Hey, y'all. I just purchased the recommended "Mikrotik RouterBOARD Metal 5SHPn wifi radio," and am seeking an antenna, but will likely be up and running soon. I'm located at 66th and Sandy/Fremont area, and am interested in running a couple of experiments: - Set up a HAMWAN relay connection between here (my home) and where my mom lives (Ryderwood, WA) - Testing the mobile blockchain software my team created I'm currently CTO for a company called Bitnation, and we've created (and continue to update) an Android/iOS app that provides decentralized blockchain-based economic services over secure and anonymous chat. I'm pretty interested in pursing real experience in getting this to work over HAMWAN, to demonstrate that it would facilitate baseline communication and commerce in the aftermath of a natural disaster. My goal is to help rural HAM radio people become the internet providers, if that makes any sense. I've also invested in an AltheaMesh router, fyi. Kent
Hello Kent, Please keep in mind, it is strictly prohibited (by Federal regulation) to do any kind of business/commerce over amateur radio (which includes HamWAN), and further, no encryption of any kind is permitted over amateur radio. For these reasons, you cannot utilize HamWAN for commercial purposes, even in a disaster/emergency scenario. As to your location and getting HamWAN, the various sector locations are clearly identified on the HamWAN website. I’m going to guess that possibly Capitol Park (a few blocks north of Kaiser Permanente (Group Health) might be your best possibility. As to a connection to your mother – you won’t get a direct line of sight connection, however her house may permit connection to a HamWAN sector (possibly Capitol Peak or BawFAW?). However, to have an installation/connection there would of course require your mother to hold an amateur radio license also. Every HamWAN client dish must be programmed with that operator’s amateur call sign, which is sent as part of the data packets transmitted to comply with FCC ID requirements. As to “rural ham radio operators becoming the internet providers”, again that can only be to other amateur operators, and that can only be for amateur radio communications – no business, commerce, or encryption. You can’t even connect to an https:// connection, just http:// Carl, N7KUW From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Kent Dahlgren Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 9:23 AM To: psdr@hamwan.org Subject: [HamWAN PSDR] New to HAMWAN (NE Portland) Hey, y'all. I just purchased the recommended "Mikrotik RouterBOARD Metal 5SHPn wifi radio," and am seeking an antenna, but will likely be up and running soon. I'm located at 66th and Sandy/Fremont area, and am interested in running a couple of experiments: * Set up a HAMWAN relay connection between here (my home) and where my mom lives (Ryderwood, WA) * Testing the mobile blockchain software my team created I'm currently CTO for a company called Bitnation, and we've created (and continue to update) an Android/iOS app that provides decentralized blockchain-based economic services over secure and anonymous chat. I'm pretty interested in pursing real experience in getting this to work over HAMWAN, to demonstrate that it would facilitate baseline communication and commerce in the aftermath of a natural disaster. My goal is to help rural HAM radio people become the internet providers, if that makes any sense. I've also invested in an AltheaMesh router, fyi. Kent
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:48 AM Carl <carl@n7kuw.com> wrote:
Hello Kent,
Please keep in mind, it is strictly prohibited (by Federal regulation) to do any kind of business/commerce over amateur radio (which includes HamWAN), and further, no encryption of any kind is permitted over amateur radio. For these reasons, you cannot utilize HamWAN for commercial purposes, even in a disaster/emergency scenario.
Specifically, what the regulation prohibits is any kind of pecuniary interest. This means that if you collect a salary, equity, or any other type of compensation from Bitnation, you would not be allowed to test it over ham radio. The rest of us would be free to run the software on HamWAN, provided no other regulations such as obscuring the content of messages are violated. I wrote this article on the topic: https://hamwan.org/Administrative/Internet%20and%20Part%2097.html Tom KD7LXL
Hi Tom, Great web page.
I wrote this article on the topic: https://hamwan.org/Administrative/Internet%20and%20Part%2097.html <https://hamwan.org/Administrative/Internet%20and%20Part%2097.html>
How do I determine if a program like iOS Face Time uses cryptography to obscure the video or audio. In other words is it allowed or not allowed to use Face Time to talk to another amateur radio operator over HanWAN? I assume it is not permitted to use Face Time to talk to a non ham even if I initiate the Face Time contact. Note in WinLink it is ok to send and receive email a non ham because the radio session is controlled by the ham and not by the sender or software. This would indicate most email and text messing is not allowed because the software is in control of sending you messages and you are not controlling the reception of email or text messages. Climbing up the HamWAN learning curve. 73 David Haworth http://www.stargazing.net/david/sdr/HamWAN.html#P4b <http://www.stargazing.net/david/sdr/HamWAN.html#P4b> PS: WinLink has worked great on my portable QRT 5 rig.
On Sep 5, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Tom Hayward <tom@tomh.us> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:48 AM Carl <carl@n7kuw.com <mailto:carl@n7kuw.com>> wrote: Hello Kent,
Please keep in mind, it is strictly prohibited (by Federal regulation) to do any kind of business/commerce over amateur radio (which includes HamWAN), and further, no encryption of any kind is permitted over amateur radio. For these reasons, you cannot utilize HamWAN for commercial purposes, even in a disaster/emergency scenario.
Specifically, what the regulation prohibits is any kind of pecuniary interest. This means that if you collect a salary, equity, or any other type of compensation from Bitnation, you would not be allowed to test it over ham radio. The rest of us would be free to run the software on HamWAN, provided no other regulations such as obscuring the content of messages are violated.
I wrote this article on the topic: https://hamwan.org/Administrative/Internet%20and%20Part%2097.html <https://hamwan.org/Administrative/Internet%20and%20Part%2097.html>
Tom KD7LXL _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
On 9/6/18 1:39 AM, David Haworth via PSDR wrote:>
How do I determine if a program like iOS Face Time uses cryptography to obscure the video or audio.
In other words is it allowed or not allowed to use Face Time to talk to another amateur radio operator over HanWAN?
This is interesting, as part 97 doesn't mention "encryption" by name, but coded transmissions with the primary purpose of obscuring the message passed. It could be argued that an application layer protocol of which encryption is not the primary use would be permitted. I've done skype with another ham over hamwan before as part of a realtime webcast program. This technically may be in violation of the rules. Another classic example is the 50w power restriction of 70cm. The rules say no more than 50w PEP from the transmitter, but this is poorly defined for many stations. In one case I have a repeater with 3 dB of loss in the filter network, and we run 100W into the filters, with 50w out of the filter. Is this permitted? We're not sure. This is the problem with part 97 and it's ambiguities when operating on the leading edge of amateur radio. What we do know is the FCC with clarify if a good faith effort to operate in compliance is taking place. This being said, HamWAN Tampa has worked with some of the Primary users of 5.9 GHZ and we didn't go running to the ARRL for assistance. The ARRL will not be our ally if we need to seek clarification from the FCC.
I assume it is not permitted to use Face Time to talk to a non ham even if I initiate the Face Time contact.
Note in WinLink it is ok to send and receive email a non ham because the radio session is controlled by the ham and not by the sender or software.
This would indicate most email and text messing is not allowed because the software is in control of sending you messages and you are not controlling the reception of email or text messages.
Further down the part 97 rat-hole; HamWAN is interconnected to the internet, and technically is a radio transmitter as well. Every stray packet and probe from random places on the internet causes a licensed part 97 transmitter to turn on and make a transmission. This is not technically legal... -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
This is likely the greatest failure in my early HamWAN design work: choosing to make the PtMP frequencies be Part 97 only. The utility of the network suffers as a result of this decision. I think we could have done a better job if HamWAN were run under ISM / UNII licensing, and were simply implemented and operated by hams. Most (if not all) of the backbone runs ISM / UNII frequencies and can carry encrypted traffic, but the sectors can't since they're strictly in P97 spectrum. Perhaps it's time to revisit that decision for a better future. I would love to see a properly designed distributed communications system for HamWAN. I have many design thoughts on this, but they're too long to share here. It's all gated on developer time. Blockchain should be completely compatible with Part 97 regulations, so it can run on HamWAN as well. It doesn't use encryption, just cryptographic signatures / hashing, which is fine by the P97 rules. This is why IPsec(AH) is usable over P97 as well. Given the ordering-a-pizza allowance in general for amateur radio, and given that blockchain is also fine, I can see how ordering a pizza through a HamWAN blockchain would be OK. Would love to hear more details of what Kent thinks would work well over such a network. We could definitely use some more software people participating in the project in general, and especially those with a security / cryptography / networking focus. PS: Back when I was doing the original design work, https:// was still fine as long as your web server used a null cipher. Support for this mode has since been removed from all browsers. Sadness. I have requested Chrome put it back, but to no avail. PPS: We have had far better success with SSH. MikroTik (our router vendor) did respond to our request to implement SSH with null cipher support, and you can now use a custom built ssh client <https://hamwan.org/Standards/Network%20Engineering/Authentication/SSH%20Without%20Encryption.html> to SSH into HamWAN routers while remaining P97 compliant and retaining most security benefits of SSH, aside from privacy. --Bart On 9/5/2018 9:47 AM, Carl wrote:
Hello Kent,
Please keep in mind, it is strictly prohibited (by Federal regulation) to do any kind of business/commerce over amateur radio (which includes HamWAN), and further, no encryption of any kind is permitted over amateur radio. For these reasons, you cannot utilize HamWAN for commercial purposes, even in a disaster/emergency scenario.
As to your location and getting HamWAN, the various sector locations are clearly identified on the HamWAN website. I’m going to guess that possibly Capitol Park (a few blocks north of Kaiser Permanente (Group Health) might be your best possibility.
As to a connection to your mother – you won’t get a direct line of sight connection, however her house may permit connection to a HamWAN sector (possibly Capitol Peak or BawFAW?). However, to have an installation/connection there would of course require your mother to hold an amateur radio license also. Every HamWAN client dish must be programmed with that operator’s amateur call sign, which is sent as part of the data packets transmitted to comply with FCC ID requirements.
As to “rural ham radio operators becoming the internet providers”, again that can only be to other amateur operators, and that can only be for amateur radio communications – no business, commerce, or encryption. You can’t even connect to an https:// connection, just http://
Carl, N7KUW
*From:*PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces@hamwan.org] *On Behalf Of *Kent Dahlgren *Sent:* Wednesday, September 5, 2018 9:23 AM *To:* psdr@hamwan.org *Subject:* [HamWAN PSDR] New to HAMWAN (NE Portland)
Hey, y'all.
I just purchased the recommended "Mikrotik RouterBOARD Metal 5SHPn wifi radio," and am seeking an antenna, but will likely be up and running soon.
I'm located at 66th and Sandy/Fremont area, and am interested in running a couple of experiments:
* Set up a HAMWAN relay connection between here (my home) and where my mom lives (Ryderwood, WA)
* Testing the mobile blockchain software my team created
I'm currently CTO for a company called Bitnation, and we've created (and continue to update) an Android/iOS app that provides decentralized blockchain-based economic services over secure and anonymous chat.
I'm pretty interested in pursing real experience in getting this to work over HAMWAN, to demonstrate that it would facilitate baseline communication and commerce in the aftermath of a natural disaster.
My goal is to help rural HAM radio people become the internet providers, if that makes any sense.
I've also invested in an AltheaMesh router, fyi.
Kent
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Bart Kus wrote:
PPS: We have had far better success with SSH. MikroTik (our router vendor) did respond to our request to implement SSH with null cipher support, and you can now use a custom built ssh client <https://hamwan.org/Standards/Network%20Engineering/Authentication/SSH%20Without%20Encryption.html> to SSH into HamWAN routers while remaining P97 compliant and retaining most security benefits of SSH, aside from privacy.
Note: I had a bit of an on-going battle with the OpenSSH developers for a while over their dropping of the "NONE" cipher. The battle involved me asking for it, one of the main developers telling me: "Get your country to change the stupid ham rules", or some-such. I tried a year later and got about the same response. I gave up on that venue. The end result: Chris Rapier, the guy who puts out the high performance computing patches for OpenSSH contacted me. He had the "NONE" patch as part of his monster HPN-SSH patch, said if I wanted to separate out just the "NONE" patch he'd make it available for download alongside his other patches from then on. He's done so. https://www.psc.edu/hpn-ssh For instance for OpenSSH-7.7-P1: https://sourceforge.net/projects/hpnssh/files/HPN-SSH%2014v15%207.7p1/ It would be the file called: openssh-7_7_P1-hpn-NoneSwitch-14.15.diff In the future as OpenSSH moves along you should still be able to apply the "NONE" patch from his site to the appropriate OpenSSH version. -- Curt, WE7U. http://we7u.wetnet.net "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." - unknown "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." - WE7U. Coordinate Converter (Android): http://www.sarguydigital.com
When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to building the network. It was pointed out that many of those sites provide space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay commercial rates. Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an amateur radio requirement. In addition, running part 97 has greater transmitter power flexibility. So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as well as re-negotiating site rentals. So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules for segments running in the US and its territories. However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility. ------------------------------ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
John, With regards to the address space, it’s still an amateur network, so we wouldn’t need new space, there’s no requirement to only use it on part 97 frequencies. It’s just reserved for ham use. You are correct that we gain some spectrum and some transmitter power flexibility. Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 14:56, John D. Hays <john@hays.org> wrote:
When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to building the network. It was pointed out that many of those sites provide space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay commercial rates. Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an amateur radio requirement. In addition, running part 97 has greater transmitter power flexibility.
So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as well as re-negotiating site rentals.
So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules for segments running in the US and its territories.
However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility.
John D. Hays Edmonds, WAK7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
Nigel, The license for the address space says that it must be used within Amateur Radio -- not necessarily on the air, but within the context of Amateur Radio, which I take to include infrastructure. I simply reference https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/ On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:21 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com> wrote:
John,
With regards to the address space, it’s still an amateur network, so we wouldn’t need new space, there’s no requirement to only use it on part 97 frequencies. It’s just reserved for ham use.
You are correct that we gain some spectrum and some transmitter power flexibility.
Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 14:56, John D. Hays <john@hays.org> wrote:
When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to building the network. It was pointed out that many of those sites provide space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay commercial rates. Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an amateur radio requirement. In addition, running part 97 has greater transmitter power flexibility.
So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as well as re-negotiating site rentals.
So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules for segments running in the US and its territories.
However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility.
------------------------------ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
John, Correct, but HamWAN is still a amateur network, built by hams, for hams, so it’s still an amateur radio network whether or not it’s part 97 spectrum. Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 15:49, John D. Hays <john@hays.org> wrote:
Nigel,
The license for the address space says that it must be used within Amateur Radio -- not necessarily on the air, but within the context of Amateur Radio, which I take to include infrastructure. I simply reference https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/ <https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:21 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com <mailto:nigel@nigelvh.com>> wrote: John,
With regards to the address space, it’s still an amateur network, so we wouldn’t need new space, there’s no requirement to only use it on part 97 frequencies. It’s just reserved for ham use.
You are correct that we gain some spectrum and some transmitter power flexibility.
Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 14:56, John D. Hays <john@hays.org <mailto:john@hays.org>> wrote:
When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to building the network. It was pointed out that many of those sites provide space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay commercial rates. Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an amateur radio requirement. In addition, running part 97 has greater transmitter power flexibility.
So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as well as re-negotiating site rentals.
So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules for segments running in the US and its territories.
However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility.
John D. Hays Edmonds, WAK7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr <http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr <http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr>
--
John D. Hays Edmonds, WAK7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
The earlier question was about hams providing Internet service to underserved areas (presumably for non-hams and for general Internet access) -- that is what I am clarifying. Net-44 infrastructure can run on non Part-97 frequencies, but must follow Part-97 when using Part-97 frequencies. If Net-44 addresses are used by non-hams or non-ham related activities then they are in violation of the TOS for the licensed subnets. On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:52 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com> wrote:
John,
Correct, but HamWAN is still a amateur network, built by hams, for hams, so it’s still an amateur radio network whether or not it’s part 97 spectrum.
Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 15:49, John D. Hays <john@hays.org> wrote:
Nigel,
The license for the address space says that it must be used within Amateur Radio -- not necessarily on the air, but within the context of Amateur Radio, which I take to include infrastructure. I simply reference https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:21 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com> wrote:
John,
With regards to the address space, it’s still an amateur network, so we wouldn’t need new space, there’s no requirement to only use it on part 97 frequencies. It’s just reserved for ham use.
You are correct that we gain some spectrum and some transmitter power flexibility.
Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 14:56, John D. Hays <john@hays.org> wrote:
When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to building the network. It was pointed out that many of those sites provide space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay commercial rates. Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an amateur radio requirement. In addition, running part 97 has greater transmitter power flexibility.
So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as well as re-negotiating site rentals.
So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules for segments running in the US and its territories.
However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility.
------------------------------ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ 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
--
------------------------------ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
Ah, yes. You couldn’t use 44-net space for a general ISP. Welcome to trying to buy some space from ARIN or a third party. Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 16:15, John D. Hays <john@hays.org> wrote:
The earlier question was about hams providing Internet service to underserved areas (presumably for non-hams and for general Internet access) -- that is what I am clarifying. Net-44 infrastructure can run on non Part-97 frequencies, but must follow Part-97 when using Part-97 frequencies.
If Net-44 addresses are used by non-hams or non-ham related activities then they are in violation of the TOS for the licensed subnets.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:52 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com <mailto:nigel@nigelvh.com>> wrote: John,
Correct, but HamWAN is still a amateur network, built by hams, for hams, so it’s still an amateur radio network whether or not it’s part 97 spectrum.
Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 15:49, John D. Hays <john@hays.org <mailto:john@hays.org>> wrote:
Nigel,
The license for the address space says that it must be used within Amateur Radio -- not necessarily on the air, but within the context of Amateur Radio, which I take to include infrastructure. I simply reference https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/ <https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:21 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com <mailto:nigel@nigelvh.com>> wrote: John,
With regards to the address space, it’s still an amateur network, so we wouldn’t need new space, there’s no requirement to only use it on part 97 frequencies. It’s just reserved for ham use.
You are correct that we gain some spectrum and some transmitter power flexibility.
Nigel
On Sep 5, 2018, at 14:56, John D. Hays <john@hays.org <mailto:john@hays.org>> wrote:
When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to building the network. It was pointed out that many of those sites provide space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay commercial rates. Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an amateur radio requirement. In addition, running part 97 has greater transmitter power flexibility.
So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as well as re-negotiating site rentals.
So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules for segments running in the US and its territories.
However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility.
John D. Hays Edmonds, WAK7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr <http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr <http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr>
--
John D. Hays Edmonds, WAK7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr <http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr <http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr>
--
John D. Hays Edmonds, WAK7VE
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
John, Thanks for bringing it up for discussion. I don’t know how serious Bart is about re-thinking the infrastructure, but what you identify are only a few layers of the onion that would have to be looked at before such a transition could take place, if it were able to at all. A large part depends on whether the move away from Part 97 is to ultimately transition to a commercially capable and supporting network, or to remain an amateur project in non-amateur RF space. Some other aspects: 1. If it were to convert to non-amateur (RF) space, could it even still be used for amateur radio communication? I suspect there would be issues due to the need for no encryption, etc in order to remain “ham compliant”. 2. Some of the tower locations in North sound outright rejected HamWAN due to perceived competition with the commercial carrier Startouch, who runs a wireless ISP operation in several locations. Such a transition would further put HamWAN into the realm of commercial ISPs and less into the “more accommodating” space for amateur radio support. 3. Current facilities would likely want or need to be re-evaluated. A move to non-amateur space puts HamWAN an administrative policy decision away from becoming a commercial ISP. Any “deals” we have on site rent would likely be re-evaluated to higher cost structures. 4. Currently HamWAN has gone on record with the FCC on various topics as it relates to use of amateur RF space. Abandoning this space gives those who would like to see it re-purposed more ammunition. 5. If the goal is to go toward a commercial ISP model, there are a whole host of other issues that would need to be looked at, although probably the greatest improvement would be in funding. That said, how many of the EMCOMM community would you retain if everything were charged commercial provider rates? Lots of sticky wickets in here, particularly in the regulations regarding commercial carriers. 6. If the goal is NOT to go toward a commercial ISP model, in addition to item #1 above you would still have additional problems. At this point we can say that HamWAN is an amateur network and can’t be used for business. If the frequency use changes, it becomes even more difficult to “draw the lines” between a “non-amateur Ham network” and a normal commercial ISP. Establishing usage and traffic rules for amateur vs non-amateur traffic becomes a MUCH more substantial undertaking than today. 7. Whether the goal is to go commercial or not, it puts everyone on HamWAN’s board in a delicate spot with respect to their own licenses. If any use of the spectrum generates revenue, then the recordkeeping would need to be spotless to ensure nobody gets into the “pecuniary interest” trap. 8. At this point we are having issues with enough time/volunteers/$$ to do what is currently on the table. Changing frequencies and creating new rules and tools for accommodating different (non-ham) types of usage, policing it, and managing it are only likely to add to the problem, not help it. All in all, a good conversation to have regardless of the eventual outcome. It’s a conversation that needs to happen sooner or later. Cheers, Rob From: PSDR <psdr-bounces@hamwan.org> On Behalf Of John D. Hays Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018 3:49 PM To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] New to HAMWAN (NE Portland) Nigel, The license for the address space says that it must be used within Amateur Radio -- not necessarily on the air, but within the context of Amateur Radio, which I take to include infrastructure. I simply reference https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/ On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:21 PM Nigel Vander Houwen <nigel@nigelvh.com <mailto:nigel@nigelvh.com> > wrote: John, With regards to the address space, it’s still an amateur network, so we wouldn’t need new space, there’s no requirement to only use it on part 97 frequencies. It’s just reserved for ham use. You are correct that we gain some spectrum and some transmitter power flexibility. Nigel On Sep 5, 2018, at 14:56, John D. Hays <john@hays.org <mailto:john@hays.org> > wrote: When Bart first proposed the HamWAN concept to various amateur radio forums, he observed that radio repeater sites would be beneficial to building the network. It was pointed out that many of those sites provide space on a discounted or gratis basis for amateur radio purposes only (often in support of public service/emergency communications), and the repeater operators would likely loose their sites or start having to pay commercial rates. Also, using 44.x.x.x routable addresses come with an amateur radio requirement. In addition, running part 97 has greater transmitter power flexibility. So, the network could be rebuilt using non Part 97 compliance, but new address space would be required (or a giant NAT infrastructure for IPv4) as well as re-negotiating site rentals. So, unless those steps are undertaken, the network is under Part 97 rules for segments running in the US and its territories. However, if Kent wanted to use the published HamWAN engineering work to build a similar WISP system, with associated costs, that is a possibility. _____ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE <http://k7ve.org/images/Facebook-26.png> <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B16WvG35kZ7SUFYwZldBMmJXeWs&revid=0B16WvG35kZ7STXlkYm1oMkpHYzVxOUlxVEtXc1dqMXZhdjZFPQ> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays> _______________________________________________ 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 -- _____ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE <http://k7ve.org/images/Facebook-26.png> <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B16WvG35kZ7SUFYwZldBMmJXeWs&revid=0B16WvG35kZ7STXlkYm1oMkpHYzVxOUlxVEtXc1dqMXZhdjZFPQ> <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 4:18 PM Rob Salsgiver <rob@nr3o.com> wrote:
John,
Some other aspects:
1. If it were to convert to non-amateur (RF) space, could it even still be used for amateur radio communication? I suspect there would be issues due to the need for no encryption, etc in order to remain “ham compliant”.
I don't think this is an issue since it is not governed by Part-97 at that point and traffic could transit the network to end points, just as traffic passes over telephone or Internet circuits. ------------------------------ John D. Hays Edmonds, WA K7VE <http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
On 9/5/18 6:49 PM, John D. Hays wrote:
The license for the address space says that it must be used within Amateur Radio -- not necessarily on the air, but within the context of Amateur Radio, which I take to include infrastructure. I simply reference https://www.ampr.org/terms-of-service/
Well, except for the fact ARDC uses it for non ham purposes. AFIK, it's never been revoked from a user for non-ham use. Is it legal to order a pizza on hamwan? If you wanted to do non-ham use, why not give the non-ham users IPv6 only with MAP-E/T :-D -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
participants (10)
-
Bart Kus -
Bryan Fields -
Carl -
Curt, WE7U -
David Haworth -
John D. Hays -
Kent Dahlgren -
Nigel Vander Houwen -
Rob Salsgiver -
Tom Hayward