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

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Kai,

I had more than 40 years experience with Emcomm - was one of the
HF participants in the original ARRL/TAPR STA concerning automatic
control on HF - have experience as a "First Responder" with the
local Sheriff's Office when I was younger and as Director of
Engineering in large market broadcast news operations.  I can
speak to the EMCOMM needs *and capabilities* first hand.

There is simply *no need of, nor justification for* wide bandwidth,
high volume, messaging systems at HF in EMCOMM plans.  That may be
- and certainly is - different in the "last mile" portion where
the communications are essentially local.  However, that need is
more than adequately served by VHF and UHF links where the wider
bandwidth is already permitted.  That observation is completely
supported by after action reports from multiple EMCOMM organizations
including New Jersey's ARES following Superstorm Sandy.

Again, Winlink 2000 and its ilk are *completely unnecessary* for
any legitimate *amateur* purpose.  The continual flouting of the
rules - including use of bandwidth greater than 500 Hz outside the
97.221 spectrum, the use of HF "control links", third party traffic
between licensees of countries that do not have third party agreements,
"intentional" interference from automatically controlled systems
outside the 97.221 allocations that lack effective, functioning
"channel busy" detection, etc. are all reasons that current 2200 Hz
bandwidth operations should not be permitted to continue, much less
be expanded to 2800 Hz.  One need only *read* the information at
www.winlink.org to see the list of US licensed stations operating
at variance with the current rules - and see multiple instances of
organizational indifference to those rules.

73,

    ... Joe, W4TV


On 12/11/2013 3:17 PM, Kai wrote:
> Joe,
> Let's let the EMMCOMM people speak for themselves regarding the
> need, or not, for PACTOR-3 or -4 on HF.
>
> My experience supports the need for those digital modes.
> My wife, a ham who's volunteered to worked these emergencies,
> also agrees.
>
> 73
> Kai, KE4PT
>
>
> On 12/11/2013 2:47 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>