RE: [digitalradio] Re: HF Digital network modes

Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:48:23 -0700

Mike,
 
With all due respect, we have been doing messaging on ham radio since its inception. In fact, the ARRL was founded on this concept. To now suggest that messaging is not appropropriate, or that messaging without having operators at both ends does not seem reasonable. And we have been doing digital traffic for several decades now, e.g., the Aplink system,  if you remember how that worked.
 
It is no different than asking two hams to quit chatting about their latest medical problems, for hours on end, on "their" frequency, because they are too cheap to own a telephone. The idea that e-mails "clog the bands" is not something that a fair minded person could agree with when you consider that it only takes a few minutes to send an e-mail (sometimes only 2 minutes with Pactor 3 on a voice channel) and many messages can go through from many people. If we were to make the claim that it is a time vs. content issue, then many hams would have to quit operating because they have used up some "quota."
 
The internet MUST be used as a part of emergency planning. It does have an important place. In many cases there is no other way to get messages from point A to point B without it, unless there are radio amateurs operating at each end. Surely you can understand this. It isn't what is convenient for us as radio amateurs, but rather  we want to remain relevant as communicators for a served agency. There are no where near enough of us to set up communications facilities where ever needed during an emergency to communicate with everyone that messages need to be sent. Even if the FCC required us to do it in order to maintain our license. In fact, you will find that most radio amateurs do not even participate in emergency communications.
 
Video is nice and some may be interested in doing it as a specialty communications protocol, but to be honest it is very rare. I personally have never see ATV in operation. It is becoming more feasible now with HSMM and very low cost WAP equipment using 802.11 WiFi (and probably some WiMax in the future, so we may be seeing more of it. The last QST had an extensive article on spanning practical distances with low cost WiFi equipment. But of course, anyone can do now, and it doesn't require a ham license.
 
73,
 
Rick, KV9U
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Mike/k1eg
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 10:14
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: HF Digital network modes

Rick, first of all it's not the emergency digital traffic that people are worried about will swamp the HF bands.  It's the RV'ers and Boat'ers who are too damn cheap to get mobile internet service but would rather clog the bands with their e-mail. This has only been stopped because of the limits imposed at this time.  I personally don't believe that the Internet should be in any emergency plan because there really isn't any need for it and it is unreliable.  In the time of emergency we only need to communicate 300 miles or so as a rule.  This can be easily done if we plan accordingly.  We do need a solid system of sending video directly to EOC's so that decisions can be made with the most amount of info available to them.  I think that we need to use every tool available to us but I don't have faith in the Internet in the time of need.  You are right that a lot of hams aren't interested in doing digital work of this type because I believe a lot of them think that the Government can handle it all.  I have been around long enough to know better but how many hams today have been through disasters other than a small handful?
 
Mike
 


The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/


Yahoo! Groups Links

Reply via email to