[hfsig] So you think you can't loose the Internet...

[Jack Taylor]

Walt, you've provided an interesting URL.  Also on this page is a link as to
what DoD and
the CG are doing to restore communications:

http://www.fcw.com/article90535-08-31-05-Web

As an Army MARS member, the 1st problem I see in having civilians handle
military
traffic is that most of us don't have any sort of security clearance.  As
you know, the trend
these days is that all military commo be encrypted.  2nd, there's a need to
identify what
kind of equipment is needed (and the associated costs and training) for
handling high speed
data traffic.  Suspect until an inexpensive plug and play HF data system is
available, it will
be awhile before the average ham will be able to participate.

In the case of the Katrina disaster, we see that when electric power is out,
commo is adversely
affected, regardless of what assets are on hand.

73 de Jack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <Walt.DuBose at RANDOLPH.AF.MIL>
To: <HSMM-TECHNICAL at listserv.tamu.edu>; <linklink at wetnet.net>;
<hfsig at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: [hfsig] So you think you can't loose the Internet...


> For those who think that you can't loose the Internet...see this URL.
>
> http://www.fcw.com/article90545-09-01-05-Web&newsletter%3Dyes
>
> This may be only a little slice of the pie; but from where I sit, I can
see
> the majority of the military network and a huge portion of the Internet
> itself being taken down for days, perhaps even weeks at a time.
>
> The Coast Guard has Mil-STD-188-110 modems and HF on some vessels and a
few
> aircraft as well as at some shore stations...at least they used to.  The
> last I heard they weren't using it because it wasn't robust enough nor
fast
> enough to meet anything but their very minimum needs.
>
> So why do hams think that that PSK31 is "enough", fast enough or Pactor
III
> is robust enough to meet even our amateur radio basic needs?
>
> There is a GREAT need for a high speed (many pages of output per minute),
> robust (works down near the noise floor) data mode as well as an equally
> robust digital voice mode.  A digital data mode that can be the center of
a
> nation-wide messaging system that does not use the Internet.
>
> My only comment is that what ever we do, we MUST do quickly.  We must
prove
> to ourselves and hams across the nation that we can provide high-speed,
> robust HF data and digital voice modes.
>
> There are those out there that can do this...we need to do it and if there
> are special legal requirements, then they need to be identified.  If there
> are technical specification within Part 97 now or that might be in the
> future, we need to identify them and show, either by actual demonstration
or
> technical papers, that we cannot provide what is needed with current or
> future legal/technical restrictions.
>
> I still believe that specific and reasonable short term and long term
goals
> for throughput and robustness will help focus our efforts on an end
product.
> This has certainly been shown to work in the past.
>
> I am sending to several lists as this needs to be a concerted effort.
>
> As Bill O'Reilly says..."What say you."
>
> Walt/K5YFW
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> _______________________________________________
> hfsig mailing list
> hfsig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hfsig
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/88 - Release Date: 9/1/2005