Letter from the ARRL !

I find it amazing that so many are saying that emergency communications aren't possible with just radio.  Why was radio so reliable before the internet and now it isn't?

Ed, you have to realize something. This "discussion" isn't about emegency communications.

It's about "I Like EchoLink" vs. "I Don't Like EchoLink".

In order to bolster the position of whichever side we chose to take we need to add our reasons:

I like EchoLink because [fill in the blank].

I don't like EchoLink because [fill in the blank].

That's how the discussion turned to "emergency communications".

In 1997, the hams in Guam and Saipan needed to relay information to people back in the U.S. - the 7,000 mile HF path wasn't reliable, and EchoLink wasn't available, so we used what was available - the telephone and email. If EchoLink, or satellite telephones, or packet radio relays or smoke signals or two bean cans with a 7,000 mile long string or whatever had been available, we would have used them too, because the main goal was communications.

EchoLink is fine as an alternative means of emergency communications, as are cell phones, email, etc. Anybody who is truly interested in providing emergency communcations will add as many methods as possible to their communications kit, and anybody that relys on one method only, irregardless of what method it is, doesn't know much about emergency communications.

Your goal was to help the guy and his family who were stuck in the snow get unstuck - had he called you on a cell phone, I'm sure you would have helped and not decided to leave him freeze because a cell phone wasn't "Real Radio".

The sad reality is that most hams are not prepared to help in an emergency and not trained to help. In general we are much better at collecting post cards than we are at saving lives...

73, Jim KH2D