Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Alan Barrow wrote: > I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a > cop wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and > discomfort because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked, > somewhat desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to > help, and did so. > > I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags. I totally agree with the above. The times I participated in emergency communications it was a tiresome but necessary chore involving discomfort, boredom, and a considerable sacrifice of time. (My own role was very minor, but there were dedicated hams there that really contributed a lot.) The local Red Cross services needed hams with HTs and mobile rigs. The work we did was tedious but necessary. I have no desire to be a cop or a firefighter, and I personally do not enjoy Emcomm. I did a hitch in the Army and that was enough for me. The strength of ham radio in the context of emergency communications is not that we are all sitting around all the time just itching to monitor for that SOS or whatnot. It is that amateur radio provides a reservoir of private citizens who own and know how to quickly deploy things like generators, antennas, and SSB/FM transceivers. We can quickly put together makeshift but effective communications in environments where all other communications are temporarily down and out. Katrina, the 1994 California earthquake, are but two examples. There are countless others. I do agree that some persons with agenda have used the Emcomm argument as a cloaking device to pursue an agenda. Winlink immediately comes to mind in this regard. But this should not take away from the civic minded hams in many countries who regularly make a real contribution to emergency communications. de Roger W6VZV
RE: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
I fully concur with Rick's comments. I find Bonnie's responses very off-putting with respect to trying ALE. The same can be said for Winlink 2000 even though I run a Telpac node. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net -Original Message- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:46 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm Alan, However, if you folks continue to attack your friends, you won't have many left! You can claim that only anti-digital hams are on QRZ, but more likely you will find that QRZ is the true democratic melting pot of contemporary viewpoints. You may not like what most hams are thinking but they reflect the overwhelming majority view. 73, Rick, KV9U
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Alan, The testing was completed months ago and you know that very well as I have discussed this before. I do not have a particularly strong position on ALE. Have you ever considered that it might be you and your group who take such a view? My view is in the middle as I have stated over and over. In fact, I have been a strong proponent of ALE 400/FAE 400. But it is not what you want to hear. You want hams to rally around your particular agenda of the 8FSK2000 ALE mode as a focal point of emergency communications, and most of us do not support you that far and you extend to take this to mean rejection. It is NOT negative to suggest that the wide bandwidth mode of ALE may have a small part to play in emergency communications. It is a realistic assessment and an honest assessment. If you wish to use ALE for annunciation purposes on the amateur bands, you have no choice other than to designate a specific frequency or in the case of your group, many frequencies, that are used by those members. If soundings are being made on a regular basis by a number of stations, those frequencies can not easily be used for other purposes since you can not move off the frequency due to the channelized ALE paradigm. Otherwise the paradigm fails at that point! This is not the most appropriate technology for a shared band. So you ignore basic reality and don't want to even discuss it (debate it, as you say below). From the testing that a number of us operators have done, and many are from this forum and other as well, the honest truth is that in our experience, the 8FSK2000 ALE mode does not perform as well as other modes. It is not as sensitive and it has low throughput compared to those modes because the HF bands are frequently a difficult environment. Many of us have found that the ALE 400 and particularly the FAE 400 (8FSK400) mode has the best combination of sensitivity, slow to moderate throughput, and robustness. I can think of no case where 8FSK2000 is going to be a better fit for shared frequencies. It is drastically wider, with much more interference potential, and much less sensitive. After all you do not need much throughput for a SELCAL, do you? But you want to keep using a legacy 8FSK mode, which I think most reasonable digital hams would have to admit is an older technology that was intended for channelized commercial and military use. You want to do this because you want to support backward compatibility to embedded hardware. Meanwhile, we have two ARQ sound card modes. The FAE 400 mode and now the NBEM system which works on both Linux and Windows and which can scale from a slow to sometimes moderate speed messaging . Perhaps it can be tied in with 8FSK400 someday or some other SELCAL approach? However, if you folks continue to attack your friends, you won't have many left! You can claim that only anti-digital hams are on QRZ, but more likely you will find that QRZ is the true democratic melting pot of contemporary viewpoints. You may not like what most hams are thinking but they reflect the overwhelming majority view. I can assure you that those of us with reasonable and middle of the road positions get private comments from those who appreciate a more balanced view that looks at the pros and cons. Nothing in life is all one way or the other. There are trade offs. I am willing to stick my neck out and say if the emperor is not wearing any clothes. Most people won't do that. The people who do tend to speak out are those that have an agenda on one side of an issue or the other. Like I always say, the people on the extremes do not want to provide you with all the information that could help you make an informed decision. They only want to support one side. I look at both sides and have to take heat from both. And I have, even on QRZ.com. And as I have said, your spokesperson is one of your worst nightmares because she constantly attacks anyone who even remotely disagrees with her. I have never seen any time that Bonnie has EVER said, "you know, maybe you have a point there that I had not thought of." It is only her way or nothing. And as I have said you are paying a severe price for this on the general ham groups who will not tolerate that kind of behavior. She can not do like she did with me and prohibit posts on "her" group and later remove me from "her" group for comments made elsewhere because of her seething anger. Just read her inappropriate comments with an open mind for once. My views are again, in the middle path of most of this. Just because I do not agree with some one lockstep is no reason to attack such views. It is better to discuss them specifically. Something that you and your group almost never do. They talk around the subject, but they never will deal with the specific item so it can never get resolved. You read so many of your biases into what others write, that you distort what they are saying as you have done repeatedly
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
IN SC we have a simialr system SCHEARTS that we are building into hospitals. grants provide the equipment and hams have instaslled it into the hospitals. then some of the staff have gotten ham licences also Ares / races supplement the staff. 2M and 440 repeater system. the digital part is APRS and a backbone of linked repeaters across SC
RE: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
I walked the piney woods and hills of East Texas in cold and rain looking for the astronauts and parts of the shuttle Columbia. Ham radio via repeaters was the only way to communicate on a wide scale in that area at that time. Yes, cell phones worked in some areas but would have been a PITA when you wanted a message to all the numerous groups deployed in the woods. The FBI manager directing the effort said, "If we wanted a message to go through, we gave it to the hams." Right now we are organizing for a communications disaster should a repeat of the Rita evacuation occur in the Houston area. Cell service gets wiped out when 1,000s of people are stuck bumper to bumper on the freeways. The NGOs like United Way and the Food Bank do not want to allocate their resources toward developing communications capabilities. They will provide stations. We provide the people. Rud Merriam K5RUD ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX http://TheHamNetwork.net So I'll ask the folks on this list what have you contributed to amateur radio at all, much less public service? Besides help us understand every possible interpretations of various part 97? :-)
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Rick wrote: > As we have been finding out through testing, Hmm, you've been testing ALE? Don't see you in many of the logs. I've been testing/using/linking ALE for a couple of years now. Getting a really good understanding of what works well, what does not, etc. I know you have a very strong position on all things ALE related, so not going to debate it here. > ALE may have a place in a > few niche interest areas but it is likely to be of limited value on the > ham bands, and not well supported, I know you have a very strong negative position on all things ALE related, so not going to debate it here. > since the shared nature of the bands > do not lend themselves well to this kind of continuously dedicated > frequencies. Dedicated frequencies?? Huh? We share the most contested 5khz of spectrum in all hamdom!! And try to be good neighbors. > If the FCC does rule that ALE soundings are a legal > activity, there is the potential for unintended consequences if we allow > beaconing throughout the HF bands. > The ALE network still adds significant value even without sounding. Not going to debate sounding here, you've already asked for clarification. > The data transfer of ALE is not good enough from what the majority of us > have tried when using the wide bandwidth form of 8FSK2000, Can you point to a higher throughput soundcard data transfer protocol? Freely available? Which can interoperate with HW ALE radios? It's not perfect, in fact there is still much to do. I'd have to concede for througput, P2 & P3 still win. But at a high cost in dollars and philosophy. And only because we cannot use the faster modes due to symbol rate. There are versions of the FS protocol which have had the symbol rate dialed back which would be legal and work great. > however the > narrow 8FSK400 mode has proven itself to be quite robust, a far better > fit for a shared frequency band, and with better throughput, in many > cases, because it works under much more difficult conditions. The current thought process for the ALE teams is to enable use of any data transfer modes the linked stations would like. Pactor, psk, olivia, 8fsk400, fae, whatever. > If you really want to get support for your special interest area, I don't have an agenda. I do feel there are some significant advantages to ALE, and that it's the best horse we have to ride right now. But never have promoted one to the detriment of others. I have challenged the "nothing else comes close" & "soundcards can't do hi thruput" positioned expoused by hardware TNC bigots. But I also use other digital modes, including the hated pactor. But also olivia, fae, etc > Because one of your spokespeople takes an extreme attitude toward > others, you have paid a dear price. One only has to look at the vitriol > on qrz.com and other forums, when something like ALE is brought up. Ahh, the personal axe. I get it. Say no more. I've figured out that the QRZ forums are populated largely by anti-digital (in any forms) hams. With some strong PSK31 advocates. They are not keen on newer modes of any kind, including Olivia, etc. So there will never be a receptive audience there, nor would I expect one. eham.net is more open minded, and I find the quality of the posting to be a step above the personal attacks tolerated on QRZ. I now scan QRZ mainly for entertainment value, but it's a sad commentary on our hobby. And ever one of those flame wars brings more users online. They just don't post. Same even here. I've already been receiving private email on this whole thread. Comments like this: "I have been waiting for a cogent and cohesive response to the nonsense on the digital radio group (Yahoo) about public service, winlink, etc. You provided it. Thanks." > You claim that "some are saying we have no business even providing > emergency service." and yet no one from this group has claimed that > hams should not be involved with emergency communications. > Have you read the threads from the last few days? " Mlooks like enough money to "buy" some dedicated commercial frequencies, to move WinLink off the Ham bands :-)" I'm not going to dig them out, but it was enough to push me out of lurker mode. General tone: Emcomm assist from hams is not needed, not welcome. Use commercial > Instead of complaining about RTTY contests Actually, I did not complain about rtty contests. I just pointed it out as an example of other modes/operations which are doing the same exact action you criticise the winlink ops of doing. And it's factual, a known issue, been discussed multiple times, annoying cw, psk, all the digital ops, and even some ssb ops. One of my best friend is a hard core rtty contester. And even he admits this is an issue. I think sometimes it's people calling with the decode sw set incorrectly. Other times it's splits. > vs a digital mode that may > not be legal, you should be welcoming clarification
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Hi Rick, From reading your comments I see you still fail to fully understand the potential value of ALE to Amateur Radio, especially to ECOM. ALE is the great facilitator to follow on communications, nothing aside from MIL-STD AQC-ALE and the host of copy cat systems such by the likes of CODAN, RHODE & SCHARTZ and TADIRAN even come close to the HF linking capabilities of ALE. Rick you continue to spew out all kinds of negative comments and spin that is just not correct with just enough positive comment that there is hope for you in understanding ALE yet. Keep it up as it likely benefits someone that may read what you have to say and gets interesting in looking into ALE as they may not otherwise get interested, much like there is no such thing as a stupid question, someone may benefit from the question being asked. The FCC sub bands for automated operation 100% appropriate for ALE operation when a station is Sounding, attended or unattended in the digital sub bands and other uses of ALE are appropriate under the rules outside those sub bands, as well as outside the digital sub bands altogether if one lives within FCC jurisdiction. After the ALE link has been established based on whatever type of ALE call has been made, preferably based on the best ranked LQA frequency selection, the follow on protocols/waveforms used are NOT limited to the 125 wpm AMD protocol (which is a very basic FEC protocol) but rather allows for anything to be used after the ALE link. However the DTM and especially the DBM protocols are very good, DBM ARQ is every bit as robust if not more so than GTOR or PACTOR I as a matter of fact. Another benefit at this point in time WRT ALE as applied to the ARS is that it is no longer limited to a hardware only solution with a narrow range of expensive options as it originally was, this was the stumbling point of ARS interest when ALE was first introduced to the ARS in the pages of QEW and QST. ALE tools being software modem/controller based using the PC Sound Device Modem (PCSDM) has brought ALE to any Radio Amateur interested, we are only at the starting gate with respect to ALE and ARS application, you really have not seen anything yet compared to what is to come. What you just don't seem to get is that an ALE network provides the best means of supporting 24/7 HF networking in the selection of frequency and station(s) of interest via numerous linking call types to enable either one to one or one to many station communications, attended or unattended, local drop or store/forward, bridged to one or more automated delivery systems with return paths outside HF radio or not. There really are no limitations to the application of ALE within or outside of the ARS when it comes to HF communications link establishment, it is truly and unlimited system. Can the application of ALE be adapted within the existing limited framework of ARS operations, yes, it already has, should ARS welcome and adapt to the full potential of ALE is really the question, for which I feel the answer is Yes. However I am not running around pushing that as an agenda, I you have not noticed my posts are in response to those with questions or positions where the facts need presenting. In my view either the ARS ( especially those involved with ECOM ) will grasp the application of ALE and put it to work for the benefit of the ARS or not, if not then it will be a wasted opportunity to improve Amateur Radio HF networking in my opinion. Rick, I can't put my finger on just what it is yet, but something is standing in your way of really seeing the potential of ALE. The potential of ALE based communications to the Amateur Radio Service for HF networking is huge, you seem to be part way there, I hope you hang in there. Anyhow, lunch time is running out and I need to finish up and get back to my day job work. 73 /s/ Steve, N2CKH At 11:22 AM 1/10/2008, you wrote: >As we have been finding out through testing, ALE may have a place in a >few niche interest areas but it is likely to be of limited value on the >ham bands, and not well supported, since the shared nature of the bands >do not lend themselves well to this kind of continuously dedicated >frequencies. If the FCC does rule that ALE soundings are a legal >activity, there is the potential for unintended consequences if we allow >beaconing throughout the HF bands.
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
As we have been finding out through testing, ALE may have a place in a few niche interest areas but it is likely to be of limited value on the ham bands, and not well supported, since the shared nature of the bands do not lend themselves well to this kind of continuously dedicated frequencies. If the FCC does rule that ALE soundings are a legal activity, there is the potential for unintended consequences if we allow beaconing throughout the HF bands. The data transfer of ALE is not good enough from what the majority of us have tried when using the wide bandwidth form of 8FSK2000, however the narrow 8FSK400 mode has proven itself to be quite robust, a far better fit for a shared frequency band, and with better throughput, in many cases, because it works under much more difficult conditions. This is especially pronounced during emergency situations with low power and mediocre antennas! If you really want to get support for your special interest area, I might suggest that you need to be careful with your choice of words. It is far better to work with human nature, and not against it. You need to come up with positive reasons to support something and if you have really have something of value to offer, others may gravitate toward it over time. Because one of your spokespeople takes an extreme attitude toward others, you have paid a dear price. One only has to look at the vitriol on qrz.com and other forums, when something like ALE is brought up. It is nearly universally derided by 95% or more of the posters. You need to think about why that is. Consider the belief that older technology is of reduced value compared with new technology. It is these very same "old technologies" that actually work during an emergency. Particularly, the one main need of tactical voice which is the most needed emergency communications. This is one of the inherent values of amateur radio over other forms of emergency communications. The high technology systems can fail and when they do it is the low tech systems that can temporarily provide limited emergency assistance. It can not replace the previously damaged infrastructure but it can help. Having digital modes can be helpful too, if they work. The more complicated systems, and the more they depend upon the internet for most of their operation, such as Winlink 2000, the more risk you have that it won't be there when you most need it. Building decentralized systems that can also interoperate with existing systems, (even Winlink 2000) makes much more sense. You claim that "some are saying we have no business even providing emergency service." and yet no one from this group has claimed that hams should not be involved with emergency communications. Misrepresenting other hams' viewpoints does not lend credence toward your views. Why make such statements? Instead of complaining about RTTY contests vs a digital mode that may not be legal, you should be welcoming clarification from the FCC. And if the FCC rules against you, you should then petition them to change the rules. But your group is not doing this. Instead you try to silence anyone who even tries to get some clairity on what is and what is not responsible behavior in such cases. Is it because you know the rules do not support what you are currently doing and it makes you uncomfortable to have other hams point out that what you are doing appears to be in violation of the rules? It appears so to me. Why else would your spokesperson act in such a malignant manner and personally attack those who want clarification? The ironic part of all this is that most of us have a lot more in common than have differences. Most all the hams I personally know want to help at some level depending upon their interests and abilities.But when you are unwilling to deal with basic issues and attack those who do, you ought not be wondering why you do not get the support you are looking for. 73, Rick, KV9U >> Andy wrote: >> >> Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce. ALE is >> underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appears effective >> but out of the reach of most hams (on HF) , and other modes without >> ARQ are just not going to cut it. NBEMS is too new to evaluate, PSK >> Mail has promise but does not have enough users. >> >> - Alan wrote: It really disillusioned me that the most advanced network we could assemble in coastal MS was 2m voice nets with HF interstate links. 1950's tech. We could have well used packet capability from 80's, but largely MIA. Needed email/hf links, but few had airmail/P23. (But those who did provided a real and valuable service) --- > Alan also wrote: > > I would not call it a farce, but somewhat agree otherwise. But that's in > our control. What are we going to improve that? Write it off? > > I don't think ALE is a panacea, but it offers much. We are still > learning new ways to use it, and are buildi
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
I have to toss in my two cents here. I was a member of ARES for many years. We provided communications for search and rescue in the mountains of New Mexico back in the '70s. We also provided communications for the Forest Service during forest fires. We had a ham RTTY station in the Forest Service office. I have not lived there for many years but am betting the ARES group in NM still provides valuable emergency services. In Texas and many other states the Skywarn organization provides valuable services. I believe this is also ARES. Hams were valuable to the US military in WWII because they had communication skills. This type of skill is still valuable to the military. Hams have always been the source for MARS operations. Much of the old customary Marsgram traffic is not needed by the military but that traffic was always valued as a training tool. MARS has a workable WL2K system. There are assigned frequencies that are wide enough to accomodate Pactor 3. If a station there transmits when another station is transmitting, it is interfering only with it's own network (I don't hear this at all). In short, hams still can justify their frequency assignments. Personally, I do not operate WL2K on the ham bands. I don't have an SCS TNC and I don't want to be part of the problem. If we all transmit without listening, the bands will be just like CB. No thanks. 73, Howard K5HB - Original Message From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 9:20:24 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm But Alan, I deal with medical emergencies several times per week! As I pointed out in my original post, I don't question that we have many ham's that provide emergency communications. I do question the integrity of amateur radio claims, and feel that it's capabilities are vastly overstated. Yes, I have demonstrated that a sound card , a piece of wire, and a transceiver can outperform the zillion dollar hospital equipment when hospital communication equipment is operated by plug and play dispatchers. I do not accept that hams exist to provide emergency communication, we exists to tinker and twiddle and every now and again help others. Radio amateur advocacy groups such as the USA's ARRL have very little "clout" without the spurious claim that amateur radio is an emergency communication system. The emcomm card is played in a manner similar to TV Networks claiming to serve a vital civic role by providing "news". TV network provide entertainment that sell advertising, the news gets thrown in because it looks good. Emcomms in amateur radio looks good, and IS good at times, but it does not represent the hobby as a whole. Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce. ALE is underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appears effective but out of the reach of most hams (on HF) , and other modes without ARQ are just not going to cut it. NBEMS is too new to evaluate, PSK Mail has promise but does not have enough users. Andy K3UK > > > > > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > I think that much of the "hams in emcomms" is a scam , or a way for > > hams to "play" firefighter/ cop/medic without actually having to be > > one. The "scam" is the spreading of the concept that us hams sit > > around all days looking for that ship's SOS or waiting for Skywarn to > > be activated. Ham radio is a communications hobby that has a SMALL > > amount of it;s constituency that play emcomm,. The vast majority DX, > > talk about recent surgery on 75M, contest, and decode strange > > squealing noises on 14077. > > > > > So this is something to be proud of? > > I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a cop > wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and discomfort > because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked, somewhat > desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to help, and did so. > > I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags. > > So until you've seen firsthand the impact of disasters like hurricanes & > floods, and done your bit to help, then you are simply not qualified to > pass judgment. > > Andy, I know you were not saying that emergency service is a scam, just > the idea that most hams do emergency service is overstated. And that's > probably true. But it's part of how we justify our existence. 97.1.A. So > maybe the few who do respond are carrying the rest? > > I came back from my Katrina experience with these co
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > But Alan, I deal with medical emergencies several times per week! Understood. With doctors, medical staff & equipment to handle that. Now take all that away. The need is still there, you just lost all the infrastructure to handle it different situation entirely > I pointed out in my original post, I don't question that we have many > ham's that provide emergency communications. I do question the > integrity of amateur radio claims, and feel that it's capabilities > are vastly overstated. Yes, to a certain extent I agree with your assessment. But that's a bug, not a feature. Certainly not something to be proud of. > I do not accept that hams exist to > provide emergency communication, we exists to tinker and twiddle and > every now and again help others. That's a different position than the "they should buy their own radios & frequencies" themes heard over the last few days. I'm not saying that "real hams do emergency service". What I am saying is that ham radio does owe much of it's past & ongoing existence to our capability to provide emergency service. And if it's just a few, then shame on us. > Radio amateur advocacy groups such > as the USA's ARRL have very little "clout" without the spurious claim > that amateur radio is an emergency communication system. The emcomm > card is played in a manner similar to TV Networks claiming to serve a > vital civic role by providing "news". Again, I agree to part of this. We are not a system of any kind except cranky, and tedious old farts. Certainly not a communication system as a whole. But what we are is a pool of ready, equiped, and more or less trained individuals who can make a difference in disasters. Never as we expected, nor probably as we desired. It really disillusioned me that the most advanced network we could assemble in coastal MS was 2m voice nets with HF interstate links. 1950's tech. We could have well used packet capability from 80's, but largely MIA. Needed email/hf links, but few had airmail/P23. (But those who did provided a real and valuable service) But then I realized that the saying about the one eyed man in the land of the blind is true. I personally had a Red Cross shelter leader run after my truck and flag me down because she thought we were packing up. quote: "You don't know how much we still need you guys. Until you arrived we had no communications since the big green helicopter landed and kicked out pallets or MRE's. The phones still don't work, please do not leave." Don't think that did not change my perspective and disillusionment. This is not an ego thing, exactly the opposite. Made me realize that independent of what I thought we could or should do (my ego), we had a job to do. I should set aside my annoyances & preferences, that what we were doing was important and needed. > Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce. ALE is > underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appears effective > but out of the reach of most hams (on HF) , and other modes without > ARQ are just not going to cut it. NBEMS is too new to evaluate, PSK > Mail has promise but does not have enough users. > I would not call it a farce, but somewhat agree otherwise. But that's in our control. What are we going to improve that? Write it off? I don't think ALE is a panacea, but it offers much. We are still learning new ways to use it, and are building a core infrastructure. Independent of individual interpretation of sounding legality/value, there is value in being able to assemble an HF net, and also in the data transfer modes. Several of us see ALE as a link establishment layer, after which other data modes can be used as needed. Only have an HW ale rig? We support AMD or DTM. Have P2/3? We'll support that. Want to use Olivia, no problem. Have capability to use fed std modes? go for it. That's how we are designing our systems. Would pskmail & nbems have more users if they had established frequencies and the capability to assembled a net? Yep. Would they own the freq? No. But there is value in trying to coordinate, & collect activity. I guess the core difference is some are saying we have no business even providing emergency service. And I believe that is a very extreme and unsound position. You seem to be saying it's overrated, and does not represent the mainstream. You might be right, I'm not proud of most of what I hear on the bands. I've about given up on introducing kids in scouts to radio based on the consistent bitter old fart syndrome we encounter from most. Yet there are gems in the mix as well. So what's this have to do with digital radio? I think we have a large opportunity to contribute. We all want an alternative to $1k proprietary modems. But until we get that alternative there is some value there. That does not mean we can or should compromise operation in the rest of the bands. But there needs to be a place. Just like
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
I'm a bit surprised to see you say it this way, Andy. We have a push here in my Section for all hospitals, under a grant to consider the installation of an amateur radio VHF antenna, feedline, and power supply as a basic radio communication framework in case of emergency. Depending upon any other hospital owned equipment, we hams generally will supply our own transceivers, but the critical infrastructure would already be in place. In a previous exercise, with no radio equipment at the hospital, and with no normal repeaters being permitted, we had to stay outside the facility in order to use low power dual band HT's to access a nearby ham's cross band lash up to then reach a site 30 or more miles away. Hopefully, we may see this corrected in our local hospital but there has been no action as yet. Another hospital in our county, has a newer ham who is also plays a significant role with infrastructure and he has been able to go far beyond the basics and now has several VHF/UHF rigs in place. This is the ham who lost all LD telecommunications recently, then also was not able to access their backup satellite system, but was able to use ham radio to get help from the outside world to at least find out what had happened to their communications. If they had needed it, more could have been done, but they were able to get by for another dozen hours or so until the severed fiber optic line was restored. While it is true that there are cases of hams detecting a call for help, it is much more common to provide the eyes and ears for the National Weather Service Skywarn program. We are not the total source of information since many non-hams also come to the annual refresher courses, but when conditions trigger an activation, we hams are the only ones who have a direct communication to the NWS in real time since we have hams the will come on site as well as hams who are NWS staff. We have been able to provide on-scene reports within seconds of a tornado touch down in two locations about 20 miles apart. There were dispatched volunteer spotters in continous radio communication due to direct NWS requests for help. We also may be called upon to handle H&W traffic. As one who has been active with Skywarn for decades, as a spotter and as a Net Control at the NWS in years past, I would have to say that their is a fairly high percentage of the active hams who participate in this emergency support work. Some of us may have had a life changing experience, perhaps years earlier as I did as a college student during the 1965 floods here in the Midwest. I was active with providing communications between two parts of a nearby city that had lost almost all communications between the north and south sides. You had to literally use a boat to get back and forth, or drive many miles to go around the flooded area to reach the other side. A 2 meter AM link was kept available 24/7 for about a week. We also provided on scene communications, such as through phone patches via SSB voice from vehicles to report back to government officials (mayor, etc.). In another capacity, with the CAP, my role was to help load military trucks with personal belongings of evacuated persons from their homes and deliver the items to a staging area for protection. Ever since that experience, I, and I am know others, have continued to have interest in disaster preparedness. Little did I realize that after college I would wind up in the USAF for 4 years as a Security Policeman and I definitely never wanted to be a cop, but was the reverse of what you poke fun at below. Thankfully, I served in a remote area overseas and at a logistics support base (Oklahoma) in CONUS and never had to kill anyone or be shot at, not counting some unpleasant incidents with having to restrain people from doing some illegal activities:( As President of our County Amateur Radio Club, which really had is origins from ad hoc amateur radio emergency support of our local government emergency management, I will say that the majority of our club's active members are also active with emergency support, whether for disaster support or for the frequent call out for Skywarn. One problem we have had is that several of our most active members are retired protective services personnel and when we are activated for a disaster, those are the very people we may not always be able to count on to help us with the communications support because they are so much in demand by local government due to their expertise. 73, Rick, KV9U Andrew O'Brien wrote: > FYI, my hospital OWNS the ham equipment deployed at the facility. > ARES/RACES provides operators but we retain ownership of anything we > paid for out of Govt grants. I insisted on it , as a hospital > official, since I know how fickle some hams organizations can be. > > Despite many clearly wonderful stories about how radio amateurs have > helped in emergency situations, I agree with Simon's
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
On Jan 9, 2008 10:15 PM, Scott Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thank you Andy. Now you better duck. You have maligned the sacred > cow of ham radio. > > Scott/K6IX > Hi Scott. Aside from amateur radio equipment and satellite phone's, my hospital used the grant money for zillion dollar suits that I am supposed to wear when "the big one" comes. Perhaps I should conduct a drill tonight and wear it, for the expected onslaught... I gave a user here a hard time several weeks ago for "trolling". I may need to send myself a memo about the same topic. Andy K3UK
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
But Alan, I deal with medical emergencies several times per week! As I pointed out in my original post, I don't question that we have many ham's that provide emergency communications. I do question the integrity of amateur radio claims, and feel that it's capabilities are vastly overstated. Yes, I have demonstrated that a sound card , a piece of wire, and a transceiver can outperform the zillion dollar hospital equipment when hospital communication equipment is operated by plug and play dispatchers. I do not accept that hams exist to provide emergency communication, we exists to tinker and twiddle and every now and again help others. Radio amateur advocacy groups such as the USA's ARRL have very little "clout" without the spurious claim that amateur radio is an emergency communication system. The emcomm card is played in a manner similar to TV Networks claiming to serve a vital civic role by providing "news". TV network provide entertainment that sell advertising, the news gets thrown in because it looks good. Emcomms in amateur radio looks good, and IS good at times, but it does not represent the hobby as a whole. Digital communication for ham emcomms is similarly a farce. ALE is underused and grossly misunderstood by hams. Winlink appears effective but out of the reach of most hams (on HF) , and other modes without ARQ are just not going to cut it. NBEMS is too new to evaluate, PSK Mail has promise but does not have enough users. Andy K3UK > > > > > > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > I think that much of the "hams in emcomms" is a scam , or a way for > > hams to "play" firefighter/cop/medic without actually having to be > > one. The "scam" is the spreading of the concept that us hams sit > > around all days looking for that ship's SOS or waiting for Skywarn to > > be activated. Ham radio is a communications hobby that has a SMALL > > amount of it;s constituency that play emcomm,. The vast majority DX, > > talk about recent surgery on 75M, contest, and decode strange > > squealing noises on 14077. > > > > > So this is something to be proud of? > > I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a cop > wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and discomfort > because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked, somewhat > desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to help, and did so. > > I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags. > > So until you've seen firsthand the impact of disasters like hurricanes & > floods, and done your bit to help, then you are simply not qualified to > pass judgment. > > Andy, I know you were not saying that emergency service is a scam, just > the idea that most hams do emergency service is overstated. And that's > probably true. But it's part of how we justify our existence. 97.1.A. So > maybe the few who do respond are carrying the rest? > > I came back from my Katrina experience with these convictions: > > - Like it or not, I would implement mobile/portable winlink capability > since it is the defacto standard and most functional digital transport > infrastructure we have. Warts and all. (I've made Steve W's blood boil a > few times by trying to influence winlink philosophy) > > - I'd work to come up with a non-proprietary, open standards based HF > email system to parallel as well as interoperate with winlink since it's > the defacto standard > > I've done both of these. Not changed the world, but done my bit, in my > way. Using skills I have. I approach all the new developments like APRS > on HF, pskmail, NBEMS, whatever with the idea that we need to > interoperate for the better good. > > So I'll ask the folks on this list what have you contributed to amateur > radio at all, much less public service? Besides help us understand every > possible interpretations of various part 97? :-) > > Are you proud of your accomplishments in the radio hobby? Did you use > your hobby to make a difference in any one's life? Or just play nerd and > fiddle with radios in your basement? > > I know we have some major contributors on the list.. and that I'm > painting with a very broad brush. Dave, Patrick, and other similar > coders contribute in their way. > > This kind of boils down to "contributors" and "consumers". I find the > whiniest segment of our hobby to be the ones who consume the most, yet > contribute the least. Selfish. > > I've never met anyone who went onsite for a major disaster (Hugo, > Andrew, Katrina, earthquakes, etc) who came back and said "Boy was that > a waste of time". There's a big difference in serving that way VS the > orange vest wearing ARES meeting at the waffle house stereotype. :-) > (though they are important as well for localized issues) > > So I'll say it: Unless someone has gone on site and participated in > amateur radio related relief, you are not qualified to say what is or is > not allowed/appropriate/useful. > > Again, not directed a
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Thank you Andy. Now you better duck. You have maligned the sacred cow of ham radio. Scott/K6IX Andrew O'Brien wrote: > FYI, my hospital OWNS the ham equipment deployed at the facility. > ARES/RACES provides operators but we retain ownership of anything we > paid for out of Govt grants. I insisted on it , as a hospital > official, since I know how fickle some hams organizations can be. > > Despite many clearly wonderful stories about how radio amateurs have > helped in emergency situations, I agree with Simon's earlier thoughts. > I think that much of the "hams in emcomms" is a scam , or a way for > hams to "play" firefighter/cop/medic without actually having to be > one.The "scam" is the spreading of the concept that us hams sit > around all days looking for that ship's SOS or waiting for Skywarn to > be activated.Ham radio is a communications hobby that has a SMALL > amount of it;s constituency that play emcomm,. The vast majority DX, > talk about recent surgery on 75M, contest, and decode strange > squealing noises on 14077. > > Andy K3UK >
Re: [digitalradio] Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm
Andrew O'Brien wrote: > I think that much of the "hams in emcomms" is a scam , or a way for > hams to "play" firefighter/cop/medic without actually having to be > one.The "scam" is the spreading of the concept that us hams sit > around all days looking for that ship's SOS or waiting for Skywarn to > be activated.Ham radio is a communications hobby that has a SMALL > amount of it;s constituency that play emcomm,. The vast majority DX, > talk about recent surgery on 75M, contest, and decode strange > squealing noises on 14077. > > So this is something to be proud of? I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a cop wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and discomfort because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked, somewhat desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to help, and did so. I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags. So until you've seen firsthand the impact of disasters like hurricanes & floods, and done your bit to help, then you are simply not qualified to pass judgment. Andy, I know you were not saying that emergency service is a scam, just the idea that most hams do emergency service is overstated. And that's probably true. But it's part of how we justify our existence. 97.1.A. So maybe the few who do respond are carrying the rest? I came back from my Katrina experience with these convictions: - Like it or not, I would implement mobile/portable winlink capability since it is the defacto standard and most functional digital transport infrastructure we have. Warts and all. (I've made Steve W's blood boil a few times by trying to influence winlink philosophy) - I'd work to come up with a non-proprietary, open standards based HF email system to parallel as well as interoperate with winlink since it's the defacto standard I've done both of these. Not changed the world, but done my bit, in my way. Using skills I have. I approach all the new developments like APRS on HF, pskmail, NBEMS, whatever with the idea that we need to interoperate for the better good. So I'll ask the folks on this list what have you contributed to amateur radio at all, much less public service? Besides help us understand every possible interpretations of various part 97? :-) Are you proud of your accomplishments in the radio hobby? Did you use your hobby to make a difference in any one's life? Or just play nerd and fiddle with radios in your basement? I know we have some major contributors on the list.. and that I'm painting with a very broad brush. Dave, Patrick, and other similar coders contribute in their way. This kind of boils down to "contributors" and "consumers". I find the whiniest segment of our hobby to be the ones who consume the most, yet contribute the least. Selfish. I've never met anyone who went onsite for a major disaster (Hugo, Andrew, Katrina, earthquakes, etc) who came back and said "Boy was that a waste of time". There's a big difference in serving that way VS the orange vest wearing ARES meeting at the waffle house stereotype. :-) (though they are important as well for localized issues) So I'll say it: Unless someone has gone on site and participated in amateur radio related relief, you are not qualified to say what is or is not allowed/appropriate/useful. Again, not directed at you Andy, just the overall tone of the last 2-3 weeks. Have fun! Alan km4ba
