I'll offer up a couple of anecdotal situations where the
infrastructure-based communications services failed:
1. In August 2011, a strong gust of wind from a nearby thunderstorm blew
down the temporary roof and equipment support structure at a concert at the
Indiana State Fair. Seven people were killed and 58 were injured. Reports
from the scene indicated that the cell phone networks, which were not
affected by the weather, were overloaded because people at the event were
calling, texting, sending photos, uploading videos, etc. While emergency
responders have the ability to override "civilian" use of the network, it
must be requested of the cell phone providers on an ad hoc basis. That
override doesn't happen instantaneously.
2. In March 2012, an EF4 tornado struck the area around Henryville, Indiana,
causing an estimated $100 million in damage over a 49-mile track. The T1
lines serving the Indiana Project SAFE-T tower nearest to Henryville were
cut by the storm. SAFE-T is a state-owned trunked radio system used by
public safety personnel across Indiana. The Henryville site went into "site
trunking" which meant the site still worked for those close to it, but it
had no connection to the rest of the SAFE-T system. It took several days for
the network connection to be restored. Yes, sufficient hardening might have
prevented this problem. But, when a state-funded agency is responsible for
over a hundred sites around the state, corners get cut in order to keep the
budgets in line.
You won't hear me say that amateur radio saved the day in either of these
cases--it didn't--because that's not my point. At best, amateur radio _may_
have a role in taking _some_ of the non-priority communications load in an
emergency. What amateur radio brings to the table is an ability to set up
ad-hoc networks that are not reliant on fixed infrastructure.
My point is that any communications system based on fixed infrastructure is
prone to localized failure. There is no way I'd recommend to any emergency
responder that they rely solely on cell phones, or trunked radios systems,
for communications at a disaster site. Doing so is a recipe for
frustratingly poor communications.
Now, back to our regularly-scheduled arguing about RM-11708.
Bob...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf
> Of James Rodenkirch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:30 PM
> To: Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] RM11708 and the Future
>
> By the bye......waving the "emergency com banner" while arguing for
> RM11708 is specious!
>
> It is totally wrong to buy into the "give it up for Emcomm" because, in
> practice during Emcomm, the cell phone is used exclusively to ham radio.
In
> real emergencies the commercial radios with sites that have been hardened
> and readied for this specific use AND the cell phone sites which are also
> readied and hardened far beyond ham ability AND cell phone routing will
> allow ONLY Ecomm traffic FROM ONLY real responders.... thereby relegating
> the hams to a tertiary function that in actuality can actually be
considered
> commercial . i.e., hams will be handling traffic for agencies that are
doing
> their day to day job.
>
> Don't wave the Emcomm flag. IMHO, it don't stand up in the breeze of
> truthful reality.
>
> 72 de Jim R. K9JWV
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|