Jim, At one time Steve Waterman, K4CJX, who runs the Winlink 2000 system, did indicate that some government agency(ies) were having talks with him about using the system for other than amateur radio purposes, but I have not heard anything further. At least one MARS branch has or is moving to Winlink 2000 for message delivery.
I have found that in the past the local ARC offices didn't even want to use their VHF frequencies in our area and wanted the hams to take care of that and also be multi-trained to perform other activities. My wife and I were both trained as DAT (Disaster Assessment Team) members. In an emergency situation, we could provide this service as well as act as the radio operator from the vehicles doing the DA. But I wonder if many local offices even know that they could use HF frequencies, assuming that they can. The problem is not having enough staff and expertise to get involved with these technologies that in themselves not that consistently reliable for long distance communication. Even with a number of frequencies, there is no guarantee that you will be able to reach a given point unless perhaps during daytime NVIS. When you consider that HF is not going to get you from Point A to Point B anytime you need it, having more certain communications may appeal to them more. It would be very difficult for them to set up Winlink 2000 systems (Winlink is an older system that only used amateur radio RF to route data, Winlink 2000 is primarily an internet server system that tries to minimize RF communication), since they would have to have PMBO's on their own frequencies. While theoretically possible, it seems this would be very impractical unless they could get amateur radio or other volunteers to set up and operate these stations. The SHARES program seems to be a good liaison between many different emergency groups such as, FEMA, State Level EM (currently performed by an amateur radio volunteer who acts as a liaison to ARES/RACES), ARC, Salvation Army, MARS, etc. to provide cross communication on both HF digital and HF voice. In fact, in our ARRL Section, the SEC decided to disband both the amateur radio packet BBS and Pactor BBS at State Level EM, and switch most of the packet system to Winlink 2000 and the Pactor system away from amateur radio and toward SHARES. So amateur radio is playing a much smaller part than we did in the past, especially from a digital perspective. In the past, the Winlink 2000 folks have strongly promoted the point that most messaging will go through VHF/UHF connections to their Telpac (Telnet to Packet) connections to the internet for emergency situations. The theory being that you would have many Telpacs and some would be outside of the immediate emergency area and would still be operational, even if they did not have hardened sites or emergency power. This has not always worked in practice since the emergencies that we would likely be involved in that require data handling tend to be wide spread ones or remote ones (hurricane, tsunami's) and would need the longer distances of HF. So I don't see a practical way for NGO agencies to set up complicated networks on their own. What has changed in recent time is the availability of satellite phones and you are finding greater adoption of this back up system. I would call that Plan B. Of course you may not have sat phones available right when you need them, or some other complication happens. Then amateur radio might be of use due to our sheer ubiquitousness. I would call that Plan C. And in rare cases, digital messaging might come into play although most of the immediately health and safety to life and property are going to be handled by voice which is the SOP of any emergency communications course you might take. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: >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 > > > 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/
