Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Roy G. Jackson]

OK, this reply has made up my mind. I, too, subscribed to this list 
thinking I would be reading about digital radio. I have tried to weed 
through the chaffe to get to the posts with some real substance. It 
seems that there are a few posters on this list who just argue any point 
that comes up, and the rest just agree with one side or the other. I 
have been licensed since 1983. I have been playing digital radio in one 
form or another for close to 20 years. That's what I am interested in. 
Don't bother replying to me on this list, because I won't see it. You 
guys enjoy yourselves.

Roy N9RG


tailfeathers wrote:
>
> Yeah...that would be the one where you buy a book and sit in the corner
> and not insult other peoples intelligence with your
> arrogance...Especially as an newbie...:>)
>
> Gary
> n8gsj
>
> n4ijs wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if this comes across off
> > base. But, I came here looking for information on digital modes for
> > Amateur Radio - not various, multi-post messages about various peoples
> > opinion (and arguments) on unrelated topics.
> >
> > I am sure that these discussions are important to a select group of
> > folks, but are there no other places for these types of discussions to
> > take place?
> >
> > I belong to several Ham related Yahoo! forums and this one certainly
> > produces (by far) the most emails; however, few are related to the
> > topic at hand. So, I have to weed through these other messages to get
> > to the "real" ones.
> >
> > If this just the way of this forum, that's fine - I will just
> > unsubscribe. I hope that isn't the case, but, if it is, can anyone
> > recommend a forum for exploring digital modes within Ham Radio?
> >
> > Thanks and 73,
> > Robert - N4IJS
> >
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> >> In Katrina and Rita shelters were opened where there were people in
> >>
> > need.
> >
> >> Whether supplies could readily reach them was a problem to be
> >>
> > solved, not a
> >
> >> requirement for shelter location. You are not understanding the
> >>
> > widespread
> >
> >> nature of these disasters. It was easier to solve the supply problem
> >>
> > than
> >
> >> the rescue problem.
> >>
> >> A supply truck or helicopter with supplies can make it in once a
> >>
> > day. The
> >
> >> multiple vehicles, trucks or helicopters, to evacuate people were not
> >> available.
> >>
> >> Your "hypothetical" versus others "real world" experience is
> >>
> > misleading you.
> >
> >>
> >> Rud Merriam K5RUD
> >> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> >> http://TheHamNetwork.net 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
> >>
> > isolated
> >
> >> that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet you also
> >> indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you could drive
> >>
> > to the
> >
> >> shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck? Some of this
> >>
> > appears to be
> >
> >> an appeal to emotion.
> >>
> >> I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would
> >>
> > open a
> >
> >> shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply
> >>
> > vehicles nor
> >
> >> that had SOME kind of communications. I am pretty sure that the
> >>
> > government
> >
> >> authorities would not authorize this either. To do otherwise is simply
> >> asking for the shelter staff to require 'rescuing' at some time in the
> >> future thereby adding to the problem.
> >> Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating
> >>
> > the facts.
> >
> >> Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
> >>
> > communication, but
> >
> >> never the less, it is communications.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Jim
> >> WA0LYK
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 
> >
> >
> > DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm 
> 
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>  

-- 
Roy G. Jackson  N9RG
Naples, Florida USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Alan Barrow]

Jim wrote:
>> Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the
>> facts.  Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
>> communication, but never the less, it is communications.
>>
>> 
And the most important limitation: Even once roads were open to 
non-emergency traffic, where do they get fuel? The pipelines were shut 
down. Local stations dead due to no power.  Even Atlanta was impacted by 
the fuel availability for weeks.

Fuel was limited to law enforcement and emergency vehicles only in the 
coastal area, if available at all. Even in Jackson Miss when we came 
thru, we were only able to get fuel because we were registered as a 
relief convoy.

I entered the Katrina zone with fuel for almost 3000 miles. I used most 
of it. As such, for several days I was one of the few vehicles in our 
area which was not fuel constrained. Even then, I logged over 2000 miles 
during just 8 days onsite.

So the idea that ARC could/should just use runners instead of radio is 
sadly very ignorant of the real conditions encountered.

Have fun

Alan
km4ba

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Rodney]

Alan,

I APPLAUD your efforts during that storm!  Your last statement hit home, that 
if people don't practice they won't be prepared!

Our problem is that we train and train and train, but are NEVER called upon 
during the Statewide or County exercises.  Doesn't do ANY good to practice what 
you've trained for if you're never asked to play!

Rod
KC7CJO
Clackamas County Electronic Services, Radio Shop

Alan Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:   jgorman01 
wrote:
 > Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
 > isolated that it required helicopter delivery of food and water.  Yet
 > you also indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you
 > could drive to the shelter.  Maybe you were driving a monster truck?
 > Some of this appears to be an appeal to emotion.  
 >
 >   
 Rural, yes, as most of Coastal Miss is.
 
 Storm passes. Roads are not clear, not safe. Big Green helicopter lands.
 Get's them MRE's and pallets of water. Tells them the storm has passed.
 Leaves.
 
 No power, no phones. This site did have water pressure.
 
 And nothing happens
 
 More nothing. No relief, no magic COWS (cells on wheels). County EOC is
 leveled. Police are dealing with fires & critical emergencies. There is
 no way to call them.
 
 Shelter manager has no communication with their HQ, as their HQ is just
 getting setup. She cannot leave, nor are non-relief/emergency vehicles
 allowed on the road.
 
 Ham's drop in. Vectored via HF to the ad-hoc county EOC setup at an
 elementary school. From there, they deploy to the largest known
 shelters. Some shelters are unknown status. Others have big issues.
 
 Yes, I have a 4wd truck. I did not have to use it, but many areas low
 passenger cars would not have worked. Ham's were able to drive in, provided:
 
 - They had ARC placards on their windshields
 - The local EOC's (usually emergency) had notified law enforcement (via
 ham liaison) that they were moving through. When our group entered coast
 Miss from rural miss, we came at night into a blacked out city
 effectively under curfew. We were stopped at most intersections and
 cleared through.
 
 So yes, when ham's showed up and setup 2m at the shelters, it usually
 established their first communication with the county EOC's, and
 slightly later ARC local HQ.  Even on day 10 of the event, 2m ham nets
 were the only communication the shelters had with their HQ.
 
 Phones were up & down even once they started working again.  The 2m net
 was requested to remain in place well after citizens were allowed to
 travel, power was back, etc (day 12 or so). It was much longer than that
 before phone service was reliable and cell service worked for any by
 local SMS.
 > I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would
 > open a shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply
 > vehicles nor that had SOME kind of communications.  
 You've never been onsite for a large event then. Shelters are
 established prior to the event. And fill rapidly. And are absolutely in
 the disaster zone.
 
 > I am pretty sure
 > that the government authorities would not authorize this either.  To
 > do otherwise is simply asking for the shelter staff to require
 > 'rescuing' at some time in the future thereby adding to the problem. 
 >   
 You sir, are mis-informed. Shelters are already established. Some do
 require relocation after the event. In fact that was one of the
 activities I coordinated was establishing communications in a new
 shelter setup 10-15 miles away from one that had to be evacuated due to
 water/structural damage.
 
 Relocation of shelters and the people moves required significant
 coordination, and ham 2m radio was the only real time comms they had.
 Sad but true. 1950's simplex technology.
 > Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the
 > facts.  Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
 > communication, but never the less, it is communications.
 >
 >   
 ARC shelter managers cannot leave. Those in place prior to a storm stay
 unless relieved, and most did not have anywhere to go, they were
 impacted as well. At the shelter in question, the shelter manager was
 local, but had been dropped off and did not have a vehicle. There is no
 "runner" capability, they barely had enough trained staff to man all the
 shelters!
 
 ARC volunteers who come in later fly in, and are ferried into place.
 Vehicles for use by ARC were in high demand. None were available for
 "runner" use, nor were ARC volunteers commonly used for this. They had
 far more important work staffing/relieving/relocating shelters.
 
 Was there occasional info flow from people dropping off staff later in
 the event? Yes, but it was not timely, accurate, or efficient. And in
 most cases, hams were there first. In several cases the team I was on
 was the first to establish contact with the ARC shelters from outside
 the little city/county and get status/needs re

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Alan Barrow]

jgorman01 wrote:
> Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
> isolated that it required helicopter delivery of food and water.  Yet
> you also indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you
> could drive to the shelter.  Maybe you were driving a monster truck?
> Some of this appears to be an appeal to emotion.  
>
>   
Rural, yes, as most of Coastal Miss is.

Storm passes. Roads are not clear, not safe. Big Green helicopter lands.
Get's them MRE's and pallets of water. Tells them the storm has passed.
Leaves.

No power, no phones. This site did have water pressure.

And nothing happens

More nothing. No relief, no magic COWS (cells on wheels). County EOC is
leveled. Police are dealing with fires & critical emergencies. There is
no way to call them.

Shelter manager has no communication with their HQ, as their HQ is just
getting setup. She cannot leave, nor are non-relief/emergency vehicles
allowed on the road.

Ham's drop in. Vectored via HF to the ad-hoc county EOC setup at an
elementary school. From there, they deploy to the largest known
shelters. Some shelters are unknown status. Others have big issues.

Yes, I have a 4wd truck. I did not have to use it, but many areas low
passenger cars would not have worked. Ham's were able to drive in, provided:

- They had ARC placards on their windshields
- The local EOC's (usually emergency) had notified law enforcement (via
ham liaison) that they were moving through. When our group entered coast
Miss from rural miss, we came at night into a blacked out city
effectively under curfew. We were stopped at most intersections and
cleared through.

So yes, when ham's showed up and setup 2m at the shelters, it usually
established their first communication with the county EOC's, and
slightly later ARC local HQ.  Even on day 10 of the event, 2m ham nets
were the only communication the shelters had with their HQ.

Phones were up & down even once they started working again.  The 2m net
was requested to remain in place well after citizens were allowed to
travel, power was back, etc (day 12 or so). It was much longer than that
before phone service was reliable and cell service worked for any by
local SMS.
> I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would
> open a shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply
> vehicles nor that had SOME kind of communications.  
You've never been onsite for a large event then. Shelters are
established prior to the event. And fill rapidly. And are absolutely in
the disaster zone.

> I am pretty sure
> that the government authorities would not authorize this either.  To
> do otherwise is simply asking for the shelter staff to require
> 'rescuing' at some time in the future thereby adding to the problem. 
>   
You sir, are mis-informed. Shelters are already established. Some do
require relocation after the event. In fact that was one of the
activities I coordinated was establishing communications in a new
shelter setup 10-15 miles away from one that had to be evacuated due to
water/structural damage.

Relocation of shelters and the people moves required significant
coordination, and ham 2m radio was the only real time comms they had.
Sad but true. 1950's simplex technology.
> Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the
> facts.  Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
> communication, but never the less, it is communications.
>
>   
ARC shelter managers cannot leave. Those in place prior to a storm stay
unless relieved, and most did not have anywhere to go, they were
impacted as well. At the shelter in question, the shelter manager was
local, but had been dropped off and did not have a vehicle. There is no
"runner" capability, they barely had enough trained staff to man all the
shelters!

ARC volunteers who come in later fly in, and are ferried into place.
Vehicles for use by ARC were in high demand. None were available for
"runner" use, nor were ARC volunteers commonly used for this. They had
far more important work staffing/relieving/relocating shelters.

Was there occasional info flow from people dropping off staff later in
the event? Yes, but it was not timely, accurate, or efficient. And in
most cases, hams were there first. In several cases the team I was on
was the first to establish contact with the ARC shelters from outside
the little city/county and get status/needs reports back to ARC hq.
Several cases I relayed over HF to Montgomery.

In the case of the shelter I was referring to, I know for a fact that
hams were the first communication this shelter had with anyone outside
the shelter. (Other than that initial helicopter, which only told them
the storm was passed) Their only option would have been to send a
"client" 3/4 of a mile out to the road, and try to flag down a passing
law enforcement vehicle. This might have worked, but LE was awfully
busy. And ARC does not use "clients" for this type of thing. Later, this
shelter 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[John Hirth]

Robert,

I may be in a minority, but I don't think you're off base.

If you stick around you WILL find posts that are more to what you (and 
I) sought as a focus of a digital radio forum.

You just have to sort through a myriad of repetitive philosophical 
postings on topics that sometimes seem to range a bit wide (take a peek 
at the subject line of this thread to which you replied, for example), 
or not infrequently include condescending comments (as in one earlier 
reply to your query).

Although I don't consider myself a newbie (licensed in '62, working 
digital for well over 20 years, and a member of this forum for quite 
some time), I think it's time for me to again stop receiving email 
postings. I'll just update my forum options and visit via the web from 
time to time. And yes, I DO actively participate in emergency and 
disaster  communications, both digital and voice.

OK guys, flame me if you wish. They won't clutter my mail box.

73 to all. Truly. Nothing personal, Andy. See you all on the digital modes.

John Hirth W2KI

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Rick]

Robert,

All these issues on exploring the digital modes are and should be 
discussed. It depends upon what interests the posters who are willing to 
share that information. Be thankful that they do. Many of these 
discussions are vital to amateur radio. The decisions to come will 
affect you personally. Perhaps in ways you like and then again perhaps 
in ways you do not like. You can choose to ignore them and not 
participate, this is up to each individual.

As far as weeding, it does take work. I have to remove many posts that 
do not interest me such as on individuals making contacts through the 
group, that sort of thing, so it does sometimes take an extra minute per 
day to do this.

For specific discussion on emergency communications, there is the hfdec 
(hams for disaster and emergency communication).

There have been times I have asked a digital specific question and 
received no help. Probably because no one knows the answer. On the other 
hand, there have been many times that I have asked a question and 
received help.

What specific digital information were you looking for that you can not 
find elsewhere?

73,

Rick, KV9U



n4ijs wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if this comes across off
> base.  But, I came here looking for information on digital modes for
> Amateur Radio - not various, multi-post messages about various peoples
> opinion (and arguments) on unrelated topics.
>
> I am sure that these discussions are important to a select group of
> folks, but are there no other places for these types of discussions to
> take place?  
>
> I belong to several Ham related Yahoo! forums and this one certainly
> produces (by far) the most emails; however, few are related to the
> topic at hand.  So, I have to weed through these other messages to get
> to the "real" ones.
>
> If this just the way of this forum, that's fine - I will just
> unsubscribe.  I hope that isn't the case, but, if it is, can anyone
> recommend a forum for exploring digital modes within Ham Radio?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Robert - N4IJS
>   
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[tailfeathers]

Yeah...that would be the one where you buy a book and sit in the corner 
and not insult other peoples intelligence with your 
arrogance...Especially as an newbie...:>)

Gary
n8gsj

n4ijs wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if this comes across off
> base.  But, I came here looking for information on digital modes for
> Amateur Radio - not various, multi-post messages about various peoples
> opinion (and arguments) on unrelated topics.
>
> I am sure that these discussions are important to a select group of
> folks, but are there no other places for these types of discussions to
> take place?  
>
> I belong to several Ham related Yahoo! forums and this one certainly
> produces (by far) the most emails; however, few are related to the
> topic at hand.  So, I have to weed through these other messages to get
> to the "real" ones.
>
> If this just the way of this forum, that's fine - I will just
> unsubscribe.  I hope that isn't the case, but, if it is, can anyone
> recommend a forum for exploring digital modes within Ham Radio?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Robert - N4IJS
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> In Katrina and Rita shelters were opened where there were people in
>> 
> need.
>   
>> Whether supplies could readily reach them was a problem to be
>> 
> solved, not a
>   
>> requirement for shelter location. You are not understanding the
>> 
> widespread
>   
>> nature of these disasters. It was easier to solve the supply problem
>> 
> than
>   
>> the rescue problem. 
>>
>> A supply truck or helicopter with supplies can make it in once a
>> 
> day. The
>   
>> multiple vehicles, trucks or helicopters, to evacuate people were not
>> available. 
>>
>> Your "hypothetical" versus others "real world" experience is
>> 
> misleading you.
>   
>>  
>> Rud Merriam K5RUD 
>> ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
>> http://TheHamNetwork.net
>>
>>
>>
>> Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
>> 
> isolated
>   
>> that it required helicopter delivery of food and water.  Yet you also
>> indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you could drive
>> 
> to the
>   
>> shelter.  Maybe you were driving a monster truck? Some of this
>> 
> appears to be
>   
>> an appeal to emotion.  
>>
>> I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would
>> 
> open a
>   
>> shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply
>> 
> vehicles nor
>   
>> that had SOME kind of communications.  I am pretty sure that the
>> 
> government
>   
>> authorities would not authorize this either.  To do otherwise is simply
>> asking for the shelter staff to require 'rescuing' at some time in the
>> future thereby adding to the problem. 
>> Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating
>> 
> the facts.
>   
>> Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
>> 
> communication, but
>   
>> never the less, it is communications.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim
>> WA0LYK
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
>
> DRCC contest info : http://www.obriensweb.com/drcc.htm
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Steinar Aanesland]

Thanks Robert,  I support you 100%

73 de LA5VNA Steinar


n4ijs skrev:
>
> Hello!
>
> I am new to this forum, so please forgive me if this comes across off
> base. But, I came here looking for information on digital modes for
> Amateur Radio - not various, multi-post messages about various peoples
> opinion (and arguments) on unrelated topics.
>
> I am sure that these discussions are important to a select group of
> folks, but are there no other places for these types of discussions to
> take place?
>
> I belong to several Ham related Yahoo! forums and this one certainly
> produces (by far) the most emails; however, few are related to the
> topic at hand. So, I have to weed through these other messages to get
> to the "real" ones.
>
> If this just the way of this forum, that's fine - I will just
> unsubscribe. I hope that isn't the case, but, if it is, can anyone
> recommend a forum for exploring digital modes within Ham Radio?
>
> Thanks and 73,
> Robert - N4IJS
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , "Rud Merriam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> >
> > In Katrina and Rita shelters were opened where there were people in
> need.
> > Whether supplies could readily reach them was a problem to be
> solved, not a
> > requirement for shelter location. You are not understanding the
> widespread
> > nature of these disasters. It was easier to solve the supply problem
> than
> > the rescue problem.
> >
> > A supply truck or helicopter with supplies can make it in once a
> day. The
> > multiple vehicles, trucks or helicopters, to evacuate people were not
> > available.
> >
> > Your "hypothetical" versus others "real world" experience is
> misleading you.
> >
> >
> > Rud Merriam K5RUD
> > ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
> > http://TheHamNetwork.net 
> >
> >
> >
> > Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
> isolated
> > that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet you also
> > indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you could drive
> to the
> > shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck? Some of this
> appears to be
> > an appeal to emotion.
> >
> > I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would
> open a
> > shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply
> vehicles nor
> > that had SOME kind of communications. I am pretty sure that the
> government
> > authorities would not authorize this either. To do otherwise is simply
> > asking for the shelter staff to require 'rescuing' at some time in the
> > future thereby adding to the problem.
> > Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating
> the facts.
> > Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
> communication, but
> > never the less, it is communications.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> > WA0LYK
> >
>
>  

RE: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Rud Merriam]

In Katrina and Rita shelters were opened where there were people in need.
Whether supplies could readily reach them was a problem to be solved, not a
requirement for shelter location. You are not understanding the widespread
nature of these disasters. It was easier to solve the supply problem than
the rescue problem. 

A supply truck or helicopter with supplies can make it in once a day. The
multiple vehicles, trucks or helicopters, to evacuate people were not
available. 

Your "hypothetical" versus others "real world" experience is misleading you.

 
Rud Merriam K5RUD 
ARES AEC Montgomery County, TX
http://TheHamNetwork.net



Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and isolated
that it required helicopter delivery of food and water.  Yet you also
indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you could drive to the
shelter.  Maybe you were driving a monster truck? Some of this appears to be
an appeal to emotion.  

I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would open a
shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply vehicles nor
that had SOME kind of communications.  I am pretty sure that the government
authorities would not authorize this either.  To do otherwise is simply
asking for the shelter staff to require 'rescuing' at some time in the
future thereby adding to the problem. 
Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the facts.
Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of communication, but
never the less, it is communications.



Jim
WA0LYK

Re: [digitalradio] Re: Emergency agencies/ ham equipment/ hams in emcomm

[Les Warriner]

You have led a sheltered life.  Try operating in the Philipines after 
a volcano blows, or in Mexico after the same incident, or in Africa 
after a transvaal fire,  then tell me Hams are not needed.  It's too 
bad we are getting comments like this from the uninformed with no 
experience. Get some beard growth and you'll rapidly change your mind.


73

Les

At 08:13 AM 1/11/2008, jgorman01 wrote:

--- In 
digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
Alan Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> ""snip""
>
> 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.

Your first paragraph indicates that the shelter was so remote and
isolated that it required helicopter delivery of food and water. Yet
you also indicate that you were in your truck which indicates you
could drive to the shelter. Maybe you were driving a monster truck?
Some of this appears to be an appeal to emotion.

I HAVE been around long enough to know neither the ARC or SA would
open a shelter in a location that was not reachable by regular supply
vehicles nor that had SOME kind of communications. I am pretty sure
that the government authorities would not authorize this either. To
do otherwise is simply asking for the shelter staff to require
'rescuing' at some time in the future thereby adding to the problem.
Consequently, when you say no communications, you are overstating the
facts. Now maybe, a runner in a vehicle may the only means of
communication, but never the less, it is communications.

""snip""

> 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.
>

Your guess is wrong. No one I have seen post is saying that we have
no business providing emergency communications where appropriate and
in a manner that support the public best.

>
> ""snip""
>
> 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 there should
> be for other digital modes, current and future.
>
> The whole idea that a legal limit rtty contest op is somehow
> appropriate & allowed, yet other digi sigs should not be is
> non-sensical. Some of the new modes offer incredible performance &
> efficiency. they can be fun for casual work. But they could also
> offer significant value in an emergency if harnessed.
>

You might have continued and made an argument for full blown pactor 3
bandwidth for emergencies but you blew it by including casual use. The
use of wide signals within a limited spectrum WILL displace several
others that want to use narrow signals. It is obvious that you have
no love for rtty, yet several rtty signals can fit into the bandwidth
of a 2.2 kHz pactor 3 signal. Would you impinge upon their preferred
mode of operation for your casual use? It sounds like it. No one is
guaranteed a time or place to operate. The wider the signal you wish
to use, the fewer places and times there are that you can use it.
That's life, move on.

I also assume you are upset over rm-11392 that would limit bandwidths.
You really haven't made a case for casual use of anything wider than
the 1.5 kHz that is being asked for. Remember, this bandwidth limit
has been there for a long time, it just wasn't codified. The current
rules were adequate prior to the introduction of ofdm modulation to
the amateur bands. Pactor 3 is simply EXPLOITING a loophole in the
way that the regulations are currently written. Perhaps you should
write a comment to the fcc that you believe bandwidth limits are ok
for all data modes except for ofdm emissions which should have no
limits on their bandwidth. It sounds like that is what you wish.

> ""snip""
>
> Have fun,
>
> Alan
>

Jim
WA0LYK


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.0/1218 - Release Date: 
1/10/2008 1:32 PM