The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 27

[AA7BQ]

IN THIS EDITION:

* + FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief
* + Huntsville to Host Global EmComm Conference in August
* + ARRL In Action: What Have We Been Up to Lately?
* + Amateurs Play Key Role in Tennessee Earthquake Exercise
* + North Carolina Eagle Scout Named 2007's Young Ham of the Year
* + New Section Manager Appointed in Sacramento Valley
* Solar Update
* IN BRIEF:
This Weekend on the Radio
ARRL Certification and Continuing Education Course Registration
+ Solar Flux to Bottom Out This Month as Cycle 24 Gets Closer
+ Get Ready for the IARU HF World Championship, July 14-15
Walt Legowski, WA1KKM, wins June QST Cover Plaque Award
ARRL VEC Team Keeps Busy!
Emma Berg, W0JUV/AAR7AX (SK)
Let Us Know
Corrections and Clarifications


+Available on ARRL Audio News <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/>

================================================== =========
==>Delivery problems: First see FAQ
<http://www.arrl.org/members-only/faq.html#nodelivery>, then e-mail
<letter-dlvy@arrl.org>
==>Editorial questions or comments only: S. Khrystyne Keane,
<k1sfa@arrl.org>
================================================== =========

==> FCC Responds to ARRL's BPL Brief

On Monday, July 2, the FCC filed its reply brief with the US Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The FCC attempted to rebut
the ARRL's challenge to the FCC's Broadband over Power Line (BPL) rules
enacted in late 2004 and affirmed by the agency in 2006. According to
ARRL General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD, "The FCC's brief does not
accurately describe ARRL's arguments concerning harmful interference."

Given what is in essence a 100 percent probability of interference from
BPL systems to fixed and mobile HF facilities at significant distances
from power lines, Imlay said Section 301 of the Communications Act does
not allow unlicensed BPL systems to operate in the HF bands. "Basically,
Section 301 says you can not operate a radio frequency emitting device
without a license. The legislative purpose of Section 301 is clearly to
avoid interference. FCC's Part 15 rules have assumed that certain very
low power devices and systems can operate without predictable
interference, thus allowing them to operate without a license,
notwithstanding Section 301. But with BPL, the FCC has ignored
conclusive record evidence which shows that there will be, and in fact
our experience conclusively demonstrates, that BPL causes severe
interference to licensed services," Imlay said.

The FCC claims that it has the authority to permit unlicensed BPL under
Section 302 of the Act; this section allows the FCC to regulate the
interference potential of RF devices. What Section 302 does not do,
Imlay said, is to create a loophole in, or modify, or invalidate Section
301.

"It is the ARRL's position," Imlay said, "that the FCC can regulate and
authorize BPL with certain safeguards, consistent with the terms of
Section 301; however, the FCC simply cannot honestly maintain the
position that BPL has an inherently low interference potential. It has a
high interference potential, and the rules they have enacted to date are
woefully inadequate and insufficient to address it." The ARRL has long
maintained that BPL, when not adequately "notched," causes harmful
interference to Amateur Radio operations. In its brief, the FCC claims
BPL does not cause significant interference and the Courts must defer to
the FCC's expertise to decide this issue.

ARRL Chief Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, said, "The FCC
misrepresents the ARRL's position as being that the FCC has no authority
to allow unlicensed devices that pose any risk whatsoever of causing
interference to licensed services. That's not our position at all. Our
position is that the FCC possessed clear evidence, at the time it made
its BPL decisions, that the limits it was adopting would allow the
deployment of BPL systems with a near-100 percent probability of causing
harmful interference to radio receivers hundreds of feet from the power
lines. Yet, despite this evidence it characterized the likelihood of
harmful interference as 'low.'"

The brief goes on to say that, in the FCC's view, mobile stations and
fixed stations are protected against harmful interference from BPL. But
with respect to mobile stations complaining of interference, the FCC
requires only that BPL operators reduce the radiated emission levels to
20 dB below the Part 15 maximum levels for radiated emissions. This, in
the HF bands, still permits BPL noise at levels that preclude
communications entirely. It offers mobile stations no protection
whatsoever, Imlay stated.

Sumner explained, "The FCC claims that it continues to protect mobile
stations from harmful interference, but it does so simply by defining
whatever interference a mobile station might encounter from a notched
BPL system as not harmful! None of the steps to limit the interference
potential of BPL systems that the FCC took in this rulemaking proceeding
reduce the likelihood of interference to the amateur service, and to
this day the FCC has declined to enforce its rules even when protracted
violations and interference have been documented."

The FCC's brief also attempted to justify its presumption that a BPL
radiated interfering signal decays at a rate of 40 dB per decade of
distance. "A 'decade of distance' is a factor of 10," Imlay explained.
"For example, if a victim receiver moves from 3-30 feet from the power
lines (10 times farther away), that is one decade of distance. For each
decade of distance, the FCC believes that there is a 40 dB signal decay.
In the HF bands, however, the evidence in the record shows that the
signal decay is closer to 20 dB than 40 dB per decade of distance from
the power lines. The FCC's brief claimed that there was conflicting
evidence on the subject, but ARRL's view is that the FCC merely avoided
consideration of the overwhelming evidence favoring the more
conservative decay factor."

Imlay said the ARRL has asked the Court to order the FCC to "rethink the
rules governing BPL and for the first time to take into account the
evidence on the record concerning harmful interference to Amateur
Radio." ARRL's reply brief is due for filing with the Court July 28,
2007. There is no date set yet for oral argument before the three-judge
panel in Washington, DC.

==> Huntsville to Host Global EmComm Conference in August

The 2007 Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Conference
(GAREC-07) is scheduled for Thursday and Friday, August 16-17 in
Huntsville, Alabama. GAREC-07 registrants will participate in emergency
communications-themed presentations, discussions and demonstrations. The
conference will be held just before the 2007 ARRL National Convention
and annual Huntsville Hamfest, which take place on Saturday and Sunday,
August 18-19.

In 2005, current IARU Region 1 Emergency Communications Coordinator
Seppo Sisatto, OH1VR, organized the first GAREC meeting in Tampere,
Finland. Tampere was the site of a 1998 intergovernmental meeting where
the Tampere Convention was adopted -- an international treaty that
facilitates the use of telecommunications in humanitarian assistance. In
2006, GAREC met in Tampere for the second time, in connection with the
International Conference on Emergency Communications (ICEC-2006) and the
United Nations Working Group on Emergency Telecommunications.

According to IARU International Coordinator for Emergency Communications
Hans Zimmermann, F5VKP/HB9AQS, "...GAREC wants to be a forum for the
exchange of information. Many IARU Member Societies and specialized
emergency communications groups have developed and implemented emergency
concepts. Many others want to benefit from their technical, operational
and, not the least, their administrative or even 'political' experiences
when establishing the necessary cooperation with partners in emergency
and disaster response. GAREC also developed new concepts, such as the
'Center of Activity Frequencies,' meanwhile adopted by the IARU Region 1
and 3 conferences."

The packed GAREC-07 agenda includes reviews of advanced digital
technologies and their applications to emergency telecommunications. The
ARRL Alabama Section, Zimmermann said, "leads the way" with respect to
D-STAR repeater systems, activities and users. There will also be a
demonstration of the Automatic Packet Reporting System (APRS), another
capability of the Amateur Radio Services. Zimmermann noted, "A
demonstration of [APRS'] capabilities found much interest among the
delegates of the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Turkey last
November."

Zimmermann added that EchoLink and eQSO are "yet more such tools, and
specialized groups have developed emergency applications for these
modes. More technologies are being developed or have become available
already. The two days in August will be packed with practical
information, and experts will arrange demonstrations of the capabilities
of 21st century Amateur Radio!" Emergency communication vehicles and
equipment will be on hand throughout the conference.

Details for GAREC-2007 are now being finalized. Information about
GAREC-07 and the related events is available at these Web sites:
<http://www.arrl-al.org/GAREC07.htm> and
<http://www.iaru.org/emergency/. The sites will be updated as more
information becomes available. To register for GAREC-07, please see the
registration page <https://www.arrl.org/forms/misc/garec07.html>.
GAREC-07's tentative agenda
<http://www.arrl-al.org/garec_schedule.htm>is also available.

==> ARRL In Action: What Have We Been Up to Lately?

In June, ARRL HQ staffers, officers and directors were busy. ARRL
President Joel Harrison, W5ZN, expressed his appreciation to Arkansas
Senator Mark Pryor after the senator introduced a BPL-related bill in
the US Senate. ARRL Chief Development Officer Mary Hobart, K1MMH,
oversaw the installation of the Diamond Terrace at ARRL Headquarters.
Several members of the ARRL HQ staff, area hams and out of state
visitors activated W1AW during Field Day weekend.

The ARRL sent out more than 100 letters to repeater owners/trustees who
have repeaters affected by the Pave Paws radars. The letters provided an
update on the ongoing negotiations with the US Air Force. In response,
most have reported that they have voluntarily reduced power.

The ARRL Worked All States (WAS) award has been redesigned. The August
issue of QST and the July/August issues of QEX and NCJ have been printed
and mailed. The 2006 Annual Report is available electronically or, upon
request, in printed form.

ARRL Field and Regulation Correspondent Chuck Skolaut, K0BOG, compiled
and forwarded the ARRL Monitoring System/Intruder Watch report to the
IARU Region 2 Coordinator. US Virgin Islands Section Manager John Ellis,
NP2B, is serving as the main liaison between the Hurricane Watch Net and
ARRL HQ staff during the 2007 hurricane season.

ARRL Education Project Coordinator Mark Spencer, WA8SME, led two
Teachers Institutes, one in Rocklin, California and one in Spokane,
Washington. Mark and his wife Doris spent a good part of a week in
EmComm support for a local wildfire emergency in Coleville, California,
including offering their home as shelter. The Executive Committee has
approved seven new grants to Education & Technology Program schools.

The new editions of The ARRL General Class License Manual and General
Q&A are available for sale. Jon Bloom, KE3Z, managed the process of
switching the massive Logbook of The World QSO repository over to a more
robust server. Several staff members helped reorganize the ARRL HQ lobby
publications and apparel display.

ARRL HQ staff traveled internationally and domestically promoting and
advocating on behalf of Amateur Radio. On behalf of the IARU, ARRL Chief
Executive Officer David Sumner, K1ZZ, took part in a meeting of
International Telecommunication Union-Radio Communication Sector (ITU-R)
Working Party 1A in Geneva, Switzerland. IARU President Larry Price,
W4RA, ARRL Chief Technology Officer Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, and Sumner also
took part in a meeting of ITU Working Party 8A in Geneva. Dan Henderson,
N1ND, took part in the ARRL Forum at the Georgia State
Convention/Atlanta Hamfest, as well as the Iowa State Convention in
South Sioux City, Nebraska. Mary Hobart took part in the Northwestern
Division Convention at Seaside, Oregon. Katie Breen, W1KRB, attended the
New York State Convention in Rochester. David Sumner, Dave Patton, NN1N,
and Maria Somma, AB1FM, Joel Harrison, W5ZN, and Rod Stafford,
W6ROD,represented the ARRL at HAM RADIO 2007 at Friedrichshafen,
Germany. Steve Ewald, WV1X, attended the National Citizen Corps
Conference in Alexandria, Virginia. ARRL News Editor S. Khrystyne Keane,
K1SFA, gave a presentation at the West Gulf Division Convention/HamCom
2007 in Plano, Texas.

==> Amateurs Play Key Role in Tennessee Earthquake Exercise

Almost 100 radio amateurs participated in TNCAT '07, the largest and
most comprehensive exercise ever conducted by the Tennessee Emergency
Management Agency (TEMA). The exercise, conducted over a 3 day period
from June 19-21, was based on a presumed 7.7 magnitude earthquake along
the New Madrid Seismic Zone.

TEMA's Operations Chief Hank Koebler, Jr, N3ORX, said he was very
impressed with the response from the amateur community. "I anticipated a
top-notch performance from them, but they exceeded those expectations by
far."

Throughout the exercise, ARES and MARS continued to provide the bulk of
the emergency communications. At the State Emergency Operations Center
in Nashville, ARES and MARS operators were set up side-by-side to handle
the communications load -- ARES handled voice on VHF/UHF and HF links
into the disaster area, while MARS handled all Winlink traffic via HF.
In the affected counties in West Tennessee, ARES operators performed
damage assessments, provided the sole means of communications for the
county Emergency Operations Centers and were the communications
workhorses for TEMA's Regional Center in Jackson, Tennessee.

==> North Carolina Eagle Scout Named 2007's Young Ham of the Year

Grant H. Morine, W4GHM, a 17 year old from Wilmington, North Carolina,
has been named the 2007 Young Ham of the Year (YHOTY), announced YHOTY
Award Administrator Bill Pasternak, WA6ITF, and Award Committee Chairman
Mark Abramowicz, NT3V. Grant was selected based on his commitment to
Amateur Radio, along with his work in public service and his promotion
of the Amateur Radio Service to others through the Boy Scouts of
America. Grant will receive his award as part of the Huntsville Hamfest,
held in conjunction with the 2007 ARRL National Convention.

The son of Bill, N2COP, and Pamela Morine, and the brother of Reid,
W4RSM, Grant was first licensed in June of 2001 when he was 10; he holds
a Technician class license. His nomination told of the public service
project that he spearheaded to earn the rank of Eagle Scout -- the
construction and donation of 30 220-MHz J-pole antennas to the Carolinas
Amateur Radio Emergency Services (CARES). The antennas are indoor
back-ups for the CARES network of hospitals, located in some of the
storm-prone coastal areas of the Carolinas.

To complete his project, Grant successfully solicited the donation of
the needed raw materials from a local hardware store. He then organized
a group of three adults and 10 Scouts to assemble the antenna systems at
his home. After each antenna was completed, it was tested for proper
performance before being handed over to CARES managers in October 2006.
Grant's antennas were recently tested by CARES when they were utilized
in a test run in South Carolina.

Antenna design and construction are not new to Grant. In 2006, he won
first place in the North Carolina Science Fair with an environmentally
inspired project that he called "Can Homemade Antennas Made from
Recyclable Materials Work As Well As Commercially Made Antennas?" He
proved that they could by designing and constructing a dual-band 2 meter
and 70 cm antenna from a steel can, a soda can and a wire coat hanger.
Grant won county and regional science fairs when he was in 7th and 8th
grades using ham radio antenna projects.

Aside from ham radio, Grant served as a Page in the North Carolina
legislature in the summer of 2006. He was also appointed to serve on the
Junior Crime Prevention Council of New Hanover County in 2006 by the
County Commissioners. During his tenure, he was the sole representative
under age 18 on this government panel.

Grant is currently in his senior year at the Lyceum Academy. Grant hopes
to enroll in the United States Naval Academy, after which he plans to
attend Duke University's School of Law with an eye toward a long-term
career as a military Judge Advocate General (JAG).

The 2007 Amateur Radio Newsline Young Ham of the Year Award will be
presented on Saturday, August 18, 2007 at the Huntsville Hamfest in
Huntsville, Alabama. As the 2007 Young Ham of the Year, Grant will
receive a trip to the Huntsville Hamfest, ham radio equipment, various
books and magazines and an all-expense-paid week at Spacecamp in
Huntsville. Amateur Radio Newsline will award Grant with a commemorative
plaque at the ceremony.

The presentation of the YHOTY award is a regular feature of the
Huntsville Hamfest and has been made possible through the generosity and
kindness of the event's Planning Committee. In addition to the 2007 ARRL
National Convention, the International Amateur Radio Union's Global
Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Conference (GAREC-07) will take
place at the Huntsville Hamfest. This year's YHOTY award ceremony will
be co-hosted by Pasternak and Don Wilbanks, AE5DW, of Amateur Radio
Newsline, along with representatives of corporate underwriters
Vertex-Standard and CQ Communications, Inc.

The Amateur Radio Newsline "Young Ham of the Year" award program
(formerly the Westlink Report Young Ham of the Year Award), is now
entering its 21st consecutive year. It is presented annually to a
licensed radio Amateur Radio operator who is 18 years of age or younger
and who has provided outstanding service to the nation, his/her
community or the betterment of the state of the art in communications
through the Amateur Radio hobby/service.

==> New Section Manager Appointed in Sacramento Valley

Ron Murdock, W6KJ, of Yuba City, California, has been appointed Section
Manager of the Sacramento Valley Section. Dave Patton, NN1N, Manager of
ARRL's Membership and Volunteer Programs Department, made the
appointment effective July 2 since outgoing Section Manager Casey
McPartland, W7IB, will be moving out the section soon. Murdock was
scheduled to become Section Manager on October 1. "I have been looking
forward to this for some time," Murdock said after getting the word that
his term is starting three months early. He comes to the position with
strong recommendations from McPartland, as well as former Sacramento
Valley Section Manager Jettie Hill, W6RFF. Murdock is active with the
Yuba-Sutter Amateur Radio Club, and has also served as ARRL Bulletin
Manager and ARRL Emergency Coordinator. Licensed since 1967, he has been
involved in public service events and emergency communications since
1969, helping out with earthquakes, wildfires and floods. Murdock and
his wife Jo Anne, N6YLO, have two grown sons.

==>SOLAR UPDATE

Tad "You Are the Sun(spot) of My Life" Cook, K7RA, this week reports:
The average daily sunspot number for this week rose nearly 18 points
from the previous seven days. On July 4, the A index was moderately
elevated due to a solar wind stream. Expect to see a similar increase
around July 11, and a much greater increase in geomagnetic activity from
July 16-19. Geophysical Institute Prague predicts quiet conditions for
July 6-9, quiet to unsettled July 10, and unsettled conditions for July
11. Monthly averages of daily sunspot numbers for April 2006 through
June 2007 were 55.2, 39.6, 24.4, 22.6, 22.8, 25.2, 14.7, 31.5, 22.2,
28.2, 17.3, 9.8, 6.9, 19.8 and 20.7. Monthly averages of daily solar
flux for the same period were 88.9, 80.9, 76.5, 75.8, 79, 77.8, 74.3,
86.3, 84.4, 83.5, 77.7, 72.2, 72.4, 74.4 and 73.7. Sunspot numbers for
June 28 through July 4 were 27, 29, 36, 30, 13, 12 and 13 with a mean of
22.9. 10.7 cm flux was 74.9, 75.3, 74, 74.3, 72.6, 71.7, and 72.4, with
a mean of 73.6. Estimated planetary A indices were 6, 13, 6, 5, 3, 9 and
16 with a mean of 8.3. Estimated mid-latitude A indices were 5, 5, 4, 4,
2, 6 and 13, with a mean of 5.6. For more information concerning radio
propagation, visit the ARRL Technical Information Service Propagation
page <http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/propagation.html>.

____

==>IN BRIEF:

* This weekend on the radio: This weekend, look for the VK/Trans-Tasman
160 Meter Contest (SSB) on July 7. The Venezuelan Independence Day
Contest, the DL-DX RTTY Contest and the Original QRP Contest are
scheduled for July 7-8. On July 8, look for the DARC 10 Meter Digital
Contest and the ARCI Summer Homebrew Sprint. Later in the week on July
11, the SKCC Sprint and RSGB 80 Meter Club Championship (SSB) are on the
air. Next weekend, the big event is the IARU HF World Championship, from
1200 UTC July 14-1200 UTC July 15. On July 13, the NCCC Sprint Ladder is
on the air, and on July 14, look for the FISTS Summer Sprint. The
Colorado QSO Party is on July 15-16, while the Run for the Bacon QRP
Contest is on July 16. The NAQCC Straight Key/Bug Sprint and the RSGB 80
Meter Club Championship (Data) are on July 19. See the ARRL Contest
Branch page <http://www.arrl.org/contests/>, the ARRL Contester's Rate
Sheet <http://www.arrl.org/contests/rate-sheet/> and the WA7BNM Contest
Calendar <http://www.hornucopia.com/contestcal/index.html> for more
info.

* ARRL Certification and Continuing Education Course Registration:
Registration remains open through Sunday, July 22 for these online
courses beginning on Friday August 3: Technician License Course
(EC-010); Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Level 1 (EC-001); Radio
Frequency Interference (EC-006); Antenna Design and Construction
(EC-009); Analog Electronics (EC-012) and Digital Electronics (EC-013).
To learn more, visit the CCE Course Listing page
<http://www.arrl.org/cce/courses.html> or contact the Continuing
Education Program Coordinator <cce@arrl.org>.

* Solar Flux to Bottom Out in July as Cycle 24 Gets Closer: The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Space Environment Center
(SEC) released their monthly forecasts of sunspot number and 10.7 cm
radio flux, including high and low bounds to their forecasts. The SEC
forecasts that the smoothed sunspot number reached its low value of 11.7
in March 2007, and predicts that the solar flux will reach its low of
75.4 this month. This is the fourth month in a row that the SEC predicts
the solar flux will bottom out in July. Based on the SEC predictions,
this is probably at the bottom of Cycle 23 and extremely close to the
beginning of Cycle 24. Two events will mark the beginning of the next
sunspot cycle: The observation of the first opposite magnetic polarity
sunspots compared to Cycle 23 sunspot polarity, and the observation high
solar latitude sunspots -- the Cycle 23 sunspots are now very near the
solar equator. The SEC predictions table
<http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict.txt> and sunspot number
and solar flux prediction graphs <http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/>
are available on the SEC's Web site.

* Get Ready for the IARU HF World Championship, July 14-15:
Participation in the IARU HF World Championship has grown steadily for
the past four years, despite solar activity trending in the wrong
direction. The creation of Low Power and QRP categories has contributed
to increasing both the popularity and the competitiveness of the event.
The ARRL administers the HF World Championship on behalf of the IARU. At
its May 2007 meeting the IARU Administrative Council discussed various
issues related to the event and asked that the ARRL devote the resources
necessary to maintain a high standard of adjudication. A condition of
entry in the IARU HF World Championship is that each entrant agrees to
be bound by the provisions of the announced rules, by the regulations of
his/her licensing authority, and by the decisions of the ARRL Awards
Committee acting for the IARU International Secretariat. Leading
competitors should expect their entries to be carefully scrutinized. If
exceptional results are claimed, entrants must be prepared to explain
how they were achieved. Reminder: In addition to the zone and "HQ
station" multipliers there are four additional multipliers available per
band by contacting members of the IARU Administrative Council and the
regional IARU executive committees. Administrative Council members may
send "AC" instead of their zone, while regional executive committee
members may send "R1," "R2" or "R3" as appropriate. See
<http://www.arrl.org/contests/rules/2007/iaru.html> for more
information.

* Walt Legowski, WA1KKM, wins June QST Cover Plaque Award: The winner of
the QST Cover Plaque Award for June is Walt Legowski, WA1KKM, for his
article "AARA 1, Murphy 0: Our Linux Logging Program at Field Day."
Congratulations, Walt! The winner of the QST Cover Plaque award -- given
to the author or authors of the best article in each issue -- is
determined by a vote of ARRL members on the QST Cover Plaque Poll Web
page <http://www.arrl.org/members-only/qstvote.html?pidx=1>. Cast a
ballot for your favorite article in the July issue by Tuesday, July 31.

* ARRL VEC Team Keeps Busy!: July 23 marks the 5 month anniversary of
the FCC's elimination of the 5 WPM Morse code exam requirement. Since
February 23, the ARRL VEC reports that test session registration and
attendance has been steady and strong. The average number of test
sessions per month is up from last year (602 in 2007 compared to 472 in
2006), as is the average number of examinees per session (8 candidates
in 2007 compared to 5 candidates in 2006). Of the nearly 700 test
sessions registered for June, more than 600 sessions have been received
and processed by the VEC staff. ARRL booth traffic was brisk at the
International Ham Radio Exhibition held June 22 to 24 in
Friedrichshafen, Germany. More than 18,000 people from 36 countries
attended. An ARRL VEC exam session was held on Saturday morning at the
convention. Thirty-one exams were given, with 25 achieving an upgrade or
new license. Packages were mailed last month to more than 900 ARRL VEC
volunteer examiner teams. These teams have now been provided with test
materials. The packages contained the new General Class Element 3 exams
to be used at test sessions beginning July 1. For ARRL VE teams who are
using the ExamWin Software, the updated version was released on June 18
and is available on our ExamWin Web page
<http://www.arrl.org/arrlvec/examwin>. A VE Express Newsletter was
emailed on June 18 to more than 5500 subscribers. To view the current VE
Newsletter or to view previous editions, visit the "ARRL VEC News
Briefs, Announcements, Newsletters" Web page
<http://www.arrl.org/arrlvec/announcements.html>.

* Emma Berg, W0JUV/AAR7AX (SK): Emma Berg, 102, died June 7 at Lawrence
Presbyterian Manor in Lawrence, Kansas. Mrs Berg remained active in the
Military Affiliate Radio System (MARS) on a daily basis. A member of the
Douglas County Amateur Radio Club since 1942 and a member of the
American Radio Relay League as well as Army MARS, "She was very spry for
her age," said Kansas State MARS Director John Halladay, AAA7KS. "Always
busy -- a person we could be proud to emulate in our own aging." Over
the years, Mrs Berg served as net control operator on Kansas CW nets and
was a First Lieutenant in the Civil Air Patrol. Mrs Berg edited the
Sunflower Seeds, the Kansas MARS quarterly newsletter, in her younger
years -- when she was in her 90s - and later penned the publication's
"Fun & Relaxation" articles. Outside of radio, Mrs Berg was a teacher
and administrator in Douglas County before she retired in 1962. She also
taught and was principal at several rural schools, and served as Douglas
County superintendent of public instruction from 1949 to 1959. Survivors
include two nieces, Jane Semple Cox of Phoenix, Arizona, and Nancy
Semple Menchen of Las Vegas, Nevada. The family suggests memorials to
Heart of America Hospice, 1420 Wakarusa, Suite 202, Lawrence, KS 66049.

* Let Us Know: What's your favorite part of The ARRL Letter? What kind
of stories would you like to see in the Letter? Would you like to see
pictures in the Letter? This is your Letter and your chance to let your
voice be heard. Please send your suggestions to ARRL News Editor S.
Khrystyne Keane, K1SFA, at k1sfa@arrl.org, with the subject line "ARRL
Letter Suggestions." All messages will be read and discussed, and we
look forward to implementing positive suggestions into the ARRL Letter.

* Corrections and Clarifications: In last week's ARRL Letter (Vol 26, No
26), it was reported that the Emergency Coordinator for Williamson
County, Texas was Jim Taylor, NQ5L. Williamson County's EC is Jim
Russell, NQ5L.

================================================== =========
The ARRL Letter is published Fridays, 50 times each year, by the
American Radio Relay League: ARRL--the National Association for Amateur
Radio, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111; tel 860-594-0200; fax
860-594-0259; <http://www.arrl.org>. Joel Harrison, W5ZN, President.

The ARRL Letter offers a weekly e-mail digest of essential and general
news of interest to active radio amateurs. Visit the ARRL Web site
<http://www.arrl.org> for the latest Amateur Radio news and news
updates. The ARRL Web site <http://www.arrl.org/> also offers
informative features and columns. ARRL Audio News
<http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> is a weekly "ham radio newscast"
compiled and edited from The ARRL Letter. It's also available as a
podcast from our Web site.

Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole
or in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be
given to The ARRL Letter/American Radio Relay League.

==>Delivery problems (ARRL member direct delivery only!):
letter-dlvy@arrl.org
==>Editorial questions or comments: S. Khrystyne Keane, K1SFA,
k1sfa@arrl.org
==>ARRL News on the Web: <http://www.arrl.org>
==>ARRL Audio News: <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/audio/> or call
860-594-0384

==>How to Get The ARRL Letter

The ARRL Letter is available to ARRL members free of charge directly
from ARRL HQ. To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your address for
e-mail delivery:
ARRL members first must register on the Members Only Web Site
<http://www.arrl.org/members/>. You'll have an opportunity during
registration to sign up for e-mail delivery of The ARRL Letter, W1AW
bulletins, and other material. To change these selections--including
delivery of The ARRL Letter--registered members should click on the
"Member Data Page" link (in the Members Only box). Click on "Modify
membership data," check or uncheck the appropriate boxes and/or change
your e-mail address if necessary. (Check "Temporarily disable all
automatically sent email" to temporarily stop all e-mail deliveries.)
Then, click on "Submit modification" to make selections effective.
(NOTE: HQ staff members cannot change your e-mail delivery address. You
must do this yourself via the Members Only Web Site.)

The ARRL Letter also is available to all, free of charge, from these
sources:

* ARRLWeb <http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/>. (NOTE: The ARRL Letter will
be posted each Friday when it is distributed via e-mail.)

* The QTH.net listserver, thanks to volunteers from the Boston Amateur
Radio Club: Visit Mailing Lists@QTH.Net
<http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/letter-list>. (NOTE: The ARRL
cannot assist subscribers who receive The ARRL Letter via this
listserver.)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] ]Throughout the exercise, ARES and MARS continued to provide the bulk of
the emergency communications. At the State Emergency Operations Center
in Nashville, ARES and MARS operators were set up side-by-side to handle
the communications load -- ARES handled voice on VHF/UHF and HF links
into the disaster area, while MARS handled all Winlink traffic via HF.
In the affected counties in West Tennessee, ARES operators performed
damage assessments, provided the sole means of communications for the
county Emergency Operations Centers and were the communications
workhorses for TEMA's Regional Center in Jackson, Tennessee.


That's the way it should be done, IMHO.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 07 2007,05:11)]Quote[/b] ]Throughout the exercise, ARES and MARS continued to provide the bulk of
the emergency communications. At the State Emergency Operations Center
in Nashville, ARES and MARS operators were set up side-by-side to handle
the communications load -- ARES handled voice on VHF/UHF and HF links
into the disaster area, while MARS handled all Winlink traffic via HF.
In the affected counties in West Tennessee, ARES operators performed
damage assessments, provided the sole means of communications for the
county Emergency Operations Centers and were the communications
workhorses for TEMA's Regional Center in Jackson, Tennessee.


That's the way it should be done, IMHO.
Al: Notice that ARES handled HF links into and out of the affected area. So, chances are, the Winlink station (probably K4CJX, WinLink/Pactor III guru Steve Waterman) could sit in Nashville and send and receive emails. How did the information get to Nashville? Not via MARS, but via ARES UHF/VHF and HF.

MARS station primary role will be to prepare Essential Elements of Information email reports to send to the Pentagon bureaucrat-du joir and its "MOU" commitments. Who's going to set up at the Nashville Airport to support TSA, per its contract with MARS, if MARS assets are at the state EOC? In a real situation, MARS will likely be assisting with the baggage counts at the airport.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ July 08 2007,06:48)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 07 2007,05:11)]Quote[/b] ]Throughout the exercise, ARES and MARS continued to provide the bulk of
the emergency communications. At the State Emergency Operations Center
in Nashville, ARES and MARS operators were set up side-by-side to handle
the communications load -- ARES handled voice on VHF/UHF and HF links
into the disaster area, while MARS handled all Winlink traffic via HF.
In the affected counties in West Tennessee, ARES operators performed
damage assessments, provided the sole means of communications for the
county Emergency Operations Centers and were the communications
workhorses for TEMA's Regional Center in Jackson, Tennessee.


That's the way it should be done, IMHO.
Al: #Notice that ARES handled HF links into and out of the affected area. #So, chances are, the Winlink station (probably K4CJX, WinLink/Pactor III guru Steve Waterman) could sit in Nashville and send and receive emails. #How did the information get to Nashville? #Not via MARS, but via ARES UHF/VHF and HF.

MARS station primary role will be to prepare Essential Elements of Information email reports to send to the Pentagon bureaucrat-du joir and its "MOU" commitments. #Who's going to set up at the Nashville Airport to support TSA, per its contract with MARS, if MARS assets are at the state EOC? #In a real situation, MARS will likely be assisting with the baggage counts at the airport.
Bit too cynical for me, Lee.

I think the way the ARES and MARS folks worked this exercise shows clearly the advantages of mutual effort that provides a model worth pursuing. It results in a kind of communications "symbiosis" in that the very issues that we in amateur radio dread are managed by MARS on their frequencies and the things we manage well are handled by ARES on ours.

To my mind, this is win/win. I can't imagine a real-life scenario that could not managed well using this sort of role distribution. Should the "disaster" or "emergency" be of such magnitude that it so stretches MARS capabilities to the extent your scheme envisions, it would likely be great enough to warrant a far wider military involvement than would normally be the case, even considering a natural calamity of the scale of a Katrina or Andrew.

We must come to recognize that, though we may all hate to face it, the uses of WinLink and PacTOR on our bands has been growing steadily for the past few years -- not months -- and that the FCC has had more than ample opportunity to intervene should they feel that these uses run counter to the Rules.

Riley surely has his hands full. But they are not so full that he would not be aware of all of the objections that we here (and in many other forums) raise time and again. We must surely begin to face the reality that our objections based on §97.113 are not seen as valid objections, else some determination would surely have been made by now.

In so far as the day-to-day "health and welfare" of our bands is concerned, we must work diligently to secure the retention of §97.221 in any future evolution of the Rules, and we should work just as diligently to secure the best ways that the EmComm missions can be served to the advantage of both those communities which desire such assistance and the rest of us who only stand and watch.

73

[kb5wbh]

Quote[/b] ]while MARS handled all Winlink traffic via HF.
Just a correction, ARES handled Winlink traffic via HF also, they contacted both the AR and MO EOC Winlink PMBO's to pass traffic. I was at the AR EOC PMBO and watched the traffic come in while we were operating. The TN drill was part of the multi-state SONS-07 drill.
73
mike

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 07 2007,06:16)]Bit too cynical for me, Lee.
Al, just remember one thing. This was a pre-planned drill.

Also, as the next poster reminds us, what you see in print isn't always accurate. WinLink was used on the HF amateur bands as well. I guess MARS folks must have written the piece. :-)

MARS has an MOU to deploy to airports to back up TSA, Al. Perhaps they can be in multiple places within a state, but highly unlikely. Plus, as I said, the MARS Winlink system is primarily to produce incident reports for a bureacrat in Washington.

As to military intervention, well, Al, Posse Commitatus still does restrict deployments of our military unless specifically requested by governors for specific situations.

And, as one commenter on another forum noted, the National Guard has some very significant telecomm assets that WILL be deployed on a moment's notice since states have immediate control of the assets. I don't know if they use sole-source Deutschland Pactor III modems or not, but they certainly have satellite capability. And, of course that capability basically dwarfs anything we hams might have down on HF. But, they're probably all sitting over in suburban Baghdad anyway and can't be called upon.

With respect to Riley and deficient enforcement of excessive bandwidth usage by some modes, well, let me just say its widely known that he's a boatman. Perhaps he too wants to check his email while afloat.

73,

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ July 08 2007,17:46)]With respect to Riley and deficient enforcement of excessive bandwidth usage by some modes, well, let me just say its widely known that he's a boatman. #Perhaps he too wants to check his email while afloat.
My point was that in times of a really big do, there is little question that the governors will call upon the military for all the help they can get. I don't see how the understanding with TSA can get in the way of that unless, of course, TSA is itself up to its neck in alligators.

I do not have trouble with EmComm uses of WinLink on HF, Lee. I know to lots of folks that is like peeing in the temple, but my sole concern about WinLink on HF has been the rampant use of that fine system for personal emails under the guise of important communications. When challenged, they immediately point to weather data and position reporting for beleaguered mariners (and, presumably, lost RVers in danger of running dry on Stoly and having to rough it on the domestic stuff) instead of the countless and meritless personal emails containing who-knows-what.

I have the greatest respect and admiration for Hollingsworth, and I do not believe for one second that he would knowingly violate the Rules for any reason. Actually, I confess that I become irritated every time I see such unfounded aspersions here on QRZ.

The point to be borne is that we all had better get used to WinLink. It is not going to go away.

73

[w6em]

Al, perhaps what you say of WinLink indeed will prove to be correct. If constrained to a small channelized allocation on each band, all will be fine. Provided the media are open source, unlike PII and PIII. Soundcard modes should be the means of conveyance for WinLink. After all, it IS amateur radio.

As to Riley, well, who knows. Not that a written request to him for a rules explanation of some 2 years ago was ignored, mind you, but, let me just say that he's been notoriously silent on the intended occupied bandwidth issue when asked. And, not just by me......

On other issues, he's doing well. I guess, though, he's not responsible for Enforcement Bureau BPL complaints of interference to amateur radio. I wonder just who is, since little has been done.

73,

[KE7CDV]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 08 2007,16:49)]
Albert,

Quote[/b] ]I know to lots of folks that is like peeing in the temple, but my sole concern about WinLink on HF has been the rampant use of that fine system for personal emails under the guise of important communications.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you that the vast majority of e-mail passing through WinLink today is just "personal" messages. However, in my mind it's much better to have a system that's "well tested" with those relatively unimportant messages -- and drives the deployment of the infrastructure needed to hand it, and can still be turned over to solely EmComm use at a moment's notice -- than to somehow expect that, e.g., ARES groups alone and their drills could somehow manage to put up a similar amount of infrastructure that's been "rung out" as well. What do you think?

Are you worried that the WinLinkers are going to completely take over the bands, perhaps?

---Joel

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KE7CDV @ July 08 2007,23:42)]
Albert,

Quote[/b] ]I know to lots of folks that is like peeing in the temple, but my sole concern about WinLink on HF has been the rampant use of that fine system for personal emails under the guise of important communications.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you that the vast majority of e-mail passing through WinLink today is just "personal" messages. #However, in my mind it's much better to have a system that's "well tested" with those relatively unimportant messages -- and drives the deployment of the infrastructure needed to hand it, and can still be turned over to solely EmComm use at a moment's notice -- than to somehow expect that, e.g., ARES groups alone and their drills could somehow manage to put up a similar amount of infrastructure that's been "rung out" as well. #What do you think?

Are you worried that the WinLinkers are going to completely take over the bands, perhaps?

---Joel
Not at all, Joel. But I do believe that the growth of WinLink PMBOs, especially in the US, in the past couple of years is a cause for concern were the currently mandated sub-bands for auto ops removed, as was prayed for in the filing of RM-11306.

The problem is more one of the use of PacTOR III than of WinLink or emails. My objection to PacTOR III is not the usually heard folderol about that iteration of PacTOR not being mentioned in the Rules, or the closed nature of the protocol, etc, all of which it seems to me are mooted by the lack of any enforcement by the FCC with regard to those issues.

I object to PIII because of its wide signal, and the evidence that has been mounting that many (if not most) of the operators do not seem to have the means to monitor a frequency before transmitting.

PIII is more than four times wider than PII, and I cannot find a warm spot in my heart for any system that starts narrow and, as the band conditions improve (thus bringing about the probability that enhanced propagation will result in more rather than fewer chances for interference) swells to almost five times its bandwidth for what must be seen as a minor increase in data throughput.

If WinLink and PacTOR cannot be shown to be illegal, and I maintain that they cannot be so shown, then we simply need to maintain adequate sub-bands to keep their ops segregated from everyone else.

What I have been learning about WinLink has shown me that it is a damned fine system for the proper uses, and I believe that EmComm is one of those very proper uses. It permits the fast, accurate transmission of document files and attachments -- "paper" -- and that is often important in emergencies, not merely because of the quantity of information that can be carried and distributed quickly, but because it offers a verifiable audit track which is, to a great extent, the coin of the realm in government bureaucracies. In such instances, the use of PIII at the fastest settings is fully warranted, in my view.

But on ordinary amateur bands for day-to-day uses (such as all those emails to Aunty Em and Uncle Woodrow with all the jpeg attachments of Dolly and the porpoise) the growth of this system is problematic and a cause for concern that must be addressed soon or late.

73

[ky5u]

I favor all ECOMM Winlink traffic on HF be handled by MARS. They have the frequencies and encryption is legal there. Any Winlink on Amateur HF should be restriced to the automatic subbands.

In short, if they require privacy or other special handling outside what limited spectrum on Amateur HF can provide, send them to MARS.

[W9WHE]

What has arrl been up to lately?

How about reclassifying about $600,000 in spectrum defense funds. Where did they go? What were they used for? Why were they reclassified?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 09 2007,10:32)]What has arrl been up to lately?

How about reclassifying about $600,000 in spectrum defense funds. Where did they go? What were they used for? Why were they reclassified?
I hear they are going to take all the Directors and senior staff for a month-long vacation in the Islands.

Alas, when last added up, the rum ration still falls somewhat short. Think you could send an additional $100 contribution in? If several of you would do this, it would also help cover the tips.

[ky5u]

Actually, the issue boils down to perception. Members are viewed by the ARRL as an entity to be lead and ushered. They need to view the membership as their employer and their customer.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 09 2007,08:15)]I favor all ECOMM Winlink traffic on HF be handled by MARS. They have the frequencies and encryption is legal there. Any Winlink on Amateur HF should be restriced to the automatic subbands.

In short, if they require privacy or other special handling outside what limited spectrum on Amateur HF can provide, send them to MARS.
Quote[/b] ]In the affected counties in West Tennessee, ARES operators performed damage assessments, provided the sole means of communications for the county Emergency Operations Centers
(bold text added by me!)

This is what scares me to death. The Amateur Radio Service as the sole communications source for a governmental EOC, even at the county level?

Doesn't this bother anyone else?

Now either this was done because they wanted to play like all the government communciations links failed or it was done because they don't *have* any other links than amateur radio.

If *I* lived in these counties I would want to know just where in the hell my tax dollars were going! I would want to know why the county hasn't applied for DHS grants to get *new* *government* communication systems capable of operating during emergencies. I would want to know why the existing governmental communciation links haven't been hardened in order to survive.

If the ARS is the sole communications technique that can be depended upon by these County EOCs I personally would want to live no where in that county.

In this day and age this can only be considered as a joke or as a mess waiting to happen and a mess on the scale of the governmental response to Katrina.

tim ab0wr

[kb5wbh]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 09 2007,16:15)]Now either this was done because they wanted to play like all the government communciations links failed
Tim, the plan was for a communications emergency to take place, complete failure. Amateur Radio would work like it has in the past in other disasters to bridge the gap.
No need to question the counties or states abilities to communicate here.

What role you would see Amateur Radio playing in a real New Madrid Earthquake?

73
mike

[N7YA]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 09 2007,09:34)]Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ July 09 2007,10:32)]What has arrl been up to lately?

How about reclassifying about $600,000 in spectrum defense funds. Where did they go? What were they used for? Why were they reclassified?
I hear they are going to take all the Directors and senior staff for a month-long vacation in the Islands.

Alas, when last added up, the rum ration still falls somewhat short. Think you could send an additional $100 contribution in? If several of you would do this, it would also help cover the tips.
....but why is the rum gone??!!

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 09 2007,13:45)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 09 2007,16:15)]Now either this was done because they wanted to play like all the government communciations links failed
Tim, the plan was for a communications emergency to take place, complete failure. Amateur Radio would work like it has in the past in other disasters to bridge the gap.
No need to question the counties or states abilities to communicate here.

What role you would see Amateur Radio playing in a real New Madrid Earthquake?

73
mike
I would see the ARS providing exactly the service they are expected to provide here.

No hams in the state EOC, only National Guard with gravity wave to x-ray frequency capability. The County EOC equipped with hardened equipment that might be manned by ARS volunteers or they might be just plain citizen volunteers. This would include hardened HF links to the state EOC using fiber, satellite, and/or NTIA HF frequencies.

Either kind of EOC can communicate with amateurs on the ham bands as needed in an emergency, just like the Coast Guard does during a marine emergency.

Amateurs are expected to provide the tactical communications from the "front line" until the professionals can get on site.

There is absolutely no dependence on the ARS to act like a common carrier providing communications infrastructure for any of the EOC's, either state or county. The National Guard people actually laughed at the suggestion of using Winlink email for emergency communications. They have all the communications they will ever need over military frequencies using military equipment.

The local ARES group does have a communications van that can act like a local repeater/patch van for the police and fire units but they really operate as a police and fire auxiliary in doing so. They have no relationship with the county EOC at all. No amateur station in the county EOC.

*THIS* is how ham radio has *always* bridged* the gap in the past. It is how it should be bridging the gap in the future. Any common carrier communications infrastructure provided by the Amateur Radio Service is subject to succession failure as hams die, move, become inactive, or move on to other interests. The National Guard doesn't suffer from this drawback. Neither do County staffed functional units.

Hams are at their best on the front lines serving the pubiic by actually serving the *public*, not by acting like common carriers providing communications infrastructure for governmental units.

There aren't enough police and fire units to go around in the field during a true, widespread emergency. *That* is where the hams can meet a true need.

The State and County EOC's should be learning to stand on their own using hardened communications infrastructure provided by true common carriers of such capability which the ARS will never be able to provide. If they aren't doing so then I say again: where in the hell are the tax dollars going to?

tim ab0wr

[kb5wbh]

Tim, do they have RACES where you live?
73
mike

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 09 2007,18:36)]Tim, do they have RACES where you live?
73
mike
Yep, I even have a RACES card in my billfold. It basically became worthless when the National Guard took down all the ham antennas at the state EOC after they disconnected the amateur station equipment and put it in a closet and put a clerical office where the station was.

The county hasn't had an amateur station for as long as I can remember. The county emergency manager is not a fan of ham radio as a common carrier infrastructure provider any more than I am. He has worked long and hard to provide a failsafe infrastructure setup for the county. I'm sure if it all fails that almost all hams will be too busy taking care of their own butts to worry much about the EOC.

My county is not alone. The last major DHS exercise in the state involved several counties out west in association with an agricultural terrorism exercise. The counties out west had ham stations at that time just like the state EOC. We were not asked to handle a singe item of traffic even though we were considered players in the exercise. I even sat in on some of the planning meetings. It wasn't very long after that that the National Guard began dismantling everything. They had acertained that they needed neither our HF or VHF links. They had their own that worked just as well as anything we could provide.

They gave the state amateur coordinating committee a portable tower on a trailer with a commercial grade generator and a programmable 2m repeater and antenna. They expect hams to use it in providing front line tactical communication in an emergency area when needed.

We are superflous as common carrier infrastructure providers. That has never been what ham radio has been good at. It has never been what we have been asked to be by governmental agencies until we began making promises that will be difficult to keep over even a decade let alone a longer period of time.

Do you honestly expect Winlink2000 to remain a viable entity over the next decade if it doesn't incorporate and develop a succession plan? What happens if Steve, w4cjx, just happens to shuffle off this mortal coil? Who will keep WL2K a viable entity?

Those counties and states depending on amateur radio to be their common carrier providing failsafe communications infrastructure are only asking for disaster when a true emergency occurs two, five, or ten years in the future. This is especially true when the number of people involved in the root hub portion of the infrastructure can be counted on one hand and probably one missing a couple of fingers!

This philosphy is not unique with me. Ask any of the emergency planners in our Adjutant General office and you will probably get the exact same story. There is a *reason* why the National Guard took all this over here.

Think about it.

tim ab0wr

[kb5wbh]

Tim, I'm a firm believer that a Ham station at any State EOC or County EOC is a good thing. I think there are others here feel the same way.

However, what happens at your State and County EOC's is not a concern of mine since I'm not a citizen of Kansas.

73
mike

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 10 2007,13:29)]Tim, I'm a firm believer that a Ham station at any State EOC or County EOC is a good thing. I think there are others here feel the same way.

However, what happens at your State and County EOC's is not a concern of mine since I'm not a citizen of Kansas.

73
mike
The military at least, I don't know about the county, has lots of options for talking on the amateur bands when necessary.

Do you think the Coast Guard should have an amateur station at their operations centers for when they need to talk to an amateur station on a ship in trouble?

Honestly, they don't need an amateur station for anything. They have *LOTS* more HF/VHF capability than any amateur station I have ever seen or read about and they use primarily assigned NTIA frequencies. They have 24/7 staffing - they don't have to worry about coordinating the reporting and setup of civilian auxiliaries during an emergency. And when one tech retires from the Nat'l Guard another one will fill their spot!

If and when they need to talk to amateurs during an emergency they have all the capability you can possible imagine -- just iike the Coast Guard.

I'm not sure exactly what you think an amateur station will provide that they don't already have today. I don't know how else to say it other than I suspect the "good thing" you mention is based more on a desire to feel important and needed than it is any objective analysis of exactly what an amateur station will provide that the Nat'l Guard cannot.

I'll reiterate: There is *NOTHING* that the Amateur Radio Service can provide the EOC's that our National Guard cannot. That frees up the ARS to actually work on the front lines with the *public* until the professionals arrive. That's the way it has always been, that's the way it should always be. We are not a common carrier in business to provide governmental agencies in communications infrastructure. This mindset of the ARS as a common carrier providing communications infrastructure for "customers" is a recent development (i.e. in the last decade) driven mainly by the ARRL as a way to entice more amateurs to get licensed and to obtain more funding from DHS.

You have a perfect right to feel however you want. Just make sure it is for *objective* reasons and not just to provide a feeling of importance. I would just ask that if you honestly feel that in your state the ARS can provide communications infrastructure over radio that your National Guard cannot that you then start querying your state Adjutant General about why the National Guard in your state is so poorly equipped!

tim ab0wr

[KE7CDV]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 09 2007,04:03)]
Albert,

Thanks for the response; I don't necessarily agree with it 100%, but it's well-thought-out and civil, which is quite commendable these days.

If you're still watching this thread -- do you support the general gist of regulation by bandwidth (ignoring the devilish details of how to divide the bands into semi-automatic operation, manual operation only, etc. sections)? And if so, what do you think is a reasonable bandwidth for HF data operations?

I've always figured that Pactor III's occupied bandwidth of ~2.4kHz is reasonable given that it's approximately the same as regular SSB voice's "footprint," but I'm interested in hearing the arguments for making it narrower.

I have a suspicion, though, that regardless of how narrow we make any one "emission," technology such as software-defined radios are getting cheap enough that pretty soon we'll see HF data enthusiasts with the ability to inexpensively support, e.g., a dozen links on various different frequencies simultaneously. Add in some "channel bonding" software, and you have what I expect is a 100% legal means of circumventing any bandwidth regulations. Thus I expect we're always going to be relying on "gentleman's agreements" to avoid large portions of the HF band being taken over by e-mails to Auntie Em... (and I really have no good solution to this potential problem, other than trying to get as many people as possible to use VHF/UHF/microwave frequencies when it's feasible... leave HF e-mail for the folks who are truly out in the middle of the ocean, the outback of Australia, etc.).

Of course, very wideband "channel bonding" modes on HF could be quite useful in true emergencies, but realistically I see amateur involvement in Emcomm slowly drying up over time.

Thanks,
---Joel

[kb5wbh]

Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KE7CDV @ July 10 2007,22:10)]
Albert,

Thanks for the response; I don't necessarily agree with it 100%, but it's well-thought-out and civil, which is quite commendable these days.

If you're still watching this thread -- do you support the general gist of regulation by bandwidth (ignoring the devilish details of how to divide the bands into semi-automatic operation, manual operation only, etc. sections)? #And if so, what do you think is a reasonable bandwidth for HF data operations?
I believe that a bandwidth allocation scheme would offer a better model for the future than a purely mode-based scheme, Joel, but the devil is always found in the details. The trick is to find a way to provide all the players a level pitch for their games and keep the sidelines clear. This means that any future attempt, should such be made, must be accompanied by an unambiguous band plan that can be examined in parallel with the proposal.

I feel that a 3kHz maximum for data is adequate to any use that I can foresee, though I do not pretend to delusions of engineering genius.

Quote[/b] ]I've always figured that Pactor III's occupied bandwidth of ~2.4kHz is reasonable given that it's approximately the same as regular SSB voice's "footprint," but I'm interested in hearing the arguments for making it narrower.


The point about PacTOR's various bandwidth options is that the use of PII in lieu of PIII would offer a substantial gain in overall efficiency for its users despite being somewhat lower in throughput. If you can wedge four OSOs into the same bandwidth otherwise consumed by a single QSO it would seem to me to be a logical option in time of high frequency occupancy.

Simply restricting HF WinLink and PacTOR to auto-operations' sub-bands, and clearly defining "semi-auto" as being, in effect, no different than "automatic" would go a long way to keeping all the various players happy -- or, at the least, not outraged. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I don't believe that any formula we might devise will result in settled Rules that can account for all possible developments in the years ahead. Whether we try to continue with the present scheme, or we again seek to engage a wider discussion to craft a new approach that would seem to offer more flexibility, the probability is that revisions will be needed as new ideas are pushed toward practical applications.

It has always seemed to me that bandwidth parsing makes more sense than trying to continue to regulate everything by mode. I will, no doubt, be flamed for that view, but I can handle it.

Most of the uses for WinLink in EmComm are in the realms above 28MHz it would seem, and that is what I have been finding in my informal "research." There is an insistence by agencies for a longer range capability, as well, and that function can only be served by HF. It is a very fine communications tool for any use that requires moving large amounts of information quickly and with reasonable accuracy and with a clear audit path. As a "filler" for gaps in other communications links, it is ideal, and that is its primary value.

As to the long view of the future of amateurs and EmComm, I am no oracle and cannot say. I strongly suspect, however, that many, if not most, government agencies at the lower levels will continue to rely on all the help they can get in order to try to maximize their budgets. The same will probably be true for the "private agencies" such as SATERN and the ARC.

73

[WA3KYY]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,06:10)]Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike
One reason for having an amateur station in the County and State EOCs is for direct communication with the temporary front line amateurs. Another reason is to shunt the less important EOC traffic to the back up channel keeping the NTIA channels available for the critical messages. One final reason could be when the nature of the emergency is such that the National Guard is not called out to assist yet the communications needs exceed that of the regular EOC comm channels.

73,
Mike WA3KYY

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,03:10)]Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike
They "required" it? Required it of whom?

Is there an amateur in your state that is charged with meeting governmental "requirements" specified for the Amateur Radio Service?

There isn't any ham in my state charged with this specific responsibility. I'm not sure the state has the legal jurisdiction to specify this of any individual ham since we operate under a Federal license and not a state license.

I would still be asking my state officials why they think their National Guard can't provide all communications necessary and must, therefore, depend on *volunteers* to provide communications for the EOC. It sure seems like an issue of tax dollars to me.

tim ab0wr

[kb5wbh]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 11 2007,13:11)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,06:10)]Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike
One reason for having an amateur station in the County and State EOCs is for direct communication with the temporary front line amateurs. Another reason is to shunt the less important EOC traffic to the back up channel keeping the NTIA channels available for the critical messages. One final reason could be when the nature of the emergency is such that the National Guard is not called out to assist yet the communications needs exceed that of the regular EOC comm channels.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Exactly, Tim however feels that having ham radio in an EOC is a waste of time.
73
mike

[kb5wbh]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 11 2007,13:21)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,03:10)]Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike
They "required" it? Required it of whom?

Is there an amateur in your state that is charged with meeting governmental "requirements" specified for the Amateur Radio Service?

There isn't any ham in my state charged with this specific responsibility. I'm not sure the state has the legal jurisdiction to specify this of any individual ham since we operate under a Federal license and not a state license.

I would still be asking my state officials why they think their National Guard can't provide all communications necessary and must, therefore, depend on *volunteers* to provide communications for the EOC. It sure seems like an issue of tax dollars to me.

tim ab0wr
Hey Tim, calm down a minute, it was a poor choice of words. But be it requested or by choice doesn't matter either. They want Ham Radio in the State EOC and its there, your state doesn't want it in their EOC.

Ours has been there since I've been taking care of it over the last 10 years and I'd bet its been there for a whole lot longer than that. BTW, I never said we were the sole emergency communications backup for the State, you came up with that on your own. We are just a part of the emergency communications for the state, like in other State EOC's. The National Guard doesn't run the State EOC here. The Ar Dept. of Emergency Management runs it.

What works for your state might not work for everyone else.
But hey, if it works for you then thats great too.

Anyway, the TN guys did a great job even though you, all the way up there in Topeka, Kansas, seemed to have problem with the drill.
73
mike

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,15:33)]They want Ham Radio in the State EOC and its there...
This seems to be the case at most county level EOCs as well. If there is DHS grant money, I suspect that it is at the state and county levels that it is being applied, and not at the ARRL.

The argument is philosophical, not practical, and there is no acceptable solution that includes an amateur radio EmComm presence (as it has been developing "on the ground") for some of our comrades. They are a minority, it would seem, but a very vocal one.

[KE7CDV]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 11 2007,04:28)]
Hi Albert,

Quote[/b] ]The trick is to find a way to provide all the players a level pitch for their games and keep the sidelines clear. This means that any future attempt, should such be made, must be accompanied by an unambiguous band plan that can be examined in parallel with the proposal.

Agreed.

Quote[/b] ]If you can wedge four OSOs into the same bandwidth otherwise consumed by a single QSO it would seem to me to be a logical option in time of high frequency occupancy.

For rag chews, yes. But if we're talking "robots" that are exchanging e-mail, there's a fair argument that a smaller number of faster/wider bandwidth connections with shorter connect times providing better overall throughput than a larger number of slower/narrowed connections with longer connect times.

Of course, you do have to have a bandwidth limit at some point, and 3kHz is a decent one.

Quote[/b] ]Simply restricting HF WinLink and PacTOR to auto-operations' sub-bands, and clearly defining "semi-auto" as being, in effect, no different than "automatic" would go a long way to keeping all the various players happy -- or, at the least, not outraged. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Definitely a good idea.

Quote[/b] ]There is an insistence by agencies for a longer range capability, as well, and that function can only be served by HF.

...or satellites. The price of putting up birds and building multi-GHz radios is still pretty high, but I wouldn't be surprised if, 100 years from now, pretty much all EmComm is performed using satellite phones and even the military will have largely stopped using HF.

Quote[/b] ]As to the long view of the future of amateurs and EmComm, I am no oracle and cannot say. I strongly suspect, however, that many, if not most, government agencies at the lower levels will continue to rely on all the help they can get in order to try to maximize their budgets.

It just seems to vary so much by region. There are certainly small-town agencies that aren't interested in the help amateurs can provide, and truthfully I think part of the problem is that amateurs don't present a unified front when they present themselves as would-be volunteers. After all, anyone can squeeze a pickle and talk over a radio these days, but how many amateur groups are willing to go through the training needed to be integrated into the county's emergency command structure? Of those that are, who's going to pay for that training? It's almost a catch 22...

In the area I'm in, I'm somewhat surprised that the local ARES group (that's loosely associated with the country's Search and Rescue) seemingly has little or no interaction with another group of hams that's associated with the local Red Cross. Kinda bizarre, no?

---Joel

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KE7CDV @ July 11 2007,16:52)]For rag chews, yes. #But if we're talking "robots" that are exchanging e-mail, there's a fair argument that a smaller number of faster/wider bandwidth connections with shorter connect times providing better overall throughput than a larger number of slower/narrowed connections with longer connect times. #
Well, Joel, the problems of the ordinary run-of-the-mill personal emailer seems to be different from the one I had in mind, which was an emergency in which the operations would be set up to meet a particular situation.

I consider that the sub-bands designated for auto-ops should suffice for personal traffic; in times of a population crunch, the use of PII would still, I think, offer a gain in efficiency. I don't believe that PIII is four times faster than PII. If nothing else, it would reduce the instances of blatant interference which has been taking place on those sub-bands as PIII transmissions have blanketed packet ops.

I personally do not like the use of WinLink and PacTOR for sending ordinary, personal emails over amateur frequencies. To my mind, it is not in keeping with the spirit of §97.113 even if it is within the letter. My view, however, does not seem to be shared within the hallowed halls of the Commission -- ergo, the traffic not only continues unabated, but grows. At some point we will again face a petition to loose this incubus on the wider HF bands, though I doubt that the ARRL will be the filer.

I strongly disagree with Tim on many issues, but on the common-carrier issue with regard to WinLink and PacTOR on amateur bands I view him as a brother and I shall stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him on that issue. "Be he ne'er so vile, this issue shall gentle his condition..." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif


Quote[/b] ]...or satellites. The price of putting up birds and building multi-GHz radios is still pretty high, but I wouldn't be surprised if, 100 years from now, pretty much all EmComm is performed using satellite phones and even the military will have largely stopped using HF.


I don't see that as a good solution. I consider our capabilities to be better in that we can handle a lot of lower-class traffic without putting pressure on other systems that might be needed for other uses. Whatever happens 100 years from now is clearly outside of my current purview; I am lucky when I can think clearly a few months ahead.

Quote[/b] ]It just seems to vary so much by region. There are certainly small-town agencies that aren't interested in the help amateurs can provide, and truthfully I think part of the problem is that amateurs don't present a unified front when they present themselves as would-be volunteers. After all, anyone can squeeze a pickle and talk over a radio these days, but how many amateur groups are willing to go through the training needed to be integrated into the county's emergency command structure? Of those that are, who's going to pay for that training? It's almost a catch 22...

There is no question about the variability of both need and receptiveness. I don't think any of that has anything to do with amateur radio, however, and I believe that the NIH mentality of many insular communities with little history of large-scale emergencies touches upon all other aspects of "outside influence." About the only people who never seem reluctant, universally, to accept help are firefighters. Even sheriffs' departments as often as not cast a wary eye on offers of assistance from outside agencies.

73

[KE7CDV]

Quote[/b] ]I consider that the sub-bands designated for auto-ops should suffice for personal traffic

I believe most people would consider this a reasonable restriction; if so then we'd just expect that over time people will argue about where the sub-band edges should be.

Quote[/b] ]I don't believe that PIII is four times faster than PII.

I definitely don't have personal experience here -- I don't have an SCS modem! -- but this is what they have to say (http://www.scs-ptc.com/pactor.html):

"On an average channel, PACTOR-III is around 3.5 times faster than PACTOR-II. On good channels, the effective throughput ratio between PACTOR-III and PACTOR-II can exceed 5. PACTOR-III achieves slightly higher robustness at the low SNR edge compared to PACTOR-II."

While I realize this is all highly statistical in nature (what, exactly, are "good channels?"), 5x throughput for 4x bandwidth surely seems like a win.

Quote[/b] ]I personally do not like the use of WinLink and PacTOR for sending ordinary, personal emails over amateur frequencies. To my mind, it is not in keeping with the spirit of §97.113 even if it is within the letter.

It seems to me that personal e-mail (that eventually hits the Internet) is generally no worse than personal e-mail on packet BBSes or ordering a pizza on an autopatch. #For that matter realistically I think very little that goes on over amateur frequencies today couldn't be #readily accomodated with the ubiquitous commercial services of the Internet and cell phone service providers, thus violating the spirit of §97.113 section 5 (although I suppose one could argue endlessly about what "regular" communications are...).

Quote[/b] ]I don't see that as a good solution. I consider our capabilities to be better in that we can handle a lot of lower-class traffic without putting pressure on other systems that might be needed for other uses.

Agreed -- at least today, this is a good usage of amateur resources.

Quote[/b] ]About the only people who never seem reluctant, universally, to accept help are firefighters.

Perhaps this is due to many firefighters themselves being volunteers.

---Joel

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 11 2007,14:30)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,15:33)]They want Ham Radio in the State EOC and its there...
This seems to be the case at most county level EOCs as well. If there is DHS grant money, I suspect that it is at the state and county levels that it is being applied, and not at the ARRL.

The argument is philosophical, not practical, and there is no acceptable solution that includes an amateur radio EmComm presence (as it has been developing "on the ground") for some of our comrades. They are a minority, it would seem, but a very vocal one.
Albert,

This is not philosophical. It is the actual status of our state emergency communications. It is reality.

I *do* feel, however, that this is actually where emergency communications will go as other states see our example and our results.

During the Greensburg tornado response the Nat'l Guard handled all the emergency comms back to the State EOC (I believe the State Highway Patrol did some of the immediate communications until the Natl Guard was on site). While hams had a very significant role it was primarily helping the public through communications for the Red Cross and the Salvation Army.

I'm sorry this is a kick in the teeth to some hams who want to feel that ham radio is so important it should be an integral part of the state and/or county emergency operations by providing common carrier communications infrastructure for government agencies to use in lieu of actual facilities provided by true common carriers.

It's passe in todays operation.

It's reality. Get used to it.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 11 2007,07:11)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,06:10)]Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike
One reason for having an amateur station in the County and State EOCs is for direct communication with the temporary front line amateurs. Another reason is to shunt the less important EOC traffic to the back up channel keeping the NTIA channels available for the critical messages. One final reason could be when the nature of the emergency is such that the National Guard is not called out to assist yet the communications needs exceed that of the regular EOC comm channels.

73,
Mike WA3KYY
Mike,

I don't think you have the picture yet. The Natl Guard doesn't have to be called out to provide the communications. They staff the EOC comm center on a 24/7 basis. They are already *there*. They can respond immediately. The EOC comm channels *are* Natl Guard channels even if they are not military channels -- because they are the channels the Natl Guard uses for EOC comms.

They have the capability to communicate with anyone they have to that is on site at the incident. They don't have to depend on anyone else to provide communications with people on site. They have portable comm centers that can be on site anywhere in the state within a few hours if needed to provide local comms.

I don't know what "less important" EOC traffic you are thinking of. If it is an incident that involves the state I know that they want all comms to go into their operators to get input into their database so the incident commanders can track requests, assignments, responses, and progress. There isn't very much "less important" EOC traffic to even "hand off".

I'm sure all of the counties in the state are different today. As other counties begin looking at why they aren't putting in hardened comms like ours I'm sure the issue of "where's the beef?" is going to be brought up more and more often with the county commisioners.

I have a relation who is a sheriff deputy in an adjoining county and I know that they are looking at piggybacking onto our system using DHS dollars. I suspect this is going to happen more and more often as people begin to ask why emergency agencies staffed with so-called professionals have to depend on amateurs to be their final failsafe communications mode when lots and lots of tax dollars are being sent to Washington to provide for this capability.

Everybody reading this can downplay it all they want. I saw firsthand what happened here when the pro's finally decided *they* wanted to be in the ballgame all the way. It doesn't mean that the ARS service is being cut out, it just means that their services are being pushed out to where they have traditionally been -- actually helping the public instead of playing at being a 911 dispatcher.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,13:33)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 11 2007,13:21)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,03:10)]Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike
They "required" it? Required it of whom?

Is there an amateur in your state that is charged with meeting governmental "requirements" specified for the Amateur Radio Service?

There isn't any ham in my state charged with this specific responsibility. I'm not sure the state has the legal jurisdiction to specify this of any individual ham since we operate under a Federal license and not a state license.

I would still be asking my state officials why they think their National Guard can't provide all communications necessary and must, therefore, depend on *volunteers* to provide communications for the EOC. It sure seems like an issue of tax dollars to me.

tim ab0wr
Hey Tim, calm down a minute, it was a poor choice of words. But be it requested or by choice doesn't matter either. They want Ham Radio in the State EOC and its there, your state doesn't want it in their EOC.

Ours has been there since I've been taking care of it over the last 10 years and I'd bet its been there for a whole lot longer than that. BTW, I never said we were the sole emergency communications backup for the State, you came up with that on your own. We are just a part of the emergency communications for the state, like in other State EOC's. The National Guard doesn't run the State EOC here. The Ar Dept. of Emergency Management runs it.

What works for your state might not work for everyone else.
But hey, if it works for you then thats great too.

Anyway, the TN guys did a great job even though you, all the way up there in Topeka, Kansas, seemed to have problem with the drill.
73
mike
Our Office of Emergency Management just happens to headed by the Adjutant General of the National Guard. That may very well be why things are the way they are.

I still suspect we are going to see more and more organizations move in that direction so they can insure succession, training, and stafffing levels.

I suspect most of this came together for our Emergency Mgmt people during that DHS Agricultural Terrorism drill. As I said, it took place at a location two hundred miles or more from the state EOC and they had *no* traffic that they saw fit to hand off to the included amateurs at the local county EOC or the state EOC. The Nat'l Guard and local agencies handled all traffic, including some over HF links. We sat through the whole exercise with nothing to do. It was only a couple of months after the final report was released that they began dismantling the 2m packet station followed by the HF station. That was followed by removing all ham antennas on their towers and building roofs.

I hope your EOC keeps their amateur station, I truly do. But I'm not going to be surprised if and when other states decide to actually step up and do what they are getting tax dollars to do rather than depending on amateur radio to save their bacon.

Oh, BTW, if you read the article *IT* says that amateur radio is the sole backup for the state of TN. I didn't make it up. If *I* lived in TN I would be asking someone about how my tax dollars are being spent.

tim ab0wr

[kb5wbh]

Tim, I'm sure you can contact TEMA (http://www.tnema.org/) if you have any questions or advice for them on their exercise.
73
mike

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 13 2007,07:08)]Tim, I'm sure you can contact TEMA (http://www.tnema.org/) if you have any questions or advice for them on their exercise.
73
mike
I don't live in Arkansas. They will have to take care of their own budgetary issues. If I ever move to Arkansas you can bet I will ask where my tax dollars are going.


tim ab0wr

[kb5wbh]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 13 2007,22:52)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 13 2007,07:08)]Tim, I'm sure you can contact TEMA (http://www.tnema.org/) if you have any questions or advice for them on their exercise.
73
mike
I don't live in Arkansas. They will have to take care of their own budgetary issues. If I ever move to Arkansas you can bet I will ask where my tax dollars are going.


tim ab0wr
My post was about the TN drill. They can answer any questions you had about their drill.
73
mike

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 11 2007,18:56)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,13:33)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 11 2007,13:21)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 11 2007,03:10)]Tim, I didn't go to the State OES and request it have a Ham Radio station. They required it. There is no "wanting to feel important" here. I guess thats the difference between your state and our state, and many other State EOC's. They want Ham Radio there, yours doesn't.
73
mike
They "required" it? Required it of whom?

Is there an amateur in your state that is charged with meeting governmental "requirements" specified for the Amateur Radio Service?

There isn't any ham in my state charged with this specific responsibility. I'm not sure the state has the legal jurisdiction to specify this of any individual ham since we operate under a Federal license and not a state license.

I would still be asking my state officials why they think their National Guard can't provide all communications necessary and must, therefore, depend on *volunteers* to provide communications for the EOC. It sure seems like an issue of tax dollars to me.

tim ab0wr
Hey Tim, calm down a minute, it was a poor choice of words. But be it requested or by choice doesn't matter either. They want Ham Radio in the State EOC and its there, your state doesn't want it in their EOC.

Ours has been there since I've been taking care of it over the last 10 years and I'd bet its been there for a whole lot longer than that. BTW, I never said we were the sole emergency communications backup for the State, you came up with that on your own. We are just a part of the emergency communications for the state, like in other State EOC's. The National Guard doesn't run the State EOC here. The Ar Dept. of Emergency Management runs it.

What works for your state might not work for everyone else.
But hey, if it works for you then thats great too.

Anyway, the TN guys did a great job even though you, all the way up there in Topeka, Kansas, seemed to have problem with the drill.
73
mike
Our Office of Emergency Management just happens to headed by the Adjutant General of the National Guard. That may very well be why things are the way they are.

I still suspect we are going to see more and more organizations move in that direction so they can insure succession, training, and stafffing levels.

I suspect most of this came together for our Emergency Mgmt people during that DHS Agricultural Terrorism drill. As I said, it took place at a location two hundred miles or more from the state EOC and they had *no* traffic that they saw fit to hand off to the included amateurs at the local county EOC or the state EOC. The Nat'l Guard and local agencies handled all traffic, including some over HF links. We sat through the whole exercise with nothing to do. It was only a couple of months after the final report was released that they began dismantling the 2m packet station followed by the HF station. That was followed by removing all ham antennas on their towers and building roofs.

I hope your EOC keeps their amateur station, I truly do. But I'm not going to be surprised if and when other states decide to actually step up and do what they are getting tax dollars to do rather than depending on amateur radio to save their bacon.

Oh, BTW, if you read the article *IT* says that amateur radio is the sole backup for the state of TN. I didn't make it up. If *I* lived in TN I would be asking someone about how my tax dollars are being spent.

tim ab0wr
As usual, Tim has all of the answers -- even without having any actual experience in EMCOMM.

He clearly doesn't understand the difference between DRILLS and an actual DISASTER. In a DRILL, everyone is where they are supposed to be, because they were told about it ahead of time, and they have the "script". In a DISASTER, everyone is wherever they happen to be at that moment -- which is usually far from where they NEED to be.

In a DISASTER, the LOCAL resources (PD, FD, hams) are the ones on site. The NG are the ones scrambling to get organized to get on site -- AFTER they are invited to come in. They may be there in a few hours -- many hours after the seriously injured are long dead, unless they received LOCAL response.

The NG is prohibited from entering a county, parish, town, village, or city until they have been REQUESTED by the local government. Kansas is NOT different, because the law applies in every state. No local government may have its power usurped by any "superior" government. That means the Federal Government cannot enter a state, and a state cannot enter a county, parish, town, village, or city until REQUESTED and AUTHORIZED to do so.

Just another time when uninformed nonsense flies in the face of LEGAL FACT and common sense.....

Just out of curiosity, without ham radio, just HOW did the NG know that it should get ready to deploy when AUTHORIZED ? The PD, FD, and TELCO communications links disappeared with the tornado ! Did someone have to drive to a nearby town to call the NG ?

Of course, in a relatively small state, this may work.... By official figures, Kansas has a population of 2,764,075. In Texas, we have three metro areas with at least that population -- and two with more than double that. We also have more types of threats -- many of which are wide area threats that require much greater responses than the typically small and localized problems faced by Kansas. We must be prepared to deal with hurricanes, multi-thousand acre grass wildfires, forest fires, floods, tornados, and earthquakes over a 261,797.12 square mile area that spreads ~900 miles E-W by ~600 miles N-S.

The simple fact is that no NG in ANY state is "on site" when needed. In all cases, they are the "we will be there in a few hours" responders -- not the critical FIRST RESPONDERS that are vital to saving lives -- and not the critical communications FIRST RESPONDERS who are vital to being able to establish a mechanism that allows the local government to actually call for the NG when it is needed.

And those, folks, are the simple FACTS.

[W3MIV]

Hi, Larry. Welcome back to the fray; we missed ye. Hope you've been having a good summer thus far.

73

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]As usual, Tim has all of the answers -- even without having any actual experience in EMCOMM.
As usual, Larry can't bother to read the posts before offering his opinion.

I was *IN* the state EOC at the amateur station when the DHS exercise on Agricultural Terroism was done, Larry. I *was* there when the EOC decided they didn't have any traffic that needed to be carried by any method that hams had to offer. The NG had all we have plus MORE!

Quote[/b] ]He clearly doesn't understand the difference between DRILLS and an actual DISASTER. In a DRILL, everyone is where they are supposed to be, because they were told about it ahead of time, and they have the "script". In a DISASTER, everyone is wherever they happen to be at that moment -- which is usually far from where they NEED to be.

In a DISASTER, the LOCAL resources (PD, FD, hams) are the ones on site. The NG are the ones scrambling to get organized to get on site -- AFTER they are invited to come in. They may be there in a few hours -- many hours after the seriously injured are long dead, unless they received LOCAL response.

What don't you understand about the fact that the NG *operates* communications in the EOC, Larry? There is *no* deployment required. They are there 24/7/365.

Does YOUR EOC deploy to the local site of every emergency it is involved in? If not, why do you think ours would need to be?

BTW, did you even bother to read who I said handled communications on site at Greensburg before the NG got there? I didn't think you did. You never bother to read anything -- you just throw out self-important BS as fact.

Quote[/b] ]The NG is prohibited from entering a county, parish, town, village, or city until they have been REQUESTED by the local government. Kansas is NOT different, because the law applies in every state. No local government may have its power usurped by any "superior" government. That means the Federal Government cannot enter a state, and a state cannot enter a county, parish, town, village, or city until REQUESTED and AUTHORIZED to do so.

Just another time when uninformed nonsense flies in the face of LEGAL FACT and common sense.....

Just like everything else you have this wrong also.

When the NG is operating under Federal Control, that's Title 10 of the US Code if you want to look it up, the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878 is the controlling factor preventing Federal deployment of the NG without request from local officials. When the NG is operating under State Control, that's Title 32 of the US Code if you want to look it up -- and Title 32 is the controlling legal authority the NG usually operates under unless the Feds have called them into service -- the NG is under the command and control of the state Governor and Adjutant General. *THEY* can dispatch the NG whenever and wherever they are needed in the state .

As usual, you offer your own version of reality as fact, when your version of reality is solely your own and no one elses.

I am asking you to quit posting such idiocy (btw, that means your *posts* are idiocy and not you) for it is likely to completely mis-inform others. Don't drag others down into the alternate universe you apparently live in.

Quote[/b] ]Just out of curiosity, without ham radio, just HOW did the NG know that it should get ready to deploy when AUTHORIZED ? The PD, FD, and TELCO communications links disappeared with the tornado ! Did someone have to drive to a nearby town to call the NG ?

Go back and read the posts, Larry. You are making up stuff left and right. The answer is right in front of your face. Do you really want me to rub your nose in it?

Quote[/b] ]Of course, in a relatively small state, this may work.... By official figures, Kansas has a population of 2,764,075. In Texas, we have three metro areas with at least that population -- and two with more than double that. We also have more types of threats -- many of which are wide area threats that require much greater responses than the typically small and localized problems faced by Kansas. We must be prepared to deal with hurricanes, multi-thousand acre grass wildfires, forest fires, floods, tornados, and earthquakes over a 261,797.12 square mile area that spreads ~900 miles E-W by ~600 miles N-S.

The simple fact is that no NG in ANY state is "on site" when needed. In all cases, they are the "we will be there in a few hours" responders -- not the critical FIRST RESPONDERS that are vital to saving lives -- and not the critical communications FIRST RESPONDERS who are vital to being able to establish a mechanism that allows the local government to actually call for the NG when it is needed.

And those, folks, are the simple FACTS.

As usual, you don't even know what the topic of conversation is but you certainly have a load of BS to drop on top of it.

The topic of conversation is operation at the EOC, Larry, not in the field.

Do us all a favor and read the very limited number of posts in the thread and see if you can make sense of them before continuing to post irrelavancies.

The NG doesn't need to be dispatched to the EOC, Larry. They are already there, 24/7/365.

Got it? I doubt it. I guess we'll see.

tim ab0wr

[WA5BEN]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 15 2007,09:39)]Quote[/b] ]As usual, Tim has all of the answers -- even without having any actual experience in EMCOMM.
As usual, Larry can't bother to read the posts before offering his opinion.

I was *IN* the state EOC at the amateur station when the DHS exercise on Agricultural Terroism was done, Larry. I *was* there when the EOC decided they didn't have any traffic that needed to be carried by any method that hams had to offer. The NG had all we have plus MORE!

Quote[/b] ]He clearly doesn't understand the difference between DRILLS and an actual DISASTER. In a DRILL, everyone is where they are supposed to be, because they were told about it ahead of time, and they have the "script". In a DISASTER, everyone is wherever they happen to be at that moment -- which is usually far from where they NEED to be.

In a DISASTER, the LOCAL resources (PD, FD, hams) are the ones on site. The NG are the ones scrambling to get organized to get on site -- AFTER they are invited to come in. They may be there in a few hours -- many hours after the seriously injured are long dead, unless they received LOCAL response.

What don't you understand about the fact that the NG *operates* communications in the EOC, Larry? There is *no* deployment required. They are there 24/7/365.

Does YOUR EOC deploy to the local site of every emergency it is involved in? If not, why do you think ours would need to be?

BTW, did you even bother to read who I said handled communications on site at Greensburg before the NG got there? I didn't think you did. You never bother to read anything -- you just throw out self-important BS as fact.

Quote[/b] ]The NG is prohibited from entering a county, parish, town, village, or city until they have been REQUESTED by the local government. Kansas is NOT different, because the law applies in every state. No local government may have its power usurped by any "superior" government. That means the Federal Government cannot enter a state, and a state cannot enter a county, parish, town, village, or city until REQUESTED and AUTHORIZED to do so.

Just another time when uninformed nonsense flies in the face of LEGAL FACT and common sense.....

Just like everything else you have this wrong also.

When the NG is operating under Federal Control, that's Title 10 of the US Code if you want to look it up, the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878 is the controlling factor preventing Federal deployment of the NG without request from local officials. When the NG is operating under State Control, that's Title 32 of the US Code if you want to look it up -- and Title 32 is the controlling legal authority the NG usually operates under unless the Feds have called them into service -- the NG is under the command and control of the state Governor and Adjutant General. *THEY* can dispatch the NG whenever and wherever they are needed in the state .

As usual, you offer your own version of reality as fact, when your version of reality is solely your own and no one elses.

I am asking you to quit posting such idiocy (btw, that means your *posts* are idiocy and not you) for it is likely to completely mis-inform others. Don't drag others down into the alternate universe you apparently live in.

Quote[/b] ]Just out of curiosity, without ham radio, just HOW did the NG know that it should get ready to deploy when AUTHORIZED ? The PD, FD, and TELCO communications links disappeared with the tornado ! Did someone have to drive to a nearby town to call the NG ?

Go back and read the posts, Larry. You are making up stuff left and right. The answer is right in front of your face. Do you really want me to rub your nose in it?

Quote[/b] ]Of course, in a relatively small state, this may work.... By official figures, Kansas has a population of 2,764,075. In Texas, we have three metro areas with at least that population -- and two with more than double that. We also have more types of threats -- many of which are wide area threats that require much greater responses than the typically small and localized problems faced by Kansas. We must be prepared to deal with hurricanes, multi-thousand acre grass wildfires, forest fires, floods, tornados, and earthquakes over a 261,797.12 square mile area that spreads ~900 miles E-W by ~600 miles N-S.

The simple fact is that no NG in ANY state is "on site" when needed. In all cases, they are the "we will be there in a few hours" responders -- not the critical FIRST RESPONDERS that are vital to saving lives -- and not the critical communications FIRST RESPONDERS who are vital to being able to establish a mechanism that allows the local government to actually call for the NG when it is needed.

And those, folks, are the simple FACTS.

As usual, you don't even know what the topic of conversation is but you certainly have a load of BS to drop on top of it.

The topic of conversation is operation at the EOC, Larry, not in the field.

Do us all a favor and read the very limited number of posts in the thread and see if you can make sense of them before continuing to post irrelavancies.

The NG doesn't need to be dispatched to the EOC, Larry. They are already there, 24/7/365.

Got it? I doubt it. I guess we'll see.

tim ab0wr
The problem is that DID read the posts, Tim. For some unknown and unfathomable reason, you continue to be an enemy of ALL ham radio EMCOMM -- even when it is quite plain that is is both necessary and efficient. That you are bent upon destroying all ham radio use in Kansas is clear and unmistakable proof of the fact that you are an enemy.

The absurdity of that position absolutely defies logic -- unless, of course, you are selling expensive equipment to replace the more cost-effective amateur resources.

In a REAL disaster, there are NEVER enough communications resources. There are certainly not enough NG troops to cover all of the towns in an entire state -- or even to cover our Gulf Coast.

You keep talking about "EOC" as if it were the most important site. It simply is not. The FIELD is where communications MUST appear IMMEDIATELY at the time of the disaster. At that point in time, the NG is FORBIDDEN from entering a county, city, village, or town because there exists no way for the county, city, village, or town to REQUEST them.

The Governor and/or Adjutant General of ANY state have NO legal power to send in the NG -- or any other state resource -- until that assistance is REQUESTED by the ranking official of the local government. That is true in EVERY state, because it goes to the fundamental law of the land that any power not specifically granted to a superior government is retained by the local government.

You call for "no hams in the EOC", yet in EVERY state EOC (apparently now not counting Kansas) there is at least one (most have several) ham positions under state and local RACES. You call for the "professionals" to handle everything, but we have well shown that MANY hams are MUCH better trained in Emergency Management / Disaster Communications, are MUCH better equipped, and arrive MUCH faster on the scene than most of the "professionals".

In most states, the state EOC is operated by the state police, usually under the Governor's Office of Emergency Management. It is "staffed up" only during an actual emergency, or for an exercise.

I know for a fact that the state EOC in Kansas is not fully staffed until an emergency occurs. Just like all other states, there is a "skeleton crew" that has a limited set of "automatic" pre-approved actions that they are pre-authorized to take when "disaster type A" or "disaster type B" strikes. Beyond that, their primary role is to alert those who have the AUTHORITY to receive OFFICIAL requests and make OFFICIAL decisions. Those persons move to the EOC, and/or conference into the EOC. Only when all of those persons actually arrive (in person, or via conference) is the EOC actually "staffed".

Counties operate the same way, usually under the Sheriff's Office or County FD. Cities often use the Fire Department as the primary EM branch, and the EOC is usually collocated with the City Hall and/or the Police and Fire communications facility.

I cannot name a single city over 20,000 population within 100 miles of Dallas that does NOT have a ham station in it's EOC and that does NOT call for that station to be manned as part of EVERY alert -- meaning that the ham station at the EOC is manned in all THREAT situations. Any EOC is fully staffed only for actual DISASTER situations.

We ARE trained professionals in Emergency Management. Many of us in our professional lives have significant amounts of "real world" EM and EMCOMM experience, have written articles on EM and/or EMCOMM, have spoken at EM conferences, and have designed EM systems. As EM volunteers with ham licenses, we just cannot be paid for our services. That does not change the fact that we are respected professionals.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that DID read the posts, Tim. For some unknown and unfathomable reason, you continue to be an enemy of ALL ham radio EMCOMM -- even when it is quite plain that is is both necessary and efficient. That you are bent upon destroying all ham radio use in Kansas is clear and unmistakable proof of the fact that you are an enemy.

Well, you apparently didn't read them for *MEANING*.

I am not an enemy of EMCOMM in amateur radio.

Just how do you square this observation that you make with the fact that I was *IN* the EOC at the amateur station during the DHS Agricultural Terrorism exercise?

I am a *big* fan of amateur radio EMCOMM. I am ** NOT ** a big fan of fanatics who think that amateur radio and amateur radio operators can provide the same service level and infrastructure as the trained professionals in the military. Nor am I a big fan of those EMCOMM fanatics that would turn amateur radio into a common carrier providing communications infrastructure to CUSTOMERS.


Quote[/b] ]The absurdity of that position absolutely defies logic -- unless, of course, you are selling expensive equipment to replace the more cost-effective amateur resources.

ROFL! Now you are *really* getting out there with your assumptions, Larry. Do you really think the National Guard buys their radio equipment from me?

I think the mere fact that your mind runs this way should be very enlightening to the readers of the thread!

Quote[/b] ]In a REAL disaster, there are NEVER enough communications resources. There are certainly not enough NG troops to cover all of the towns in an entire state -- or even to cover our Gulf Coast.

Now you are back to being off-topic again. Did you really think you were going to get away with trying to change the subject ONCE AGAIN? You should know me better than that by now.

Does the Coast Guard have enough members to cover every port and marina in Texas during a hurricane? You know damn well they don't.

Do they have the equipment at their comm centers to talk to amateurs on the ham bands with safety-of-life messages during a hurricane, at least with situations the Coast Guard can help with? You know damn well they do.

Yet you somehow seem to be unable to work around the disconnect you have that the situations with the Coast Guard and with our EOC are exactly analogous.

Again, that should speak volumes about your mindset to the readers of the thread.

Quote[/b] ]You keep talking about "EOC" as if it were the most important site. It simply is not. The FIELD is where communications MUST appear IMMEDIATELY at the time of the disaster. At that point in time, the NG is FORBIDDEN from entering a county, city, village, or town because there exists no way for the county, city, village, or town to REQUEST them.

Larry, I am talking about the subject of the thread. You can try to hijack the thread into another subject all you want. I won't play.

Let me remind you of what started this discussion since you obviously DID NOT bother to read the thread.

kb5wbh:Quote[/b] ]What role you would see Amateur Radio playing in a real New Madrid Earthquake?

ab0wrQuote[/b] ]I would see the ARS providing exactly the service they are expected to provide here.

No hams in the state EOC, only National Guard with gravity wave to x-ray frequency capability. The County EOC equipped with hardened equipment that might be manned by ARS volunteers or they might be just plain citizen volunteers. This would include hardened HF links to the state EOC using fiber, satellite, and/or NTIA HF frequencies.

Either kind of EOC can communicate with amateurs on the ham bands as needed in an emergency, just like the Coast Guard does during a marine emergency.

Amateurs are expected to provide the tactical communications from the "front line" until the professionals can get on site.

I would also point out ONCE AGAIN that the state Governor can call up the National Guard and deploy them with no request from local officials if the Governor declares a state of emergency to be in effect.

You are stuck on the Posse Commitatus Act of 1878 and it is settled law that the Act only applies to active duty military under Federal control. It does NOT, I repeat -- DOES NOT-- apply to National Guard troops called to duty by the Governor.

Quote[/b] ]The Governor and/or Adjutant General of ANY state have NO legal power to send in the NG -- or any other state resource -- until that assistance is REQUESTED by the ranking official of the local government. That is true in EVERY state, because it goes to the fundamental law of the land that any power not specifically granted to a superior government is retained by the local government.

Yes they do, Larry. And actually even the Federal government can do so today because the Insurrection Act was changed to allow such after Katrina. All the President has to do is declare the Insurrection Act in effect because of a natural disaster and he can federalize and dispatch active duty Federal troops into a state without any request by local officials. The Insurrection Act can be invoked any time the Pr