I never meant to say we should go back to CW for emergency communications, although I think it should be in the toolbox. My point was more about bandwidths consumed in a shared environment.
As far as the Red Cross goes, they have at least 7 HF commercial frequencies assigned to them in the FCC database. An Icom M710 runs about $1600 which is a substantial investment but should be doable for an organization this big. It also would allow any trained person, amateur or not, to operate the rig and send messages. As Winlink likes to point out, their interface could be a simple email program. Amateurs could be used as trainers, thereby vastly expanding the pool of people available as communicators. I would have hoped that hams would be consulting with organizations that already have these resources available to set up internal networks rather than promoting the use of ham frequencies and equipment. And, perhaps they are, but it just isn't advertised. Jim WA0LYK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <getting on my soap box> > > But 90% of my communicators are tech's and myself or other general class ham operates as the control operator. Most only got there tech license so they could volunteer as communicators and would never have gotten their license if would have had to learn CW. > > Here's an example of how amateur radio can assist. > > Locally I need a radio operator 24X7 for 21-28 day disasters for 40 sites (just shelters for children who have severe medical problems...not general public shelters...that's the Red Corss' problem). If only 1/2 can get off work, etc, then I need 120 operators (3 per day per site) and twice that many (280) if only 1/2 can get off. > > For our deployment teams who may travel across 2 or 3 states, we need 120 operators, 2 per site for 60+ teams and hopefully all general class...but they never are. > > There is NO WAY that our organization or the Red Cross or Salvation Army or even military can provide that number of operators and besides the cost of commercial radio equipment is way beyond the means for any of the disaster relief organizations. You cannot buy this kind of communications. > > Trying to use CW, while I agree is the best way, isn't going to realistically meet the needs...but if we don't (provide adequate communications), watch the general public scream that the government isn't providing the proper kind of communications. > > Its not equipment...its trained radio operators. > > Thanks, > > <getting off my soap box> > > 73, > > Walt/K5YFW > > -----Original Message----- > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jgorman01 > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:13 PM > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC R&O > > > Yea, but that 100 word message could have been sent in about 3 minutes > using 30 wpm CW. I've done both, and the SSB'ers have a hard time > understanding that CW is that much faster than voice. Almost what you > quote for the 300 baud text data, and in a much smaller bandwidth. > > Also, using your info, a 300 baud modem can send 100 words in 3 > minutes, while a 2400 baud modem can do it in one minute. That's > about a 3:1 ratio. Yet I suspect the bandwidth will be 4 to 5 times > as much and maybe 8 times as much, i.e. 2400 baud divided by 300 baud. > > I'm not sure the tradeoff's are good ones in a shared spectrum > environment where people are competing for space. > > Jim > WA0LYK > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" > <walt.dubose@> wrote: > > > > Ah ha...well Bonnie I see that I am not the only one who is looking > at the overall picture of band usage. > > > > Here is an example of what I saw in the military... > > > > SSB voice took 10 minutes to pass a 100 word message between really > seasoned radio operators on an HF channel typical of most Q4-5 amateur > radio QSOs. > > > > When they went to 300 baud text data, they send the same message in > 2 or 3 minutes and sometimes 3 or 4 when they had to repeat the > message...this was again with Q4-5 signals. The modem was not much > more than a Bell 103 modem. > > > > With a MIL-STD-188-110 16 tone modem at 2400 baud, the message took > 1 or 2 minutes and only every 5-6 messages was a it necessary to > repeat a message. > > > > The band/channel usage went from 1=10 to 9 0r 9=10...almost a ten > fold increase in band/channel usage. > > > > Today those same units are using 9600 BPS data and sending one page > of text in a couple of minutes or sometimes "booking" messages and > sending 20-50 messages at one time. > > > > The higher the throughput and mode robust the mode, the less channel > usage there is going to be at a fixed amount of data. > > > > For testing of any text mode or DV mode, a standard text should be > adopted. > > > > Walt/K5YFW > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of expeditionradio > > Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 9:08 PM > > To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [digitalradio] 3kHz or 500Hz Re: Updates on effect of FCC R&O > > > > > > There's another way to look at spectrum use. It is better to use a > > 3kHz bandwith for 10 minutes than to use a 500Hz bandwidth for 1 hour > > to pass the same traffic. On HF, with short propagation openings, it > > is better to be able to quickly send the message. Approximately 3kHz > > is the defacto worldwide bandwidth standard for HF communication > > transceivers. > > > > This R&O isn't an issue of FCC making rules for "encouragement" to > > produce narrower bandwidth signals. It is the result of someone at FCC > > that is out of touch with reality. > > > > The Bigger Issue: The freedom to use existing digital worldwide > > standards for HF communications is important for Amateur Radio. > > > > It is very much like the freedom to use existing analog bandwidth > > standards such as SSB and AM voice. Should FCC take take that freedom > > away also, under the guise of "encouraging innovation"? Should hams be > > forced to develop 500Hz bandwidth voice modes? > > > > Or, should a wide range of communications methods be "encouraged" in > > USA like it is in the rest of the civilized world? > > > > Bonnie KQ6XA > > > > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > > > Other areas of interest: > > > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy > discussion) > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org > > Other areas of interest: > > The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ > DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
