Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link
Hi, I was digging through the HamWAN Map and Monitoring site to better understand the connectivity and redundancy of the backbone supporting the two key Seattle HamWAN sites, Beacon Tower and Capital Park. To recap what I observed... Documentation suggests *backbone connectivity at Capital Park* is: a. PtP link to Baldi b. PtP link to Paine The Capital Park to Baldi PtP actually appears to be a Point-to-Multipoint Link with 2 clients registered on the Baldi radio. I suspect that is Capital Park and Beacon Tower sharing access to a single dish/radio at Baldi. The Capital Park to Paine PtP seems to be decommissioned. *Question:* Am I correct in believing that Capital Park is single-threaded with just one backbone connection to Baldi operational? *Suggestion:* I think it might be prudent to have a direct PtP link between Capital Park and Beacon Tower. The sites are 4km apart with good visual line of sight. These two sites are very important to Seattle users. *Proposal:* 24 GHz is both an Amateur Radio band, and an ISM unlicensed band. This band works very well on short point to point paths. Further, 24.05 to 24.25 is an ISM band and can carry commercial traffic or amateur traffic. 24 GHz could be utilized on the Beacon Tower to Seattle EOC link. This link is very short (1.1 Miles/1.7 Km) and is a really good use case for 24 GHz. Equipment for 24Ghz is not particularly expensive. Mimosa announced a new B24 model on March 6 that has a $729 per end cost for integrated dish/radio. https://mimosa.co/products/specs/b24 Using 24 GHz to the EOC would allow the repurposing of the 5GHz link intended as Beacon-EOC to be a new backbone path Beacon Tower to Capital Park. I believe there is ample room at Capital Park to add a 2' dish pointing at Beacon. This path is about 4km and would not be suitable for 24 Ghz. The outcome of this proposal would be: 1. Seattle EOC-Beacon being linked at very high speed over 24 GHz. (circa 1 Gb/s) 2. Beacon Tower-Capital Park also having a high speed 5GHz backbone (circa 100 Mb/s) These key sites in Seattle would be less reliant on Gold, Baldi, and Haystack for connectivity within the City of Seattle/across town. There is an obvious cost implication for this change, but it's not particularly large and could make the network more robust. I'd be willing to contribute to this and others may also also do the same. Thanks for reading this and considering it. Randy W3RWN
I would not encourage HamWan Seattle to spend money with a company which has a pending NPRM for removing 10ghz from the amateur spectrum. They have touted how their found was a former ham and he wrote of how amateurs do nothing with any microwave bands. -- Bryan Fields M: +1-727-409-1194
On Mar 28, 2018, at 04:41, Randy Neals <randy@neals.ca> wrote:
Hi,
I was digging through the HamWAN Map and Monitoring site to better understand the connectivity and redundancy of the backbone supporting the two key Seattle HamWAN sites, Beacon Tower and Capital Park.
To recap what I observed... Documentation suggests backbone connectivity at Capital Park is: a. PtP link to Baldi b. PtP link to Paine
The Capital Park to Baldi PtP actually appears to be a Point-to-Multipoint Link with 2 clients registered on the Baldi radio. I suspect that is Capital Park and Beacon Tower sharing access to a single dish/radio at Baldi.
The Capital Park to Paine PtP seems to be decommissioned.
Question: Am I correct in believing that Capital Park is single-threaded with just one backbone connection to Baldi operational?
Suggestion: I think it might be prudent to have a direct PtP link between Capital Park and Beacon Tower. The sites are 4km apart with good visual line of sight. These two sites are very important to Seattle users.
Proposal: 24 GHz is both an Amateur Radio band, and an ISM unlicensed band. This band works very well on short point to point paths. Further, 24.05 to 24.25 is an ISM band and can carry commercial traffic or amateur traffic.
24 GHz could be utilized on the Beacon Tower to Seattle EOC link. This link is very short (1.1 Miles/1.7 Km) and is a really good use case for 24 GHz.
Equipment for 24Ghz is not particularly expensive. Mimosa announced a new B24 model on March 6 that has a $729 per end cost for integrated dish/radio. https://mimosa.co/products/specs/b24
Using 24 GHz to the EOC would allow the repurposing of the 5GHz link intended as Beacon-EOC to be a new backbone path Beacon Tower to Capital Park. I believe there is ample room at Capital Park to add a 2' dish pointing at Beacon. This path is about 4km and would not be suitable for 24 Ghz.
The outcome of this proposal would be: 1. Seattle EOC-Beacon being linked at very high speed over 24 GHz. (circa 1 Gb/s) 2. Beacon Tower-Capital Park also having a high speed 5GHz backbone (circa 100 Mb/s)
These key sites in Seattle would be less reliant on Gold, Baldi, and Haystack for connectivity within the City of Seattle/across town.
There is an obvious cost implication for this change, but it's not particularly large and could make the network more robust. I'd be willing to contribute to this and others may also also do the same.
Thanks for reading this and considering it. Randy W3RWN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Randy, Capitol Park also links to Queen Anne, which links to Haystack, so it's not single-homed. That said, there's a lot that could be improved at Capitol Park. It has traditionally been hard to get access to, so it doesn't get much love. We've never done any 24 GHz, and $1458 is a lot to spend on one link. We've also never done any non-Mikrotik gear. A consistent OS makes writing configuration automation a lot easier. Change is hard. I agree with Bryan's point that I don't want to support a company lobbying to take 10 GHz away from hams. I took a quick look and other 24 GHz gear appears to be about twice as expensive. Hmm. There's a lot of broken stuff right now, so my priorities for the next few months will be helping with repairs rather than improvements. And East Tiger is now single-homed, so it would be nice to find something for it to connect to in the SW direction. Sorry for the lack of depth. Busy week. Tom On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Randy Neals <randy@neals.ca> wrote:
Hi,
I was digging through the HamWAN Map and Monitoring site to better understand the connectivity and redundancy of the backbone supporting the two key Seattle HamWAN sites, Beacon Tower and Capital Park.
To recap what I observed... Documentation suggests *backbone connectivity at Capital Park* is: a. PtP link to Baldi b. PtP link to Paine
The Capital Park to Baldi PtP actually appears to be a Point-to-Multipoint Link with 2 clients registered on the Baldi radio. I suspect that is Capital Park and Beacon Tower sharing access to a single dish/radio at Baldi.
The Capital Park to Paine PtP seems to be decommissioned.
*Question:* Am I correct in believing that Capital Park is single-threaded with just one backbone connection to Baldi operational?
*Suggestion:* I think it might be prudent to have a direct PtP link between Capital Park and Beacon Tower. The sites are 4km apart with good visual line of sight. These two sites are very important to Seattle users.
*Proposal:* 24 GHz is both an Amateur Radio band, and an ISM unlicensed band. This band works very well on short point to point paths. Further, 24.05 to 24.25 is an ISM band and can carry commercial traffic or amateur traffic.
24 GHz could be utilized on the Beacon Tower to Seattle EOC link. This link is very short (1.1 Miles/1.7 Km) and is a really good use case for 24 GHz.
Equipment for 24Ghz is not particularly expensive. Mimosa announced a new B24 model on March 6 that has a $729 per end cost for integrated dish/radio. https://mimosa.co/products/specs/b24
Using 24 GHz to the EOC would allow the repurposing of the 5GHz link intended as Beacon-EOC to be a new backbone path Beacon Tower to Capital Park. I believe there is ample room at Capital Park to add a 2' dish pointing at Beacon. This path is about 4km and would not be suitable for 24 Ghz.
The outcome of this proposal would be: 1. Seattle EOC-Beacon being linked at very high speed over 24 GHz. (circa 1 Gb/s) 2. Beacon Tower-Capital Park also having a high speed 5GHz backbone (circa 100 Mb/s)
These key sites in Seattle would be less reliant on Gold, Baldi, and Haystack for connectivity within the City of Seattle/across town.
There is an obvious cost implication for this change, but it's not particularly large and could make the network more robust. I'd be willing to contribute to this and others may also also do the same.
Thanks for reading this and considering it. Randy W3RWN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
On 03/28/2018 08:46 AM, Tom Hayward wrote:
... There's a lot of broken stuff right now, so my priorities for the next few months will be helping with repairs rather than improvements. And East Tiger is now single-homed, so it would be nice to find something for it to connect to in the SW direction. ...
I've been told by a person very familiar with the East Tiger site that there's line of sight to Capitol Peak, so that might be a solution. Hopefully the trees haven't grown high enough that the existing and defunct Tukwila antenna might be re-aimed. Tony
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Tony Ross <w7efs@centurylink.net> wrote:
On 03/28/2018 08:46 AM, Tom Hayward wrote:
...
There's a lot of broken stuff right now, so my priorities for the next few months will be helping with repairs rather than improvements. And East Tiger is now single-homed, so it would be nice to find something for it to connect to in the SW direction. ...
I've been told by a person very familiar with the East Tiger site that there's line of sight to Capitol Peak, so that might be a solution. Hopefully the trees haven't grown high enough that the existing and defunct Tukwila antenna might be re-aimed.
That is a really long shot, and we won't be able to get permission to install a corresponding dish at Capitol Peak, so that path is unlikely to be viable. Camp Murray is probably a more realistic option. The gear is on the ground there waiting to be installed. Tom
Tom and all, Access to both of the Seattle Housing Authority buildings (Beacon and Capitol Park) can now be much more easily facilitated. A limited group of Seattle ACS technicians have the ability to access at any time (Randy, Doug, Casey, Mark, myself), and have varying levels of knowledge and experience with HamWAN. So immediate fixes can be facilitated if/as needed. To bring someone else in requires about a week’s advance notice so we can request a training mission number from Washington EMD and process the others as temporary emergency workers (doing this is a requirement under our MOU’s with SHA). ACS stands as a committed partner with HamWAN. It is our desire to do what we can to support the existing structure, as well as promote and facilitate growth. Carl, N7KUW Deputy Director, Seattle ACS From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Tom Hayward Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:46 AM To: Puget Sound Data Ring Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Randy, Capitol Park also links to Queen Anne, which links to Haystack, so it's not single-homed. That said, there's a lot that could be improved at Capitol Park. It has traditionally been hard to get access to, so it doesn't get much love. We've never done any 24 GHz, and $1458 is a lot to spend on one link. We've also never done any non-Mikrotik gear. A consistent OS makes writing configuration automation a lot easier. Change is hard. I agree with Bryan's point that I don't want to support a company lobbying to take 10 GHz away from hams. I took a quick look and other 24 GHz gear appears to be about twice as expensive. Hmm. There's a lot of broken stuff right now, so my priorities for the next few months will be helping with repairs rather than improvements. And East Tiger is now single-homed, so it would be nice to find something for it to connect to in the SW direction. Sorry for the lack of depth. Busy week. Tom On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Randy Neals <randy@neals.ca> wrote: Hi, I was digging through the HamWAN Map and Monitoring site to better understand the connectivity and redundancy of the backbone supporting the two key Seattle HamWAN sites, Beacon Tower and Capital Park. To recap what I observed... Documentation suggests backbone connectivity at Capital Park is: a. PtP link to Baldi b. PtP link to Paine The Capital Park to Baldi PtP actually appears to be a Point-to-Multipoint Link with 2 clients registered on the Baldi radio. I suspect that is Capital Park and Beacon Tower sharing access to a single dish/radio at Baldi. The Capital Park to Paine PtP seems to be decommissioned. Question: Am I correct in believing that Capital Park is single-threaded with just one backbone connection to Baldi operational? Suggestion: I think it might be prudent to have a direct PtP link between Capital Park and Beacon Tower. The sites are 4km apart with good visual line of sight. These two sites are very important to Seattle users. Proposal: 24 GHz is both an Amateur Radio band, and an ISM unlicensed band. This band works very well on short point to point paths. Further, 24.05 to 24.25 is an ISM band and can carry commercial traffic or amateur traffic. 24 GHz could be utilized on the Beacon Tower to Seattle EOC link. This link is very short (1.1 Miles/1.7 Km) and is a really good use case for 24 GHz. Equipment for 24Ghz is not particularly expensive. Mimosa announced a new B24 model on March 6 that has a $729 per end cost for integrated dish/radio. https://mimosa.co/products/specs/b24 Using 24 GHz to the EOC would allow the repurposing of the 5GHz link intended as Beacon-EOC to be a new backbone path Beacon Tower to Capital Park. I believe there is ample room at Capital Park to add a 2' dish pointing at Beacon. This path is about 4km and would not be suitable for 24 Ghz. The outcome of this proposal would be: 1. Seattle EOC-Beacon being linked at very high speed over 24 GHz. (circa 1 Gb/s) 2. Beacon Tower-Capital Park also having a high speed 5GHz backbone (circa 100 Mb/s) These key sites in Seattle would be less reliant on Gold, Baldi, and Haystack for connectivity within the City of Seattle/across town. There is an obvious cost implication for this change, but it's not particularly large and could make the network more robust. I'd be willing to contribute to this and others may also also do the same. Thanks for reading this and considering it. Randy W3RWN _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Thanks for the response Tom, The link between Queen Anne and Capital Park looked like a client radio connecting to sector, so I didn't count that.
From your description, it sounds like a proper PtP back of some sort - yet the Queen Anne site isn't exactly a full HamWan node, so not sure how that works.
Other bands I considered are 2.4 GHz, 3.4 GHz and 10 GHz. *10 GHz* is an ideal band for these links. However, the only commercial radio that will work on the 10 GHz ham band is the Mimosa B11. Yet, the 10GHz mimosa stuff is $2,000 an end. Pricey. The amateur community would prefer to not support mimosa - And I understand that. The practicality is that any volume of radios that Amateurs would buy from Mimosa won't make or break the company. In refusing to use Mimosa, and in not having other equipment choices for 10 GHz, we are actually making Mimosa's statement true that the 10GHz band is not well utilized. Deploying a few 10GHz links would make the band harder to take away. A physical act of spectrum defence. *3.3 to 3.5 GHz* is a ham band. Ubiquiti Rocket M3's (International) work on 3400-3500 MHZ, although the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service just took away 3450-3500 from the Amateur band. 3400-3450 is still available for our use and works on UBNT. Ubiquiti has a 3 GHz radio card, the XR3. I think that is compatible with Mikrotik Routerboard - so in theory an XR3 and Routerboard would still run Router OS. Frequency selection on the XR3 is done by configuring the RouterOS as though it is a 5 GHz radio. But I think that is also limited to 3400-3450. Cambium has 3.3 to 3.8 GHz radios, but I'm not familiar with the product and it's more expensive than Mimosa. On *24 GHz*, the other equipment option in UBNT airfiber. Quite a bit more expensive than Mimosa's new product, but I think also higher power. Maybe the Mimosa price pressure will cause UBNT to lower the cost of their 24 ghz product? Because this is an ISM / unlicensed band, I think we'll see more equipment choices in 24ghz, but its really so distance limited that the number of use cases where Hams can use 24Ghz is tiny. The 500 MHz of spectrum in the 10 GHZ band has such great potential for backbone links between sites. I wish more of the 11 GHz commercial WISP PtP system would work in the 10GHz ham band. The continuing push by the FCC to make vendors software-lock frequency ranges on commercial radio systems is actually hampering our traditional amateur mode of using surplus commercial radio gear. Bands like 2M and 70cm owe their popularity today to a long history of surplus commercial radio equipment flowing to the ham community for a second life. Randy W3RWN On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Tom Hayward <tom@tomh.us> wrote:
Randy,
Capitol Park also links to Queen Anne, which links to Haystack, so it's not single-homed. That said, there's a lot that could be improved at Capitol Park. It has traditionally been hard to get access to, so it doesn't get much love.
We've never done any 24 GHz, and $1458 is a lot to spend on one link. We've also never done any non-Mikrotik gear. A consistent OS makes writing configuration automation a lot easier. Change is hard.
I agree with Bryan's point that I don't want to support a company lobbying to take 10 GHz away from hams. I took a quick look and other 24 GHz gear appears to be about twice as expensive. Hmm.
There's a lot of broken stuff right now, so my priorities for the next few months will be helping with repairs rather than improvements. And East Tiger is now single-homed, so it would be nice to find something for it to connect to in the SW direction.
Sorry for the lack of depth. Busy week.
Tom
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:41 AM, Randy Neals <randy@neals.ca> wrote:
Hi,
I was digging through the HamWAN Map and Monitoring site to better understand the connectivity and redundancy of the backbone supporting the two key Seattle HamWAN sites, Beacon Tower and Capital Park.
To recap what I observed... Documentation suggests *backbone connectivity at Capital Park* is: a. PtP link to Baldi b. PtP link to Paine
The Capital Park to Baldi PtP actually appears to be a Point-to-Multipoint Link with 2 clients registered on the Baldi radio. I suspect that is Capital Park and Beacon Tower sharing access to a single dish/radio at Baldi.
The Capital Park to Paine PtP seems to be decommissioned.
*Question:* Am I correct in believing that Capital Park is single-threaded with just one backbone connection to Baldi operational?
*Suggestion:* I think it might be prudent to have a direct PtP link between Capital Park and Beacon Tower. The sites are 4km apart with good visual line of sight. These two sites are very important to Seattle users.
*Proposal:* 24 GHz is both an Amateur Radio band, and an ISM unlicensed band. This band works very well on short point to point paths. Further, 24.05 to 24.25 is an ISM band and can carry commercial traffic or amateur traffic.
24 GHz could be utilized on the Beacon Tower to Seattle EOC link. This link is very short (1.1 Miles/1.7 Km) and is a really good use case for 24 GHz.
Equipment for 24Ghz is not particularly expensive. Mimosa announced a new B24 model on March 6 that has a $729 per end cost for integrated dish/radio. https://mimosa.co/products/specs/b24
Using 24 GHz to the EOC would allow the repurposing of the 5GHz link intended as Beacon-EOC to be a new backbone path Beacon Tower to Capital Park. I believe there is ample room at Capital Park to add a 2' dish pointing at Beacon. This path is about 4km and would not be suitable for 24 Ghz.
The outcome of this proposal would be: 1. Seattle EOC-Beacon being linked at very high speed over 24 GHz. (circa 1 Gb/s) 2. Beacon Tower-Capital Park also having a high speed 5GHz backbone (circa 100 Mb/s)
These key sites in Seattle would be less reliant on Gold, Baldi, and Haystack for connectivity within the City of Seattle/across town.
There is an obvious cost implication for this change, but it's not particularly large and could make the network more robust. I'd be willing to contribute to this and others may also also do the same.
Thanks for reading this and considering it. Randy W3RWN
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
On 3/28/18 4:41 PM, Randy Neals wrote:
Citizens Broadband Radio Service just took away 3450-3500 from the Amateur band.
Do you have a source on this? I saw CBRS opened up 3550 to 3650 and 3650 to 3700 is the old part 90 WISP band. 3400 to 3500 is shared with mil radar, and I didn't see the USAF vacating this band. Thanks, -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
Thanks Brian, I was looking at the FCC table - You're right, 3550 not 3450. Randy On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
On 3/28/18 4:41 PM, Randy Neals wrote:
Citizens Broadband Radio Service just took away 3450-3500 from the Amateur band.
Do you have a source on this? I saw CBRS opened up 3550 to 3650 and 3650 to 3700 is the old part 90 WISP band.
3400 to 3500 is shared with mil radar, and I didn't see the USAF vacating this band.
Thanks, -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
So I like the concept in principle of connecting Capitol Park to Beacon in part to create a core of sector connectivity that is easy to maintain. I agree that 750 and end is steep for us. What other options do we have? For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)? -Doug- On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Randy Neals <randy@neals.ca> wrote:
Thanks Brian, I was looking at the FCC table - You're right, 3550 not 3450.
Randy
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
On 3/28/18 4:41 PM, Randy Neals wrote:
Citizens Broadband Radio Service just took away 3450-3500 from the Amateur band.
Do you have a source on this? I saw CBRS opened up 3550 to 3650 and 3650 to 3700 is the old part 90 WISP band.
3400 to 3500 is shared with mil radar, and I didn't see the USAF vacating this band.
Thanks, -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s. 3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
Getting away from 2.4 and 5Ghz is probably useful, I don't remember anything at Beacon using 3.4 Ghz. Someone said there is clear LoS between Beacon and Capital Park, so the UBNT solution should be easy. I'm assuming integrating them into sites would also be straight forward. Sounds like a fun project. Doug is access to CP easier now? On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Well, since you asked "why not": One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band. Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation. --Bart On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)? Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors. Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this. -Doug- On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
Well, since you asked "why not":
One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band.
Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation.
--Bart
On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org> wrote:
First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors.
Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this.
-Doug-
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
Well, since you asked "why not":
One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band.
Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation.
--Bart
On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark@gmail.com> wrote:
Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne.
I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org> wrote:
First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors.
Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this.
-Doug-
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
Well, since you asked "why not":
One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band.
Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation.
--Bart
On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
If we’re looking at “experimenting” rather than jumping ship on standards at the moment, is there value in configuring two separate links at the same locations to compare/contrast with weather differences, etc – as well as find out any “cohabitation” problems between 2 or 3 frequency sets? Obviously cost may be an issue, but if we have access and cooperative environments for both ends at the moment, why not learn as much as we can? Just a thought. Cheers, Rob Salsgiver – NR3O From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Buskermolen Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:45 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark@gmail.com> wrote: Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org> wrote: First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors. Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this. -Doug- On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote: Well, since you asked "why not": One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band. Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation. --Bart On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote: For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)? Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s. 3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Maybe it is just me, but over the past week I have gotten hundreds of emails from PSDR. Now I understand everyone has an opinion on almost everything, but is there not a way that say, those who can vote, have a different place to vote, those with technical issues have their group, and then a general group for those of us who don’t have interest in every fight or vote or whatever is going on? I am trying to learn about HamWan and keeping up with where it is and where it is going, but have no interest in this kind of stuff. Guess it is time to get off the group list entirely if this keeps up. Randy Thomas - K7RHT Kittitas County Ares EC Kittitas County SAR-Comms Auxcomm MARS 206-255-9510 Cell 206-418-6541 Vonage Skype = Runamuk52 Ellensburg Repeaters: K7RHT repeater on 147.000 + offset 131.8 tone (Linked) K7RHT repeater on 444.450 + offset 131.8 tone (linked) K7RHT mobile repeater 145.29 - offset 131.8 tone (emcomm) KC7DRA DMR repeater 440.925 + offset From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Rob Salsgiver Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:51 PM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link If we’re looking at “experimenting” rather than jumping ship on standards at the moment, is there value in configuring two separate links at the same locations to compare/contrast with weather differences, etc – as well as find out any “cohabitation” problems between 2 or 3 frequency sets? Obviously cost may be an issue, but if we have access and cooperative environments for both ends at the moment, why not learn as much as we can? Just a thought. Cheers, Rob Salsgiver – NR3O From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Buskermolen Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:45 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark@gmail.com <mailto:richark@gmail.com> > wrote: Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org <mailto:dpk@randomnotes.org> > wrote: First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors. Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this. -Doug- On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us <mailto:me@bartk.us> > wrote: Well, since you asked "why not": One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band. Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation. --Bart On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote: For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)? Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s. 3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Randy, I’m not sure what you’ve been receiving as far as “hundreds” of PSDR emails, but I went back and counted 67 since March 21st. I may have deleted a few instead of having them auto-file into my folder, but prior to that my HamWAN folder shows that in order to get to the next 67 emails, I had to go back almost into November 2017. The topics covered in the last week were essentially 4 items: 1) Voting on power equipment for the Gold Mountain site 2) Elections and voting 3) Outage issues 4) The current Beacon/Capital Park link discussion I can understand the frustration with too much email, but I don’t see the same thing hitting my inbox. Each of the topics above is exactly the type of traffic the list has been meant to carry. Yes the traffic could be split up, but then you are asking to maintain 1,2,3 or more lists with essentially the same people to split up 150 emails since last November. I seldom have anything of value to contribute to a lot of discussions and when I can I put what traffic I can directly to individuals to help minimize list traffic (as I try to do in all lists I follow), but sometimes it just has to happen. Given the level of involvement you have in EMCOMM and other aspects suggested in your signature, I would hope that you stay in touch with the list. There is a lot that HamWAN technologies can do to help you in your role as EC in serving your Served Agencies if you have the time and personal bandwidth to stay in touch with developments. If need be, you may see if your email client will automatically “file” the HamWAN list into a separate folder from your inbox. That way you can read up when you have the time without it “cluttering” up your inbox. 73 Rob Salsgiver – NR3O Past EC (and a bunch of other stuff) – Snohomish County From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of runamuk52@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:56 PM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Maybe it is just me, but over the past week I have gotten hundreds of emails from PSDR. Now I understand everyone has an opinion on almost everything, but is there not a way that say, those who can vote, have a different place to vote, those with technical issues have their group, and then a general group for those of us who don’t have interest in every fight or vote or whatever is going on? I am trying to learn about HamWan and keeping up with where it is and where it is going, but have no interest in this kind of stuff. Guess it is time to get off the group list entirely if this keeps up. Randy Thomas - K7RHT Kittitas County Ares EC Kittitas County SAR-Comms Auxcomm MARS 206-255-9510 Cell 206-418-6541 Vonage Skype = Runamuk52 Ellensburg Repeaters: K7RHT repeater on 147.000 + offset 131.8 tone (Linked) K7RHT repeater on 444.450 + offset 131.8 tone (linked) K7RHT mobile repeater 145.29 - offset 131.8 tone (emcomm) KC7DRA DMR repeater 440.925 + offset From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Rob Salsgiver Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:51 PM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link If we’re looking at “experimenting” rather than jumping ship on standards at the moment, is there value in configuring two separate links at the same locations to compare/contrast with weather differences, etc – as well as find out any “cohabitation” problems between 2 or 3 frequency sets? Obviously cost may be an issue, but if we have access and cooperative environments for both ends at the moment, why not learn as much as we can? Just a thought. Cheers, Rob Salsgiver – NR3O From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Buskermolen Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:45 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark@gmail.com> wrote: Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org> wrote: First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors. Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this. -Doug- On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote: Well, since you asked "why not": One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band. Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation. --Bart On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote: For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)? Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s. 3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Ok, I will just get off the list. I have the over 60 since the 24th, you may not call that a lot of email, I consider that to be a lot so best I just leave. Thank you. From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Rob Salsgiver Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 6:23 PM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Randy, I’m not sure what you’ve been receiving as far as “hundreds” of PSDR emails, but I went back and counted 67 since March 21st. I may have deleted a few instead of having them auto-file into my folder, but prior to that my HamWAN folder shows that in order to get to the next 67 emails, I had to go back almost into November 2017. The topics covered in the last week were essentially 4 items: 1. Voting on power equipment for the Gold Mountain site 2. Elections and voting 3. Outage issues 4. The current Beacon/Capital Park link discussion I can understand the frustration with too much email, but I don’t see the same thing hitting my inbox. Each of the topics above is exactly the type of traffic the list has been meant to carry. Yes the traffic could be split up, but then you are asking to maintain 1,2,3 or more lists with essentially the same people to split up 150 emails since last November. I seldom have anything of value to contribute to a lot of discussions and when I can I put what traffic I can directly to individuals to help minimize list traffic (as I try to do in all lists I follow), but sometimes it just has to happen. Given the level of involvement you have in EMCOMM and other aspects suggested in your signature, I would hope that you stay in touch with the list. There is a lot that HamWAN technologies can do to help you in your role as EC in serving your Served Agencies if you have the time and personal bandwidth to stay in touch with developments. If need be, you may see if your email client will automatically “file” the HamWAN list into a separate folder from your inbox. That way you can read up when you have the time without it “cluttering” up your inbox. 73 Rob Salsgiver – NR3O Past EC (and a bunch of other stuff) – Snohomish County From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of runamuk52@gmail.com <mailto:runamuk52@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:56 PM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Maybe it is just me, but over the past week I have gotten hundreds of emails from PSDR. Now I understand everyone has an opinion on almost everything, but is there not a way that say, those who can vote, have a different place to vote, those with technical issues have their group, and then a general group for those of us who don’t have interest in every fight or vote or whatever is going on? I am trying to learn about HamWan and keeping up with where it is and where it is going, but have no interest in this kind of stuff. Guess it is time to get off the group list entirely if this keeps up. Randy Thomas - K7RHT Kittitas County Ares EC Kittitas County SAR-Comms Auxcomm MARS 206-255-9510 Cell 206-418-6541 Vonage Skype = Runamuk52 Ellensburg Repeaters: K7RHT repeater on 147.000 + offset 131.8 tone (Linked) K7RHT repeater on 444.450 + offset 131.8 tone (linked) K7RHT mobile repeater 145.29 - offset 131.8 tone (emcomm) KC7DRA DMR repeater 440.925 + offset From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org <mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> > On Behalf Of Rob Salsgiver Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:51 PM To: 'Puget Sound Data Ring' <psdr@hamwan.org <mailto:psdr@hamwan.org> > Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link If we’re looking at “experimenting” rather than jumping ship on standards at the moment, is there value in configuring two separate links at the same locations to compare/contrast with weather differences, etc – as well as find out any “cohabitation” problems between 2 or 3 frequency sets? Obviously cost may be an issue, but if we have access and cooperative environments for both ends at the moment, why not learn as much as we can? Just a thought. Cheers, Rob Salsgiver – NR3O From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Buskermolen Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:45 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark@gmail.com <mailto:richark@gmail.com> > wrote: Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org <mailto:dpk@randomnotes.org> > wrote: First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors. Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this. -Doug- On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us <mailto:me@bartk.us> > wrote: Well, since you asked "why not": One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band. Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation. --Bart On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote: For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)? Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s. 3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Rob, At this point it would be ~$1000 to purchase the equipment to run the test. (Although we have data from Brian, who is running such a link over a metro area already) Thanks Kenny On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Rob Salsgiver <rob@nr3o.com> wrote:
If we’re looking at “experimenting” rather than jumping ship on standards at the moment, is there value in configuring two separate links at the same locations to compare/contrast with weather differences, etc – as well as find out any “cohabitation” problems between 2 or 3 frequency sets? Obviously cost may be an issue, but if we have access and cooperative environments for both ends at the moment, why not learn as much as we can?
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Rob Salsgiver – NR3O
*From:* PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] *On Behalf Of *Darcy Buskermolen *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:45 PM *To:* Puget Sound Data Ring *Subject:* Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link
Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark@gmail.com> wrote:
Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne.
I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org> wrote:
First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors.
Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this.
-Doug-
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
Well, since you asked "why not":
One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band.
Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation.
--Bart
On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
I caught that as the cost for the 3.4 link, but do we go ahead and try 3.4 in parallel along with something else? If so, what are we looking at as total per link/frequency pair, BOMs, etc? Cheers, Rob From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Kenny Richards Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:58 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Rob, At this point it would be ~$1000 to purchase the equipment to run the test. (Although we have data from Brian, who is running such a link over a metro area already) Thanks Kenny On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Rob Salsgiver <rob@nr3o.com> wrote: If we’re looking at “experimenting” rather than jumping ship on standards at the moment, is there value in configuring two separate links at the same locations to compare/contrast with weather differences, etc – as well as find out any “cohabitation” problems between 2 or 3 frequency sets? Obviously cost may be an issue, but if we have access and cooperative environments for both ends at the moment, why not learn as much as we can? Just a thought. Cheers, Rob Salsgiver – NR3O From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Darcy Buskermolen Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 5:45 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Beacon Tower-Capital Park Backbone Link Although for my day job I represent a specific hardware vendor, from a services standpoint we will weploy multi vendor if it's the right tool for the job. What we do is try to limit the number of ad hoc differences. So I'd definitely be in support with the idea of using the 3.4 or 10 as a pure bridge. That way most of the skill/knowledge for the hard bits (ie layer 3) is still microtik centric. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 17:38 Kenny Richards, <richark@gmail.com> wrote: Another possible benefit, if we figure out how to make the 3.4Ghz solution work between Beacon/CP, is it could be re-used between CP and Queen Anne. I totally understand Bart's point, having common standards is important and has benefits. I think what Doug is suggesting is that maybe this is a case where we need a new standard. We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working, so lets look for a new one. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org> wrote: First, about access: ACS has full access, round the clcck to Beacon and Capitol Park limited only by our COMT's (Mark, Carl, Doug, Randy, Casey) availability. Bringing third parties requires about a week to establish a training mission number. If we can do the work ourselves, then only our schedules are factors. Thank you Nigel for your detailed response on the reuse point. I am guessing from this that there is no objection in principle to trying to put this link in place. We just need to fine the most compatible and affordable solution. Randy has started researching this but we should double down on this. -Doug- On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote: Well, since you asked "why not": One of the advantages we've found with keeping things on a compatible band is the ad-hoc ability to link dishes to sectors during emergencies, or use dishes and sectors for spectral analysis on the one common band. Another advantage is the uniformity of config / interface / automation by using the same vendor. Don't need to train folks on special procedures or write exceptions into automation. --Bart On 3/29/2018 4:45 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote: For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)? Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s. 3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Hello All, Currently HamWAN Puget Sound operates all of our backbone links in 5.9 GHz Part 15 space to keep the Part 97 space clear for the sectors. There’s only enough room for three channels in the Part 97 exclusive space (including guard bands). In many cases, this has worked well for us. In some cases like the current link between Capital Park and Queen Anne, there’s simply so much other noise an interference that despite very strong signals, the performance is abysmal. We’ve found that co-channel and nearby channel interference is a significant problem for the modems, not to be underestimated. Even with shielding and the guard bands between sector channels we’ve seen some impact from busy sectors on it’s neighbors in some cases. We usually try to limit this additionally by putting sectors on different sides of buildings if possible for more isolation. I don’t think it’s a good idea to try to reuse sector frequencies for backbone links if it can at all be avoided, even with shielding. In some cases, additional shielding may help, in some it won’t. I think there is a use case for other bands like 3.4GHz or 10-11Ghz. The keys will be finding what works from a cost and regulatory standpoint. I think it’s definitely something we need to at minimum research the options more. Ubiquiti and some other vendors certainly do have some appealingly priced gear on bands that would be more open. There’s been some hesitation as 5.9GHz has worked for us, so we’ve had some inertia behind it, and it makes all the bits pretty cookie cutter to swap as needed. As bart has said, we’ve also seen convenience from emergency rerouting with everything being compatible, and from everything being the same type of gear so it’s more straightforward to manage. Nigel
On Mar 29, 2018, at 16:45, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
On 3/29/18 7:38 PM, Doug Kingston wrote:
For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas. -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 16:45 Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
Have you published a BoM for this? Can you? Are you still trying to unload a pile of modems? Tom
We are just using the RocketM3 $179 with the RD-3G26 Dish $229 and Radome $49.00 Now times that by 2 for each side of the link.. we have 19 to 26mile links going now.. with 6 more on the todo list here in Michigan ourselves.. We use them as simple layer2 PTP bridges between our site routers... -- Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498 fred@moses.bz
On Mar 29, 2018, at 21:02, Tom Hayward <tom@tomh.us> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 16:45 Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net <mailto:Bryan@bryanfields.net>> wrote: Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
Have you published a BoM for this? Can you?
Are you still trying to unload a pile of modems?
Tom _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
As another data point, I do plan to install an AF-3X based uplink to Haystack this summer when the snow clears. But those modems are like $600/ea. :-( - Does the Rocket M3 support GPS-sync? - Does it require an M5 or some other modem on the LAN to sync with that GPS? (I don't see it having a GPS port) - Are the Rocket M3 GPS-synced TX/RX windows in phase with the AF-3X GPS-synced transceivers? (ie: can they coexist on a site) To clarify my earlier email, since I consider it implicit but perhaps it should be stated explicitly, I'm not opposed to using other bands. It is healthy though to contribute points of balance to the conversation so that good decisions can be made by weighing all the pros / cons. Let me also address Bryan's IRC statement of "it's ham radio, just buy some stuff and play with it". While that's totally valid for smaller networks, we're finding ourselves stretched very thin in the task of maintaining this network. It's grown pretty large, and too few people know how to operate it. We have to take a multi-faceted approach to keeping things operational: 1) Onboard more skilled folks who know what to do 2) Keep things as simple as possible to minimize management 3) Rely on automation to offload manual labor While some of us operate far larger networks professionally, those networks come with significant financial resources in staffing, vendor support contracts, and automation software development / tuning. We don't have any of those benefits here, so we're hitting the wall far earlier. Finally, I saw a point come up in this thread from Kenny that said: "We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working". I haven't yet seen strong evidence for that being true. Where "that" means "using the 5GHz band". For the QueenAnne-CapitolPark example cited in this thread, I haven't seen anyone post results of spectral analyzer runs at both sites to find a common free channel. I suspect if this is done, we'll be able to find a frequency that works A-OK for that link. (Earlier point about us running out of manual labor capacity exemplified here.) Given the excellent LoS between [Beacon, SeaEOC] and [Beacon, CapitolPark], I wouldn't be surprised if both CapitolPark and SeaEOC can link to Beacon via the same dish there. SeaEOC can live on a sidelobe since it's extremely close. This would cut out the requirement to install yet-another-dish @ Beacon (a pro!), and save money (another pro!). It may be slower than a dedicated [3,10,11,18,24,74,etc]GHz link (a con). --Bart On 3/29/2018 6:06 PM, Fredric Moses wrote:
We are just using the RocketM3 $179 with the RD-3G26 Dish $229 and Radome $49.00 Now times that by 2 for each side of the link.. we have 19 to 26mile links going now.. with 6 more on the todo list here in Michigan ourselves..
We use them as simple layer2 PTP bridges between our site routers...
-- Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498 fred@moses.bz <mailto:fred@moses.bz>
On Mar 29, 2018, at 21:02, Tom Hayward <tom@tomh.us <mailto:tom@tomh.us>> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 16:45 Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net <mailto:Bryan@bryanfields.net>> wrote:
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
Have you published a BoM for this? Can you?
Are you still trying to unload a pile of modems?
Tom
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Not sure if attachments work via this list, but I'm attaching a PDF of the 3.4 GHz Bay Area Data Network I helped build in 2012. This was all Rocket M3's. (I used to be KI6TWT then) It was myself and a few friends from the Bay Area Microwave weak-signal group that helped Bay Net put this together. We found the Rocket M3's on eBay, and we bought new sector antennas, shield kits and dishes as needed. The Emcomm groups were all focussed on HSMM and building 2.4GHZ mesh. It was early and they hadn't yet realized how poorly a mesh network performs. They found our 3.4GHz project unappealing because they worried that our central site with the sectors could fail. Questions I saw earlier in the thread.. *GPS.* The versions of Rocket M3 we had were before GPS sync was available. There are later versions with GPS. We were cheap and buying used/second hand M3's that were intended for International use. I have no experience with the GPS rocket M3. *Standards/Standardization..*I applaud HamWan for it's standards, and the last thing I would want to see is massively increased technical debt due to one-off deployments. There are UBNT pci radio cards for 3.4 GHz. Maybe we run those cards in Mikrotik routerboards to keep the OS the same. *Seattle ACS Sites/Seattle ACS Link?*In this case, the two sites in question are Seattle ACS sites (Both are Seattle housing authority buildings which Seattle ACS formally has an MOU for using the sites) Perhaps we build and maintain the non-standard link between Capital Park and Beacon as a Seattle ACS Project?? (Using the COMT people Doug identified) Then we provide HamWAN an Ethernet VLAN across the link which joins the Capital Park and Beacon HamWAN routers?
From HamWAN's perspective, it's a PtP Ethernet circuit that you run a /30 and OSPF over. You call Seattle ACS when it fails, We fix.
*Bart's 3GHz Link to Haystack..I'd be afraid that we wouldn't be able to GPS sync the Rocket M3's with your planned equipment for Haystack.*Similarly, if we deployed XP3 cards in Mikrotiks, also no sync. Haystack is an important site, and 3GHz makes a lot of sense for that distance up to Haystack - I don't want to impede that. The Capital Park and Beacon sites could easily work on 10GHz. I suspect we could make a path work on 24GHz, but I worry about rain fade with 24GHz. The Beacon to EOC like is about as far as I would want to trust 24 GHz (1.7km) -Randy W3RWN On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:
As another data point, I do plan to install an AF-3X based uplink to Haystack this summer when the snow clears. But those modems are like $600/ea. :-(
- Does the Rocket M3 support GPS-sync? - Does it require an M5 or some other modem on the LAN to sync with that GPS? (I don't see it having a GPS port) - Are the Rocket M3 GPS-synced TX/RX windows in phase with the AF-3X GPS-synced transceivers? (ie: can they coexist on a site)
To clarify my earlier email, since I consider it implicit but perhaps it should be stated explicitly, I'm not opposed to using other bands. It is healthy though to contribute points of balance to the conversation so that good decisions can be made by weighing all the pros / cons.
Let me also address Bryan's IRC statement of "it's ham radio, just buy some stuff and play with it". While that's totally valid for smaller networks, we're finding ourselves stretched very thin in the task of maintaining this network. It's grown pretty large, and too few people know how to operate it. We have to take a multi-faceted approach to keeping things operational:
1) Onboard more skilled folks who know what to do 2) Keep things as simple as possible to minimize management 3) Rely on automation to offload manual labor
While some of us operate far larger networks professionally, those networks come with significant financial resources in staffing, vendor support contracts, and automation software development / tuning. We don't have any of those benefits here, so we're hitting the wall far earlier.
Finally, I saw a point come up in this thread from Kenny that said: "We have hit a situation that the old approaches are not working". I haven't yet seen strong evidence for that being true. Where "that" means "using the 5GHz band". For the QueenAnne-CapitolPark example cited in this thread, I haven't seen anyone post results of spectral analyzer runs at both sites to find a common free channel. I suspect if this is done, we'll be able to find a frequency that works A-OK for that link. (Earlier point about us running out of manual labor capacity exemplified here.) Given the excellent LoS between [Beacon, SeaEOC] and [Beacon, CapitolPark], I wouldn't be surprised if both CapitolPark and SeaEOC can link to Beacon via the same dish there. SeaEOC can live on a sidelobe since it's extremely close. This would cut out the requirement to install yet-another-dish @ Beacon (a pro!), and save money (another pro!). It may be slower than a dedicated [3,10,11,18,24,74,etc]GHz link (a con).
--Bart
On 3/29/2018 6:06 PM, Fredric Moses wrote:
We are just using the RocketM3 $179 with the RD-3G26 Dish $229 and Radome $49.00 Now times that by 2 for each side of the link.. we have 19 to 26mile links going now.. with 6 more on the todo list here in Michigan ourselves..
We use them as simple layer2 PTP bridges between our site routers...
-- Fredric Moses - W8FSM - WQOG498 fred@moses.bz
On Mar 29, 2018, at 21:02, Tom Hayward <tom@tomh.us> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 16:45 Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
Why not use 3.4 GHz UBNT radios? We have a link here in Tampa at 16.2 miles across Tampa Bay running at 130 Mbit/s.
3.37 to 3.5 GHz (the frequency range of the M3 radios) is totally unused for the most part. A complete link is well under $1000 including antennas.
Have you published a BoM for this? Can you?
Are you still trying to unload a pile of modems?
Tom
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing listPSDR@hamwan.orghttp://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
I wondered if there is some consensus on practical options to implement the Capital Park-Beacon Link? I've tried to sum these up into bins/options based on the thread info and what I'm aware of. Is this about right, or are there other combinations? Do any of these fit/make sense more than others? Option A: We put 24 GHz between Seattle EOC<-->Beacon, and then use the 5.8 GHz intended for the EOC link as dedicated Beacon<-->Capital Park link. (ie: a pair of UBNT Airfiber 24 radios) Option B: We continue with the Seattle EOC<-->Beacon link as currently designed, and plan a new 3 GHz UBNT link between Capital Park and Beacon. *This might screw up Bart's announced plan for a 3 Ghz Link Beacon to Haystack. Option C: We continue with the Seattle EOC<-->Beacon link as currently designed, we help Bart implement the 3GHz link Beacon to Haystack, and then re-use the current 5 GHz Beacon dish (pointing at Haystack) as a new Capital Park<--> Beacon link. (assuming we have enough 5 GHz spectrum to do that) Option D: We continue with the Seattle EOC<-->Beacon link as currently designed, and use 10 GHz Mimosa link between Capital Park and Beacon. ($$, but maybe. I think it's too far for 24 GHz.) Option E: UBNT AF24 Seattle EOC<-->Beacon, AND Mimosa 10GHz Beacon Tower<-->Capital Park *Assumes we win the lottery or otherwise find $8,000. Probably not practical, but we'd have a hack of a fast backbone and demonstrate use on 10 and 24 GHz ham bands. Best, Randy On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Doug Kingston <dpk@randomnotes.org> wrote:
So I like the concept in principle of connecting Capitol Park to Beacon in part to create a core of sector connectivity that is easy to maintain. I agree that 750 and end is steep for us. What other options do we have? For example... Can we reuse a PtoP 5GHz frequency with high isolation (shielding)?
-Doug-
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Randy Neals <randy@neals.ca> wrote:
Thanks Brian, I was looking at the FCC table - You're right, 3550 not 3450.
Randy
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
On 3/28/18 4:41 PM, Randy Neals wrote:
Citizens Broadband Radio Service just took away 3450-3500 from the Amateur band.
Do you have a source on this? I saw CBRS opened up 3550 to 3650 and 3650 to 3700 is the old part 90 WISP band.
3400 to 3500 is shared with mil radar, and I didn't see the USAF vacating this band.
Thanks, -- Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
participants (14)
-
Bart Kus -
Bryan Fields -
Bryan Fields
-
Carl -
Darcy Buskermolen -
Doug Kingston -
Fredric Moses -
Kenny Richards -
Nigel Vander Houwen -
Randy Neals -
Rob Salsgiver -
runamuk52＠gmail.com -
Tom Hayward -
Tony Ross