Report by Ron Hashiro, AH6RH
June 8, 1997

Oahu Emergency Communications Packet Network

FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

The Oahu Packet Project

Committee Members

    1. Oahu Packet Project Steering Committee
    2. Technical Committee
    3. Points-of-contact with American Red Cross
    4. Points-of-contact with Healthcare Hams
    5. Points-of-contact with Healthcare Association of Hawaii
    6. Points-of-contact with the Hotels Association
    7. Points-of-contact with Oahu Civil Defense
    8. Points-of-contact with State Civil Defense

Upcoming Meeting Schedule

    1. Oahu Packet Project Steering Committee
    2. Technical Committee
    3. Healthcare Associate of Hawaii Disaster Committee

Current Status

    1. Options being considered
    2. Prototype system
    3. Results of prototype system

Implementation Schedule and Status

    1. American Red Cross - Honolulu EOC
    2. Blood Bank of Hawaii
    3. Hawaii State Civil Defense EOC
    4. Hotels EOC
    5. Kaiser Medical Center - Moanalua
    6. Kuakini Medical Center
    7. Oahu Civil Defense Agency EOC
    8. Queen's Medical Center
    9. St. Francis Medical Center-Liliha

 

Back to top

Background on the Oahu Packet Project

 How did this effort get started?
 What failed in the past?
 Who comprised the initial steering committee?
 What process was used to develop the initial project framework?
 What were examples of early discussion points?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of packet radio relative to voice communications that makes packet attractive?


Back to top

How did this effort start?

    • One of the three action items identified at the Makani Pahili '97 exercise review meeting held at Oahu Civil Defense Agency on Monday May 13, 1997 was the recognition that the development of a packet network for emergency communications was important. Past efforts to implement a city-wide packet network system have failed not due to lack of a technical solution but for lack of sponsorship into supported agencies. It is the recognition that the problems are "administrative" rather than "technical" that prompted a follow-on meeting on Monday, May 20, 1997.

What failed in the past?

    • The two main reasons are that (a) the amateurs had many differing views of packet implementation and (b) the agencies weren't aware of the capabilities and limitations of packet radio. Consequently, agencies that were contacted were unable to sort out what was needed and the efforts faded away. The initial discussion was limited to a steering committee to develop key points and a framework in one session that can be used on a going forward basis as a reference for common discussions. As new people are added into the working sessions, they will be introduced to the results of prior discussions.

Who comprised the initial steering commitee?

    • Greg Amancio, NH6ZS
    • Ron Hashiro, KH6JCA
    • Wayne Jones, NH6GJ
    • Charlie Lum-Kee, KH6AB
    • Ray Moody, AH6LT
    • Bev Yuen, AH6NF

What process was used to develop the initial project framework?

    • The meeting started with by going around the table to collect input.  These items were written onto discussion sheets and used to guide the discussion and generate the meeting minutes.
    • It was agreed that the meeting time would be used to identify and discuss "horizontal" items which would become elements of the framework, and that the detailed "vertical" items would be deferred to other means of discussion such as e-mails and phone calls.  As discussion developed, the discussed items were organized into the framework.
    • The results of the development on the detailed items were routinely e-mailed and revised with a minimal need to call development meetings.
    • When there were sufficient items for discussion, a meeting was called.

What were examples of early discussion points?

    1. The need to implement a prototype system to demonstration of viability and feasibility.
    2. Having capable people who can run the systems.
    3. Needing trained and committed people for the project.
    4. Need to agree on a single system and have all involved "talking with one voice".
    5. Having the selected system is installed, hot and ready to go at each agency.
    6. Voice and packet system needs to be presented as one combined system rather than presenting packet as an add-on to the voice system.
    7. The need to "sell" packet as opposed to a ready awareness and acceptance of packet.
    8. The hotels EOC is getting ready to implement packet. Give them specs and they will implement.
    9. There is interest in reconvening the Oahu "DRAG" packet group.
    10. Hardware assumptions for a minimum system.
    11. It was determined that the initial sites should be the 20% of the locations that generate 80% of the messages and that the efforts should be focused on these sites and personnel.  Additional sites would be considered once these sites are stable.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of packet radio relative to voice communications that makes packet attractive?

    • STRENGTHS:
      1. The hardcopy messages provides accuracy when dealing with long and complicated messages.
      2. The messages appear in hardcopy, making it instantly available to be photocopied and handed out.
      3. For long messages, packet messages can be sent and copied faster than voice messages.
      4. Messages are received, forwarded and printed automatically without the need for operators.
      5. It has very good signal detection at 1200 baud when compared to FM voice.
      6. When engineered correctly, it has a high level of service.
    • WEAKNESSES:
      1. Requires computers and continuous emergency power to operate.
      2. Requires computer literate people to install and configure the equipment.
      3. Requires packet literate people to install and configure the equipment.
      4. Requires all participating systems to use using the same software and methods.
      5. The communications channel can get congested if other stations randomly enter the network, resulting in a poor quality of service.
      6. Messages that need to be rerouted to another network are not automatically detected and rerouted as it would be for a voice network.

 

 Back to top

Project Objectives of the Oahu Packet Project

 

What are the objectives of the Oahu packet system?

    1. Able to produce hardcopy messages unattended and without operator intervention.
    2. Need to send messages and receive bulletins without limitations on congestion and throughput.
    3. Desired:  Interface to Internet to send and deliver outbound messages in a timely, unattended fashion.

 
 Back to top

 

Current Consideration of the Oahu Packet Project

What are the challenges facing a packet implementation on Oahu?
What are the critical success factors?
Closed Issues
Open Issues
Showstoppers
Workflow Diagram
Who do we need to contact?
Short Term Action Items

Back to top

What are the challenges facing a packet implementation on Oahu?

    1. Need to identify the communications requirements.
    2. Need a corp of trained operators and technicians.
    3. Need to identify the sites capable of hosting a pilot system.
    4. Need to advance the word to institutions for budgeting and planning purposes.
    5. Need to advance the word to packet amateurs.
    6. Need to determine operating procedures.
    7. Need to determine frequencies.
    8. Need to deal with the effects of intermod interference.
    9. Need to determine a typical station configuration.
    10. Need to make adjustments for the OCDA message desk and messaging due to the expected volume of messages.
    11. Need to define methods of expanding the system to cover rural and outlying areas of Oahu.
      Need to define methods of expanding the system to connect with the Neighbor Islands.

What are the critical success factors?

    1. Committed personnel for the respective agencies served will need to be selected, trained and available to serve as packet operators/technicians.  Operators that are not involved and not responsible for the agencies have less weight in the success of the project.
    2. Need a critical mass of knowledgable, active hams.
    3. Target the important agencies with a clear need.
    4. Each agency to send their amateur representative to the packet technical meeting.

Closed Issues

    • State up front to ham community that this system is for hospital emergency user ON OAHU first; later, we can figure how the system can be integrated with others (eg, Neighbor Islands).
    • The scope of the technical committe is limited to the PC hardware, software, TNC and radio.  They do not have to deal with the antenna cable or emergency power installation.
    • Training
      • Train first set of users, then have the users train new users.

Open Issues

    • Role of the members of the steering committee.
    • Role and responsibilities of: technical committee, hams at large, steering commitee, HAH, Hotels Association, hospital administrators, hams in the institution.
    • How will the steering committee assist hams in approaching their institution's administrators?
    • Need a chair for the technical committee.
    • How will amateur receive the institution's requirements prior to working on the technical plan?
    • Recruitment.
    • Testing systems at pilot sites.
    • Assisting in installation.
      • How do we assist institutions with existing hams?
      • How do we assist institutions without existing hams?
    • How do we keep non-institutions from attempting to get on and congest the system?
    • Project Schedule
      • Factor in "Packet Project Stages"
      • Factor in "Packet Project Dimensions"
    • Timeframe for response from institutions?

Showstoppers

    • Money and budget.
    • Getting dedicated operators to be in the institutions.
    • Number of available and usable frequencies.
    • Straub is a non-participating entity.

Workflow Diagram

HAM           TECH     STEERING
COMMUNITY     COMM       COMM       HAH    HOSPITALS

[CONTACT] <=========== [START] ==========> [Representative
    |                        Ask for input  Hospitals]
    |             Evaluation                    |
    |              Criteria             Feedback|
    +==========+ +====== [SG] <=== [HAH] <======+
               | |
               | |
               V V
           [Analysis
      Pilot Demonstration]
               | |
               | |               [Disaster
               | |               Committee]
Status & Progress -----> [SG] ---> [HAH] ---> Hospitals
                          |          |          |
Feedback          <-------+----------+----------+

        [Draft Proposal,        [Disaser Comm]
         Presentation] => [SG]===> [HAH] ===> Hospitals
                    Feedback and Recommendations|
                  <=============================+

        [Final Proposal,
         Presenatation]=> [SG]===> [HAH] ===> Hospitals

        [Training, Installation, System Turn-up]

        [End of Technical Committee]

Who do we need to contact for the first time?

    • Large Healthcare Hams
    • Oahu Packet Ham
      • Club representatives
      • Club bulletins
      • Club meetings
    • Need a list to track the contacts and responses.
    • Target a month for general roll-out and release of the project.
    • Use a WEB site to make information available.
    • Need to incorporate feedback.  Need a consistent and same point-of-contact for the duration of the project.

SHORT TERM ACTION ITEMS

    1. Develop charge to technical committee (all)
    2. What we expect from the technical committee (all)
    3. What technical committee expects from us (all)
    4. Roll-out notice (AH6LT)
    5. Invitees (all)
    6. How do we accept and incorporate input? (all)
    7. What is in it for the technical committee? (all)  (Wayne noted that this could be a means of reviving packet on Oahu.)
    8. June 16th - Healthcare meeting.
    9. Frequently Asked Questions List (all)

 
 Back to top

Technical Considerations of the Oahu Packet Project

What are the technical challenges facing a packet implementation on Oahu?
System Objective
Technical Requirements
 

Back to top

What are the technical challenges facing a packet implementation on Oahu?

    1. Need to identify the communications requirements.
    2. Need to determine operating frequencies that will not conflict with existing voice, simplex and repeater operations.
    3. Need to deal with the effects of intermod and interference.
    4. Need to determine the optimal number of stations per frequency to avoid congestion.
    5. Need to explore the usability and effects of 9600 and 56K packet modem systems for future expansion.
    6. Need to determine operating procedures.
    7. Need to determine the software and network protocol to be used.
    8. Need to determine the effects of interfacing into Internet.
    9. Need to determine a typical station configuration and budget.
    10. Need to make adjustments for the OCDA message desk and messaging due to the expected volume of messages.
    11. Need to define methods of expanding the system to cover rural and outlying areas of Oahu.
    12. Need to define methods of expanding the system to connect with the Neighbor Islands.

System Objective

    • Engineer a technical model(s) projecting the level of performance and cost.
    • Implement a system with a proven track record in Hawaii and/or elsewhere.
    • Able to pass a minimum message payload of 10 characters per second on a sustained basis between any two points.
    • Able to pass the targeted amount of messages per hour.
    • Enable regular typists and PC users to use the system without requiring extensive training.
    • Prints incoming messages in an unattended fashion.
    • Passes messages between other BBSs using IP and/or AX.25.
    • Automatically selects the most available route to send the message.
    • Persists in trying to resend the message in an unattended fashion.
    • Optionally allows other stations to connect using a simple terminal program and AX.25 protocol.
    • Optionally supports chat or spotter messaging modes.

Technical Requirements

    • PC Hardware
      • Required
        1. Runs on a minimum platform of an Intel 386, 1 Megabyte RAM, 40 Megabytes Hard Disk, one serial port for TNC, one parallel port for printer.
        2. Supports HP inkjet, Canon Bubblejet and/or HP Laserjet cut-sheet printers.
      • Desired
        1. Supports a second serial port for another TNC.
        2. Supports a third serial port for a dial-up modem.
        3. Supports an Ethernet LAN card.
        4. Supports Windows 95.
        5. Optionally supports LINUX.
    • PC Software
      1. Highly stable software capable of operating two weeks without rebooting.
      2. Supports TAPR TNC2 standard command set.  Optionally supports KISS interface.
      3. Supports AX.25 protocol.  Optional support for G8BPQ, IP, NETROM, X14J and/or ROSE protocols
      4. Supports unattended printing of inbound messages.
      5. Shareware or freeware desired.
      6. Active base of support on Internet newsgroups and Web sites.
      7. Optionally runs in Windows 95.
      8. Optional support for Ethernet LAN attachment.
      9. Optional support for dial-up modems.
      10. Optional support for fax modems.
      11. Optional support for multiple printers.
    • TNC/Modem
      1. Minimum of TAPR TNC2 with 1200 baud modem.
      2. Supports KISS mode.
      3. Optional support for 9600 baud modem.
      4. Optional support for Pactor and G-TOR.
    • Radio
      1. Supports a minimum of 1200 baud AFSK.
      2. Runs off of 13.6 volts DC.
      3. Frequency band to be determined.
      4. May be cross-banded.
      5. Provides a minimum power output of 5 watts at 50% duty cycle.
      6. Optionally supports 9600, 19.2K and/or 56K baud.


Back to top

Report by Ron Hashiro, AH6RH,

June 8, 1997