There are too many that do not know "emergency" communications really is. An emergency is an impendent threat to life and property. Just how long has it been since we had a disaster that required nation wide emergency communications? How long did it last? Last summer during the hurricanes, and then was there a need for nation wide emergency communications?
Joe W4JSI ----- Original Message ----- From: DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:22 AM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms Most "emergency" communications is in reality disaster communications and is NOT in support of "governments" but rather non-governmental agencies, i.e. the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. These organizations do need very high-speed throughput modes that are robust to meet their operational needs and do not have the funding to provide hardware to support the need. Since the agencies supported are not government organizations (NGO), they cannot provide frequencies or bandwidth to support their communications needs. If the NGO has HF frequency/frequencies, they are controlled by the FCC and have strict bandwidth limits for their type of service. Even governmental agencies/organizations are controlled by a federal agency that limits their frequency use, power and bandwidth. Amateur radio is the only source that actually has a change for providing frequencies and bandwidths to meet NGO needs. But needing higher-speed and more robust modes is not the only need of NGOs...they also need robust chat and text modes that are robust for instant command and control operations...much like a round-table QSO and QSOs between two or three individuals. This modes certainly can and should be spectrum efficient and robust...and there are few of us that type at more than 30 or 40 WPM in a chat situation. Thus what goes on here is germane to all sorts of digital communications. Traffic handlers, DXers, ragchewers, QRPers, disaster communicators etc. can all benefit from what is learned here. Walt/K5YFW -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Danny Douglas Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [digitalradio] USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms I am with you Rick. I see no need for faster, wider signals on a daily basis, and that is where most hams are. I am not going to spend dollars to set up something that just gets "exercised" once a quarter or even once a month to support something that is not going to give ME a return. Again, I will say: It is well and good for hams to volunteer to run emergency communications for government agencies, because they have the training to do so, understand props, and many are retirees who can give the time. The local, state, and federal governments want our help - then they should provide the equipment and the bandwidth for its use- and that bandwidth is out there, assigned to agencies now. Lets see if we can get this digitalradio group back to hamming subjects. If those who are interested wish to do so, please go start up another group. Call it "emergencydigitalcommunications" or whatever, but lets get back to amateur basics here, and quit bothering the rest who couldnt give a tinkers dam about 16 kc wide, multi mega baudot commercial equipment "just in case" the government wants someone to use it, someday. Danny Douglas N7DC ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB all DX 2-6 years each . QSL LOTW-buro- direct As courtesty I upload to eQSL but if you use that - also pls upload to LOTW or hard card. moderator [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "KV9U" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] USA: No Advanced Digital HF Data Comms > I personally can not support any modes wider than a standard SSB width. > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Yahoo! Groups Links
