[RTTY] RM-11708, the "other side"

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

No, the "get serious" issue with emergency communications is that
there is *no need* for PACTOR III or PACTOR IV on *HF* for EMMCOMM.
In every major emergency - including Superstorm Sandy - the long
haul traffic for which HF is suited was handled by internet.  The
heavy volume traffic for which PACTOR III/IV would be used was
confined to VHF *where the higher signalling rates are legal*.
One need only read the after action reports of emergency after
emergency - including the one from New Jersey ARES after Sandy
to see this pattern.

Safety of Life and other *short messages* are more than adequately
handled by PACTOR I or PACTOR II *in a 500 Hz bandwidth* at HF.
The *only* "need" for higher bandwidth protocols at HF is for the
blue water sailing crowd who are *looking to avoid the cost* of
commercial (marine) SSB equipment and high cost e-mail services.

The high bandwidth is necessary for emergency communications
argument is a red herring - it is the equivalent to asking
"Kai, when did you stop beating your wife?" - there is logical
response because the premise itself is *illogical* and assumes
facts not in evidence.

Were amateur radio ever faced with providing long haul emergency
communications in the volume that required the bandwidth of which
PACTOR II/IV is capable, the emergency would be so geographically
large and so much infrastructure would have been destroyed that
the communication would be futile - there would not be enough
amateur manpower and equipment - or there would not be enough
responders left to generate and use the data.

Winlink 2000 as an emergency communications tool is a canard and
those who build their response plans around it for long haul data
traffic simply fail to understand the nature and scope of their
mission.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 12/11/2013 12:02 PM, Kai wrote:
> Bill
> This one is in the "let's get serious" category. I've handled several
> thousand of pieces of
> message traffic by voice in ONE of our hurricane emergencies in Florida.
> I mean voice messages *copied by hand, with re-reads for clarity*. There
> are serious safety
> of life issues!
> I do not recommend voice. Digital would be faster, more accurate, and
> can be archived for
> resolving continuing emergency and field-hospital issues. At the time
> reliable digital was simply
> not available.
>
> If you want to try what "copyby hand" feels like, I urge you to enter
> your next RTTY contest
> using just a hand written log. I think you'll get the idea pretty quickly.
>
> But, I'm sure you really did not mean "use voice" for messages in a real
> emergency seriously.
>
> 73
> Kai, KE4PT
>
>
> On 12/11/2013 11:36 AM, Bill Turner wrote:
>> In a real emergency, just use voice.
>>
>> No special equipment required, fast and effective, less battery power,
>> anyone can copy.
>>
>> 73, Bill W6WRT
>> _______________________________________________
>> RTTY mailing list
>> RTTY at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>