On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:13:26 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:

D-Star might need a big kick start, such as emergency groups purchasing
repeaters, and maybe some initial users getting some help. Otherwise
people who want to put up a digital repeater (note, not a digipeater)
might be going to a lot of expense to talk to one or two friends.

The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star
EMCOMM network and a Pactor network. It's being pushed by several
folks who got either ICOM or the State or both to subsidize their
personal D-Star radios and/or are "blessed with resources" to get one
on their own. Not counting my HF rig, I have five radios for voice
comms: a VHF and a UHF in the home comm room, my mobile, my HT, and my
"grab-and-go". Who is going to subsidize that? I surely can't.

Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's
Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is
in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar.

My perennial "what hath technology wrought" rant....
--

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:
. . . Not counting my HF rig, I have five radios for voice
comms: a VHF and a UHF in the home comm room, my mobile, my HT, and my
"grab-and-go". Who is going to subsidize that? I surely can't.

Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's
Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is
in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar.

My perennial "what hath technology wrought" rant....

My misgivings in this area are related more to the complexity of the
technology, although the cost is certainly a consideration.

My experience in real disaster situations suggests that simple is better
and that much of the reason to have amateur radio participation is tied
to the simplicity of the gear that we use. The reason we're there in
the first place is that the commercial infrastructure isn't functioning.
Tying our operations to high-tech equipment puts us in the same realm
as what we're there to replace.

My experience also suggests that it's more the human factor than the
equipment factor that makes us valuable in a disaster operation. The
training and experience that the human has is much more important than
what kind of equipment is in use.

I suppose that the response to this is that the best of all worlds is a
trained cadre of operators using the best state-of-the-art equipment
available. In theory this is correct, but in the real world of an
actual disaster operation things might be a lot different.

73, Steve KB9X

My experience also suggests that it's more the human factor than the
equipment factor that makes us valuable in a disaster operation. The
training and experience that the human has is much more important than
what kind of equipment is in use.

I suppose that the response to this is that the best of all worlds is a
trained cadre of operators using the best state-of-the-art equipment
available. In theory this is correct, but in the real world of an
actual disaster operation things might be a lot different.

73, Steve KB9X


I know of a number of members of ARES and clubs wanting to be setup
with all kinds of high-tech communications in case of emergency. I
have also noticed that in most cases, while they receive lots of
verbal support and volunteers, they end up in the exercises with a
severe shortage of operators.

I volunteered in the aftermath of Hurricanes Hugo and Frances and many
very localized disasters. Locals aren't available in the aftermath of
area-wide disasters and in local emergencies, often comm needs require
multiple repeaters or very many HT communications.

In the early days of Amateur Radio, "High Tech" meant communicating
without wires and homing pigeons. The important thing is timely and
accurate communications. today's "High-tech" can help, but the
important thing is " any means necessary".

Buck
N4PGW

Phil Kane wrote:

The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star
EMCOMM network and a Pactor network. It's being pushed by several
folks who got either ICOM or the State or both to subsidize their
personal D-Star radios and/or are "blessed with resources" to get one
on their own. Not counting my HF rig, I have five radios for voice
comms: a VHF and a UHF in the home comm room, my mobile, my HT, and my
"grab-and-go". Who is going to subsidize that? I surely can't.

My perennial "what hath technology wrought" rant....



Unfortunately, it's how they think. One of my old chestnuts is that the
reason that Ham radio is often the only thing working when the wheels
fall off is that:

1.Our organization is ad-hoc. Lots of people who know how to
communicate, but are not within some strict hierarchy.

2.We have equipment that will talk to our equipment. Now sometimes that
means that we're using old school SSB or FM or CW. That's bad? No that's
good! The idea is to pass the message, not to sit in the seat and feel
really great about the whiz-bang technology we're using.

3.We know how to get the messages across. There is something to be said
about understanding propagation. Going to send a message on 20 meters to
someone 100 miles away? 40 meters at night? How about 50 miles away on
440 simplex? A little bit of knowledge is pretty handy.


Now what I see is the folk who would have us help when disaster strikes
have noted that we seem to pull rabbits out of our hat, and they like
what they see. But as people who impress a hierarchy, organization, and
levels of technology on everything they touch, now want to do the same
to us. After Katrina, I was kind of shocked by all the "This is what you
Amateurs Have To Do" articles and speeches. And each article had a
common thread - we amateurs had to become more like the people who
experienced failure. Just didn't make sense.

And yet they can't seem to figure out why their systems fail when it
all falls apart. My guess is that we will be looking at more technology
impressed on the system. And it will probably fail too.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

In article ,
Phil Kane wrote:
The State of Oregon is putting out six figures to provide for a D-Star
EMCOMM network and a Pactor network.

No, they are not. The ICOM radios can have the D-Star option added at
local expense. Neither the 2820 nor the 2200 have D-Star built in. There
certainly is no D-Star repeater support.

Pactor is fine - my setup works at minimal cost- as long as it's
Pactor I. The cost of the proprietary modem for Pactor II and III is
in the high three figures if not four by now with the falling dollar.

The pactor is intended primarilly for county to state communication, not
user to user.