Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Access control suggestions

dubose at texas.net dubose at texas.net
Thu Nov 4 19:57:26 UTC 2004


> If we want this to work then here's a course of action
> that I think would be a good starting point.
> 
> 1 - Forget about which of the regulations to operate
> under.
> 
> 2 - Devlope a "backbone" to the system.  This would
> consist of central servers located at central command
> centers.  In the event of Red Cross activities, a good
> location would be the local Red Cross HQ.
> 

Your assumption is that the Red Cross is the HQ of emergency communications and
disaster plans.  However, while this might have been true a number of years ago,
today the Red Cross is a user of ARES/ham emergency communications just as are
local governments and other disaster relief organizations.  One should work with
the local emergency manager to see what emergency communications are needed.

> 3 - Develop a small, portable and easily configurable
> network infrastructure for field locations such as
> shelters.  This network would consist of a small
> server running a web server, mail server, ftp server,
> and PHP applications to handle communications,
> bulletines, anything we can think of that pertains to
> the local site.  Of course, all of this ifnformation
> would have to be stored in a database.  The HQ
> permanent server would host this database.

Are these the  "services"  your customer's need?  That's the first question to ask.

> 
> 4 - Local field sites would operate under part 15. 
> Network links between sites would operate under part
> 97.  This would allow local staff to communicate with
> eachoter as needed.  Communication that needs to go to
> ther sites would be relaed via the local server to the
> local hams.  They would then foward the information
> over the site link to the necessary site.  The
> receiving site would then relay the message over their
> local network to the final destination.  

Why not have a local site with 20-30 PCs in a local area operating under Part 97
and one or two hams be the control operator(s)?
> 
> 5 - Utilizing technology such as openH323 would allow
> for voice and video communications.  Persons with a
> handheld computer and a wireless card could send live
> video feed of disaster areas for damage assessment. 
> Communication between non hams at different sites
> would fall under standard 3rd party communications
> over the Part 97 Backbone.

Again, see what does the customer want/need.  This may vary from customer to
customer.

> 
> Back to the Database.  Site servers would contain
> information for the local site.  That information
> could then be relayed to a central database at HQ for
> permanent storage.  This would be a necessary step to
> prevent information being sent by non hams over the
> part 97 "backbone."  The database relay would be
> manually activiated by a Ham on duty.
> 

Walt/K5YFW

> So, there's a rough idea of what I'm thinking of.
> --- "Eric S. Johansson" <esj at harvee.org> wrote:
> 
> > Steven Phillips wrote:
> > > I have decided to use this topic as a research
> > project
> > > for my sociology class.  Here's a question that I
> > have
> > > come up with.
> > > 
> > > In my opinion, one of the major uses of this type
> > of
> > > system would be for emergency use in disaster
> > > situations.  With the exception of long range
> > > communciation, is really necessary to use WiFi
> > under
> > > part 97?  What I"m getting at, is this.  In the
> > event
> > ...
> > 
> > I've often argued that the best interface for
> > emergency communications 
> > is a browser, and a standard e-mail client.  Which
> > means amateur radio 
> > becomes a pipe over which non ham originated
> > messages pass.  Therefore, 
> > we should concentrate on building tools that work
> > with standard Internet 
> > protocols on one side, transport messages across RF
> > links, and then 
> > interoperate with standard Internet protocols on the
> > other side.  I've 
> > often suggested that UUCP is a good conceptual model
> > for this environment.
> > 
> > before you get your part 97 undies in a bunch, yes I
> > know there are 
> > content restrictions which I believe should be
> > waived for the 
> > circumstances.  One could argue for this on the
> > grounds that we're not 
> > providing general access, we're providing a publicly
> > beneficial service 
> > to the agencies servicing disasters zones.  One
> > could use tiered 
> > services to allow individuals to send "I'm alive and
> > OK" messages 
> > outside but not accept any traffic back except under
> > very special 
> > circumstances.  This traffic obviously would have to
> > go through the part 
> > 97 scrutiny process.
> > > 
> > > Sheesh I'm long winded. 
> > 
> > comes with a territory.  I've had to go to water
> > cooled finals I talk so 
> > much.
> > 
> > ---eric
> > 
> > -- 
> > George Bush makes me long for the honesty of Richard
> > Nixon
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ham-80211 mailing list
> > ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> >
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ham-80211 mailing list
> ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ham-80211
> 






More information about the ham-80211 mailing list