On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:38 CST, LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan
wrote:

Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed
by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if
anybody is curious.

I am. Are they available in English?
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:31:46 CST, wrote:

The bands below 30 MHz (except 30 meters) are divided into two
parts, with the lower part devoted to data modes and the upper part
devoted to voice and image. CW (Morse Code) is allowed almost
everywhere but is very rarely found in the voice/image subbands.
30 meters does not have a voice/image subband because it is only 50 kHz wide.

Do not forget 60 meters which is SSB specified-bandwidth voice in
prescribed channels.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:02:45 CST, "
wrote:

Mike, you've seen enough other licensed radio amateurs by now to
understand that, technically, they are rather conservative in
adopting "new" things. My own opinion is 'uber-conservative' but
that is just personal. :-)

Some of it is just economic. I'll be damned if I'm going to buy an
$800 ICOM D-Star VHF/UHF digital radio that operationally doesn't give
me any more than my existing VHF and UHF ICOM "rice boxes".

Especially since I just invested $2K in an Elecraft K2/100 HF rig with
all the bells and whistles.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

Phil Kane wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes
stronger, hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst
disasters.

There will always be a need because no matter how strong the
infrastructure is, situations will arise that exceed that capability.
Design of public safety communication systems is the specialty of my
engineering firm and I'm all too painfully aware of the real-world
limitations

Infrastructure by it's very nature becomes more fragile the more
there is of it. disasters by their nature tend to occur when multiple
problems happen. Seems like a "duh" statement, but we see it all the
time. We going to put satellites up to do emergency Operations? Right
away I see some issues. Those birds aren't cheap, so we'll probably put a
lot of stuff on them. We'll probably have a lot if interacency
"patching" available, trunking of course. It will probably be an awesome
piece of technology. Maybe it will work. Fortunately no satellite has
ever failed.... ;^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in news:1174232299.677793.194910
@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

On Mar 18, 2:10 am, wrote:


In this case, however, you have a very finite resource (the
electromagnetic spectrum) and a multitude of users with varying needs
for it's use. In most cases, mixed-mode operqations don't work...Or
at the very least don't work well.


Thank you, Steve. Your point is very real, and the historic
'solution' has been for the government (FCC) to impose regulatory
handcuffs on the market-based arbitration of that tension. This has
the practical effect of total regulatory favor of the legacy use over
the exploration of new ideas.

New ideas not only have to overcome regulatory hindrance to
feasibility trial (STA's, etc.) but once on the air must fit into a
regulatory mishmash of allocation buckets already dominated by old
legacy uses. This is the ultimate irony in the only radio service
chartered to "advance the state of the radio art".

Your points are well taken Hans, butI see that as a need to have
regulatory responsiveness, not lack of regulations.

As I listen on 75/80 meters this evening, I consider the impact of
no suggested operating frequencies. At this low point in the sunspot
cycle, 75/80 becomes like a drying pond. There are a lot of people
operating there. There is plenty of griping about people operating too
close by in frequency too. Let's get rid of all the agreements? That will
be a great thing for the SSB OPs, especially running power. Move on down
the band a bit, and all is well. All isn't so well for low power ops such
as my favorite PSK31. We have enough trouble when W1AW opens up on 3580
with their CW bulletins. Much more the fun when High power ops can wipe
out our entire group. (actually 100 watts will do that) I suppose that
one could argue that majority rules - although 1 healthy SSB signal can
wipe out 20 psk31 signals. We could presumably up our power - although
every 100 watt PSK31 signal I've seen looks pretty awful, and pretty much
forces everyone else to crank up their power. That's just one example.
But it sounds to me like complete abandonment of the gentlemen's rules is
a great way to chase some people away and discourage some of the
experimentalism you would like to encourage.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mar 18, 8:18�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Phil Kane wrote :

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

Another thing to keep in mind that as our infrastructure becomes
stronger, hams will only really be needed in the absolutely worst
disasters.

There will always be a need because no matter how strong the
infrastructure is, situations will arise that exceed that capability.
Design of public safety communication systems is the specialty of my
engineering firm and I'm all too painfully aware of the real-world
limitations

* * * * Infrastructure by it's very nature becomes more fragile the more
there is of it. disasters by their nature tend to occur when multiple
problems happen. Seems like a "duh" statement, but we see it all the
time. We going to put satellites up to do emergency Operations? Right
away I see some issues. Those birds aren't cheap, so we'll probably put a
lot of stuff on them. We'll probably have a lot if interacency
"patching" available, trunking of course. It will probably be an awesome
piece of technology. Maybe it will work. Fortunately no satellite has
ever failed.... ;^)

Mike, PART of the "infrastructure" includes radio amateurs.

Back after the 17 Jan 94 Northridge earthquake here, the
existing infrastructure was behaving just fine and FEMA
brought in a bunch more communications equipment, some
of it used to show continuous video of family/friend messages.
For all of FEMA's highlighted "faults," they were equipped to
handle comms as needed. By now the Los Angeles
Communications Auxiliary (run more or less by the LAFD)
is equipped and able to roll with comm-center bus/RV
modifications. I took my exam at one such Aux station
now still called "Old Fire House 77" despite it being
re-assigned from fire fighting to communications. Some
members of that Aux group are also licensed radio
amateurs and can operate from fixed as well as mobile
station locations.

Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms
are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus.
It may be that much smaller areas have scarce
facilities but that is up to those locations. I'm proud
that this area I live in has beefed up its communications
in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. What it
has done can be a model of integration for other areas.

Just a view a bit different than most others in here.

73, Len AF6AY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
Phil Kane wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:37:57 CST, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

I didn't explain myself very well on my comments on infrastructure and hams
in emergencies. What I was trying to say was that the smaller disasters
will need hams less and less as the normal infrastructure becomes more
robust despite its complexity. Therefore when the big disasters hit that do
compromise the infrastructure, there will be a lower percentage of people
with training and experience available.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote:

Things really aren't so scarce/rare insofar as comms
are concerned in this big city complex of 8 million plus.
It may be that much smaller areas have scarce
facilities but that is up to those locations. I'm proud
that this area I live in has beefed up its communications
in the 13 years since the Northridge quake hit. What it
has done can be a model of integration for other areas.

Just a view a bit different than most others in here.

I suppose that what I'm about to say will raise some eyebrows, too.

It strikes me that the contribution of ham radio operators in a disaster
is changing. Not so many years ago, it wasn't unusual for all
communications to be rendered inoperable when a disaster hit, and ham
radio was the only link with the outside world. We're proud of our
"When everything else fails, ham radio still works" abilities.

Then there are the organizations that are spending lots of money to
prepare mobile and semi-fixed facilities. Government agencies and NGOs
have equipped various types of vehicles to roll into a disaster and
provide communications using satellite and radio. They've installed or
staged equipment in strategic locations. Much of this work has been
done based on lessons learned during the Katrina operation.

The one thing that is always needed during a disaster is manpower. You
can stage a satellite dish, but you need someone who is trained to
deploy it after the hurricane passes through. You can equip a truck
with all the communications equipment needed to hook up an EOC with the
outside world, but who drives the truck into the area and sets up the
equipment there?

The amateur radio community is the ideal place to recruit this kind of
expertise. An alternative to doing things in the traditional way --
using your own equipment and communicating between hams using ham
frequencies -- is to affiliate with an organization that is going to
need manpower when a disaster hits. It's a different way of
accomplishing the same goal. As the requirements for communication
become more stringent due to pressure to prevent fraud and maintain
privacy, I think that this aspect will become more and more important.

I present this as food for thought and an alternative, not as any
criticism of current operations.

73, Steve KB9X

Phil Kane writes:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:48:38 CST, LA4RT Jon KÃ¥re Hellan
wrote:

Our regulations are very short - less than 2 1/2 pages when printed
by Firefox. http://www.lovdata.no/ltavd1/lt2004/t2004-1-10-65.html, if
anybody is curious.

I am. Are they available in English?

I have written and asked.

73 de LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On the con side, a real disaster is the worst possible scenario for trying
to get this technology to work reliably. You're potentially in a
high-noise low-signal poor-antenna situation. The equipment required is
fairly complex, and you need a fair amount of technical knowledge to set
it up. When I build a mental image of someone at a shelter trying to set
up this gear, it's hard for me to see success. Finally there's the issue
of what data gets sent; some of it probably is not appropriate for
transmission using amateur radio.

A way this works with WinLink (and what we are implementing in MA) is that
you put full-up WinLink stations, with both HF and VHF capability, in a few
hardened (state-owned) EOCs. Local EOCs and shelters use AirMail (the
WinLink client) with VHF TNCs to communicate with the state EOCs, with
forwarding over the Internet if it's still up, or HF otherwise. A VHF-only
WinLink client station can be quickly set up in a temporary EOC or shelter,
and can even be used mobile.

- Dennis Brothers, N1DB