[FADCA] Suggested Plan

[John]

Hi Bryan
     Long time no see.. I've copied you and Bud as the FADCA mailing 
list doesn't always work from here. If you get a duplicate - my apologizes.

     FADCA came together many years ago with the goal of coordinating 
inter-LAN digital communications statewide, along with getting together 
to exchange ideas / gossip, etc. This worked fine till, as Bud pointed 
out, activity dropped off. In the last years it was hard to hold a 
meeting once a year - much less the 3 or 4 we used to hold. This brought 
us to the point of what to do with FADCA - keep paying the state 'not 
for profit' fee or let it go. As the PDF file states, in order for FADCA 
to continue someone needs to come up with a proposed plan including a 
list of officers, an activity to pursue (one which would benefit from 
statewide involvement), etc.

     HSMM, as you pointed out, is being tried in our and other areas but 
I don't think there is much effort to establish a network or to go 
statewide . It would take a lot of nodes to cover an area like EL96. 
Some of our packet trunks are 30 to 50 miles  - imagine trying to cover 
this with HSMM with a range of 2 to 10 miles (sometimes longer if one 
has high locations). Just finding locations will be a challenge and then 
getting permission to get on them makes it difficult. HSMM is a 
technology that doesn't require frequency coordination so the need for 
an organization like FADCA to spearhead it is minimal, at least in my 
opinion. Quite frankly, unless a real need arises (for example, an ARES 
group wants to use it) its debateable as to how far it will go.  Kinda 
like a solution looking for a problem!!

     I look at these technologies (HSMM, FLdigi, etc) to be mostly local 
in nature so the need for FADCA is debatable.

       AS the PDF states being a member is not required to give an 
opinion or propose a plan.  We really hope someone comes up with an 
acceptable plan.
If you need additional info let me know..

73  John    wb4moz


On 3/4/2014 12:48, Bryan Pollock wrote:
> Greetings to all,
>
> My name is Bryan and my call sign is W4BSP.  I am not a member of the 
> FADCA. So I can't vote on motion on the table.  I just happen to be on 
> the mailing list.
>
> I was sorry to here about the possible disbanding of the group. So I 
> thought I would throw out and idea which may possibly rekindle the 
> groups fire.  Although you may have already considered it, here is the 
> idea.
>
> I think the digital communications network you already have is still 
> desirable one.  Would any of you support updating it from a 1200/9600 
> packet system, to one based on the wi-fi system such as what has been 
> promoted by the "Broadband-hamnet"? http://www.broadband-hamnet.org/   
> As many of you are already aware, it is for the most part self 
> configuring and much higher speed. I belive some in the group already 
> did some test setups a while back. They now have software for Ubiquity 
> equipment and it can function on 2.4 or 5 GHz frequencies.  I would be 
> willing to do my part by putting up a node here in EL96.
>
> Anyway it's just a thought.  Kick it around, and I will be on the 
> sidelines
>
> 73
>
> Bryan
> W4BSP
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> FADCA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:FADCA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>