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