In the ongoing emergency caused by Storm Arwen I've seen nothing in the
'media' about RAYNET providing any assistance, nor (despite some
promising Google hits) any reference to it on the internet.

It's taken seven days to get the military (who I would expect to have
good communications facilities) involved. In the absence of any local
radio amateurs, this is the sort of situation where, for the general
public, CB radio (or even PMR446 for short range) would have been
invaluable. However, there's absolutely no mention of it anywhere.

The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to be totally dependent on
the 'official' communications infrastructure. Unfortunately, if phone
lines (whether copper or fibre) and electricity supplies are cut, whole communities can be totally cut off from the rest of civilisation. Do we
really want to be caught with our pants well and truly down, or should
we 'learn lessons', and start building up an effective civil defence organisation - even though, despite 'global warming', such emergencies
might turn out to be only a once-in-a-generation event?
--
Ian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2021 23:10, Ian Jackson wrote:

In the ongoing emergency caused by Storm Arwen I've seen nothing in the 'media' about RAYNET providing any assistance, nor (despite some
promising Google hits) any reference to it on the internet.

It's taken seven days to get the military (who I would expect to have
good communications facilities) involved. In the absence of any local
radio amateurs, this is the sort of situation where, for the general
public, CB radio (or even PMR446 for short range) would have been
invaluable. However, there's absolutely no mention of it anywhere.

The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to be totally dependent on
the 'official' communications infrastructure. Unfortunately, if phone
lines (whether copper or fibre) and electricity supplies are cut, whole communities can be totally cut off from the rest of civilisation. Do we really want to be caught with our pants well and truly down, or should
we 'learn lessons', and start building up an effective civil defence organisation - even though, despite 'global warming', such emergencies
might turn out to be only a once-in-a-generation event?

I haven't seen any mention of significant mobile phone coverage loss,
but rather of handset batteries going flat. I don't know how many
amateurs have 7 day backup capacity. If mobile phone coverage is going
out, I imagine amateur repeaters are going out.

I suspect what was needed was vehicles capable of clearing or traversing
snow drifts, rather than wireless communication.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to know how many lost
communication because of failures in the phone backbone, or copper local
loops, versus losing it because they only had mobile phones, with
limited battery capacity, or relied on cordless phones, internet
telephony, or voice over fibre of a type that required them to supply
the power, and to which BT are migrating people (I guess much of Virgin
already is that way).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In the ongoing emergency caused by Storm Arwen I've seen nothing in the 'media' about RAYNET providing any assistance, nor (despite some
promising Google hits) any reference to it on the internet.

It's taken seven days to get the military (who I would expect to have
good communications facilities) involved. In the absence of any local
radio amateurs, this is the sort of situation where, for the general
public, CB radio (or even PMR446 for short range) would have been
invaluable. However, there's absolutely no mention of it anywhere.

I wondered about this as we went into the first lockdown. I got hold of a Baofeng and tuned into my local 70cm repeater to see if there was any kind
of response being organised. There were just some blokes wittering like
they were in the pub - I concluded it wasn't useful. As it was power and
comms stayed up throughout the pandemic, so things were ok.

What's the best way to have comms infrastructure in an emergency? I think
the best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a tank of a few weeks worth of fuel. If you keep the mobile networks up, people can communicate. That leaves the question of people charging their phones, but they can charge from cars or generators or whatever. Someone in the neighbourhood is likely to have a working mobile even if you don't.

Now, there's a certain class of event that knocks out towers - winds etc.
Again I think the best bang for buck is temporary towers, perhaps brought in
by helicopter or something. Maybe with satellite uplink. I wonder if
there's a kind of cheap/basic 2G/3G tower that could be installed in
vulnerable spots for basic comms just in case.

I can't see what a few people with amateur radio will add to this. In the
case of a hurricane, they might be able to get the word out. But they're
too thin on the ground, people don't have the right kit, fixed amateur
antennas are just as likely to be knocked out as cell towers, and when the roads are closed you can't position anyone or any equipment anyway.

If we're in a Mad Max scenario where everything has broken down, then I'd be interested what the solutions might be. Possibly some kind of wide area
mesh network? Maybe there's a way to repurpose existing wifi/etc gear for that? Obviously any gear needs to be in the right place to begin with -
which is why I think it's better to repurpose things that people already
have.

I can't see how a few radio amateurs pretending to be emergency response operators helps with this?

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2021 23:10, Ian Jackson wrote:

In the ongoing emergency caused by Storm Arwen I've seen nothing in the 'media' about RAYNET providing any assistance,

Good point, but my question is: Does/did RAYNET provide any assistance?

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a tank of a few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement
it at cell sites.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/12/2021 11:58, David Woolley wrote:

I haven't seen any mention of significant mobile phone coverage loss

Cell sites went down because the battery backup only runs them for 8hrs
or so. The extended lack of mains power was the problem. No mains, no
cell after batteries run down.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/12/2021 23:10, Ian Jackson wrote:

In the ongoing emergency caused by Storm Arwen I've seen nothing in the 'media' about RAYNET providing any assistance, nor (despite some
promising Google hits) any reference to it on the internet.

It's taken seven days to get the military (who I would expect to have
good communications facilities) involved. In the absence of any local
radio amateurs, this is the sort of situation where, for the general
public, CB radio (or even PMR446 for short range) would have been
invaluable. However, there's absolutely no mention of it anywhere.

Some years ago South Norfolk Council had an emergency network of CB
radios on, IIRC, 27 MHz or thereabouts: however, South Norfolk was not
exctly in the path of the storm. Neither do I remember any situation
where the network was called upon in an emergency - not that it was
entirely unlikely, for the area is vulnerable to flooding in adverse conditions.

The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to be totally dependent on
the 'official' communications infrastructure. Unfortunately, if phone
lines (whether copper or fibre) and electricity supplies are cut, whole communities can be totally cut off from the rest of civilisation. Do we really want to be caught with our pants well and truly down, or should
we 'learn lessons', and start building up an effective civil defence organisation - even though, despite 'global warming', such emergencies
might turn out to be only a once-in-a-generation event?

In the nineteen mumble mumbles the country *had* a functioning civil
defence corps. Like a lot of good ideas which by good fortune just
happen to have escaped testing, it was scrapped/run down, I presume as
not 'cost effective'.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a tank of a few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement
it at cell sites.

Which is what? We're talking about mostly rural areas here, not city tower blocks. It might not be suitable for the site on the church spire, but then electric cables are capable of carrying power from some distance away - so
you can site the generator somewhere more suitable. Rural folks already
have oil tanks containing months supplies of heating oil (in fact the church probably already has one of those) so it's not a new problem.

I don't know if you can build a resilient mobile network that aims for
coverage even if some towers are out, at a cost of per-subscriber bandwidth, perhaps with cross-network roaming? eg cap everyone to some kbps each but
at least allow them to get basic connectivity.

Theo

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/12/2021 22:31, Theo wrote:

mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a tank of a >>> few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement
it at cell sites.

Which is what? We're talking about mostly rural areas here, not city tower blocks. It might not be suitable for the site on the church spire, but then electric cables are capable of carrying power from some distance away - so you can site the generator somewhere more suitable. Rural folks already
have oil tanks containing months supplies of heating oil (in fact the church probably already has one of those) so it's not a new problem.

I don't know if you can build a resilient mobile network that aims for coverage even if some towers are out, at a cost of per-subscriber bandwidth, perhaps with cross-network roaming? eg cap everyone to some kbps each but
at least allow them to get basic connectivity.

In rural communities the commonest crime seems to be the plundering of
saleable machinery and of fuel.

Remote sites are especially vulnerable.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/12/2021 20:11, mm0fmf wrote:

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

  best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a tank
of a
few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement
it at cell sites.

Some remote sites do have generator backup.

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/12/2021 20:08, mm0fmf wrote:

On 05/12/2021 11:58, David Woolley wrote:

I haven't seen any mention of significant mobile phone coverage loss

Cell sites went down because the battery backup only runs them for 8hrs
or so. The extended lack of mains power was the problem. No mains, no
cell after batteries run down.

Last time we had a power cut the phone signals dispersed immediately.

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In the ongoing emergency caused by Storm Arwen I've seen nothing in the 'media' about RAYNET providing any assistance, nor (despite some
promising Google hits) any reference to it on the internet.

It's taken seven days to get the military (who I would expect to have
good communications facilities) involved. In the absence of any local
radio amateurs, this is the sort of situation where, for the general
public, CB radio (or even PMR446 for short range) would have been
invaluable. However, there's absolutely no mention of it anywhere.

The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to be totally dependent on
the 'official' communications infrastructure. Unfortunately, if phone
lines (whether copper or fibre) and electricity supplies are cut, whole communities can be totally cut off from the rest of civilisation. Do we really want to be caught with our pants well and truly down, or should
we 'learn lessons', and start building up an effective civil defence organisation - even though, despite 'global warming', such emergencies
might turn out to be only a once-in-a-generation event?

The “authorities” are invariably convinced they can cope. Then, when they find out they can’t, they decide ‘it’ won’t happen again.

Do you recall the chaos after the London bombings ( the ones on the buses
etc)? It was initially decided “ something needed to be done” re comms. Guess what.

Lessons are never learned.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/12/2021 00:58, RustyHinge wrote:

On 05/12/2021 22:31, Theo wrote:

mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

   best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a
tank of a
few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement
it at cell sites.

Which is what?  We're talking about mostly rural areas here, not city
tower
blocks.  It might not be suitable for the site on the church spire,
but then
electric cables are capable of carrying power from some distance away
- so
you can site the generator somewhere more suitable.  Rural folks already
have oil tanks containing months supplies of heating oil (in fact the
church
probably already has one of those) so it's not a new problem.

I don't know if you can build a resilient mobile network that aims for
coverage even if some towers are out, at a cost of per-subscriber
bandwidth,
perhaps with cross-network roaming?  eg cap everyone to some kbps each
but
at least allow them to get basic connectivity.

In rural communities the commonest crime seems to be the plundering of saleable machinery and of fuel.

Remote sites are especially vulnerable.

Correct. You win a coconut :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/12/2021 09:41, Brian wrote:

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

In the ongoing emergency caused by Storm Arwen I've seen nothing in the
'media' about RAYNET providing any assistance, nor (despite some
promising Google hits) any reference to it on the internet.

It's taken seven days to get the military (who I would expect to have
good communications facilities) involved. In the absence of any local
radio amateurs, this is the sort of situation where, for the general
public, CB radio (or even PMR446 for short range) would have been
invaluable. However, there's absolutely no mention of it anywhere.

The point I'm trying to make is that we seem to be totally dependent on
the 'official' communications infrastructure. Unfortunately, if phone
lines (whether copper or fibre) and electricity supplies are cut, whole
communities can be totally cut off from the rest of civilisation. Do we
really want to be caught with our pants well and truly down, or should
we 'learn lessons', and start building up an effective civil defence
organisation - even though, despite 'global warming', such emergencies
might turn out to be only a once-in-a-generation event?

The “authorities” are invariably convinced they can cope. Then, when they find out they can’t, they decide ‘it’ won’t happen again.

Do you recall the chaos after the London bombings ( the ones on the buses etc)? It was initially decided “ something needed to be done” re comms. Guess what.

Lessons are never learned.

Nor, unfortunately, is the lesson that lessons are never learned.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/12/2021 18:36, mm0fmf wrote:

On 06/12/2021 00:58, RustyHinge wrote:

On 05/12/2021 22:31, Theo wrote:

mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

   best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a
tank of a
few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement >>>> it at cell sites.

Which is what?  We're talking about mostly rural areas here, not city
tower
blocks.  It might not be suitable for the site on the church spire,
but then
electric cables are capable of carrying power from some distance away
- so
you can site the generator somewhere more suitable.  Rural folks already >>> have oil tanks containing months supplies of heating oil (in fact the
church
probably already has one of those) so it's not a new problem.

I don't know if you can build a resilient mobile network that aims for
coverage even if some towers are out, at a cost of per-subscriber
bandwidth,
perhaps with cross-network roaming?  eg cap everyone to some kbps
each but
at least allow them to get basic connectivity.

In rural communities the commonest crime seems to be the plundering of
saleable machinery and of fuel.

Remote sites are especially vulnerable.

Correct. You win a coconut :-)

What frequency is it on?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/12/2021 11:31, RustyHinge wrote:

On 07/12/2021 18:36, mm0fmf wrote:

On 06/12/2021 00:58, RustyHinge wrote:

On 05/12/2021 22:31, Theo wrote:

mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

   best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a >>>>>> tank of a
few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement >>>>> it at cell sites.

Which is what?  We're talking about mostly rural areas here, not
city tower
blocks.  It might not be suitable for the site on the church spire,
but then
electric cables are capable of carrying power from some distance
away - so
you can site the generator somewhere more suitable.  Rural folks
already
have oil tanks containing months supplies of heating oil (in fact
the church
probably already has one of those) so it's not a new problem.

I don't know if you can build a resilient mobile network that aims for >>>> coverage even if some towers are out, at a cost of per-subscriber
bandwidth,
perhaps with cross-network roaming?  eg cap everyone to some kbps
each but
at least allow them to get basic connectivity.

In rural communities the commonest crime seems to be the plundering
of saleable machinery and of fuel.

Remote sites are especially vulnerable.

Correct. You win a coconut :-)

What frequency is it on?

You can also add to this the regular occurrence of metal theft,
particularly copper grounding systems.

--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <soj6cm$bou$2@dont-email.me>, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com>
writes

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a tank of a >> few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement
it at cell sites.

There's a story that did the rounds in the 80s that a portable contest
group up at a remote site shared with a VOR, helped themselves to a
couple of gallons of diesel when they ran out.

It may be just have been a scurrilous rumour, but security precautions
looked minimal last time I was up there.

tinyurl.com/2ky2rnyj

Brian.
--
Brian Howie

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/12/2021 08:44, Brian Howie wrote:

In message <soj6cm$bou$2@dont-email.me>, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> writes

On 05/12/2021 09:47, Theo wrote:

  best bang for buck is generators at mobile towers, backed by a tank
of a
few weeks worth of fuel

If you stop and think where many cell sites are located you should
realise why this is not a brilliant idea and why they do not implement
it at cell sites.

There's a story that did the rounds in the 80s that a portable contest
group up at a remote site shared with a VOR, helped themselves to a
couple of gallons of diesel when they ran out.

It may be just have been  a scurrilous rumour,  but security precautions looked  minimal last time I was up there.

tinyurl.com/2ky2rnyj

Brian.

These days that might be "recklessly or negligently acting in a manner
likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft", but would probably be behind the drone fliers and the lazer pointers in the
investigation queue.


--
Mouse.
Where Morse meets House.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)