wrote in message
oups.com...

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I think the idea is that person 1 transmits to the end of his
block,
then person 2 transmits to the end of their block. And so on and so on.
Be just like the olde days when the "relay" meant something in ARRL.
They will need every one of those "millions" of FRS radio owners.

When a kid did you ever play the party game 'pass it on'? You know where
you whisper something in someone's ear, they then pass it on to the next
person, then the next, then the next, ect. By the time it gets to the
last person it isn't anything like the orginal message. You don't need
that when you are trying to get critical information to a destination.

So the "Relay" in ARRL is a useless construct?

Wunnerful in theory, useless in practice?


No it simply means that without a structured format, message training, means
of checking the message (such as word count), etc that the system breaks
down. The formal message handling systems have these. The FRS system does
not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dr.Ace wrote in message
...
SATERN = SALVATION ARMY TEAM EMERGENCY RADIO NETWORK

http://www.satern.org/

What We Do
Emergency communications etc. etc.
-----------------------------------------
LAT exposé: "The Red Cross money pit" - The TRUTH at last!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/25/95628/8554

-----------------------------------------

It has always been my personal opinion that the Salvation Army is a
MUCH
better organization than the Red Cross / Red Crescent . Organizations like
the Red Cross / Red Crescent have enormous overhead, including high-paid
executives and posh offices.

Ace - WH2T

Sounds like an interesting group---I'll check them out. Yes... I often
heard unfavorable remarks made about the Red Cross---especially from
servicemen (including my father after the WWII) but consistent praise for
the Salvation Army.

I recall the Red Cross blood drives of 9/11---then blood thrown away because
there were no storage facilities available; some doctors wondered why all
the blood since there was no need for it. The story made the national news
for a couple of days then forgotten.

I hear good words about the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) as
providing excellent service during disaster relief; however, I don't know of
their communications needs.

If the Red Cross is 'particular' then the heck with them; better to
concentrate efforts elsewhere and make a good showing---the word will get
out.

Dan/W4NTI wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]
I wonder how this FRS service with toy radio's is going to talk past the
end
of their block? Oh with that useless ham stuff? On Vhf/Uhf.....uh....Oh
I
get it, FRS and V/UHF ham radio will be the emergency channel and then
carrier pigeon will take care of the long haul stuff.

One thing about it....Ya just cain't fix stupid.

Dan/W4NTI

It's already being done... CERT http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/CERT/
communities are using FRS to organize their efforts in reponse to disaster
preparedness or simply community watch and its working quite well. The idea
that a ham is needed to supply communications is somewhat outdated---hams
have out-geeked themselves. If a CERT member has a radio that doesn't work
just throw it away and get another. What really matters is organization and
team skills and communities have plenty of indviduals professionally trained
in all manner of skills besides a token ham or two. Some CERT teams are
guarded about disclosing their capabilities and SOP...

Besides, who's to say that repeaters won't become available to extend the
range of FRS radios---if there is a need anything is possible. What about
GMRS? Take a look at what the Aussies have done with their UHF CB
allocations http://www.alphalink.com.au/~parkerp/cb.htm

The issue with the future of FRS-type communications should be carefully
considered. I think that amateur long-haul coms are becoming less important
compared to short range communications networks---especially within
communties. Considering the ease of getting FRS communications the amateur
service has little to offer---unless amateurs can re-invent themselves.

Maybe... just maybe... stupid can be fixed.

Dan/W4NTI wrote in message
link.net...

"TOM" wrote in message
...
The future of the National Traffic System
http://www.eham.net/articles/12198

[snip]
For those of you who may not know, the National Traffic System (NTS)
consists of a carefully choreographed collection of section, region, and
area nets designed to relay messages throughout the US. In a sense it's
the
second "R" in ARRL. NTS has a long and honorable history and has some of
the
best operators in the world as its membership.

The recent hurricane season has raised serious doubts for me about the
role
that NTS plays in the current ham-radio environment. I did not hear a
single
health-and-welfare message during the disasters. In bygone times, NTS
would
have been buzzing with activity.
[snip]


Tom,

I hate to break your ham hating crusade but the NTS can't run any traffic,
if none is sent to it. I had the exact same complaint. I did manage to
handle a few messages, but NOTHING like I was expecting.

I have since found that the American Red Cross, for WHATEVER REASON
decided
that ham radio was not good enough to use. Other than for a VHF Telephone
network between shelters that is.

Not our bad Tom. We were there, ready, willing, and able.

Dan/W4NTI

You incorrectly credit me as being the author of the eham.net article;
however, I do share the same sentiments.

Mike has rightly reached the same conclusion as the majority of posters in
these NG's.
Ace - WH2T


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:32:01 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Snipped

You toss the "liar" pejorative around when someone voices an opinion, and
you tell people to shut up when they express an opinion.

Good for you, Mr Morgan. Not much point in having a discussion with ya.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Jerk Factor = 100% TILT !!!!!!!

Ace - WH2T


wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:22:50 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:32:01 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:


a decent case can be made that the USA should sell of all ham VHF/UHF
spectrum and use the money to build more redunacy in to the cell tower
network so at text will get through no matter what

Unrelated.


liar


You toss the "liar" pejorative around when someone voices an opinion,

you did not voice an opinion

you falsely stated that my post was unrelated

and you tell people to shut up when they express an opinion.

Good for you, Mr Morgan. Not much point in having a discussion with ya.

you were obviously never interested in one

- Mike KB3EIA -



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Mark = A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
Ace - WH2T


wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Everybody is a LIAR and everybody is WRONG. My name is Markie.

Hi Steve. Been mentoring Mark?

Mark = (unknown species)
Ace - WH2T


"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
m...
wrote:


you falsely stated that my post was unrelated


Maybe he meant to say *you* are unrelated.

Sucks when Mark does that, doesn't it!
Ace - WH2T


wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:

You toss the "liar" pejorative around when someone voices an opinion,
and you tell people to shut up when they express an opinion.

Sucks when people do that, doesn't it?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:17:13 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI"
wrote:
Tom,

I hate to break your ham hating crusade but the NTS can't run any
traffic,
if none is sent to it.

meaning you are greing with me and Tom

why is it ham hating if you say and ham hating if I do

you also make my point no vital traffic can be passed by ham radio if
it was not sent to ham radio

I had the exact same complaint. I did manage to
handle a few messages, but NOTHING like I was expecting.

which brings you to stating the same thing I was

I have since found that the American Red Cross, for WHATEVER REASON
decided
that ham radio was not good enough to use. Other than for a VHF
Telephone
network between shelters that is.

which is a dangerous state of affairs for one of the supports that we
use in our spectrum battles

but you were unwilling to even discuss such things


Not our bad Tom. We were there, ready, willing, and able.

maybe we were maybe we were not, but it seems whatever the truth were
not seen as ready willing and able, and the preception of the served
agencies is more important than the reality.

Exactly... the amateur service had an unprecedented golden opportunity for
PR at New Orleans and they blew-it big time. Probably not so much from lack
of interest by individual amateurs but from lack of leadership from the
ARRL. Now it is seen the ARRL is trying to re-make the amateur service
after the fact. The truth is the ARRL is more interested in running a
business than promoting a service. For giggles... I'll say the shift in
interest by the ARRL started when they changed the format of QST back in the
1970's. Remember how many of us remarked that QST didn't seem anything more
that a radio catalog---and many of us dropped our subscription? Seriously,
the ARRL hasn't done anything in recent times other than to publish which,
in many cases, are nothing more that collections of QST articles. I do
have a copy of, 'The ARRL Emergency Communication Handbook'---it should
contain twice the present content.

Nevertheless, I am happy to see discussion on the topic
continue---especially if they are constructive comments.