I HAVE to jump in on this one! As a former AEC and member of our local/county ARES/RACES unit, I fully understand the NECESSITY of being able to use the digital modes as well as voice. But unless the State, County, Local OEM's and ARES/RACES units have MANY exercises where they utilize ALL the various modes, MOST hams won't keep up on it.
Our area, Portland metro area, is very large but has very few Digi-peaters and what ones there are has little or no traffic. Plus they change their operating frequencies like they change their underwear! You NEVER know what frequency to tune to to get a working digi-peater. My "PUSH", concerning PACKET, was for each ARES/RACES unit to be able to connect DIRECTLY to their respective EOC's, NOT using a digi-peater! PROBLEM: the powers that be wanted to make the digital side SOOOOO complicated that the average Packet operator couldn't understand WHAT the heck they were trying to do. I'm using Packet as an example because that's what I'm able to do, but I'm sure that the issues with Packet are NOT unique. The KEY to ANY communications system is: KISS- Keep Is Simply Simple (I know, there are MANY other meanings to KISS). The more complex a system, whether it's digital or voice, the more can go wrong! That's why I have GREAT reservations concerning the Public Safety Trunking systems that the FCC (and Motorola) is pushing. One major Earthquake and the entire system will be so out of alignment that it won't function, Period! Here, in Portland, the digital Amatuer Radio community doesn't do much. All the Packet guru's have made it SO complicated that everyone has lost interest and either moth balled their equipment or sold it due to lack of interest. IF I get back into ARES/RACES, I WILL stress to make both the digital and voice systems as simple as possible. Maybe it will spark some interest, who knows! Rod KC7CJO Former AEC, MARES (Molalla ARES) --- Jon Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrew, > > You bring up some interesting points. Also, your > question about how many > Ham use digital modes is really the heart of the > issues of voice vs. > digital modes. I think that the issue should be > training Hams in digital > modes as part of emergency training. While voice is > excellent for > emergency communications, digital is much more > suited for transmission > of "data" such as statistics and other non-alpha > data. > > So, in short, I think that the goal of ARES/RACES > and other emergency > services should be to train "up" Hams, rather than > go to the least > common denominator and use mainly voice. > > 73... Jon W1MNK > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
