I am in total agreement that WinLink 2000 using Pactor III is just one robust data mode and message handling system. It is currently the only mode/messaging system with a continental U.S. network on the ham bands.
Will other modes come into play and other systems become available? Only if hams are interested to write robust, high speed data modes and write programs for message handling systems.
Until then, WinLink 2000 remains the un-challenged robust, high-speed, message handling system on the ham bands.
In my disaster relief communications requirement, we chose satellite Internet connectivity over WinLink 2000 because 1) the cost over three years was less, 2) it did not require to be operated by a general class ham or have a general class ham control operator, 3) E-Mail to the originator was received easily with a published E-Mail address and no registration of the "return" E-Mail address was required, and 4) we were able to use an E-Mail ubiquitous E-Mail client.
Walt/K5YFW
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of doc
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: NTS and traffic handling and digital
I would like to see the documentation of this.
As a former employee of a state emergency management
agency and a former section emergency coordinator and
a Ham for a long time the scenario described must be
missing some important variables.
If HF Winlink could hold effective communications on
HF then so could a dozen or more modes. There is no
technological reason why HF Winlink was "the only"
reliable mode -- unless the modes chosen were skewed
to be certain of that outcome.
Not looking for an argument, just some healthy cynicism
based on a little knowledge of politics and science.
HF Winlink may have been "one of many" modes more
capable of effective weak signal communications but one
cannot ever make the claim that it would be the "only".
Add to that the need for redundant hardware and the high
value of simple over complex and HF Winlink would be a
poor first/primary choice. The hardware is so rare as
to be readily postulated as "probably unavailable" at
both ends and the complexity of the systems rise above
standard emergency requirements for mission-critical
applications.
A third-tier or fourth-tier nice-to-have perhaps.
IMHO, YMMV ... 73, doc kd4e
> Last August San Diego Section ARES ran a Simulated Emergency Test in San
> Diego and Imperial County where we simulated the effects of a 7.9
> earthquake next door in Imperial County ( a likely scenario) which
> destroyed most of the local infrasture.
>
> Due to the simulated outages of local infrastructure, repeaters and
> power sources, we were unable to establish VHF/UHF/Cell Phone or Land
> Line voice communications between the San Diego EOC and the Imperial
> County EOC.
>
> The only communications that proved reliable was HF Winlink. San Diego
> EOC was able to connect into a Winlink Node in Texas and Imperial County
> was able to connect to another HF node and we established and maintained
> both Critical, Tactical and H&W communications through Winlink Email.
>
> I might note that the success of HF Winlink when everything else failed
> during the SET really changed the minds of a lot of died in the wool
> Winlink Haters around here.
>
> Could we have accomplished the same with HF voice Relays?..
>
> We tried HF voice without much success (they were in a HF dead zone)...
> however in an real (non SET) disaster with more HF stations around for
> relays...Likely... but definitely not with the same ease of use or
> reliability...
>
> So there definitely is a place for Winlink EMCOMM in our bag of tricks...
> __________________________________________________________
> Howard S. White Ph.D. P. Eng., VE3GFW/K6 ex-AE6SM KY6LA
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
| Ham radio | Craft hobby | Hobby and craft supply |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "digitalradio" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
