Hate to tell you but some of us cranky, bitter, and rude (old) men have simply been there and done that. You just don't want to hear that. For example, do you think a permanently installed "ham" antenna is going to survive on a roof top when all other commercial grade antennas have been destroyed? Part of our ability to do emcomm is using our OWN equipment in a portable fashion to replace that which has been destroyed. The other part is the geographic spread of hams in a location. It makes what gets destroyed somewhat random. Relying on prepositioned equipment is no better than public safety doing the same.
Some of us are trying to point out that if you want to be a pro, then stand up and be one. Don't just recommend ham radio as the salvation. Have you or others ever recommended that a hospital invest in a commercial system for communications backup rather than amateur radio and then helped them take bids and supervise the installation? Do you look at public safety radio equipment first and ham radio last for backup purposes? Have you ever told the ARC or SA they should include commercial radios in their shelter standard inventory? Something simple that a REACT person could set up. That way when you've moved out of state for your job, Tom has a new wife and twins, Joe is laid up from a job accident, and Bill simply can't get there they have a communications system independent of ham radio volunteers. These are all issues some of have dealt with and have experience in. Some of us have lost our predilection with being ham-centric in all things radio related. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Alan Barrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jim writes: > > Look I'm not saying we shouldn't volunteer. However, beware strangers > > bearing gifts and all that. I don't know how old you are but you > > appear to have a bias against us older folks. > To be clear: my "old fart" comment is in reference to a mindset and > behavior, not any individual's age. I have my share of gray, been > licensed not quite 30 years. Born before the 60's hit. > > But if I was to do a black box analysis of the "ham radio system", it'd > be hard not to conclude that HF is populated solely by cranky, bitter, > and rude men. :-) > > Not the curmudgeon patina earned by our vintage members. :-) > > > Let someone older and > > wiser tell you it would be very unusual for government money to come > > with no strings attached. Strings that can be pulled sometime. For > > instance, should a serious recession or god forbid a depression come > > around, you can bet that "sunk" investment will look mighty good for > > day to day use. All I'm saying is that what might happen might not be > > the best for ham radio. > > > Back to circular argument number 15 from QRZ...... most agencies (and > certainly hospitals) cannot send their non-emergency traffic via ham > radio methods. We are a very weak & limited fallback. But still the "one > eyed man" > > So I personally believe the risk of being annexed because we put reserve > coax, antennas, and maybe even radios in agencies is very small. > > But back to digital radio.... I've got an idea to stack 3 psk signals > together side by side and run in a normal SSB radio. Multiplex the data > across the multiple psk paths. I think that would be legal, and > technically possible. No restriction I see on multiple transmissions > with different data streams. Any single signal meets symbol rate & > bandwidth fcc restrictions even as proposed by the new petition. Might > could even do 4! Or maybe do the same with Pactor 1 to get ARQ, already > looking at the linux source. > > Kind of like the fsk/afsk debate. Is it a different mode if you can't > tell the signal's apart remotely? Turing test for radio. > > That's what I'll move to if we ban the wider data modes. Think it will work? > > Have fun, > > Alan >
