4 ms·

> There are more hams in the US, and more active hams, than ever before I apologize for repeating the doom and gloom then, because I know it can be self-fulfil

> There are more hams in the US, and more active hams, than ever before I apologize for repeating the doom and gloom then, because I know it can be self-fulfilling. The AARL has optimism but it also tells us net licenses are up <1% per year and "the large number of Baby Boomers will soon be aging off the licensee rolls", predicting "a significant decline in the number of hams, unless we take steps to reverse it." Source: http://www.arrl.org/news/more-than-30-000-new-ham-licensees-and-7-000-amateur-radio-exam-sessions-in-2017 http://www.arrl.org/news/more-than-30-000-new-ham-licensees-... A decentralized, no-carrier/ISP, disaster-tolerant medium for private communication would be amazing. I am not a licensed ham so this question is naive: If the major concern of allowing private communication over amateur bands is an influx of private commercial communication, then could bandwidth limits, protocols, signatures (amateur-vs-commercial), and enforcement be worth at least a trial? Perhaps on a new or limited existing band? A government-run experiment to address demand for this limited public resource seems reasonable.

janoc 8y ago
If you want that, there are plenty of ISM bands and loads of cheap equipment you can use to build such "decentralized, no-carrier/ISP, disaster-tolerant medium for private communication" (aka internet ...) HAM radio bands are meant for R&D work, learning and basically hobby stuff, not to replace internet or phone services - in fact, the regulations explicitly forbid such use.
- mmirate 8y ago
  Then why is it the hams from whom we hear about such feats as "ionosphere skipping", and not any makers of 2.4GHz equipment?
  - brians 8y ago
    Well, in part because the maximum usable frequency of the ionosphere tops out around 30-60 MHz?
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Got it, so a meshnet using ISM bands is limited by the radio horizon, meaning that unless the equipment is produced in very high numbers, the links won't be close enough to connect at all, outside urban areas or perhaps a few towns.
int_19h 8y ago
> A decentralized, no-carrier/ISP, disaster-tolerant medium for private communication would be amazing. That can be done without encryption, though. Take a look at Broadband-HamNet. It's exactly all these things.
nanomonkey 8y ago
https://disaster.radio https://disaster.radio

janoc 8y ago

If you want that, there are plenty of ISM bands and loads of cheap equipment you can use to build such "decentralized, no-carrier/ISP, disaster-tolerant medium for private communication" (aka internet ...) HAM radio bands are meant for R&D work, learning and basically hobby stuff, not to replace internet or phone services - in fact, the regulations explicitly forbid such use.

mmirate 8y ago
Then why is it the hams from whom we hear about such feats as "ionosphere skipping", and not any makers of 2.4GHz equipment?
- brians 8y ago
  Well, in part because the maximum usable frequency of the ionosphere tops out around 30-60 MHz?
  - mmirate 8y ago
    Got it, so a meshnet using ISM bands is limited by the radio horizon, meaning that unless the equipment is produced in very high numbers, the links won't be close enough to connect at all, outside urban areas or perhaps a few towns.

int_19h 8y ago

> A decentralized, no-carrier/ISP, disaster-tolerant medium for private communication would be amazing. That can be done without encryption, though. Take a look at Broadband-HamNet. It's exactly all these things.

nanomonkey 8y ago

https://disaster.radio https://disaster.radio