low+Bandwidth+VOIP>See
> this 
> site for more infromation
> 
> Net meeting has similar needs. The lowest bandwidth
> is 14.4kbs. See this 
>
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/NetMeeting/Corp/reskit/Chapter7/default.asp>Microsoft
> 
> site for information/
> 
> Neither mode is likely to work over HF even with the
> Pactor Net 
> modem.  These modes will not tolerate the speed
> shifting that will occur as 
> band conditions change.
> 
> When these technologies can be demonstrated to allow
> reliable repeatable 
> communication with the Georgia coast after a Katrina
> type event I think 
> they will be approaching the point where they might
> be deployable state 
> wide if a robust network that will survive a katrina
> type event can be 
> shown to exist.
> 
> Then it needs to demonstrated that they can function
> in the event that 
> internet connectivity is down.  What is the fallback
> mode?
> 
> 
> Do these modes promise more than we can deliver when
> the chips are down?
> 
> 
> 73 de John Kraus KC4ZGQ
> Georgia DEC for Digital Communications
> DIGITAL_COMMS_GA at COX.NET
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> Ares mailing list
> Ares at gaares.org
> http://gaares.org/mailman/listinfo/ares_gaares.org
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com