Let me paraphrase N7DC's comment. The local, state, and federal governments and NGO's want our help - then they should provide the equipment and the bandwidth for its use- and that bandwidth is out there, assigned to agencies and NGO's now. I've checked and both the Red Cross and Salvation Army have HF frequencies assigned to them. I'm sorry they can't afford the equipment to use these assignments. With the recent letters to the FCC about how Homeland Security money would be wasted if the 500 Hz bandwidth restriction wasn't changed I wonder why the NGO's have not applied for and received Homeland Security money to provide their own equipment needed to use these assignments. The money is obviously available!
This is where I philosophically disagree with your position. I believe you are saying since they can't afford it, then lets change the amateur bands so we can support the NGO's business needs, i.e. wide bandwidth high capacity HF links for disaster communications. I wholeheartedly disagree with this. For example, for general class licensees on 80m there would only be space for about seven 8 kHz channels. I am sure that if 8 kHz bandwidths were allowed, there would be a sufficient number of hams who would fill up the space thereby driving out all other modes and causing a lot of hams to cease operating entirely. This could easily end up having an unforeseen detremental effect, one of limiting the number of hams available for disaster support. Please ask yourself the question why, if the FCC won't let them use wide bandwidth modes on their own frequencies, should amateur radio do it for them especially when it has a detremental effect on our own service? I think the ham bands should be set up for what hams need on a day to day basis. Then, if this can help support NGO's or even governmental agencies, then fine. If they won't accept the level of service we can provide, well that is their loss. I am afraid that if we begin defining the ham band allocations, modes, and bandwidths based upon what non-ham organizations need to support their business plans (disaster services) we are on a very slippery slope that can lead to unintended consequences to the amateur service. Jim WA0LYK --- In [email protected], "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
