[MRIC] Fwd: 2009-04-25 MRIC Meeting

Wed May 20 10:16:54 EDT 2009

Dan,

In the meetings in which we discussed a state-wide Winlink network 
architecture, we wanted to design something that would be useable for 
catastrophic emergencies, such as a hurricane causing extensive damage to 
Maryland.

HF provides greater overall bandwidth out of an affected area because each 
EOC can connect at 3 kbps (5 kbps with Pactor III compression) to a 
different remote stations around the country connected to the Internet. 
Conversely, UHF/VHF Winlink stations must go through another local node at 
1200 or 9600 with an HF connection to get to the Internet when the local 
Internet is down. Hence, the bottlenecks and dependence on other local 
stations in the affected area.

HF Airmail does not rely on another station in the affected area, to get 
email to the Internet. Each Airmail station can connect to a different 
remote station around the country thereby significantly increasing the 
bandwidth out of the affected area.

BTW: The Winlink Administrator also recommended HF as opposed to UHF/VHF for 
emergency communications. And Airmail really is very simple to use once you 
have it configured correctly and installed the propagation software to 
automatically calculate the chance of a good connection. Just scroll down 
the list of stations until you find one with 90% or better chance of good 
propagation, and click connect (although the new Paclink software suite is 
getting much easier to use as well).

The cost of a Winlink HF station is less than $5,000 for most installations. 
This is about what many jurisdictions pay for a single police/fire portable 
radio.

Brett

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Blasberg" <ka8ypy at verizon.net>
To: <BrettHam at aol.com>
Cc: <mric at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [MRIC] Fwd: 2009-04-25 MRIC Meeting

> As was discussed at the April '08 meeting, how does less frequencies
> on HF, and lower bandwidth equal greater overall bandwidth?  And how
> does HF Airmail not rely on another station to receive the message and
> put it in the network?  Also with HF you now have to deal with band
> conditions.  All of these were issues brought up at the April meeting,
> but never fully considered.
>
> Do not get me wrong, I am not trying to put a damper on HF airmail,
> just wondering why "almost everyone" wants to jump into the deep end
> of the pool when the learning curve is shorter for VHF/UHF airmail, as
> well as a lot less expensive.
>
> Dan
>
>
> On May 19, 2009, at 5:16 PM, BrettHam at aol.com wrote:
>
>> Dan,
>>
>> I do not want to list the equipment I use because I do not want others
>> to make the same mistakes I did. I think it would be more useful for
>> new stations to have a list of equipment that incorporates those
>> lessons learned, and lessons of others.
>>
>> I am "fixated" with HF Winlink, because that is what almost every
>> jurisdiction said they wanted to start with as a first step (HF
>> Airmail
>> from the EOC). Each jurisdiction provided this input during the April
>> 2008 meeting. Also, why HF? because of the reasons listed in the
>> document we approved a few weeks ago (i.e. greater overall bandwidth
>> out of the affected area, not dependant on other stations, etc.).
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Blasberg <ka8ypy at verizon.net>
>> To: BrettHam at aol.com
>> Cc: mric at mailman.qth.net
>> Sent: Tue, 19 May 2009 1:11 pm
>> Subject: Re: [MRIC] Fwd: 2009-04-25 MRIC Meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> Brett,
>>
>> Let's be clear on the terms here, as winlink equipment can be anything
>> from an VHF or HF Airmail station to and RMS packet Gateway to a
>> Paclink station, etc.
>>
>> Winlink is the overall network that includes four upper level CMS
>> nodes that control the flow of messages through the network and to/
>> from the internet. From there, are the RMS packet gateways, as of
>> today, May 19, there are currently 412 RMS gateways online, this
>> number is in flux based on active gateways. You then have the user
>> level, airmail (e-mail) stations of which there are thousands.
>>
>> The three items I have gotten questions on have been:
>>
>> VHF/UHF Airmail - Alinco DR-135, KPC3+ TNC, Laptop Computer running XP
>> and Airmail
>> HF Airmail - Icom IC706MkIIg, SCS USB Pactor II TNC, Desktop running
>> XP and Airmail
>> RMS Packet Node - I am currently responsible for two:
>> RMS 1: Yaesu FT-90, KAM XL TNC, Desktop running XP and RMS software
>> suite. (soon to have a UHF frequency added)
>> RMS 2: Alinco DR-135, KPC9612+ TNC, Desktop running XP and RMS
>> software suite. (soon to have a UHF frequency added)
>>
>>
>> You seem to be fixated on the HF portion of the system and the
>> settings required for it's use. That is all well and good, but with
>> all of the available frequencies for VHF and UHF there is more
>> bandwidth and more data rates available in the event of an emergency
>> compared to HF. There is also a quicker clear time of messages using
>> VHF and UHF as opposed to HF. Not to mention that RMS can handle
>> traffic from multiple stations in the field at the same time with
>> minimal lag time.
>>
>> So why don't you list your equipment st-up for everyone to see.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, would anyone and everyone using any form of
>> winlink/airmail please post their equipment set-ups?
>>
>>
>> Dan Blasberg
>> KA8YPY
>> Prince George's County RACES RO
>> Prince George's County ARES EC
>>
>> On May 19, 2009, at 12:14 PM, BrettHam at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Bill and Dan,
>>>
>>> Creating a generic equipment list was not the original plan. The
>>> reason
>>> we, as a group, decided a long time ago, and during many meetings
>>> since
>>> then, to create a list of specific equipment, was so that
>>> jurisdictions
>>> that wanted to set up a Winlink station would know what equipment to
>>> buy. Those of us that have been through setting up a Winlink station,
>>> spent many, many hours figuring out what we needed, what worked well
>>> for a Winlink application, and still got it wrong. Then many, many
>>> more
>>> hours figuring out what settings to use for our particular equipment
>>> set, and software configuration to get it working. For example,
>>> different radios require different modulation levels for a good
>>> signal.
>>> If you purchase the USB version of the Pactor III modem, rather than
>>> the serial version, you can remotely control your radio and tuner
>>> from
>>> your PC, whereas you cannot with the serial version. These are just a
>>> few of many examples I can give you of lessons I learned, and which
>>> those of us that have been through it wanted to incorporate into a
>>> document to make it easy for others to setup a station.
>>>
>>> Also, for those stations that choose to follow the MRIC recommended
>>> equipment list, we would provide configuration files, radio and modem
>>> settings and step-by-step online videos to get you up and running
>>> very
>>> quickly with no Winlink experience. This is now no longer possible
>>> since we don't know what equipment a station will be using. Clearly,
>>> deleting the recommended equipment list has made life much more
>>> difficult for those jurisdictions that want to set up a Winlink
>>> station. Now they will either be on their own, get advice from
>>> someone
>>> outside MRIC, or struggle through someone helping them that is not
>>> familiar with their equipment, and which may not be appropriate
>>> equipment to use for a Winlink station anyway.
>>>
>>> No one ever requested from me a generic list of equipment (i.e. VHF
>>> radio, antenna, etc.). That stuff is pretty much a no-brainer for any
>>> ham to figure out from the first part of the document that describes
>>> our nets. However, I have been asked personally, by at least half a
>>> dozen people for an equipment list they can use to purchase equipment
>>> for a Winlink station, so they don't have to go through the same
>>> struggle I did.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind, none of this is binding on anyone. It was just intended
>>> to be used as guidance material for anyone interested.
>>>
>>> Because there is so much interest in such a list, I suspect the
>>> subject
>>> will come up again at our next meeting where we hopefully will have
>>> enough attendance for the desires of the group to be fulfilled. I
>>> just
>>> hope that those that have made their intentions clear that they do
>>> not
>>> intend to use Winlink, will allow those of us who do, to assist those
>>> that want to.
>>>
>>> Brett
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Dan Blasberg <ka8ypy at verizon.net>
>>> To: K3UEZ at aol.com; RACES MRIC LIST <mric at mailman.qth.net>
>>> Sent: Sun, 10 May 2009 1:34 pm
>>> Subject: Re: [MRIC] Fwd: 2009-04-25 MRIC Meeting
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>>
>>> I think that is what we ultimately wanted for the final product,
>>> besides the fact that we now do not have to revisit that appendix
>>> every couple of years and update manufacturer and model numbers.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>> KA8YPY
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 10, 2009, at 12:58 PM, K3UEZ at aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dan,
>>>>
>>>> Yeah... I sort of lean toward speking in generic terms when it comes
>>>> to equipment... and then if we need examples we can ask around and
>>>> say, "for instance...." Moreover, some EM's have deals struck with
>>>> certain suppliers for their commercial gear. They might also get a
>>>> break on the amateur side of it under that same brand. Don't know...
>>>> just guessing. Also, some jurisdictions like ours are going through
>>>> changes of buildings, communications gear ... all sorts of stuff...
>>>> that makes flexibility desirable. I think one of the main
>>>> considerations is whether the bulk of the operators who will be
>>>> using it are comfortable with it.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> MRIC mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> MRIC mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> MRIC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> MRIC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> MRIC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 